“God did it” doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis.
hypothesis | hīˈpäTHəsəs |
noun (plural hypotheses | -ˌsēz | )
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis.
• Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
- There’s no evidence at all, limited or otherwise.
- There’s no expectation of, or even room for, further investigation.
- It’s not only assumed to be true, it’s outright insisted.
Never has it been more important for human beings to take responsibility not only for our own lives and how we treat each other, but for the fragile environment that we inhabit and share with all life on this planet.
One life. One planet.
A lot of Christians actually believe in evolution, and that the flood account was either allegorical or if it was real that it was an extremely localized event around the Mediterranean. Also the Big Bang theory was literally proposed by a Catholic scientist. Not only was he a scientist, he was also a priest
hi there, many thanks for your question
glad you accept the fact of evolution, but evolution contradicts the story of adam & eve. and without adam & eve, there was no original sin, which leaves to explain what jesus actually died for, no? can you enlighten me there?
if genesis is allegorical, then i assume it is fair to say that god is also just allegorical and does not exist, right? or how do you determine what to pick and choose to be allegorical in the bible?
noah landed on mountain ararat, which is a mountain more than 5000 meter high and is not even close to the mediterranean sea. could you please have a go and explain the physics of such a ‘localized event’? and if it is an allegory; an allegory for what?
it is correct that a priest hypothesized the big bang (and he even derived it scientifically). but who says a priest can not do science? as long as you do not mix in religion or any other untestable superstition, there is nothing wrong with it. many great scientists (especially in earlier centuries) where religious. not sure where you are heading at. care to explain?
your understanding of religion is base, your failure to conduct any meaningful dialogue with religious people before making such base claims is obvious, and you should feel bad about it. Honestly for someone who champions empirical evidence you don't seem overly fond of conducting actual research. —signed a devout Christian who believes in the big bang (which was originally hypothesized by a Catholic priest), evolution, and God
what are you actually trying to achieve here? coming to my page, just throwing random accusations at me with no argument whatsoever to back them up… if you want a serious discussion, please come up with a real argument and make a point that we can discuss. e.g. since you chose to believe in the christian god out of thousands of gods that humanity brought up, by definition your belief in that god is based on the bible. independently of which version of the bible you chose to be the right one, your god is not compatible with the fact of evolution. so either you ignore quite central parts of the bible (like genesis and exodus) or you accept that your god had it all wrong or you need to explain to me how “it is all just a metaphor” (and good luck with that). thanks
I am so done with the American Taliban. If you’re one of these people who wants to use a fairy tale to justify your arrogant, judgmental desire and pathological need to control what other people do with their lives, unfollow me and then run as fast as you can into the nearest brick wall.