Jump to content


Science or Religion?

  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

#251 Sweeney

  • 1,097 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 01:14 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 25 2007, 09:11 PM) View Post
No, we cannot fully comprehend God. It is possible to understand the basic nature of God, He is loving, fair, kind, etc. All those words describe His nature but it is otherwise impossible to understand His entire nature. If we found a contradiction in His said nature, it would therefor be possible to prove that He cannot exist.

That's more of a sociological disproof, rather than a scientific one.
Besides which, we can't even accurately determine if a human is loving, fair or kind, let alone a divine being of dubious nature.

#252 Sweeney

  • 1,097 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 01:21 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 25 2007, 09:18 PM) View Post
I didn't say scientific, I said contradiction. The point is I believe it is possible to disprove the existence of a superior being by using that beings own nature to contradict itself.

Well, then if you're not claiming scientific disproof, my point still stands blink.gif
The concept of God is an unfalsifiable theory, and therefore scientifically invalid.

#253 Sweeney

  • 1,097 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 01:27 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 25 2007, 09:24 PM) View Post
I asked you why scientific evidence that suggests the existence of a superior being/force is not possible, you said because it cannot be disproven, I offered a method for it to be disproven, and here we are.

I thought it was something of a foregone conclusion that in order for a theory to be scientifically valid, the possibility of disproof would have to also be scientifically based.

#254 nox

  • 6,706 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 01:31 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 25 2007, 04:31 PM) View Post
Put it this way. Evolution is not a fact. God is not a fact. Science can be used to suggest the concept of evolution. Science can be used to suggest the existence of a superior being. Can you explain to me why science cannot suggest the existence of a superior being? I'm not saying `prove` it, but merely suggest it.

the only "proof" for evidence of a God would be the fact that it cannot be disproven and/or if all other current scientific theories are found to be invalid. however these aforementioned ways are hardly the way a scientist would go about constructing a theory or hypothesis, science is based upon fact not doubt - which is why Christianity and Science remain on separate tables.

Edited by nox, 25 August 2007 - 01:33 PM.

#255 Sweeney

  • 1,097 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 01:35 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 25 2007, 09:31 PM) View Post
So you can't use scientific evidence so suggest something that cannot scientifically be disproven? It doesn't make sense in my mind. If there was slight evidence of intelligent design via scientifical data, what would you do with it? Just say, "Well the evidence is here, but apparently I can't use it since this being cannot scientifically be disproven." In my mind it just doesn't make any sense.

That is correct.
That is a principle of the scientific method which has served those far more intelligent that you or I very well for many years, and will continue to do so for many more.

#256 Melchoire

  • 5,284 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 04:05 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 25 2007, 12:00 PM) View Post
Do we have evidence for the miracles? No. God creating the world in 6 days? God is transcendant to time, therefor as the Bible says "A day is a thousand years to God."

Well what evidence is there that make you believe all other religions are illogical?

#257 Akira

  • 795 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 05:29 PM

Do you want to know why I think God wants innocent people killed? He gave the people the Old and New testaments, correct? Both of them state specifically which people are sinners, which people are evil, and so on. To make this even more simple: suppose that there is a Muslim talking about Islam with your children. Wouldn't they be far more dangerous than a murderer? After all, if a murderer slays your child, your child will go into heaven for being a good Christian. However, if they got interested in Islam and converted, they would be damned to eternal torture. Hence, these backwards apes that God allegedly gave his word to would want nothing more than to kill and convert, simply to save their own people from damnation. After all, to be an atheist back then was to be a heretic deserving of being burnt alive. Sounds real fair, correct?

Religion, whenever it is in a debate, has nothing but 'what ifs'. That is because religion is nothing more than a set of books with similar beliefs, but different names etched in. To give you an idea of why religion is so similar...it's not the word of God. Simple as that.

Listen to this: Mithra was a Persian/Indian God of 6th century BC. Apparently, he was born of a virgin on December 25th, as many early Gods were. This birth was witnessed by shepherds and gift bearing Magi who followed a falling star. He was known as the son of God, and was capable of healing the blind, lame, and sick. Mithra was sacrificed at the spring equinox, rose up after three days, and ascended to paradise. Mithra celebrated his last supper with 12 disciples before this, however. In his memory, his followers would 'eat' their God in the form of wafers and bread, in fact, the bread was marked with a cross, a symbol borrowed from a different God. Followers of Mithra believed a day of judgment would occur where sinners and the 'unbaptised' would be dragged into the abyss.

That...was written before the bible. Uh...so...did Jesus mimic them? Or did they somehow mimic Jesus before he came? If so, it looks like God blessed a different crowd with foresight of a savior they would never see.

So...what makes your Mithra better than that Mithra?

The thing that you have to understand is that finding the right religion is not just about looking at the living ones. You have to look at the dead ones, too, and usually, that leads to a lack of faith, not a burgeoning amount of it. You look back at the dead religions, and you will find that Christianity is hardly an original text. It didn't do much on its' own, in fact. It borrowed a lot from religions no longer in existence. So, God apparently felt the need to plagiarize the writing of 'sinners'. Hence, the entire book was writ in sin, instead of holiness. Stolen from 'false texts' to raise a messiah on 'false beliefs'.

In order to choose a religion, you can't start by thinking "Christianity is the right path, but I'll go ahead and look at these other crappy religions". To strictly believe that good people, regardless of how good they are, will go to hell for disbelief, is to be a hypocrite. God would be a hypocrite, then, throwing innocent souls into hell just because they didn't sit in a stuffy building for three hours on a Sunday.

And honestly, I know this lovely little gay kid that wouldn't hurt a fly. He gets picked on constantly by 'good Christian' boys that do whatever they can to beat him up and alienate him. Going by your NT laws, those Christian boys are going to heaven, and that gay kid who is the nicest kid I've ever met, would be sent into a lake of fire to be tortured endlessly for all of eternity.

God is allegedly judging us on a tiny amount of time, too. This is something that would be considered ridiculous if it was suggested as scientific. Our lifetime, put up against eternity? A proper measurement in a human life of this sort of judgment would be if you were pulled from your mother and didn't instantly kick your left foot, you would be thrown into a jail cell and kept barely alive with constant torture until you died as a very old man. God's judgment is terrible. He is judging our entire existence off of 70+ years of life. To give you an idea of how barking long that is, forty thousand years wouldn't get you any closer to the end of eternity, and that is already ridiculously longer than your entire time spent on Earth. It is an unfair judgment, then; like taking someone who didn't brush their teeth one time and spanking them for fifty years straight. By two hundred years later, you probably wouldn't even know why you were still there, or why God still demanded you be tortured. God is not a forgiving deity, at all, by a longshot. He can't even forgive someone for not following Christ, let alone someone who kisses the same gender. That sort of God is an idiot with a huge ego, claiming to be loving and just when he can't even manage to be good...by human standards. You do realize that if a higher being can't even be moral to mankind that he can't possibly be better than us, right?

You know, there was something on about Theresa recently...supposedly, she spent most of her life feeling empty, without any real belief in God. If she had died before she finally managed to accept this emptiness and decide that God was real, she would have been tossed in hell for her lack of belief. Oh yeah, God is totally just. Like a kid with a magnifying glass staring down at an ant colony.

EDIT: And, as far as science goes, God can't even begin to wedge his way into it. The only way is for his followers to state: well, God made these things works. Or: these wouldn't work without God. However, ask for proof of God, and here's what you get:

The Bible says it.
Look around you: everything is too pretty to be coincidence.
If you look at a painting...

It's all abstract and poetic, not factual and serious at all. If scientists said that the sun works because 'it just does', or 'it's there', or 'the sun warms us, so it works', it would be laughed at and shot down. That can't be used as utter fact. Similarly, if we found an old book that claimed the sun was really made from everyone passing gas, we wouldn't automatically say "That MUST be true!" That would be ridiculous. However, the Bible claims God exists because he just does, and the entire story has him acting like a background while hundreds of proverbs are thrown in about why being a whore is bad, and so on. So...should we instantly assume it is right because it claims God exists? Does that make it instantly true, without so much as room for argument? No; and it is ridiculous to assume that an old book like that would be totally correct simply because a lot of people say God exists for any of those aforementioned reasons. Some of the stories about Jesus don't make much sense when put up to the timeline, either. His birth in a manger is silly: why would Joseph drag his very pregnant wife out to be added to the census on the wrong year? It's too dangerous of a trip for a pregnant woman; so why endanger someone that was obviously carrying the son of God? Why nearly cause a miscarriage? To fulfill a prophecy? Even then, they did it wrong; hence why there are still Jews. It seems really crude to grab their book and add on to it, claiming you know the real messiah, when they are still there, waiting for their messiah to come. If they are still there...then why would Jesus be the real messiah? Because Christians say so? Look, if the Jews don't think that's the messiah predicted in THEIR book, then I doubt it's the real messiah.

Edited by Akira, 25 August 2007 - 05:52 PM.

#258 Ives

  • 4,320 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 08:35 PM

Evolution is a theory, not a hypotheses. I'm not well knowledgable of science, however, and laymen aren't the ones who should be telling you this. I'm a skeptic in general, however, and I do know that there are very few skepticists who will tell you that evolution couldn't have happened.

#259 Raui

  • 5,683 posts

Users Awards

Posted 25 August 2007 - 11:58 PM

QUOTE(FlashGM @ Aug 26 2007, 05:09 AM) View Post
Like I said before: something can be created from nothing tongue.gif (remember the article)

That method you referred to required a particle accelerator and some particles colliding. So saying something out of nothing isn't entirely the truth.

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 26 2007, 07:31 AM) View Post
So you can't use scientific evidence so suggest something that cannot scientifically be disproven? It doesn't make sense in my mind. If there was slight evidence of intelligent design via scientifical data, what would you do with it? Just say, "Well the evidence is here, but apparently I can't use it since this being cannot scientifically be disproven." In my mind it just doesn't make any sense.

Can you link me to any scientific evidence which would support an object or being able to be transcendent of time ? Use science to explain that theory and I'll be impressed wink.gif

#260 Akira

  • 795 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 07:28 AM

The difficulty with defending a deity is that your only real source is your holy text. There is no scientific evidence that there is a God on this plane or otherwise, and there is no scientific evidence that can prove his work. And sure, you could say that God made everything, but there is no proof to say it. It would be like me saying that I made everything, and that no one could disprove it because I wrote a book saying I did. I could argue that I see giant purple birds walking down the street all day, and no one would be able to disprove it because I would be the only one capable of seeing them.

Your God cannot be proven as a creator because he acts 'behind the scenes' at all times, and apparently doesn't like to talk to skeptics at all. However, he cannot be disproven because, well, his only 'proof' is the bible, and the claim that he made everything. Even when parts of the bible are proven wrong, believers still say that God exists, so one could say that the total destruction of the bible still would not be enough to disprove God. The proof given for God is loosely tied to reality and does little to attach to science. Actually, it does nothing to attach to science. Scientifically, saying that something exists 'because it just does' is silly. Even gravity has an explanation that is realistic. Why can't the all powerful creator of everything possibly make his story believable? Hence why you need 'faith' to believe in God, not fact. There is no fact, so you just gotta hope real hard that there is something wonderful waiting after life.

#261 Akira

  • 795 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 07:44 AM

Even a suggestion is difficult to find with just one source. Come on; that isn't even good enough for a middle school report, let alone a God!

Besides, I don't think I could worship a suggestion o.O

There's a movie, I don't remember it's name, about some Aborigines who lived peacefully without quarrel until a plane flew overhead and dropped a coca-cola bottle. They started fighting over it and considered it to be some holy thing...it's fairly amusing, but enlightening at the same time: God only brings argument wherever he appears, never peace and unity.

#262 Akira

  • 795 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 07:57 AM

Although if the suggestion isn't even middle school report worthy...well, gee o.O If it couldn't satisfy my English teacher, then how could it satisfy a scientific skeptic? Realize that you already think God is real, so you would probably accept anything that looks like it might prove God. I don't believe in him, so it would take a lot to even make him sound convincing.

And honestly, everything about God is subjective. I haven't seen much that wasn't done entirely off of opinion for God...

#263 Akira

  • 795 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 08:22 AM

"The thesis of The Privileged Planet is no different than the classic case of Presidential coincidences: Abraham Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860, Kennedy in 1960. Both of their last names have seven letters. Both of their wives experienced the loss of child in the White House. Both were shot in the head on a Friday. Both were assassinated by Southerners and succeeded by Southerners. Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who was born in 1808. Kennedy was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who was born in 1908. Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, has 15 letters in his name. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has 15 letters in his name. Both assassins were known by three names. Booth was born in 1839, Oswald in 1939. As I am unable to imagine otherwise, these coincidences are too great to have occurred due to chance alone, so there must be some Intelligent Assassin behind it. Thus runs the reasoning throughout The Privileged Planet."

Some poking around and reading of the comments gave me this to say about that video. The problem with the assumptions in this video are that they are just assumptions, yet they were proudly put forth as fact that totally proves God is real, and that we are in fact the favorite species. I don't like favoritism, especially since we are fairly young on this Earth. To give you an idea, it would be like all of the basic members here getting special privileges while private members don't get as much even though they've been here longer, just because the site maker favors basic members. Sounds fair, right? Humans have no basic advantages if you take away our technology, so technically, if we lived without all of this 'sinful stuff' (and it is a sin, if you look at the fact that God considered giving us intelligence to be bad), we would be dead by now. We're no greater than giant mice, and we have just as great of a chance of defending ourselves without building something. We can take down a lion with weapons, but a lion sure doesn't need to build anything to kill us.

#264 Akira

  • 795 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 08:54 AM

Perhaps, but my point was still there. 'Science can't explain why we're here, so therefore, God made us and the bible is right' is just as obscure as claiming the existence of that Intelligent Assassin.

Unfortunately, you are not talking about possibility. You are talking about the Christian God existing. I accept that there could possibly be some greater being, but I cannot accept that it favors humans, nor can I accept that it is any specific deity described on Earth. You are taking that and saying that the Christian God exists, not that a greater being exists. As soon as you pick out a specific God, it becomes ridiculous, because you can't assume or pretend to know which God is real when all you have to go by is a book written by dead men that couldn't even agree on what to put into the book.

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation...as soon as 'evidence' is up for interpretation, it isn't evidence. If one person can say that this proves it without a shadow of a doubt and sound sensible, and then someone else can say that it proves nothing and sound sensible, then it isn't proof. It is nothing more than opinion and hearsay, and that is not good for science. I admit that a higher being could exist, but I also admit that the universe could have always existed, or that matter may have started it. I won't say 'well, a higher being could exist...so it must be Jesus!' Nope...that's just not sound judgment for me. It may be for you, but it is not for me.

#265 Raui

  • 5,683 posts

Users Awards

Posted 26 August 2007 - 02:17 PM

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 27 2007, 01:47 AM) View Post
That's completely subjective. I would rather have a middle school report worthy suggestion than nothing. Like I said, watch that movie, and you'll understand.


One quick question ? How old is that movie ? I watched both part 1 & 2 and I noticed in part 2 they listed the factors required for complex life, I forget what they call them but they have started finding life that thrives in the most unusual and unheard of places. An example is below. Thats life that thrives completely without a sun which gets you thinking if you ask me as for centuries we've thought you must have a sun for life to thrive and thats just on our own planet. Imagine what we might find if we drill holes in Mars or penetrate the icy cover of arguably Jupiter's most talked about moon, Europa.

QUOTE(Josh @ Aug 27 2007, 01:11 AM) View Post
I said supporting the fact that the being exists.

Also that is only an assumption. You can't even use quantum physics to explain why you believe God is transcendent of time and quantum explains everything tongue.gif

EDIT: Today I decided to ask my science teacher what his belifs were one how we came to b, this is the convosation summed up.

Raui: Hey Sir ! On this website I visit regularly they are debating wheather god made the universe or if it was simply pure physics. I was wondering where you belive the universe came from.

Teacher: Well I am I science teacher aren't I.

Raui: Yes, although religious figures can argue that science is the language of god.

Teacher: Ahh yes, well I come from a religious family. I was brought up believing in god however one day I thought that having religion drilled into my head at a young age I would try and find the correct answer which I feel is the right answer. I still had my faith and as there was more scienticfic reasoning behind the dawn of the universe so I kept telling myself that Science and Religion can co-exist. Except as I looked further and further into it I came what I refer to as the turncoat of my faith. I won't go into details of it but I feel in myself this gives undeniable proof theres no such thing as god.

Raui: Can you tell me what it is you found out ?

Teacher: Not really, its in a way a personal experience that I find best not discuss.

Raui: Okay, so what do you think about people that do say that Science is the language of God ?

Teacher: Wishful thinking.

Then the bell went and my god it was a werid convosation...

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users