Fair enough. Could you point me to the evidence disproving the miracles in the bible, such as the resurrection of Lazarus, the death and resurrection of Jesus (which, I might add, was independantly verified by 500 observers), the blind, crippled, sick people being healed. I apologize for my complete lack of understanding of string theory and other developing theories. I have not claimed any proof, just supporting evidence. For example, archeologically, ancient cities mentioned in the bible that have been excavated exactly where the bible said they were, archeologists actually using the bible as a reference point due to it's accuracy. Historically, documents dated thousands of years old predicting events that would not occur for thousands more years, such as the fall of empires, the rise and fall of kings, etc.
I am not trying to dismiss evolution as whether it occurred or not doesn't matter to me. What matters is that if it did occur, it was by hands of the God in which I place my faith. If evolution did occur, if there was definitive proof that evolution occurred, that would be fine because it would only strengthen my faith, not destroy it. And like said before, looking at the same thing from different perspectives and experiences will create different opinions.
You're not addressing the point of faith in science, which was all I was trying to get at.
We could get into the God debate, but quite honestly, I don't feel equipped enough without spending more time researching and learning to adequately argue my point, and there are people much better equipped to argue this than I am. Clearly, looking at the same point from two differing views will produce difference opinions. If you want to view this as a victory, by all means.
As far as evidence goes, if science could prove God, there would be no need for faith. Evidence of God, or more generally, an Intelligent Being, evidence could include the fact that the origins of the universe point to an Ultimate Beginning. If the Big Bang is true, where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Evidence based on the Bible and the eye witness accounts of the miracles that occurred is supported historically, archeologically, and so on.
I could also say, where is the empiracal evidence of the evolution of monkeys to humans? There has still not been a "missing link" found, something to definitely say that man evolved from anything. It is still faith that drives that belief.
In no way am I saying that God can be empirically proven. Quite the contrary. I am a Christian and I do believe in God, but I am also aware that my belief in God is by faith that is supported by evidence, but has no proof.
In the same way, there are also scientific theories that people believe in by faith that are supported by evidence, but have no proof. The Theory of Evolution is just that. A theory. There is evidence to support it, absolutely, but there is no definitive proof. A belief in this theory is still a belief that is by faith.
I am not trying to prove or disprove evolution or God, but rather illustrate that faith and science do co-exist and should not be dichotomized.
Well, I'm not sure what dictionary you got that from, but most reputable dictionaries I know of have:
a) firm belief in something for which there is no proof and;
b) something that is believed especially with strong conviction
as possible definitions. Sounds a lot like what scientists as well as religious people hold to.
Not all science is provable, just in the same way that God isn't provable, but there is plenty of evidence for both. Science and God are not mutually exclusive, but rather they compliment each other. There's no reason why science and faith cannot and should not co-exist. To claim that all things are knowable and that science is completely provable without faith is just ignorant.
--There's only two classifications of things in my religion.
--1.) Things we understand. --2.) Things we don't understand yet.
--There isn't a "3.) Things we will never understand and aren't meant to understand, and must take on faith".
This statement in and of itself includes faith, faith that everything in the universe will be understandable at some point. To say that faith is irrelevant or useless is not a valid point as everything, including science, has faith at some level. An scientific theory is just that, a theory. There is evidence to support a theory, but without proof it is not fact. To believe that a theory is truth without proof requires faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. Could you point me to the evidence disproving the miracles in the bible, such as the resurrection of Lazarus, the death and resurrection of Jesus (which, I might add, was independantly verified by 500 observers), the blind, crippled, sick people being healed. I apologize for my complete lack of understanding of string theory and other developing theories. I have not claimed any proof, just supporting evidence. For example, archeologically, ancient cities mentioned in the bible that have been excavated exactly where the bible said they were, archeologists actually using the bible as a reference point due to it's accuracy. Historically, documents dated thousands of years old predicting events that would not occur for thousands more years, such as the fall of empires, the rise and fall of kings, etc. I am not trying to dismiss evolution as whether it occurred or not doesn't matter to me. What matters is that if it did occur, it was by hands of the God in which I place my faith. If evolution did occur, if there was definitive proof that evolution occurred, that would be fine because it would only strengthen my faith, not destroy it. And like said before, looking at the same thing from different perspectives and experiences will create different opinions.
You're not addressing the point of faith in science, which was all I was trying to get at.
2 17319-0259813?v=glance&n=283155 1 /qid=1155682461/ref=sr_1_1/103-5217319-0259813?ie= UTF8&s=books.
We could get into the God debate, but quite honestly, I don't feel equipped enough without spending more time researching and learning to adequately argue my point, and there are people much better equipped to argue this than I am. Clearly, looking at the same point from two differing views will produce difference opinions. If you want to view this as a victory, by all means.
There are a couple of excellent books regarding the miracles in the bible that I would recommend, if you feel so inclined. The first is The Case for Christ: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310209307/103-5
and the second, The Case for Faith: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310234697/sr=1-
As far as evidence goes, if science could prove God, there would be no need for faith. Evidence of God, or more generally, an Intelligent Being, evidence could include the fact that the origins of the universe point to an Ultimate Beginning. If the Big Bang is true, where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Evidence based on the Bible and the eye witness accounts of the miracles that occurred is supported historically, archeologically, and so on. I could also say, where is the empiracal evidence of the evolution of monkeys to humans? There has still not been a "missing link" found, something to definitely say that man evolved from anything. It is still faith that drives that belief.
In no way am I saying that God can be empirically proven. Quite the contrary. I am a Christian and I do believe in God, but I am also aware that my belief in God is by faith that is supported by evidence, but has no proof.
In the same way, there are also scientific theories that people believe in by faith that are supported by evidence, but have no proof. The Theory of Evolution is just that. A theory. There is evidence to support it, absolutely, but there is no definitive proof. A belief in this theory is still a belief that is by faith.
I am not trying to prove or disprove evolution or God, but rather illustrate that faith and science do co-exist and should not be dichotomized.
Well, I'm not sure what dictionary you got that from, but most reputable dictionaries I know of have: a) firm belief in something for which there is no proof and; b) something that is believed especially with strong conviction as possible definitions. Sounds a lot like what scientists as well as religious people hold to. Not all science is provable, just in the same way that God isn't provable, but there is plenty of evidence for both. Science and God are not mutually exclusive, but rather they compliment each other. There's no reason why science and faith cannot and should not co-exist. To claim that all things are knowable and that science is completely provable without faith is just ignorant.
--There's only two classifications of things in my religion.
--1.) Things we understand.
--2.) Things we don't understand yet.
--There isn't a "3.) Things we will never understand and aren't meant to understand, and must take on faith".
This statement in and of itself includes faith, faith that everything in the universe will be understandable at some point. To say that faith is irrelevant or useless is not a valid point as everything, including science, has faith at some level. An scientific theory is just that, a theory. There is evidence to support a theory, but without proof it is not fact. To believe that a theory is truth without proof requires faith.