God vs Science

[FallentoReason]

Is a rather absurd concept to me. Or maybe someone here can clarify to me the logic behind arguments that say "scientific theory #101 suggests such and such about any existence of a god".

As a former Christian, the only thing science would do to my faith is shape my understanding of the Judeo-Christian deity i.e. of course he didn't point here and there and made things pop into existence over a period of 6 days. In no way did that ever pose as a problem for me, because my fundamental reasoning was that a Creator's Creation cannot disprove the Creator. It's rather silly to think that (in a hypothetical situation). But of course, in terms of Christianity, it makes historical claims that are unsupported, which is where everything collapses (another story altogether, which we all know too well anyways). My point is that I don't understand how the physical world can say anything about what [/i]could[/i] be beyond this universe and therefore seemingly incline towards saying there's no god(s). What if in reality we're all observing what some sort of being left behind? Because no one can know 100%, it seems to me that "God vs Science" is a red herring and all the conclusions derived from it are basically non-sequiturs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why is it important that the god described did not create the earth in 6 days by breathing magic words onto the skein of the void? Why does the narrative collapse at the point of unsubstantiated stories (and is that really another story altogether)? If not the god that did these things then what god? Some other god, some other name? Or do you choose (at least for a time) to carry that name along to the next idea of a god. A pleasant artifact of an unremembered faith?

The physical world may not tell us stories about gods, perhaps because there are no stories to tell, but those stories of gods nevertheless propose to tell us of the physical world. The damning indictment in all of this is not that the physical world does not tell us something about gods in and of itself, even though the narratives are arranged such that they -should-, but that these narratives of god have failed to tell us about the physical world, which, again, by their very own arrangement they -must-.

Now, the world between your ears, where uncertainty seems to bear unlimited possibility and with it an easily won credulity, a world in which the phrase "a creation can never disprove it's creator" is something more profound or meaningful than a nonsensical jumble of words......well, gods can tell us plenty about that world.

Your closing remarks here are seriously going to be "we don't know - therefore god"?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

God vs Science
Halftime 0 - 1

[Brian37]

There actually is not debate. There are merely people who like the idea of having an invisible super hero, so our species invents them, like they always have.

There is no evidence that thoughts occur outside biological evolution. There is however, TONS of evidence that our species is capable of being irrational and making up and believing false things.

---

God vs Science
Halftime 0 - 1

Halftime?

More like Post game

God=0
Science=1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[FallentoReason]

Why is it important that the god described did not create the earth in 6 days by breathing magic words onto the skein of the void?

Because the universe it hypothetically brought into being doesn't tell us it happened in 6 days around 6-10 thousand years ago. This is an example of the Creation disproving the Creator under those conditions--that the universe was made in 6 days around 6-10 thousand years ago.

My belief is that the Creation can't disprove the hypothetical Creator because that's simply nonsensical. Of course, you're interested in actually figuring out the sound reasoning that justifies the presuppositioned Creator in the first place, if I'm not mistaken?

Why does the narrative collapse at the point of unsubstantiated stories (and is that really another story altogether)? If not the god that did these things then what god? Some other god, some other name? Or do you choose (at least for a time) to carry that name along to the next idea of a god. A pleasant artifact of an unremembered faith?

I can safely say that I was definitely an atheist for the first 8-9 months of me being deconverted. Now if I were to label myself right now, I'd honestly say I'm somewhere in between atheism and deism simply because I don't know if my perception of this Creator is purely a romantic philosophical view or if there's something more to it that brings it together with reality. Do you see my dilemma? The former is nothing more but a placebo (which, as I said before, has changed me for the better thus far) and the latter is what I would see (if properly justified) as true deism.

The physical world may not tell us stories about gods, perhaps because there are no stories to tell, but those stories of gods nevertheless propose to tell us of the physical world. The damning indictment in all of this is not that the physical world does not tell us something about gods in and of itself, even though the narratives are arranged such that they -should-, but that these narratives of god have failed to tell us about the physical world, which, again, by their very own arrangement they -must-.

Sure, and by "narratives" are you exclusively referring to holy books, or is deism included?

Now, the world between your ears, where uncertainty seems to bear unlimited possibility and with it an easily won credulity, a world in which the phrase "a creation can never disprove it's creator" is something more profound or meaningful than a nonsensical jumble of words......well, gods can tell us plenty about that world.

What sort of stuff would you expect to hear from these gods about that world?

Your closing remarks here are seriously going to be "we don't know - therefore god"?

No, because that's a clear cop out. I think the elegance and beauty of this universe gives me a reason to extrapolate further that what can be known scientifically.

---

There actually is not debate.

Then what are we doing right now?

There are merely people who like the idea of having an invisible super hero, so our species invents them, like they always have.

Agreed, hence why holy books hold no water.

There is no evidence that thoughts occur outside biological evolution.

If we hypothetically say there's an "extra-natural" place i.e. something outside of nature, then why would your observation that is exclusively about nature rule out what's possible in the extra-natural place? The two don't overlap.

There is however, TONS of evidence that our species is capable of being irrational and making up and believing false things.

Agreed.

[Mark 13:13]

There is no real debate between science and religion; just a clash between two groups who don't understand that science exists to explore the Universe and the laws in which it operates and religion exists to explore the reality beyond the Universe. Some athiests would like to move the religion debate onto scientific grounds as they feel that provides a good hunting ground but they fail to understand that science does not have the tools for the job and of course some religious people are foolish enough to believe the Bible is a history book just because it has some history in it. Sometimes this so called debate gives me a heavy heart now can science measure how heavy my heart is; can it even understand the question ; or will it just give me an answer in grams. It will be a correct answer but it will also be a wrong answer.

[Cato]

There is no real debate between science and religion; just a clash between two groups who don't understand that science exists to explore the Universe and the laws in which it operates and religion exists to explore the reality beyond the Universe.

Uhhhhhh, what reality beyond beyond the Universe?

[Mark 13:13]

There is no real debate between science and religion; just a clash between two groups who don't understand that science exists to explore the Universe and the laws in which it operates and religion exists to explore the reality beyond the Universe.

Uhhhhhh, what reality beyond beyond the Universe?

spoken like a true scientist

[FutureAndAHope]

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.

[downbeatplumb]

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