Religous Debate- Need input....

[losman]

In debating with some religous folk I got into a discussion of what is sceince and what is religion, these 2 arguments were thrown at me and I was asked to explain them and how could I accept these concepts without treating them as a religion.....

--------------------------------------------------


Following are two quotes. One is taken from a high school science textbook, the other from an article in Scientific American. Are these quotes examples of science, or religion? Can they be tested?

quote:“If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.”

-- HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362.



quote:“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”

-- Alan Gurth, P. Stelnhardt Scientific American, May 1984. page 128.

[geetarmoore]

This is what we know about our universe in 150 years of study and research. Every year, we know more. There is no required 'faith' that these are the right answers, there is only the idea that these are the best answers we have today, based on 150 years of scientific development.

If it is impossible that the universe started from nothing and needed a creator.. Then who created that creator, and how does one explain that the creator came from nothing?

(BTW - no one REALLY believes that the universe started from nothing. The idea is all matter was condensed down to a softball size mass, and microseconds in to the big bang, an inflationary event happened causing the universe to expand exponentially)

[Dr Adequate]

“The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” This is, as the authors point out, merely a "speculation". If they believed it, without evidence, that would be like religion. Speculating about the unknown and saying that it's pure speculation is very unlike religion, which raises whimsical speculations about the unknown to the status of Absolute Unquestionable Truth.

[Dr Adequate]

If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.6 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called “The Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed.” This is clearly a crummy textbook. They say themselves: "The Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began. The theory only explains how the existing universe could have developed" and they put in this kooky stuff about the universe starting from "a state of nothingness" and they claim that this is the Big Bang.

[meg]

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

So, in essence, we're at the same point there. Their text basically says there was nothing, but God (who came from where and is made of what?) then turned it into something.

I guess, to me, the question is "where do you go from here?"

You can either go with 1) the idea that while we don't know everything yet, we're trying to understand, and that there is a good, logical and proveable explanation for everything.

Or you can go with 2) the idea that it's all explained in one collection of small books that include the idea that serpents can talk and make you eat fruit, bushes burn with flames but are not consumed, entire seas split so people can walk across, everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets, its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are, a boat can hold two of every kind of animal in the world (what *did* they feed the animals?), a person can get eaten by a whale and burped back out and survive, people can get turned into pillars of stone (or was it salt?) just for turning around and looking at a burning city, it's ok to have sex with your dad if get him drunk enough, sometimes, dead people can be made alive again if you just believe enough, water can be turned into wine, its possible to feed hundreds of people with five loaves of bread and a couple fish, and that somehow a rabbi getting horribly tortured and killed makes everything okeydokey for the rest of us, because his body disappeared from his tomb. That all you have to do is believe, and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!), and nothing particularly good will happen to you here, as a matter of fact, you very well might be "tested" with all sorts of trials and tribulations, because who knows the mind of god? but after you die it's gonna be really swell. Really.

Oh. And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

Uh. Okay...

I pick 1.

Meg

[Beth]

In the book "quantum questions", the author spends several pages at the beginning defining those terms. I suggest you check out a copy and read the introduction as a way of gaining a better understanding. In particular, he goes in detail regarding two different usages of the word 'spirit' that can easily lead to contradictions and misunderstandings if you're not clear about which meaning is being used.

[Vagabond]

You can believe the earth is flat, you can believe the earth is a perfect sphere. Neither is correct, but the second is less wrong than the first. That is how knowledge is gained.

[BJQ87]

everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets

its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are

and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!),

And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.


you must be reading a different book...it sounds familiar though, just twisted around.

[Marquis de Carabas]

you must be reading a different book...it sounds familiar though, just twisted around.

Maybe these slight amendments will help:

Verily, everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets

Verily, its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are

Verily, and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!),

Verily, And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

[meg]

Actually I did mispeak. Sorry. It was Mt Sinai where the ten commandments were supposed to happen. Not Mt Ararat. Mt Ararat is where the big boat full of all the animals in the world is supposed to have landed.

Meg

[David Swidler]

But not the fish.

[10001]

[QUOTE=losman;1394880]In debating with some religous folk I got into a discussion of what is sceince and what is religion, these 2 arguments were thrown at me and I was asked to explain them and how could I accept these concepts without treating them as a religion.....

--------------------------------------------------


religion and science probably have a common source called philosophy of some sort.

how ever science is growing.
science does not have THE ANSWER. it is a search...
science is fact and proof. Not an answer

religion Has THE ANSWER... to which there are no obviouse proof or fact.
But the Answer is there.. you just have to believe it.

[geetarmoore]

science does not have THE ANSWER. it is a search...
science is fact and proof. Not an answer

religion Has THE ANSWER... to which there are no obviouse proof or fact.
But the Answer is there.. you just have to believe it.

Mmmmmm..... Ok.

Your posts are interesting tonight. I was drunk earlier myself, but I didn't post then. I waited till I was more salient.....

Just saying.....:boggled:

[Ducky]

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

So, in essence, we're at the same point there. Their text basically says there was nothing, but God (who came from where and is made of what?) then turned it into something.

I guess, to me, the question is "where do you go from here?"

You can either go with 1) the idea that while we don't know everything yet, we're trying to understand, and that there is a good, logical and proveable explanation for everything.

Or you can go with 2) the idea that it's all explained in one collection of small books that include the idea that serpents can talk and make you eat fruit, bushes burn with flames but are not consumed, entire seas split so people can walk across, everything you need to know came from Mt Ararat on two stone tablets, its a good idea to kill your child if you want to show god how good you are, a boat can hold two of every kind of animal in the world (what *did* they feed the animals?), a person can get eaten by a whale and burped back out and survive, people can get turned into pillars of stone (or was it salt?) just for turning around and looking at a burning city, it's ok to have sex with your dad if get him drunk enough, sometimes, dead people can be made alive again if you just believe enough, water can be turned into wine, its possible to feed hundreds of people with five loaves of bread and a couple fish, and that somehow a rabbi getting horribly tortured and killed makes everything okeydokey for the rest of us, because his body disappeared from his tomb. That all you have to do is believe, and give ten percent of your income to the church (don't forget that part, it's the most important!), and nothing particularly good will happen to you here, as a matter of fact, you very well might be "tested" with all sorts of trials and tribulations, because who knows the mind of god? but after you die it's gonna be really swell. Really.

Oh. And if you don't believe it, after you die, you go to a place to be tortured forever in miserable ways.

Uh. Okay...

I pick 1.

Meg


You f***ing rock.

[SirPhilip]

In debating with some religous folk I got into a discussion of what is sceince and what is religion, these 2 arguments were thrown at me and I was asked to explain them and how could I accept these concepts without treating them as a religion... The first rule of religious debate is not to debate the religious. The second is not to debate the religion but character. The third is to not hold any constructive intention where there is not - debating someone's faith is always attacking it, and by extension, the foundation of their psychological well-being, no matter how well intentioned the motive. Unless the person is pushing it on others forcefully, I would avoid throwing cold water on them.

Science and religion are seperate topics. Science cannot make moral judgements but faith isn't an objective judgement. You'll waste mental effort on nothing, and it likely will dissolve into the above situation.

[geetarmoore]

The first rule of religious debate is not to debate the religious. The second is not to debate the religion but character. The third is to not hold any constructive intention where there is not - debating someone's faith is always attacking it, and by extension, the foundation of their psychological well-being, no matter how well intentioned the motive. Unless the person is pushing it on others forcefully, I would avoid throwing cold water on them.

Who's rules are these? :confused:

I'm an evangelical atheist. If someone talks to me about religion or faith, I'm going to whack them around about it with logic and facts. Is it attacking their faith? Yes. Yes, I believe it is. ;)

I’m OK with this, however, if it makes just ONE of them evaluate the historical evidence of their faith.

[meg]

Hi losman,

Looking over your opening post again, there is another thought that comes to my mind.

In those "science" quotes there are some very important words:

"However, physicists theorize.." and "It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that..."

And these make all the difference.

Because science is not one statment. Or even one fact. Science is a *method* of looking at our universe and attempting to learn about it. The method requires that we make speculations and theories, then attempt to prove or disprove them. And *then*, we have to show how we proved or disproved them and then other people try to use our methods to prove our disprove the same thing. If many people come up with the same results to the problem, _then_and_only_then_ do we consider a statement "true". And even then, there is always the unsaid caveat at the end of the statement "until a better explanation comes along".

And that is the difference between religion and science. Religion does not attempt to "prove" a devotee's statements. At best, it only looks for verification of if a similar statement has been stated before in the official texts of the faith. Which is not to say that biblical scholars don't argue and make theories about the meaning of texts; they do. But in general, one is not encouraged to question any of the "facts" of the religion. The test of a devotee is that they believe it with no proof or evidence or questioning.

So it's kind of futile to attempt to argue with the religious by looking at any one theory and saying "that's science". Because statements and theories get disproved or amended all the time. If you claim that the one theory is "science" then when it gets disproved, the religious can then claim "see, science was wrong". When actually what it means is that science, as a methodology is *right* and that it's working just the way it's intended.

So, if I were in your debate, and these quotes were handed to me, I guess the only thing I could do would be to explain the whole science is a method thing, and say that it's not possible, really, for us to argue about whether these theories are true or not, because they are in the very beginning stages of going through the scientific method and it is only in the coming years that we will find if they were "proved" or not. At best, these quotes are an example of what some of our best thinkers are thinking about right now. They are *not* statements of fact.


And thank you, fowlsound. That means alot to me. I do strive to "f***ing rock", and I appreciate your noticing. :)

Meg

[losman]

here is latest staement that he keeps hammering....


"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."

[geetarmoore]

here is latest staement that he keeps hammering....


"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."


Utter Bullsh*t. They are logic, knowledge and reason based theories that don't rely on the even the smallest sliver of faith. When better and verifiable information comes along, the theories are updated to reflect them.

Anyone who understands scientific method understands this. Of course, religious fundies don't understand science at all.... :rolleyes:

[meg]

"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."


Well, all I can say to that is NOPE. Here are a few quotes that might be able to help your argument.


from religioustolerance.org-site (I can't post urls yet. If you pm me, or if you wait til I post a couple more times, I can add them in)

Science deals with the study of nature, its forces, processes and development. It is based on the analysis of evidence. It assumes, as a working hypothesis, that processes and events happen due to natural causes, not through divine intervention.

Religion, on the other hand,

" deals with matters of faith. Its main basis is often revelation from a deity -- either orally transmitted from generation to generation, recorded in a sacred text, or revealed to individuals through prayer. Most faith groups teach of the existence of one or more deities who created the universe, and continue to play a major role in managing it -- sometimes bypassing the laws of nature to create miracles. A main function of religion is to teach moral principles, mankind's relationship to the god(s) or goddess(es), behavior towards other humans, spiritual matters, etc."

From a thehumanist.org-link
Is Science a Religion? by Richard Dawkins

"Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you."



Biologist John A. Moore, in his book, Science as a way of Knowing, writes:

"A fundamental difference between religious and scientific thought is that the received beliefs in religion are ultimately based on revelation or pronouncements, usually by some long-dead prophet or priest. These revelations or pronouncements become the dogma of faith. … In contrast, the statements of science are derived ultimately from the data and experiment, and from the manipulation of these data according to logical and often mathematical procedures."



Perhaps your debate partner is just so used to blindly believing whatever is told to him that he assumes that those who believe in science behave similarly.


Meg


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick

[Dr Adequate]

here is latest staement that he keeps hammering....


"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."I would ask, why the scare quote around the word science? Is there a distinction between "science" and science? Is it "science" or science which "postulates" the theory of gravity? Is the theory of gravity a "faith-based belief"? The germ theory of disease? Quantum theory?

[Roboramma]

You can believe the earth is flat, you can believe the earth is a perfect sphere. Neither is correct, but the second is less wrong than the first. That is how knowledge is gained.

See below for source:

[SirPhilip]

Who's rules are these? :confused: My own - a mental checklist of ways to avoid headaches and drawn out "debates" on negatives. Common when dealing with Christians, especially of the evangelistic and born-again ilk.


I'm an evangelical atheist. If someone talks to me about religion or faith, I'm going to whack them around about it with logic and facts. Is it attacking their faith? Yes. Yes, I believe it is. ;) I’m OK with this, however, if it makes just ONE of them evaluate the historical evidence of their faith. Ok, but if you do that two times in a row, you'll then have to convince me miracles don't happen.

[wastepanel]

Question:

If the argument against a creator is "Who created the creator?", then who/what created the "softball size of mass"?

[geetarmoore]

Question:

If the argument against a creator is "Who created the creator?", then who/what created the "softball size of mass"?


I guess you got us there.........:D















(Psssst. If we don't understand something, we don't automatically asssume some great bearded guy in the sky made it...) ;)

[wastepanel]

I'm seriously just asking...

It has nothing to do with what you think, what I think, what anybody thinks happens. Nobody knows, so what's the point of arguing?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Question:

If the argument against a creator is "Who created the creator?", then who/what created the "softball size of mass"?
That is not the argument against a creator. It is a rebuttal of an argument for a creator.

[geetarmoore]

I'm seriously just asking...

It has nothing to do with what you think, what I think, what anybody thinks happens. Nobody knows, so what's the point of arguing?

It's our best theory based on what we do know, and what we can witness back 13.6 or so billion light years ago...

Compare that against 'the other' evidence.....

If God wants us to 'know' the answer, he should have written us a better book.....

;)

[wastepanel]

That is not the argument against a creator. It is a rebuttal of an argument for a creator.

OK...let me rephrase.

What created the huge amount of mass responsible for the universe today? What did it consist of?

[geetarmoore]

OK...let me rephrase.

What created the huge amount of mass responsible for the universe today? What did it consist of?


It consisted off the entire mass of the universe....

What created it? What created what created it? What created what created that? What created what created what created the one who created the ball of mass?

A guy could grow weary.......;)

[Ducky]

OK...let me rephrase.

What created the huge amount of mass responsible for the universe today? What did it consist of?



It's scientifically kown that I, as the Titanium Superhero, made this universe. I had alot of mexican that day, and this is the mess that exploded on contact with the common household chemicals I used to use as my toilet water and my electrified spine.

I've been trying to clean this sh*thouse up ever since.

You infidels could f***ing help a bit once in a while, you know.

[Marquis de Carabas]

OK...let me rephrase.

What created the huge amount of mass responsible for the universe today? What did it consist of?
Establish the need for a creator of said mass.

[Phil]

here is latest staement that he keeps hammering....


"I'm just trying to get you to understand that the theories postulated by "science" are faith-based beliefs, and are therefore religious beliefs."

Some folks have offered good advice for answering this already, but I'll just add something said many times on these boards. It is quite to the point:

The theories postulated by science are not faith-based beliefs. The laws and theories extrapolated by science exist whether anyone believes in them or not. In fact, they would exist whether humans existed or not.

Religion, in this regard, is the complete opposite. Take away people (faith-generating pods, so to speak), and there is no such thing as religion.

In other words, science does not concern itself with beliefs or faith. Science is a method of discovery, and it operates independently of all human biases (well, good science does anyway). The discoveries made require no faith, they require no belief, and they require no human validation whatsoever. They simply are what they are.

And, as has been stated, there is no "off" position on that method of discovery. So the discoveries are constantly being re-evaluated, improved upon, updated, and sometimes even downright reversed.

Religion? Not so much.

We could overturn the entire known body of physics completely --- I mean prove it to all be wrong --- and a physicist would still be a physicist. Were we to do the same with religion, would a Christian still be a Christian? Or a Jew a Jew? Or a Muslim a Muslim?

[Dr Adequate]

What created the huge amount of mass responsible for the universe today? What did it consist of? The mass "crystalised" out of energy. That's a metaphor, but not a bad one. It may be the best answer you can get unless you study quantum theory in detail.

[wastepanel]

Some folks have offered good advice for answering this already, but I'll just add something said many times on these boards. It is quite to the point:

The theories postulated by science are not faith-based beliefs. The laws and theories extrapolated by science exist whether anyone believes in them or not. In fact, they would exist whether humans existed or not.

Religion, in this regard, is the complete opposite. Take away people (faith-generating pods, so to speak), and there is no such thing as religion.

In other words, science does not concern itself with beliefs or faith. Science is a method of discovery, and it operates independently of all human biases (well, good science does anyway). The discoveries made require no faith, they require no belief, and they require no human validation whatsoever. They simply are what they are.

And, as has been stated, there is no "off" position on that method of discovery. So the discoveries are constantly being re-evaluated, improved upon, updated, and sometimes even downright reversed.

Religion? Not so much.

We could overturn the entire known body of physics completely --- I mean prove it to all be wrong --- and a physicist would still be a physicist. Were we to do the same with religion, would a Christian still be a Christian? Or a Jew a Jew? Or a Muslim a Muslim?

I agree with you whole heartedly, except for the "faith" comment. The point I am trying to make here is that those of the religious view and those of the scientific view share a likeness.

(1) Religion assumes there is a/many God/creator
(2) Science assumes there is no God/creator

Both sides are assuming. Honestly nobody knows which theory is correct, yet both sides are to the far right or far left on the issue. I know there are Christians who are (or are percieved as) disrespectful or ignorant of science. Unfortunately, we all share a faith one way or the other.

[geetarmoore]

(2) Science assumes there is no God/creator



Science doesn't care if there is a creator or not.

I'm not sure why you would say that science 'assumes' no creator exists.

Science just hasn't found proof of a creator......

[Phil]

I agree with you whole heartedly, except for the "faith" comment. The point I am trying to make here is that those of the religious view and those of the scientific view share a likeness.

(1) Religion assumes there is a/many God/creator
(2) Science assumes there is no God/creator

Both sides are assuming. Honestly nobody knows which theory is correct, yet both sides are to the far right or far left on the issue. I know there are Christians who are (or are percieved as) disrespectful or ignorant of science. Unfortunately, we all share a faith one way or the other.

I disagree.

I don't think science assumes anything. At least not on a broad scale (i.e. there is/is not a god/creator).

Science deals with observable phenomena. It formulates testable hypotheses about those phenomena. And runs tests/experiments to determine the merit of those hypotheses. Those hypotheses that do not hold up under repeated scrutiny are ultimately rejected, and those that do hold up are converged to draw the most accurate conclusions possible about the observed phenomena.

The only assumptions science might conceivably make would be in the details of the tests/experiments, and even saying that is a stretch.

Science makes no assumptions about any broad conclusions, such as the existence or non-existence of a god. That would be putting the cart before the horse. It would be backward. It would not be science.

The short of it is, there is simply no observable phenomena to support the religious viewpoint, so science does not concern itself with it.

[drkitten]

If the argument against a creator is "Who created the creator?", then who/what created the "softball size of mass"?

We don't know who created the softball-sized ball of mass.

Nor do we know who created the creator.

The difference is, we're fairly confident that the first existed (because we have a lot of evidence that we've found that points to it), and we're actively looking to see if we can figure out how it came about.

Contrary to popular believe, science does not assume that there is no God or creator. That would be a stupid assumption to make, because we have no hard evidence to support it. Nor does science assume that there is a God or creator -- that would be equally stupid, for exactly the same reason. If you have some evidence that God exists, scientists will be happy to examine the evidence and evaluate it -- that's what Behe did in Darwin's Black Box, and the results were somewhat unfortunate for him. But that's how science progresses, over the dead bodies of failed theories.

[wastepanel]

I see that all of you are on the same wavelength, and I cannot argue with your conclusions. However, I have run across many people that automatically rule out the thought of a creator. That is my point in all of this mess. Yes, nobody can provide proof of a creator. However, there is no proof that there is no creator.

There may be disrespectful religious types that rule out science, but there are also disrespectful scientists that rule out religion. Yes, some/most/all religions sound silly. But what these people hold is a blind faith that there is a creator. One person posted earlier that physics can be overturned one day based upon one discovery, and scientists will accept that as fact. In reality, the same thing would happen for the religious types. I feel that arguing this topic is silly because NOBODY KNOWS. If someone said God did it, somebody else could say the Spaghetti Monster did it, someone else might say it just was always there. Each argument holds the same merit. The difference between each is a faith that the theory is correct. Yes, religion jumps a step we are unsure about. Science stops at "we don't know". Yet, many scientist hold an opposite faith of the religious and do rule out God.

[geetarmoore]

I see that all of you are on the same wavelength, and I cannot argue with your conclusions. However, I have run across many people that automatically rule out the thought of a creator. That is my point in all of this mess. Yes, nobody can provide proof of a creator. However, there is no proof that there is no creator.

There may be disrespectful religious types that rule out science, but there are also disrespectful scientists that rule out religion. Yes, some/most/all religions sound silly. But what these people hold is a blind faith that there is a creator. One person posted earlier that physics can be overturned one day based upon one discovery, and scientists will accept that as fact. In reality, the same thing would happen for the religious types. I feel that arguing this topic is silly because NOBODY KNOWS. If someone said God did it, somebody else could say the Spaghetti Monster did it, someone else might say it just was always there. Each argument holds the same merit. The difference between each is a faith that the theory is correct. Yes, religion jumps a step we are unsure about. Science stops at "we don't know". Yet, many scientist hold an opposite faith of the religious and do rule out God.

I 100% rule out the chance that the Christian/Jewish God as depicted in the bible exists.

I 99.99% sure that if there is a creator, he does not want me to kiss his rear end on a regular basis.

I do not know, because I can not know, if our existence is part of a creation. I will await scientific evidence, or the hand of GOD itself to show me.... ;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

I see that all of you are on the same wavelength, and I cannot argue with your conclusions. However, I have run across many people that automatically rule out the thought of a creator. That is my point in all of this mess. Yes, nobody can provide proof of a creator. However, there is no proof that there is no creator.

There may be disrespectful religious types that rule out science, but there are also disrespectful scientists that rule out religion. Yes, some/most/all religions sound silly. But what these people hold is a blind faith that there is a creator. One person posted earlier that physics can be overturned one day based upon one discovery, and scientists will accept that as fact. In reality, the same thing would happen for the religious types. I feel that arguing this topic is silly because NOBODY KNOWS. If someone said God did it, somebody else could say the Spaghetti Monster did it, someone else might say it just was always there. Each argument holds the same merit.
[snip]

Each of those arguments, maybe. A scientist's argument would not even be made until the evidence was properly examined, which is why it would hold more merit.

[Genesius]

I 100% rule out the chance that the Christian/Jewish God as depicted in the bible exists.

I 99.99% sure that if there is a creator, he does not want me to kiss his rear end on a regular basis.

I do not know, because I can not know, if our existence is part of a creation. I will await scientific evidence, or the hand of GOD itself to show me.... ;)

Only the Hand of God will do, eh?

You wouldn't be satisfied with the Foot of God, or perhaps the Naughty Bits of God?

:p

[geetarmoore]

Only the Hand of God will do, eh?

You wouldn't be satisfied with the Foot of God, or perhaps the Naughty Bits of God?

:p


:D :D

I guess that would be OK too....

[Marquis de Carabas]

The Naughty Bits of God aren't nearly as satisfying as one might imagine.

[Genesius]

The Naughty Bits of God aren't nearly as satisfying as one might imagine.

Depends on which God one worships.

Those of us who worship the Almighty Freakshow have had no complaints.

(Mainly because those who complain end up on the wrong end of Kmortis' Titanium Cudgel. . .)

[Phil]

. . . I have run across many people that automatically rule out the thought of a creator. That is my point in all of this mess. Yes, nobody can provide proof of a creator. However, there is no proof that there is no creator.

There may be disrespectful religious types that rule out science, but there are also disrespectful scientists that rule out religion. . .

Agreed. There are individuals, both scientists and believers, who are staunch in their views on the existence of god. People on both side of the argument can be, and often are, disrespectful to those on the other side. Such is human nature.

My comments, however, were directed at the following assertion:

I agree with you whole heartedly, except for the "faith" comment. The point I am trying to make here is that those of the religious view and those of the scientific view share a likeness.

(1) Religion assumes there is a/many God/creator
(2) Science assumes there is no God/creator

Both sides are assuming. . . snip . . . [W]e all share a faith one way or the other.

Perhaps it was your choice of language, or perhaps I misunderstood, but I read your post to mean science, in the collective sense, makes assumptions about a creator, and in some way has faith that there is no god. And I was merely pointing out that such an assertion about science as a whole is incorrect.

[wastepanel]

Perhaps it was your choice of language, or perhaps I misunderstood, but I read your post to mean science, in the collective sense, makes assumptions about a creator, and in some way has faith that there is no god. And I was merely pointing out that such an assertion about science as a whole is incorrect.

I apologize for the error in language. The point is stricken from the record. Science does not assume there is not a creator, some scientists do.

No harm?

[meg]

I don't think science makes any assumptions whatsoever about whether there is a god or not. The existence or nonexistence of god is irrelevent to the study of our world and our universe. Science and religion are not necessarily against each other. It is possible to believe that god created our universe and that science helps us to figure out how she did it. There is no conflict at all unless you believe that god gave us all brains, but for some reason doesn't want us to use them.

Wastepanel wrote: "If someone said God did it, somebody else could say the Spaghetti Monster did it, someone else might say it just was always there. Each argument holds the same merit."

The big question to me is what is the point of answering any question with "god did it"? What that answer says is there is no answer. You can never know why or how something happens/happened, so don't even try to understand. Just believe and repent.

Did saying "god did it" help us to cure polio? Nope. Science did that. Does saying "god did it" help us to fight infections? Nope. Science does, though.

I am a farmer. I guess I could just pick any old crop, - maybe god could even tell me what to plant, and throw the seed onto the ground, and decide if god loves me it will grow, and if she's mad at me it wont.

Or I can, thanks to science, take a survey of my soil depth and composition, study the various nutrient, heat, sunlight, planting and water requirements of the crops I'm considering, adjust my soil as needed and plant a crop that is better suited for my soil and my area.

If my crop gets infested with some particular kind of bug or a disease, I can either say "god did it, guess god wants me to go bankrupt" or I can study up on that insect (thanks to science) and figure out why it's there and what to do about it. Sometimes I can save this crop by spraying a pesticide or introducing natural predators or thinning it in a certain way (thanks to science). Sometimes its just a lesson learned for next year, - plant earlier or later, etc. No matter what, though, saying "god did it" provides absolutely no useful information to me.

So what's the point of ever even saying "god did it"?

Meg

[Ducky]

I don't think science makes any assumptions whatsoever about whether there is a god or not. The existence or nonexistence of god is irrelevent to the study of our world and our universe. Science and religion are not necessarily against each other. It is possible to believe that god created our universe and that science helps us to figure out how she did it. There is no conflict at all unless you believe that god gave us all brains, but for some reason doesn't want us to use them.

Wastepanel wrote:
The big question to me is what is the point of answering any question with "god did it"? What that answer says is there is no answer. You can never know why or how something happens/happened, so don't even try to understand. Just believe and repent.

Did saying "god did it" help us to cure polio? Nope. Science did that. Does saying "god did it" help us to fight infections? Nope. Science does, though.

I am a farmer. I guess I could just pick any old crop, - maybe god could even tell me what to plant, and throw the seed onto the ground, and decide if god loves me it will grow, and if she's mad at me it wont.

Or I can, thanks to science, take a survey of my soil depth and composition, study the various nutrient, heat, sunlight, planting and water requirements of the crops I'm considering, adjust my soil as needed and plant a crop that is better suited for my soil and my area.

If my crop gets infested with some particular kind of bug or a disease, I can either say "god did it, guess god wants me to go bankrupt" or I can study up on that insect (thanks to science) and figure out why it's there and what to do about it. Sometimes I can save this crop by spraying a pesticide or introducing natural predators or thinning it in a certain way (thanks to science). Sometimes its just a lesson learned for next year, - plant earlier or later, etc. No matter what, though, saying "god did it" provides absolutely no useful information to me.

So what's the point of ever even saying "god did it"?

Meg




Rockin' hard in the tractor cab in Kansas....