Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
God vs Science
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Orpheus Rex" data-source="post: 77289" data-attributes="member: 4500"><p>While occasionally the time aspect causing problems does occasionally occur, such as when NASA was surprised that their initial unmanned test on moon dust showed significantly less dust than they had thought should accumulate. Such discrepancies don't mean that the rest of science should be thrown out! It just means that there needs to be more searching to explain the phenomena. The comet can be explained fairly easily though. Do you really think that space is just some great void? It isn't. There are particles that the comet can pick up on its journey. This significantly slows the melting of the comet. On top of that, the comet spends most of its time away from the sun collecting material. While the comet will eventually melt, this can be calculated. It is unwise to dismiss something prior to fully looking at all the facts. Not to mention the way you don't even mention how the formation of the comet couldn't explain how the comet lasted so long.</p><p>Nevertheless, both sides of this discussion both show their utter ignorance of the subject matter. The fact is that for the most part, only American Protestants still hold classic creationist views. The creationist viewpoint has not even been properly stated or addressed here, which typically holds creation about 4000 years ago (not 2000 years like Khaos erroneously stated) and they have a full system in which they try to scientifically justify that viewpoint. The Creation Museum in Kentucky is an oddity of such work. BTW, I don't believe in creationism. Genesis normally viewed metaphorically as can be seen by the large amounts of metaphoric symbolism in the text.</p><p>My days, this thread makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.</p><p></p><p>So, let me summarize what both sides have said so far in a factual list and I'll add some fact correction to them.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Creationists are viewed by scientists as being morons. - Probably true, I view most creationists as morons; only 1 out of a 10 million of them seem to be able to properly argue their own side. But this is still a sweeping generalizations as some creationists are respected in the scientific community.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Two people popping up randomly 2000 years ago is very unlikely, especially compared to what we know about fertilization and embryonic development.<br /> -The creationist view is misstated here, it was 4000-ish years, not 2000. Some creationists believe in 10,000 years. Nevertheless, people popping up randomly is unlikely. The creationist has to put faith in God to be able to conceive such a notion. Nevertheless, the initial spark of life still hasn't been explained either. It is far easier to believe in a small form of life popping out of non-life than a bigger life, and this option still allows for God to create and guide evolution.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Comet easily explained with science. - Facts seem correct.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Contradictions in science, but still using the results of science daily. - Legitimately flawed logical structure pointed out.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">2 to 7 billion people in 4000 years? - Could be mathmatically calculated to show probability, but I'm not going to verify if assumed result is accurate. At best, the conditions would have to be right to allow for it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Point about beliefs not being able to be taken away by other people. - accurate</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Short discussion on fundamental beliefs. - I tend to follow Nietzsche myself. He said, to paraphrase, that no matter how much logic you use you will reach fundamental conceptions about reality that are cannot be reasoned back to any more fundamental level. Therefore, since it is impossible to logically know what those foundation are, they cannot be known. Since the fundamental truths cannot be rationally known, the individual is allowed to decide for himself what those foundations truly are. Those foundations include the foundations of logic itself. However, whatever you believe must be consistent within the framework of those chosen foundations, or else it can't be true. Cross reference this back to #4, #10, and #6. <br /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Assertion of the myth of the noble savage who lived without crime and was happy without "western" science. - All cultures have crime. They might not be dealt in the same as others or even called "crime." But we see that there are action that are considered to be taboo in a culture and the people of that culture do suffer consequences for doing so. There is no society on earth, ever (except maybe the in the Garden of Eden, if it existed), that didn't have the occasional cold blooded murder. Even dolphins have been known to kill in cold blood. Besides, what is happiness? How can you simply assume that someone was happy and that science was the direct cause of that happiness being taken away? Did science actually take away that happiness or did abused technology take it away?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Overcrowded prisons and sewer rivers. - The prison problem is mostly in the U.S. A few other countries are actually seeing a decline in prisons and as for sewer rivers, many rivers including the Thames were sewer rivers far before science went mainstream in those rgions. Science itself started with natural philosophers like Aristotle and did the Athenians live in such deplorable conditions that you describe?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Yes, maybe some people worship science, but why is that wrong? Sweden is also proscience are they letting their people starve to death while building ICBM's? Do you have any proof that that the world is illusion or maya? Why should that construct alter how we interact with this world? Does your belief system even hold up to itself?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Yet again, is the supposed decline in human morality caused by science? Or is this supposed fact merely coincidental? There certainly have been plenty of other major world changing events that could be linked to it. Can you link science directly to the decline?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There is no Vs. - I am incline to agree. C.S. Lewis talked about this in "The Abolition of Man," where he said that magic and science are similar because they are both methodologies to exert control over nature for good or for ill. Religion isn't necessarily magic, but I think the concept still applies a the understanding level. Both are acceptable methodologies to understanding the universe. In my opinion they work when united best together and not getting in each others way.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">People don't say science is knowledge, but it is a methodology for gaining knowledge. Knowledge doesn't necessitate death either. God said that if you eat from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" you will surely die. This doesn't mean all kinds of knowledge are deadly.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You quote a verse out of context from the book its in. I hate when people do this. As if simply citing an arbitrary verse justifies or rationalizes anything. You can distort anything if you take it out of context. You assume to much and with an obvious lack of understanding behind the books you say you support. Also please, why do you assume Christianity/Judaism is the only religion to be considered? Most Buddhists and Taoists I know like science. Japan has a lot of Shintoist, but yet they are known for their work in computer sciences!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">More contradictions pointed out over the mind being open.<br /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Well... there were two trees. After they eat from the tree of knowledge, then God sent a Chimera with a flaming sword to prevent them from reaching the tree of life. But it is correct to say that God didn't give them a choice between the two. He merely said you can eat of all the trees in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We don't even know if that was a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Maybe if Adam and Eve had waited and learned more about creation, God, and the universe (maybe with the help of scientific methodology) they could have matured to the point where it would have been acceptable to eat that fruit. Additionally I must point out that God left several opportunities for redemption after the fruit had already been eaten.<br /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Although the video Khaos posted has dozens upon dozens of textual inaccuracies and flawed or unbased assumptions. I mean, if you go with the actually well stated creationist viewpoint, most of the criticism in the video fall down immediately too. Its version of the events are overly simplistic and rather unimaginative. It lacks the philosophical ground to stand up against complex mysticism. Simply put, I know plenty of people who could debunk it logically in a thousand ways. Several of them don't believe in the story either. That video also makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.<br /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I am just as irked as you Khaos.<br /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The old, "what about when you die" argument was thrown down quite effectively by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter in their book, "The Light of Other Days." Which describes an immortal afterlife created by science. A very interesting read.</li> </ol><p></p><p>Overall, the belief that a God made the universe is very common among scientists. Michio Kaku lead me to believe in God with his books on science. He was one of the primary writers behind String Theory and he described the universe as being similar to a giant "stringed" instrument and that someone must be playing a beautiful melody on the strings. I think the description is in the introduction to his book, "Hyperspace." It wasn't creationism, but it was an argument for intelligent design that was cleverly consructed.</p><p></p><p>If you want a good portrait of creationism, go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It is well done and hey, if you are going to debate about creationism, it is probably the best place to learn that side.</p><p>If you just want to debate the theological implications of Genesis, you need to read major Christan and Jewish theological works. This includes the Eastern Orthodox Christian View, the Roman Catholic View, the Calvinist view, and any of those other major views.</p><p>As it is, I tend to see ignorant Atheist making ridiculous arguments that only win because the Christians are more ignorant. I love a good debate between the two, but its so rare. Dawkins despite his efforts tends to be ignorant on a lot of subjects regarding Christianity (example would be his view of knowledge of prayer only extends to the "hypercalvinist" viewpoint, but when he does know what he is talking about, he is great. Nevertheless, he rarely faces an opponent that requires him to expand his knowledge, which is Dawkin's main problem. If he had a significant rival, I feel that many great works and debates could happen.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Orpheus Rex, post: 77289, member: 4500"] While occasionally the time aspect causing problems does occasionally occur, such as when NASA was surprised that their initial unmanned test on moon dust showed significantly less dust than they had thought should accumulate. Such discrepancies don't mean that the rest of science should be thrown out! It just means that there needs to be more searching to explain the phenomena. The comet can be explained fairly easily though. Do you really think that space is just some great void? It isn't. There are particles that the comet can pick up on its journey. This significantly slows the melting of the comet. On top of that, the comet spends most of its time away from the sun collecting material. While the comet will eventually melt, this can be calculated. It is unwise to dismiss something prior to fully looking at all the facts. Not to mention the way you don't even mention how the formation of the comet couldn't explain how the comet lasted so long. Nevertheless, both sides of this discussion both show their utter ignorance of the subject matter. The fact is that for the most part, only American Protestants still hold classic creationist views. The creationist viewpoint has not even been properly stated or addressed here, which typically holds creation about 4000 years ago (not 2000 years like Khaos erroneously stated) and they have a full system in which they try to scientifically justify that viewpoint. The Creation Museum in Kentucky is an oddity of such work. BTW, I don't believe in creationism. Genesis normally viewed metaphorically as can be seen by the large amounts of metaphoric symbolism in the text. My days, this thread makes me not want to live on this planet anymore. So, let me summarize what both sides have said so far in a factual list and I'll add some fact correction to them. [LIST=1] [*]Creationists are viewed by scientists as being morons. - Probably true, I view most creationists as morons; only 1 out of a 10 million of them seem to be able to properly argue their own side. But this is still a sweeping generalizations as some creationists are respected in the scientific community. [*]Two people popping up randomly 2000 years ago is very unlikely, especially compared to what we know about fertilization and embryonic development. -The creationist view is misstated here, it was 4000-ish years, not 2000. Some creationists believe in 10,000 years. Nevertheless, people popping up randomly is unlikely. The creationist has to put faith in God to be able to conceive such a notion. Nevertheless, the initial spark of life still hasn't been explained either. It is far easier to believe in a small form of life popping out of non-life than a bigger life, and this option still allows for God to create and guide evolution. [*]Comet easily explained with science. - Facts seem correct. [*]Contradictions in science, but still using the results of science daily. - Legitimately flawed logical structure pointed out. [*]2 to 7 billion people in 4000 years? - Could be mathmatically calculated to show probability, but I'm not going to verify if assumed result is accurate. At best, the conditions would have to be right to allow for it. [*]Point about beliefs not being able to be taken away by other people. - accurate [*]Short discussion on fundamental beliefs. - I tend to follow Nietzsche myself. He said, to paraphrase, that no matter how much logic you use you will reach fundamental conceptions about reality that are cannot be reasoned back to any more fundamental level. Therefore, since it is impossible to logically know what those foundation are, they cannot be known. Since the fundamental truths cannot be rationally known, the individual is allowed to decide for himself what those foundations truly are. Those foundations include the foundations of logic itself. However, whatever you believe must be consistent within the framework of those chosen foundations, or else it can't be true. Cross reference this back to #4, #10, and #6. [*]Assertion of the myth of the noble savage who lived without crime and was happy without "western" science. - All cultures have crime. They might not be dealt in the same as others or even called "crime." But we see that there are action that are considered to be taboo in a culture and the people of that culture do suffer consequences for doing so. There is no society on earth, ever (except maybe the in the Garden of Eden, if it existed), that didn't have the occasional cold blooded murder. Even dolphins have been known to kill in cold blood. Besides, what is happiness? How can you simply assume that someone was happy and that science was the direct cause of that happiness being taken away? Did science actually take away that happiness or did abused technology take it away? [*]Overcrowded prisons and sewer rivers. - The prison problem is mostly in the U.S. A few other countries are actually seeing a decline in prisons and as for sewer rivers, many rivers including the Thames were sewer rivers far before science went mainstream in those rgions. Science itself started with natural philosophers like Aristotle and did the Athenians live in such deplorable conditions that you describe? [*]Yes, maybe some people worship science, but why is that wrong? Sweden is also proscience are they letting their people starve to death while building ICBM's? Do you have any proof that that the world is illusion or maya? Why should that construct alter how we interact with this world? Does your belief system even hold up to itself? [*]Yet again, is the supposed decline in human morality caused by science? Or is this supposed fact merely coincidental? There certainly have been plenty of other major world changing events that could be linked to it. Can you link science directly to the decline? [*]There is no Vs. - I am incline to agree. C.S. Lewis talked about this in "The Abolition of Man," where he said that magic and science are similar because they are both methodologies to exert control over nature for good or for ill. Religion isn't necessarily magic, but I think the concept still applies a the understanding level. Both are acceptable methodologies to understanding the universe. In my opinion they work when united best together and not getting in each others way. [*]People don't say science is knowledge, but it is a methodology for gaining knowledge. Knowledge doesn't necessitate death either. God said that if you eat from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" you will surely die. This doesn't mean all kinds of knowledge are deadly. [*]You quote a verse out of context from the book its in. I hate when people do this. As if simply citing an arbitrary verse justifies or rationalizes anything. You can distort anything if you take it out of context. You assume to much and with an obvious lack of understanding behind the books you say you support. Also please, why do you assume Christianity/Judaism is the only religion to be considered? Most Buddhists and Taoists I know like science. Japan has a lot of Shintoist, but yet they are known for their work in computer sciences! [*]More contradictions pointed out over the mind being open. [*]Well... there were two trees. After they eat from the tree of knowledge, then God sent a Chimera with a flaming sword to prevent them from reaching the tree of life. But it is correct to say that God didn't give them a choice between the two. He merely said you can eat of all the trees in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We don't even know if that was a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Maybe if Adam and Eve had waited and learned more about creation, God, and the universe (maybe with the help of scientific methodology) they could have matured to the point where it would have been acceptable to eat that fruit. Additionally I must point out that God left several opportunities for redemption after the fruit had already been eaten. [*]Although the video Khaos posted has dozens upon dozens of textual inaccuracies and flawed or unbased assumptions. I mean, if you go with the actually well stated creationist viewpoint, most of the criticism in the video fall down immediately too. Its version of the events are overly simplistic and rather unimaginative. It lacks the philosophical ground to stand up against complex mysticism. Simply put, I know plenty of people who could debunk it logically in a thousand ways. Several of them don't believe in the story either. That video also makes me not want to live on this planet anymore. [*]I am just as irked as you Khaos. [*]The old, "what about when you die" argument was thrown down quite effectively by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter in their book, "The Light of Other Days." Which describes an immortal afterlife created by science. A very interesting read. [/LIST] Overall, the belief that a God made the universe is very common among scientists. Michio Kaku lead me to believe in God with his books on science. He was one of the primary writers behind String Theory and he described the universe as being similar to a giant "stringed" instrument and that someone must be playing a beautiful melody on the strings. I think the description is in the introduction to his book, "Hyperspace." It wasn't creationism, but it was an argument for intelligent design that was cleverly consructed. If you want a good portrait of creationism, go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It is well done and hey, if you are going to debate about creationism, it is probably the best place to learn that side. If you just want to debate the theological implications of Genesis, you need to read major Christan and Jewish theological works. This includes the Eastern Orthodox Christian View, the Roman Catholic View, the Calvinist view, and any of those other major views. As it is, I tend to see ignorant Atheist making ridiculous arguments that only win because the Christians are more ignorant. I love a good debate between the two, but its so rare. Dawkins despite his efforts tends to be ignorant on a lot of subjects regarding Christianity (example would be his view of knowledge of prayer only extends to the "hypercalvinist" viewpoint, but when he does know what he is talking about, he is great. Nevertheless, he rarely faces an opponent that requires him to expand his knowledge, which is Dawkin's main problem. If he had a significant rival, I feel that many great works and debates could happen. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
God vs Science
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top