In this instance, its not really true. The analogy is somewhat flawed. Based upon physical evidence, you could deduce what happened to the dog since it would have wounds (most likely) and other factors that'd presume a time of death. Injuries would denote a cause. The vehicle (presumably) that hit it could be found, etc. Bury that dog for 10,000 years in the same same spot and tell me why it died; that'd be a whole different story. There, you rely on faith a little bit.
I am actually. You said the "God" was flawed. But Kalvin said nothing about "God" himself, only referred to something being "Godlike".
Semantics again. I am obviously referring to Kalvin's godlike organism. I didn't think it needed to be spelled out.
Didn't seem to be obvious. However, I am not here for an argument. Just pointing out the God is not flawed at all. It's people's perception of God that is flawed.
the dog is alive and continuing to walk down the road. you job is to deduce based on current circumstance where the dog originated.
Believing something is a lot different than accepting something as a god. Parts of it ARE being questioned: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html Theories get questioned, updated and modified all the time(well, often enough, I guess, to make my point). In fact, I think you could call the Big Bang Theory a "living" theory, it is being updated often, as we observe more of the universe. What big bang theorists probably don't like is people questioning it, or denying it, without regard for proper scientific method. If scientists see anything as a religion, it is not a single theory, but the process that enables them to arrive at that theory. Read about the scientific method here: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method So no, real scientists do not accept it on blind faith. They accept it because it holds up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny. For example, step 3 in the scientific method that I posted above: 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. The Big Bang Theory predicted the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, which has been confirmed through observation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence You are just wrong that scientists accept this on nothing but faith, as those who accept religious teachings.
Not sure what you mean here? Referring to the religious teachings part, are you saying those who accept religious teachings do so with blind faith?
I was really responding to this statement by Kalvin: "They accept it as true based on faith despite the lack of conclusive evidence." But to answer your question, "blind' may not be the best word if I'm forced to choose my words more carefully. But there is definitely more acceptance through faith going on in religion than there is in science. "Blind" may or may not be an accurate description. I can tell you this, though. I was raised Christian, and at the very core of what I was taught, as a child, was that you just don't question the teachings of God. In fact, to do so could be considered equivalent to rejecting his teachings, and that could get you sent to a very hot place for the rest of eternity. So, I did what most people in my position do, I chose to believe it without questioning it too much.
OK. I thought that might have been what you meant. I agree totally on what many people are taught about "questioning". However, in any form of education is it best to just sit back and listen and absorb what's taught, or is it better to interact and query the meanings of things written and said? Have a read of this excerpt from a publication: FAITH IS REQUIRED To follow a Christian course in the God-defying old world requires faith. To be willing to swallow personal pride and humbly mold one’s thinking and life according to the truths one is shown from God’s Word, faith is vital. “Without faith it is impossible to win his good pleasure, for he that approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.†(Heb. 11:6) But what is faith—the kind that is pleasing to God? One definition of faith given in Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary expresses the commonly accepted idea: It is “complete confidence, especially in someone or something open to question or suspicion.†On that basis, whenever a religious practice or teaching is called into question, the adherent says, “But you must have faith.†And with such “faith†those who are a part of the religious system are swept along in unquestioning submission to the whims of religious leaders. Is it safe? “A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Both will tumble into a ditch, will they not?†(Luke 6:39) Luke commended those who did not follow a course of “blind faith†when he said: “Now the latter [Beroeans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest readiness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.†(Acts 17:11) The faith that one must have in order to win God’s approval is clearly defined in Hebrews 11:1: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.†Col
Topic-3: Atoms Not the Cause of Universe 12. (Whether adrista leads the atoms or conjunction helps them), in either case no action is possible and hence there can be no creation or dissolution. 13. And (there can be no creation or dissolution) by reason of assuming inherence, for this leads to an infinite regress on a parity of reasoning. 14. (The atomic theory is inadmissible) for the further reason of (activity etc.,) persisting eternally. 15. And on account of the possession of colour etc., there will be a reversal (of the nature of the atoms), for this accords with experience. 16. And (the atomic theory is untenable) because it is defective from either point of view. 17. This (theory of atom as the cause) is to be entirely ignored, since it is not accepted (by the worthy). (Did too much copy paste today)
Evolution is one religious myth based on Science used to explain the appearance of the dog which is based on the assumption that complex beings can't just appear out of nowhere.
nice use of words @ kalvin I believe in darwins theory., Because, There were instances where the vanaras (Apes) and humans lived together during the Period of Ramayana, Lord Hanuman, a vanara was a devotee Of Lord Rama., (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman) In the next cycle of world, During the Mahabarat period, Apes were treated as seperate from the humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata
the concept of evolution and the big bang is based on the idea that complex beings can come from nowhere, but it also seeks to prove that the same thing is impossible. I think that's the paradox I was referring to earlier.
Big bang is really confusing. If there is NOTHING before universe, why there is energy? It's flawed IMO but at least it's not ridiculous beyond ridicule like most religious text. Only s*ckers believe in god, IMO. (Oh i'm sooo afraid of your god! *Sarcasm* Hope he won't take my websites away )