God and Science: An Inner Conflict

[MiamiHeat]

boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

All of this is irrelevant. In the end, you will all just agree to disagree. there is no point

[Winehole23]

Science is a human construct based on observation and inductive reasoning, that is based on a bunch of trusted assumptions that try to explain the world. While it does a damn good job, there is nothing FACT about it, I am sorry.

In other words, it is a religion.

I believe something like this. As ins utionally constructed, science and religion now perceive themselves to be fighting over the same throne. The one that dictates universal truth.

To hoist the certainty of the senses above faith and tradition is itself a sort of faith. This is the main theme of Paul Feyerabend, the notorious anarchist historian of science.

My own viewpoint is more antique. Reason is the science of the sensible; faith, that of the suprasensible.

[Winehole23]

boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

All of this is irrelevant. In the end, you will all just agree to disagree. there is no point

Thanks again for your non-contribution to the discussion. Much appreciated. You're clearly out of your depth here.

[Winehole23]

right, but to chalk up what we don't know to simply giving God credit is wrong.

This goes back at least as far as Lucretius, and I kind of agree. To put down the gaps in our knowledge to God is lazy.

[Alex Jones]

boring zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

All of this is irrelevant. In the end, you will all just agree to disagree. there is no point

Translation: I haven't rented any videos lately from blockbuster that i can quote and look smart on a message board.

Why not go rent back to the future so you can figure out how to go back in time and have your pappy wear a condom?

This way you won't exist and can't make a fool out of yourself on any message boards?

[exstatic]

How can faith and skepticism not be diametrically opposed? It's pretty hard to tiptoe a line between believing in something because you believe in it and believing in something because there is physical evidence. Claiming the two core ideas aren't in direct opposition and can somehow be reconciled just because you want to believe both is intellectually lazy.

+1 Science is constantly re-evaluating and testing itself. Religion expects you to believe what they say, no questions. It's the rational vs. the irrational. There is no proof of God, nor can there ever be. Religion is based upon belief without proof. Science, true science, is based on proof, without belief.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why believe a book written by man. Still, you have to appreciate the timeless wisdom from a peoples that old. (1)

Why believe that humans are anywhere close to knowing enough of science to disprove God.(2)

You are going to die within the next 100 years. Even if science has some crazy break through and connects the dots, you will be long dead. Sit back and just enjoy the show.

(1) Yes, "timeless wisdom" is fine, parables are fine, but that does not make them proof of anything. The Bible is full of wonderful parables and epithets about how one should live a good life, but it is NOT a LITERAL DO ENT. There is so much evidence to disprove Genesis that only a moron could believe that is how the world was created.

(2) The aim of science is not to disprove the existence of God! It is to observe and understand the world better through reproducible experiments.

God botherers, answer me this - why does God care about man? Why would an omniscient being capable of creating a Universe give a about anything an insignificant human being does? And no, because he "loves" me is not an answer.

I can entertain the possibility that there are higher beings than us in the universe. What I cannot understand is why they'd give a toss about humanity. If you look at humans versus the other beings on our planet, which I'm assuming are all "lesser" forms of life in that their brains are not capable of what ours are, all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak. So why should any greater being care about the plight of 7.5billion stupid organisms who are destroying the planet that supports their life? Makes no sense to me.

+1 Science is constantly re-evaluating and testing itself. Religion expects you to believe what they say, no questions. It's the rational vs. the irrational. There is no proof of God, nor can there ever be. Religion is based upon belief without proof. Science, true science, is based on proof, without belief.

Exactly.

[RandomGuy]

How is that measured, exactly? (I ask because I don't know, not to be a contrarian). I imagine speed of light sort of calculations?



Mainly because you have physical evidence (mangled metal, engine parts, etc...). The physical evidence we have today really doesn't provide any conclusive evidence to the origin of the universe.

The answers to both the question and the statement are in radio astronomy.

The first is likely due to red shift, and we the physical evidence we have of the origin of the universe are all the little photons and high-energy particles that are floating around for us to observe. It might not be the kind of thing you can hold in your hand, but it is physical evidence.

[Blake]

:God botherers, answer me this - why does God care about man? Why would an omniscient being capable of creating a Universe give a about anything an insignificant human being does? And no, because he "loves" me is not an answer.

I can entertain the possibility that there are higher beings than us in the universe. What I cannot understand is why they'd give a toss about humanity. If you look at humans versus the other beings on our planet, which I'm assuming are all "lesser" forms of life in that their brains are not capable of what ours are, all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak. So why should any greater being care about the plight of 7.5billion stupid organisms who are destroying the planet that supports their life? Makes no sense to me.

"all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak"

that's a pretty broad stroke you're painting

I thought for the most part humans cared whether or not polar bears and bald eagles, to name a few, become extinct.

as for why God cares about man......I'm guessing you probably don't have kids of your own or you would understand the philosophical reasoning.

[I Love Me Some Me]

God botherers, answer me this - why does God care about man? Why would an omniscient being capable of creating a Universe give a about anything an insignificant human being does? And no, because he "loves" me is not an answer.

I can entertain the possibility that there are higher beings than us in the universe. What I cannot understand is why they'd give a toss about humanity. If you look at humans versus the other beings on our planet, which I'm assuming are all "lesser" forms of life in that their brains are not capable of what ours are, all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak. So why should any greater being care about the plight of 7.5billion stupid organisms who are destroying the planet that supports their life? Makes no sense to me.

The simple answer is that he is a father who cares about his children.

[Agitator]

Do you guys think that everything really need be explained?

Yes.

That is the purpose of our existence.

[Agitator]

there is an observational basis for the Big Bang theory.

there is nothing but a religious basis for the theory that God created the universe.

that pretty much is the answer for the "why put the big bang theory in a science class and not the Bible".

Putting the Bible in a science class demeans both science and religion.

[angel_luv]

Yes.

That is the purpose of our existence.

Not mine.

As it says in Revelation 4:11" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

[Blake]

Not mine.

As it says in Revelation 4:11" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

really? so that goes for all Christians?

who needs penacillin when you have prayer

I also fail to see where it says "and since the Lord hath created man and all things, there shalt ne'er be a need to figure this stuff out"

[Phenomanul]

I was pointing out that that there are important philosophical differences between faiths. You disagree?

Not everyone who acknowledges the supernatural is immune to reason and empiricism. Indeed the faculties by which the two are apprehended, though they are not the same, do not necessarily conflict, and in fact may harmonize. Rationalism and empiricism, like it or not, find their roots in Christian philosophical heritage. The theory that reason and revelation conflict discloses a profound ignorance of the history of rationalism and religion.

I quoted Aquinas, not Malebranche. Aquinas saw reason and empiricism as part of providence. He included science in his philosophy as a path to truth. Though he defended faith, he did not scorn science, and was a more exacting rationalist than anyone in this thread. I'm with Spurster: the contradiction of science and faith is false.

The first clause swims back to my point; the second describes a point I never tried to make. Faith and reason are different faculties. The two do not conflate, but this does not mean they conflict: they aim at different objects, and are operationally dissimilar.

+1

[Phenomanul]

The answers to both the question and the statement are in radio astronomy.

The first is likely due to red shift, and we the physical evidence we have of the origin of the universe are all the little photons and high-energy particles that are floating around for us to observe. It might not be the kind of thing you can hold in your hand, but it is physical evidence.

Not enough to factually substantiate any claim concerning the origin of the universe... By your own standards no less.

We can't even ascertain whether or not matter behaved as such seconds after the "Big Bang". How then can any post-analysis of the 'evidence trail' we observe lead to anyone to make such conclusive statements? Can observations made 300,000 years after the event in question even be considered science? Not by your standards. For that matter, certainly not by mine, especially when physicists haphazardly assume that all of the physical constants that bind our universe have always remained constant - a critical assumption we have absolutely no proof of...

[mogrovejo]

This topic is so 19th century.

[Blake]

Not enough to factually substantiate any claim concerning the origin of the universe... By your own standards no less.

We can't even ascertain whether or not matter behaved as such seconds after the "Big Bang". How then can any post-analysis of the 'evidence trail' we observe lead to anyone to make such conclusive statements? Can observations made 300,000 years after the event in question even be considered science? Not by your standards. For that matter, certainly not by mine, especially when physicists haphazardly assume that all of the physical constants that bind our universe have always remained constant - a critical assumption we have absolutely no proof of...

that's why it's called Big Bang Theory and not Big Bang Law

[Phenomanul]

really? so that goes for all Christians?

who needs penacillin when you have prayer

I also fail to see where it says "and since the Lord hath created man and all things, there shalt ne'er be a need to figure this stuff out"

Ironic, considering Dr. Howard Florey (the chief developer of Penicilin) was a noted Christian.

[Phenomanul]

that's why it's called Big Bang Theory and not Big Bang Law

Science and absolutism are mutually exclusive concepts where first hand observations are not available, or where testable hypotheses are inherently missing (as would be the case with any origins based scientific claim). Either way, the point I'm trying to make is that not all scientific claims are as concrete as we are lead to believe they are.

Personally, I believe the Big Bang Theory closely describes what I read in Genesis. To claim that it occured chaotically and without purpose however, should never pass as science. Unfortunately, many assume this premise holds true.

Besides, there are other more interesting theories out there...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

"all you see is genocide and enslavement - the powerful enslave the weak"

that's a pretty broad stroke you're painting (1)

I thought for the most part humans cared whether or not polar bears and bald eagles, to name a few, become extinct. (2)

as for why God cares about man......I'm guessing you probably don't have kids of your own or you would understand the philosophical reasoning. (3)

(1) Take a quick look at the last 4000 years of human history and tell me that powerful enslaving the weak isn't the major theme.

(2) You have no idea what we are doing to the planet. Our entire global economic system is one big sausage factory - in the go the resources, out come the consumer goods, then we dig a big hole in the ground, or dump it into the air or rivers/lakes/oceans when we've finished with it. We are chewing through the non-renewable resources of the planet at an incredible rate (eg. 80,000,000 barrels of oil/DAY!), and destroying non-renewable resources (eg. soil, fresh water, fisheries, rainforests) at a far greater rate than is sustainable. Open your eyes.

(3) But we are not God's "children" - it is an omnipotent being that can create Universes, we have a common ancestor with chimps.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Not mine.

As it says in Revelation 4:11" Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

So we are here for the pleasure of God? What does that say about God?

Sorry, I don't want to be nasty, and I don't care what other people choose to believe spiritually (that's their choice), but I do have a problem with religion impinging on science classes in high schools (intelligent design is NOT science, as has been proven in a court of law), and I do have a problem with people telling me the Earth was created as described in Genesis when there is a ton of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Oh, and Phenomanul, I'm talking about the physical evolution of this planet (as apparent in geology), not the Big Bang.

[Blake]

Ironic, considering Dr. Howard Florey (the chief developer of Penicilin) was a noted Christian.

exactly

[I Love Me Some Me]

that pretty much is the answer for the "why put the big bang theory in a science class and not the Bible".

Putting the Bible in a science class demeans both science and religion.

No one's asked to put the Bible in the science class.


But why not explain that there are theories that exist that support intelligent design? Need not make reference to Christianity or the Bible...just offer the theory as just that...a theory.

[Blake]

(1) Take a quick look at the last 4000 years of human history and tell me that powerful enslaving the weak isn't the major theme.

there are a lot of bad things man has done over the past 4000 years. In the end, we know the difference between right and wrong which is why we put a stop to slavery and have laws regarding cruelty to animals.

(2) You have no idea what we are doing to the planet. Our entire global economic system is one big sausage factory - in the go the resources, out come the consumer goods, then we dig a big hole in the ground, or dump it into the air or rivers/lakes/oceans when we've finished with it. We are chewing through the non-renewable resources of the planet at an incredible rate (eg. 80,000,000 barrels of oil/DAY!), and destroying non-renewable resources (eg. soil, fresh water, fisheries, rainforests) at a far greater rate than is sustainable. Open your eyes.

anyone with a TV or a computer knows what we are doing to the planet.

you're making it sound as if absolutely nobody cares and nobody is trying to do anything about it.

(3) But we are not God's "children" - it is an omnipotent being that can create Universes, we have a common ancestor with chimps.

Biblically speaking, yes we are.