Hmm, true, I don't know. But to me time has a starting point, it's more limited. With numbers they can be imaginary too, (I'm currently in the middle of try to do Further Maths homework, haha) they don't have to make any sense. But time generally makes sense, it's countable, yet infinite.
i think evilotion. i heard some of the bibile storys of creations, and there wonderful, but not really beliveible. evalution just makes a lot more sense
The fact that humans only use a small portion of their brains interests me - Do evolutionists believe that this small portion was good enough for humans to completely dominate their environment, and thus humans were able to have massive success before more efficient brain usage could develop?
Do you use your muscles to full capacity every where you go? Does every step you take use 100% of the muscles involved? We don't use 100% of our brains all of the time, but different parts of the brain are used for different things, such as hormonal control, movement, emotion, etc. Our bodies would not have wasted so much of its resources to make the brain if it only uses 10% of it. And all parts of the brain have yet to be found dormant in experiments. If we lost even a small percentage of our brain to something such as a stroke, it can change your personality, or how you function. So when somebody says "We only use a small percentage of our brains" it's only partially true. Our brain usage will change from one moment to the next, depending on activity and usage, and 10% is not the capped limit.
I guess I didn't/don't understand the statement that humans only use 10% of their brains then. You're saying that humans do use more than 10% in overall, just not much more than 10% at a certain instant?
I'm not sure who started the saying that we only use 10% of our brains, but we do use more than that in our maximum brain activity.
Although I do believe in God, evolution has much more Science and Theory behind it. Yesterday I went to a Church meeting, and somebody there was telling us about how man was made and all this stuff. And it does sound funny that we came from these ugly looking things ages ago.
^Did you read the part about the "evolution" bit? ;D And the only 'science' behind God is probably The Bible.
yes i know you said that you beleive there's more science behind evolution, but that implies there is science behind god too, which is false... the bible is no science at all, unless you can prove that the bible is indeed the word of god.
In most cases, we put evolution and God in two different compartments: Evolution = Scientific theory. God = Faith / theological theory. It is two completely different things that can't be compared in this way. You cannot prove God's creation of man to an atheist by using theological arguments. You can, however, prove God with philosophical arguments (assuming you were able to create a theory without flaws). The latter will then be able to convince even a stubborn atheist, just as the opposite can be done.
that's not entirely true. if someone wants to say that god not only exist, but created the universe and created animals and all that, then it is in the domain of science. since science deals with nature, and if god is able to create things in the nature we see today, god is part of nature too. you can ask questions like "how did god create animals" or "what is the composition of god" these are science
You didn't read my post correct. I never said that you can't ask those questions. I said that you can't prove them theologically to someone who doesn't belive in God. You can't prove faith in a scientific manner. "How did God create animals?" - He just did. Since he is allmighty, it wasn't a big deal for him. "What is the composition of God?" - There is no composition of God since God doesn't exist in the same way as we do. God is older than the Universe, God sees all the time at the same time, etc. That are some of the ways a religious person could answer these questions. What I'm saying, is that you can't discuss evolution vs. God when you're standing on two different bases like these. The two sides must come up with rules and guidlines for the discussion/debate in order to prove their theory right. This is where philosophy enters. Philosophy provides a battle field where both science and religion can measure their strength and form theories and perhaps even get some answers and amazingly enough even convert some from the other side to theirs. It's probably wrong of me to terms such as "battle field" and "strength", but I think you're able to pick up what I'm putting down.
how do you prove god in a manner that's not scientific though? i actually think there are ways to prove god scientificaly. pray studies have been done, and that is one scientific way to prove whether god exist or not, and it is whether prayers work. another scientific way i can think of is if some biologist found evidence that jesus was in fact born of a virgin, that would also scientificially prove at least partially christianity. when you want to debate god versus evolution, i think using science in the only way, unless you can explain how it is possible to use philosophy in this debate
Praying does not prove God. There are several Gods in different religions, and some religions doesn't even have a God yet praying is a big part for them. Sure, but the chance of finding that evidence is slim to none. Furthermore, biologists would probably be able to figure out how a baby can be born of a virgin without divine intervene. Again, I disagree and I'm not sure I can explain why philosophy is a better way in my own words. So I direct you to Descartes meditations which I think is better suited to explain. http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/mede.html He provides ontological proof for the existance of God. While ontological proof is not to be considered scientific proof, it is also not the same as religious proof since it's based on the reasoning itself. Reasoning and more specifially metaphysics, while influencing science in many ways and being of a "scientific character", is not considered a strict science itself.
I think you first have to understand how science works before i refute.. science does not deal with absolute truths, science deals with proving theories. this means that science can never prove something to be true 100% absolutely, what science is supposed to do is to gather evidence to support a theory, and the more evidence a theory has, the more likely it is true, but it would never be 100% true strictly speaking. so i agree with you that science cannot prove that god exist, but science can in fact make a theory that god exists, and gather evidence to support this theory. if one proves that prayer works, that is going to be a strong evidence. you say that there are many kind of religions and different gods, but how is that a big issue? in fact, you can set up an experiment in which 50 ppl prays to christian god, 50 ppl prays to jewish god, and 50 people prays to the muslim god, etc, and then compare the results. and im not going to read through all that stuff you have provided through the link, so maybe you could copy and paste a few key points you think is most relavent to this debate B)
I know exactly how science works, it's one of the first things you learn when you study philosophy. What you are referring to is the hypothetical-deductive method which basilcy renewed the way scienctific method works. Prior to the hypothetical-deductive method was the inductive method. You can set up such a situation, but there are too many variables to give such an experiment conclusive results. You cannot measure how strong the faith is in a person and depending on this attribute, the belief put into the prayer should be stronger. Hence, science fails on providing near conclusive results. As you said, science never claim to be entirely conclusive, keeping the theory open if and when new data may appear that will result in the theory getting a makeover, but there are still some guidelines to performing an experiment. I wouldn't say that these are fullfilled when it comes to your example. The problem with that is that you won't be able to understand the context that it has been put in. It's a very short theory, and if you're interested in this kind of thing I suggest you really read it. While I may not agree with Descartes, I think he does have a valid point. Basicly, and this is very rough, Descartes starts with the doubt. He doubt that anything is real and tries to find a solid ground from which he can work his way to understanding. He concludes that this things is his reasoning, cogito. From this he can get certainty which can lead him to knwoledge about things. After he has done this, he reaches what he calls res cogitans, in which he proves that his senses, the world as he belive it to be, other people etc. is real. He says that there are two different substances: The body = extent The soul = reasoning, the ability to think itself. And to the actual ontological proof he basicly say that since he can belive that God exists, he do exist. Again, you must read the text to understand the whole depth of his argument, as I have not done him justice here. Meditation III is the one in which he puts his ontological proof for God, but it's still pretty hard to grip by just reading that meditation.
And I want to add that you wouldn't be able to determine whether Mary was actually a virgin or not, even if you had her perfectly preserved body, because she gave birth. Therefore she's lacking all the virgin bits.
I know my examples aren't flawless as you cant measure how strong someone believes in god, but regardless my examples nevertheless demonstrate it is possible in theory to perform scientific experiments to test the theory of god, despite how difficult it is in practice. that may be true, but we our thinking is limited to the science instruments and methods we have today. who knows, maybe 100 years later, it would be possible to determine.