Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
OK...my error.
I should have used the "laws of science"....or perhaps I should have defined each action such as "a tsunami" or "clay from the mountains painting the water red"....but we are adults and I assumed you would not play semantics with me....and I assume you will not play that game again with me.
Religion does not keep changing its tune. Those that do not believe in the Bible put peoiple in a position to defend it. So yes, when "science" implies something can not happen, defenders fall back on "an act of God"...UNTIL "science" is then found to prove that it could have happened "scientifically."...
For example, until about a month ago, it was believed that all life ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE must have certain elements to exist. ANd yet, we discovered life on our own planet that does NOT require such elements....knowledge of what is possible is always increasing.
And I disagree....it is not up to one to prove that Adam and Eve existed.....the belief they existed came fisrt. It is up to you or someone to prove that they didnt exist.
Nice civil debate....enjoying it....but please dont play the semantics game...iot gets us nowhere.
And by the way...I am not a religious man by any means...but I have studies to learn why religious people feel as they do.
I am not a liberal by any means...but I continually like to debate those that are liberal so I can understand why they feel as they do.
i wasnt playing semantics, i was simply stating that you thought god could apply science, which is untrue. everything in the bible is based upon a faith. a blind faith in believing something that can not be proven to be true.
most everything in the bible is based on acts of god. his creation of the world, the 10 commandments, the great flood, the 10 plagues. but when science goes on to prove that these things were not actual acts of god, but either occurrences in natural or simply impossibilities, then religion changes it tune and says, well since god created the world, he created the science behind it. which was never an argument before science came about and disproved the theory.
and yes you have to prove that adam and eve existed. you can only prove that things existed in nature. you can hypothosize about that things that you think have existed, (say things like bacteria, or viruses, or infrared & ultraviolet light, gases, atoms, etc etc) but until you can prove that they existed by using science, then they simply dont exist. just like anti-matter, and higgs bosom particle. they have been hypothesized to exist, but have not been proven yet. the burdon lies with those making the claim to prove that the claim is true.
I saw it as playing semantics...and I still see it as such....but as I said, I could have and I guess for your sake SHOULD have identified each individual geological and meterological event as opposed to applying the word scinece....but again, i see that as a diversion from the topic....
As for act of God....those with religious beliefs believe that a tsunami is an act of God. They believe an earthquake is an act of God. If God is in control of the Universe, perhaps they are acts of God. We, on earth, prove why things happen and how they happen, but we can not prove that it is not a higher being initiating the action. Yes, an earthquake is caused by the movement of the plates...but what caused the plates tomove. Pressure. What caused the pressure? The way the earth was created. Why was it created that way? I can go all the way down the line.
As for Adam and Eve...OK...I will give in on this one and I will prove they existed. Somewhere down the line, there was a first man and a first woman.