[CP5670]

What would you (or what should anyone for that matter) accept as proof of devine? An exmple would be nice...

FS3's release.

[karajorma]

Had Derek Smart made it people would probably have considered that to be proof of Satan's existence.

[Commander Zane]

There goes the looney bin...

[TrashMan]

show god in the sky and the garden of eden, then give me a scientific blood of bone sample that this man that claims to be gods son

you need glasses 

And how would that constitute as proof? With what would you compare Jesuses DNA with? And what would you expect to find?

Bacisly no matter WHAT God could do - raise dead, make the sun purple, invert gravity - you could allways find anotehr explanation - illusion, mass hypnosis, a dream, government conspiracy, gas pockets, weather baloon, fancy FX, technobabble..

Except for maby the raise dead thingy, but that would only convince you directly.. You could tape the event, but the next generation would claim it's a fake, made on a PC or go with a conspiracy theory again. So basicly GOD would have to make some wonder for every generation, over and over again..

Too much hassle....

[Colonol Dekker]

God this has spiralled.

 


My sapper sense is tingling, i feel a lockage coming soon.........

[Commander Zane]

show god in the sky and the garden of eden, then give me a scientific blood of bone sample that this man that claims to be gods son

you need glasses 

And how would that constitute as proof? With what would you compare Jesuses DNA with? And what would you expect to find?

Bacisly no matter WHAT God could do - raise dead, make the sun purple, invert gravity - you could allways find anotehr explanation - illusion, mass hypnosis, a dream, government conspiracy, gas pockets, weather baloon, fancy FX, technobabble..

Except for maby the raise dead thingy, but that would only convince you directly.. You could tape the event, but the next generation would claim it's a fake, made on a PC or go with a conspiracy theory again. So basicly GOD would have to make some wonder for every generation, over and over again..

Too much hassle....

And this is why I stay away from religion...
Six billion people each with different opinions about what / who their god / gods are, and none of them can agree on one another.
It'll be the annihilation of the human race...watch...

[Ghostavo]

And how would that constitute as proof? With what would you compare Jesuses DNA with? And what would you expect to find?

Bacisly no matter WHAT God could do - raise dead, make the sun purple, invert gravity - you could allways find anotehr explanation - illusion, mass hypnosis, a dream, government conspiracy, gas pockets, weather baloon, fancy FX, technobabble..

Except for maby the raise dead thingy, but that would only convince you directly.. You could tape the event, but the next generation would claim it's a fake, made on a PC or go with a conspiracy theory again. So basicly GOD would have to make some wonder for every generation, over and over again..

Too much hassle....

No proof will ever be found because by your own definition, god is a supernatural being.

The moment a proof was found, it would become a natural being. So it's pointless to argue about proof if none exists.

[Centrixo]

yeah, what Ghostavo said.

i hope this is clear enough example of what people want as an example. religious creationism vs science..

[Mobius]

How did this thread turn out to another discussion about Religion?

Ah, I had a...verbal fight with one of my teachers. She is Creationist and was about to suspend me and my best friend just because... we were right! She said the most stupid things I have ever heard from an adult...according to her, Scientists demonstrated that we're all descendants of a SINGLE human being who wasn't a male or a female...he/she is our ancestor and nothing more. Since when Science supports Religion? If you have proofs, you no longer have the "blind faith" you're supposed to have. That's strange.

You know, I've always been interested on Astronomy and Science, so I exploited the weaknesses of that infamous Creationist theory mentioning the evolution of Dinosaurs and birds, for example. She even became angry, she called me "ignorant" and she also said I use drugs. Meh...stupid nuns!

Her ignorance was worrying...she even misspelt Big Bang(she said Big Ben instead )and made references to stupid pseudo-theories about the Chaos of the beginning. I wouldn't call a young Universe "Chaotic", that was just a stupid wat to justify Creationist theories(that thing about the Chaos comes straight from Greek Philosophers... and the Catholic Religion "made it pretty").

CRAP!

[Dysko]

Since when Science supports Religion?

Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.

[Mobius]

Since when Science supports Religion?

Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.

I know what Einstein thought and, in fact, I'm a bit confused mostly because of him...he was The Scientist and was Religious at the same time. That's something I don't understand.

And Einstein didn't find proofs... I said the Church continues to talk about having a blind faith... if what you want to believe on is supported by Science, you no longer have a "faith"....you're just afraid.

[karajorma]

Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.

And wasted the last twenty years of his life trying to disprove quantum theory because of it.

I do not believe that science and religion necessarily exclude each other. The problem comes when people attempt to use science to validate their preconceived notions of how the universe must work due to their religious views. This often results in them not getting the answer they expect ("Oh no! The geological record shows that Earth is more than 6000 years old!") and then fudging the data or simply lying about it in order to recover from that.

She said the most stupid things I have ever heard from an adult...according to her, Scientists demonstrated that we're all descendants of a SINGLE human being who wasn't a male or a female...he/she is our ancestor and nothing more.

Probably a huge misunderstanding of what Mitochondrial Eve was.

[Dysko]

Mobius, remember that considering Science (with capitalized S) as absolute knowledge (like you seem to do) is like having Science as a religion. Instead of having a "blind faith" in Religion you have a "blind faith" in Science.

I'm not criticising you. I was exactly like you until some time ago.

I changed my mind with this year's Philosophy subjects. Popper said that Science is not a subject which leads to absolute knowledge. He said that a theory is not perfect when nothing can invalidate it, but it's perfect when you say how to invalidate it, so that a better theory is found.

Think about this

BTW, maybe this "science vs religion" off-topic could be split and moved in The Pub or in the Meeting Hall.

[Centrixo]

i am happy that no one has gone out of their way to kill each other with theories and creationisim. i expected ww3 myself  .

*Runs for the hills*

[Mobius]

She said the most stupid things I have ever heard from an adult...according to her, Scientists demonstrated that we're all descendants of a SINGLE human being who wasn't a male or a female...he/she is our ancestor and nothing more.

Probably a huge misunderstanding of what Mitochondrial Eve was.

That was one hell of a misunderstanding... I joked a bit. We are all children of Adama or Evo.

Mobius, remember that considering Science (with capitalized S) as absolute knowledge (like you seem to do) is like having Science as a religion. Instead of having a "blind faith" in Religion you have a "blind faith" in Science.

I'm not criticising you. I was exactly like you until some time ago.

I changed my mind with this year's Philosophy subjects. Popper said that Science is not a subject which leads to absolute knowledge. He said that a theory is not perfect when nothing can invalidate it, but it's perfect when you say how to invalidate it, so that a better theory is found.

I don't have a blind faith on Science. I simply want to believe on what is demonstrated, on what I can easily verify. Creationists will never change their mind while I can if enough proofs are given.

I simply can't find other possible explanations...the way the Dinosaurs changed, everything makes sense if you take an evolution in consideration. The same is for the humans. We still have the coccigee, what remains of the tail our ancestors had...

Have you ever read something about the structure of the human body? Either God wasn't able to create an efficient species or we are the result of a long process we call evolution.

1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;

We look like God? Then God is far from being perfect.

Or...

We are the result of an evolution. Among our ancestors, the Australopitecus.

That nun said "You still believe on Darwin's theories. Darwin is old". Well, people like her believe on 2,000 years old "theories" which have always been contested and not demonstrated. I'm pissed off because no one should be allowed to say a bunch of stupid things in a public school. That teacher already tells hundreds of teenagers wrong things about social behaviour... 

i am happy that no one has gone out of their way to kill each other with theories and creationisim. i expected ww3 myself  .

*Runs for the hills*

[karajorma]

That was one hell of a misunderstanding

Especially given that if you accept Mitochondrial Eve as a scientific fact you also have to accept that genetic drift puts her existence at 140,000 years ago. Somewhat outside of the bible's claim that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago.

[Mobius]

We should also consider the glaciations. If this Mitochondrial Eve was born after the last glaciation, only during which the human species had the possibility of moving to the American continent, the whole theory would be a nonsense.

[Admiral Edivad]

I don't have a blind faith on Science. I simply want to believe on what is demonstrated, on what I can easily verify.

Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality,  we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.

1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;

5) Just think to how long does it take to an ape to give birth to its first baby and compare it to a human woman. on this topic i read an interesting (and funny) article on National Geographic last year (italian version), you may want to have a look at it!

[Mobius]

I don't have a blind faith on Science. I simply want to believe on what is demonstrated, on what I can easily verify.

Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality,  we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.

The problems is that Darwin's theories are still considered...theories! They're the only possible reasons...finding definitive proofs is difficult, we all know this...but you want to follow Creationists instead? Their theories are stupid...

1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;

5) Just think to how long does it take to an ape to give birth to its first baby and compare it to a human woman. on this topic i read an interesting (and funny) article on National Geographic last year (italian version), you may want to have a look at it!

What are you refering to, exactly? That's another thing that makes us look unperfect...or that's a way to support Creationists' theories?!? I think I read that article too - it was also about the DNA, right?

[karajorma]

Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality,  we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.

Which is why theory is as high as science goes. There is no such thing as a 100% provable fact in science because the possibility always exists that your entire life is fake and you're just a computer simulation of you or a brain in a jar in some alien lab being fed electronic stimuli.

However the fact that science can't every be 100% proven correct is no justification for saying "Well then, I'm going to pick something less likely to be correct." Sure senses can be imperfect,  but saying that this is a reason to choose something else is like saying that cause your eyes can be tricked you might as well close them and use The Force when crossing the road.