Originally Posted by
Jhared
i assume you are aware of the god-of-the-gaps argument, if so then i beg for your indulgence because i cant help but iterate it..
its true what you are saying that we dont know everything, that we are far from explaining everything, that there are still countless of stars to count, countless of other things to crunch into numbers so we can understand it, because we are not equipped with a default knowledge to know everything, we are left with only the devices to comprehend the vast abyss of space through numbers.. but is this illiteracy a proof that there might be a god after all? i dont think so.. but whatever makes you happy..
pirme ko kasugat anang god of the gaps argument and i assure you that's not what i'm talking about..
the god of the gaps would be like this.. we don't know who or what caused the first sequence in the series of causes and effects. therefore God did it! hehehe..
my stand is obviously different than that..
the conclusion is based on reality and actuality of creation and not on pure assumption..
mao bitaw ang proof is not the fact that everything hasn't been uprooted yet but the nature of Creation itself..the former would be the philosophical terms of what you call god of the gaps.
Originally Posted by
Jhared
would you use basic math formulas in solving problems with calculus? i dont know about you, but from what i know calculus is structurized by basic math, you cant solve calculus if you dont know basic math, just like a lego castle is made up of legos.. so in a way yes, i use basic math to solve calculus problems...
by basic math i mean mathematical formulas in their simplest form..
basic addition, subtraction,division and multiplication.
of course dili...
although still rooted from the basics like everything else..an advanced formula
is required to deal with calculus mathematical problems.
otherwise the solution would fail kay dili match ang solution ug ang problem..
so is science in its present form really equipped to deal with the specifics of our origins? No. though i have hopes in Science and humanity but for now, asking for scientific proof that God exists is absurd.
Originally Posted by
Jhared
but if you're asking if we can understand all reality based on the knowledge that we have, then no, not yet, but can we afford to assume a god because of our own illiteracy to put everything into numbers? id rather not, the science community would rather not,.. but if you wish to deduce it philosophically and conclude that there is a god, then that god is just a product of your philosophy, nothing more..
.
if the assumption is based on ignorance then we shouldn't but if it's based on reality. the nature of things..then i don't see a reason why we shouldn't..after all, hypothesis are derived from careful studies of realistic datas..
kaso lang, dili jud ta maka conclude scientifically because God needs to be quantified in a lab para mahimong scientific atong basis..which we both know is rediculous and outright impossible...at least with the current phase or level of knowledge science now possess.
philosophy on the other hand is more broad and is more flexible compared with scientific basis..provided bai! nga philosophical basis is realistic and actual.
example, a painting, the reality of a painting is that it is an artwork therefore made. so by that reality, we can conlude philosophically by the nature of artworks that someone did paint that certain picture.
same thing with nature/creation and the Creator only in a much complicated manner..
Originally Posted by
Jhared
evolution goes its own way,.. it's only purpose is survival of species, and sometimes it can yield results that are far from perfect, as far as our definition of perfect is concerned,. baby koalas for example since their gut is not yet developed to digest eucalyptus leaves they eat the feces of their mothers, naked mole rats are blind and, well, naked, etc.. but if you wish to look at it the way you do now, then so be it...
like i said previously bai, we should look at the effects rather than the process to see the order of things that i'm talking about..
imagine if ants were to take our size? with creation following natural laws creation ended with however things are today, where each creation takes part in sustaining creation and Life..
we don't know how creation will be in the future since a lot of people are no longer respecting the laws binding nature..
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
