OK, again my fault. Let me summarise, hopefully not making it too complicated:
Ryanvergel asked me whether my issues with evolution aren't actually about evolution, but that scientists haven't really proved that evolution is "true".
My long post ran with that, concluding that in maths, if something is true, it really must be true. In science, something is true because thats the best thing that fits the evidence. That's why I'm just unconvinced by evolution. [DEL]Not enough evidence for it.[/DEL] The evidence we have is open to questioning, hence I can't accept it.
The last part of the post then brings the question back to God. If I require such a high standard of proof for everything, how can I believe in God? Because no way is there that level of evidence for His existence. But that's missing the point - I believe in God, not rationally claim his existence is true. Therefore I don't need that kind of evidence to hold my beliefs.
Ignore the maths, read the rest of it (ultimately you're not missing much). And I'll tone it down from now too
Ryanvergel asked me whether my issues with evolution aren't actually about evolution, but that scientists haven't really proved that evolution is "true".
My long post ran with that, concluding that in maths, if something is true, it really must be true. In science, something is true because thats the best thing that fits the evidence. That's why I'm just unconvinced by evolution. [DEL]Not enough evidence for it.[/DEL] The evidence we have is open to questioning, hence I can't accept it.
The last part of the post then brings the question back to God. If I require such a high standard of proof for everything, how can I believe in God? Because no way is there that level of evidence for His existence. But that's missing the point - I believe in God, not rationally claim his existence is true. Therefore I don't need that kind of evidence to hold my beliefs.
Ignore the maths, read the rest of it (ultimately you're not missing much). And I'll tone it down from now too
Last edited: