Question for those who are of religious faith....

Post Reply New Topic

Really I was just dealing with someone else's definition and that particular person stepped forward on their own beliefs. The definition I've been receiving of 'materialism' is that the only things that exist can be seen or otherwise quantified/weighed/measured/reacted scientifically. For someone to believe in God and be a materialist would of course be extending that into various kinds of energy or other things that can't be measured as such, including them under that 'umbrella', and once someone does that - 'materialism' becomes completely meaningless as a philosophical assertion. The only thing a person might suggest is that they believe that natural laws of physics/chemistry/mathematics. etc. generally aren't violated and that the universe by its laws has a clockwork that set pretty much everything into being - but as you aptly noted, that by itself says nothing in an absolute sense about deity - it just says that a mountain is extremely unlikely to get up, stretch, and go for a walk just like many of us will quite likely never see water falling upward unless there's a heck of a strong scientific factor overriding gravity.

I struggle to see the significance of a single part of the above post, except of course for the statement in the first half of the opening sentence, the significance of which being you obviously have know idea what you are talking about.

You seem to be suggesting that virtually all scientists in days gone by believed in a god and possibly creation, therefore creation or the super natural do not interfere with the laws of science. or you are saying that without a belief in god scientists would have said ''arrgh this is all to hard to comprehend'' and nothing would have been discovered. Both of points of view being inherently stupid

You fail to see that is it is exactly these discoveries that made with or without a belief in god are what makes the existance of god increasingly unlikely. These same discoveries blow the story of creation clean out of the water.

With the knowledge we now have a belief in biblical creation is akin to a belief in a flat earth with the sun and planets revolving around it.

Indeed Orwell

iamnotaparakeet what an appalling strawman argument. My inability to debate this man does not in anyway prove his line of argument to be true, that he will undoubtedly have a far greater scientific knowledge than I proves nothing. What it does demonstrate is the fundamental need for that pillar of scientific research PEER REVIEW and from what i can see he has not done this, simply publishing in ''the creation journal'' does not constitute peer review.

That aside I have read some of his ravings on homosexuality, morals and society. Intelligence unfortunately does not prevent someone from becoming a complete and utter as*hole