[Pedant mode]
Several other planets emit light on their ‘dark’ sides via lightning or aurorae, and some moons emit light on their dark sides from volcanism (e.g. Io).
[/Pedant mode]
1 Like
I suppose one could posit that agnosticism takes the hard border around ‘Theism’ and turns it into a fuzzy ‘fade-away’ border where some of them might hover somewhere in the continuum of that fading ‘edge’. Though I realize that self-identifying agnostics themselves might live anywhere in their actual beliefs with respect to such a border - some maybe residing solidly within it, and others solidly outside. Just depends on how agnosticism gets defined. I know it may sound like a contradiction to think an agnostic could be a theist; but if it was simply a theist who holds their theism as a ‘mere’ belief, and insists that they can’t really know - that seems to meet at least one criteria for agnosticism that I think I’ve heard. And same for those whose belief takes them solidly outside such boxes.
Strictly speaking an agnostic is some-one who thinks the existence or non-existence of god(s) cannot be determined; they can be can be theistic or atheistic.
Though the existence of many different religions and ideas about god(s) makes it difficult for anyone to be agnostic regarding all of them. Most agnostics are only agnostic about some ideas of god(s), but accept that the (non)existence of others is determinable.
The habit apologists have of watering down their ‘definitions’ of God to the point that they become undisprovable means that almost all non-believers are agnostic regarding some god-concepts.
3 Likes
Interesting. I was trying to highlight the outlier that is the human race, as we can affect our planet’s surface in ways that no other creature before us has. Regardless, I appreciate the astronomy knowledge!
1 Like
The process is correct in that it accurately predicts what we see in reality. The process itself doesn’t require God to be involved to generate correct predictions. In fact, if you wanted to include God how exactly could you know what God did or did not do? Do you have a divineometer?
I don’t worry about the where or how as I know it happens. Not because of the science but because “This I know because the Bible tells me so.” Just quite trying to get science to embrace your theology. After all, you don’t expect science to embrace the resurrection.
1 Like
Then you are not agreeing with all of the scientific view.
Why can’t people here understand this?
Either you accept the scientific version or you do not. If you are claiming to include God then you are not accepting the scientific version. At least I am being honest to myself (et al).
Science is claiming the complete understanding. There is no room for God in TOE. It is as simple as that.
That is what I just said.
That isn’t the point. The Divineometer is a red herring.
If TOE is correct then there is no need for one. God is not involved (See above)
Therefore TOE is not correct. Period.
Richard
Now I’m wondering if bioluminescent algae can be seen from space… and apparently they can!
1 Like
I agree with what the scientific view is capable of seeing.
See above.
To me God is involved, but science doesn’t see it and more importantly has no way to determine if God is involved or not. Knowledge of God’s involvement is not a necessary condition for the theory. You want to make God’s involvement a necessary condition with no way to test for that condition. It is simply your own personal opinion which, as you are well aware, doesn’t make any impact on the theory. Although it does tend to get you aggravated.
2 Likes
People can understand it. People do understand it. People just disagree with it, for a wide variety of reasons.
Disagreement is not lack of understanding.
False. Trivially false. If scientists claimed to completely understand evolution, they would no longer be researching it.
False.
There is an obvious alternative that has been omitted.
2 Likes
Whoa. Déjà vu.
No moderated