God vs Science

[Mark 13:13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E39htndsmA

Gotta love Kenny ( nice one ) and your statement about proof is clear concise and accurate but I would suggest the opposite is true in that it won't disprove God either.

[Darwinian]

your statement about proof is clear concise and accurate but I would suggest the opposite is true in that it won't disprove God either.

Won't disprove the F.S.M. or Great Green Arkleseezure either though.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Science doesn't care about any version or form of God one bit.

In all my life, I've never heard my fiancé (a microbiologist) mention any god in her research, and neither have her colleagues.

[Mark 13:13]

Science doesn't care about any version or form of God one bit.

In all my life, I've never heard my fiancé (a microbiologist) mention any god in her research, and neither have her colleagues.

I see no issue here as I posted previously let science deal with science let philosophy/religion deal with God/no God. Science and religion is like oil and water. They both work best when kept seperate.

[Zen Badger]

Science doesn't care about any version or form of God one bit.

In all my life, I've never heard my fiancé (a microbiologist) mention any god in her research, and neither have her colleagues.

I see no issue here as I posted previously let science deal with science let philosophy/religion deal with God/no God. Science and religion is like oil and water. They both work best when kept seperate.

True, The last thing religion needs is science showing it up for the fraud that it is.

---

2Th 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Did you know that even evolutionary thinking is allowed by God. He left the devil where he was to decieve those who want to do evil. If you want to have sexual sin, or want to hurt others, you will believe evolution, or some other lie, and God won't save you. It won't matter how much proof I can present to support creation, or God. I would not even help you if I raised a dead person back to life, becasue you want sin, you will remain damned. God is to be feared. Sin will kill you. Only by desireing to do what is right will you be delivered.

Awww, aren't you cute?

Proof of creation......

[FallentoReason]

Science doesn't care about any version or form of God one bit.

In all my life, I've never heard my fiancé (a microbiologist) mention any god in her research, and neither have her colleagues.

I see no issue here as I posted previously let science deal with science let philosophy/religion deal with God/no God. Science and religion is like oil and water. They both work best when kept seperate.

Agreed, except the problem starts when the religious assert that their holy book describes the physical world e.g. Genesis.

Let's skip ahead and agree that it's nothing more than poetry (from your posts so far, I get the feeling this might be the case). Then what is the point of it all? Doesn't it seem like you're moving away from a characteristic personal god to what seems to be a deistic god whose involvement was nothing short of... well, what science describes i.e. a natural universe which is 13.7 billion years old? Why hold onto the words of men living 2000+ years ago?

[Mark 13:13]

I see no issue here as I posted previously let science deal with science let philosophy/religion deal with God/no God. Science and religion is like oil and water. They both work best when kept seperate.

Agreed, except the problem starts when the religious assert that their holy book describes the physical world e.g. Genesis.

Let's skip ahead and agree that it's nothing more than poetry (from your posts so far, I get the feeling this might be the case). Then what is the point of it all? Doesn't it seem like you're moving away from a characteristic personal god to what seems to be a deistic god whose involvement was nothing short of... well, what science describes i.e. a natural universe which is 13.7 billion years old? Why hold onto the words of men living 2000+ years ago?

good question, but far from moving away from a personal God I would say Christian have moved even closer to a personal God. How much more personal can you get than Jesus Christ. As far as why to hold on to the musings of ancients mmmh I would suggest that although our knowledge of the Universe continues to refine the issues of Life/death, good/evil, suffering etc etc surely still occupy us today but maybe not in such an immanent way as it did them so by keeping the words we have access to their some of their thinking and can still have the opportunity to listen to them. Just because a Jungle native tells me that the sun is the chariot of the great spagetti monster in the sky does not mean if he tells me the sun sets in the east and points to where east is without a compass I wont accept he knows where east is. Also I would ask you if the words were useless why do we still have them when so much other material has disappeared?

[FallentoReason]

Agreed, except the problem starts when the religious assert that their holy book describes the physical world e.g. Genesis.

Let's skip ahead and agree that it's nothing more than poetry (from your posts so far, I get the feeling this might be the case). Then what is the point of it all? Doesn't it seem like you're moving away from a characteristic personal god to what seems to be a deistic god whose involvement was nothing short of... well, what science describes i.e. a natural universe which is 13.7 billion years old? Why hold onto the words of men living 2000+ years ago?

good question, but far from moving away from a personal God I would say Christian have moved even closer to a personal God. How much more personal can you get than Jesus Christ. As far as why to hold on to the musings of ancients mmmh I would suggest that although our knowledge of the Universe continues to refine the issues of Life/death, good/evil, suffering etc etc surely still occupy us today but maybe not in such an immanent way as it did them so by keeping the words we have access to their some of their thinking and can still have the opportunity to listen to them. Just because a Jungle native tells me that the sun is the chariot of the great spagetti monster in the sky does not mean if he tells me the sun sets in the east and points to where east is without a compass I wont accept he knows where east is. Also I would ask you if the words were useless why do we still have them when so much other material has disappeared?

Even Jesus stands on shaky ground if you want to try and assimilate Christianity with reality. How can it be that Jesus is redeeming the world of the sins that metaphorically entered "through one man"? What does that even mean now?

As for scripture having survived... why is it that the Greek Iliad and Odyssey, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Mayan Popol Vuh etc etc survived? According to your logic, this is some sort of proof that these gods exist.

[Mark 13:13]

good question, but far from moving away from a personal God I would say Christian have moved even closer to a personal God. How much more personal can you get than Jesus Christ. As far as why to hold on to the musings of ancients mmmh I would suggest that although our knowledge of the Universe continues to refine the issues of Life/death, good/evil, suffering etc etc surely still occupy us today but maybe not in such an immanent way as it did them so by keeping the words we have access to their some of their thinking and can still have the opportunity to listen to them. Just because a Jungle native tells me that the sun is the chariot of the great spagetti monster in the sky does not mean if he tells me the sun sets in the east and points to where east is without a compass I wont accept he knows where east is. Also I would ask you if the words were useless why do we still have them when so much other material has disappeared?

Even Jesus stands on shaky ground if you want to try and assimilate Christianity with reality. How can it be that Jesus is redeeming the world of the sins that metaphorically entered "through one man"? What does that even mean now?

As for scripture having survived... why is it that the Greek Iliad and Odyssey, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Mayan Popol Vuh etc etc survived? According to your logic, this is some sort of proof that these gods exist.

Well not exactly ; logic isn't the best phrase as it seems to require to much explaining and proofs so as to make a conversation a chore. let me say i propose the hypothesis that people generally try to keep, hold onto, preserve Items that have some value or worth to them. So just like the texts you mentioned the Biblical texts were kept for the value the owners had in them. I was not holding the survival being the proof of truth.

[FallentoReason]

Even Jesus stands on shaky ground if you want to try and assimilate Christianity with reality. How can it be that Jesus is redeeming the world of the sins that metaphorically entered "through one man"? What does that even mean now?

As for scripture having survived... why is it that the Greek Iliad and Odyssey, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Mayan Popol Vuh etc etc survived? According to your logic, this is some sort of proof that these gods exist.

Well not exactly ; logic isn't the best phrase as it seems to require to much explaining and proofs so as to make a conversation a chore. let me say i propose the hypothesis that people generally try to keep, hold onto, preserve Items that have some value or worth to them. So just like the texts you mentioned the Biblical texts were kept for the value the owners had in them. I was not holding the survival being the proof of truth.

I see. So you're saying that these texts are viewed as a sort of relic, which is dangerously close to sounding like some sort of item being idolised