God vs Science

[Zone]

There is certainly no reason why science ought to conflict with God but if you have a God who actively engages in the universe or if anything supernatural was to occur physically then science would be all over that. So that's the point of conflict between them. Some kind of deism or pantheism would still work but you can't base much of a religion on that. A religion has to give you some stuff to do.

Also you would need to demonstrate how humanity was intentionally physically made because the current theory of evolution doesn't suggest anything like that at all. There does seem to be some kind general progression toward greater intelligence over time perhaps, but even that wouldn't have have stalled had that that asteroid not hit Earth and killed off all the smaller brained dinosaurs. So clearly there was some random chance involved that we're here rather than not.

[Creed of Heresy]

I've read a quote from someone's signature on here, I can't recall who at the moment since I'm too hungry but it basically stated: "Even if the theories of abiogenesis, evolution, gravity (and a bunch of other theories) were wrong, it STILL wouldn't prove the existence of god."

The term of god can be so broad and vague that I might as well just say "atheist" since it's something that cannot be proven nor disproven, thus is not worth my consideration as a tangible aspect of reality. It is not something that affects me, or if it does, there is no way to test whether or not it does, ergo even maintaining the idea that it could be a possibility is a waste of my time and energy since it leads nowhere and ultimately means absolutely nothing. I know there is no god, however, as has been suggested by established religions because before they started moving the goalposts back further and further away, we proved all the things claimed by religions that would have anything to do with a god to be inherently false. There is no heaven with angels and a shiny old man in the clouds, there is no way in hell that after brain death the human body can spontaneously regenerate, you cannot walk on water, there are no four-legged insects nor is there any evidence they've ever existed, bats are NOT in the same family as birds [all of which the bible has claimed so far], miracles do NOT happen [as evidenced by the lack of amputees spontaneously regenerating their lost limbs], there is no evidence Jesus ever even existed save for a dusty old tome that is riddled with inconsistencies and outright lies and fabrications [thus calling its credibility into extreme suspicion], there is nothing. Nothing nothing nothing. That's why they call it faith, cuz you're supposed to believe in something with no real evidence or reason to do so other than solipsistic disingenuous bullshit.

There is no need to entertain the illusion of a godly figure, or even the possibility of one. If indeed there is one, then fine, that day will come I suppose, but unless/until that day DOES come I'm calling bullshit on the entire affair.

[pgrimes15]

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.

Yes, explaining and proving extraordinary claims is hard work isn't it.

Regards

Grimesy

[Zone]

I have just obtained a two volume book set of 1400 pages in total on the subject of the credibility of the New Testament miracle accounts/miracles in general from Amazon.



Flicking through I see various reports of people being healed of their cancer or chronic bladder infections but there will always be a small percentage of people who will recover from serious illness by themselves. It's about the same percentage as rats in a laboratory recovering serious illnesses . Even if God does heal people you will have to ask why some people are cured and not others who are equally good, moral or faithful or whatever.

[Angrboda]

For much of western history it has been the business of natural theology to examine the facts of nature and see if in some way they might point toward God. In the post-Darwinian epoch, the only thing that is abundantly clear is that the arrows all point back in upon nature, and that Laplace's beautiful hypothesis which explained much has turned out to be a crude myth that explains nothing. It's disingenuous to suggest that science has encroached upon religion, or that the two should remain separate, for it has been religion's continued insistence on the existence of an intercessor god which has put the two at odds, and pitched them in a battle which religion appears to be losing badly. And the reason for this is obvious to any traditional religionist, for a god denuded of specific interference with creation is not a god at all, but simply takes its place among the other mute and impersonal forces of nature. The deist god, is a god in name only. One might more justifiably call gravity or conservation of momentum gods, as they are as impartial to the specifics of individual existence as the deist god.

[Zone]

Religion does make claims that encroaches upon the domain science covers that being the physical universe we can observe. If there are supernatural beings and miracles that physically do anything in the universe then science would be able cover them. Only some form of deism wouldn't conflict with science but all a deistic God would do is create the universe and then have nothing more to do with it. The popular religions we have are virtually all making various scientific claims particularly those of based around Biblical monotheism but aren't meeting their proof burden.

[Mystical]

I see the god vs science debate as all encompassing, as it's the door that opened my eyes to my religion. I'd been taught that there is documentation that Jesus existed, that there is scientific evidence for biblical events ie: the jews' exodus out of Egypt, that science backs up the bible irrefutably, and that everything the bible says will be proven over time--that anything it says is right and the world is just trying to catch up.
It wasn't until I found out this was a load of crap via science in terms of evolution and a review of its' "rightness" , that the sand castle began to crumble.
Just my two cents, what it's worth