CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Proof of God
Science cannot and will not ever correctly predict the end of one's life. What controls one's fate? Science, I think not. It is some unknown force that decides why the person with barely a scratch dies and cancer cannot kill another. Everyday you walk out the door or go to sleep at night there is no guarantee that you will see tomorrow. When science can predict the exact second of my demise, then science I shall worship. Until then God has my full attention and respect.
Down votes from atheist, I expect. The truth is never welcomed.
I thought you were going to ask what would be acceptable proof of God's existence, instead you said something about not knowing when you're going to die...or something.
To make this more interesting, I'll ask what might constitute proof of God's existence.
Since every credible study on the subject shows that the efficacy of prayer is nil, I'd be willing to accept a successful demonstration of the power of prayer; limbs regenerated for amputees who have been prayed for.
For some reason, God seems to (not consistently, but at least some of the time) randomly heal things science already has an answer for, let's see him heal something it doesn't...an amputated limb.
Don't hold your breath though...God seems too busy helping Christians win football games, get promotions or remove tough stains from sweaters to do anything for people missing an arm or a leg.
In the way of healing, what is it that man can heal 100% of the time. Science cannot be random, this is what you claim is proof that God does not exist. Science randomly cures people, you just converted me.
One can pray for all type of things, but the answer maybe no. Who says God doesn't hear all prayers?
How do you know the first person, or sencond, or 1 millionth person to get the disease before penecilin was discovered, didn't also pray for a cure?
You cannot submit something as evidence, then pick and choose when it does and does not count. If so I declare unicorns to be real. My evidence; someone somewhere once said they saw a unicorn and anyone who says they don't exist just doesn't believe hard enough.
On another note, your pic has been bugging me since you got here, and I just realized where I had seen it link
I am sure that I am not the expert you are at Quantum Mechanics and the other ten thousand topics you claim to have vast knowledge of, but I know enough.
My understand of Quantum Mechanics is that the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract. Similarly, the implications are often counter-intuitive in terms of classical physics.
My understand of Quantum Mechanics is that the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics are abstract.
All of mathematics is abstract until you apply it to a specific real-world situation. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this.
Similarly, the implications are often counter-intuitive in terms of classical physics.
It isn't counter-intuitive, it is nonexistent! Classical physics does not apply on a quantum or Planck level, this however does not mean things cannot be observed. What I can only assume you are alluding to is the Uncertainty Principal which basically states that we cannot determine simultaneously the Position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle without affecting the accuracy of the results. We can determine one or the other, but not both simultaneously with total accuracy.
First of all what you gave was NOT the definition, it was a description of Quantum Mechanics about the 4th paragraph down in a wikipedia entry. Certainly someone might find the implications of Quantum Mechanics to be counter-intuitive in terms of Classical physics, because classical physics do not exist on a quantum Level. So it's a non-point. This is like saying that the implications of Plate Tectonics are counter-intuitive in terms of General Relativity. This paragraph and the next 5 all lack citations, which is unusual even for Wikipedia.
So the particular sentences you chose from the Wikipedia article were poorly worded. This is not to say that Wikipedia isn't a great resource, it is, but it is not infallible. Even so nothing said there actually supported your argument which was why I was slightly confused.
My point was proven. You use any means including those sources, which up to now were infallible. You post random garbage in attempt to discredit me, it backfired. I used your source.
1) I have never said that Wikipedia was infallible.
2) Your "source" doesn't actually support your argument. The description you gave about quantum mechanics doesn't refute science as a primarily observation based methodology. The uncertainty Principal was actually discovered through observation.
3) You didn't know anything about Quantum Mechanics to begin with, which is why you had to copy and paste without a citation (Plagiarism).
Plagiarism? That's funny coming from the guy that posted, I think therefore I am; Without citing who said it. One should never point a figure at someone, there is always three point back at you.
Well for anybody who might think that I coined the phrase "I think Therefore I am", then I suppose I should have cited it. Yet still, nothing about Quantum Mechanics refutes the statement that Science is based on observational methodology.
You are worshiping one subject because of failure of another subject to do an unrelated task for which your worshiped subjected also cannot do. I fail to see how any of this constitutes proof of God.
Your premise and your conclusion are completely unrelated. How exactly does the inability of science to predict your death prove God? Maybe I'm missing something here.
I've never heard anyone ever say science has all the answers. Who told you this? Certainly no scientist I've ever heard of.
Go read about a recent scientific discovery, read the statements of scientists. Tell me how many times you you find statements of uncertainty. Tell me how many times they use the terms "likely, strongly, points to, suggests, supports, may, indicates, evidence for, indicative, probable". Scientists are trained to avoid absolute statements.
Science doesn't have answers. Science is a process, a method to help you find the answers.
I agree that is what science itself is, the problem lays with those that follow science. Take my arguments for example, they often get down-voted just because they don't like the answers I give and most of the atheist here claim to be open-minded. This is a contradiction in the process of how they derived at the conclusion there is no God. One cannot just use the information that already goes along with their way of thinking and disregard all other information. This is what atheist claim religious people do and they do the exact same thing.
I agree that is what science itself is, the problem lays with those that follow science. Take my arguments for example, they often get down-voted just because they don't like the answers I give and most of the atheist here claim to be open-minded. This is a contradiction in the process of how they derived at the conclusion there is no God. One cannot just use the information that already goes along with their way of thinking and disregard all other information. This is what atheist claim religious people do and they do the exact same thing.
Did you ever consider that, just possibly, the fact that you get downvoted regularly is largely because of you and not everyone else?
Regardless of the position you are arguing, you often use dishonest debating tactics, only of a few of which are personally attacking your opponent, not making sense, and blatantly ignoring relevant information to try to change the subject. None of these are directly related to theism, they are all because of you. Maybe take some responsibility...or just stop caring that you get downvoted, because it's not really important.
Let me see, yes it's all my fault that I get down-voted. I down-vote myself just to make people like you believe others do and it worked. People always agree with what is popular. If I had a way to up-vote my opinions here, you would agree with them then. It is plain B.S. to think other-wise, very few ever break from the crowd. My proof lays within people themselves. If a person sees a crime when they are the only one around, they are more prone to do something about it. When several people witness a crime, nobody does anything about it. This is common knowledge.
As far as what I say not making sense, it makes perfect sense. The trouble is you are closed-minded to any ideas other than your own. About dishonest tactics, I use the information available, just like you do. There is name for people that cry because they don't get their way, does sore loser sound familiar.
Let me see, yes it's all my fault that I get down-voted. I down-vote myself just to make people like you believe others do and it worked.
Either A) you actually think I said you were downvoting yourself, and your reading comprehension is terrible, or B) you realize I didn't say that, but you are creating a strawman of my statement, because that's the only way you can argue with it.
If a person sees a crime when they are the only one around, they are more prone to do something about it. When several people witness a crime, nobody does anything about it. This is common knowledge.
You're not Kitty Genovese, the bystander effect has nothing to do with how often you get downvoted. Common knowledge only help your position if they are actually relevant to it, don't try to blame every person who downvotes your posts, rather than the common denominator: you. If a man were to complain that every time he tried to talk to a woman, she rudely brushed him off, would you blame an entire gender for this, or him, for the way he is approaching them? It's possible that some of them are just being cruel, but you'd be foolish to think he is not largely responsible.
You continue to make yourself a victim, and I can only assume this is because you don't want to admit you're often crappy at debating. I have a feeling you'd be a lot better at it if you were honest with yourself about what your opponents are actually saying, instead of reading one argument, and responding to a different one that you fabricated in your own mind. What can you gain from refuting an argument that no one is actually making?
Your still doing just what I accused you of doing, I do down-vote myself. You ignore facts. Fact is I down-vote myself, to prove a point.
I am not the victim, you are. People are nothing more than hamsters in a lab experiment, running around and around on a wheel. Somebody needs to oil yours.
Your still doing just what I accused you of doing, I do down-vote myself. You ignore facts. Fact is I down-vote myself, to prove a point.
What exactly did you accuse me of doing?
Do you do this so you can accuse atheists of downvoting you indiscriminately...or...what? I cannot fathom how you think this would prove anything to anyone.
Despite what you think you are proving, it doesn't matter if you downvote yourself because you often get downvoted by others because you use poor tactics to defend yourself.
Finally, even if you do downvote yourself, I said nothing about this so you were still either creating a strawman or grossly misreading what I said.
I am not the victim, you are.
No I'm not, you are!
See how that doesn't really work so well?
People are nothing more than hamsters in a lab experiment, running around and around on a wheel. Somebody needs to oil yours.
Yeah, okay, I'll tell science to get right on that. Or something.
Who said anything about worshiping science? Most Christians I talk to speak of how because I reject the notion of their god, I must bow to science. While I don't worship science, I do see merit in using it's methods to discover what is true about reality. Science goes through a peer review process, there is not a universal bend of the knee when a new discovery is made. Scientific theories and findings are reviewed by a "jury of their peers" before they are accepted by the community. This review process inspects the methods entailed, the findings, and also attempts to repeat the findings.
In Science, there is no holy book, no representative on earth that declares that something is truth. It's actually interesting that believers have no use for us ultimately, that we'll be thrown into the lakes of fire. Yet we allow people to deny reality, deny scientific findings, and still function in our society. Even the Amish still refuse to use electricity, yet we allow them to function within our culture.
God hasn't told me, but neither has any scientist.
While were on the subject of what people ignore. Atheist fail to comprehend that thinking is not limited to only atheist, so far I have seen no patent rights. Atheist fail to comprehend that critical thinking has been done for centuries and they claim to have magical powers that allow only themselves to do this. Atheist fail to comprehend atheism is a religion. Atheist claim they have no gods and have several.
Let us add up who ignores the most, atheist win. At least you can have bragging rights.
God hasn't told me, but neither has any scientist.
First of all you are expecting too much and secondly if this is true then how is it a good comparison worthy of being called proof? If God had told you the moment of your demise and then it came to pass, then that would be compelling evidence but still not proof.
Atheist fail to comprehend that thinking is not limited to only atheist,
Do they? This is a broad generalization. Unless you can show me some evidence of this as rule then you have not a leg to stand on.
Atheist fail to comprehend atheism is a religion.
Atheism is not a religion although some people that are Atheist do display religious behavior, there is no set rules or doctrine to classify it as a religion of any standing. It is a casting off of religious beliefs and practices.
Atheist claim they have no gods and have several.
Such as?
Let us add up who ignores the most, atheist win.
Just to clarify, are you stating that theists ignore no evidence, and atheists ignore all?
I'm not expecting too much when the answer to everything is supposed to science and yet it is without answers.
I agree that is a broad generalization. The proof is in the debates here. When one claims to be able to make decisions without bias of any type, that is flawed thinking in itself. No human is capable of this. This is like claiming one is the only sane person on earth.
Merriam-Webster defines religion has 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Some atheist believe in science religiously and so science is their religion.
Both sides ignore evidence that is contrary to their own wishful thinking.
I'm not expecting too much when the answer to everything is supposed to science and yet it is without answers.
What do you think science is? From what I know science means knowledge: It is an academic discipline, it does not have all the answers but by its very nature strives to leave no stone unturned. The idea that science has all the answers is a fallacy, what is known is possibly only a tiny fraction of what is to be known.
The thing is, what is known is not taken lightly one does not just propose a hypothesis and have it become another answer. It has to go through rigorous testing and proof is needed to validate a hypothesis and raise it to theory. Only one experiment or piece of irrefutable evidence is needed to prove the theory wrong, it is therefore rubbished.
To make a statement such as that with which you opened this debate shows a complete lack of any idea of what science is and from this I can see why you class atheism as a religion. You are trying to equate an academic discipline with an ancient doctrine.
Some atheist believe in science religiously and so science is their religion.
Some Atheists I agree, display signs of religiosity, but by it's definition atheism has no system of beliefs, one does not have to have scientific knowledge in order to be an atheist. There is no, one single guidance in the Atheistic world. It is not classifiable as a religion.
Both sides ignore evidence that is contrary to their own wishful thinking.
"Atheism has no system of believes." I beg to differ, they all share one thing. They say God doesn't exist. This is that commonality that they share and therefore is a religion by definition.
"What evidence do atheist ignore?" That apes are still around. That there is no second earth. That the possibility that God may exist, they simple claim he does not. The evidence is in the fact that the earth is unique and according to science this cannot happen. One cannot have just one and state this is the way it happened. If there were ten planets that had human life, trees, a sun, etc. then it would not be fluke, flukes do not exist in science. Flukes and miracles are not done in science, therefore science doesn't have the answer. The answer to these things lays not in science, then where? God, a feasible possibility.
Stating that you do not believe in God does not a religion make. Two separate Atheists may have different reasons for not believing in God. If Atheism were a religion then there would be a common understanding of why God does not exist, one that is carried and believed by all Atheists.
That apes are still around.
First of all this is part of a scientific not Atheistic theory. Secondly it shows a complete lack of any scientific knowledge. If there was no apes around now then there would be no Man as Man by classification is an ape.
Do you think that apes turned into men and that was that? Man did not evolve from an ape but shares a common ancestor with apes
That there is no second earth.
???
That the possibility that God may exist, they simple claim he does not.
How is this evidence of anything?
The evidence is in the fact that the earth is unique and according to science this cannot happen
How do you know the earth is unique? There is every chance that this has happened again or before.
If there were ten planets that had human life, trees, a sun, etc. then it would not be fluke, flukes do not exist in science.
Life may have evolved on many other planets that surround a star (which is a sun) nobody knows if it has or not. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing right now. Why does it have to be Human life? Why does there have to be trees?
The answer to these things lays not in science, then where? God, a feasible possibility.
These things are not evidence to contradict either Atheistic or Scientific knowledge. You seem to like to mention science but I'm sure you have no clue about that which you speak. God is a non answer, it only serves up the larger question of where God came from.
If it takes a difference in beliefs to label something not a religion, then there is no religions. All Christians do not believe the same thing and so on.
Some man labeled man an ape, man does many stupid things.
According to science there cannot be one of something.
The definition of religion makes it a religion.
I know the earth is unique because science hasn't found another.
You doubt if the earth is unique but say outright God does not exist. At least be consistent in your line of thinking. This is like saying 1 is a number, but 2 doesn't exist.
There is to be more than one and so trees are a part of this.
God maybe a non-answer to you, just like your reply is a non-answer. I work in science industry everyday, the reason I doubt it.
"If it takes a difference in beliefs to label something not a religion, then there is no religions. All Christians do not believe the same thing and so on."
Well you are right about that.
"Some man labeled man an ape"
This didn't happen randomly. This was done because there are many qualities that man has, both genetically and morphologically, that only apes have. Phylogenic trees organize things from most general to most specific.
"Man does many stupid things."
Again you are correct. Some would argue that accepting something as fact when it is unfalsifiable is stupid.
"The definition of religion makes it a religion."
What about faith, the most universally agreed upon constituent part of all religions? Some atheists have faith that God does not exist, but many only make this assertion because the evidence for God has never been shown to be irrefutable. Should such evidence be provided, they may change their mind. If they are capable of changing their minds based on evidence, than they are not exhibiting faith, but rational thinking. And if they do not have faith, they are not religious.
"I know the earth is unique because science hasn't found another."
In my life I have met many women, but I have yet to find one that a) I want to marry, b) wants to marry me. Should I assume that no such woman exists, even though there are around 2 billion females of a reasonable age, the vast majority of whom I have never met?
Because of the limiting factor of light speed, we don't even know how big the universe is. In the limited section that we can observe there are quadrillions of stars at the very least. Also, humans have only been around for only a scant fraction of the estimated age of the universe. Therefore, we have explored FAR less than 1% of reality. Also, we recently discovered a planet in a nearby system that some believe may be quite similar to Earth. Astronomers are attempting to get more information about it as we speak (or type.)
Scientists don't claim to know everything. In fact quite the opposite. That doesn't mean that they can't know it eventually. We know MUCH more about reality than we did in Jesus' time.
"You doubt if the earth is unique but say outright God does not exist. At least be consistent in your line of thinking."
These two things do not relate to each other.
"There is to be more than one and so trees are a part of this."
I think you need to explain this concept of "there is to be more than one." You have been using it a lot and I have no idea what you are talking about.
"I work in science industry everyday, the reason I doubt it."
Unless you are an accountant for a pharmaceutical company or janitor in a lab or something, I find this rather unlikely. Not because you are a Christian; there are many theistic scientists; but because your understanding of basic scientific concepts seems rather limited.
I have great understanding of science, that is why I question it. If you understood it better, you too would question it instead of merely believing in it.
"I have great understanding of science, that is why I question it. If you understood it better, you too would question it instead of merely believing in it."
no you do not, first of all you have NO idea how ignorant you are of astronomy, our solar sytem is a spec of a spec of a spec, or almost utterly nothing to the universe, and we havn't even been able to put a man on another planet yet (which nasa wants to do with mars in a decade or so) something that highschoolers know, hell even middle schoolers even. IDK when I learned that. You expect science to have all the answers, but to expect this is too 1.) not understand science and 2.) not understand that all the answers are not simply given to us, we have to research. also you try to say science is flawed that if it was 100% right apes wouldn't be around, based on what? when have we ever claimed there shouldn't be apes? if this is that same old creationist argument you are a lot more ignorant then I thought. and you say that there being flukes and miracles in the universe disproves science... science, is like your other respondant (if thats a real word) said, an acedemic discipline (I use those same words cause I like that description) to understand and find the truth. science has never claimed there is no such thing as chaos or randomness in the universe. you don't understand WHY we are considered technically an ape. you have no understand how little we know, how science works, and what it is. you have no understanding of science... you have proven that to me
If you couldn't hear, feel, smell, taste or see me would I exist? Just because you can explain things using science doesn't mean god doesn't exist. God was originally called "The word" because it cannot be described using language. Its is said "god" created us in his image, I don't think that that refers to how we look but instead refers to our ability to answer our own prayers.
Science cannot and will not ever correctly predict the end of one's life.
How do you know that?
- - -
What controls one's fate?
You're presupposing fate. First you must prove there is fate, then we can debate what controls it.
- - -
Science, I think not.
I hope you know that prediction and controlling one's fate (if real) are two separate abilities, right?
- - -
It is some unknown force that decides why the person with barely a scratch dies and cancer cannot kill another.
It's not unknown then, because we know about it, and you're calling it fate.
- - -
Everyday you walk out the door or go to sleep at night there is no guarantee that you will see tomorrow.
We can gather evidence to logically conclude the most highly probable answer for that. But simply because we cannot predict our precise demise somehow means it is significant proof of a deity, let alone a specific deity?
- - -
When science can predict the exact second of my demise, then science I shall worship.
Why the hell would you worship science?
- - -
Until then God has my full attention and respect.
You do not need to worship something, you're implying a false dilemma fallacy; worship God or worship something else, like science. When truth of the matter is, you don't have to worship any of it, EVEN if one, the other, both, or many other options existed.
- - -
"Down votes from atheist, I expect. The truth is never welcomed."
Science cannot and will not ever correctly predict the end of one's life. How do I know this? I know this because accidents cannot be predicted/prevented or they wouldn't be called accidents.
What controls one's fate? You're presupposing fate. First you must prove there is fate, then we can debate what controls it. Fate: the circumstances that befall someone or something (Merriam-Webster).
Science, I think not. I hope you know that prediction and controlling one's fate (if real) are two separate abilities, right? Of course it is two different acts.
It is some unknown force that decides why the person with barely a scratch dies and cancer cannot kill another.
It is some unknown force that decides why the person with barely a scratch dies and cancer cannot kill another.It's not unknown then, because we know about it, and you're calling it fate. I am aware of fate. Is the rest of the world?
Everyday you walk out the door or go to sleep at night there is no guarantee that you will see tomorrow. We can gather evidence to logically conclude the most highly probable answer for that. But simply because we cannot predict our precise demise somehow means it is significant proof of a deity, let alone a specific deity? This only tells us that humans do not hold all the answers and that the answers lay elsewhere.
When science can predict the exact second of my demise, then science I shall worship. Why the hell would you worship science? Some people here worship science and think that it is infallible, I am not one of them.
Until then God has my full attention and respect. You do not need to worship something, you're implying a false dilemma fallacy; worship God or worship something else, like science. When truth of the matter is, you don't have to worship any of it, EVEN if one, the other, both, or many other options existed. One doesn't have to, I choose to.
"Down votes from atheist, I expect. The truth is never welcomed." What truth did you provide? That science, atheists, religious people and all of mankind doesn't know what the truth is. One can only say they believe in whatever and proof may never really be known to them.
Science cannot and will not ever correctly predict the end of one's life. How do I know this? I know this because accidents cannot be predicted/prevented or they wouldn't be called accidents.
1. This would imply that all deaths are accidents. This is not true.
2. Your use of accidents is inaccurately used. An accident can be predicted in some cases. It's always unseen by the one the accident is caused by, but it's not guaranteed that those around that individual/group wouldn't predict it. An accident is something undesirable, something other than the intent that is produced; that does not require it's unseen.
Fate: the circumstances that befall someone or something (Merriam-Webster).
I find your answer to be intellectually dishonest. Your argument already implied you understood that fate involves predetermination, it's destiny, it's meant to be. Not simply whatever happens, it definitely does involve the circumstances that a person or something experiences, predetermined. And if you disagree with this, then your own question ("Who controls fate") refutes itself. Because the definition you gave does not involve any control.
Of course it is two different acts.
I'm glad you know that difference. I just wanted to be sure you understood that.
I am aware of fate. Is the rest of the world?
If you are aware of it, then it's not unknown. You have yet again refuted your own argument.
This only tells us that humans do not hold all the answers and that the answers lay elsewhere.
Yeah they do lay elsewhere, it's this awesome cool thing called "reality". Why does it have to be a deity, why is reality excluded? Simply because humans don't know doesn't mean we can skip the probability that facts exists that we are not aware of. We do not have to instantly believe that if we don't know, it must be a deity. That's simply cowardice.
Some people here worship science and think that it is infallible, I am not one of them.
I highly doubt your claim. But whatever, I'm sure, someone, somewhere probably does "worship" science.
One doesn't have to, I choose to.
Why do you choose to?
That science, atheists, religious people and all of mankind doesn't know what the truth is. One can only say they believe in whatever and proof may never really be known to them.
In my experience, when someone speaks of "the truth" in a manner of simply referring to it as if there is a specific "the truth", instead of simply being a fact... they tend to be without proof of their truth. Which if true about you, you would be talking about yourself precisely, within your own statement.
Should I be reporting your comment because it lacks intellectual feedback to this discussion? Or are you doing this because you have no rebuttal and would rather resort to ad hominem fallacies than admit defeat?
“Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ~ Edgar Allan Poe
I do not know that a god does NOT exist, but I also do not know that one does. The burden of proof rests in your court, since you are making the positive claim of existence. I make no claim, and am pursuing the only rational response, which is withholding belief until evidence has been provided that would justify belief in a god.
You say this like a broken record, yet are still unable to answer the question of what constitutes proof of something's nonexistence. Beyond a lack of evidence, of course.
Science cannot and will not ever correctly predict the end of one's life. What controls one's fate? Science, I think not.
Bodies are complicated things.
It is some unknown force that decides why the person with barely a scratch dies and cancer cannot kill another.
Wow, talk about missing the obvious. You don't believe in germ theory, immune system, or understand the inherent complexity of biological systems. Therefore god.
Everyday you walk out the door or go to sleep at night there is no guarantee that you will see tomorrow. When science can predict the exact second of my demise, then science I shall worship. Until then God has my full attention and respect.
Until absurd conditions are met you will continue to believe in magical guy in the clouds.
I always enjoy how you pretend to above everyone and simple say it's complicated.
I know all about excuses, (germ theory, immune system, or understand the inherent complexity of biological systems). With all these things one should be able to calculate the exact time of death, unless science is flawed.
You believe your an expert, talk about absurdities.
I know all about excuses, (germ theory, immune system, or understand the inherent complexity of biological systems). With all these things one should be able to calculate the exact time of death, unless science is flawed.
Science has never claimed to have knowledge that is perfect or complete, especially in something as complex as medicine and its effects on the body. Claiming absolute and infallible knowledge is the folly of religion, not science. Science constantly edits, refines, assimilates the new and discards the defunct.
There are variables at work in injuries and illnesses which are still being researched and understood better. Perhaps there are variables that are as of yet undiscovered. This does not mean they will never be discovered, or that you need to take gaps in knowledge and fill them with a supernatural power so that you don't have to say "I don't know" to something.
so far, science has explained more than God has so far. Science shows that the world was not created in 7 days. A virgin giving birth to a child? But then again the bible, like the U.S. Constitution, is interpreted in so many ways so its near impossible to pin point the content
What does science being unable to predict the exact moment of your death have to do with proof of God or your belief in God?
Are you trying to say that because science cannot accurately predict death, you will believe in God instead? ...even though believers of God haven't shown any sign of being able to predict death more accurately than scientists?
Or are you using a really roundabout way to explain Pascal's Wager?
Please, answer this: What do you think would happen if you were born in India? You'd be a Hindu, not a Christian. What makes your religion any more valid? What are you so afraid of that you have to believe in a big invisible man that controls everything?
I do not claim that Christianity is better than any other religion. As long as one has a religion, it is better than none. It can be Hindu, Jewish, etc., it doesn't matter to me.
Man needs to strive for something better than their own desires; greed, drunkenness, gambling, etc. I have seen what mankind does on their own. I choose to believe in something more. To head toward the light and hope it is not a train coming toward me.
"Science cannot and will not ever correctly predict the end of one's life."
Im sorry that humanities quest for knowledge is never over, Im sorry we don't know everything, Im sorry that our search for knowledge isn't unfallible. We have gone pretty close though, we can pretty much predict the year you are going to die based on government research and listing factors to understand your health, and recomendations to help you live longer. not good enough you say? wow someone here is needy ;)
"What controls one's fate? Science, I think not."
nobody ever claimed that science controlls one's fate. All science is, is a tool to use to collect knowledge, thats all. nothing more. the end. period. how more simpler can I make it to you?
"It is some unknown force that decides why the person with barely a scratch dies and cancer cannot kill another."
there is still a lot we don't understand biologically, because like I said science isn't unfallible... and this may occur and we could completely understand why depending on the situation.
"Everyday you walk out the door or go to sleep at night there is no guarantee that you will see tomorrow."
are you scared? do you need that teddy bear at night to tell you everything is going to be ok? want some invisible, intangible thing to hold your hand at night? XD now Im just being an asshole, but that is not evidence sorry.
"When science can predict the exact second of my demise, then science I shall worship."
we don't want you to worship science, nobody does, and science is really just humanities quest for knowledge. it is the best tool we got for it.
"Until then God has my full attention and respect."
because we don't know everything we need god to fill in the gaps... ok I got it XD
"Down votes from atheist, I expect. The truth is never welcomed."
I think what he's trying to say is that he is submitting to an all-powerful God that knows and controls everything because this very knowledge makes him worthy of being followed. Please don't smother me with downvotes because I am not necessarily sponsoring his worldview, just clarifying it.
I believe I am a sinner and not worthy of being followed. One should aim higher than the current human standard, which is pathetic. I only wish to be a better person and hope the same for mankind.
Science has predicted Hurricane Irene. I heard that four people died. It is possible that without that warning due to science, there could be more deaths.
I do believe in God by the way. I believe that if demons exists, there must be a God. There are stories of the afterlife as well. Could they be made up? Could everything we see and hear be decieving? Yes and yes but life is not worth living when we cannot trust. That is why we trust, so we can continue with our lives. That is my opinion.
science is the investigation of Gods design. it's like a chimp inspecting a model car you just created and the chimp tries to figure it out... So figuring stuff out or trying to should be worshiped? Foolishness. How about that which is being inspected is it the substance that should be praised??? I tell you no, this too is nonsensical.
Consider that you and all humans are wandering down a dark tunnel but each of you have gotten an oil lamp to see what is and where and who and why but the the first one at the beginning of the tunnel passed all the oil lamps out was/is God. You did not create the lamp nor the light it sheds nor the path it shines on, give proper respect where it is due & come to know your creator.
