Bonky

Ok and the way scientists use this term is: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. There is a chance we are play things to a creator that doesn't care about any circumstance other than what did we believe about a particular Jew who lived a couple thousand years ago....but I'm comfortable that if there's a God it is reasonable. If I'm wrong? I did the best that I could with what I was given [regarding religion], let the cards fall where they may.

I hope you realize that the particular definition you're looking at is NOT the one that scientists are using. A scientific theory is regarded as being well established explanation of some aspect of the natural world. In fact if I'm not mistaken the only reason why it's a "theory" and not a law is because it can't be expressed mathematically. Ironically you are begging the question. I won't disagree with life being complex, but whether it is designed is a different issue [and needs to be established not just proclaimed]. Look at the "design" of humans and other animals and we can pick out flaws. Child birth for example caused a lot of deaths prior to modern medicine. If you want to infer design that's up to you but why didn't the designer aim for excellence?

Okay that's fair enough. Thanks!

You don't sound like someone hateful at all. I was more responding to some of the venomous views that some people get when they read the Bible. I know this isn't a Muslim forum, I just wanted to give an example of a weakness that I think is inherit in the "God gives us morality" worldview. That view assumes the only God that matters is the one favored by the individual. That may be comforting and easy to digest to them but it don't see how it helps us with the bigger picture [the world at large]. Since you mentioned the old testament, do you agree or disagree that slavery [owning someone as property] is immoral and why?

Except that we see homosexual interactions in "nature", so how is it unnatural? I also don't see how this is "wrong" as in immoral. For the record I'm not gay but I have good friends and a brother who are gay. So I speak from a place of experience about whether gay people really introduce harm to society and I see no evidence that they do. Right and the Muslims believe the perfect definition of justice and morality lies in the nature of their God and his beliefs. Now obviously some Muslims don't have the same views and they're not violent to non believers but many are. The core principle is that whatever the God wants is what really matters. That's where the slippery slope comes into play. The same defenses that Christians give for some of the shocking acts in the Old Testament can be given by Muslims today. Who are you to challenge God? He can do what he wants with us he created the Universe etc etc.

I've read your take on objective morality and I still don't know that I fully understand it. You mention that objective morality is "self evident" but gays being an abomination isn't "self evident" to me. If all you mean is, "Being kind will always be good", then I don't see an immediate objection to that. I don't recognize the concept of "sin" so our take on morality is obviously going to be quite different. The inherit weakness of your view [in my opinion] is that it gives a nod to muslim terrorists. If a God dictates what is right and wrong, then blowing people up could very well be a very good thing to do.

I think I actually agree with this, makes sense. Excellent post!

Sorry I never saw this response [until now]. The context of the statement "Life is preferable to death. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Health is generally preferable to sickness" is referencing humanity as a whole, not just me or you. So no you wouldn't be able to engage in pleasurable activities and commit terrible acts because you would probably be interfering with someone else's health or liberty etc. My view is that I believe morality can [and has] evolved/progressed w/o supernatural interference. I think we can look at many different measurables to see that a society that values freedom, education, health, sharing of resources etc etc is superior to a society that doesn't. While religion was our first attempt at many things including morality, I feel that it has it's priorities and values misplaced.

Giorgio Tsoukalos approves of this thread.

I was an avid follower of the teachings of the Bible for many years of my life and never had any grand experience. I felt the warm fuzzy sensation of worshiping [singing in unison] with others, I've felt the warm embrace of like minded individuals welcoming me with open arms. Life changing experience that I can't fully comprehend...no. I guess for many the idea of faith, a token of trust in lieu of hard solid evidence, is considered something to be valued and encouraged. The problem is we see many times when this way of approaching life can lead to disastrous outcomes. It doesn't seem to me, to be something that we should be encouraging as we know that we [humans] can manufacture emotions and feelings about things; desiring hard evidence is not or should not be something that is viewed as a weakness or a fault. So are you an old earth creationist then?

In the context of our discussion when I mentioned "creator God" I was referring to the theistic God that created the Universe and interacts with mankind. If you think about it, our Universe *could* be created but created accidentally or unintentionally. Or the Universe could have been created by a being that doesn't care or concern itself with our plight. Also the quote you left from George Wald may be inaccurate. I don't have access to that journal [not paying to get it], but I've encountered two different sites that claim the quote is not to be found. They stated instead that the journal actually says... Again I don't have access to the journal, so I can't confirm.

No, I was stating that in your examples where early scientific claims were off base, it wasn't the Bible that came to the rescue it was more science or data. This is the self correcting nature of science. We don't get all the answers ahead of time, we have to work towards a better understanding of the subject matter. I don't see how this addresses my statement that I see no evidence for the supernatural. Can you provide a good resource for me to check out this prediction? I'd be looking for something that clearly states what the original prediction was actually predicting and clearly what came to pass to fullfill that.

I don't disagree. I don't think ANYBODY has a clear answer to the nature [understanding] of our Cosmos and/or the biological life within it. All I'm saying is that this doesn't give us the right to declare that the answer must be some creator God because it couldn't be anything else. We don't know enough to say that. I am no biologist or physicist, but when I read about evolution, it makes more sense to me than do the counter claims of special creation.

I notice in your examples it was more science that corrected itself, not the Bible correcting science. Science has no assurance that we can answer all questions or explore all possibilities, I'm very ok with that. This tells us nothing about whether the contents are true or if so to what degree. What assurance do I have that there aren't any exaggerations, tall tales, legends etc that were written down? See my point above. And I don't see a correlation with what the Bible proclaims and what I perceive in reality. I don't see an inkling of evidence that the supernatural exists. I don't even see Christians really closely obeying/listening to the words of Christ. In America we can't wait to bomb our enemies, christians divorce pretty regularly etc. I'm not seeing great words of wisdom that are handed down to us that we couldn't figure out ourselves. I am very open however to new information or new insights that I don't currently have.

It has all the markings of what a religion is. It has sacred texts [that can't be questioned], practices/rituals, holy places, a messiah etc.

Therein lies my comfort with science more so than religion. Science can often [not always] get closer to what isn't true leaving us a better picture of what might be true. Religion has no interest in uncertainty, it declares what is true and any questioning coming from outside that worldview is often met with ad hominem comments. I'm not necessarily referring to anyone here, I mean in my experience in general.

And in my experience when dealing with religious claims I can try to show you the hurricane is naturally occurring you could simply retort "It just looks that way, the turtle is invisible and he's causing the winds and conditions". Regarding your first statement about God building houses, we know a lot more about how houses are built than about the nature of the existence of a Universe and the nature/existence of organic life. I don't object to those who believe God created life, I only object to those who say "The only explanation is that God created life".

It's not the job of scientists to show "proof to the contrary", it's the job of apologists to show evidence in support. It hasn't been demonstrated because it's not a claim to begin with.

Not sure what you're saying Jeff.

I am familiar with this view but I feel that this view is either quite naive or purposely being unrealistic. The implication here is that EVERYONE with a sound mind should obviously and easily see that the Bible is the truth and everything it says is accurate. I can't reject that which I am not convinced exists. This view you share pretends that everyone has access to the data and some of us heathens are just full of pride and refuse to accept what we know to be true. I can assure you there are really people out there that don't deny Christ, but at the same time aren't convinced there's anything to "escape".

I'm sure the Muslims feel the same way about you and I. I think it's absurd that people should be tortured forever because they lived a human life and didn't believe in whatever religion. From this thread I can see that some believers have a conscience about these matters, that's refreshing to see.

I find this conversation odd. I guess I've been away from this kind of thing for so long. Many here are so appalled at the idea of a baby being tossed into a "blast furnace" but you're ok with an adult?? I think if you really let that sink in for a minute it doesn't make sense. Whatever happened to God is just and who are we to question?

I don't study data, I help it move along it's designated path...I'm a network engineer.

Yes we definitely differ there. Remember, the God who controls all things let 6 million Jews be tortured and slaughtered not that long ago. So thinking he'll make sure the planet doesn't too warm which will cause droughts and flooding etc. seems reasonable.

I guess one approach is just to shrug our shoulders and call it "the weather". I would prefer to be a good steward of our planet and study the data to make sure we aren't helping to introduce changes to "the weather" that could have major impact to our children and grandchildren.