SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Should God be replaced?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (16186)2/2/2004 12:59:48 PM
From: Greg or e  Read Replies (2) of 28931
 
"Surely, we cannot dismiss the possibility that some underlying unity binds the energies and entities of the universe...a Spinozan "God", or even a Brahma;..."

Well that's exactly what "modern science" aka philosophical naturalism, does and in effect what you are doing because you reject out of hand the possibility that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

It's not surprising that the Diaz essay begins by ascribing the worst of motives to religious viewpoints while flattering himself as the noble seeker of truth that is completely objective. That would be a hoot if it were not so telling of the complete lack of intellectual honesty on the part of evolutionists. I think it was Dawkins who said "Darwin made the world safe for atheism"

Philosophical naturalism is by definition the attempt to explain existence apart from the workings of God.

You say "scientists are not sure of the origin of the universe" but when you ask them they are sure that God didn't do it. Failing to recognize ones own bias while ridiculing the other side for theirs is the height of blind arrogance and it does not stand the stink test.

Aside from circular statements like "It is also a fact that life evolved, so evolution is a fact", I also noticed the usual bait and switch from micro to macro evolution. Moths and finch beaks don't demonstrate that finches or moths transition to other species. Even his attempt at saying certain questions are open is tainted by the assertion that he already knows what the answers will be and the unmistakable belief that life comes from non living matter.
That used to be called spontaneous generation didn't it?
Pasture disproved that hundreds of years ago. Why would one believe such a discredited theory; because "life evolved, so evolution is a fact"

That's why Modern science is not modern and why it is not science.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News