Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

[Gabe2007]

"I disagree with your assessment of science in terms of what is proof and the nature of knowledge. It can easily be assumed that nothing can be proved, but the scientific view of the history of the world (billions of years) and evolution carries a great deal of credibility in the evidence to the point that 95% plus scientists endorse it, and 99%+ of the scientists in related fields endorse it. This degree of concensus cannot be found in any religon."

Just because the majority of scientists believe in a theory, that doesn't make it true?
Can you tell me where you get these percentages from, because I have heard very different information....

[pikatore]

Although his stats might not be totally accurate, i do agree that science enjoys a much wider consensus of it's claims, where religion sees those that disagree form thier own sects.

[Fonceai]

I'm inclined to disagree, pikatore.

The best way I'm able to express my disagreement is as follows, and try to bear with the overly complicated language...

Science enjoys a much wider acceptance of the current supported explanations.

I think the key word is "acceptance".

A scientist can accept that a claim is valid even while working to disprove it. Failing to disprove a claim under certain conditions can aid in strengthening the claim under those conditions. Science enjoys the benefits of "failure to prove the false reinforces the true".

Religion doesn't work to find ways to prove its claims for all people... instead it functions in pure binary; this is the right answer until it is shown to be wrong. The different sects are really nothing more than someone giving a different "right" answer.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Gabe2007 Just because the majority of scientists believe in a theory, that doesn't make it true? Can you tell me where you get these percentages from, because I have heard very different information....

Science is in part theory; theory = an educated guess. For a small but obvious example, metrology, a very inaccurate sciece at best. The best thing for the weather man to predict whether it be snow, rain or other is to broadcast 50% chance! Then it wouldn't be wrong!

As for the age of the earth, I wouldn't trust science at all, It doesn't matter to me about carbon dating or other wise.

[Jack]

theory = an educated guess

Not in science.
Theory=

The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work. jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

[namguy69]

Quote by: Isherwood Not in science. Theory=

The logical path isn't always true. Don't get me wrong, science is a wonderful thing and we'd all be dire straights without it, especially in the medical field, it's saved many, many lives...it's really amazing how far science has come. Personally, and I'm not saying I'm correct, but in my opinion the earth is between 5,000 - 6,000 years old. I know there's various ways they can date remains but that part of science I'm just not sold on. But once again, thank goodness for the fine scientists we have, they do a wonderful research.

[rez]

Quote by: namguy69 The logical path isn't always true. Don't get me wrong, science is a wonderful thing and we'd all be dire straights without it, especially in the medical field, it's saved many, many lives...it's really amazing how far science has come. Personally, and I'm not saying I'm correct, but in my opinion the earth is between 5,000 - 6,000 years old. I know there's various ways they can date remains but that part of science I'm just not sold on. But once again, thank goodness for the fine scientists we have, they do a wonderful research.

So you can agree with everything else science does, but when science finds a method to date the earth that method is wrong? Do you have a better way of dating the earth or something?

[pikatore]

Quote by: namguy69 The logical path isn't always true. Don't get me wrong, science is a wonderful thing and we'd all be dire straights without it, especially in the medical field, it's saved many, many lives...it's really amazing how far science has come. Personally, and I'm not saying I'm correct, but in my opinion the earth is between 5,000 - 6,000 years old. I know there's various ways they can date remains but that part of science I'm just not sold on. But once again, thank goodness for the fine scientists we have, they do a wonderful research.

Typical to accept everything except for the one thing that doesnt agree with your religion, and reject that, regardless of how well it works.

[namguy69]

Quote by: rez So you can agree with everything else science does, but when science finds a method to date the earth that method is wrong? Do you have a better way of dating the earth or something?

No, I merely just don't believe science is all that accurate on some things. When it comes to how old the earth is I don't believe they can accurately tell. That's not saying they're not close, personally I believe as I have mentioned, 5,000 - 6,000 years old. It's just what I believe.

[rez]

Quote by: namguy69 No, I merely just don't believe science is all that accurate on some things. When it comes to how old the earth is I don't believe they can accurately tell. That's not saying they're not close, personally I believe as I have mentioned, 5,000 - 6,000 years old. It's just what I believe.

What explanation makes you think the earth is 5000-6000 years old?

[pikatore]

Quote by: namguy69 No, I merely just don't believe science is all that accurate on some things. When it comes to how old the earth is I don't believe they can accurately tell. That's not saying they're not close, personally I believe as I have mentioned, 5,000 - 6,000 years old. It's just what I believe.

So it materialised out of thin air 5000 years ago in a solar system that could be billions of years old? Rubbish. I'd turn to science's explanation any day.

[namguy69]

Quote by: pikatore So it materialised out of thin air 5000 years ago in a solar system that could be billions of years old? Rubbish. I'd turn to science's explanation any day.

that's your belief, fine with me

[pikatore]

this is a debating forum. you need an argument to back up your belief to convince people. until then, your claim is as about as ridiculous to me as ariel messenger's claims.

[namguy69]

Quote by: pikatore this is a debating forum. you need an argument to back up your belief to convince people. until then, your claim is as about as ridiculous to me as ariel messenger's claims.

I post my beliefs, I didn't come on here to argue with anyone. Number one , from what I've been reading on this forum, includung yourself, there are few to no Christians, so why bother, it's a matter of faith and faith can't be argued or for that matter discussed, so what's the point. If I posted my beliefs I'd have so many ' joes ' asking me questions for the sake of belittling what I believe so forget, I'm doing it.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Gabe2007 Just because the majority of scientists believe in a theory, that doesn't make it true?

Making something true is not the issue. It is credibility in the real scientific community that is important. This is where the rubber meets the reality road.

Can you tell me where you get these percentages from, because I have heard very different information....

The surveys are consistent, the Newsweek survey of 1997


1997-Note the difference between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Group _____Creation _____Theistic Evolution ______Evolution
Everyone _____44% __________39% _______________10%
Scientists _____5% __________40% _______________ 55%

Can you cite reputable polls or sources where there is a significant difference?

[Jack]

it's a matter of faith and faith can't be argued or for that matter discussed

If faith couldn't even be discussed, how would churches get converts? Why are there televangelists?

If I posted my beliefs I'd have so many ' joes ' asking me questions for the sake of belittling what I believe so forget, I'm doing it.

This thread is about the supposed " Scientific Reasoning (that) Confirms God's Existence". If you don't wish to contribute any scientific reasoning to support the existence of your god, that's fine. But I'd have to wonder why you're even posting to this thread in that case.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Isherwood If faith couldn't even be discussed, how would churches get converts? Why are there televangelists? This thread is about the supposed " Scientific Reasoning (that) Confirms God's Existence". If you don't wish to contribute any scientific reasoning to support the existence of your god, that's fine. But I'd have to wonder why you're even posting to this thread in that case.

A chi lo dici!

[pikatore]

what?!

[namguy69]

Quote by: pikatore what?!

study your science, in particular earth science

[Jack]

Literal translation, A chi lo dici! = To who you say it!