In different cultures, shows different religions, many people believe there is a god but they are confused as to how the earth came about. I think that there is a god, but the studies that show how the earth was made in the scientific study is correct. I think how the earth was created was more scientific than religion. I think The Big Bang is a huge part and perfectly describes the uncertainty of how the earth came but science and new theories will eventually come about and completely destroy the entire thinkings of religion is part of how the earth was
When Biblical scholars debate this they lose the true meaning of the text. They become more focused on proving it to be factual rather than looking at the scripture for what it is. The scientific theory is backed by better evidence and is more likely to be true, there is too much evidence to ignore it, and therefore it should be accepted for the most part. Then Genesis can be used as a metaphorical story that allows us to understand more fully who God really is. Genesis 1-2 can show us that God is all-powerful and all-loving.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
Young earth Old earth Liberty University Mr. David Gilhousen Jo Ann Head PHSC 210 Fall Introduction Knowledge of the past and present makeup of the universe solicits factorial seen evidence and faith based beliefs driven by scripture and belief systems. “Almost everyone living today takes for granted that the universe and earth are billions of years old. But that has not always been true and the number of people rejecting that idea today is increasing rapidly.” (Mortenson, 2003) Proving the existence or the non-existence of time creation is still relevant in today’s society. Scripture tells us but science shows us, accepting answers is primarily based on one’s belief system no
But in that same regard, there are many things that religion just doesn't completely cover as well. In my lifetime I have heard many people state that the big bang just did not happen. My question for them is how do they or anyone know that God didn't make that happen? The bible states that God created the Heavens and the Earth
However, an atheist does not have much proof of a non-existence God because they only see it in a scientific perspective. If an agnostic enters the argument, it would question both of the theories about the existence of God because in an agnostic view, they want to proof of everything. But in the end, I feel that an agnostic would support more of the atheist argument. This being because a monotheist is very sure of their belief and on an atheist side, they do not believe in a God but is sure that there is a scientific meaning behind it. 4) The importance of cultural relativism is that it brings the society to pursue their own desires toward their beliefs, values, and behaviors.
Because there is a lack of answers and explanations that science does not have, it is expectable that the idea of a superior entity would fill that blank. In addition, it is seen in this society that science and religion are opposed to each other and cannot be compatible. However, it is a fact that neither science nor religion can give a proper answer for every inquiry of human existence. Each theory seems to answer the main issue, which is how life has been originated, based on statements taken from their own structure of rules. Because of this, the question of how life is originated continues to be unanswered.
While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either. It’s ones faith that drives someone to believe in him, while Christopher would not be able to have faith and believe because there would be no solid evidence that God exists and he mostly only believes in what he sees, something that is concrete. To Christopher God might be just another fairytale. “People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist.