It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by benrl
you can't arrive at "THERE IS NO OUTSIDE CAUSES PERIOD"
We can't. Not the atheists, we as in all of us.
Atheists can't prove god doesn't exist for the same reason the faithful can't prove it does.
It [if it exists] is outside of nature. What we can know [scientifically *and that is the premise of the thread] is constricted to what is within nature. Within the known Universe. This means atheist's can't prove it doesn't exist but it also means the theists belief is grounded in faith and not evidence. This limitation goes both ways.
Have you ever seen a star form? How about a planet? You're speaking as if science has a firm grasp on how these things work, yet it seems every new discovery in the cosmos sends scientists back to the drawing board.
reply to post by peck420
Dear God I don't believe in read the passages I showed. Look them up yourself.
What you are saying about the light doesn't matter. Genesis states that no light is reaching the Earth until day 4.
It also says the stars were made on day 4.
So lets isolate this.
Of what we know of science!
Were all the stars in the Universe formed after the Earth existed? After the Earth had thriving plant life?
Yes or no?
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
While craig is infamous in atheist circles for his debates against the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, What is often overlooked about Craig is his respect for and appreciation of science. Craig naturally approaches his debates from a Christian perspective since he identifies as a Christian, but the core of his philosophical points are applicable to any theistic faith and indeed to deism. It is this ability to reconcile the material and scientific world with greater philosophical issues that is too often overlooked by Craigs detractors.
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
like·ness noun ˈlīk-nəs
: a picture of a person
: the quality or state of being alike or similar especially in appearance
...(spirituality + science) = (existence > fantasy)...
reply to post by Tearman
I'm a converted Atheist, one that purposefully went to school to study religion in order to tear down the Idiots I grew up with.
I can explain logically why my understanding of modern science allows for the existence of a God, but clearly you won't listen.
It wouldn't matter to me any way, as LOGIC, was never the reason I converted.
I simply experienced somethings that my Logical mind could not attribute honestly to anything else, something as I said am sure has already fallen on deaf ears.
reply to post by raymundoko
I am a scientist holding multiple bachelors degrees as well as a masters. I am also a believer in God. I believe science and religion are reconcilable. It's nice to see that even though most media wants to demonize those who believe in God/Creation the truth finds it's way out.
The idea that god might exist and the idea religion is true are distinctly separate.
If science and religions account for creation are happy co-existing then reconcile this:
1)Bible says the Earth was formed before the Sun.
2)Bible says the Earth was growing fruit bearing trees prior to the Sun existing.
You need to demonstrate this reconciliation otherwise you're just appealing to authority with your mention of various degrees.
and the vast majority of people believe science and god are reconcilable.
reply to post by benrl
That's fine Benrl. I know not all Christians take Genesis literally. I hope you're not suggesting that's the norm. That has not been my experience on ATS or in 'real life' in general. When I look up the descriptions of the various Christian denominations I also don't see that reflected as a norm.
Now it begs the question. If something like Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, when it appears to be a literal account, what parts should be taken literally and why? It seems to me if Genesis is taken as metaphor we have reason to extend that to other parts that may appear to be literal accounts as well.
Why exactly have you chosen the bible (yet again) to make your stand on?
If we assume the big bang theory is correct (which you must, if your reverence for accepted scientific theories is any indication), then we ultimately have a standoff that can't currently be won by either side of the argument.