(August 9, 2013 at 6:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 9, 2013 at 12:12 am)Just-A-Curious-Girl Wrote: What if God and science are both right. Now don't misunderstand me, this is a major what if...
In the bible it tells us that God said let there be light.Well it doesn't say he created the sun.-So maybe God created the Big Bang when he spoke it. It could have taken billions of years because it also tells us in the bible that his time runs different from us. So 6 days to him is like 6 billion years to us?
I don't know guys its just a thought.
I think that's what most Christians believe. A vast majority. It's still a misunderstanding of the text, which makes no scientific observations whatsoever.
Science is amazing, and should be understood without the interference of religious dogma. Likewise science needs to remain in its own realm and make no comment on the theological. If we haven't learnt that from Dawkins shameful showing by now then there's no hope for us.
What evidence should there be that being a good person in relation to everything is the right thing to do? Why do we need proof that love wins? Would our actions change suddenly because of that? How would any god showing itself serve to change people's minds that they really shouldn't be selfish assholes?
Wouldn't that remove our choice to be good and deserve just reward? Would we then not be able to be good if good was all there was?
We don't require evidence about good, love, selflessness, and so on. But there is no reason to reject evidence that we find, either; or worse, not look. We have evidence that reciprocal altruism works - it is objectively better than alternatives.
Theology is not the realm of science, but I don't think theology actually has a realm.
What "shameful showing" by Dawkins do you refer to?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
