Re: Science and Faith (Serious)

hmhawktoo wrote:

Both Genesis and the Big Bang are the product of humans attempting to explain their existence. Both are based entirely on faith with one claiming superiority over the other on the basis of so called science. There is nothing whatsoever that either can claim as real evidence other than snippets extrapolated into a belief system.

Hubble's observations and cosmic background radiation are two *observable* phenomena (they aren't opinion, and they aren't made-up) among several other things which constitute evidence in support of the big bang theory. They could well be the product of other things that we don't understand yet, but to date, almost everything that we have discovered so far continues to corroborate this theory.

No evidence exists which corroborates Genesis. No evidence exists corroborating the existence of God, the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge, or the talking snake thingy.

There is, in my view, absolute convergence on the basis of faith since both rely heavily upon leaps of imagination.

This is true but only to an extent. Science advances forward through conjecture which is subsequently supported by observed phenomenon. For example, nuclear bombs existed only as abstract mathematical equations on a piece of paper, until after some time when the theories came to be supported by observed phenomenon. Prior to the bomb's detonation, they seemed fantastical.

What science does not do is nail up a "this is how it is" story and then burn people at the stake for daring to deny it. Science permits lies and fraud to be exposed, by setting repeatability and falsifiability standards; religion does not. Religion avoids stating falsifiable axioms, as these invariably lead to it being discredited (read about the early days of Jehovah's Witnesses for a amusing example).

Both say first there was nothing and then....boom. I think both are complete nonsense other than the fact that both point to a supreme intellect, superior being, God (fill in the remaining epithets yourself).

Science does not pretend that it can answer "why" (why the universe was created, why we are here) - that is firmly a philosophical matter. It's valid to say that there may be no "why", there just "is".
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: science & philosophy / mechanisatic & resonating
    ... >>The evidence you've provided I accept to the degree I stated above. ... The basis may be faith. ... "Something accepted as true or real, or accepting that ... That brings us full circle to the beliefs of science. ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated)
  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... science cannot prove that something, for which there is no positive evidence to support its existence, it should be discussed as science. ... The basis for science is to provide EXPLANATIONS for what exists; not to waste its time with the metaphysical which cannot be verified. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> established by science. ... even though you might never be able to show evidence supporting ... to handle many verifiably real aspects of our existence. ... science can't handle God either. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: science & philosophy / mechanisatic & resonating
    ... >evidence - but unless you understand my words you have nothing to base ... >> not one line that indicated no IG risk of abuse, ... Generally science operates in the positive. ... belief always has a basis. ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated)
Loading