(June 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure why my point is so hard to understand.  

I understand your point, I just disagree with your conclusion ..... God is just one of many possibilities that could explain what is not known .... nothing other than a book written by semi-illiterate stone age people leads to a theory that god fills the gaps we don't yet understand.

The problem with your book is if everyone accepted it we would still be living in the stone age ....

That's just not true.

I have yet to read a single religious book that shuns science or logic, they actually promote it.

Also; if all were of one peaceful unified Faith then peace and profitable advancement for all life would skyrocket to unseen heights.

2¢

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(June 5, 2016 at 3:21 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because as far as we know, as far as we have proof for, things in nature all begin from something else. They don't materialize out of nothing.

That is something we can agree on. A theist cannot believe in something from nothing unless god is nothing. An atheist generally does not believe in a something from nothing scenario (or at least should not). One would be hardpressed to find any reputable scientist that believes in something from nothing.

Pretty much everyone agrees "something" has always existed.

Now, which is more reasonable, the universe has always existed in some form or another or some intelligent power always existed then got bored and the best it could come up with was our cosmos and the threat of eternal damnation..

Why divide the two?

Why can't the yet unknown laws that govern all existence and lead to life as we know it too be caused in some form ultimately by a singular creative life giving force? And life giving could be interpreted in many fashions, but most fitting in this scenario would be that the irrefutable potential for life was set in motion prior to the big bang.

We can observe and describe parts of what binds our universe, but can't begin to understand what caused those inexplicable laws.

Every one always asks about what makes us special...

I don't get it; as far as we can observe we are the dominant life, even though we are quite of the path of what is right.

People say what GOD is that of gaps in understanding, but then lean on chance as if it is a verifiable real thing.

That is faith in the unknown from gullibility to me.

They exclaim that GOD isn't evident, while knowing that literally every observable decribable thing, strictly physical and not, is described with exact precision mathematically. We can't explain this whatsoever, but we can discredit it as evidence of intelligent design.

These things, to me, seem against standard logic, and must be the product of bias from some preconceived source.

2¢

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(June 5, 2016 at 4:26 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 4:02 pm)RozKek Wrote: ... the universe simply just is.

My belief also and it offers no contradictions. No beginning, no end, no time, it just is.

Nihilism is the most bleak emo stuff ever to me. For one to downplay there own potential and responsibility, let alone that of life as a whole, is just disheartening. Perhaps that is the desired effect?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(June 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm)madog Wrote: I understand your point, I just disagree with your conclusion ..... God is just one of many possibilities that could explain what is not known .... nothing other than a book written by semi-illiterate stone age people leads to a theory that god fills the gaps we don't yet understand.

The problem with your book is if everyone accepted it we would still be living in the stone age ....

That's just not true.

I have yet to read a single religious book that shuns science or logic, they actually promote it.

Also; if all were of one peaceful unified Faith then peace and profitable advancement for all life would skyrocket to unseen heights.

2¢  

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

They all promote a belief that what is not yet understood is God.

Dog.

(June 9, 2016 at 7:42 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: That's just not true.

I have yet to read a single religious book that shuns science or logic, they actually promote it.

Also; if all were of one peaceful unified Faith then peace and profitable advancement for all life would skyrocket to unseen heights.

2¢  

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

They all promote a belief that what is not yet understood is God.

Dog.

Who? Certainly not the books

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(June 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: I have yet to read a single religious book that shuns science or logic, they actually promote it.

Have you really read no religious book? Because the fact of the matter is they all, in their own way, are anti-science.

The books about the abrahamic gods contain egregious failures about the beginning of the world, the shape of the world evolution, gravity, human life expectancy and many other things explained by science. The pagan pantheisms have their own fainings, usually using gods to explain natural phenomena. I am not well versed on the eastern religions but they have a whole mess of woo surrounding their reincarnation delusions.

And then we come to books of apologetics which twist, distort and lie about science to get to two goals either a) pretending that science supports their religion (protip; it doesn't), or b) building a straw man of "scientism" weak enough to defeat so that they can pretend that science is at their low level.

Constable Dorfl,

On the contrary; I read and have read quite a few core scriptures of the faithful. I generally stay away from the derivatives of them though, for the most part.

The egregious error is in literal interpretation of such as you stated.

I cannot speak for the pagan teachings. Based on the little of them I have read, they are of misdirection. Honestly though; I base that off of admittedly limited study of their ancient texts, and the actions of man, which seamingly don't generally align with the words or teachings of their respective "religion".

The only actual fact of the matter that I can honestly reference is that, again; the core writings of those who are faithful to the one creative, benificial, benevolent force that is causal to all prosperous things in no way advise one not to seek scientific indeavor or knowledge. Many go so far as to state it's obvious benifit to life. It is considered the seeking of knowledge. It is likened to truth, as it is, at least in unbiased, logical form.

I get why people try to seperate nature from GOD. And why they act as if science is apart from GOD. But logically, they all go together just fine.

Just because something is beyond scientific understanding(supernatural) doesn't mean it is contrary to scientific understanding per say, or even not natural.

Peace



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

popsthebuilder Wrote:I get why people try to seperate nature from GOD. And why they act as if science is apart from GOD. But logically, they all go together just fine.

No they don't the study of scientific disciplines had steadily decreased the amount of things that god was supposed to control. Jupiter/thor/taranis etc. were all supposed to control thunder and lightning; now we know they are both products of a single natural process. Yhwh was supposed to contol gravity, nade the animals from dust separste from each other and have enough power to drown the whole world. For the first we know it is a bending of spacetime by sufficiently massive bodies, for the second, we know all current species evolved by genetics, epigenetics and natural selection and we are getting closer to a near definitive answer on the process of abiogenesis. And for the flood we know that was impossible. There two good examples of religion flatly conteadicting science.

Quote:Just because something is beyond scientific understanding(supernatural) doesn't mean it is contrary to scientific understanding per say, or even not natural.

Problem is, pops, you asserting a truth position doesn't make it true, just as if I said I were 6'6" (I'm not, about5'5"). So to have us accept the truth position of your assertion, you'll have to show us sufficient evidence, which is, emphatically, not you saying "religion doesn't contradict science, therefore god", a statement I have proven false.

I went to a Catholic grade school where we most certainly learned about evolution and the big bang theory in science class. In fact, it was a Catholic priest who first introduced the big bang theory. I received far superior education in science and everything else in that school than I did in the public high school I went to afterwards.

A belief in God is not intrinsically against science. It only is that way if people choose to make it that way.

(June 10, 2016 at 7:11 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

popsthebuilder Wrote:I get why people try to seperate nature from GOD. And why they act as if science is apart from GOD. But logically, they all go together just fine.

No they don't the study of scientific disciplines had steadily decreased the amount of things that god was supposed to control. Jupiter/thor/taranis etc. were all supposed to control thunder and lightning; now we know they are both products of a single natural process. Yhwh was supposed to contol gravity, nade the animals from dust separste from each other and have enough power to drown the whole world. For the first we know it is a bending of spacetime by sufficiently massive bodies, for the second, we know all current species evolved by genetics, epigenetics and natural selection and we are getting closer to a near definitive answer on the process of abiogenesis. And for the flood we know that was impossible. There two good examples of religion flatly conteadicting science.

Quote:Just because something is beyond scientific understanding(supernatural) doesn't mean it is contrary to scientific understanding per say, or even not natural.

Problem is, pops, you asserting a truth position doesn't make it true, just as if I said I were 6'6" (I'm not, about5'5"). So to have us accept the truth position of your assertion, you'll have to show us sufficient evidence, which is, emphatically, not you saying "religion doesn't contradict science, therefore god", a statement I have proven false.

Never said therefore GOD, and you have proven nothing whatsoever.

You speak of Thor and yah, neither of which have much to do with the topic at hand.

If you can't accept that scriptures of the faithful expressly condone science then that's your own willful bias and ignorance.

By the way; the laws that bind nature, regardless of how well we can describe them, still came from a source we cannot test in any scientific manner, and chance can't be proven in any way.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.