4 ms·
> Wait what? Are you arguing that 'god(s)' where and or might be incompetent? I get the humor in your question. Yet I would like to comment for the people who
by Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
> Wait what? Are you arguing that 'god(s)' where and or might be incompetent?
I get the humor in your question. Yet I would like to comment for the people who might be more seriously interested in this question, that the most enlightened view seems to be that 'god(s)' are not incompetent, but are simply not done yet, they haven't completed the design. That the design itself is not a finished final product, but rather a continuous form of development. If there is such a development, it would be quite logical that one could take any future (or just further in terms of advancement) iteration of some thing (like human genome), compare it to a previous version and make a claim that it's "inferior" or "incompetent". But this is just an assessment of a logical mind. It could just as easily be called an iteration which is perfectly designed for it's time and place and has an irreplaceable role in the grand scheme of things.
> The problem is it's not a falsifiable theory because it makes no specific testable predictions.
I so wish that more people would understand this. I was trying to point into exactly this by the original comment, saying basically that no scientific truth can be an argument for or against any spiritual claim, that they simply belong to the different areas of knowledge. People who are proficient in either areas of knowledge, are often ignorant to this incompatibility, trying to prove each other wrong. The solution is to recognize the proper way to fuse the two areas, not choose one of them and pretend that it's enough.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Brockenstein 8y ago>basically that no scientific truth can be an argument for or against any spiritual claim Well that's not quite true. Religious people often make authoritative claims about life, the universe and everything based on their beliefs that can shown to be demonstrably wrong with science. While that may not make the unfalsifiable stuff sink, it certain doesn't speak well if your special, divine, or privileged spiritual knowledge results in nonsense and garbage when the rubber hits the road.
- mgamache 8y ago> saying basically that no scientific truth can be an argument for or against any spiritual claim. This is an agument for "NOMA" or Non Overlapping Magisteria. While this is true in the abstract pure Deist standpoint, it's not true for most religions or supernatural belief systems. All Abrahamic regions (for example) make specific claims about the nature of reality that is in direct conflict with science.
- labster 8y agoThe degree to which practitioners of Abrahamic religions believe best guess scientific claims from thousands of years ago varies, of course.
- mgamache 8y agoTrue... However, 38% of Americans still hold a Creationist View of Humans https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-... [2017]
- d0lph 8y agoAnd also, in some scenarios people mock the bible for calling a whale a fish in the story of Jonah, when a whale is a mammal. However the people of the time did not distinguish animals like we do. We only started classifying animals like that in the 1800s.
- 79357423 8y agoIf a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) So where are we misinterpreting this one?
- Viliam1234 8y agoI suppose before the 1800s whales were also able to swallow humans. /s