Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

“In the beginning God created...” [Spirituality & Religion]

“What’s important to understand is how reversed the situation is from, say, a hundred years ago. Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago.
“Now, the situation is exactly the opposite. It is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicable way eternal after all. So the shoe is on the other foot. The Christian can stand confidently within biblical truth, knowing it’s in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. It’s the atheist who feels very uncomfortable and marginalized today.
“Certainly there have been earlier ages when the culture was more sympathetic toward Christianity. But I think it’s indisputable that there has never been a time in history when the hard evidence of science was more confirmatory of belief in God than today.”

(William Lane Craig)

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

Combine that with the incredible complexity in even the simplest life form including the information and the ability to use said information makes atheism a faith based religion and not based on science at all. I do get a hoot out of our pet atheists here on SW who show us daily how they are scientifically illiterate. Well that and outright dishonest.

1-25 of 55

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 This from the man who lies, pretty much constantly, about his profession and his background. You trying to call out others on "lies" is pretty damn funny.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick Says you who has never met me or done what I have done. Too Funny!

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 Its just obvious by reading your posts. You lie pretty much constantly, never back up with any scientific data anything you say. You only response is "Too Funny", which you just parrot constantly.

I feel embarrassed for you honestly. You try so hard to act like you know what you are talking about and you fail so badly.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick Says you who thinks science is agreeing with a high school text book. Too Funny! Give it up already. You have no idea what you are talking about and are showing the world your ignorance by comments like these. Cutting edge scientists who are moving the exploration of cells and life forward are doing so on the basis of understanding "how was it designed" but you want to rely on centuries old theories that barely made sense when first proposed.

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]Too Funny![/quote]

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. See thats thew difference here, I know that I have alot to learn, I am always willing to look at real science, real data, real facts. Science always changes, and you need to be willing to adapt.

You of course are not, you just insult, claim you worked in whatever industry we happen to be talking about, or claim to be a "real scientist". You are never able though to post evidence like a REAL scientist would know is required of them.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick I truly enjoy laughing at the scientific illiterate who think they are so knowledgeable. They haven't got a clue about observation effecting conclusions since their only observation is reading a book written by some guy who didn't do any observations. Sadly there are huge masses of such people who think they are 'educated' without knowing they are simply uninformed but can be conned by 'scientific' lingo.

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]Sadly there are huge masses of such people who think they are 'educated' without knowing they are simply uninformed but can be conned by 'scientific' lingo.[/quote]

Too funny how you can say that with a straight face ...

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick Says the guy with no scientific experience or knowledge at all. Too Funny!!!!

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 As I said before, if you had read, I never claimed I did. You are the one who obviously lies by claiming you do.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick You remain willfully ignorant but think you are informed enough to question someone who has read and analyzed what was written. Strange little man that you are.

redredred · M

@hippyjoe1955 If complexity demands a creator, who created your allegedly inordinately complex creator?

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@redredred He is Eternal.

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 😂 Too Funny!!!

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick Well son since logic in not your forte. Either material is eternal or Something Else is eternal. If the universe has a beginning as most modern scientists believe.... What was before that time?

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]Either material is eternal or Something Else is eternal.[/quote]

[quote]False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.[/quote]

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick So you have an alternative? Seriously? Please tell me.

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 Man you really don't understand how this science thing works at all do you?

I would go with real science and say that material is eternal, that the law of conservation of energy rules here. Lets say though that wasn't true, or wasn't proven.

EVEN then, assuming that those two options are the only choices is a false equivalence.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick Nice word salad. Care to back it up with some actual thought instead of just simple "Is Not".

redredred · M

@hippyjoe1955 Prove it

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 If you can't understand that VERY simple concept I just laid out, why would I bother with you.

Its a false equivalence to say it has to be either or. This really isn't that hard man. Especially for a "scientist" like you.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick In other words you have no clue but you don't want to accept. Too Funny! You debate like a six year old. "No it isn't" he explained.

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 In other words, I laid out a concept and you ignored it and personally attacked me like you ALWAYS do. Want me to tell you what kind of logical fallacy that is "Mr. Scientist"?

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick Looking in the mirror? Seriously I asked you for an alternative and you said no. If there is a third or fourth or even an infinite number of alternatives then please present it. If not then you are just blowing smoke.

Pherick · 41-45, M

@hippyjoe1955 Mirror? I accept my flaws right up front, you have never done that.

You should know, because you are apparently a scientist, that not every question has an answer. There are questions that we have ideas for, but nothing solid. So to look at a problem, "age of matter" and say "Well it HAS to be one of these two options" is just ridiculous from a scientific standpoint.

Then, again because you ignored it, I said that of your "must be one of these" choices, that obviously, following the law of conservation of energy I went with "matter is eternal" choice you provided.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pherick So what are your alternatives. "I don't have a clue" is not science its ignorance and you are the one saying it. So when you come up with an alternative get back to me.

1-25 of 55