This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Creation according to the Bible.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I don't believe science can coexist with a literal interpretation of the Bible, no. To believe that all the evidence in the universe (radiometric dating, evolution, quantum mechanics, cosmology, etc.) is just a screen thrown up by God for... some reason... is to competely throw out science.
Edit: I'll reply to the other posts layers but I'm on a plane right now and will have to shut down my tablet soon.)
Post by
Frostshamadin
I asked if the thread assumes the existence in all seriousness. If that's the case then I'd misunderstood.
Science and religion come into conflict when religion makes crazy claims. The Qur'an states that fresh and salt water do not mix and Muslims are expected to believe this because it's the word of their god. This is a claim by a religion that any schoolchild can refute in 5 minutes.
Is it possible that the world is 6000 years old? No. It can be proven in many ways that it is far older than that.
Is it possible that we're in the Matrix and none of this is real? Sure.
Is it possible that some deity or other is truly omnipotent and planted evidence to make it look older? Sure but why would they do that and then get some guys to write down a bunch of stuff containing the "truth".
All manner of things are possible. If it's interesting for you to discuss them and annoying for me to take part in that then I'll leave you to it.
Comparing religion to the Matrix and implying that they share the samme ammount of logic is pretty disrespectful, kind of expect better from a mod...
Anyway the 6000 year old thing has been explained a few times already, I would suggest reading back.
Post by
asakawa
Comparing religion to the Matrix and implying that they share the samme ammount of logic is pretty disrespectful, kind of expect better from a mod...
Not at all. "Religion" is not a concept that inherently deserves respect or reverence and nobody should expect it.
I don't disrespect any people and in fact I don't
dis
respect any religions but the idea that "faith" is an automatic ticket to reverence is ludicrous.
Post by
MyTie
Science and religion come into conflict when religion makes crazy claims. The Qur'an states that fresh and salt water do not mix and Muslims are expected to believe this because it's the word of their god.
I can't speak to that part, because I don't remember it when I read the Qur'an. I would like to know the context of that, though. Anyway, we are speaking about creation of the universe, not mixing water.
Answer this question. Entertain philosophical thought:
Is there any way in which light traveling from a star can be 10 Million years old, and the universe only be 6 thousand years old?
Post by
gamerunknown
25:52 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour. Don't obey disbelievers. But rather fight against them.
25:53 And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.
25:54 And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful.
25:55 Yet they worship instead of Allah that which can neither benefit them nor hurt them. The disbeliever was ever a partisan against his Lord.
Surah 25. Anyway, whether science and faith can coexist depends on whether one is willing to accept conclusions that have an evidential basis and reinterpret one's doctrine in that light. If one holds that the holy doctrine is inerrant despite the evidence it becomes a problem if one bases one's legislation and parenting on that fact.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Comparing religion to the Matrix and implying that they share the samme ammount of logic is pretty disrespectful, kind of expect better from a mod...
Not at all. "Religion" is not a concept that inherently deserves respect or reverence and nobody should expect it.Religion has had a huge impact on shaping the world as it is today. Literally billions of people identify with some religious belief. Religion itself has a larger impact on the world than electricity. Religion is a relevant topic, and you should learn to respect religions, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Respecting them should be a priority to getting along with those that believe a religion.I don't disrespect any people and in fact I don't
dis
respect any religions but the idea that "faith" is an automatic ticket to reverence is ludicrous.Heh. Reread your posts, and use a critical and sympathetic eye, one that your readers might use. Regardless of how 'correct' you think you are, how do you think your message will be received? You need to think critically, when in such an inflammatory topic, of what is necessary to say, and what can be kept to yourself. Do you honestly think comparing religion to harry potter, or the matrix, is
productive
, and not extremely
inflammatory
?
If you can't see it that way, then you should know that by bringing up harry potter and the matrix that you are wildly off topic. You really should consider changing course.
Post by
Gone
Not that's consistent with everything else we've measured and observed. If you want to pick two random conflicting things, then sure, we can probably come up with a special case, but not one which is consistant with all other physical laws. Unfortunately, science is like that - it's all or nothing. You can't pick the bits you like, and disregard the rest, as it stops being science.
Once again science and faith can (and do) coexist for a lot of people. You say that it cant because there is no scientific proof of God. I say there is plenty of scientific proof, we just havnt discovered it yet, or dont have the tools to do so.
It really gets on my nerves when people try and claim that religion flys in the face of science, there are plenty of people who observe both. And you can stop going on about "all the natural laws" and such because
A) there is still quite a bit that we dont know about the universe, and
B) what we hold and accept as scientific and natural laws are constantly growing and changing, and if one does believe in the existance of God then that just means that he exists beyond natural law, that dosnt mean religious people are trying to argue against the laws of science. Everything we know about the natural laws can be true, and there can still be a being that exists above these laws.
EDIT: I actualy thought you were responding to the person above you, saying "Two conflicting things" meaning science and religion. I thought about deleting this post but Im gonna leave it up because some of it still applies to ther posts
Post by
gamerunknown
Unfortunately,
those that have mused
about the philosophical ramifications of this tend not to be respectful of other religions.
Besides, according to the religious, those that do not worship in the way prescribed by the prophets will be
tortured for all eternity
at the behest of an omnipotent benevolent God. The religious I've met generally tend to think this is a good precept and that those that disagree are responsible for the majority of the deaths of the 20th century. I think it's far more respectful to hold that the same thing happens to everyone when they die, regardless of the beliefs they held, even if they committed atrocities or heroic deeds.
Post by
Gone
Comparing religion to the Matrix and implying that they share the samme ammount of logic is pretty disrespectful, kind of expect better from a mod...
Not at all. "Religion" is not a concept that inherently deserves respect or reverence and nobody should expect it.
I don't disrespect any people and in fact I don't
dis
respect any religions but the idea that "faith" is an automatic ticket to reverence is ludicrous.
Religion is something that a person bases their entire life on sometimes, and holds a great meaning to people, and is taken very seriously by them. I get how miracles and other such things mentioned in religious scripture could seem like "magic" to somone who isnt religious, but comparing it to the Matrix or Harry Potter is kind of offensive.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
what we hold and accept as scientific and natural laws are constantly growing and changing, and if one does believe in the existance of God then that just means that he exists beyond natural law, that dosnt mean religious people are trying to argue against the laws of science. Everything we know about the natural laws can be true, and there can still be a being that exists above these laws.
This argument is a fairly sound one: a God could exist beyond the realm of logic. Free will and omniscience may be contradictory, but logic is a tool that explains our universe and may break down beyond it. Likewise, God may not exist within the universe: by definition, anything supernatural does not. However, if there is a natural manifestation of that supernatural entity, one would expect to find evidence for its existence. I think some people really do experience God. I wouldn't tell Benny Hinn that he didn't really experience God, nor would I say that to Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz. I may question
Peter Popoff
's intentions, but I definitely wouldn't say it to the face of Albert Fish.
I don't think the argument that proof for something exists but we haven't found it yet holds up. Using that criterion for something central to our lives, we'd have to accept the predictive power of aether. The scientific notion is to lack belief until evidence is before us (so that we can reject the null hypothesis). One doesn't need to apply falsifiability to their own lives, but chances are that you do so unconsciously. You don't assume that there's a tiny pink elephant behind your radiator that you don't have proof of yet.
but comparing it to the Matrix or Harry Potter is kind of offensive.
I guess a higher standard might be expected of the moderators, but it's just an analogy for something unsupported by evidence. Russell's teapot may be a more neutral way of framing it. People should be able to support their propositions with reasoned argument without claiming that people commenting on it are offending them.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Unfortunately,
those that have mused
about the philosophical ramifications of this tend not to be respectful of other religions.
Besides, according to the religious, those that do not worship in the way prescribed by the prophets will be
tortured for all eternity
at the behest of an omnipotent benevolent God. The religious I've met generally tend to think this is a good precept and that those that disagree are responsible for the majority of the deaths of the 20th century. I think it's far more respectful to hold that the same thing happens to everyone when they die, regardless of the beliefs they held, even if they committed atrocities or heroic deeds.
The greatest detractor from truth is what is done in the name of truth, without regard for the truth.Also, there's a lot of people talking about respect for other religions. How about rather than this 6000 year stuff we consider the Hindu interpretation that the universe recycles every 4 billion years or so? It doesn't fit with the observed measurements either, but it has no less weight behind it than the Christian view.
I'd be willing to entertain this conversation. I wish I knew more about the Hindu religion. If you know more, please explain it to me.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
You *believe* there is evidence out there
I covered that with "I say", this meaning it was a statement of what I believe to be true.
There is not one single shred of primary evidence that there is a god. The best argument that can be made is that he designed it precisely so he can't be measured. However, the scientific principal requires that if something cannot be measured or observed then you cannot simply infer it is there.
The laws of science dont divide everything up into two categories, the first being things we can prove, and the second being things that dont exist. How do you think new scientific laws and theories are discovered? Its by people exploring the things that we dont know/understand. Right now God is one of those things, we have no proof that he exists, that dosnt mean that it goes against science. We used to not have any proof that other galaxies existed either, that didnt mean the idea went againt science. In fact I believe that the very nature of science is discovery and
exploring the things that we do not know
.
Science and faith are to all intents and purposes, mutually exclusive
No they are not.
There are certainly many people who are both scientists and have faith, but they all have to make compromises to do so
Thats only the case if there is scientific proof that God dosnt exist, which there is not.
One of the professors in my department is a Christian, and also a highly respected climate scientist. He doesn't bring religion to his professional work. They are simply not compatible without being compartmentalised away from each other.
Were not talking about peoples work, were talking about peoples beliefs. No a scientist could not use religious scripture to come to a conclusion and have it carry any weight. But again science is more than just a degree in a certin field or a job. And you dont have to be a scientist to respect science and logic.
It always bugs me when people try and say that science (or worse logic) and faith contradict each other. Yes they do clash at some points, but you can still be devout to both without making any comprimises. And if one cant then prove me wrong.
Post by
MyTie
As far as the Hindu religion is concerned Brahma (the creator) creates and destroys the universe about every 4 billion years, with an infinite number of rebirths occurring one after the other.
My point is that from a scientific standpoint, the Christian creation myth has no more weight or value than any of the other countless creation mythologies. None of them are consistent with what we can observe or measure. To pick one and assume its right immediately suggests that you are discrediting the others purely on the basis of an arbitrary choice in belief whilst *also* ignoring the measured observable data.Yes. A choice in beliefs must be made to choose to believe one over the other. They are not compatible, not that I see. One says "God does this", and the other says "God does that".
It is interesting to hear their point of view, though. I'll do more reading on it in my own time.
Post by
gamerunknown
No they are not.
Well, it's more accurate to say they are non-overlapping. One doesn't publish a paper on a mutation in the flu virus flagellum or whatever because one has faith that it will hold up to peer review - it holds up to peer review because of the evidence provided.
Thats only the case if there is scientific proof that God dosnt exist, which there is not.
Since Popper, science has worked through falsification. One observes "x" in certain conditions and tries to explain why one has those observations. If one finds that the same conditions provide different observations in however many repeats, the theoretical underpinning is falsified. The falsification of "x" entails just that: in conditions "y" we will not observe "x" 95% of the time (usually). It doesn't mean that we now have to accept explanation "z" or that any future refinement in conditions may not demonstrate something similar to "x" does occur in 95% of the time.
If one does not accept a falsifiable definition of the existence of God, science really has no effect on that opinion. One shouldn't hold that it is a scientific opinion and one probably should not teach it as science.
Post by
166779
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well, it's more accurate to say they are non-overlapping.
I concur with this. Science and Christianity have very little to do with each other.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.