[Sandwich]

Great Frolicking Llamas! I wish I had the time to get past page 9, but I don't, so I'll just post my replies up to then and be done with it. Blah.

Originally posted by Bobboau
what is the proof of the great flood??

A great flood has been mentioned in multiple ancient texts from all around the world, geographically.

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Regarding hell:  

Contrary to popular opinion, the actual biblical teaching on the final fate of those who choose to reject God is eternal destruction, not eternal torture.  That idea is an inheritance from our pre-Christian past, not from the Bible.  No one will be sitting around in misery, or talking with their fellow inmates or whatever.  They will have of their own free choice decided that death is better than God, God will have granted them their choice, and they will have ceased to exist.

Thank you! Another common misconception, just like the one about one of the Ten Commandments being "Thou shalt not kill." That one drives me nuts, especially reading about all the Christian pacifists, pacifists solely because of that mistranslation, who were put to death for refusing to take up arms to defend the country they resided in.

The accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder." A world of difference there, also eliminating one of the Bible's supposed self-contradictions where God says not to kill, and then has the people of Israel war on all the idol-worshipping nations residing in the Promised Land.

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

3) Does archeology support or go against material in the document?

Should be obvious what this does, eh?

....

External #3:  Well, archeology doesn't shed a whole lot of light here, given the nature of the texts, their short timelime and the fact that they primarily deal with the doings of a man, and not archological sorts of things.  What light there is to be shone by archeology is concurrent with the Gospel acconts.  It should suffice to say that the historical existence of Jesus where and when he is supposed to have existed is held as beyond doubt.

Actually, there is archaeological evidence that the Gospels are true. Until semi-recently (the past 50-100 years, I believe), there was no evidence of Pontus Pilate in any historical records. But then an ancient coin was found with his name on it, confirming that he did indeed exist.

(Note: I'm a bit fuzzy on this - it may have been someone else, but I do know that there was a historical person of importance mentioned solely in the Bible, whose existance was not confirmed by any other means, until his name was found inscribed on an archaeological artifact of some kind. But I think I got it right above. )

Also, there's the much more recent issue of that urn of ashes with the name of Jesus' brother on it. I think a recent Time or Newsweek had that as the front cover article.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


That sounds about right, but then you see, it's not science anymore.

And that's a problem because...?

It does not have to be subject to our laws; it just has to be subject to some laws. In the science system, if it is an "other" realm, it does not have the property of absolute existence, because if it did then it would be the same realm as this one (all the "realms" are united by the property of existence, and are thus one realm).[/b]

Difference in terminology here again. All realms would be members of the set of all things, but that doesn't make them all one realm.  Science investigates the functioning of non-willed matter, energy, forces, etc. (biology gets a bit different, but there they rightly drop talk of "laws" anyway) in this realm.

Also, if god exists in no realm, is he a realm himself? Or is he all realms? (in which case we would be parts of god)[/b]

A bit of a non-sensical question, I think.  "Realm" implies an arena for multiple entities to interact.  God is God is God.  There is no other entity for him to be interacting with so long as we are talking about him in himself.

Either way, in the science system there must exist laws that determine his behavior completely, or he is not compatible with science.[/b]

No, that would make him incompatible with atheisitic determinism, not science.  Science can and does go happily about its business without assuming your sort of determinism, CP5670.

Exactly; I am not saying that anything is wrong with your thing (as far as this topic goes, anyway), but that it is not scientific. That is the whole point of this argument.[/b]

But who on earth ever said science has to know everything?  Let science do what it does, don't try to force it into roles it has no equipment to fulfill.

By the way, what about objects that are usually considered nonliving? For example, does a table have a will of its own that is fully independent of reality, but just no capability to put its will into practical effect? Does every particle have its own will, so that everything is 100% random? Also, is the god capable of altering other wills to suit his purposes? (in which case the only will would be his) [/B]

Non-living things don't appear to have a will of their own, no.  I can't even say for sure that a dog has a will of his own--I'm not a dog.  But given my own experience, dogs appear to.  Plants don't appear to have a will, at least not one anything like ours.  There is obviously some sort of active impulse there, but i don't think applying the term "will" to it is helpful. Will indictates the power of non-predetermined choice.
Regarding the second, whether God is capable of altering other wills, there is a distinction to be made between wnat one can do and what one will do.  God does appear to have the brute power to alter wills if he so chose, but given that his purpose in creating us was to make beings who would have free choice, he has by his own decision restrained himself from forcing our wills in this way.  To do so would negate the purpose of making us in the first place.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Actually, there is archaeological evidence that the Gospels are true. Until semi-recently (the past 50-100 years, I believe), there was no evidence of Pontus Pilate in any historical records. But then an ancient coin was found with his name on it, confirming that he did indeed exist.

Cool, didn't know that one.

Also, there's the much more recent issue of that urn of ashes with the name of Jesus' brother on it. I think a recent Time or Newsweek had that as the front cover article. [/B]

That is an interesting thing indeed.  It's on display in Toronto right now.  If I weren't a couple thousand kilometers away, I'd go see it.

But all this is what I meant when I said "What light there is to be shone by archeology is concurrent with the Gospel acconts."  It all indicates that the Gospels are thoroughly based in historicity.  It doesn't prove per se that Jesus was resurrected, but does lend a weight to the Gospels claim to be history and not some silly fanatsies.

Good to see you back, Sandwich!

[CP5670]

And that's a problem because...?

Because that contradicts your original argument. There are other issues as well, but I won't bring them up just now.

A bit of a non-sensical question, I think. "Realm" implies an arena for multiple entities to interact. God is God is God. There is no other entity for him to be interacting with so long as we are talking about him in himself.

So he is a realm I suppose, except that he is the only one in his realm, right?

No, that would make him incompatible with atheisitic determinism, not science. Science can and does go happily about its business without assuming your sort of determinism, CP5670.

Alright, you have obviously run out of arguments here; the hard fact remains that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible due to their most basic axioms, and it has more has less been firmly established a while ago in this thread. (free will is the exact opposite of science) But why don't you abandon the consistency axiom itself? Then you can go for both at the same time...

But who on earth ever said science has to know everything?  Let science do what it does, don't try to force it into roles it has no equipment to fulfill.

um, that's what science is all about; just stopping with what you call "natural" for no reason is stupid. Once again, this is like saying that mathematics must only work with prime numbers and not the other numbers, or that science must only work with that which is not related to to the shape of the Earth because it has no equipment to fulfil this role (this task should be left to the Flat Earth Society).

Non-living things don't appear to have a will of their own, no. I can't even say for sure that a dog has a will of his own--I'm not a dog. But given my own experience, dogs appear to. Plants don't appear to have a will, at least not one anything like ours. There is obviously some sort of active impulse there, but i don't think applying the term "will" to it is helpful. Will indictates the power of non-predetermined choice.

so...why does every particle not have it also? No reason why only humans (collections of particles) have it while nothing else does...

Regarding the second, whether God is capable of altering other wills, there is a distinction to be made between wnat one can do and what one will do. God does appear to have the brute power to alter wills if he so chose, but given that his purpose in creating us was to make beings who would have free choice, he has by his own decision restrained himself from forcing our wills in this way. To do so would negate the purpose of making us in the first place.

Well, if he can do it, he will, since that's the only way to measure whether or not he can, eh? But perhaps his purpose in making us was simply that he was getting bored with nothing else around, so he went ahead and made a universe for his entertainment; can't really blame him for that, since I would be pretty bored too with absolutely nothing around...

[Righteous1]

Interesting topic!  I’ve resisted the urge to post about as long as I can.

I’ll state for the record that I am a Christian and believe firmly in the existence of God.  I personally accept ‘I am that I am’ as an acceptable name for Him.  I think the trouble most of us have is with our concept of who and what God is.  In my experience it hasn’t been a process of learning more about God but erasing the boxes I’ve drawn around him and revealing who he is.  Most people have put so many boxes around their concept of God that all they can picture is a grey bearded old man playing games with peoples lives.  The thought that most of the messes in this world are of our own doing is almost inconceivable.  God forbid that we reap what we sow.  What do you mean burning the Amazon is causing flooding in Asia!  That’s an act of God!

With all due respect to CP5670, I don’t believe science will ever prove the existence of God.  I believe by placing your total faith in science, you will completely miss the existance of God.  I read recently that scientists managed to make some of the basic building blocks of life in the lab.  Science proving that God exists would be like those amino acids (assume for a second they had our intelligence) being able to prove the existence of the scientists that made them.  There is no way they could do it unless the scientists revealed themselves to the amino acids.  Second, IMO, science is very limited in what it can reveal since it is a part of the environment it is observing.  There is no way for science to make a truly outside scientific observation of God or even our universe.  The only way for us to learn anything about God is if he tells us.  I’m convinced he’s done so in the Bible.  Everyone else is welcome to disagree.

The Bible does say that the universe declares the existence of God.  In fact it was Chemistry and not the Bible that solidified my belief in the existence of God.  We were studying the basic structure of the atom.  I realized that my hand was made up of billions atoms.  Those atoms made up the molecules.  Those molecules made up the cells, and those cells made up the tissues, and bones of my hand.  Not only that, those atoms make up everything I could see around me.  All working together to perform some specific purpose and yet made up of the SAME basic building blocks just rearranged to make whatever was required.  At that moment I came to the conclusion that there was NO WAY this universe just happened.  There is a design and there is a purpose to everything around us.  Someone had to create it.

As to those that profess there is no God?  Atheism takes a lot of faith IMO, more faith than I’ve got.  In order to say there is no God, you would have to be able to say you know everything there is to know in the universe.  How can I say that?  Of ALL knowledge in the universe, how much of it do you know?  Better yet, of everything there is to know in our universe, how much does all of humanity know?  10%? 5%?  0.1%?  I think probably far less than that.  I definitely know far less than that.  Life proves it to me everyday!  How can anyone say with any amount of certainty that God does not exist in that 99.9% (or 100 – whatever number you came up with) part of the universe that the human race does not even know about yet?  The fact is no one can.  Now agnostics I can respect.  They can at minimum admit they don’t know.  They’re just waiting for God to reveal himself and prove his existence to them.  At least there room for discussion there.

All of the above is purely my opinion.  Feel free to disagree

[Kamikaze]

With all due respect to CP5670, I don’t believe science will ever prove the existence of God.  

It won't because it can't and doesn't need to... anyway noone can prove the exitence of a god right? so it's a nice tie between religion and science.... (i.e. this argument can be flung right back at you so it's pointless)

The Bible does say that the universe declares the existence of God.  In fact it was Chemistry and not the Bible that solidified my belief in the existence of God.  We were studying the basic structure of the atom.  I realized that my hand was made up of billions atoms.  Those atoms made up the molecules.  Those molecules made up the cells, and those cells made up the tissues, and bones of my hand.  Not only that, those atoms make up everything I could see around me.  All working together to perform some specific purpose and yet made up of the SAME basic building blocks just rearranged to make whatever was required.  At that moment I came to the conclusion that there was NO WAY this universe just happened.  There is a design and there is a purpose to everything around us.  Someone had to create it.

but that's just your humanly-limited mind trying to simplify the world... (no offense intended, we're just humans after all) Why can't the world be randomly made? tell me...

I'll give you an example to work with

If you had a universe filled with letters in all directions (up, down, sides) with the letters being a nanometer in width, length, height what is the chance it'll form coherent words/sentences/paragraphs and even books? Quite possible I think.

As to those that profess there is no God?  Atheism takes a lot of faith IMO, more faith than I’ve got.  In order to say there is no God, you would have to be able to say you know everything there is to know in the universe.  How can I say that?  Of ALL knowledge in the universe, how much of it do you know?  Better yet, of everything there is to know in our universe, how much does all of humanity know?  10%? 5%?  0.1%?  I think probably far less than that.  I definitely know far less than that.  Life proves it to me everyday!  How can anyone say with any amount of certainty that God does not exist in that 99.9% (or 100 – whatever number you came up with) part of the universe that the human race does not even know about yet?  The fact is no one can.  Now agnostics I can respect.  They can at minimum admit they don’t know.  They’re just waiting for God to reveal himself and prove his existence to them.  At least there room for discussion there.

All of the above is purely my opinion.  Feel free to disagree [/B]

If that's what you think agnostism is a much more sensible religion for you... not christianity. Anyway, no-one needs to PROVE it... that's trying to evade a conclusion.. you just need to show it's more sensible/reasonable.

Oh here's a question: do you think if humans were grown without religious bias (not told about it at all) and were taught things with little dogmatic bias (i.e. never establishing science as an ultimate truth but as something that some people use for practical observation) do you think the persons would believe christianity? do you think they'd invent it? Do you think they'd even create a concept of god?

And another: if we burned every bible/koran whatnot in the world and banished all knowledge of religion would god englighten us and make us believe him WITHOUT all the passing down that we have now?

[CP5670]

Ah, good to see you arguing in here too...

Well, science has already disproved the existence of this omnipotent-type god, just as many religions have disproved science, because for any proof you need the assumptions; science simply uses a set of axioms from which such a god can be disproved. Now why the science assumptions are in a sense more efficient is a different issue, but my whole point here is that the two are logically incompatible, not that one or the other is "right." So you can take one or other, but not both.

I am technically more or less just a hard-line agnostic, but I am not going to take into account something that will only serve to complicate matters immensely, since we would have to ditch quite a bit of knowledge and start over from scratch if a god exists. If I take into account the existence of a god for nothing and say, drop that into the physics equations, I might as well do the same for shivans, green men, and whatever else, so that's going to make things very messy. If we reach a dead end with the no god route, we can trash that and assume the god, but at the moment this has a higher probability of allowing us to do the least possible work.

Everything of course takes faith, including science, but I say that there need to be a set of additional rules of rationality for deciding what and what not to take as assumptions, not just for deductions; the purpose of this is so we can rule out as much stuff as possible. (without these rules, the Flat Earth Society is just as correct as god, science, or whatever else) My contention is not that god does not exist, but rather that it is better to assume that he does not so that it keeps our existing framework as simple as possible. (there can be a different kind of god that is not all-powerful and still be consistent with science, but the existence of a Christian-type god means that the most fundamental axiom of science must be thrown out)

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


Because that contradicts your original argument.

How so?  I've been arguing that Christianity is not tied to any particular scientific opinion, not that it is one.  History isn't tied to any particular scientific opinion either:  Oh look, Newton's discovered his laws, does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? No.  Oh look, Einstein has developed relativity theor(ies), does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? Nope.  Oh look, quantum mechanics, how about that one?  Not that either.  Same thing goes for Christianity.  I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing Christianity is science.

So he is a realm I suppose, except that he is the only one in his realm, right?

Well, it doesn't really make sense to say that.  Entity, not realm.  Realm means an arena where multiple entities interact, but when we are talking about just God, he's an entity.  He can reach down into realms and interact with entities in them, but by himself he is an entity, not a realm.

Alright, you have obviously run out of arguments here; the hard fact remains that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible due to their most basic axioms, and it has more has less been firmly established a while ago in this thread. (free will is the exact opposite of science) But why don't you abandon the consistency axiom itself? Then you can go for both at the same time...

No, no, no, no, and because I have no need to.  Sounds to me more like you've run out of arguments, there is no such "hard fact," it most certainly has not been established here, free will does not negate science, and thus I have no need to abandon consistency.

Science is the method of investigating, hypothesising, testing, analysing, and making new hypotheses to test.  Let's look at the dictionary, shall we?
sci-ence (sie'uhns)  n.
                  1.  a branch of knowledge or study dealing
                       with a body of facts or truths
                       systematically arranged and showing the
                       operation of general laws.
                  2.  systematic knowledge of the physical or
                       material world gained through
                       observation and experimentation.
                  3.  any of the branches of natural or
                       physical science.
                  4.  systematized knowledge in general.
                  5.  knowledge, as of facts or principles;
                       knowledge gained by systematic study.
                  6.  a particular branch of knowledge.
                  7.  any skill or technique that reflects a
                       precise application of facts or
                       principles.
             [1300-50; ME < MF < L scientia knowledge =
             scient-, s. of sciens, prp. of scire to know + -ia
             - IA]
Nothing in that necessitates that science treats everything, nor that all things have to be subject to "scientific laws".  Science investigates stuff and learns about it.  Nothing requires that science must know all, or be able to learn all via its methods.  And its not just me saying this to safeguard my religious beliefs.  Go check out the reams of recent philosophy writings which all look at this Enlightenment idea and find it to be a pretensious sham.  (I suggest starting with this classic text:

Lyotard, Jean François.  The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.  Trans. Geoff Bennington, Brian Massumi.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1984.

and then perhaps moving on to such as:

Rorty, Richard.  Truth and Progress.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

—.  Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Derrida, Jacques.  The Derrida Reader.  Julian Wolfreys, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998

—.  "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader.  Ed. David Lodge.  London & New York: Longmann, 1988, 108-123.

Grenz, Stanley J.  A Primer on Postmodernism.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Lyon, David.  Postmodernity.  2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.

From there you can go on to check out others.)

There are many scientists who are not determinists.  They do perfectly good science without being determinists.  Determinism is not a necessary component to science at all--doing science requires no such belief.  It is possible to go on and assert that science can and will explain everything, but that is not a scientific claim, nor one necessary to do science, as the multitudes of non-determinist scientists amply show.  Science is a methodology, which is why we can have opposing scientific theories; it's not a worldview.  You've failed to distinguish between your own conception of the world and the necessary conditions for scientific endeavour.

just stopping with what you call "natural" for no reason is stupid. Once again, this is like saying that mathematics must only work with prime numbers and not the other numbers, or that science must only work with that which is not related to to the shape of the Earth because it has no equipment to fulfil this role (this task should be left to the Flat Earth Society).

Actually, it is like saying that mathematics isn't much use in analysing poetry.  I want science to ask all the questions it can, and encourage the free range of scientific enquiry.  I nowhere say that it should be forced to stop somewhere if it can go beyond that point.  But it is ridiculous hubris to suppose that science alone can and will unlock all the mysteries of the universe and answer all questions.  Some questions need other methods, because they just simply don't work that way.  Science does have the equipment to discover the shape of the earth, it doesn't have the equipment to find out why poem A is more powerful than poem B.

so...why does every particle not have it also? No reason why only humans (collections of particles) have it while nothing else does...

Because humans are not only collections of particles, there is the supernatural element in us too.  Greek (and Cartesian) ideas see the material and immaterial as two almost entirely disjunct things, while the Biblical conception sees them intimately intertwined in the human being, only seperable by such a violent force as death.  (I can go into a more detailed metaphysical anthropology by the Christian view, if you want.)

Well, if he can do it, he will, since that's the only way to measure whether or not he can, eh?

So if I can delete all the files for The Scroll of Atankharzim, I will, and if I can kill my family with a shotgun, I will?
Ability does not entail actuality.  

But perhaps his purpose in making us was simply that he was getting bored with nothing else around, so he went ahead and made a universe for his entertainment; can't really blame him for that, since I would be pretty bored too with absolutely nothing around...

[Sandwich]

Interesting sidenote here relating religion with current-day politics! Yays!

Jeremiah 31:35-37:
35 Thus says the LORD,
        Who gives the sun for a light by day,
        The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
        Who disturbs the sea,
        And its waves roar
        (The LORD of hosts is His name):


        36 "If those ordinances depart
        From before Me, says the LORD,
        Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
        From being a nation before Me forever."


37 Thus says the LORD:


        "If heaven above can be measured,
        And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
        I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
        For all that they have done, says the LORD.

A few decades ago, scientists thought they knew how large the universe was. They said that there were enough stars in the universe to allow each human on Earth to have his very own star, with plenty extra.

Then they sent up the Hubble telescope.

Now, there are enough galaxies for each of us to have his own galaxy. And that's just within range of our instrumentation.

So basically, the prevelant deception in Christian circles called "Replacement Theology", where the Church replaces Israel/The Jews in Biblical prophecy, is just that - deception. Israel's here to stay, folks. And the fact that we've returned to the Promised Land after 2000 years, a direct fulfilment of prophecy, should be sign enough for anyone willing to believe that there most assuredly is a God.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670

Well, science has already disproved the existence of this omnipotent-type god, just as many religions have disproved science,

the existence of a Christian-type god means that the most fundamental axiom of science must be thrown out

I challenge you to provide a good, logical, premises-to-conclusion argument why either of these statements should be believed.  As I just said, science is a methodology, and requires only such assumptions as are necessary to carry out its proceedure.  The belief that things behave in regular, predictable patterns does not entail that ALL things are required to do so.  The moment we come to a subject that does not, it simply does not.  

Unlike your position, I see no reason to abandon the scientific method if it doesn't do everything.  This all or nothing view of yours is strange to me.  If civil law is not able to account for medical facts, does that mean we should throw it away?

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Interesting sidenote here relating religion with current-day politics! Yays!



A few decades ago, scientists thought they knew how large the universe was. They said that there were enough stars in the universe to allow each human on Earth to have his very own star, with plenty extra.

Then they sent up the Hubble telescope.

Now, there are enough galaxies for each of us to have his own galaxy. And that's just within range of our instrumentation.

So basically, the prevelant deception in Christian circles called "Replacement Theology", where the Church replaces Israel/The Jews in Biblical prophecy, is just that - deception. Israel's here to stay, folks. And the fact that we've returned to the Promised Land after 2000 years, a direct fulfilment of prophecy, should be sign enough for anyone willing to believe that there most assuredly is a God.

Agreed, and "Yay!"

[Bobboau]

well I'm waiting with great egerness for God to decend somewere around there and bring peace to everyone...

still waiting...

[Deepblue]

Small clouds appear above Bobboau.
Looking up he frowns in puzzlement.
Suddenly a very tiny heavenly figure jumps down onto his head screaming for him to repent and poking him with a rather small lightning bolt. Bobboau, being rather puzzled at this strange occurance goes to swats the small figure and walks off taking a small figure descending from a small heaven as a common house fly.
Im geussing you wouldnt see god come down even if he hit him on the head (literaly)
 J/king

[Righteous1]

Fair questions, I'll take a shot at responding.

If you had a universe filled with letters in all directions (up, down, sides) with the letters being a nanometer in width, length, height what is the chance it'll form coherent words/sentences/ paragraphs and even books?

This one's a tough one since there's no way to try it.  But, if you were to take those letters, break them down into their atomic components tossed them out there.  And they happened to form the planets and one in just the right orbit to sustain life and one of those life forms managed to develop intelligence to learn to write and one of those lifeforms happened to write a great shakespearian(sp) play AND you did it in your first toss.  I would say you had something there.  For me that's too much to accept.   I cannot accept that it just happened there's too much evidence to the contrary.  There is a design and purpose to everything in our world and its all designed for one purpose.  Sustain life on this planet.

you just need to show it's more sensible/reasonable.

I'm not even required to do that.  Jesus commanded his followers to tell others about him (not shove it down their throats, btw).  If they listen, great,  if not, I'm to dust my feet off and move on to the next person who will listen.

Oh here's a question: do you think if humans were grown without religious bias (not told about it at all) and were taught things with little dogmatic bias (i.e. never establishing science as an ultimate truth but as something that some people use for practical observation) do you think the persons would believe christianity? do you think they'd invent it? Do you think they'd even create a concept of god?

And another: if we burned every bible/koran whatnot in the world and banished all knowledge of religion would god englighten us and make us believe him WITHOUT all the passing down that we have now?

Again, since we can't try this, so neither of us can say for sure.  I will refer you to Luke 19:40 where Jesus himself says if his followers were silenced the rocks themselves will cry out.  Since God created the rocks, I'm certain he knows how to make them talk.   So based on what Jesus said, yes I do believe some would come to believe.

Based on the above scripture, I do see you shot my argument about science not proving the existance of God out of the water.  If you were to burn the bibles and silence all Christians then I suppose shouting rocks could be observed scientifically.  

Ah, good to see you arguing in here too

Discussing, not arguing.  A nit I know but a an important nit.  Friendships are lost and people start shooting one another when these discussions turn into arguments  That's the last thing I would want to happen here.

Well, science has already disproved the existence of this omnipotent-type god, just as many religions have disproved science, because for any proof you need the assumptions; science simply uses a set of axioms from which such a god can be disproved.

I don't understand this one.  How is that statement different from the Flat Earth's Society's contention that the earth is flat?  

Both makes assumptions that bring scientific progress to a screeching halt.  You might be able to make that statement if science knew everything there is to know but we don't.  You can't make those assumptions just because they clean up your equations.  Chances are you're going to miss your greatest discoveries!  In Galileo's time it was the Catholic Churchs dogma holding back science.  Today it's the 'scientific community' who make such assumptions/declarations then try to force all their observations to fit those assumptions.

So you can take one or other, but not both.

I disagree wholeheartedly.  I've studied chemisty, physics, modern physics and have seen nothing that proves/disproves the existance of God.  Everything I've studied in chemistry, physics, and modern physics only confirms my view that God exists.  The fact that you can reduce the operation of the universe to a set of mathematical equations re-enforces my view that there is a definite design to the universe.  It didn't just happen.

Oh well,  that's it for now.

[Kamikaze]

Can anyone tell me about my letters question? I'm sure that if you say that's possible that you should accept that 'randomness' (which isn't truly random) in human creation is quite possible as well...

It is my opinion (not backed up by science of anything as of now, I'll do scientific research later) that time stretches back in inifinity (this should be an idea christians should be able to accept as god is supposedly this) and the number of universes formed and crunched (or heat deathed or whatever) are infinite as well.
Assuming that's true then would it not be quite probable, or in fact inevitable that eventually in the infinity of time eventually life will 'randomly' form?
What is there that goes against this? (assume that my opinion of time is correct for the sake of argument)

[CP5670]

The dreaded test is in seven hours; nothing like a good argument to get me going for that...

How so? I've been arguing that Christianity is not tied to any particular scientific opinion, not that it is one. History isn't tied to any particular scientific opinion either: Oh look, Newton's discovered his laws, does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? No. Oh look, Einstein has developed relativity theor(ies), does that mean anything for the history of Charlemagne's reign? Nope. Oh look, quantum mechanics, how about that one? Not that either. Same thing goes for Christianity. I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing Christianity is science.

Well, it will affect it in some way, however minute, (suppose the history is just really, really detailed, down to the movements of every particle in his body) since we are assuming that these things are all connected from the induction axiom. But this particular one is assuming exactly the opposite axiom, and the contradiction created by taking both is just incredible.

Well, it doesn't really make sense to say that. Entity, not realm. Realm means an arena where multiple entities interact, but when we are talking about just God, he's an entity. He can reach down into realms and interact with entities in them, but by himself he is an entity, not a realm.

Ah, whatever; basically means the same thing in this case.

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing
with a body of facts or truths
systematically arranged and showing the
operation of general laws.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or
material world gained through
observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or
physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles;
knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. any skill or technique that reflects a
precise application of facts or
principles.

Nothing in that necessitates that science treats everything, nor that all things have to be subject to "scientific laws". Science investigates stuff and learns about it. Nothing requires that science must know all, or be able to learn all via its methods. And its not just me saying this to safeguard my religious beliefs. Go check out the reams of recent philosophy writings which all look at this Enlightenment idea and find it to be a pretensious sham. (I suggest starting with this classic text:

1, 4 and 5 are the relevant ones for our purposes here. Until sometime around 1930, that was exactly the point of science; it must indeed know all, and nothing short of that, or it would not be science. Today, we know that the chances are around equal that it is or is not possible, but we must still assume for the moment that it is. It may well be wrong and it is quite possible that as parts of the universe it is impossible for us to learn about its workings, but in that case there is nothing further to discover, so we are stuck and must go back to the first option until we are absolutely sure of the alternative. We can but try, right? I have not read any of that stuff, but most elementary textbooks on any sub-discipline of science will start off by saying the same things that I have said and giving a short discussion on science itself and its general properties and methods. (or try Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery) Science not only investigates stuff and learns about it, but it investigates everything and learns about it. If science cannot know everything that there is to be known, it cannot fully know about anything, because to learn fully about one thing it is necessary to learn about everything else as well due to the interconnectivity of these things.

There are many scientists who are not determinists. They do perfectly good science without being determinists. Determinism is not a necessary component to science at all--doing science requires no such belief. It is possible to go on and assert that science can and will explain everything, but that is not a scientific claim, nor one necessary to do science, as the multitudes of non-determinist scientists amply show. Science is a methodology, which is why we can have opposing scientific theories; it's not a worldview. You've failed to distinguish between your own conception of the world and the necessary conditions for scientific endeavour.

Wait, what exactly do you mean by this? I never said anything at all about determinism; in fact, if the quantum theory is completely correct, then the probabilistic viewpoint would be the correct one. But think of what a free will really is. It means that there exist events (the will) that are fully independent of the universe and are not caused by anything (they cannot be caused by themselves because other events also exist in the same system), which would go against the logical causation idea, which in turn would go against that first science axiom. Science is both a set of methodologies and of world views; it can only have opposing theories as long as those theories fit within certain axioms. For example, a theory in which humans cannot learn anything is not a scientific theory unless it is a mathematical proof, in which case science is all wrong.

Actually, it is like saying that mathematics isn't much use in analysing poetry. I want science to ask all the questions it can, and encourage the free range of scientific enquiry. I nowhere say that it should be forced to stop somewhere if it can go beyond that point. But it is ridiculous hubris to suppose that science alone can and will unlock all the mysteries of the universe and answer all questions. Some questions need other methods, because they just simply don't work that way. Science does have the equipment to discover the shape of the earth, it doesn't have the equipment to find out why poem A is more powerful than poem B.

Ideally, there is no reason why it should not be; mathematics alone maybe cannot, but the final form of science should certainly be able to, and it must be able to answer any question for which an absolute answer exists, or it is not yet complete. How is one to determine what needs a different method and what works with existing stuff? The Flat Earth Society people will certainly say that science does not "have the equipment" to determine the shape of the Earth. And why don't these other questions work that way? They are part of the same universe/reality/existence/etc. so there is no reason to start making arbitrary distinctions between them given from what little we know, since we are starting from the "all is one" premise anyway.

Because humans are not only collections of particles, there is the supernatural element in us too. Greek (and Cartesian) ideas see the material and immaterial as two almost entirely disjunct things, while the Biblical conception sees them intimately intertwined in the human being, only seperable by such a violent force as death. (I can go into a more detailed metaphysical anthropology by the Christian view, if you want.)

But if this element is in us, why is it not in everything else also? Why is that humans must be the only connecting force between them, and not everything else as well? (actually, the real answer to this is that humans feel good when they think they are in some way unique, so any classifications they make must place them in a seperate category from everything else )

I personally like the hindu idea in this case, where the material and immaterial are the same thing and it is pointless to make distinctions between them.

So if I can delete all the files for The Scroll of Atankharzim, I will, and if I can kill my family with a shotgun, I will?
Ability does not entail actuality.

Frankly, from a universal point of view, it does. If you do not, you cannot, since that's part of the measure of whether or not you "can." Rather, it is more accurate to say whether or not the deterrent to your capability lies within your brain or on some external condition outside the brain.

I challenge you to provide a good, logical, premises-to-conclusion argument why either of these statements should be believed. As I just said, science is a methodology, and requires only such assumptions as are necessary to carry out its proceedure. The belief that things behave in regular, predictable patterns does not entail that ALL things are required to do so. The moment we come to a subject that does not, it simply does not.

I already gave that a long time ago. This axiom does indeed entail that everything, without exception, is required to be so. This holism and absolute unity is the whole essence of science in the first place (this is about the one thing that every one of the great scientists who were behind today's modern theories agreed on) - we want a grand theory of absolutely everything, and nothing short of that - and the existence of laws is always taken as the first assumption during a scientific discovery of any kind. For instance, if physicists discover a different dimension, they are immediately going to go about attempting to discover its properties and controlling laws, and from the axiom, they know that anything they discover must have these in some way. If they discover a supernature/god/whatever, they will do exactly the same thing. Have you ever heard of a scientist finding something new and making the opposite assumption first (that there are no laws governing it)?

Besides, even if this was somehow not the case, we can always fall back on the induction axiom, where science once again strikes home over religion. Since we don't know enough to make any distinctions between your various "realms," nor is there anything whatsoever to be gained by making them (it is complicating things instead of simplifying them), we follow the usual procedure of first assuming that they are all the same thing and see where that gets us; after all, we want to unite everything into one theory in the end anyway, so this could also potentially save us quite a bit of work. Less distinctions is always better.

Unlike your position, I see no reason to abandon the scientific method if it doesn't do everything. This all or nothing view of yours is strange to me. If civil law is not able to account for medical facts, does that mean we should throw it away?

Well, these are really just parts of science. Science is what holds all these things together, so an ultimate scientific theory should account for both (science is supposed to explain the universe, and since we are parts of the universe, it must explain our behavior too). If it does not work for everything, it is not complete, and if it can never work for everything, it is all wrong, since everything is ultimately an interconnected whole, so it is really not working for anything. As far as science goes, it is indeed all or nothing; it's possible to have a new set of assumptions (something like a semi-science) which only takes some of the science ones, but that's not quite science then. Keep in mind that we are talking about science and not biology, cosmology, or any other subdiscipline of it, which is what I think you have been thinking about so far.

[CP5670]

Discussing, not arguing. A nit I know but a an important nit. Friendships are lost and people start shooting one another when these discussions turn into arguments  That's the last thing I would want to happen here.

Hey, for me arguing is enjoyment.

I don't understand this one. How is that statement different from the Flat Earth's Society's contention that the earth is flat?

It isn't; they are all just using different assumptions.

Both makes assumptions that bring scientific progress to a screeching halt. You might be able to make that statement if science knew everything there is to know but we don't. You can't make those assumptions just because they clean up your equations. Chances are you're going to miss your greatest discoveries! In Galileo's time it was the Catholic Churchs dogma holding back science. Today it's the 'scientific community' who make such assumptions/declarations then try to force all their observations to fit those assumptions.

We need some way to eliminate the most stuff possible (purple dragons, shivans, and whatever else) while still keeping at least one thing, and this is really the best method we have. Sure, I may miss some good discoveries, but the chances are much, much higher that I will just end up wasting a lot of time. (it's like assuming the existence of let us say, eight additional forces in the universe that act like gravity but are inverse-factorial with respect to distance and only apply for certain combinations of materials; it may be true, but it just unnecessarily complicates things, so let's see how far we can go with existing stuff and then try that)

I disagree wholeheartedly. I've studied chemisty, physics, modern physics and have seen nothing that proves/disproves the existance of God. Everything I've studied in chemistry, physics, and modern physics only confirms my view that God exists. The fact that you can reduce the operation of the universe to a set of mathematical equations re-enforces my view that there is a definite design to the universe. It didn't just happen.

But what about god himself then? There would be another set of equations that describes his behavior. Chemistry, physics, biology and all that are quite compatible with a god (or can be made so with very minor changes); it is science itself as a whole where the problem lies. Look a bit into the philosophy of science instead, and you may see what I mean.

[diamondgeezer]

I know, bumped it a page and a half. Sorry, but I could resist this one - evolution in action

Explain this, then, you Christian fellows...

[Sesquipedalian]

Oh yeah, I forgot about this thread...  I'll have to post a reply to CP now that exams are over.
Tomorrow.  I'm getting sleepy now.

[Bobboau]

they have made a lame responce to this already,
it's "macro"-evolution