Inspired by a letter in the RRS mailbag entitled "Science answers the HOW's, faith answers the WHY's" I feel it is time to say how I have always felt on this matter. Feel free to comment to your hearts content.

It is said that science answers the how's and Religion, or faith answers the why's.

I agree that there is an important distinction between those two words, but I fail to see how the above stament is true in either case: for both science and faith.

Take the following: HOW is the earth shaped? Science answers "Round". (There were infact a greek mathmatician, his name escapes me just now, who calculated this, long before Magellan sailed around the earth, and long before the 20th century where we flew out and took pictures).

Then: WHY is the earth round?

Science can answer this too: because of gravity (well, that's how I've understood it anyway. Something to do with centrafugal power or something. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but mind you, the point is just that you can correct me with a more accurate scientific explanation, because all I'm saying is science is prepared to answer that question, I'm not saying I know the scientific explanation in detail myself.)

Now let's try the same with Religion, or faith.

HOW is the earth shaped?

Here is the book along with a link to several lectures on the issue. I thought this website would have many people interested in this. Let me know what you all think.

Also, SAPIENT, my old account was akolutheo. I tried a million times to log back in; yet, ifor some reason, t did not work. You and I talked about maybe getting Hitches to debate Mohler. Yet, Mohler's illness this summer prevented me from trying to contact Southern Seminary. ARe you still interested? I don't know Mohler personally; yet, my old pastor is friends with him. Therefore, I can't promise anything, but, if you want to try to contact him, let me know.

Here is the book:   http://www.atheismremix.com/

Here are the lectures under W.H. Griffith Thomas Lectures. Should be the first four lectures that you see:  http://www.albertmohler.com/audio_list.php 

All you I.D. suporters out there please explain to me what exactly you mean by "design" and why "design" or "accident" has anything to do with HOW (process) and not only with why(intent)

Atheism is predicated upon the idea that God is not necessary for the successful use of reason. However, this actually means that reason is totally impotent. Here's why.

All of the only three ("tri"-lemma) possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:

1. All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
2. One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity.
3. One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned.

SOURCE

This is part of a small debate between me and a christian. Its pretty boring tho, he refuses to give any answers that are not in his bible.

Christian-When you answer my question we'll go to the next step.
But until then we are at a standstill.

The question was "When Jesus said "I am the way nobody comes to the father except through the son"

Do you believe He was right?

Anybody that denys Christ was a historical person needs to educate themselves. Everybody knows he is the evidence is overwhelming.

Me-That is assuming I believe in Jesus. I'll admit to being an agnostic, but so much of the bible is contradictory, its hard to believe in christianity when evolution is without a doubt, provable, and observed. And my question to you is, besides vague and postdiction prophecies, where is the evidence of god?
 

Christian-When you answer my question we'll go to the next step.
But until then we are at a standstill.

The question was "When Jesus said "I am the way nobody comes to the father except through the son"

Do you believe He was right?

Anybody that denys Christ was a historical person needs to educate themselves. Everybody knows he is the evidence is overwhelming.
 

Question:

Is an "infinite regress" a logical fallacy? Yes or no?

Hello all,

I recently stumbled upon this website: SOURCE. It has a few HUNDRED proofs of God's existence. I haven't really looked at all of them yet but the first few seem okay. Give it a look, it might make you think. Anyway, I figure that the following argument should give you pause about being an atheist.

1. This website has many arguments for God.

2. An atheist cannot say with 100% certainty that any empirical statement is false.

3. Many of these arguments use nothing but empirical premises.

4. Therefore, many of these arguments have a nonzero probability of being true.

5. If these arguments are true, God exists.

6. Therefore, there is a nonzero probability that God exists.

Regards,

~Presuppositionalist

As most people age, they go through several belief systems. In the modern United States, this is statistically the most common progression:

STAGE ONE: Birth to Adolescence, appx <16 yrs.

Child is born to religious parents. He absorbs various doctrines through church, family, and friends, never (or very rarely) questioning them. He may have one or more highly emotional religious experiences.

STAGE TWO: Adolescence to Early Adulthood, appx 16-20 yrs.

The individual begins to question his religion. As his intellect is not yet fully developed, he has the ability to ask difficult questions, but not necessarily to answer them. Although exceptionally virtuous individuals remain religious even over this time period, many do not. Their minds fail, and they degenerate philosophically. (Degeneration is accelerated if friends or relatives are unbelievers or at least not overtly religious.) They usually become nihilists if they happen to read Neitzsche. Those with slightly greater moral fiber, who recognise at least that there is some sort of objective moral law, may become philosophical Buddhists for the strict moral code. Others, perhaps of a scientific persuasion, become pantheists to impress their friends with their superficially "deep" philosophical insight. But all are degenerate philosophies, patchwork guesses tacked over a need for real philosophy, and their adherents cannot stay adherents for very long.

Free will. Everyone presupposes it in practice, even those who verbally deny it. 

To any Creationist/ID proponents.  I challenge you to subject evolution to the same standards of evidence as you allow for the existence of God.

If, having used exactly the same arguments you use for god, I am able to produce an equally (or more) strong argument for the existence of evolution, you have to agree to believe that evolution is true.

Any takers?