God vs Science

[wistahpatsfan]

LOL I hope you're not serious -- at some point I mentioned Zoroastrians, having to do with the Muslims in India refusing to bury the dead terrorists... but that was a joke.

At any rate: I am not agnostic. I believe in God, sometimes (rarely) because I feel it affirmed by a je ne sais quois at a certain moment. More often than not, for me, belief is a struggle, and I choose to maintain belief in the absence of good proof that would convince a skeptic, as well as the absence of a heart full of easy faith. It's just a choice.

I can not make a case for it to you or anybody else and have no interest in doing so. I do get disgusted in these perpetual displays of easy faith in what I see as demonstrably false premises, regarding literalism and the mechanics of salvation and theology.

So: if one believes that belief is a matter of choice, does that make one agnostic? I don't think so, but that's a definitional quibble.

PFnV

You sound like a classic agnostic Zoroastrian to me...CULTIST!

 

[OldEngland]

nobody ever came to Faith because they lost the arguement.

I did. I was arguing with a young lady that Jesus could not possibly be the Son of God, and instead he was just a normal yet rather clever, forward thinking bloke with a very developed spiritual side.

Unfortunately in my zest to prove her wrong and win the argument, I decided to research his life and teachings and gather the evidence.

Its probably safe to say I ended up losing that that argument in a rather spectacular fashion.

 

[Lifer]

I did. I was arguing with a young lady that Jesus could not possibly be the Son of God, and instead he was just a normal yet rather clever, forward thinking bloke with a very developed spiritual side.

Unfortunately in my zest to prove her wrong and win the argument, I decided to research his life and teachings and gather the evidence.

Its probably safe to say I ended up losing that that argument in a rather spectacular fashion.

So you can relate to Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell then. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[OldEngland]

So you can relate to Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell then. Thanks for sharing that.

I’ve not read any of their books, but in terms of seeing the perfectly rational side of Christian teaching and the "mechanics of salvation", then yes I can definitely relate to them in apologist terms.

 

[godef]

But if you have FAITH that there is a teapot circuling Pluto and you had hundreds of eyewitnesses ( ok, say we had the technology to send astronauts to Pluto just for, lack of a better word, arguements sake) who put their life on the line to swear that there was a teapot, and generations before that, there were hundreds of prophesies on record that there would be a teapot going around Pluto at exactly the same time that it was predicted
then the people who had faith that there was indeed a teapot circuling Pluto would not all be whackjobs.

So far, there has not been a book produced making so many predictions about the teapot, there hasnt been hundreds of people who saw the teapot, and these same people didnt have such faith in the reality of the teapot that they would all accept grisly deaths rather than take back their teapot story so in this case I dont feel there is the same weight of responsibility to disprove the theory.

But tell me, how many of those who had that faith of an invisible teapot orbiting Pluto primarily becuase they learned about it from someone else who had that same faith?

I mean, it's not like you can actually go to Pluto and see thast teapot. Never mind that it's invisible.

Now, if thousands of people autonomously came up to me and told me they believed this, AND if they could PROVE to me that they never talked to anyone else who shared the faith, THEN you would have my attention.

Faith in and of itself doesn't mean squat.

And as to the question of why faith and science can't co-exist... well, it simply can't if that faith continues to contradict science. If you want to abide by a certain faith, that's your right, and I will defend that right as an American as well as a free person to follow that faith. In that way, science and your faith CAN be compatible because, well, they don't need to be imcompatible. However, once that faith compels you to begin to impinge on MY rights, then the party's over. This has nothing to do with science vs religion, and everything to do with your sensibilities being driven by your faith contradicting with my sensibilities.

 

[Lifer]

But tell me, how many of those who had that faith of an invisible teapot orbiting Pluto primarily becuase they learned about it from someone else who had that same faith?

I mean, it's not like you can actually go to Pluto and see thast teapot. Never mind that it's invisible.

Now, if thousands of people autonomously came up to me and told me they believed this, AND if they could PROVE to me that they never talked to anyone else who shared the faith, THEN you would have my attention.

Faith in and of itself doesn't mean squat.

And as to the question of why faith and science can't co-exist... well, it simply can't if that faith continues to contradict science. If you want to abide by a certain faith, that's your right, and I will defend that right as an American as well as a free person to follow that faith. In that way, science and your faith CAN be compatible because, well, they don't need to be imcompatible. However, once that faith compels you to begin to impinge on MY rights, then the party's over. This has nothing to do with science vs religion, and everything to do with your sensibilities being driven by your faith contradicting with my sensibilities.

Faith doesnt mean squat to you. That doesnt mean it doesnt mean squat.

How has my faith impinged about your rights? What if your lack of faith impinges on mine?

Personally, i believe this whole God vs Science thing is a false arguement, they can certainly co-exist. A person can believe in Evolution, and that life began from a Creator. Many, many people, caught in the buckshot from extremists from both sides, believe this.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Faith doesnt mean squat to you. That doesnt mean it doesnt mean squat.

How has my faith impinged about your rights? What if your lack of faith impinges on mine?

Personally, i believe this whole God vs Science thing is a false arguement, they can certainly co-exist. A person can believe in Evolution, and that life began from a Creator. Many, many people, caught in the buckshot from extremists from both sides, believe this.

I believe it!
Hey! You tricked me! You made me say....wait, OH NO YOU DON"T...I'm not saying it again!

 

[godef]

Faith doesnt mean squat to you. That doesnt mean it doesnt mean squat.

How has my faith impinged about your rights? What if your lack of faith impinges on mine?

Your faith CONSTANTLY impinges on my rights, and the rights of many others. Can you say reproductive rights? The right-to-lifers cause is entirely faith based.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Your faith CONSTANTLY impinges on my rights, and the rights of many others. Can you say reproductive rights? The right-to-lifers cause is entirely faith based.

That's not true.
"Right-to-Lifers" are for the right to life. True RTL's oppose the death penalty as well. Are you one of those? If so, why? Where do you get the notion that the life of a rapist or murderer is worth keeping? Is there some sort of religious basis for that?

 

[Wildo7]

That's not true.
"Right-to-Lifers" are for the right to life. True RTL's oppose the death penalty as well. Are you one of those? If so, why? Where do you get the notion that the life of a rapist or murderer is worth keeping? Is there some sort of religious basis for that?

I'm opposed to the death penalty and I couldn't be any less religious. It's cruel and inhumane and doesn't serve as a deterrent. I believe that societies can be judged by how they treat their most unwanted elements. I also think that an execution is irreversible and the chance that an innocent person could be put to death outweighs the need for it. It's also cheaper to house and feed someone than execute them. Justice cannot be based on revenge, and revenge is the only basis for putting someone to death, regardless of what their crime is.

 

[Lifer]

Your faith CONSTANTLY impinges on my rights, and the rights of many others. Can you say reproductive rights? The right-to-lifers cause is entirely faith based.

first of all, its not true that the Right to Life movement is ENTIRELY faith based. As our other poster said, thats an insult to many Pro-Life supporters who arent believers in a particular faith, but are Pro-Life based on their own morals and values.
And if you use that logic, if you are Pro-abortion, and I believe an unborn baby is a life, and because of you, i have to be a witness to a society that kills millions of unborn babies, arent you infringing on me and what kind of world I want to live in?

But noooooo...thats different........

so lets get back to the topic at hand please.

 

[OldEngland]

why faith and science can't co-exist... well, it simply can't if that faith continues to contradict science

Here lies the problem. This is NOT my argument. And to be fair it’s down to a simple misunderstanding between us. If I may I would like to add some views for the purpose of discussion….

Firstly so there are no more misunderstandings I wanted to clarify my personal interpretation of the following terms, of course any alternative views are always welcome

God……..Is the pure energy present before the big bang, and still to this day somehow connects all things and influences everything in this universe (especially the life residing in it) by an unknown mechanism and for an unknown purpose.

Jesus……Is a man who possessed a quite remarkable insight into how to align yourself with this energy, and an astonishing teaching power to deliver his message. With the love and grace to carry it through to the end.

Holy Spirit……An energy system which allows a link between God and man to be established.

Bible……A collection of stories, teachings and interpretations written by “God filled” Holy men. These teachings are mainly designed to assist the implementation of Moses’ and Jesus' teachings. But in several cases originate by 2nd hand sources, are not always 100% consistent and in some places are obscure or does not contain information that would be incredibly useful to us. I'm curious whether this is by fault or design but regardless it undisputedly has an incredible divine influence and wisdom throughout its pages (far more than anything else ever written), and is THE guide to finding God’s Word.

Religion…..An organised effort to interpret how to align ourselves with God. This is completely by man’s design using the Bible and traditions, and therefore has weaknesses and disagreement with interpretation within denominations. :disagreement:.

Faith……A very personal interpretation and experience, firstly to whether you believe in this nonsense , and secondly how you go about finding it and acting upon it. A human relationship (with all its strengths and weaknesses).

Science……A discipline designed to discover the mechanisms that act upon the universe and everything within it. A human methodology and application, often requiring systems to be broken down and isolated into constitute parts for control purposes before analysing data collected (to determine if scenario occurred by chance) and forming hypotheses and theoretical explanations. Science is far from infallible, not that it won’t be improved in the future. At the moment the more factors you include in your experiment the less reliable and valid it is, as a result it is very hard to look at the whole picture in very complex scenarios (especially when looking at a holistic view of a person).

Conclusion. God is an unexplainable universal phenomenon.
Faith and Religion are very human interpretations of God (therefore fallible).
Science is a mechanism to pursue the truth about the universe.

faith and science can't co-exist

I support your view that Science and Faith, and Science and Religion do not currently always co-exist. Human interpretation of the knowledge left to us in the Bible does not fit recognised scientific theory in all cases. Literal interpretation of the Word is as much a fundamental right as anyone’s right to completely dismiss the existence of God, Jesus’ teachings, the validity of the bible, or the way religion is organised.
From personal experience I'm not particularly fond of literalism or religion. Between them they delayed me finding God for over 10 years, and in my experience both camps have difficultly listening when you try to explain this, and don’t like accepting the possibility they could be wrong. However the fact remains that there is a (small ) possibility they are right, and I thoroughly respect their dedication to God regardless.

“The Book of the Invisible Teapot must be 100% accurate in its predictions, at face value, without recourse to eisegesis ("reading into"), for the claim of 100% predictive accuract to be worth a damn”

I don’t agree, if the teapot is the same and always has been, the total accuracy of a book written by an imperfect life-form even with divine influence does not prove anything either way. God’s glory is far beyond humans, books and this world (even if He ghost wrote one ). Plus the mechanics of the book actually work, if the teapot changes lives, but the book of the teapot is not literal, does the teapot still exist? The "reading into" comment is interesting, I’ve often wondered about the significance of the fact that Jesus seems to deliver his teachings with this purpose in mind, and he knew the OT scriptures better than anyone.

Faith and religion is man made, and with it comes the headaches of evolution (in my eyes in no way contraindicated by genesis), and the vocal hard-line stances of some denominations on abortion, homosexuality, sex before marriage, children before marriage, divorce, stem cells, cloning etc, which are all indicative of man's (non-perfect) interpretation (although there is a lot of wisdom in all their concerns). Hence even with apparently pure morals men can still offend one another “each of us struggle in our own way”. These issues are not solely faith based, but are very important politically and morally for the future, regardless of faith (or lack of it).

“Teapot is the same”

God by the above definition on the other hand is a (super)natural phenomenon, an incredible force entwined throughout the universe. That influences all things to a certain extent, and is beyond human fallibility. Scientific research investigates how natural phenomena work, therefore Science is ultimately a mechanism for the pursuit of God, God’s workings within the universe and humans, and the mystical teapot itself.

“rather than believers who can ask questions, refine or change their beliefs, and realize the Teapot is the same, but they themselves have grown”

The pursuit of God, and the process of the evolution of faith put very elegantly.

Conclusion: Science and God – can co-exist
Faith/Religion and Science – not always, this is the section that causes problems, all of them man-made.
A small distinguishing point perhaps, but nevertheless an important one.
God, religion and faith are distinct.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Here is God:

Before, during and after this universe.

 

[Wildo7]

faith/god and science can coexist as long as faith/god stays the hell out of science's way. So far he/it have had some problems doing that.

 

[lostjumper]

faith/god and science can coexist as long as faith/god stays the hell out of science's way. So far he/it have had some problems doing that.

Faith is a large part of science in today's world. Do you believe in evolution...the big bang? I would wager you do. The Big Bang is a hypothesis, it's never been seen or proven, and can't be replicated, yet you choose to believe it. That's faith. You might want to rethink your original statement.

 

[Wildo7]

Faith is a large part of science in today's world. Do you believe in evolution...the big bang? I would wager you do. The Big Bang is a hypothesis, it's never been seen or proven, and can't be replicated, yet you choose to believe it. That's faith. You might want to rethink your original statement.

No you might want to know what the hell you're talking about, a scientific "theory" is not the same as a "theory" that's used in every day language:

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

 

[sdaniels7114]

Faith is a large part of science in today's world. Do you believe in evolution...the big bang? I would wager you do. The Big Bang is a hypothesis, it's never been seen or proven, and can't be replicated, yet you choose to believe it. That's faith. You might want to rethink your original statement.

There's proof for the Big Bang. Specifically the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted. That indicates that they're moving away from us ala the Doppler Effect. I'm no Astrophysicist so I don't have a complete understanding of the proof; but to say that some scientist said 'wouldn't it be cool if...' and the Big Bang Theory was created would be untrue.

 

[Lifer]

Not disagreeing at all with Evolution when I ask this:

How did life begin?

 

[Wildo7]

Not disagreeing at all with Evolution when I ask this:

How did life begin?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lifer]

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But where did all that stuff come from?