[iamzack]

I finded it!

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament is the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.

Jews like the first movie, but ignored the sequels, Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third one doesn’t count, Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.

[Liberator]

That's actually kinda funny.

OK, what Battuta and everyone else seems to be confusing is that a belief in God precludes a belief in science.  It just flat out doesn't.

The Universe and all that is in it is the way that it is, whether it is observed, measured, quantified, codified and calculated or not.

Your arguments against Religion because they believe in something beyond that which we can see don't really hold a whole lot of water, simply because you are treating Science as a religion as well.

Putting aside the yelling about His plan and things like that and let's put God into a little perspective with Science.  God is the Creator.  He made everything including us and our wonderfully curious and capable minds.  One thing that he did was endow us with the ability to understand His creation so that we can appreciate, each in his or her own way, the wonderous Creation that God has wrought. 

Here's where I break from what you would call "traditional dogmatic theocracy that promotes mindless following";  the reason that God created us as He did isn't so that He can have mindless, will-less followers who do whatever He says is 1)He already did that in the angels and 2)He most likely wants someone to relate to on a higher level than Master and servant.  He would not have given us the ability to grasp Brane theory and quantum mechanics and the genetic structure if he didn't want us to benefit from it.

Science has a purpose, to explain the HOW.
Religion is supposed to explain the WHY.

The problem is that Science is trying to answer the second part without any seeming reasoning other than to discredit the "opposition" in Religion.

It's two sides of the same coin and nary the two shall meet.

[karajorma]

You assume there is a WHY though. There may not be.

[Ghostavo]

He would not have given us the ability to grasp Brane theory and quantum mechanics and the genetic structure if he didn't want us to benefit from it.

Why, I seem to recall... Oh yes, the tree of knowledge of good and evil (or alternatively, the tree of all knowledge).

"Listen kids, I've created these two trees, one which gives immortality, the other which gives (some? all?) knowledge. Now I've given you basic intelect and free will and all that entails (like curiosity), and given that I'm omniscient I know you will disobey me (free will ??). Anyway, I want to warn you not to eat from the tree of good and evil."

* a few days later *

"What? You ate from the tree? How could you?! BAD HUMANS, BAD HUMANS!"

[iamzack]

Isn't why answered by how?

Why are we here? BECAUSE this chain of events happened.

Basically we are because we are and all that should be is.

[Turambar]

Your arguments against Religion because they believe in something beyond that which we can see don't really hold a whole lot of water, simply because you are treating Science as a religion as well.

I'm fine in believing in things I can't see given enough evidence.  The Big Bang has evidence.  Currently, everything is moving away from a single point, run this backwards and everything is in a single point.  At this point, something that I can't see (the concept of an expanding universe) has more evidence than god.  I don't know why everything exploded from a single point, but I don't doubt that we will figure it out and that it will not be god's finger on the button. 

Why am I so quick to believe that it won't be god this time?  Because all the other times we saw something and thought that it was god, it turned out to be some perfectly explainable natural phenomena.


Also, there is no WHY on a cosmic scale, only a WHY on the personal level that you come up with yourself.  You've just let fairytales hijack your personal WHY and substitute it for a shared WHY with a bunch of other gullible folks.

[colecampbell666]

I just got off a plane, so I'm gonna keep this short so I can go to sleep (apologies for any unintelligability).

It doesn't say that in the bible, but it was taught by the church right up until a little after 1492. Funny how religion keeps conceding to science, innit?

That first statement confuses me to your point.  You are saying that because the church taught something that wasn't related to the Bible which was later proved false (even earlier proved false, actually), religion is conceding to science?  Just to clarify.

Fair point, but religion has also conceded on many other points relating to medicine science and technology. Sounds like they`re batting 1000 with their logic.

Wouldn't such a powerful figure want people to be able to think and use the brains given to them?

That is why God gave people brains in the first place (or so I believe).  It is also why choosing Him is a choice, and not an automatic obligation.

But if I have a brain, and I deduce due to OVERWHELMING evidence that there is no god, does that make me a sinner for following what I was predisposed to do?

'Nother question, if he's omnipotent, how does he judge?

Maybe I'm just tired, but can you explain what this means?

God knows everything that has happened and will happen, so if he reacts to something doesn't that mean that he didn't know it was going to happen? Why does he judge us after we die, he already knew what was going to happen?

Wouldn't advancement be part of his plan?

Bad word choice on my part there.  Advancement of society is not the main focus of His plan, not completely ignored by it.

However he knew it was going to happen, and since he created the plan, which would HAVE to be all encompassing (if he allowed free will a chain reaction of a single small event could wipe out the plan) so why does he frown upon people using their brains, frowning on the use of a fairy tale as truth, and logically deducing that something sounds fishy.

if he's omnipotent, how does he judge? He knew that everyhing was going to happen as it has happened, having a reaction to events would contradict the bible

   Explain please.

God knows everything that has happened and will happen, so if he reacts to something doesn't that mean that he didn't know it was going to happen? Why does he judge us after we die, he already knew what was going to happen?

[Not going to put the whole quote in this post]
1)I saw an humorous little quip recently about how religion and science explain the creation of the universe.
Christian explanation:  God created the universe and everything in it.
Scientific explaination:  In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Although, I have to wonder, where did the singularity you speak of come from|?

Although I have to wonder, where did god come from?

2) I can actually agree with you here on the means, but not the reason.  The Bible never states HOW God created the Earth and the Solar System, and I am inclined to believe that science has worked out the basic mechanics.
esis
3)  I expect you to belive that an omnipotent diety created life on Earth, and you expect me to believe that Earth developed its own life in what can only be described as the least likely lotou on the basic premtery win in existence.

2: Good for you, halfway there. Although the bible states that he fashioned humans more or less by hand, so wouldn't the whole dust clouds and amino acid theory contradict this?

3: "Dude, Brane theory makes so much sense"
"No it doesn't, I have a better theory. Sky Jew.
"Wha..."
"NONO, Zombie Sky Jew. All-Powerful Zombie Sky Jew. And his dad.

4)  I believe that in at least one other thread I have stated how I believe that God can use evolution as one of His tools.  Therefore, I will actually agree with you on this point.  However, I still do, and will, hold the opinion that God played a role in our creation, even if through evolution.

I haven't read all of the bible, but doesn't it state that he more or less fashioned humans by hand?

That's actually kinda funny.

OK, what Battuta and everyone else seems to be confusing is that a belief in God precludes a belief in science.  It just flat out doesn't.

The Universe and all that is in it is the way that it is, whether it is observed, measured, quantified, codified and calculated or not.

Your arguments against Religion because they believe in something beyond that which we can see don't really hold a whole lot of water, simply because you are treating Science as a religion as well.

Putting aside the yelling about His plan and things like that and let's put God into a little perspective with Science.  God is the Creator.  He made everything including us and our wonderfully curious and capable minds.  One thing that he did was endow us with the ability to understand His creation so that we can appreciate, each in his or her own way, the wonderous Creation that God has wrought.  

Here's where I break from what you would call "traditional dogmatic theocracy that promotes mindless following";  the reason that God created us as He did isn't so that He can have mindless, will-less followers who do whatever He says is 1)He already did that in the angels and 2)He most likely wants someone to relate to on a higher level than Master and servant.  He would not have given us the ability to grasp Brane theory and quantum mechanics and the genetic structure if he didn't want us to benefit from it.

However if he knows everything that is going to happen and has molded the future to carry out his plan, don't we only have the facade of free will, isn't it really mindless following?

Science has a purpose, to explain the HOW.
Religion is supposed to explain the WHY.

Excuse me, but you obviously are spouting textbook religious arguments. "Why" is just the question "How" differently worded. "Why did I kill that man?" "How did I come to the conclusion that I should kill that man?"

Religion does not ask "Why" it makes naked assertions besed on emotional appeal.

The problem is that Science is trying to answer the second part without any seeming reasoning other than to discredit the "opposition" in Religion.

It's two sides of the same coin and nary the two shall meet.

"Science" as you put it is not per sé a vendetta against religion, it's the quest for higher understanding and enlightenment and religion is getting in the way. If I have free will to believe what I want, why does god allow others to make laws to suppress my beliefs?

Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place?

[SpardaSon21]

Do I need to remind everyone of Einstein's saying about God, dice, and the universe?  If Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, can simultaneously hold a belief in both science and God, why can't the people on HLP do that?  Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

[Ghostavo]

Do I need to remind everyone of Einstein's saying about God, dice, and the universe?  If Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, can simultaneously hold a belief in both science and God, why can't the people on HLP do that?  Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

You mean one of the biggest mistakes of his life? Where he refused to acknowledge quantum mechanics in spite of every evidence of the contrary only because of his belief in god? (ok, his vision of the universe with god in it, to be frank)

Sure, remind us of it.

[Ford Prefect]

Einstein also expressed no belief in the kind of god that sparks these debates. The stake everyone has in this discussion comes from the fact that some people not only believe in god, but believe in a god that presides over us and tells us what to do. That's vastly different from simply believing there is a larger presence in the universe. Einstein might have believed in god, but I think it's safe to say he did not believe that god wrote the rules of marriage, or that god cries when you touch yourself.

[karajorma]

Why, I seem to recall... Oh yes, the tree of knowledge of good and evil (or alternatively, the tree of all knowledge).

"Listen kids, I've created these two trees, one which gives immortality, the other which gives (some? all?) knowledge. Now I've given you basic intelect and free will and all that entails (like curiosity), and given that I'm omniscient I know you will disobey me (free will ??). Anyway, I want to warn you not to eat from the tree of good and evil."

* a few days later *

"What? You ate from the tree? How could you?! BAD HUMANS, BAD HUMANS!"

I've always loved that story. Cause if it's true it shows what a crappy parent God actually is. He's omniscient. You can say what the **** you like about free will but it doesn't change the fact that God must have known Satan was tempting Eve while he was doing it and instead of stopping it he did nothing.  Feel free to go on about free will but let me give you a counterpoint.

One day you see a car pull up next to your 8 year old daughter and offer her some sweets. Do you

a) Run up to the car, pull your daughter away, scare off the person in the car and take down their licence plate number for the police
b) See if she gets into the car. After all, you've taught her not to take sweets from strangers so it's now down to her free will if she gets raped and murdered.

Guess which one God did?

[General Battuta]

Do I need to remind everyone of Einstein's saying about God, dice, and the universe?  If Einstein, one of the most brilliant scientists ever, can simultaneously hold a belief in both science and God, why can't the people on HLP do that?  Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone here has said you can't simultaneously hold a belief in science and God.

But the perfectly valid question that has never been answered here is why anyone should believe in your god when there are so many competing editions with the same amount of evidence.

[iamzack]

Personal gods are least likely of all scenarios.

Impersonal god makes so much more sense, assuming there is definitely some sort of god-figure.