[achtung]

Originally posted by Nico


Not a critic or nothing, just a genuine question: then, why do you need a god in the picture?

It's just a theory I made for myself since I choose to beleive there is a god but I also don't want hold myself back by beleiving in god.  Realy I think religion was just someting to satisfy our fear of the unknown up until lately.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Nuke

sometimes people ask stupid questions

i dont know his actual words, but confucious once said something about not attempting to understand the spiritual world. that it was unwise to try and understand something that we cannot learn anything about. it is best to live a virtuous life now, and face the afterdeath when that time comes.

Melville makes the same point through the tragedy of Ahab's obsession with the white whale; the "pasteboard mask" is not something we can simply tear down. It's the age-old debate between the Platonic and the Aristotelian, the former asserting that matter is coarse, indirect immitation of the Forms, the latter arguing that there is no reason to believe that things aren't simply what they are. (I personally think Confucious was the prison b!tch of China's social norms.)

It's human nature to romanticize our surroundings, applying mystery and hidden purpose to what logic suggests is an orderless existence, save the laws of physics. Even the most existential among us still have the inescapable need for some form of order, even if we are consciously aware that the order is imaginary. No one's mind can survive in constant, stark reality. (Yes, that includes nihilists.) Bouts with meaninglessness must be periodical.

[Shrike]

What a bunch of bull****.

The science meme-juggernaut will consume your foolish notions!

[Nico]

Originally posted by Nuke


sometimes people ask stupid questions

i dont know his actual words, but confucious once said something about not attempting to understand the spiritual world. that it was unwise to try and understand something that we cannot learn anything about. it is best to live a virtuous life now, and face the afterdeath when that time comes.

Actually, Confucius didn't say much, he was just some politician, and for some reasons all these sayings were applied to him. Anyway that dude or the others who saifd that kind of stuff did not know better than me about the Great Truth of Life or crap like that. Wtf, when it's not the bible, it's confucius? Who's next, Nostradamus?
Ok, jokes aside, saying there's no use not trying to uinderstand what we supposedly can't understand, that's probably what prehistorical men must have said to those who were trying to understand fire and thought it was some evil spirit that would eat everything alive.
Spiritual World my ass

[Janos]

Religion is for spiritual guidance.

Science is for observing what is happening, why it happens and how it happens.

The two can coexist very well, because they deal with completely different matters. Trying to add religious elements into science is complete BS.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Mefustae
...you see, we have to accept other people for who and what they are, for example, here's a statement that may anger you; I'm the Lord Jesus Christ, i think i'm gonna get drunk and beat up some Midgets. Now, you should accept the fact that i'm a politically incorrect, alcoholic moron, then, we can ALL be happy ...

What was that all about?
Was this "example" really needed? for if it was, I don't get it...



On antoehr note, science and religion not only can coexist, but they can allso complement eachother - for instance, more and more events from the bible are proven to have happened (one way or antoher)...

But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan

On antoehr note, science and religion not only can coexist, but they can allso complement eachother - for instance, more and more events from the bible are proven to have happened (one way or antoher)...

But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.

Well, most people would say that many events of the Bible happened, but the question is whether they were actual spiritual events (i.e. as depicted in the bible) or ones which, over decades of oral storytelling, became regarded as spiritual.

Like severe flooding of an area in the holy land becoming the story of Noahs Ark, or Neros persecution of the early Christians becoming the subtext for Revelations.

So it's scarcely a surprise in that sense. I think the point you note is relevant, because these things are very much in the eye of the beholder; shaped by belief and faith. But I think the clash between science and religion is that religion requires a person to see through believers eyes; it's all about faith, unblinking acceptance and belief (although that doesn't prevent exploration of said faith and the conflicts within and without of it).  

Whereas science requires a neutral eye; one which has no belief to predispose its judgement.  I don't think the difference is irreconcilable, but there are individuals for whom it is.  

The problem with creationism, I think, is that it assumes the explanation before it can prove it.  It starts off with a conclusion and tries to find evidence; not only is that the opposite of proper science, it's doubly dangerous as the consequences of not finding said evidence will harm that persons deeply held faith.  So they twist what they see, and it's not science any more; it's faith.  And never the twain shall meet.

[FireCrack]

^

Tell that to Milliken

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by TrashMan
But seriously, trying to find evidence God exist is foolish to say the least. If you could prove his existance and involment, if you could mesure him, study him, he wouldn't be much of a God, now would he? You can however prove some events he caused happened. And for many there isn't any scientific explanation...yet.. for some there will never be.

If god is unprovable, then it is necessarily impossible to prove that god caused any event to occur.

[Zarax]

Of course you can prove god exists.
It's actually a wonderful thing...

It's been proven scientifically that in many people the action of praying starts a series of chemical reactions in the brain that will release serotonine and dopamine (the chemical names might be slightly different, english as 3rd language here), so making the prayer feel "better".

That's where god is for science.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem with creationism, I think, is that it assumes the explanation before it can prove it.  It starts off with a conclusion and tries to find evidence; not only is that the opposite of proper science, it's doubly dangerous as the consequences of not finding said evidence will harm that persons deeply held faith.  So they twist what they see, and it's not science any more; it's faith.

This is very true.

[Nico]

Not, that very false:

Originally posted by aldo_14

it's doubly dangerous as the consequences of not finding said evidence will harm that persons deeply held faith.

-> I've never seen any logical explanation harming a creationist faith. They'll say it's bull and ignore you.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Nico
Not, that very false:

-> I've never seen any logical explanation harming a creationist faith. They'll say it's bull and ignore you.

That's exactly what i mean; if they find said evidence themselves, then they'll change it to fit their conclusion, because they're searching for something to support their beliefs, not to actually explore the science of subject x.

[TrashMan]

I'm a christian, yet I'm alls oa man of science. This has never hinder me, quite the contrary. I find by understanding the universe better, I can get a glimpse into God's brilliance...

Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.

There speaks a man who knows not what those theories are...

[Janos]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I'm a christian, yet I'm alls oa man of science. This has never hinder me, quite the contrary. I find by understanding the universe better, I can get a glimpse into God's brilliance...

Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it...and frankly, the theories that science is trying to come up with to somehow try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull to say the least. They can't (and they never will) and they know it.. this doesn't exactly prove God's existance, but it does make you wonder.

Creationism tries to be science. It isn't. It's unscientific. It tries to bunk real, logical and true science (usually evolutionary science) with some wild and usually just plain wrong accusations.
Also, I am curious about this "theories that try to explin the begining of hte universe are pitifull". Care to elaborate?

[achtung]

God in my opinion is everything around us, god is the universe thats what I see to be and you must remember the story of creation was written thousands of years ago by moses.  

He needed an idea by which to lead the Isrealites and they expected him to explain everything, so what did you expect him to do explain the entire universe to the people back then or would It be easier to present the image that god was a human to the people and he put us here.  We were put here by everything around us thus God is everything around us.

I need to learn how to write more fluent documents I feel like i skipped around a bit.

In my opinion though Intelligent design is bullsh**.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
There speaks a man who knows not what those theories are...

Now I object to that.  There were plenty of great scientists who were also devout Christians.  Newton, for example.  And Maxwell, Pascal, Kepler, Herschel, Galileo, and Copernicus (yes, those two also).  Not to mention Sir Francis Bacon, the guy who introduced the scientific method.  Even Einstein, hardly devout, said that there must be a God.

[Taristin]

He didn't say that religious men know nothing of science. he said Trashman knows nothing of the theories.

[Bobboau]

"Now about the creationism.. I don't see how it cnflicts with science, since science can't disprove it"

science, isn't in the busyness of proveing or disproveing anythinig, in science, everything is a model that seems to work, as long as you stick to the rules of the model (for instance, the Newtonian physics model works so long as you'r bigger than an atom smaller than a star and moveing signifigantly slower than the speed of light). however, all scientific theoreys can be disproven, the rules are very clear for any theory, and if you find an instance, when the rules fail to produce the predicted outcome to within the degree of acuracy the theory claimes, it's wrong, and you just won yourself a nobel prize and a million dollars (or what ever the prize is now). if science can't find a way to break it (not nesisaraly to actualy break it, but if there is some set of variables that if found would prove it wrong), then it isn't science it's faith (it's that whole 'testable' 'reproducable' thing). now evolution is very much accepted, and ingrained, it would take a signifigant find to even bring up the posability of questioning it, but, if we found some imposable fossil, or if there was some life form we found that couldn't be linked to any other organism on the planet, and it could some how be proven not a hoax, or just an annomaly, then it would force a re-evaluation of the theory.
but above all else, creationism is not science, because creationism says: "God made the earth in six days out of mud from a river, and I'm going to prove that is what happened" while evolution says: "these animals look very similar, it might be posable that they came from a common animal that split off into two seperate animals, I should look more into this, maybe find the history of these animals, or watch them now and see if they change any further, and see if I'm right, and if I'm wrong, well I guess I'll just have to find some other explaination".

Science does not assume it's right, it in fact assumes that it's wrong, and then tries to test it's assumption.