Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism

I think that Faith usually does have evidence associated with it. And I think that you already know that.

I have faith that the chair I am sitting in will hold me up because it has always done so before. There is evidence for my faith but in reality it could break this time.

I have faith that my employee will not steal my car when I give him the keys because I know him, and have found him to be trustworthy. I have faith or trust in him because of the experience and evidence I have.

I am sure you do the same kinds of things all the time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let us make the absolutely wild assumption that science, all of it, is somehow wrong and entirely unreliable, in fact that there is nothing even remotely similar to science...now that initially may make you happy as you perhaps I suspect think that science is somehow the enemy of religion and indeed God...however even with all science gone the situation remains that God is unproven unevidenced and a mere invention of humans. It is that simple.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please provide alleged evidence..Faith is the absence of evidence if one has evidence one does not need faith.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don’t think that Faith usually exists without at least some kind of evidence. Even if that evidence is a deliberate lie.

Evidence can certainly be created in order to deceive people like has been done over and over again, in trying to find evidence for Darwinian Evolution, in order to make money and attain fame.

Millions have been duped by things like that in Science in the past, as you know, Alex.

So that kind of thing is certainly possible in Science.

And certainly possible in Religion on steroids!!!

 

Proof is a ticklish subject. Scientific theories are our best estimates and science in that regard to not deal with proof, although the evidence is so overwhelming with the theory of the evolution of life, that it is also now a scientific fact. All scientific theories grow in certainty over time, and as log as they keep aligning with observational and experimental data. The fact that theories can be and are modified, altered, added to or scrapped, is what makes science the supreme discipline it is, based on those assumptions, that are yet to be shown as wrong.
In other words the onus is on you to show evidence to invalidate them.

 

Science is the friend of religion not an enemy.

Atheism might be considered an enemy of Religion at times, a friend at other times.

Science and Atheism are separate.

 

I thought that the one making the claim is supposed to validate it. That the onus is on them!

What chu talkin about?

 

The chair you are sitting on supports you because of science and physics. the following short 7 minute video will explain much better then I...

You describe not actually faith as defined, but trust. I trust that the Bus will be on time as per the time table...that is nothing like religious faith in a deity.

 

I'm claiming nothing.You asked about scientific assumptions which I have given you. If you believe they are not valid, the onus is on you to show why.

 

So you wouldn’t and don’t claim that the foundational claims of Science are true?

Are you sure???

So, if you claim that God does not exist (not sure if you would) could you prove that God does not exist?

 

Just to explain and to be clear...

In the Christian World View...

“Faith in God” is equal to “Trust in God”
They are exactly the same thing.

Right or wrong, that is why I said what I said.

But I understand your point of view, I would just ask that you prove your claims.

You wouldn’t believe a set of claims and assumptions without proof would you?

I hope not!

 

Thanks for the Video!!! Loved it!!’

 

They are well observed assumptions. We have no reason to doubt them.
Does the theory of gravity exist?

We have no evidence for any beast you may label a god, and it is an unscientific concept.

 

You havn't answered my question yet...
What are the assumptions of ID, and/or creationism?

 

And, you just provided an excellent example of that manipulation and deception; the Christian World View.

 

Sane, rational people don't have to prove God doesn't exist, those who believe in God should prove God does exist or else stop going round claiming He does, in order to be sane and rational themselves.

 

Religion is the enemy of sanity, reason, logic, honesty, integrity and mankind.

 

So all the mountains of evidence supporting Darwinism and the theory of evolution was planted by some fool joker? Are you serious? You realise that Darwin was a religious man? And that the father of the BB was a Catholic Jesuit priest?
Methinks your problem is that you see what you want to see [like MR and river] to re-enforce your beliefs.

 

Certainly could if you are happy to accept the standards of proof accepted in our courts given it is about what a reasonable man would accept.
Certainly you could not prove God exists and given you make the claim it is up to you to prove it.
There is no proof for any of the thousands of gods invented by humans..none..all you have is faith which is the acceptance of an unevidenced proposition.
It is most curious that you don't need evidence for God yet erroneously reject the vast evidence for evolution. If God could be established via evidence of the calibre of that for evolution you would not need faith.
The question could be if there is a God why did we get the virus killing folk, or why saving a human from destruction seems to require a miracle.
None of it adds up. Take the biblical plot...it really is curious don't you think.
Original sin, sacrifice that is not really sacrifice, flooding the place but saving eight humans..anyways you seem to ignore anything that may intrude upon your wishful thinking and if you don't see that as a serious problem nothing that any rational person armed with fact and evidence offers will be sufficient to move you....that in itself must tell you something but of course it won't...poor you.
Alex

 

So far, no one here has proven the foundational Claims of Science, which would certainly mean that they are being accepted on faith without proof.

And this really would also have a cascading domino effect, and would clearly mean that the conclusions based substantially on these Claims are really only faith positions without proof as well.

Which is completely fine, if that is what you want to believe in.

Your choice.

Someone want to give it a real try?