Well, you've asked quite a broad question there and have phrased it in a little bit of a strange way. Do I have doubts as to the current theory as to the creation of the universe? I could say yes, because I imagine that it as it stands in its current form may well change as more evidence if found as we gain a greater understanding, but I don't think that 'doubt' is the right word for it. Is it the best theory we have at the moment? Perhaps, but physics isn't really my thing, and I don't really know enough about the theory to comment.
Evolution, on the other hand, I do know plenty about having studied it quite closely for the past three years. Again though, doubt is the wrong word. Is there any compelling evidence that evolution as it stands is a flawed theory that merits us examining other hypotheses that would be more likely? No, no it's not. But again, it's a theory, it's subject to change as our knowledge of the process grows and we gain a greater understand of how it works. As it stands, I accept evolution because I think that it does make beautiful sense. While yes, there are still discussions as to how we should, say, categorise and class organisms, whether the current five kingdom system is suitable, whether certain organisms are in the right category etc. that doesn't discredit evolution in any way, it's just our way of helping things make sense. The theory, in its own sense, has evolved greatly since what Darwin first proposed, and things like the discovery of genetics and the ability to decode genomes have only strengthened it.
I think I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but it is something that I find incredibly interesting, and as far as I'm concerned evolution is as much as a theory can be a solid fact without any proof (when I refer to proof I mean in the sense of, say, a mathematical proof that raises a theory to a law. Such a thing is unlikely to happen in any of the biological sciences, I believe, due to its nature, although I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong).
The hypothesis (not theory, the things are quite different, remember. There's two different definitions to theory and to purposely mix them up is, I think sometimes this is done in a deceitful manner at times, so it's good to be as clear as possible to avoid the issue, y'know c:) that a God created the world out of nothing seems even more a ridiculous notion that the universe was created out of nothing itself. It simply leads to the question of 'then what created God?' and the answer that 'he has always' been is simply unsatisfactory and, in my opinion, a complete cop out and an appeal to the god of the gaps. We don't quite understand it yet, so God must have done it! It lacks all curiosity.
But, anyway! While I was religious, I doubted god plenty times. As an atheist, I've not once doubted the other way and thought, perhaps there could be? There are times I think that it might be nice to believe in something so comforting, but I don't think that suddenly gives it any real existence, just because it's a nice idea.
I'll shut up now >>;;
Do you have any doubts?
24 posts in this topic.
-
-
A theory is a hypothesis that fits all past and current data and evidence. If new or conflicting evidence is found, it is re-evaluate and re-written. This seems like a much more flexible system of viewing the universe than simply falling back upon a 2000 year old book that was written 50 years after the main character died, and was edited, translated, re-written, re-edited and converted into all sorts of political propaganda multiple times over the years. The Bible is historically inaccurate, filled with inconsistencies, and factually incorrect. Repeatedly.
...surely, there are some flaws in the theory.
Go ahead and point them out.
There is no evidence to suggest the presence of a creator, and thus no logical conclusion to be drawn. -
Science itself is not enough to prove a Creator's existence anyway, it is too limited. God goes beyond science, clearly because He is supernatural and not limited to man's theories or observations.
You lost me there. Evidence is empirical, observable, quantifiable.This is not evidence. Don't demean the term. As for faith healers, I think they're charlatans performing parlor tricks. Why haven't they ever been verified in an actual, scientific experiment? Oh, right, because the Lord doesn't work that way. Suuuuuure.
If you actually claim to know someone who can perform miracle, tell them to contact the James Randi Educational Foundation - they can win a million bucks if they are able to perform a scientifically inexplicable act. The challenge has been running since 1964. Many have tried, none have succeeded. Previous applicants have included faith healers, clairvoyants, astrologists and telekinetics. All have been proved charlatans and have failed to come through.
Faith healing is dangerous, even deadly and takes advantage of people's gullibility. Of I'm sure you saw something. A miracle it was not.
The thing is scientific evidence is actual, physical, observable and quantifiable it is true whether or not you accept it. Don't believe in evolution? Vaccines still work for you, you still get common colds. Don't believe in the Big Bang? The universe is still expanding, whether or not you believe it. -
Ok, forget the money. How about an actual scientific trial? Why do your faith healers refuse to actually prove to the scientific community that there is something to them? Why on earth should I take your word for it? And why do so many faith healings end in death? Also, why does god, in his almighty wisdom, see fit to heal someone's broken leg, yet refuses to do anything
-
But surely faith-healers would gain far more credit for their God if they were able to prove miracles like that scientifically, wouldn't they?
If, in a controlled environment, a faith-healer was able to heal a broken leg that was observed by scientists, and unable to be explained by them, then countless numbers of disbelievers will be shut up!
If it was able to be done, it should have been done years ago. -
On the same note, think of all the people saved from hell. There's no excuse not to, really. And wanting to believe in God is far different from finding the idea of a God logical. In times of emotional crisis I may have thought about how wonderful it would be to think that I'm just going to heaven anyway, so it doesn't matter, but I can't, because belief does not work that way.
Atheists aren't choosing not to believe in God, I'd love it if there was one. I'm not in denial of any evidence for the fact, because there isn't any. It's called faith for a reason. As for spiritual experiences, why a church based upon the doctrine of Jesus Christ? I could go to a mosque or temple and feel the same spiritual satisfaction, if, of course, I actually believed in what they were saying.
Lastly, the theory of evolution, whether or not you believe in it, is a fully complete and fleshed out theory, under all casual definitions a proven fact. The only way to find a "flaw" of some sort is to use faith, and I've found that if someone doesn't believe in evolution, if I can get them to tell me what they think evolution even is in the first place, they've so far always been wrong. You're probably thinking of abiogenesis (the origin of life) and the Big Bang, and while I don't know everything about that, gaps in an otherwise working model in no way provide evidence for a completely unrelated model relying on faith alone.
The cool difference between religion and science is that religion needs either divine interference, or simply falsehoods about a "God", to come about. With science, even if the memory of every human was wiped and every piece of information destroyed, we'd still be able to start over and come to the exact same conclusions. On the other hand, religion would be wiped out. False ones would never come about again, and if there is a true religion, God would need to show himself again for anyone to have a single clue. -
More discussion, yay!
I don't really have much to add besides that I believe in evolution and that may or may not be linked to my faith. Of course, I also believe this theory can evolve.
Mathhew, I have a question. And I genuinely want to know why; this isn't to ridicule.
In all these years, I've met people of countless faiths, Christians included. And these folks seemed to accept evolution that I never realized that there were people who didn't.
Anyway, my questions are : how do you not believe in evolution? How do you disregard fossil evidence? On what basis? What about the new drug-resistant bacteria that have started springing up? -
"In my church we have prayer requests. One such prayer of healing for cancer was answered and the doctors had no clue how it happened. That, it seems, is an example of miracles to the 'scientific community.'"
Obviously, your mom's not a scientist. Otherwise she would have told you that scientists gather data very differently. Now, if it is hallucinations you are suffering from, I would seek some serious professional help.
"But, as I have heard from the scientists, such as my mum haha, is that it has flaws and 'holes'."
If you don't want to pay for a textbook, or a science course, this is a good place to start self-education on evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 -
Adressed to Matthew again : "Also, miracles and what I have witnessed from the
power of God has convinced me many
times, beyond a doubt, that there is a
God"
So, it is either God or evolution according to you?
As to micro-evolution.
Why is it not applicable to human cells in a microscopic view?
And I'd like to know what the holes and flaws are that you've heard that makes you disbelieve in evolution.
Because the atheists say the Bible is prone to translation errors,which is a huge probability, to defend their stance. I'd like to know yours.
And, do you doubt that evolution and god(s) can't co-exist? -
I do have a few doubts, but science still has a way to go in explaining the universe.
I think religion way just a way of explaining the universe in the olden days when we didn't have science: its just caught on a bit. -
Science doesn't have it spot on, but I still believe in it. After all, less than a decade ago, people didn't know what a computer was. In terms, we are a very primitive species (others on our planet even more primitive). 90% of my class has experienced a non-religious supernatural event in their life (nothing related to God or Jesus of any god or religious figure).
I don't believe in a god but I do believe that there is more than meets the eye out there. The average human perceives the world through only five main senses. It has been proven that there are things out there that we can't perceive unassisted. Who's to say that there aren't more sceptical forces (excluding any god) out there. Maybe the people in the mental hospital who see things are seeing the truth, not just something caused by a malfunction of sorts. -
Who's to say that there aren't more sceptical forces (excluding any god) out there.
Wait... this caught my eye. Why exclude a god in the first place, but allow every other unseen force to be possible? It seems a bit strange to me. If you're going to admit the possibility of other forces beyond our knowledge be powerful, it seems weird that you would make this exception. -
Who's to say that there aren't more sceptical forces...
In this little bit (I probably didn't word it very well) I mean sceptical forces that aren't so widely recognised by a modern society such as something like a spiritual energy that connects all living things. I excluded any possible god because the existence or non-existence of a god is something that is widely recognised (if you don't know what a god or deity is then you must be living in a hole in the middle of nowhere). I also should have put an emphasis on 'more' in 'more sceptical' because the existence of a god is a less sceptical topic. -
I don't understand why anybody wouldn't doubt their ideas. It's the sign of an open and healthy mind that you can entertain a thought without accepting it.
For example: I wonder if God exists? He might do, as it would explain much of the beauty in the universe, as well as that niggling sense that I actually do exist. It's possible that my lack of belief is incorrect, it may even be immoral, though I doubt that this is the case.
That said, if it weren't for doubt, I might be able to settle on what I really believe in. I have a vague idea, but most of it is scientific; empirical. It'd certainly be nice if I had a strong, irrational feeling that made me believe in a certain thing for sure. -
Personally, I simply believe the universe has always been there, sure I do find the big bang possible but I think does there really need to be a beginning?
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Delete this post?
Are you sure you want to delete this post? This cannot be undone.