Humanists have no proof of how they
might have gotten here. But, Christians
have all the proof they need- Creation,
a risen Saviour, and a tell-all book and
how it began, then what happens, and
how it all will end. You better read it and
believe it, as it’s the only TRUTH mankind
has.
RA123 Said,
Excellent question.
Here’s where naturalists and supernaturalists stand and separate. Nature can and does evolve (certainly micro evolution such as the Samurai Crabs, taller humans, etc. if not macro-evolution, such as one species becoming another over time).
But truth is always truth.
We may have an incomplete knowledge of truth, but our knowledge has nothing to do with the essence of truth.
To the pure naturalist, truth cannot have essence since it has no physical representation. So truth is something we made up over time. Good is something we made up over time. Same with evil. These have no physical attributes and so do not really exist.
The naturalist can make no statements about the supernatural. Well, he can make them, but cannot presume that any such statements are true.
Science and religion may, indeed, be two lenses of the same binoculars. One looks as the natural world and the other looks at the supernatural world. Together, we can construct a pretty good ethic. Without science we could say the physical world (how we treat one another physically) does not matter because only spiritual matters concern us — that’s been tried, hasn’t it!
Without religion it is hard to construct an ethic (outside of survival). And how can anyone really say that survival has value?
Is it good for a cat to eat a mouse? Good for the cat or for the mouse?
Is it good for a tiger to eat a human? Good for the tiger or for the human?
Do we have any personal preference that is not skewed by personal bias based on our place in the food chain?
lona Said,
I totally think the additional comments are right on.
It’s a combo
Comments
Humanists have no proof of how they
might have gotten here. But, Christians
have all the proof they need- Creation,
a risen Saviour, and a tell-all book and
how it began, then what happens, and
how it all will end. You better read it and
believe it, as it’s the only TRUTH mankind
has.
Excellent question.
Here’s where naturalists and supernaturalists stand and separate. Nature can and does evolve (certainly micro evolution such as the Samurai Crabs, taller humans, etc. if not macro-evolution, such as one species becoming another over time).
But truth is always truth.
We may have an incomplete knowledge of truth, but our knowledge has nothing to do with the essence of truth.
To the pure naturalist, truth cannot have essence since it has no physical representation. So truth is something we made up over time. Good is something we made up over time. Same with evil. These have no physical attributes and so do not really exist.
The naturalist can make no statements about the supernatural. Well, he can make them, but cannot presume that any such statements are true.
Science and religion may, indeed, be two lenses of the same binoculars. One looks as the natural world and the other looks at the supernatural world. Together, we can construct a pretty good ethic. Without science we could say the physical world (how we treat one another physically) does not matter because only spiritual matters concern us — that’s been tried, hasn’t it!
Without religion it is hard to construct an ethic (outside of survival). And how can anyone really say that survival has value?
Is it good for a cat to eat a mouse? Good for the cat or for the mouse?
Is it good for a tiger to eat a human? Good for the tiger or for the human?
Do we have any personal preference that is not skewed by personal bias based on our place in the food chain?
I totally think the additional comments are right on.
It’s a combo