- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:46 am to Korkstand
Posted on 2/6/14 at 11:46 am to Korkstand
I will concede the point to you...it is not pertinent to the discussion. My assumption would be based on a belief that there is some purpose for the Universe and entities within it to exist, and if that is true, a Creator might well make himself known thru some means
Posted on 2/6/14 at 12:32 pm to Patron Saint
Yeah... This happened for this entire 30+ page tread...
Posted on 2/6/14 at 3:36 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
We do not know that God exists, therefore saying God always existed is attributing an unknown trait to an unknown entity. It is making the ASSUMPTION that God exists and the ASSUMPTION that IF he exists, he always existed.
We know the universe exists, so saying the universe always existed is attributing an unknown quality to a known entity. It only makes the assumption that the universe always existed, saying the universe itself exists is not an assumption.
Occam's razor says the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Your premise regarding the universe makes multiple assumptions
1. that the universe has always existed
2. that the biological elements of life always existed
3. that evolution itself commenced through some random chance
Occams razor;
William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and in some validity of scripture; he writes that "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."[53] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith (e.g. some sort of Non-overlapping magisteria).[54] He states: "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover
Popular
Back to top

0




