Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is not. Plenty of the myths in the bible are demonstrably incorrect.
Yes.
Okay. I think we're discussing the nature of the evidence, aren't we?
It requires no faith.
Can you explain how?But as you say, you are not saying that Pixies are definitely not stealing your keys, so to say they are not, needs a tiny bit of faith.
Sounds like bad design to me.
That's where the EVIDENCE led them.
Then how come every time I ask you for this obvious evidence, I never get it? What is it?
Okay, you do not have to. I was merely trying to help. The problem is with issues like this is that it is very easy to fool oneself. That is where proper application of the scientific method can help. But as I said, one is taking a risk because a cherished belief can be shown to be wrong when one does so. Many of us want to believe in something. And some of us want to know as much as we can. The two stances conflict quite often
Many claim evidence that really isn't evidence.
Withholding belief of unevidenced claims is reasonable, is it not?And it requires not much faith at all to not accept something based on lack of evidence. But as you say, you are not saying that Pixies are definitely not stealing your keys, so to say they are not, needs a tiny bit of faith.
Don't stop at that, there is an inner life of sub-atomic particles/waves as well.
That's a long, long way from saying it's 100% accurate.
Why do your think there is an answer to 'the why question'? Why do you think there must be a purpose?
It really isn't anything to do with time. The universe may or may not be infinite in the past time-like directions but time (according to general relativity) is a part of the universe, not something external to it. If you think you need an 'designer' because the universe had a start, then that's a fundamental misunderstanding.
It is limited to those things that can be supported with objective evidence.
I assume that by "the created," you mean nature. It definitively exists, however, it is logically possible that it is all that exists. Or, as you suggest, it may have been created by some process, such as emanating from a multiverse in which it began to expand billions of years ago. You choose to believe that its source was a sentient, supernatural agent, or an awakened or wakeful multiverse so-to-speak.
If you mean a god, I disagree. There is nothing that we are aware that exists that requires intelligent oversight to explain, and much that doesn't, including the assembling of the universe from an initial hot, dense state and its day-to-day operation. Science has made gods less necessary as explanatory devices, and is one of the explanations for the waning of Christianity in the West, where more people are educated about it.
I think that that is one of the logical possibilities. The universe has either always existed or came into existence, and if it came into existence, it either did so either uncaused or caused by some prior existence, which might or might not be sentient, and which itself might have always existed or come into existence uncaused. I think that this list is exhaustive, meaning that if reason can be trusted, one of these must be the case. But we have no means of ruling any in or out at this time. The best we can do is order them according to Occam' parsimony principle. Adding a prior source adds complexity (an unseen reality) without extra explanatory power and requiring that prior source be conscious compounds the problem.
Yes, that's included in my list, under uncreated, conscious, prior source for our universe.
The simplest narrative that accounts for all relevant observation is preferred. Adding more increases complexity without adding any explanatory or predictive power. What prevents you from adding more to your narrative, like our universe's conscious creator - what you call "God" - being the product of a multiverse that generates untold numbers of gods running their own universes? And let's throw in a triumvirate of gods to create the multiverse that created your god who created our universe? As you can see, we can end endless complexity to this narrative, but none of it accounts for observed reality better than narratives that omit all of that.
Empiricism is the only path to knowledge.
Parts of the Bible have been falsified. That's not controversial outside of fundamentalist religious circles. Apologists are working to try to reconcile scripture with science, but they need to reinterpret the language of scripture and call it allegory, for example, claiming that it never meant what it says wherever what it says has been falsified. The universe wasn't formed in six days, so now, a day isn't a day.
This is your religion speaking. Nobody is attacking you, and there is no gang and no swarming, which is dehumanizing language, like calling liberals vermin (it's a recent American thing and a not-so-recent German thing). You have been taught to see dissent as malevolent.
Religion has no answers, just guesses, like myths.
And some people imagine that there are realms and agents that exist that don't and are vested in those reveries. Naturally, science can't help them, which they describe as a limitation of science rather than a limitation of undisciplined thinking.