NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going all the way back to the original title of the thread, "science can't explain everything." The opposite assertion was that religion CAN explain everything.

That wasnt the opposite asertation. I made no such assertation. I never said that science can't explain anything, or that religion could explain everything. I just said science cant explain everything. You cant use science to find a meaning to the universe (if there is one). The fact that science has not found a meaning to the universe is not proof that there is no such meaning, but that what meaning there is cannot be found by science. In the same way that science cannot analyise the wonders of the humour in Shakespeares "as you like it" so it cannot examine the meaning (if there is one) of the universe.

Because my reasons come from scripture, not from me, you cannot accuse me of arrogance in saying that other religions are not equally valid. You can, however, accuse the writers of the scriptures of arrogance. That would be to accuse them of deliberately misleading people into thinking that Jesus is the only true source of such a miracle. However, if what they said was true, that if they were witnesses of the life of Jesus, then this would not be an issue of arrogance, but of fact or falsehood.

Well, you already know I don't share your axiom of scripture being truth (or most anything about God or Christ, for that matter), but there is only one thing that could prevent us from disagreeing amicably.

Would you ever vote your scripture, or anything sourced solely from it, into law? (I asked this before, if you're already working up an answer, disregard).

But it's not random, is it? It's determined by physics.
Ah yes, sorry forgot.

Yes but does the physics explain how the universe, not just earth came into existence?
Read post 748, I'm pretty sure that is physics too

OK to go further back..
There was a BIIIIIIIIIG bang...
There are telescopes that can see the first moments after this explosion.
I suppose next you will say that God created this big bang...
But I really thought he created the Earth all in one go and the sun and the moon and the stars ohmygosh the pertty stars. That just happen to be millions of miles away and a large number of them already extinct the light taking so long to reach us... *ahem* no seriously back to being serious, this is my serious face, I was taught religion when I was too young to question but I did often wonder why God if God created the heaven and the earth (and the stars) why did he put the stars in the order he put them in, and why did they move, and why did we see different ones from one month to the enxt (slide show?) other than being useful to navigate by and oh say, calculate the distance to the sun, moon not to mention the circumference of this planet... oops was that science again. Erk, Sorry. (Gotta admire them Egyptians)

That makes no sense. If we can see this big bang, yet we are here as a result of it then it's effects must already have passed this place, thus we would not be able to see it. That in itself is a cirular argument.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to very small particles of indeterminate nature, most notably electrons and photons, and all it says is that you cannot simultaneously predict their velocity and location at a given instant. That's it. It says nothing about macro events.

EDIT: Actually, let me rephrase. What it says is that the degree of uncertainty decreases as mass increases. Anything with an appreciable amount of mass has such an incredibly low degree of uncertainty associated with it that it is utterly negligible. Even at the level of something with as much mass as a single proton, the degree of uncertainty is extremely small.

If it is an uncertainty principle how can anyone be certain of it? (joke)

If it is an uncertainty principle how can anyone be certain of it?

I'm not trying to be a twit, here, but...are you serious?

Then I applaud your ability to keep your belief and work separate.

Science and Religion make fine neighbors as long as they don't park in each other's garages.

Your last statement is one of the few statements you've made so far that I find to be very sound.

If you truly say that your religious beliefs do not come from a scientific mindset, and that you apply science and its methods to other problems, then we have only one thing to disagree about.

In terms of laws that are to be enforced on the whole population, religious and non-religious, would you vote for a law whose only basis was religious?

Saint Curie! Your questions are varied. Here we go about enforcing religion on the people. Let me guess. you would be American, right!?
This is an interesting topic. I've seen the American fights over law and morality as a clash of two cultures. Both claim to have the interests of the people at heart, e.g. abortion.

my prerequisite for voting for a law would be if it has the best interests of every person concerned, or at least a law that provided for everyone. I do not believe in forcing religion down people's throat. The laws that you pass have to care for the rights of every individual. In Australia, everyone has to vote. I agree with this law. I do not see a basis in religion, but I would vote for such a law. Obviously, there are provisions for people who have a good excuse not to vote, so I see the law as a good one.

That makes no sense. If we can see this big bang, yet we are here as a result of it then it's effects must already have passed this place, thus we would not be able to see it. That in itself is a cirular argument.
OK here I get out of my depth as I am not a scientist myself but there is radiation left over from the big bang, "shadows" of the first stars, distances light has to cover = time
d = s * t (I remember that one)

I'm not trying to be a twit, here, but...are you serious?
You really haven't caught a single whif of my joviality of this whole subject have you?

If it is an uncertainty principle how can anyone be certain of it?

Because it's actually useful in making predictions. It just says that you can't predict two things at the same time.

(Assuming you weren't just yanking my chain a bit, which is OK, too :))

OK, five more minutes futzing around on here and then I must get some work done.

.
my prerequisite for voting for a law would be if it has the best interests of every person concerned, or at least a law that provided for everyone. I do not believe in forcing religion down people's throat. The laws that you pass have to care for the rights of every individual.

Great, than I'd trade some of our politicized Christians for one's like you (and Yes, I'm American). Just, please, no baby smashing. (although if anybody goes around smashing babies in this day and age, I sadly suspect it might be Americans...)

You really haven't caught a single whif of my joviality of this whole subject have you?

My bad. Thanks, sorry.

I'm going all the way back to the original title of the thread, "science can't explain everything." The opposite assertion was that religion CAN explain everything.

That wasnt the opposite asertation. I made no such assertation. I never said that science can't explain anything, or that religion could explain everything. I just said science cant explain everything. You cant use science to find a meaning to the universe (if there is one). The fact that science has not found a meaning to the universe is not proof that there is no such meaning, but that what meaning there is cannot be found by science. In the same way that science cannot analyise the wonders of the humour in Shakespeares "as you like it" so it cannot examine the meaning (if there is one) of the universe.

That wasnt the opposite asertation. I made no such assertation. I never said that science can't explain anything, or that religion could explain everything. I just said science cant explain everything. You cant use science to find a meaning to the universe (if there is one). The fact that science has not found a meaning to the universe is not proof that there is no such meaning, but that what meaning there is cannot be found by science. In the same way that science cannot analyise the wonders of the humour in Shakespeares "as you like it" so it cannot examine the meaning (if there is one) of the universe.

But the drive to assign a meaning to anything is purely a human thing, it's hard to accept things happen for no reason for some people, it seems, this reluctance, or downright refusal to even entertain that there is no meaning to it all is odd for me, it's odd & illogical

Because it's actually useful in making predictions. It just says that you can't predict two things at the same time.

(Assuming you weren't just yanking my chain a bit, which is OK, too :))

OK, five more minutes futzing around on here and then I must get some work done.
*yank yank*

Then I applaud your ability to keep your belief and work separate.

Science and Religion make fine neighbors as long as they don't park in each other's garages.


Acutually, I confess that I cannot really keep religion and science separate, although it may look this way on the surface. The simple reason is that the love of God is my motivation for studying science, and everything else that I intentionally do (that doesn't not include all the times I stuff up). Thus, it would be more correct to say that I try to respect the limitations of both science and religion, but keep them completely apart, I cannot.

That wasnt the opposite asertation. I made no such assertation. I never said that science can't explain anything, or that religion could explain everything. I just said science cant explain everything. You cant use science to find a meaning to the universe (if there is one). The fact that science has not found a meaning to the universe is not proof that there is no such meaning, but that what meaning there is cannot be found by science. In the same way that science cannot analyise the wonders of the humour in Shakespeares "as you like it" so it cannot examine the meaning (if there is one) of the universe.

I don't know if it was you, but that assertion was definitely made.

You can't use religion to find meaning; you can only use it to assign meaning. It has no means of testing something objective (that exists on its own to be found).

As far as your second assertion, I'd look into Arthur Koestler and Robert Provine. I don't think they study Shakespeare's work exclusively, but they certainly did study what humor is, what makes people laugh, etc.

Acutually, I confess that I cannot really keep religion and science separate, although it may look this way on the surface. The simple reason is that the love of God is my motivation for studying science, and everything else that I intentionally do (that doesn't not include all the times I stuff up). Thus, it would be more correct to say that I try to respect the limitations of both science and religion, but keep them completely apart, I cannot.

Well, close enough. If you keep their methodologies separate, and leave the supernatural with religion, I still believe they co-exist peacefully, whether in one person or two.

*yank yank*

I had a hunch, but I was uncertain. ;)

OK, enough of this. Must... go... work... bye...

As far as your second assertion, I'd look into Arthur Koestler and Robert Provine. I don't think they study Shakespeare's work exclusively, but they certainly did study what humor is, what makes people laugh, etc.

I knew a guy (surely not the first) who wanted to get funding for a study of the effect of marijuana on the cognitive definition of humor.

Essentially, if he could make people high enough that they laughed at anything, he thought he could write it up as saying something about humor in the neurochemical sense.

I bet NIH gets fifty of those a year...

Great, than I'd trade some of our politicized Christians for one's like you (and Yes, I'm American). Just, please, no baby smashing. (although if anybody goes around smashing babies in this day and age, I sadly suspect it might be Americans...)

I try to avoid smashing babies. I actually help out with sunday school in my spare time. Sometimes, though, there are these little boys with very loud voices........just kidding. I really love the little squirts, otherwise I wouldn't bother with them.

Yes, I am well aware of the unattractiveness of politicising world views. It's not just the American variety that are causing the problems. Remember, according to the Bible, (which I realise you don't go along with), the policitally active religious nutters put Jesus on a cross. That is not to say that all religious politicians are nutters, but there is something very unwholesome about mixing religion and power. It would be far better if we all made God the president of the world (that should get your wheels rolling).

I don't know if it was you, but that assertion was definitely made.

Since I am the author of the OP I can tell you that assertation was not being made


As far as your second assertion, I'd look into Arthur Koestler and Robert Provine. I don't think they study Shakespeare's work exclusively, but they certainly did study what humor is, what makes people laugh, etc.

You can study humour but you cant objectively prove what is and isnt funnier. For example some people find HIGNFY extremely funny, but others dont, prefering Benny Hill for example. In the same way you cannot prove what is and is not art in the univeral objective way you can prove that 2x2 = 4 for instance

I had a hunch, but I was uncertain. ;)

OK, enough of this. Must... go... work... bye...
Ahhh there y'go. Did any bells ring? *yank* d'y'geddit?
Have a nice day. Hope you enjoy work.

Yes, I am well aware of the unattractiveness of politicising world views. It's not just the American variety that are causing the problems. Remember, according to the Bible, (which I realise you don't go along with), the policitally active religious nutters put Jesus on a cross. That is not to say that all religious politicians are nutters, but there is something very unwholesome about mixing religion and power. It would be far better if we all made God the president of the world (that should get your wheels rolling).

Aw, dude, dude...I was on board, and you banked left before I put my seatbelt on...dude...

But the drive to assign a meaning to anything is purely a human thing, it's hard to accept things happen for no reason for some people, it seems, this reluctance, or downright refusal to even entertain that there is no meaning to it all is odd for me, it's odd & illogical

Yes. But for you to say that is not a scientific statement, its a personal opinion. Science cannot declare whether there is or is not meaning in the universe. Not because we arent clever enough yet, but because it is not the area that science studies. In the same way science cant analyise the mona lisa to objectivly prove how beautiful a piece of art it is, so it cannot prove if there is any objective meaning in the universe

I knew a guy (surely not the first) who wanted to get funding for a study of the effect of marijuana on the cognitive definition of humor.

Essentially, if he could make people high enough that they laughed at anything, he thought he could write it up as saying something about humor in the neurochemical sense.

I bet NIH gets fifty of those a year...

Not knowing what NIH is and spelling Humour a different way I would guess you are American.
So I won't get too heavily into borrowing what Bill Hicks thinks mind altering drugs are meant to be for...

"Oook oook ook ooo.... I think we can go to the moon."

It would be far better if we all made God the president of the world (that should get your wheels rolling).

Well, atleast he'd have to reveal himself to run the place & thus prove his own existance :p

I had a hunch, but I was uncertain. ;)

OK, enough of this. Must... go... work... bye...

I gotta bail, too. Wherever everybody's at, be safe and happy.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to very small particles of indeterminate nature, most notably electrons and photons, and all it says is that you cannot simultaneously predict their velocity and location at a given instant. That's it. It says nothing about macro events.

EDIT: Actually, let me rephrase. What it says is that the degree of uncertainty decreases as mass increases. Anything with an appreciable amount of mass has such an incredibly low degree of uncertainty associated with it that it is utterly negligible. Even at the level of something with as much mass as a single proton, the degree of uncertainty is extremely small.

My argument is that scientific comprehension of the world is limited, and for that to be proven it is enough to find a single example that supports it, no matter how inconsequential it is. However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is one of the basic postulates of Quantum mechanics, and is far from insignificant.

The scientific determinism breaks down, as the world on the infinitesimal scale cannot be explained with absolute correctness. Even on the macroscopic scale, you need to resort to quantum mechanics to even attempt to explain what happens inside the black holes, as well as the early stages of the Universe, so it is shown that the world cannot completely be explained by science.

Also, it is easier to realize the importance of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle when considering the basis of all scientific observation - an observed object is bombarded with particles (usually photons or charged particles), so its position and momentum (mass * velocity (both magnitude and direction)), hence its state of motion is detemined. However, when the observed object is extremely small, it needs to be bombarded with a particle of very low wavelength i.e. very high frequency, i.e. very high energy. However, bombarding the observed object with a high energy particle will change its state of motion (both position and velocity), so the observation will be invalid. All observations can be reduced to that basic principle, of course the observation is quite valid when a photon from the sun strikes a moving car and is reflected into an eye.

I try to avoid smashing babies. I actually help out with sunday school in my spare time. Sometimes, though, there are these little boys with very loud voices........just kidding. I really love the little squirts, otherwise I wouldn't bother with them.

Yes, I am well aware of the unattractiveness of politicising world views. It's not just the American variety that are causing the problems. Remember, according to the Bible, (which I realise you don't go along with), the policitally active religious nutters put Jesus on a cross. That is not to say that all religious politicians are nutters, but there is something very unwholesome about mixing religion and power. It would be far better if we all made God the president of the world (that should get your wheels rolling).

Hey so what about the religious nutters that said "Thou shalt worship this" and burned and smashed pagan and celtic belief *ahem* idea systems?

Yes. But for you to say that is not a scientific statement, its a personal opinion. Science cannot declare whether there is or is not meaning in the universe. Not because we arent clever enough yet, but because it is not the area that science studies. In the same way science cant analyise the mona lisa to objectivly prove how beautiful a piece of art it is, so it cannot prove if there is any objective meaning in the universe

I am well aware of that, the more intresting question is not wether or not there is a meaning to it all, but why we care if there is a reason or not

If it is an uncertainty principle how can anyone be certain of it?

See the last paragraph of my post.

See the last paragraph of my post.
See posts 766 763 760 and 757

Seeing some posts on this forum, one can never be sure when someone is serious.

Seeing some posts on this forum, one can never be sure when someone is serious.
Fair point

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

It makes religious people no less smarter than scientific people.

Let's take things as they stand.

No one knows whether there is or isn't a God.
Religion is one possible option in billions of others to explain every little minute thing in this universe.

You have stated that people who choose to believe the scientific are "dumber" because they have not chosen that one path, which, you have also stated, explains the Universe. (quote)They know everything(unquote). :D

No they f*cking don't. Nobody knows whether they are wrong or right. What religion is, is a theory, as there is no substantial evidence to back it up. Just like the big bang is a theory, or the theory of relativity.

Therefore, your hypothosis of religion being correct under these terms is invalid. I would have felt more respect for that post if it had stated that Moses must have parted the sea because it says so in the Bible.

Anyone who follows science AS their religion is dumb, I do agree with you on that point. Because science is about theories, questioning all possibilities, and attempting to find the most logical and likely answer to a question.

Whereas religion is something you believe in, and do not question, or seek to pry apart and see whether it is true or false.

In my opinion, I don't think there should be any debate over whether science or religion is right (or holds the key to the meaning of life or how the universe was created or yaddayaddayadda) because to my mind they are two completely different things.

The meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42
Can you prove it isn't?

And with that, it is my turn to bow out and go and do some actual work this afternoon.

But the drive to assign a meaning to anything is purely a human thing, it's hard to accept things happen for no reason for some people, it seems, this reluctance, or downright refusal to even entertain that there is no meaning to it all is odd for me, it's odd & illogical
Things happening "for no reason" is not the same thing as having "no meaning." Everything has meaning to a conscious individual, the illogical stance is to claim that there is no meaning.

Things happening "for no reason" is not the same thing as having "no meaning." Everything has meaning to a conscious individual, the illogical stance is to claim that there is no meaning.

Ilogical in what sense?

No they f*cking don't. Nobody knows whether they are wrong or right. What religion is, is a theory, as there is no substantial evidence to back it up. Just like the big bang is a theory, or the theory of relativity.

Therefore, your hypothosis of religion being correct under these terms is invalid. I would have felt more respect for that post if it had stated that Moses must have parted the sea because it says so in the Bible.

Anyone who follows science AS their religion is dumb, I do agree with you on that point. Because science is about theories, questioning all possibilities, and attempting to find the most logical and likely answer to a question.
1. Religion is not a theory.
2. There is a hell of a lot of evidence to support both the big bang and the theory of relativity.

Yes. But for you to say that is not a scientific statement, its a personal opinion. Science cannot declare whether there is or is not meaning in the universe. Not because we arent clever enough yet, but because it is not the area that science studies. In the same way science cant analyise the mona lisa to objectivly prove how beautiful a piece of art it is, so it cannot prove if there is any objective meaning in the universe
Even if science did one day define and develop a model to predict opinion, it would be irrelevant to religion. In fact, this whole approach is quite irrelevant (tried it myself, once, until I realised that it's nothing but a materialistic trap). The world of meaning and significance exists apart from the material regardless of whether it is defined by the tools of science, and if science should ever tred there it would not change the meaning one iota.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

Okay, very few people have actually said they don't belieive in God. I beleive in evolution but I still beleive there is a God. I just can't beleive anything writen in the bible because it was writen by man. To say that people that prefere science to religion are all atheists is wrong.

Nobody knows whether they are wrong or right. What religion is, is a theory, as there is no substantial evidence to back it up. Just like the big bang is a theory, or the theory of relativity.
Religion is not a theory. Religion is a relationship.

The story of creation is God's relationship with the world. The elements of creation are in relationship with each other. God created us in relationship with him, with the world, and with each other.

Religion is not a theory. Religion is a relationship.

The story of creation is God's relationship with the world. The elements of creation are in relationship with each other. God created us in relationship with him, with the world, and with each other.

Religion isn't a relationship, it's a conviction of an idea

Ilogical in what sense?
Consciousness is our sense of awareness of things internal and external to our minds. When we are conscious of things we recognize shapes, colours, patterns, textures, we recognize sounds, feelings, thoughts ... each attibute of characteristic that a thing can have is a part of its meaning to us. Some we will "like" and some "dislike", some we will assign the meaning of "danger" to and others "love" or "hope". To deny meaning is as illogical as denying consciousness itself.

Religion isn't a relationship, it's a conviction of an idea
Well, we have a difference of opinion on that.

Consciousness is our sense of awareness of things internal and external to our minds. When we are conscious of things we recognize shapes, colours, patterns, textures, we recognize sounds, feelings, thoughts ... each attibute of characteristic that a thing can have is a part of its meaning to us. Some we will "like" and some "dislike", some we will assign the meaning of "danger" to and others "love" or "hope". To deny meaning is as illogical as denying consciousness itself.

Your argument is flawed, because i was talking about the meaning of life, wether or not there is a specific reason for our existance and some people's requirement to believe there is one.

Religion isn't a relationship, it's a conviction of an idea

But only from the outside - from the inside, I don't think it's even a 'religion' - it's simply appears to the believers as a relationship with their god (speaking about the christian perspective, and likely jewish/islam, the 3 being tight that way).

Your argument is flawed, because i was talking about the meaning of life, wether or not there is a specific reason for our existance and some people's requirement to believe there is one.
Yes, so was I. Life is a thing.

The only meaning there is comes from us, for us. I would stand beside you opposing those who say otherwise.

Religion is not a theory. Religion is a relationship.

The story of creation is God's relationship with the world. The elements of creation are in relationship with each other. God created us in relationship with him, with the world, and with each other.

ah, but you have no scientific proof of that :P

That is your belief.
"The story of creation is God's relationship with the world if you believe in it." However, it's kind of difficult to state that as a fact, as we don't know it for a fact. You believe that it is fact.

"God created us in relationship with him, with the world, and with each other."
See above point.

"Religion is a relationship." Yet to be proved as fact.

ah, but you have no scientific proof of that :P

That is your belief.
"The story of creation is God's relationship with the world if you believe in it." However, it's kind of difficult to state that as a fact, as we don't know it for a fact. You believe that it is fact.

"God created us in relationship with him, with the world, and with each other."
See above point.

"Religion is a relationship." Yet to be proved as fact.
No, it is not my belief, but the Christian belief. It is a restating of the creation myth.

It needs no scientific proof to sustain it, nor is it a falsehood of any kind.

1. Religion is not a theory.
2. There is a hell of a lot of evidence to support both the big bang and the theory of relativity.

1. It is not proved to be fact. It deals with the theories of evolution and creation (albeit bluntly). So, completely cut to the bone, cutting major corners (and said with my bitch cap on), you COULD suggest that religion is a theory of life and creation.
2. I know. Which is why I feel, personally, science holds more of a truth than religion, and therefore (I am talking personally!!!! :D) religion is more the theory.

1. It is not proved to be fact. It deals with the theories of evolution and creation (albeit bluntly). So, completely cut to the bone, cutting major corners (and said with my bitch cap on), you COULD suggest that religion is a theory of life and creation.
2. I know. Which is why I feel, personally, science holds more of a truth than religion, and therefore (I am talking personally!!!! :D) religion is more the theory.
1. No, a theory has to make falsifiable and testable predictions, religion does not do that.

1. It is not proved to be fact. It deals with the theories of evolution and creation (albeit bluntly). So, completely cut to the bone, cutting major corners (and said with my bitch cap on), you COULD suggest that religion is a theory of life and creation...

I think that's too blunt a blade to be useful, though!

Modern religion in general deals with the whys of creation, the how isn't that important. With science, it's the other way round.

But they have very different epistomologies (world views) _within_ their respective domains, which is why people fight about them.

No, it is not my belief, but the Christian belief. It is a restating of the creation myth.

It needs no scientific proof to sustain it, nor is it a falsehood of any kind.

I am not calling it false. And you are right, it does need no proof to sustain it. That's what I'm saying. The Bible holds beliefs, not proof. So it cannot be surmised that religion has the upper hand over science. That's all I'm trying to say. I am not arguing that they are false beliefs. Just that none of us are sure. And science attempts to rationalize. But not that religion and spirituality is a bad thing for the individual.

1. No, a theory has to make falsifiable and testable predictions, religion does not do that.

Religion solely depends on one's conviction to exist

1. It is not proved to be fact. It deals with the theories of evolution and creation (albeit bluntly). So, completely cut to the bone, cutting major corners (and said with my bitch cap on), you COULD suggest that religion is a theory of life and creation.
2. I know. Which is why I feel, personally, science holds more of a truth than religion, and therefore (I am talking personally!!!! :D) religion is more the theory.

Then you are insulting the term "Theory" ;) At most, you can call religion a hypothesis. For it to qualify for the title "scientific theory" it needs to withstand many tests designed to prove it nonsense. (Contrary to popular belief science does NOT work by proving things right - a method which is very vulnerable to bias and tunnelvision. Instead, it proves lots of things wrong and sometimes encounters something which withstands every test)

Since most religious beliefs can by their very nature not be tested, it will never reach the Theory title.

Important to note: this does not mean that religion is "wrong". It just means that the scientific method cannot be applied to it.

"Religion is a relationship." Yet to be proved as fact.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT

People who think that religion can be analyised using scinentific method, and can be proven wrong or right in the same way as other science. IT CANT. Proving God's existance scientificly is the same as proving something is beautiful scientificly. You cant do it. And its not because we dont have science advanced enough yet. Its because science doesnt examine that area.

Difference between Religion and Science:


Religion took the world into the Dark Ages

Science brought the world out of the Dark Ages

Religion solely depends on one's conviction to exist

Got it in one!

Along with racism, charity, NS, weddings etc etc. you need people doing them before they exist.

Difference between Religion and Science:


Religion took the world into the Dark Ages

Science brought the world out of the Dark Ages

This really, _really_ annoys me - not out of religion, but because it's bad history. Limit yourself to what you know - you clearly have no background of this time period.

Religion took the world into the Dark Ages

Science brought the world out of the Dark Ages

Science brought the world the nuclear bomb

Religion brought the world the message not to use it

We could go on like this, making irrelevent and ill-expalined points, or you could look into the debate for what it is.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT

People who think that religion can be analyised using scinentific method, and can be proven wrong or right in the same way as other science. IT CANT. Proving God's existance scientificly is the same as proving something is beautiful scientificly. You cant do it. And its not because we dont have science advanced enough yet. Its because science doesnt examine that area.


Ahhh, but you're attempting to discredit science because it's unwilling to allow that God created the world and gives that world purpose...

Science is not on a witch hunt. Science is on a search for empirical truths. Something Religion does not do and does not like having done to it's faith-based concepts. How can one have faith in God's ultimate ability to create the Universe and all of us if science proves it to not be the way it happened? That would effectively kill the entire Christian religion (and lets not kid ourselves, that's the one that we're really discussing here...I dont see muslims and buddhists protesting to have ID put into school books...), would it not?

I mean, how can you believe in God if he didnt create the universe - for centuries, Religion has claimed that since Science cant prove God didnt create the universe, God must have created the universe and thus must exist...This is a basic premise of the Christian faith while it completely takes advantage of the scientific community's inability to disprove the presence of a greater being. This is exactly why the Christian fundies fight so hard against any theories of creation other than their own...

Prove to me the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesnt exist. We see the effects of her presence (socks missing, etc.) so she must exist. That's the exact same belief system the Christians want the world to use... "Well, this is unexplained to the common-man, must've been God's handiwork."

Science brought the world the nuclear bomb

Religion brought the world the message not to use it

We could go on like this, making irrelevent and ill-expalined points, or you could look into the debate for what it is.

ROFL...

Science brought us the message not to use it, not just Religion...or did you not pay attention in history class?

Elgesh']This really, _really_ annoys me - not out of religion, but because it's bad history. Limit yourself to what you know - you clearly have no background of this time period.


Religion took us into the Dark Ages by claiming all unexplainable phenomena were attributable to God and / or The Devil...

While not entirely responsible for the Dark Ages, Religion played a major role in the slide of the European world into the Dark Ages and also quite responsible for the length of time the Dark Ages persisted through the squashing of scientific theories that didnt coincide with what the Roman Catholic Church wanted everyone to believe...

Religion solely depends on one's conviction to exist
I thought existence was a given.

I thought existence was a given.

I exist because I believe I exist? Or, I believe I exist because I exist?

Difference between Religion and Science:


Religion took the world into the Dark Ages

Science brought the world out of the Dark Ages
Religion is Soylent Green.

Elgesh']Got it in one!

Along with racism, charity, NS, weddings etc etc. you need people doing them before they exist.
Hmm... let's see. Of your examples we have a bias, a concept, a bulletin board and an event. Which of these actually fits your statement?

Ahhh, but you're attempting to discredit science because it's unwilling to allow that God created the world and gives that world purpose...

Science is not on a witch hunt. Science is on a search for empirical truths. Something Religion does not do and does not like having done to it's faith-based concepts. How can one have faith in God's ultimate ability to create the Universe and all of us if science proves it to not be the way it happened? That would effectively kill the entire Christian religion (and lets not kid ourselves, that's the one that we're really discussing here...I dont see muslims and buddhists protesting to have ID put into school books...), would it not?

I mean, how can you believe in God if he didnt create the universe - for centuries, Religion has claimed that since Science cant prove God didnt create the universe, God must have created the universe and thus must exist...This is a basic premise of the Christian faith while it completely takes advantage of the scientific community's inability to disprove the presence of a greater being. This is exactly why the Christian fundies fight so hard against any theories of creation other than their own...

Prove to me the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesnt exist. We see the effects of her presence (socks missing, etc.) so she must exist. That's the exact same belief system the Christians want the world to use... "Well, this is unexplained to the common-man, must've been God's handiwork."
I don't think he is attempting to discredit science at all, merely to point out that it does not examine the immaterial or the nonliteral: opinion, metaphor, interpretation and association (meaning). The scientific method uses empirical observation, mathematics, extrapolation and deduction. Meaning is often irrelevant.

They are polar, in a sense, but I would not go so far as to declare them opposites; opposites tend to cancel each other out or be mutually exclusive. In the same way "love" and "hate" are not opposites, it being entirely possible to both love something and hate it at the same time. The opposite of any emotional state is calm.

"How can one have faith in God's ultimate ability to create the Universe and all of us if science proves it to not be the way it happened?" I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the position that Neo Danube has taken. Religious text is not to be interpreted literally; the spiritual message in the book is what is religion, not the narrative.

I exist because I believe I exist? Or, I believe I exist because I exist?
More like, I believe I exist because I am conscious.

Also - I think you are making biased estimates about the level of knowledge our ancestors may have had... try looking up Babylonian impact on math, sometime.

(And, then bear in mind that the Hebrews spent a while attending Babylonian schools).

Wow a lot has been posted since last night, so I'm not going to read it all.

But no, I am not making biased estimates. Try reading a book about Pi that gives a history of its approximations. Pi: A Biography of the World's Most Mysterious Number (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591022002/102-5045899-4515329?v=glance&n=283155) is a good one. It talks specifically about this, actually.

Hmm... let's see. Of your examples we have a bias, a concept, a bulletin board and an event. Which of these actually fits your statement?

All of them. Without people, they don't exist. 'Religion' is a social concept - without people, it couldn't exist. The god you worship _through_ religion (whichever god/religion you're talking about) would exist indepentently of people, though.

I don't think he is attempting to discredit science at all, merely to point out that it does not examine the immaterial or the nonliteral: opinion, metaphor, interpretation and association (meaning). The scientific method uses empirical observation, mathematics, extrapolation and deduction. Meaning is often irrelevant.

They are polar, in a sense, but I would not go so far as to declare them opposites; opposites tend to cancel each other out or be mutually exclusive. In the same way "love" and "hate" are not opposites, it being entirely possible to both love something and hate it at the same time. The opposite of any emotional state is calm.

"How can one have faith in God's ultimate ability to create the Universe and all of us if science proves it to not be the way it happened?" I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the position that Neo Danube has taken. Religious text is not to be interpreted literally; the spiritual message in the book is what is religion, not the narrative.

So the idea of God's ability to create the world and give us purpose is not supposed to be taken literally? Or was that idea the spiritual belief behind the beginning of Genesis...

So, are you saying God didnt literally create the universe?

More like, I believe I exist because I am conscious.

How do I know you're conscious? I've seen very convincing chat bots that claim to be conscious. For all I know you could just be a bit more convincing but just as unconscious and therefore, maybe not real.

Religion took us into the Dark Ages by claiming all unexplainable phenomena were attributable to God and / or The Devil...

While not entirely responsible for the Dark Ages, Religion played a major role in the slide of the European world into the Dark Ages and also quite responsible for the length of time the Dark Ages persisted through the squashing of scientific theories that didnt coincide with what the Roman Catholic Church wanted everyone to believe...

No, it didn't. The Dark ages were the result of the breakdown of Roman hegemony due to social and economic factors. What replaced it was a largely illiterate (even amongst the elite of the new order - as late as the 800s! Charlemagne himself had to have help to sign his name, by all accounts), fragmented group of societies.

During the dark ages (a misnomer, due to the cultural innovations and thought that went on during this time, but lets bypass that) christianity kept alive much of the old romano-greek knowledge and learning in western europe - churchmen and monks were among the only literate folk at the time.

The time period you're talking about is the late middle ages at best, or perhaps the early renaissance, 750-1000 years later! The Roman Catholic Church didn't even accrue the powers you're talking about until the late 10th and early 11th C. at the earliest (and even then, this influence existed in potentia rather than in reality - bit of counterfactualism, but there you go!).

Bash the church for progress-retardation, you're right, but don't give us this Dark Ages bit, or pretend that there were never any positive benefits in learning and education to come from religion because it suits you! I'm sorry I'm leaping down your throat, but this is the 4th time I've seen a post like this lately :)

Bloody hell, I left this thread on page 16 last night and when I come back it's got to 56 pages!!! Don't you people have homes to go to?:eek:

Elgesh']All of them. Without people, they don't exist. 'Religion' is a social concept - without people, it couldn't exist. The god you worship _through_ religion (whichever god/religion you're talking about) would exist indepentently of people, though.
Ah, I see you were referring to the 'community' of NS here, not the physical board... Yes, concepts (bias, charity, marriage, community, etc.) are human constructs, and some religious people's concept of god is of a thing apart from us that would survive us. Certainly God (the Judeo-Christian one) is one.

"Religion solely depends on one's conviction to exist." I misread it at first, and by the time I realised the abiguity it was too late. We're on the same page, now.

So the idea of God's ability to create the world and give us purpose is not supposed to be taken literally? Or was that idea the spiritual belief behind the beginning of Genesis...

So, are you saying God didnt literally create the universe?
That is my stance, yes. I am a student of mythology.

How do I know you're conscious? I've seen very convincing chat bots that claim to be conscious. For all I know you could just be a bit more convincing but just as unconscious and therefore, maybe not real.
Does it matter? :)

If you know you're conscious, that should be enough. You can extrapolate from there, and form logical deductions.

Gents, I'd love to stay and debate more...however, I have a Dr's appt to check up on my knee and then therapy and work...Perhaps we can continue at a future...

I wasn't responding to you.
Sorry for keeping you up but it was your choice. I didn't point a gun at your head or anything and make you stay.


Originally Posted by Tartare
My experience with fransicans, and a friend's with jesuits was that they value education and reason, and an actually examined faith. I guess I should admit that while I largely consider myself an atheist, I've internalized plenty of ethical codes from the more liberal side of the Catholic Church, but it was going to a catholic university with those franciscan friars that led me to a real questioning of the basis of my supposed faith, my realization that that basis was common to all religions, and my final conclusion that the commoness of that basis likely said more about human beings than it did about the posited divine.



all-in-all, I remain sympathetic to the catholic teaching orders even while I have become overtly hostile to Rome, and religion in general.

for what it's worth.




Today, 12:43 PM #570
Armistria

I'm sorry: I've been away for eleven hours! Correct me if I'm wrong but who said anything about Catholicism? I made this point way earlier on like page 16...


I'm sorry, what with the quote I figured you were responding to me...

Gents, I'd love to stay and debate more...however, I have a Dr's appt to check up on my knee and then therapy and work...Perhaps we can continue at a future...

see you anon - sorry I joined the party late - and hope your appointments go well and your work swiftly!

Bloody hell, I left this thread on page 16 last night and when I come back it's got to 56 pages!!! Don't you people have homes to go to?:eek:
Yes, ones with computers. ;)

Ahhh, but you're attempting to discredit science because it's unwilling to allow that God created the world and gives that world purpose...

No I'm not. I am just reaffirming science place. Science is to study and understand the natural. God is supernatural. The notion of a God or of some meaning to the univerese (with or without a God) is one that is purley philosophical. I'm not out to discredit scinece by saying it cant examine God or univieral meaning, any more than it would be discrediting religion to say that it cant explain celluar mitosis.

The reason I ignored the rest of your post is that it is irrelvent to the arguement

Ah, I see you were referring to the 'community' of NS here, not the physical board... Yes, concepts (bias, charity, marriage, community, etc.) are human constructs, and some religious people's concept of god is of a thing apart from us that would survive us. Certainly God (the Judeo-Christian one) is one.

"Religion solely depends on one's conviction to exist." I misread it at first, and by the time I realised the abiguity it was too late. We're on the same page, now.

No worries! I should have posted less ambiguously anyway :)

Does it matter? :)

If you know you're conscious, that should be enough. You can extrapolate from there, and form logical deductions.

Sure it matters! (Theoretically. :P)

I mean, I know I'm conscious, but what if the entire world is basically a hallucination or extension of my own consciousness? There is no real way to verify that anyone *else* is conscious in light of a potentially evil omnipotent being controlling everything.

Meh. I hate philosophy. That was my bit for the day.

Sure it matters! (Theoretically. :P)

I mean, I know I'm conscious, but what if the entire world is basically a hallucination or extension of my own consciousness?
Let me ask you this: does anything change about your existence or the world you've constructed about yourself if it is?

There is no real way to verify that anyone *else* is conscious in light of a potentially evil omnipotent being controlling everything.

Meh. I hate philosophy. That was my bit for the day.
lol

I love philosophy; unfortunately, I'm just not very good at it. ;)

Elgesh']No, it didn't. The Dark ages were the result of the breakdown of Roman hegemony due to social and economic factors. What replaced it was a largely illiterate (even amongst the elite of the new order - as late as the 800s! Charlemagne himself had to have help to sign his name, by all accounts), fragmented group of societies.

During the dark ages (a misnomer, due to the cultural innovations and thought that went on during this time, but lets bypass that) christianity kept alive much of the old romano-greek knowledge and learning in western europe - churchmen and monks were among the only literate folk at the time.

The time period you're talking about is the late middle ages at best, or perhaps the early renaissance, 750-1000 years later! The Roman Catholic Church didn't even accrue the powers you're talking about until the late 10th and early 11th C. at the earliest (and even then, this influence existed in potentia rather than in reality - bit of counterfactualism, but there you go!).

Bash the church for progress-retardation, you're right, but don't give us this Dark Ages bit, or pretend that there were never any positive benefits in learning and education to come from religion because it suits you! I'm sorry I'm leaping down your throat, but this is the 4th time I've seen a post like this lately :)

Just for the record, I dont particularly hate Religion...I mean, besides my own personal experiences with the whole 'opiate for the masses' and 'crutch for the weakminded' bits (not me, but for family and friends...).

There have been progresses made due to religion, however, I think science quite thoroughly thrashes religion in that arena and I believe Religion takes more credit than is due. I have serious issues with people blindly believing what Religion says they should believe and even denying the truth of scientific discovery because it doesnt support what Religion has been preaching (evolution, orbits of the planets, etc). I mean, is God so afraid that science will prove he doesnt exist or isnt as powerful as he claims that he must promote and endorse the persecution of scientists [doesnt happen so much today as it used to, but then, the world (and most Gov'ts) today is quite less religiously oriented than it used to be, so religion has less power over the masses...]?

Today, 12:43 PM #570
Armistria

I'm sorry: I've been away for eleven hours! Correct me if I'm wrong but who said anything about Catholicism? I made this point way earlier on like page 16...


I'm sorry, what with the quote I figured you were responding to me...

It's okay! I've made plenty of mistakes if you care to look back over my posts (although I doubt anyone would bother!). At one stage I wrote that Nikkil was a 'he' which would be pretty insulting for a girl...

Bloody hell, I left this thread on page 16 last night and when I come back it's got to 56 pages!!! Don't you people have homes to go to?:eek:

I remember you! And this thread isn't that long. Some of them have several thousand posts.

Wow, Wilamenna you have been busy while I was away!

Science doesn't explain everything. Religion (god, gods, nymps, spirits ghosts, leprechauns, etc) explains nothing factually. It's just a bunch of stories, people made up to explain phenomena they don't understand or to be used as a psychological crutch to help them through situations that are beyond their control.

I have serious issues with people blindly believing what Religion says they should believe and even denying the truth of scientific discovery because it doesnt support what Religion has been preaching (evolution, orbits of the planets, etc).

Any sane person would!

My beef is with folk misrepresenting history to fit their pattern, for whatever reason they have, which is why I was all aggressive - apologies!

I think we're debating too simplistically though.

'Religion bashes...' 'But science proves...'

Those in power use the dominant epistomology of the day to _stay_ in power and direct events in a way favourable to them. Scanning the posts, including mine, you'd be forgiven for thinking that worldviews have consciousnesses of their own...:eek:

For a long time, it was most convenient for those in power to use religion. I'm not certain what they use now - eugenics was used, very breifly, in some countries early in the 20th C.... Globalisation, perhaps? 'We must move with the times, despite any of your reasoned objections based on welfare or the environment or condoning economic slavery...'

I remember you! And this thread isn't that long. Some of them have several thousand posts.

No but I was commenting on the speed at which it had grown, I don't remember one that grew this quickly since that abortion thread.

Elgesh']For a long time, it was most convenient for those in power to use religion. I'm not certain what they use now - eugenics was used, very breifly, in some countries early in the 20th C.... Globalisation, perhaps? 'We must move with the times, despite any of your reasoned objections based on welfare or the environment or condoning economic slavery...'
Fear. :(

Except in Canada! Yay ;)

Fear. :(

Except in Canada! Yay ;)

Oh, yeah, that's a good one - but it's always been used, really... Except in the land of the beaver and cod, apparently....(often wondered about that phrase...:p)

Difference between Religion and Science:


Religion took the world into the Dark Ages

Science brought the world out of the Dark Ages

I don't like that statement as it's a rather loaded one (eventhough i'm inclined to believe religion took a big part in the dark ages, it's not the sole responsible)

I prefer to look at it this way:

What of the following statements is the most logical/simple:

A being created the universe
The universe always existed in some form

Said supreme being always existed
The material in the universe always existed in some form or another

Said supreme being is intelligent and capable of creating lifeforms
Chemical & electrical interaction between source material created lifeforms

Science brought the world the nuclear bomb

Religion brought the world the message not to use it

We could go on like this, making irrelevent and ill-expalined points, or you could look into the debate for what it is.

Actually i think it's common sense, science (we now know the dangers of radioactive pollution) and morals make us not use it ;)

I thought existence was a given.

If nobody believes in religion, does it exist then?
I'm not talking about our own existance

Religion is Soylent Green.

Hmmm.... I thought Soylant Green was people?

Hmm... let's see. Of your examples we have a bias, a concept, a bulletin board and an event. Which of these actually fits your statement?

All of them, they exist solely because the human mind created them. If no-one is a rascist, would rascism exist?

I don't like that statement as it's a rather loaded one (eventhough i'm inclined to believe religion took a big part in the dark ages, it's not the sole responsible)



Errrghhhh!!!! <head explodes! :p>

I remember you! And this thread isn't that long. Some of them have several thousand posts.

Give us time, we'll get there :D

Elgesh']Errrghhhh!!!! <head explodes! :p>

*Takes vaciumcleaner & starts collecting the pieces*

Sorry, i didn't remember that much about those days from history classes, really should read up on them some time again

This is a pointless debate.

Science is about the "what" in life. Religion is about the "why". Religious principles were not meant to explain the objective; they are inherently subjective, and that is their value to humanity. Likewise, science cannot provide meaning for any entity it measures, since its success is dependent upon the absence of bias. Meaning implies predisposition and bias.

Science and religion are in no way mutually exclusive. We must all simply recognize the true nature and purpose of each. Anytime someone attempts to mix or confuse the two, there will be fruitless arguments.

My 0.02.

I don't like that statement as it's a rather loaded one (eventhough i'm inclined to believe religion took a big part in the dark ages, it's not the sole responsible)

I prefer to look at it this way:

What of the following statements is the most logical/simple:

A being created the universe
The universe always existed in some form

Said supreme being always existed
The material in the universe always existed in some form or another

Said supreme being is intelligent and capable of creating lifeforms
Chemical & electrical interaction between source material created lifeforms

I don't know enough dark-age history to comment on this so I'll leave that for those better informed that me. For your three statements though:

1. The latter.
2. The latter.
3. The latter.

I suspect you're trying to use Occam's Razor here.

I don't know enough dark-age history to comment on this so I'll leave that for those better informed that me. For your three statements though:

1. The latter.
2. The latter.
3. The latter.

I suspect you're trying to use Occam's Razor here.

Yea, and if that fails i'll switch to Gilette :p

Yea, and if that fails i'll switch to Gilette :p

You fiend! Will nobody think of the children?:eek:

You fiend! Will nobody think of the children?:eek:You mean: Will nobody think of the bunnywabbits?

Hmmm.... I thought Soylant Green was people?
Just so.

Just so.

What movie is that from anyway? I remember it had William Shatner in it, but can't recall the name of the movie (or book)

What movie is that from anyway? I remember it had William Shatner in it, but can't recall the name of the movie (or book)
This one maybe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/)


Edit: My link's better! Nananah!

What movie is that from anyway? I remember it had William Shatner in it, but can't recall the name of the movie (or book)
Soylent Green (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009NHBM/qid=1134504352/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-9696654-5404817) was based on a novel of the same name by Harry Harrison.

Soylent Green (http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009NHBM/qid=1134504352/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-9696654-5404817) was based on a novel of the same name by Harry Harrison.

You'd think i'd have remembered that :p

This one maybe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/)


Edit: My link's better! Nananah!
Well, mine you can buy from. :p

The power to own it yourself!

You know, i kinda expected more reactions to this by now....

What of the following statements is the most logical/simple:

A being created the universe
The universe always existed in some form

Said supreme being always existed
The material in the universe always existed in some form or another

Said supreme being is intelligent and capable of creating lifeforms
Chemical & electrical interaction between source material created lifeforms

Well, mine you can buy from. :p

The power to own it yourself!Ah yes, but see even there I have you beat. My link explains all there is to know about the movie, and doesn't offer you any easy way to obtain it.

Thus tempting you to download a pirated copy :D

Arrr!! Come sail the seven digital seas with me lad ;)

You know, i kinda expected more reactions to this by now....Really?

You shouldn't have. Anyone with just a few years of education can see that Gilette will either shave them much too close for comfort, if they answer yes to the fist of each.

Ah yes, but see even there I have you beat. My link explains all there is to know about the movie, and doesn't offer you any easy way to obtain it.

Thus tempting you to download a pirated copy :D

Arrr!! Come sail the seven digital seas with me lad ;)
Haha! Too late, I already be a pirate 6 months going.

To have and to hold (it in your hands), that's what they say.



EDIT: Not a pirate of music or movies, but a puzzle pirate.

You know, i kinda expected more reactions to this by now....
*psst* No one is actually reading this thread anymore, but us.

*psst* No one is actually reading this thread anymore, but us.

Grrr... And i hoped to get to page 100 by tomorrow :mad:

You're welcome, i must say i really enjoyed this thread, and your posts are truly a gem to read

My thanks, friend. :)

Like I said you might feel fulfilled for a while: i.e. during your own lifetime but when you die it'll all fade away.

When you die, EVERYTHING fades away...

If you believe otherwise, and expect it to be taken as 'fact'... some proof would be nice.

It's the same both ways. Science cannot disprove God's existance, nor can science prove God's existance.

Which makes religious people ultimately smarter. The Universe is already explained. They know everything. Science can't explain everything. Which means anyone who follows science is ultimately dumber, since everything is not explained.

Science is the new religion guys. The problem with science is that it's just as bad as the Catholic church was in the 1400s. Science is on a witch-hunt, and their target is Religion.

(and this is coming from an atheist... oh god, what's the world coming to...)

you are psychotic. Science is the new religion? Science is not a religion nor (i hope) ever will be. Well your not a very pronounced atheiest as you say this as though it was no problem and didn't pain you to see this going on around you. and i think your explination on why religous people are smarter is assinine. Religoin can explain everything except where god came from. Which is what religion stems from, God. So in your explanation you say Religion can prove everything through it's theories except god. Science can explain everything except where the matter that allowed the big bang to happen came from. They are both plauged by the same problems. it's a matter of what you believe in. And religous people are by no means smarter than non-religous people. The world happens to be coming to more people like you coming into power and it's really really sad.

Bias in terms of opinion. Well then that said anything can be biased. Anyway I've come across loads of people who have the same view of hell. Like at least I'll be in hell with all my friends. At least I'll 'feel' pain. The pain will never end. You will never numb to it. You'll want to stop 'feeling' but won't be able to. Who wants that?

I don't believe your 'hell' is scriptural.

Indeed, what I think you have, is Milton's vision... not the biblical one...

But, if you have sources that back up every word you say, I'd be glad to see them.

Maybe a little off the wall here, but I just got back from tutoring a student in freshman chemistry (he's got his final exam tomorrow afternoon and the poor kid's sweating bullets), and there was a sample question given by his professor that made me think of this thread.

I'm going all the way back to the original title of the thread, "science can't explain everything." The opposite assertion was that religion CAN explain everything. Thus, I'd like to see the religious explanation for the following:

A bruised apple will rot completely after four days if left at room temperature (20° C), but will take 16 days to rot completely if stored at 0°C.

Why?

I know already that there is a scientific explanation for this. I would like to see a religious explanation that will allow any one of us, regardless of belief or assumption, to determine how long it will take a bruised apple to rot completely at 12° C. The explanation must be completely religious in nature and must reveal something about the model of god that it involves that we can always rely upon the explanation, in other words.

Ready.
Set.
Go.

Aha... that's easy...

Some 'scientists' insist that things break-down of their own accord, due to physical and chemical interactions. They call these things putrefaction, decay, corrosion, entropy... etc.


But, these godless 'theories' just detract from the Spiritual Truth:

There is a force that 'governs' these interactions.

Now - some people attribute decay to the Christian God - citing Biblical verses as evidence that God 'causes' this breakdown:

"And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed" (Nehemiah 4:9-11);

"As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up" (Job 14:11);

"when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot" (Numbers 5:21);

"The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot" (Proverbs 10:7).


Others do not go as far as citing the necessity for a Biblical interpretation. These exponents stand on the platform of a theory known as Intelligent Decay... which asserts that the composition of an object cannot spontaneously undergo transformation into more base products... indeed, the chances of the universe suddenly turning into dust are astronomically small.

Thus, there MUST be some 'Intelligent Decayer', that causes all things to degenerate...

Alright, you atheists want to hear some scientific proof?

There's are a number of random parameters that exist in our universe and define how the laws of physics play themselves out, kind of like blanks in an online form.

For example, the gravitational constant, G, determines the strength of gravitational attraction throughout the universe. It is always equal to
6.67*10^-11. It turns out that if it was a little bit smaller, there wouldn't be enough gravity for stars/planets to form. If it was a bit bigger, then stars would suck planets in and incinerate them. It's the perfect value to produce planets, and thus, life.

A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).

Were the values chosen, or are we just really really lucky? Ockam's razor seems to suggest that the simpler explanation-that they were chosen-is the correct one.

Sure, it isn't exact proof, but then again, there is no exact proof of evolution either.

Alright, you atheists want to hear some scientific proof?


A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).



It's real simple. If the random chance of 1 in 10^(10^123) (or whatever number, it's irrelevant) hadn't occured we wouldn't be here.

Religion is Soylent Green.

Religion is made of people?

Wow a lot has been posted since last night, so I'm not going to read it all.

But no, I am not making biased estimates. Try reading a book about Pi that gives a history of its approximations. Pi: A Biography of the World's Most Mysterious Number (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591022002/102-5045899-4515329?v=glance&n=283155) is a good one. It talks specifically about this, actually.

Irrelevent.

The point you just made, that my response was to... was that numbers might be rounded, because earlier civilisations weren't so hot on fractions. (Unless I missed some subtext?)

It's just plain untrue... the Hebrews used a wealth of 'fractional' measurements... just NOT in this particular case.

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all


I've never claimed that science can explain everything. Can it explain the concept of love, of the look on a new born baby's face? No. It an explain evolution and other things, however. The meaning of these things is up to us as humanity.

It's one thing to kill in obedience to a direct command of God, quite another to kill for your own purposes.

<snip>
Okay, I'll need your address, because Jehovah has ordered me to kill you; it's apparently your time to go him and I'm the way he chose

Science doesn't explain everything. Religion (god, gods, nymps, spirits ghosts, leprechauns, etc) explains nothing factually. It's just a bunch of stories, people made up to explain phenomena they don't understand or to be used as a psychological crutch to help them through situations that are beyond their control.
hear, hear

Elgesh']Any sane person would!

My beef is with folk misrepresenting history to fit their pattern, for whatever reason they have, which is why I was all aggressive - apologies!

I think we're debating too simplistically though.

'Religion bashes...' 'But science proves...'

Those in power use the dominant epistomology of the day to _stay_ in power and direct events in a way favourable to them. Scanning the posts, including mine, you'd be forgiven for thinking that worldviews have consciousnesses of their own...:eek:

For a long time, it was most convenient for those in power to use religion. I'm not certain what they use now - eugenics was used, very breifly, in some countries early in the 20th C.... Globalisation, perhaps? 'We must move with the times, despite any of your reasoned objections based on welfare or the environment or condoning economic slavery...'

Currently the cry is 'Patriotism' or 'Defend ourselves from Terror' and has fallen back upon the 'Spread Democracy'

Edit: most often in the past it was religious reasons - to take back the 'holy land' or to rid the world of 'religion x'...

Alright, you atheists want to hear some scientific proof?

There's are a number of random parameters that exist in our universe and define how the laws of physics play themselves out, kind of like blanks in an online form.

For example, the gravitational constant, G, determines the strength of gravitational attraction throughout the universe. It is always equal to
6.67*10^-11. It turns out that if it was a little bit smaller, there wouldn't be enough gravity for stars/planets to form. If it was a bit bigger, then stars would suck planets in and incinerate them. It's the perfect value to produce planets, and thus, life.

A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).

Were the values chosen, or are we just really really lucky? Ockam's razor seems to suggest that the simpler explanation-that they were chosen-is the correct one.

Sure, it isn't exact proof, but then again, there is no exact proof of evolution either.

You could use the same argument to explain away the existence of lottery winners.

Second problem with this argument. In order for it to be valid, you have to compare it with something that is statistically more likely. So, tell me, how does one compute the odds of there being a God.

Tell you what, I bet you $5 that the universe exists, and you can bet me $5 that god exists. Guess which one of us will collect first?

Alright, you atheists want to hear some scientific proof?

There's are a number of random parameters that exist in our universe and define how the laws of physics play themselves out, kind of like blanks in an online form.

For example, the gravitational constant, G, determines the strength of gravitational attraction throughout the universe. It is always equal to
6.67*10^-11. It turns out that if it was a little bit smaller, there wouldn't be enough gravity for stars/planets to form. If it was a bit bigger, then stars would suck planets in and incinerate them. It's the perfect value to produce planets, and thus, life.

A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).

Were the values chosen, or are we just really really lucky? Ockam's razor seems to suggest that the simpler explanation-that they were chosen-is the correct one.

Sure, it isn't exact proof, but then again, there is no exact proof of evolution either.
And all this means fuck-all if you consider our universe to be part of a multiverse of millions upon billions of other universes.

And all this means fuck-all if you consider our universe to be part of a multiverse of millions upon billions of other universes.

Now now, that's a current conjecture, but as a theory it is not, as yet, very robust.

Now now, that's a current conjecture, but as a theory it is not, as yet, very robust.
It can't be made into a theory, we can't really observe outside our own universe. Hell, it's quite likely we don't even see anywhere near all of our universe...

I'm just saying it's possible that there's a multiverse out there full of universes that didn't quite pan out for life, or that panned out in such a way that they think a different set of constants are crucially important for the existence of galaxies/stars/planets/life that are completely different from what we need here.

Is that what that smiley means? Tired, like yawning?

Holy crap, I thought it meant you were doing the "Lion's Roar" technique from Kung Fu Hustle...

Don't dream of terrible, shattering insights, images and visions that shred your mind, and when you awake, you have Seen, and would die to unsee...
Thanks ... although i wouldn't (now) die to unsee, it is probably too late for me. *bows*

Actually i only recently realized about that orange smilie. I figured it meant that, or, "Jeez, the breathalyzer again? Okay, officer, if you insist .... *unzip*"
;)

I personally don't understand why these two ideas are against each other. I am currently on my way to becoming a evolutionary psychology grad student and I believe in god. But as far as not showing things factually. I think you mean empirically. Hume says that nothing can be proven as nothing is certain to happen, we simply assume it will. Descartes agrees and dude was a father of mathematics right. I don't know whether there's a god or not, I believe there is one, but I don't understand why so many people need proof that things are real. I can "prove" to you that a bee cannot fly and that a man cannot run a 4 minute mile using physiology. Dudes back in the day could "prove" that the earth was the center of the universe. I think Pascal got it right. Dude used math to prove why it made more sense to believe in god. (sorry if someone already brought this up) The costs to being wrong outweigh the costs to being right by an almost infinite amount here. So if you multiply your percent chance that god does exist by the difference between the reward and the punishment, you still end up with a sure thing in believing in god. So yeah, I can use statistics and math to prove that you should believe in god. Either way, why are you so worried about being right? If you are, then it shouldn't matter.

Miracles like that would be okay, although I'm leary of messing with the hearts of sentient beings (outside the Vivien Thomas/Alfred Blalock kind of thing). At least they wouldn't leave big Star Trek style "spacetime ruptures"...
Well, i'll elucidate ...
i've seen two very clear instances of what would be called "UFO sightings", firsthand, with witnesses .... but i would hardly call them miracles. They didn't un-harden my heart, but they certainly excited me, and made me feel pretty good that i was lucky enough to experience that with witnesses, all but one of whom were friends.
I've had many very peculiar circumstances of a phantasmal nature, most of the interesting ones also with witnesses/friends/loved ones, and i also don't feel they were miracles.
I think the only miracles i've experienced, by my definition, changed the way i look at things in a way that have basically made me a better person and more appreciative of the wonder of the things that are beyond my power, not in a bad way. There weren't very many, and they certainly didn't align me with any specific mass delusion of the populace by contract. More to the opposite, indeed.

I can "prove" to you that a bee cannot fly and that a man cannot run a 4 minute mile using physiology.

But then you would not be using the scientific method.

Dudes back in the day could "prove" that the earth was the center of the universe.

If they actually claimed they had "proven" it they were not real scientists.
A scientist aims to disprove wrong hypotheses through testing. This method never actually proves anything right - but it does find things that are damn hard to prove wrong.

A hypothesis that claims a bumblebee cannot fly is quite easily disproven. An earth-centered view of the universe works nicely for quite a while - but then it breaks down and is proven wrong. And replaced with something better - because science does not have a problem with being wrong. On the contrary even.

Most religions OTOH cannot survive adaptation and adjustment.

I think Pascal got it right. Dude used math to prove why it made more sense to believe in god. (sorry if someone already brought this up)

Pascals wager has been thoroughly debunked I fear..

:D

I'm not about to give up, grab my ball, and go home, yet. :)
Good thing, too.

I can "prove" to you that a bee cannot fly and that a man cannot run a 4 minute mile using physiology.

Actually, the bee can fly, based on it's physiology if one thinks of it's wings as propellers rather than wings. It's not the shaoe if the wings, but the shape of the vortex that the movement of the wings creates.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/28/MNGIKFV3FI1.DTL

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8382

and this

http://www.physorg.com/news8616.html

very interesting reading.

No my friend, it is you who do not understand.
Science can tell us things like how old a book is.
We can carbon date such items and get a fairly accurate idea of when this book was alive, (in tree form, or papyrus) and when it was altered from that state.
This can tell us that there isnt any way that it could be a true historical documentation of what the text actually claims to be.

In this way, science may not be able to tell us that god exists one way or the other, but it can tell us that the book is mistake, and probably innacurate.

You keep mentioning that science cannot analyse the supernatural.
Thats simply not true in all cases, and maybe you should read a bit about parapsychology, although personally, I wouldnt waste too much time on it.
The fact is, that while modern science doesnt usually examine such things, what it can do, is eliminate that wich is NOT supernatural.

Ghost hunters, for instance, or at least credible ones, will only assume some occurance or event is supernatural, when all other avenues have been exhausted.
This means, a thing isnt to be considered "supernatural", until it can be determined that no mundane explanation can be found.

If you believe texts of the bible to be evidence of god, then NOT to look for obvious errors on its part is the ultimate folly.
How on earth can a person WORSHIP something, that may be wrong?

"You have to take it on faith." ...thats answer most give.
But only if "faith" means "blind faith"

Its borderline insanity to think that "evidence" of god in text form, that claims to be an first hand account of a ressurection, may have been written 200 years after the vent.
This means that this book, is not only a first hand acount, its probably not even a second, third, or even fourth hand telling of the events, or.....the strong possibility exists, or it being entirely an elaboration, or fabricated, or exxagerated events.

So can science explain the supernatural?
Yes, sometimes, becuase it can clearly eliminate that wich is not.
WICKEDLY good post. *bows*

Okay, saying that somebody else has nothing fulfilling in their life because they don't have your religion is thick, putrid, pig-wretching feces.

I've met fulfilled people. I've watched people I love in my life spend 50 years in the study and preservation of human life, and they did it after they LEFT religion, and it brought them fulfillment.

If religion fulfills you, great. But don't think its the only fulfillment to be had.
My two cents on this (forgive my intrusion, per favore) are ....
i invite all y'all to the fulfillment one can experience by, on a winter's day/nacht much as this one, placing your cold belly up against the sneeze guard over the hot food tray at your local corporate grocers' store. For certain reasons of couth, i recommend at least ONE layer of clothing between the possibly hirsute, lumpy flesh and the place where little kids often place their faces and sticky hands in relatively innocent curiosity or indifference.


Mmmmm, makes me happy JUST THINKING about it. And i'm NOT kidding about that. :)

I think, that we all need something to believe? Without something to believe can we have hope? and i am speak for believing in everything here. Thens there is the question what is religlion, it not just a set of believes?

The reasion i believe in god is because i came to relise that i was heading for in life was wrong, for me. This opened me to faith to save myself.

How am i doing?
Well, i'm not mocking you in saying you're not doing bad as far as sticking in this thread this long.
You should know that no one, NO ONE else is responsible for your conscious decisions, as far as your soul is concerned. You are selling yourself short by thinking someone else's set of values and twists of phrase really did anything other than reinforce a decision to change YOURSELF, that you already made.
Again, i don't mock that. But you may find MANY people who will mock the idea that it was an artificial compendium of illegitimate conversations and absurdities that did all the work and that you would profess yourself the lesser of the two, even to the pathologically delusional sense.

Alright, you atheists want to hear some scientific proof?

There's are a number of random parameters that exist in our universe and define how the laws of physics play themselves out, kind of like blanks in an online form.Indeed? I was under the impression that that exact thing is the cause of quite a bit of debate these days. You have any sort of backing for that claim?For example, the gravitational constant, G, determines the strength of gravitational attraction throughout the universe. It is always equal to
6.67*10^-11. It turns out that if it was a little bit smaller, there wouldn't be enough gravity for stars/planets to form. If it was a bit bigger, then stars would suck planets in and incinerate them. It's the perfect value to produce planets, and thus, life.But is it the perfect value for creating universes? Pt. It looks like that isn't the case. Because the value seems to be just low enough that our universe will suffer heat-death.

Of vourse, if you veiw the perfect universe as one that will become increasingly devoid of contents & completely unable to sustain life, then that would be perfect. But that doesn't really coincide with the supposed will of any creator Gods I know of.A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).Not true. Or at least, not honest. We know almost nothing about the factors involved, and we have no basis for assigning a probability to them. Though you can approximate the equation (and yes, it has been done. More than once even), it's impossible to even speculate about the range of possible results.Were the values chosen, or are we just really really lucky? Ockam's razor seems to suggest that the simpler explanation-that they were chosen-is the correct one.Ah, but that's simply because you don't quite understand how Occam's Razor works. The universe is here. So what explanation can we propose that has the least amount of unknowns, and the least amount of unknowables? Applying Occam's Razor on Creator Gods is a merciless act. It's a regular reap fest. But lets see..
God did it: How did God do it? That's impossible to determine. What is God? That's impossible to determine. Where did God come from? That's impossible to determine - and so on & so forth.
We don't know yet: Well... We don't know yet. We may find out eventually, but we don't know right now.
Occam's Razor: Since Goddidit raises a ton of questions, and none - or practically none - of these new questions can be answered, it can't even be considered an answer. In fact, it excludes any possible answer.
The "We don't know" isn't an answer either, but it doesn't exclude any possibilities. Thus Occam's Razor kills the Creator yet again.Sure, it isn't exact proof, but then again, there is no exact proof of evolution either.Apart from the fabrications & the dishonest math, you managed to present a perfectly fine argument against there being a Creator God. Keep in mind, in a religious debate, it's usually rather unwise to invoke Occam's Razor, as it was in fact invented to disprove God. And it is rather good at it.
By the way, Occam's Razor doesn't say anything about the simplest explanation being the best. It doesn't work that way. It examines what the result of a proposition is. It's usually the same thing, but not always.

Maybe in life you will be fulfilled but according to my religion it won't last when you die.
Religion doesn't fulfil me, Jesus does. And if you feel fulfilled then good for you. But how do you know that other people are really fulfilled? Content, maybe for a while, but you can't read their thoughts. Maybe in life you will be fulfilled but according to my religion it won't last when you die.
DEATH:

(OED)
IRREVERSIBLE ending of life
a destruction or PERMANENT CESSATION
-
(Webster's)
END or destruction

Now, the crucial thing to keep in mind ... by the very ABSOLUTE DEFINITIONS of death, there isn't a lot of anything to discern that lasts about you AFTER YOU DIE, other than, i suppose, the disintegration of your body's constituent chemicals, and subsequent reordination of said constituents into the life absorbance cycle, thanks to worms and microbes and bacteria and, if you're lucky, maybe a little of you will go into another animal that was near enough to your passing to consume some of your leftovers. Ah, i'm invisioning a lion on a cliff, Elton John singing away (with his new betrothed beaming on grandly), Darth Vader lurking somewhere in the clouds .... uhm ...
Anyway, as i was saying, that's the whole thing of death. Not much redemption, at least in the empirical, evidenciary sense. Good thing the dictionaries are around to keep that clear, biased as they are *grr* ...
Less obtuse, i'd like to point out that on any other wager involving the words of people where they promise you your payoff after you're dead ... well, this might just be a *dangerous* f*cking world for the people quite so trusting.
Or the ones that have to deal with THEM.

The point you just made, that my response was to... was that numbers might be rounded, because earlier civilisations weren't so hot on fractions. (Unless I missed some subtext?)

It's just plain untrue... the Hebrews used a wealth of 'fractional' measurements... just NOT in this particular case.

Yes, they had fractional measurements. I never said they didn't. But it's a fact that "earlier civilizations weren't so hot on fractions." They may have had them, and sure the Babylonians used them, but they, along with essentially all of the ancient civilizations, definitely preferred using integers.

And now this is just my opinion, but I don't think they were really all that worried about showing off how accurate a value for pi they could get. Thirty cubits was good enough. "Hey guess what, the thing was huge" wouldn't have been that great. Saying that it was 30 cubits was actually something they could visualize.

Ahhh, Ockham's Razor. William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar, wasn't he? Poor guy kind of shot in himself in the foot with that Razor idea. I bet he's pissed with himself.

Ahhh, Ockham's Razor. William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar, wasn't he? Poor guy kind of shot in himself in the foot with that Razor idea. I bet he's pissed with himself.Really? I think he's quite happy with it. As far as I recall, the guy was sick & tired of fellow Christians who thought they could prove God. If memory serves, he firmly believed that the Bible explicitly told people not to look for God, but to have Faith. Indeed I thought that was the reason he thought up the Razor.

I could of course look it up, but it'll rob someone of the chance to correct me (if I'm wrong).

Atheists cannot bring about another holocaust. You seem to think that they have that power. They don't. The holocaust has been coming since the Fall of Man.
Ah yes, what a swarthy and pious post.
Are you one of the people who tries to make "sure" "it" happens?
And that it's all okie-dokie with you?

Really? I think he's quite happy with it. As far as I recall, the guy was sick & tired of fellow Christians who thought they could prove God. If memory serves, he firmly believed that the Bible explicitly told people not to look for God, but to have Faith. Indeed I thought that was the reason he thought up the Razor.

I could of course look it up, but it'll rob someone of the chance to correct me (if I'm wrong).

You may well be right. I admit I don't know all that much about the man, but apparently he was quite the thinker, though his Razor idea is the only one still in popular use. I might head down to library tomorrow and see if I can find a decent biography and explanation of all his ideas. Might help put Ockham's Razor into context.

He can never be unjust. That is what the Bible says about God. Does that mean he is limited. I suppose, if you want to see it that way. Does that mean he is not omnipotent? Not in my opinion. Omnipotent means that you have unlimited power. If you define doing what is wrong as a weakness, then why should God not be omnipotent simply because he cannot do a wrong. Omnipotent does not mean completely free of limitations. Otherwise you would end up saying that God is not free from having to exist. This is a dead end in logic. I think you need to revise what a working definition of omnipotent really is.
You were weaving in and out of some decent reason and then, perplexingly, you careened away from it with an ultimatum that other people need to redefine what a basic word means so it can suit your conception of an abstract model, incapable of demonstrable manifestation.
"Missed it by ... THAT much ...."

The *closest* thing to it so far that is demonstrable is the classic formula of conversion, E (energy) = M (mass) x C (Celeritas {Speed of light/Constant})^2 (squared, as in times itself as a value).
That is demonstrable. The things you're talking about are fancy, and more in the way of fantasies and delusions.


I should note, however, that the follow-up concerning Bell's Theorem are *VERY* interesting. That should turn out well.
EDIT .... and here's the maudlin part ... i guess i have the use of the knowledge of E=MC^2 as a frame of reference for success of Bell's Theorem .... :eek:

You may well be right. I admit I don't know all that much about the man, but apparently he was quite the thinker, though his Razor idea is the only one still in popular use. I might head down to library tomorrow and see if I can find a decent biography and explanation of all his ideas. Might help put Ockham's Razor into context.No need for that. I'll save you the trip & prove myself partially wrong in the process. That said, I think it's fair to assume the guy would've been happy with the way I just used it.

According to Occam, the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith.

About the guy (http://skepdic.com/occam.html)
On the principle (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html)
For the Occam Adicts (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Occam.html)

Also, I'd like to encourage Christians to try substituting the word God with the word Banana. It's often a great way to quickly determine if something actually explains anything - or just defies any attempt at an explanation.

Imagine the time before time, or a place beyond time, where God might live. He can see everything that will happen, nothing surprises him.

When he makes a soul, he can look into the future and see what choice it will make. Every so often, he makes a soul that he knows will reject repentance, and he will make it suffer for all time. He makes the soul anyway.

Puppies in microwaves.
Curiouser still is when said god neglects foreknowledge (prognostication) of its own actions, and find itself suffering from its own actions, as *MANY* of the versions of the Bible ACTUALLY say!!
*nudge*

No need for that. I'll save you the trip & prove myself partially wrong in the process. That said, I think it's fair to assume the guy would've been happy with the way I just used it.



About the guy (http://skepdic.com/occam.html)
On the principle (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html)
For the Occam Adicts (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Occam.html)

Also, I'd like to encourage Christians to try substituting the word God with the word Banana. It's often a great way to quickly determine if something actually explains anything - or just defies any attempt at an explanation.

Ahh, nice. Thanks! Should be an interesting read. Still, I'll probably go to the library, anyway. It's been too long since I visited the Great Place With Books.

Perhaps I could ask you to expand a little on your last sentence, just so I don't get you wrong. what exactly is the risk that you are referring to, and how am I giving unwavering belief to a concept of a dogma?
Certainly, you aren't the least bit *wary* with your post being #666 on this thread? :eek:

Ahh, nice. Thanks! Should be an interesting read. Still, I'll probably go to the library, anyway. It's been too long since I visited the Great Place With Books.Any time. And ... Libraries are great. At least; the ones with comics are :p

It's not as simple as puppies in microwaves. It's more like yes they will all pee. But instead you give them a choice. If before 100 pees they learn to go on the newspaper then you won;t microwave them...
Ah yes, the honor and integrity of power. Very much sensible that this line of thinking is pervasive in the current ruling Republican mentality.
:eek:

It's not as simple as puppies in microwaves. It's more like yes they will all pee. But instead you give them a choice. If before 100 pees they learn to go on the newspaper then you won;t microwave them..Oddly, if a human did that in my country, s/he'd be thrown in jail.

God really is an adorable guy, don't you think? One can't help but feel loved by someone who'd put you in such a bind.

As for competing with me for a job in science......just to demonstrate how irrelevant that is...I already have a job in science. Do you?
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Tell me you weren't APPOINTED there by that chimpf*ck Bush.
Tell me you actually EARNED a position of some kind of authority regarding work in a field that by its very nature requires suspension of personal delusions to the degree that a lot of Christian philosophy seems to demand.

Or ... are you saying you're a test experiment?

Any time. And ... Libraries are great. At least; the ones with comics are :p

Heh, I like libraries with crotchety old librarians. Last time I was there, I borrowed copies of the Qu'ran, the Bible (both Testaments), LaVey's Satanic Bible and a critical examination of Joseph Smith's life and claims. It was worth it for the looks I got from the librarians alone. They must spend years honing that withering, but guilt-inducing, glare.

Well then I'll pray that God will give you the wisdom to believe in him. That's the best I can do.
To be fair, you're probably right, that would be the best thing you should do, most prudent, at least. You shouldn't do anything else about it, other than reasoned discourse.
In other ages, men would slay you for invoking a deity or force that doesn't collude with their intent, mission, or cajoling from some other deity.

Good thing we've come this far, methinks. A long way? Perhaps.

Alright, you atheists want to hear some scientific proof?

There's are a number of random parameters that exist in our universe and define how the laws of physics play themselves out, kind of like blanks in an online form.

For example, the gravitational constant, G, determines the strength of gravitational attraction throughout the universe. It is always equal to
6.67*10^-11. It turns out that if it was a little bit smaller, there wouldn't be enough gravity for stars/planets to form. If it was a bit bigger, then stars would suck planets in and incinerate them. It's the perfect value to produce planets, and thus, life.

A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).

Were the values chosen, or are we just really really lucky? Ockam's razor seems to suggest that the simpler explanation-that they were chosen-is the correct one.

Sure, it isn't exact proof, but then again, there is no exact proof of evolution either.

You're theory is flawed, for one, who says that the current universe is the only one that ever existed? It's quite possible that the "big bang" occurs more then once, creating the universe, wich then collapses again into a singularity & explodes/expands again when a certain treshold is passed.

It's also quite possible that the gravitational strength actually varies with each initeration (sp?) making the gravitational constant a constant only applyable to our own current initeration of the universe.

I find this idea, eg, far more logical than creation, because creation still means that something created us, that something should have come from somewhere, and thus you're moving the question to a whole other (unprovable) level, not to mention illogical level

Religion is made of people?

Yea, i guess, without people, religion can't exist ;)

Yea, i guess, without people, religion can't exist ;)

So atheists advocate the elimination of all people to rid the world of the evils of religion? I knew it!

Mmmmm, I love baseless generalisation! ;)

Like I have said before, if you really want to criticise the Christian point of view, you have to be prepared to look at it from God's point of view, including that this life is just a blip compared to the next, and that some people live a miserable 70 years, while others die after a couple happy ones.
Wow, what a marvelously arrogant point of view, certainly not quite pious ...
As per God's point of view, that would certainly explain "his" exclamation that he's a JEALOUS god .... it would certainly explain his willing betrayal and bitchslapping of Job's faith .... and his deluge upon the face of the earth because humans YET AGAIN let him down in their VERY NATURE, and then FELT SORRY for it ....
Yeah his point of view with humans as blips, so much suffering and murder at stake, and for what?

I personally don't understand why these two ideas are against each other. I am currently on my way to becoming a evolutionary psychology grad student and I believe in god. But as far as not showing things factually. I think you mean empirically. Hume says that nothing can be proven as nothing is certain to happen, we simply assume it will. Descartes agrees and dude was a father of mathematics right. I don't know whether there's a god or not, I believe there is one, but I don't understand why so many people need proof that things are real. I can "prove" to you that a bee cannot fly and that a man cannot run a 4 minute mile using physiology. Dudes back in the day could "prove" that the earth was the center of the universe. I think Pascal got it right. Dude used math to prove why it made more sense to believe in god. (sorry if someone already brought this up) The costs to being wrong outweigh the costs to being right by an almost infinite amount here. So if you multiply your percent chance that god does exist by the difference between the reward and the punishment, you still end up with a sure thing in believing in god. So yeah, I can use statistics and math to prove that you should believe in god. Either way, why are you so worried about being right? If you are, then it shouldn't matter.

The idea that one should believe out of fear of reprisal is silly in my eyes, sorry

No, to claim the universe just is a philosophical idea, with no proof whatsoever. Absence of proof is not proof of absence

Therefore, since there is no proof of its absence, christianity must be true. As must buddhism, sikhism, islam, and the religions of ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. There are lots of unemployed old Norse gods bumming around my neighbourhood too, scrounging fags and beer.

Having said that, Odin and co are much better tolerated than the old South American mob, who keep trying for a human sacrifice every sunrise. Problem is, there's no proof that human sacrifice doesn't work, so we have to find them the occasional virgin.

Really? I think he's quite happy with it. As far as I recall, the guy was sick & tired of fellow Christians who thought they could prove God. If memory serves, he firmly believed that the Bible explicitly told people not to look for God, but to have Faith. Indeed I thought that was the reason he thought up the Razor.

I could of course look it up, but it'll rob someone of the chance to correct me (if I'm wrong).

You are right.
Ockham used the principle of parsimony in such a ruthless fashion that we named Occams Razor after him (around the middle of the 19th centurty IIRC). And he used it to setup a logical proof that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, that the ony thing you can do is believe in him.

Thing is that most people have a wrong impression of the razor. It says don't multiply entities beyond reason (which is a rewording of the latin: plurality should not be posited without necessity). Usually this translates into keep the simplest explanation possible
But it would be better to reword that as a quote attributed to Einstein:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Therefore, since there is no proof of its absence, christianity must be true. As must buddhism, sikhism, islam, and the religions of ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. There are lots of old Norse gods bumming around my neighbourhood too.

Pesky little buggers, aint they?

Certainly, you aren't the least bit *wary* with your post being #666 on this thread? :eek:

I wanted to be 66 :(
*Plays his Iron Maiden cd*

I wanted to be 66 :(
*Plays his Iron Maiden cd*
Well, if we toke this thread long enough, you can be poster #999 - and everything will be peachy-keen so long as you type in your post while inverted in ordinance to the keyboard!
;)

Okay now I really must go. Bruarong I wish you all the best in your arguments. Nikkil, if you're still there, well done. Everybody else (namely Kefren and Saint Curie) I admire your intelligence and ability to question the religion even if I don't agree with you.
This is an honorable post, IMO.
*bows*

Well, look at it this way. Faith can be conjured by need, developing spontaneously as a coping mechanism.

I don't imagine wisdom does that.
F*cking awesome. You floor me sometimes, really. *bows*

Maybe a little off the wall here, but I just got back from tutoring a student in freshman chemistry (he's got his final exam tomorrow afternoon and the poor kid's sweating bullets), and there was a sample question given by his professor that made me think of this thread.

I'm going all the way back to the original title of the thread, "science can't explain everything." The opposite assertion was that religion CAN explain everything. Thus, I'd like to see the religious explanation for the following:

A bruised apple will rot completely after four days if left at room temperature (20° C), but will take 16 days to rot completely if stored at 0°C.

Why?

I know already that there is a scientific explanation for this. I would like to see a religious explanation that will allow any one of us, regardless of belief or assumption, to determine how long it will take a bruised apple to rot completely at 12° C. The explanation must be completely religious in nature and must reveal something about the model of god that it involves that we can always rely upon the explanation, in other words.

Ready.
Set.
Go.
Again, I must say, you f*cking ROCK!

Thing is that most people have a wrong impression of the razor. It says don't multiply entities beyond reason (which is a rewording of the latin: plurality should not be posited without necessity). Usually this translates into keep the simplest explanation possible
But it would be better to reword that as a quote attributed to Einstein:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.Which is why it's deicide to invoke it along notions of Creator Gods. Because as simple as the explanation "God" may seem, it is a non-explanation.

Consider substituting the word "God" with another word. Like Car, or Banana, or perhaps Brian.

How did the universe come to be? Brian/Banana created it.

Suddenly it becomes perfectly obvious that it doesn't explain anything, butinstead makes all explanation impossible. Banana made the universe? Brian did?! - Those defy all attempts at explanation, and are just as unfalsifiable as the God argument, and thus - by Christian logic - equally valid.

.. It doesn't make one ounce of sense.

Difference between Religion and Science:


Religion took the world into the Dark Ages

Science brought the world out of the Dark Ages
...close enough. :(
And thanks to Bush & Co., the wheel's spinnin' rapidly back 'round again.

I thought existence was a given.
Yes, it is ....
it's a given and a-takin'!!!!
:P

(yes i know that was "god"-awful but i gave in to temptation ... please forgive me Willamena.
And know ... i couldn't have done it without you!!!)

So atheists advocate the elimination of all people to rid the world of the evils of religion? I knew it!

Mmmmm, I love baseless generalisation! ;)

Well, yea, we eat the babies of religious people :p

Well, yea, we eat the babies of religious people :p

Yeah, I sometimes do that too. It's part of my religion, you see. I'd eat athiests' babies too, but I feed on souls, and atheists don't have any.

Yeah, I sometimes do that too. It's part of my religion, you see. I'd eat athiests' babies too, but I feed on souls, and atheists don't have any.


HA!

Thats good.

Save a sheep, shear a Christian!

Also, I'd like to encourage Christians to try substituting the word God with the word Banana. It's often a great way to quickly determine if something actually explains anything - or just defies any attempt at an explanation.
Hahaha!!! *FLORT*

A mathematician factored all these parameters into a probability formula, and found out that the odds against a universe that can produce life happening randomly are 1 in 10^(10^123).

Yes, let us all bow to the all-consuming authority of 'a mathematician.' Does he have a name? Is it [drum roll] Roger Penrose, who oddly couldn't say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life? That calculation is nonsense, it assumed our precise form of life was the only possible form of life there could ever be.

Also, the probability of this universe existing is 100%, because it does.

Were the values chosen, or are we just really really lucky? Ockam's razor seems to suggest that the simpler explanation-that they were chosen-is the correct one.

No, that's not what it suggests. You are suggesting that 'natural processes are responsible for the operation of the universe' is less simple than 'natural processes are responsible for the operation of the universe. They were created by an omnipotent being.'

Did you notice how the first isn't more complex than the second, because the second includes an extra term we can't evaluate?

Does he have a name? Is it [drum roll] Roger Penrose, who oddly couldn't say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life? That calculation is nonsense, it assumed our precise form of life was the only possible form of life there could ever be.

I can't tell... was this Penrose or that guy.... errr... WIlliam Dembski. If it was him, his calculations were later checked and found to be off by at least 64 orders of magnitude. This occurred shortly after he spoke at the Bohr Institute in Denmark, which has since made clear that he'll never be invited back again because of his outrageously sloppy work. I believe that Dembski is now employed by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (or something with a very similar name).

So I'm not sure if the reference is to Penrose or to Dembski, but neither one is exactly credible in this regard.

Therefore, since there is no proof of its absence, christianity must be true. As must buddhism, sikhism, islam, and the religions of ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. There are lots of unemployed old Norse gods bumming around my neighbourhood too, scrounging fags and beer.

Having said that, Odin and co are much better tolerated than the old South American mob, who keep trying for a human sacrifice every sunrise. Problem is, there's no proof that human sacrifice doesn't work, so we have to find them the occasional virgin.

Would people kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that religion must be true because of this. What I said was that science can offer no pronouncements on it.

Which is why it's deicide to invoke it along notions of Creator Gods. Because as simple as the explanation "God" may seem, it is a non-explanation.

Consider substituting the word "God" with another word. Like Car, or Banana, or perhaps Brian.

How did the universe come to be? Brian/Banana created it.

Suddenly it becomes perfectly obvious that it doesn't explain anything, butinstead makes all explanation impossible. Banana made the universe? Brian did?! - Those defy all attempts at explanation, and are just as unfalsifiable as the God argument, and thus - by Christian logic - equally valid.

.. It doesn't make one ounce of sense.


Hmmm.

A god making the universe seems to me a bit more likely than a banana or brian, because banana's can't think and Brian was born after the beginning of the world.

Religion is made of people?
Decaying people!

I think the only miracles i've experienced, by my definition, changed the way i look at things in a way that have basically made me a better person and more appreciative of the wonder of the things that are beyond my power, not in a bad way. There weren't very many, and they certainly didn't align me with any specific mass delusion of the populace by contract. More to the opposite, indeed.
Bingo! Miracles happen on the inside.

Hmmm.

A god making the universe seems to me a bit more likely than a banana or brian, because banana's can't think and Brian was born after the beginning of the world.I'm afraid you missed the point by a few miles.

The point I was trying to make, is that it doesn't matter what word you use. It's no explanation in & of itself. By urging you to substitute the word God with something different, I hoped to make you realize that.

If it's because you can't get past the object the word describes, try with a sound instead. The object here isn't important. The explanation it offers is.

Try substituting God with Fnargle instead. As far as I know, that sound has no predefined meaning.

So does it explain how the universe came about? Is it a worse explanation than God? If so, you should be able to formulate why that is. And I'd love to hear it.

Because a lot of you are merely wasting time, i'd like to set one thing straight...

RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

get it? I am a christian, but that doesn't mean i completely disregard all science and say, "oh, i'm sick, that must be God punishing me". I believe in science, same as I believe that I exist, but as a christian, my faith mandates that where my faith** and science do not match up, my faith wins out.

**(i'm calling it "faith" not "religion" because religiousness [a ritual thing] is completely different from faith [a personal conviction])

Also, don't go mocking other people for their beliefs, as it has been said "Man must live by his own convictions, or else he does not live at all." (i'll give $10 to anyone who can name the person who said that :P)

science is merely another viewpoint that we can take into account when forming our own individual world view.

In fact, i believe God works THROUGH science.... what is science to us, can be God... who knows? Noone, that's my other point...

NOONE KNOWS EVERYTHING

So don't go disproving religion OR science because NEITHER WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING....


I hope this has been helpful, and has stopped some arguments...

DEATH:

(OED)
IRREVERSIBLE ending of life
a destruction or PERMANENT CESSATION
-
(Webster's)
END or destruction

Now, the crucial thing to keep in mind ... by the very ABSOLUTE DEFINITIONS of death, there isn't a lot of anything to discern that lasts about you AFTER YOU DIE, other than, i suppose, the disintegration of your body's constituent chemicals, and subsequent reordination of said constituents into the life absorbance cycle, thanks to worms and microbes and bacteria and, if you're lucky, maybe a little of you will go into another animal that was near enough to your passing to consume some of your leftovers. Ah, i'm invisioning a lion on a cliff, Elton John singing away (with his new betrothed beaming on grandly), Darth Vader lurking somewhere in the clouds .... uhm ...
Anyway, as i was saying, that's the whole thing of death. Not much redemption, at least in the empirical, evidenciary sense. Good thing the dictionaries are around to keep that clear, biased as they are *grr* ...
Less obtuse, i'd like to point out that on any other wager involving the words of people where they promise you your payoff after you're dead ... well, this might just be a *dangerous* f*cking world for the people quite so trusting.
Or the ones that have to deal with THEM.

If you want to start using defitions in dictionaries then how about this one.

GOD- the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

Because a lot of you are merely wasting time, i'd like to set one thing straight...

RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

get it? I am a christian, but that doesn't mean i completely disregard all science and say, "oh, i'm sick, that must be God punishing me". I believe in science, same as I believe that I exist, but as a christian, my faith mandates that where my faith** and science do not match up, my faith wins out.

**(i'm calling it "faith" not "religion" because religiousness [a ritual thing] is completely different from faith [a personal conviction])

Also, don't go mocking other people for their beliefs, as it has been said "Man must live by his own convictions, or else he does not live at all." (i'll give $10 to anyone who can name the person who said that :P)

science is merely another viewpoint that we can take into account when forming our own individual world view.

In fact, i believe God works THROUGH science.... what is science to us, can be God... who knows? Noone, that's my other point...

NOONE KNOWS EVERYTHING

So don't go disproving religion OR science because NEITHER WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING....


I hope this has been helpful, and has stopped some arguments...I'm curious. Why would your faith supercede scientific discovery?

You believe God made everything, right?
Assuming that's true, is it not safer for you to assume that God actually made things the way we can see, than that God would deliberately mislead & confuse us?

If you want to start using defitions in dictionaries then how about this one.

GOD- the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
Are you sure you want to go there?

Yes, they had fractional measurements. I never said they didn't. But it's a fact that "earlier civilizations weren't so hot on fractions." They may have had them, and sure the Babylonians used them, but they, along with essentially all of the ancient civilizations, definitely preferred using integers.

And now this is just my opinion, but I don't think they were really all that worried about showing off how accurate a value for pi they could get. Thirty cubits was good enough. "Hey guess what, the thing was huge" wouldn't have been that great. Saying that it was 30 cubits was actually something they could visualize.

Again - I'm not really sure this is true... the Babylonians used fractions on a daily basis... quite happily. Indeed, the Babylonians divided circles into 360 'fractions'... and the hour into 60 'fractions'... and we have never departed from these concepts. The Babylonians also manufactured a wealth of multiplication tables, and 'reciprocals' tables... so they had a huge database of fractional information at their fingertips. They also had tables of square and cube roots.... again, showing an easy familiarity with fractions.

The Babylonians, at least, seem to have been fiercely indifferent to integers.

Regarding the '30 cubits' reference... I'd have to say I disagree... most people now, have problems working out how big a thing would be if it were more than a couple of meters. People find it hard to make estimates about sizes, even in 'man-heights'...

So - the number '30 cubits'... could be argued to be almost meaningless, in terms of what it conveyed. Either the measure MUST, therefore, be an 'accurate' measure... or it is a speculative number that sounds big, and will conjour up images of 'bigness' in the mind of the reader.

Because a lot of you are merely wasting time, i'd like to set one thing straight...

RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

get it? I am a christian, but that doesn't mean i completely disregard all science and say, "oh, i'm sick, that must be God punishing me". I believe in science, same as I believe that I exist, but as a christian, my faith mandates that where my faith** and science do not match up, my faith wins out.

**(i'm calling it "faith" not "religion" because religiousness [a ritual thing] is completely different from faith [a personal conviction])

Also, don't go mocking other people for their beliefs, as it has been said "Man must live by his own convictions, or else he does not live at all." (i'll give $10 to anyone who can name the person who said that :P)

science is merely another viewpoint that we can take into account when forming our own individual world view.

In fact, i believe God works THROUGH science.... what is science to us, can be God... who knows? Noone, that's my other point...

NOONE KNOWS EVERYTHING

So don't go disproving religion OR science because NEITHER WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING....


I hope this has been helpful, and has stopped some arguments...


could not of said it better myself

I'm curious. Why would your faith supercede scientific discovery?

You believe God made everything, right?
Assuming that's true, is it not safer for you to assume that God actually made things the way we can see, than that God would deliberately mislead & confuse us?

but see, our perception may be wrong (and may times through history it has been) and science is constantly finding ways that we have been wrong.

also, i never said i was a literal six-day creationist... you seem to have taken that for granted....

I also never said that the age of the universe is wrong (i'm not expressing my opinions here, just stating facts), but for anything in science that contravenes what God dictates to me through my faith , my faith comes first and foremost, and i never said what that was.

also is it not then just as misleading for God to specify 6 days in the bible?

Are you sure you want to go there?

OK i am sorry poor qoute there one defining death

Physical death
·The cessation of normal body functions. In legal terms defined as "brain death", i.e., loss of higher cortical functions.

but see, our perception may be wrong (and may times through history it has been) and science is constantly finding ways that we have been wrong.That was my point, more or less. Faced with a reasonable burden of evidence, you chose to go with a contradictory gut instinct, right?

- At times, I mean. Not constantly.also, i never said i was a literal six-day creationist... you seem to have taken that for granted....Eh? I don't see how you got that impression? I certainly didn't have you pegged as any of those things. I've never seen one of those be as calm you.

He can never be unjust. That is what the Bible says about God. Does that mean he is limited. I suppose, if you want to see it that way. Does that mean he is not omnipotent? Not in my opinion. Omnipotent means that you have unlimited power. If you define doing what is wrong as a weakness, then why should God not be omnipotent simply because he cannot do a wrong. Omnipotent does not mean completely free of limitations. Otherwise you would end up saying that God is not free from having to exist. This is a dead end in logic. I think you need to revise what a working definition of omnipotent really is.
You were weaving in and out of some decent reason and then, perplexingly, you careened away from it with an ultimatum that other people need to redefine what a basic word means so it can suit your conception of an abstract model, incapable of demonstrable manifestation.
"Missed it by ... THAT much ...."
The idea of omnipotence has, of course, been modified over the millennia as languages and cultures adapt to new ideas and new discoveries. Omnipotence originally meant that God is "able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature. He has no external power exerted on him, and is the source and origin of all power." This definition is in keeping with astrological symbolism, too, which indicates that it precedes both Greek philosophy and the rise of Hebrew religion. The nature of God includes logic, love, justice, etc. and over time has been extended to include the physical laws of the universe, though they are not of his nature.

(quote from Wikipedia)

Because a lot of you are merely wasting time, i'd like to set one thing straight...

RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

get it? I am a christian, but that doesn't mean i completely disregard all science and say, "oh, i'm sick, that must be God punishing me". I believe in science, same as I believe that I exist, but as a christian, my faith mandates that where my faith** and science do not match up, my faith wins out.

**(i'm calling it "faith" not "religion" because religiousness [a ritual thing] is completely different from faith [a personal conviction])

Also, don't go mocking other people for their beliefs, as it has been said "Man must live by his own convictions, or else he does not live at all." (i'll give $10 to anyone who can name the person who said that :P)

science is merely another viewpoint that we can take into account when forming our own individual world view.

In fact, i believe God works THROUGH science.... what is science to us, can be God... who knows? Noone, that's my other point...

NOONE KNOWS EVERYTHING

So don't go disproving religion OR science because NEITHER WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING....


I hope this has been helpful, and has stopped some arguments...

Emphatic, but not original, even to this thread. Several people have pointed out that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, your premise about God working "THROUGH" science has been posited. Before you presume to stop other people's discussions, you might want to review what's been covered. You don't have to, but it would add weight to your position.

lol, thankyou for the compliment Similized :D

i got the impression from:

Assuming that's true, is it not safer for you to assume that God actually made things the way we can see, than that God would deliberately mislead & confuse us?

in several debates i've been in, different people have brought up the fact that believing in six day creation means that god is decieving us because light from distant stars has taken millions of years to reach us, hence the universe is millions of years old...

so from this i naturally jumped to the defence i'd been tempered to give :P

i now recind(sp?) said defence, and thank you for being calm enough to respond so cordially :D

and in response to your first point, yes, i do go with my "gut instinct" when faced with such dillemas. (although it's not really a "gut instinct", i pray about it, read the bible, and seek God's wisdom, then have faith that I made the choice he wanted me to make.)

Emphatic, but not original, even to this thread. Several people have pointed out that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, your premise about God working "THROUGH" science has been posited. Before you presume to stop other people's discussions, you might want to review what's been covered. You don't have to, but it would add weight to your position.

read all 53 pages? i have neither the time, nor the time to do such things :P

sorry, i just felt like voicing it, and hence I wasn't meaning to repeat what other people have said...

although I doubt anyone's used the quote i used here previous to my post... :D

There are many people on this forums who would insist that there is no God becasue it cannot be explained by any kind of scinetific process. Who would essentially claim that there is no meaning to the universe, and that the universe just 'is', with no meaning or anything behind it. However to claim this is not scientific. It is philosophical, and no more defensable than any claim that there is a God. The idea that the universe has no meaning and life has no meaning etc is a philosophical idea, not a scientific one. And just because science cant explain any meaning that there may or may not be, that doesnt instantly mean there is no meaning. In short, the idea that the universe has no meaning is about as sceintific as the idea that it does. IE not at all

I know I'm coming late to the party...but I felt the need to add my two cents...

God(s) cannot be explained by any scientific means. That is true. So as far as I am concerned, until I see falsifiable, tested data, there is no god(s).

Secondly, there is no tested falsifiable data pointing to a reason for the existence of life, the universe or anything. So as far as I am concerned, there is no purpose or meaning, other than that imposed on one's self, or imposed upon the masses by "society" for lack of a better word.

Stating that the idea of the universe having meaning is unscientific is not truly intelligible. Science is striving to find meaning in it all. It has yet to do so, therefore the current conclusion, after years of scientfic investigation, is that there is no meaning.

Can this change? Sure. That is what science is about. I'm sure Stephen Hawking would jump up and down (mentally I suppose), if he could compose a Mathematical Theorum providing evidence of a reason for us to exist.

read all 53 pages? i have neither the time, nor the time to do such things :P

sorry, i just felt like voicing it, and hence I wasn't meaning to repeat what other people have said...

although I doubt anyone's used the quote i used here previous to my post... :D

You make a good point, 53 pages is a load. I suppose the amicable co-existence of science and religion is an idea that bares repeating, although I don't agree with you on everything.

You make a good point, 53 pages is a load. I suppose the amicable co-existence of science and religion is an idea that bares repeating, although I don't agree with you on everything.

Well that's not necessarily a bad thing, what is the world without variety? :D

Although please do feel free to go on and bring some points up, I can guarantee I won't jump down your throat

Again, I must say, you f*cking ROCK!

Unfortunately, the arguement was clearly refuted in post... 879?

(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10093164&postcount=879)

;)

You make a good point, 53 pages is a load. I suppose the amicable co-existence of science and religion is an idea that bares repeating, although I don't agree with you on everything.Hah! Admit it, you don't agree with him on anything :p

- I don't either though..

Anyway Zhantuu, the scientific theory vs. belief thing.. I don't understand it. I'll have to repeat myself: Doesn't it make more sense that God gave us the ability to understand His creation, than He'd create us with the wits to understand a whole lot of things, but deliberately misdirect us sometimes?

Hah! Admit it, you don't agree with him on anything :p

- I don't either though..

Anyway Zhantuu, the scientific theory vs. belief thing.. I don't understand it. I'll have to repeat myself: Doesn't it make more sense that God gave us the ability to understand His creation, than He'd create us with the wits to understand a whole lot of things, but deliberately misdirect us sometimes?

but HE isn't the one misdirecting us, we are.

yes he created us with the wits to understand a whole lot of things, but that doesn't mean we understand them correctly...

but HE isn't the one misdirecting us, we are.He made us though, right?

yes he created us with the wits to understand a whole lot of things, but that doesn't mean we understand them correctly...I feel compelled to ask for examples. Though I can apreciate if you're unwilling to provide any.

Unfortunately, the arguement was clearly refuted in post... 879?

(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10093164&postcount=879)

;)

Hahahaha... I missed that originally. :D

I have faith that the Intelligent Decayer is none other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster's dark side, the Crawling Meatball Beast. This as opposed to the Intelligence decayer, which is clearly the UPN series "Stacked," starring Pamela Anderson.

He made us though, right?

yes, but he didn't make sin, or the evil things which mislead us into sin, or disbelieving what God dictates. Yes he made us, but he made us with free will.


I feel compelled to ask for examples. Though I can apreciate if you're unwilling to provide any.

well, say the universe IS only 5000 years old, however, with the constant speed of light, it looks much older because the light had to travel for millions of years to get to where it is now. But who says God didn't just create the light where it already is? who says he can't create stars in the middle of their lifespans?

if this was the case, it is our PERCEPTION that is wrong.

As opposed to the Intelligence decayer, which is clearly the UPN series "Stacked," starring Pamela Anderson.

amen to that.... :P

well, say the universe IS only 5000 years old, however, with the constant speed of light, it looks much older because the light had to travel for millions of years to get to where it is now. But who says God didn't just create the light where it already is? who says he can't create stars in the middle of their lifespans?

if this was the case, it is our PERCEPTION that is wrong.

Hello.

I'm God.

I am a Roman Catholic . I believe that science cannt prove everything and the idea of God is absolutely realistic to me .The big bang however is ompletely far fetched

well, say the universe IS only 5000 years old, however, with the constant speed of light, it looks much older because the light had to travel for millions of years to get to where it is now. But who says God didn't just create the light where it already is? who says he can't create stars in the middle of their lifespans?

As well as distribute the continents over the earth consistent with a continental drift from pangea of millions of years, put fossils in the earth with a corresponding carbon dating, create a level of cosmic background radiation inconsistent with the 5000 years etc. etc. ?

Well.. of course he could have done all that. But why go through all that trouble other than to deceive us ?

Aside: even if he *did* create stars in the middle of their lifespans - the stars still should have a natural cycle worth researching. But that is another debate.

yes, but he didn't make sin, or the evil things which mislead us into sin, or disbelieving what God dictates. Yes he made us, but he made us with free will.Hehe, this could quickly turn into a 'hen - egg' discussion. If you believe the creation mythos in the Bible, He sort of did create Sin, didn't He?
At least I don't remember anything about A&E growing apples.well, say the universe IS only 5000 years old, however, with the constant speed of light, it looks much older because the light had to travel for millions of years to get to where it is now. But who says God didn't just create the light where it already is? who says he can't create stars in the middle of their lifespans?

if this was the case, it is our PERCEPTION that is wrong.How would that not be misleading us? Remember, it's not just stuff like the speed of light that makes us assume the universe is quite a bit older than 5000 years. Or 10000 or 1000000 years. Perfectly normal rocks here on Earth are older than that - if stuff like carbon dating is to be believed. And if it isn't to be believed, He must surely mean to mislead us. How would it be possible for us not to conclude the universe is much older than 5000 years?

...This as opposed to the Intelligence decayer, which is clearly the UPN series "Stacked," starring Pamela Anderson.

I appear to have somehow, tragically, not seen it....

*sigh*... and it sounds so promising, too.... ;)

As well as distribute the continents over the earth consistent with a continental drift from pangea of millions of years, put fossils in the earth with a corresponding carbon dating, create a level of cosmic background radiation inconsistent with the 500 years etc. etc. ?

Well.. of course he could. But why go to all that trouble just to deceive us ?

Aside: even if he *did* create stars in the middle of their lifespans - the stars still should have a natural cycle worth researching. But that is another debate.

well, who says carbon dating is accurate? it could be wrong, we can't PROVE that it is right.

we also can't PROVE the whole continental drift theory, not that I ever said anything against it, and there are plenty of ways it could happen....

and who says fossils take a long time to be made? we can't prove they do...

see, we very easily believe all these thing that can't actually be PROVEN, but when it comes to God, "Oh No! we can't prove God! therefore let's not believe in him at all"

lol, sorry, got a bit off track there...

well, who says carbon dating is accurate? it could be wrong, we can't PROVE that it is right.

Note: science seldom to never proves something right. The central idea of the scientific method is that one should attempt to prove things wrong. Setting out to prove something right is what religions (oh ok - and mathematicians) do.

see, we very easily believe all these thing that can't actually be PROVEN, but when it comes to God, "Oh No! we can't prove God! therefore let's not believe in him at all"

Scientists tend to "believe" in things which have shown to be able to stand up against lots of tests to show them wrong. Where the age of the earth/universe is concerned there are plenty of completely different methods from different sciences to get an indication. None of them supports an age of 5000 years, all agree on something several orders of magnitude larger. In fact, their numbers roughly agree - meaning that the different disciplines in fact can be said to check eachother.

This has probably been brought up, but has anyone stopped to ask who cares? If religion or science is right or wrong what difference does it make? What is that fact doing for you?

This has probably been brought up, but has anyone stopped to ask who cares? If religion or science is right or wrong what difference does it make? What is that fact doing for you?

well, as a christian, I don't want to see people go to hell (i'm not judging here, just stating what my faith dictates), so it does matter, but then again, if they want to, it's their problem...

Yes, it is ....
it's a given and a-takin'!!!!
:P

(yes i know that was "god"-awful but i gave in to temptation ... please forgive me Willamena.
And know ... i couldn't have done it without you!!!)
Reminds me of Chico. :)

Which is why it's deicide to invoke it along notions of Creator Gods. Because as simple as the explanation "God" may seem, it is a non-explanation.

Consider substituting the word "God" with another word. Like Car, or Banana, or perhaps Brian.

How did the universe come to be? Brian/Banana created it.

Suddenly it becomes perfectly obvious that it doesn't explain anything, butinstead makes all explanation impossible. Banana made the universe? Brian did?! - Those defy all attempts at explanation, and are just as unfalsifiable as the God argument, and thus - by Christian logic - equally valid.

.. It doesn't make one ounce of sense.
Well, let's try it.
The theory of Banana explains how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. When they slip on the peel, they fall down due to ...Banana.
Nope, substituting one idea for another does't really explain anything, you're right.

well, as a christian, I don't want to see people go to hell (i'm not judging here, just stating what my faith dictates), so it does matter, but then again, if they want to, it's their problem...

The question then is, why don't you want people to go to hell? What do you get from them not going to hell?

well, who says carbon dating is accurate? it could be wrong, we can't PROVE that it is right.

we also can't PROVE the whole continental drift theory, not that I ever said anything against it, and there are plenty of ways it could happen....

and who says fossils take a long time to be made? we can't prove they do...

see, we very easily believe all these thing that can't actually be PROVEN, but when it comes to God, "Oh No! we can't prove God! therefore let's not believe in him at all"

lol, sorry, got a bit off track there...

Carbon dating is very, very accurate. We know this because we can measure the age of objects whose age we absolutely know with a very high degree of precision, and it works every time.

We know how old fossils are because of other forms of radioactive-decay based dating. Potassium-argon dating is one such method. While it tends to be somehwat less accurate than radiocarbon dating, the percent of error is very low (less than 1%). We know this is accurate because we can measure the decay of known quantities of potassium isotope and the resulting release of argon. That's a known, constant quantity, which follows the formula t(1/2)= (ln 2)/k, where k is the rate constant of a given first-order reaction (all radioactive decay processes are first-order reactions).

Continental drift is based on inference from the chemical, geological, and radiological properties on either side of a rift. The evidence for it is highly rigorous at this point. There are still some questions about exactly how certain landmasses were formerly joined together, but there has not yet been any evidence found to disprove the theory and warehouses full of data that backs it up.

These things are only matters of belief insofar as one is either ignorant of or willing to ignore the evidence in favor of them. If contrary evidence is found, the models will have to be revised to account for them. If you have any, you should bring it forward. There could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

Does the pro-science crowd have no reply as to why one should care? I am not advocating ignorance or a return to the Dark Ages, but what has knowing the origin of the Universe down to Planck time done for anyone today?

Does the pro-science crowd have no reply as to why one should care? I am not advocating ignorance or a return to the Dark Ages, but what has knowing the origin of the Universe down to Planck time done for anyone today?

Satisfy curiosity, while at the same time giving more challenges ?
Then again, I am a fan of "fundamental research" - finding things out for the sake of finding them out, and any practical applications are merely a nice bonus. So my answer may be a bit biased...

Then again - one of those "bonuses" was electricity.

I am aware of the practical applications of science, i.e. electricity, civilization, etc. The point I was going for was that the pro-religion and pro-science camps are essentially the same. They are both talking primates who are seeking to explain their surroundings and religion and science are the vessels they use to accomplish said explanations. Which brings us back to the original question of who cares?
Aside from curiosity.

Oh, and personal opinion here- science has the edge in my mind, but you can't beat religion for pure made up fiction.

I am aware of the practical applications of science, i.e. electricity, civilization, etc. The point I was going for was that the pro-religion and pro-science camps are essentially the same. They are both talking primates who are seeking to explain their surroundings and religion and science are the vessels they use to accomplish said explanations. Which brings us back to the original question of who cares?
Aside from curiosity.

Oh, and personal opinion here- science has the edge in my mind, but you can't beat religion for pure made up fiction.
Um, obviously the people discussing it care?

Are you looking for a reason to care?

No, not looking for a reason to care. Just looking for something to do on a Wednesday while my kid takes a nap. Ha.

Well, let's try it.
The theory of Banana explains how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. When they slip on the peel, they fall down due to ...Banana.
Nope, substituting one idea for another does't really explain anything, you're right.

Good one Willamena. Made me laugh anyway.:D

Carbon dating is very, very accurate. We know this because we can measure the age of objects whose age we absolutely know with a very high degree of precision, and it works every time.

We know how old fossils are because of other forms of radioactive-decay based dating. Potassium-argon dating is one such method. While it tends to be somehwat less accurate than radiocarbon dating, the percent of error is very low (less than 1%). We know this is accurate because we can measure the decay of known quantities of potassium isotope and the resulting release of argon. That's a known, constant quantity, which follows the formula t(1/2)= (ln 2)/k, where k is the rate constant of a given first-order reaction (all radioactive decay processes are first-order reactions).

Continental drift is based on inference from the chemical, geological, and radiological properties on either side of a rift. The evidence for it is highly rigorous at this point. There are still some questions about exactly how certain landmasses were formerly joined together, but there has not yet been any evidence found to disprove the theory and warehouses full of data that backs it up.

These things are only matters of belief insofar as one is either ignorant of or willing to ignore the evidence in favor of them. If contrary evidence is found, the models will have to be revised to account for them. If you have any, you should bring it forward. There could be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

I think the point wasn't demanding an explanation. It's more like how can you prove that it's true? Sure carbon dating may have an accuracy of over 99% but what is this based on? They couldn't measure the carbon 5000 years ago so how do you know that the rate of decrease is accurate as the haven't been calculating it over many centuries?!

I think the point wasn't demanding an explanation. It's more like how can you prove that it's true? Sure carbon dating may have an accuracy of over 99% but what is this based on? They couldn't measure the carbon 5000 years ago so how do you know that the rate of decrease is accurate as the haven't been calculating it over many centuries?!
Carbon molecule decay.

And all this means fuck-all if you consider our universe to be part of a multiverse of millions upon billions of other universes.

True, that's the one alternative. However, that idea is a completely untested, unproven Quantum Physics hypothesis. If it's proven then I admit that I don't have much of a leg to stand on.

As for the objection that a few others have come up with that it's more unlikely that God exists, you have nothing to back that up. You can't put a numerical probability on whether or not there would be a God. However, the number I just gave you is the probability that there is no God.

Lastly, the idea that since we're here, it must have turned out in a way that put us here is true, but that doesn't negate the odds against it. This argument boils down to simply saying "we're really really really lucky", which doesn't sound very scientific to me.

I think the point wasn't demanding an explanation. It's more like how can you prove that it's true? Sure carbon dating may have an accuracy of over 99% but what is this based on? They couldn't measure the carbon 5000 years ago so how do you know that the rate of decrease is accurate as the haven't been calculating it over many centuries?!

Are you aware of the concept of such a thing as a 'half-life'?

I think the point wasn't demanding an explanation. It's more like how can you prove that it's true? Sure carbon dating may have an accuracy of over 99% but what is this based on? They couldn't measure the carbon 5000 years ago so how do you know that the rate of decrease is accurate as the haven't been calculating it over many centuries?!

Unless both biological and physical laws have changed dramatically in 5000 years, that's not much of a concern. In any case, what's being measured isn't how much carbon is in a sample, but what proportion of the carbon that is present is a particular radioisotope. What's important is the percentage, not the overall mass, and the rate of decay is an absolute constant.

BTW, we have tons of 5000 year old biological material. And 2500 year old biological material, too. We have excellent data on carbon levels based upon everything from aquatic sediments to glacial and polar ice. We even have organisms that are 5000 years old living among us right now. I've personally seen rotifers that were extracted from Antarctic ice that were even older than that (some rotifer species can go into hibernation for milennia when frozen and wake up when thawed as if nothing happened).

Radioisotope dating is an extremely accurate family of tests, unless you want to start thinking that the laws of physics themselves change every so often. There's no evidence of that at all, however. Someone willing to advance that sort of thing might as well go out to the pumpkin patch and start waiting for the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

True, that's the one alternative. However, that idea is a completely untested, unproven Quantum Physics hypothesis. If it's proven then I admit that I don't have much of a leg to stand on.

*feels like a broken record*

Repeat after me: science does not prove things right - science proves things wrong.

Statements like "you cannot prove it" or questions like "is it proven" are therefor meaningless.

Yes, let us all bow to the all-consuming authority of 'a mathematician.' Does he have a name? Is it [drum roll] Roger Penrose, who oddly couldn't say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead to some form of life? That calculation is nonsense, it assumed our precise form of life was the only possible form of life there could ever be.

Also, the probability of this universe existing is 100%, because it does.



No, that's not what it suggests. You are suggesting that 'natural processes are responsible for the operation of the universe' is less simple than 'natural processes are responsible for the operation of the universe. They were created by an omnipotent being.'

Did you notice how the first isn't more complex than the second, because the second includes an extra term we can't evaluate?

Thanks for reminding me. The name Roger Penrose slipped my head. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the precise probability is, suffice to say that the odds are astronmically against it. To go back to my gravity example, there's only a precise range of values for G that will allow the existence of planets. There's also a precise range of values for e, the charge on an electron that allow for the atom to exist. How can life possibly exist without atoms?

And your argument about the probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of me winning the lottery is 100%, because I did. Makes no sense.

And lastly, the existence of thta extra term is suggested by the other terms. Sure, we can't evaluate it, but that doesn't matter. The existence of a bio-generative universe without something to make it that way is incredibly unlikely.

*feels like a broken record*

Repeat after me: science does not prove things right - science proves things wrong.

Statements like "you cannot prove it" or questions like "is it proven" are therefor meaningless.

Science can't prove things wrong, because you can't prove a negative. Don't believe me? Prove that I'm not a monkey. Maybe I'm a really smart monkey. If you come over to my house to check, and see that I'm not a monkey, then maybe I was wearing a suit, ect.

Besides, science hasn't proven God wrong, so according to your explanation, it's completely worthless in any sort of debate about God.

Thanks for reminding me. The name Roger Penrose slipped my head. Anyway, it doesn't matter what the precise probability is, suffice to say that the odds are astronmically against it. To go back to my gravity example, there's only a precise range of values for G that will allow the existence of planets. There's also a precise range of values for e, the charge on an electron that allow for the atom to exist. How can life possibly exist without atoms?

The probability for life existing is 1.

And your argument about the probability of the universe existing being 100%, because it does, is the same as saying that the probability of me winning the lottery is 100%, because I did. Makes no sense.

The probability for the occurence of any event that has already occurred is 1. 1 represents certainty in any analysis of statistical data. If something has happened, then the probability of it existing is exactly 1.

And lastly, the existence of thta extra term is suggested by the other terms. Sure, we can't evaluate it, but that doesn't matter. The existence of a bio-generative universe without something to make it that way is incredibly unlikely.

But that something is a set of physical laws that extend to every single level of the universe, and follow necessarily one from another without a single exception. In fact, positing that a "biogenerative universe" is unlikely, however astronomically so, is utterly irrelevant as anything other than an intellectual exercise, because if there is any likelihood of one existing, then it will eventually exist, given sufficient time. So, if anything, the very fact that there is life in the universe in the face of such a calculation demonstrates nothing more than the fact that the universe is very, very old... unless one is starting from their conclusion, that the only way that self-organizing principles can occur is if some previously existing self-organizing principle designed them.

You're theory is flawed, for one, who says that the current universe is the only one that ever existed? It's quite possible that the "big bang" occurs more then once, creating the universe, wich then collapses again into a singularity & explodes/expands again when a certain treshold is passed.

It's also quite possible that the gravitational strength actually varies with each initeration (sp?) making the gravitational constant a constant only applyable to our own current initeration of the universe.

I find this idea, eg, far more logical than creation, because creation still means that something created us, that something should have come from somewhere, and thus you're moving the question to a whole other (unprovable) level, not to mention illogical level

If you think that God is illogical, then talk to Thomas Aquinas, St.Anslem of Canterbury, Réne Descartes, ect. They have made numerous rational arguments for the existence of God. That's not to say that their arguments are foolproof, but there is logic in the idea.

Science can't prove things wrong, because you can't prove a negative. Don't believe me? Prove that I'm not a monkey. Maybe I'm a really smart monkey. If you come over to my house to check, and see that I'm not a monkey, then maybe I was wearing a suit, ect.

Besides, science hasn't proven God wrong, so according to your explanation, it's completely worthless in any sort of debate about God.

No, science doesn't prove a negative. Science tests and disproves positive assertions. A hypothesis is advanced, the evidence is examined, and the hypothesis is thereby either disproven or not.

And science could easily test your assertion by a very simple blood test or by taking a few cells from the inside of your cheek. Or a hair from your hairbrush, for that matter. Scientific mehod could easily disprove such an assertion if it were not true. Ever heard of DNA testing?

But that something is a set of physical laws that extend to every single level of the universe, and follow necessarily one from another without a single exception. In fact, positing that a "biogenerative universe" is unlikely, however astronomically so, is utterly irrelevant as anything other than an intellectual exercise, because if there is any likelihood of one existing, then it will eventually exist, given sufficient time. So, if anything, the very fact that there is life in the universe in the face of such a calculation demonstrates nothing more than the fact that the universe is very, very old... unless one is starting from their conclusion, that the only way that self-organizing principles can occur is if some previously existing self-organizing principle designed them.

Your argument only works for a quantity that changes over time eg. rolling a dice again and again-eventually you get a 6). If the laws of Physics changed over time, then our lives would be a lot more complicated.

If you think that God is illogical, then talk to Thomas Aquinas, St.Anslem of Canterbury, Réne Descartes, ect. They have made numerous rational arguments for the existence of God. That's not to say that their arguments are foolproof, but there is logic in the idea.

They made their arguments based on the best evidence they had at their time, and because of this often ended with uncertainty, too. We've gotten a lot better at both gathering and analyzing evidence since the 16th century.