Science and Religion

[Mash]

Ok people, lets agree to disagree with each other and move on, i don't see the point of arguing back and forth trying to disprove each others facts.

It's not me trying to disprove their facts. They have no facts.

 

[PurpleStyle]

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
This is an interesting sight that I felt would be appropriate for the discussion.

Heh, the opening statement reads "The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible."

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

According to modern science:

The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Here's a paper by NASA that discusses the results of the WMAP probe.
The age of the Earth is 4.545 billion (± 10 million years) years old. Read this, this, and this if you need some "convincing".


Oh, and to drire:
You know, most people who feign interest in exploring reality with skepticism to prove their presupposed ideas are going to go about it haphazardly. As much as I loved reading what you had to say, you should probably condense them a bit.

 

[jxavier]

And if thats not depressing enough... if you study semantics, you learn that even language is 99.9% flawed! But the people who truly come to terms with the futileness of existence are the people who are truly happy.

 

[Mash]

Also, an addition to Mash16 comments on planets. Just as some planets are bathed bathed in perpetual sunlight, some planets do not have sunlight and life would live on them just fine.

I'm not trying to contradict you, as I agree with your statement 100%, I just thought that I should throw in that since no other star in the Universe is named 'The Sun' that technically no other planet except the one's in our solar system get 'sunlight'. Other planets would get starlight, though! =P

Haha, I'm just being silly and pointing out stupid technicalities. =P

 

[Mash]

Not a problem. I'm not an expert on whether a planets local stars can be referred to as suns. :blush

That is your area of expertise. :stickout

Please don't feel like your scolding me. By lecturing and communicating this across you are bettering me. 😉


Whether it be Science, Arts, Industry, History, Philosophy, Politics , Theology or Entertainment.

If someone is mistaken then informing them and correcting them is the only way to improve and further develop them.

Haha, well, the sun is the name of only our star.

Honestly, it's not even my area of 'expertise'; I'm just a lowly amateur who likes to learn bits of astronomy. PurpleStyle is the astronomy expert on this forum.

 

[Mash]

Actually, I may have been wrong. I was reading up on stars, and one site in particular says that a star in the center of a planetary system is called a sun.

I misinterpreted what my first source told me.

Anyways, my mistake.

 

[likeasong1]

Now, a scientist can believe in a deity. A scientist can not be worth his salt and believe in all the aspects of Christianity. The two things contradict eachother too violently.

Which denomination? You forget that Christianity is a very broad term to use, as there are a myriad of denominations within. I'm not even 100% on what the differences between all the denominations are. However, to believe the aspects of what most denominations will tell you is not too horrendously contradictory. If you're talking about the creation story, even many Christians are hesitant to accept it as a literal account of history, as opposed to a more poetic, figurative interpretation, and even those who do believe pretty literally, also don't believe that the original "day" was 24 hours, as we understand the concept of "hours", and wasn't so for quite awhile. Third, there are some who have re-evaluated the math and believe via biblical mathematics that the earth is at least 10,000 years older than originally derived, which while still a few billion years off from scientific estimation, is further proof that to lump it all under the umbrella "aspects of Christianity" is unfair to scientists and Christians alike. Next, you're assuming this applies to all hard scientists, which is also a broad brush to paint with. And who says a quantum physicist can't be worth his salt in the study and progression of understanding of quantum mechanics and not believe the doctrines of Christianity? If I remember correctly, one of the discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA (I believe in this case, Francis Crick) believed that it was implantation by extra-terrestrials that caused this shape. Was he no longer worth his salt for believing in something other than billions of years theory?

Lastly, I would dare you to actually make that statement in front of the assembled Faraday Institute and see how quickly you get dismissed both in academics and in body.

 

[AnnoXanti]

Hmmm... too complex. I only live now and I only take what my mind can handle.

 

[oldskool]

Einstien believed in a God. A priest came up with the big bang theory. In earlier times religion and science worked together, it proved to not work. Now they are completely seperate and I think that's good, for now. In the future I believe they will come back together and science will prove their is an afterlife, and that the universe was created, and didn't just happen. This will probably be at least a couple hundred years from now though.

Einstien believed in a God because he saw that the universe was beautiful and orderly when it didn't have to be. That most physics equations could be put on a single piece of paper. For me I look at how things work and it really reminds me of a computer program. The way if this happens, that will occur. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mash]

Einstien believed in a God. A priest came up with the big bang theory. In earlier times religion and science worked together, it proved to not work. Now they are completely seperate and I think that's good, for now. In the future I believe they will come back together and science will prove their is an afterlife, and that the universe was created, and didn't just happen. This will probably be at least a couple hundred years from now though.

Einstien believed in a God because he saw that the universe was beautiful and orderly when it didn't have to be. That most physics equations could be put on a single piece of paper. For me I look at how things work and it really reminds me of a computer program. The way if this happens, that will occur. Just my 2 cents.

The 'afterlife', if there is such a place, is not a physical thing. Whatever it is has to be on some other plane of existence, because it is simply not made of physical matter. Now, as it is not made of physical matter, it currently cannot be measured, and since it cannot be measured, then science will never try and prove it's existence until it is possible to measure and test it. As science has evolved, it has gotten farther and farther and farther away from the idea of creationism; I see no reason for it to suddenly do a 180 and decide that the Universe was created.

First of all, the Universe is not all that orderly. Things begin and end violently all the time. Now, compared to how it once was, it may seem orderly, but the Universe only appears that way due to the passage of 13.7 billion years. Shake a snowglobe and watch how everything is chaotic at first, but eventually settles down as the laws of physics come into play; that is very similar to how the Universe is. The Universe is governed by the laws of physics, that is why it seems as orderly as it does.

 

[Mash]

Which denomination? You forget that Christianity is a very broad term to use, as there are a myriad of denominations within. I'm not even 100% on what the differences between all the denominations are. However, to believe the aspects of what most denominations will tell you is not too horrendously contradictory. If you're talking about the creation story, even many Christians are hesitant to accept it as a literal account of history, as opposed to a more poetic, figurative interpretation, and even those who do believe pretty literally, also don't believe that the original "day" was 24 hours, as we understand the concept of "hours", and wasn't so for quite awhile. Third, there are some who have re-evaluated the math and believe via biblical mathematics that the earth is at least 10,000 years older than originally derived, which while still a few billion years off from scientific estimation, is further proof that to lump it all under the umbrella "aspects of Christianity" is unfair to scientists and Christians alike. Next, you're assuming this applies to all hard scientists, which is also a broad brush to paint with. And who says a quantum physicist can't be worth his salt in the study and progression of understanding of quantum mechanics and not believe the doctrines of Christianity? If I remember correctly, one of the discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA (I believe in this case, Francis Crick) believed that it was implantation by extra-terrestrials that caused this shape. Was he no longer worth his salt for believing in something other than billions of years theory?

Lastly, I would dare you to actually make that statement in front of the assembled Faraday Institute and see how quickly you get dismissed both in academics and in body.

Yeah, I'll agree, my statement was far too broad to be accurate, I should re-evaluate that.

Christianity believes that the Earth is less than 4.45 billion years old. That is wrong. Any scientist who believes in that aspect of Christianity is ignoring aspects of science, and hence, not really worth his salt.

Christianity believes that somewhere in the range of 4400 years ago there was a global flood. Now, lets not even go into the fact that 2 of every species of animal and insect on the planet would require a ship the size of Manhattan. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that any flood occurred in that time period. If a global flood occurred, I imagine that you would find a layer of sediment in the earth that was very rich in sea salt; I do not recall there being any record of that.
Also, in the event of a flood, where did the water come from? For a 'global' flood to happen, every continent on Earth would have to be submerged in water. I can't imagine anything short of every glacier on earth melting would cause that. Let's assume for a second that every glacier on the planet DID melt. Why did they melt? Did the Earth bake in it's own atmosphere at such a high temperature that it caused the ice caps to all melt instantaneously? If such a temperature were achieved on Earth, I think life would have died pretty quickly. Also, why did the water freeze back up so fast? It's not like this happened over thousands of years, obviously.

Admittedly, I don't really know enough about Christianity to be talking about it in detail, however I know of the larger events and of the ideas, vaguely. If I'm misinformed about the flood, by all means correct me. I'm just curious as to why Christianity never gives an explanation as to why anything happened. They just say that it did.

 

[likeasong1]

Christianity believes that the Earth is less than 4.45 billion years old. That is wrong. Any scientist who believes in that aspect of Christianity is ignoring aspects of science, and hence, not really worth his salt.

Not all denominations disbelieve that, and a scientist can certainly be credible in his field even if they do believe the Creation story.

Christianity believes that somewhere in the range of 4400 years ago there was a global flood. Now, lets not even go into the fact that 2 of every species of animal and insect on the planet would require a ship the size of Manhattan. There is no scientific evidence that suggests that any flood occurred in that time period. If a global flood occurred, I imagine that you would find a layer of sediment in the earth that was very rich in sea salt; I do not recall there being any record of that.
Also, in the event of a flood, where did the water come from? For a 'global' flood to happen, every continent on Earth would have to be submerged in water. I can't imagine anything short of every glacier on earth melting would cause that. Let's assume for a second that every glacier on the planet DID melt. Why did they melt? Did the Earth bake in it's own atmosphere at such a high temperature that it caused the ice caps to all melt instantaneously? If such a temperature were achieved on Earth, I think life would have died pretty quickly. Also, why did the water freeze back up so fast? It's not like this happened over thousands of years, obviously.

See, that's the part about taking an "Act of God" to pull something like that off. We don't know if the rainfall was plentiful enough to survive while Noah was building the ark but scarce enough to not be regular, or what. That's the whole point of a miracle, though.... if it didn't defy scientific preconceptions, it wouldn't be a miracle, and demanding that God operate within the parameters of scientific law would be idolatrous for it would be putting scientific law as superior to God, and not the other way around. I've had this debate enough times to know this is the point on which we'll never agree, though, so I feel I can leave it at that.

Admittedly, I don't really know enough about Christianity to be talking about it in detail, however I know of the larger events and of the ideas, vaguely. If I'm misinformed about the flood, by all means correct me. I'm just curious as to why Christianity never gives an explanation as to why anything happened. They just say that it did.

Maybe it's because the mechanics of how something was achieved is irrelevant, or maybe it's because God doesn't believe we're ready for that knowledge, which is widely believed to be why God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, the Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil. We don't know, and that's what faith is. And we Christians believe that the righteous shall live by it, even if we don't necessarily understand why that is, either.

 

[Mash]

Not all denominations disbelieve that, and a scientist can certainly be credible in his field even if they do believe the Creation story.

See, that's the part about taking an "Act of God" to pull something like that off. We don't know if the rainfall was plentiful enough to survive while Noah was building the ark but scarce enough to not be regular, or what. That's the whole point of a miracle, though.... if it didn't defy scientific preconceptions, it wouldn't be a miracle, and demanding that God operate within the parameters of scientific law would be idolatrous for it would be putting scientific law as superior to God, and not the other way around. I've had this debate enough times to know this is the point on which we'll never agree, though, so I feel I can leave it at that.

Maybe it's because the mechanics of how something was achieved is irrelevant, or maybe it's because God doesn't believe we're ready for that knowledge, which is widely believed to be why God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, the Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil. We don't know, and that's what faith is. And we Christians believe that the righteous shall live by it, even if we don't necessarily understand why that is, either.

Here, now this is the problem I have with Christianity. You use terms like 'miracle' and 'act of god' and then say that you are still validated with Scientific evidence. Science cannot measure miracles, or acts of god, so I don't understand where Christians can possibly pull up this 'Proven by Science' crap from.

If you want to have faith in the idea that those things happened, then that's fine! However, do not go around saying that there is scientific evidence to support it.

Faith and Science do not mingle. Faith cannot be measured, and a number value can't be tacked onto it, so the two things will never co-exist peacefully.

There are parts of Christianity that have been disproven by science, or at least, they've been written off as 'miracles'; that being said, the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. It's at this junction that we start hauling off into the land of fiction.

 

[PurpleStyle]

By using the Mass–energy equivalence principle, Quantum and Stochastic Electrodynamics with Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant the energy of the vacuum is 10^107 Joules per cubic centimeter.

E=mc^2

E/c^2=m

10^107/89875517873681764

=25^105/22468879468420441

=1112650056053618432174089964848009991607532434474962374466234879546911001347867357373742501
kilograms.

Did you pull that off wikipedia? According to that, every cubic centimeter of space should contain more energy the observable universe.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Not all denominations disbelieve that, and a scientist can certainly be credible in his field even if they do believe the Creation story.

True enough, but if a scientist tried to use that to justify an idea he put forth in academic discourse, he would get laughed at as they told him to GTFO.

See, that's the part about taking an "Act of God" to pull something like that off. We don't know if the rainfall was plentiful enough to survive while Noah was building the ark but scarce enough to not be regular, or what. That's the whole point of a miracle, though.... if it didn't defy scientific preconceptions, it wouldn't be a miracle, and demanding that God operate within the parameters of scientific law would be idolatrous for it would be putting scientific law as superior to God, and not the other way around. I've had this debate enough times to know this is the point on which we'll never agree, though, so I feel I can leave it at that.

There's nothing to "agree" on. You're basing that on the assumption that the flood story is credible. Which is, frankly, laughable.

Maybe it's because the mechanics of how something was achieved is irrelevant, or maybe it's because God doesn't believe we're ready for that knowledge, which is widely believed to be why God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, the Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil. We don't know, and that's what faith is. And we Christians believe that the righteous shall live by it, even if we don't necessarily understand why that is, either.

"The mechanics of how something was achieved is irrelevant"!?

Lastly, I would dare you to actually make that statement in front of the assembled Faraday Institute and see how quickly you get dismissed both in academics and in body.

SUPREME irony. :lol Could you be anymore condescending/ungrateful towards science and academics, which is 99% responsible for the absurdly awesome living conditions we all have? Probably, I've honestly seen worse. Does that make this type of hypocrisy excusable? No.

 

[likeasong1]

Here, now this is the problem I have with Christianity. You use terms like 'miracle' and 'act of god' and then say that you are still validated with Scientific evidence. Science cannot measure miracles, or acts of god, so I don't understand where Christians can possibly pull up this 'Proven by Science' crap from.

I didn't say I was validated by scientific evidence. I'm simply saying there are a NUMBER of credible scientists out there who also happen to be very Christian. I am also, however, staying open-minded to the possibility that since God created the laws of the universe (as I believe), he is supremely able to manipulate them as we manipulate them into our inventions of technology, and cause things that we would otherwise write off as "laughable" and "impossible", which is incredibly egotistical of us. That's a possibility. I also believe it as a possibility that as a supreme being, he can suspend the laws of physics. I'm not stating either one as the absolute answers, I'm suggesting possibilities.

If you want to have faith in the idea that those things happened, then that's fine! However, do not go around saying that there is scientific evidence to support it.

Faith and Science do not mingle. Faith cannot be measured, and a number value can't be tacked onto it, so the two things will never co-exist peacefully.

They cannot co-exist peacefully so long as you demand measurement and numerical values for everything in your universe. Science and faith co-exist by me just fine. I'm not a scientist, but I don't proselytize towards others, either (and no, I don't consider this proselytizing, I am defending my faith). I have grasps on both worlds with a curiosity to know more about both.

There are parts of Christianity that have been disproven by science, or at least, they've been written off as 'miracles'; that being said, the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. It's at this junction that we start hauling off into the land of fiction.

Again, only if you read it uber-literally. I addressed this earlier.

"The mechanics of how something was achieved is irrelevant"!?

Yes. Perhaps the point of the story is not to dissect how it happened, but simply that it did. It certainly didn't matter at the time how, but more that it did. And I prefaced it before with "maybe", so please don't take it out of context.

SUPREME irony. :lol Could you be anymore condescending/ungrateful towards science and academics, which is 99% responsible for the absurdly awesome living conditions we all have? Probably, I've honestly seen worse. Does that make this type of hypocrisy excusable? No.

Condescending how? Do you have an issue with the Faraday Institute?

 

[Mash]

I didn't say I was validated by scientific evidence. I'm simply saying there are a NUMBER of credible scientists out there who also happen to be very Christian. I am also, however, staying open-minded to the possibility that since God created the laws of the universe (as I believe), he is supremely able to manipulate them as we manipulate them into our inventions of technology, and cause things that we would otherwise write off as "laughable" and "impossible", which is incredibly egotistical of us. That's a possibility. I also believe it as a possibility that as a supreme being, he can suspend the laws of physics. I'm not stating either one as the absolute answers, I'm suggesting possibilities.

You want to know what's egotistical of us? Assuming that we have correct knowledge of a being that is obviously so high above us, that we shouldn't be able to determine what his true intentions are; should such a being exist.
A proper comparison would be trying to teach a cockroach calculus. We are infinitely more powerful and knowing than a cockroach, so why would we try and talk to it? Do you think the cockroach understands anything past the fact that we are a threat to it?

They cannot co-exist peacefully so long as you demand measurement and numerical values for everything in your universe. Science and faith co-exist by me just fine. I'm not a scientist, but I don't proselytize towards others, either (and no, I don't consider this proselytizing, I am defending my faith). I have grasps on both worlds with a curiosity to know more about both.

Science without numbers and measurements isn't science; that's uneducated speculation.

 

[likeasong1]

You want to know what's egotistical of us? Assuming that we have correct knowledge of a being that is obviously so high above us, that we shouldn't be able to determine what his true intentions are; should such a being exist.

Yes, that would be rather egotistical of us, especially if were to answer "No" to that question. Even moreso with your question below.

A proper comparison would be trying to teach a cockroach calculus. We are infinitely more powerful and knowing than a cockroach, so why would we try and talk to it? Do you think the cockroach understands anything past the fact that we are a threat to it?

No, that's not a proper comparison, inasmuch as you are saying the only thing we know about God is that He is a threat to us. Should we be allowed to exist because we are a threat to cockroaches?

Science without numbers and measurements isn't science; that's uneducated speculation.

That wasn't at all the point of what I was saying there. I was saying there's more to life than cold, calculated equations, and that the two can indeed co-exist. Hard science doesn't explain everything about the human condition, and may not ever. Even the social sciences only go so far. Faith and science cannot co-exist to you because you simply won't allow it. They co-exist with me just fine. I have no trouble with learning about science, I feel that science itself is not a threat to my beliefs, nor do my beliefs dull my curiosity about science. The battle lines are drawn because others demand that they be so. I will not draw them.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Gravity can have negative energy, therefore the total mass-energy available in the universe cancels out nicely to zero. Therefore it is balanced.
...
Dear, PurpleStyle

I am so happy that you questioned my post. It shows you care. 😀

Its good that you'll challenge people with skepticism and understanding. You are open-minded, innovative, an exemplar of forbearance; and taking advice from any idiot (such as myself) on his stupid metaphorical pole talking rubbish. This is the point where you steeped in and challenged a relatively offensive hypothesis. I am gracious of your notice and I thank you for your endeavor.

P.S. Also I am aware that you already know about the universes rest energy being at zero so don't think I was tryong to be rude or scold you with what you already know. 😉

Yours, sincerely.

Heh, to clarify, energy isn't truly conserved in gravitational interactions. 😉 FWIW, I didn't find your hypothesis "offensive". I was just hoping you'd clarify, and you did. I probably should have been less vague in that, but I've had a long weekend.

 

[Mash]

No, that's not a proper comparison, inasmuch as you are saying the only thing we know about God is that He is a threat to us. Should we be allowed to exist because we are a threat to cockroaches?

You're taking that far too literally, however you're right. It isn't a proper comparison. Compared to a being that can bend space and time, create Universes on a whim, and distort the laws of physics, we don't compare at all. There is no organism on this planet that is so low that we could use it as a proper comparison.

That wasn't at all the point of what I was saying there. I was saying there's more to life than cold, calculated equations, and that the two can indeed co-exist. Hard science doesn't explain everything about the human condition, and may not ever. Even the social sciences only go so far. Faith and science cannot co-exist to you because you simply won't allow it. They co-exist with me just fine. I have no trouble with learning about science, I feel that science itself is not a threat to my beliefs, nor do my beliefs dull my curiosity about science. The battle lines are drawn because others demand that they be so. I will not draw them.

Science is about observation, measurement, and testing. God has never been observed, Faith can not be measured, and Divine Powers cannot be tested. Until any of those three things change, science and religion will never co-mingle. Yes, there is more to life than cold equations, but that is not science, now is it? You're talking more about philosophy than science.

Science isn't a threat to religion like a baby lion won't be a threat to a gazelle in a few years.

The 'battle lines' are drawn by conflicts in which religion conflicts with known facts. When religion decides to correspond with history and the laws of physics, then I'm sure that they'll get along just fine.

 

[likeasong1]

Science is about observation, measurement, and testing. God has never been observed, Faith can not be measured, and Divine Powers cannot be tested. Until any of those three things change, science and religion will never co-mingle. Yes, there is more to life than cold equations, but that is not science, now is it? You're talking more about philosophy than science.

That's the point! Demanding that God answer to laws of science ignores that there's more to life than science and all its measurements and testing, and also places science as the "god", assuming that it has no limitations, and that nothing is more important than the hows and whys, when sometimes, that's not even all that important.

Science isn't a threat to religion like a baby lion won't be a threat to a gazelle in a few years.

No, science will never be a threat to God. Human understanding of science may be a threat to religion in the future, but just as the gazelles will not be hunted to extinction by lions, so too science will never be able to extinguish religion fully, and there will always be God.

The 'battle lines' are drawn by conflicts in which religion conflicts with known facts. When religion decides to correspond with history and the laws of physics, then I'm sure that they'll get along just fine.

And there it is again... demanding that religion be subject to science denies the very definition of what it means to be God or a god (not to mention a flagrant violation of the First Commandment). If God is Lord of the Universe, then he is also the Lord of Science, and science falls below God in the hierarchy of universal authority. That's why there is no conflict for me... because I believe that science too is one of God's creations, and He sets it up as a tool and guiding principle for us to work with because it's more easily understood than He is. And that's why I won't draw the lines myself. I will not turn the sheriff and the deputy against each other.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Yes. Perhaps the point of the story is not to dissect how it happened, but simply that it did. It certainly didn't matter at the time how, but more that it did. And I prefaced it before with "maybe", so please don't take it out of context.


Condescending how? Do you have an issue with the Faraday Institute?

First; no I don't have an issue with the Faraday Institute. I just thought it was ironic to reflect that quotation at "The mechanics of how something happened is irrelevant".

Second; the point of the story is irrelevant in 2011. The bible we know today was written 400 years ago to unite England. We don't need bronze age superstitions to create a moral code. I have one just fine as an atheist. Why can't god update his shitty old book to include some calculus, and factual information?

Brings me to an interesting thought; the classic omnipotence paradox. Can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? If yes; then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock. If no; then he is still not omnipotent because he cannot create a rock he cannot lift.

That's the point! Demanding that God answer to laws of science ignores that there's more to life than science and all its measurements and testing, and also places science as the "god", assuming that it has no limitations, and that nothing is more important than the hows and whys, when sometimes, that's not even all that important.

No, science will never be a threat to God. Human understanding of science may be a threat to religion in the future, but just as the gazelles will not be hunted to extinction by lions, so too science will never be able to extinguish religion fully, and there will always be God.



And there it is again... demanding that religion be subject to science denies the very definition of what it means to be God or a god (not to mention a flagrant violation of the First Commandment). If God is Lord of the Universe, then he is also the Lord of Science, and science falls below God in the hierarchy of universal authority. That's why there is no conflict for me... because I believe that science too is one of God's creations, and He sets it up as a tool and guiding principle for us to work with because it's more easily understood than He is. And that's why I won't draw the lines myself. I will not turn the sheriff and the deputy against each other.

It is the only logical demand, because if god is omniscient, he knew this would happen. He knew people would use logic to question his beliefs. His purported omniscience also destroys the concept of free will, which leads me to my next logical conclusion: god is a deviant bastard more evil than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other human being in the history, or future of mankind. Why? If god knew that there would be atheists who questioned his beliefs, and did nothing to sway them, it is his fault. He supposedly designed us, and would have done so knowing that people such as myself would be an atheist. So when I die, I will burn in hell for INFINITY. This logically concludes that god designed me specifically for the intent to burn in hell. WTF kind of asshole does that?

---

Ultimately, I must conclude that YHWH is a lying, paradoxical asshole. Or he doesn't exist. Occam's Razor points me in that direction.

 

[Mash]

That's the point! Demanding that God answer to laws of science ignores that there's more to life than science and all its measurements and testing, and also places science as the "god", assuming that it has no limitations, and that nothing is more important than the hows and whys, when sometimes, that's not even all that important.

God can either answer to the laws of science, or he can forever remain as he is now; an unprovable idea.
Science has limitations. These limitations are the laws of reality, and as it stands, we are unable to bend or remove those laws.
You stated earlier that I would be dismissed from the field of education for my earlier statement. You would be banished from any scientific community if you uttered the phrase, "Why it happened doesn't matter". There is NO credible scientist that would agree with that. The very goal of science is to find out WHY THINGS HAPPEN.

No, science will never be a threat to God. Human understanding of science may be a threat to religion in the future, but just as the gazelles will not be hunted to extinction by lions, so too science will never be able to extinguish religion fully, and there will always be God.

You're right. Science will never be able to disprove God. However, I would wager that Christianity is written off as 'fiction' to the general public within the next 50 years. Most known religions will be extinguished simply because religions like to make up their own little stories of how things happened. Eventually Science will know exactly how everything happened; when it does, then most current religions will be labeled as wrong.

If God is Lord of the Universe, then he is also the Lord of Science, and science falls below God in the hierarchy of universal authority.

Ultimately, 'God' is only the Lord of whatever his creators want him to be. Guess who the creators of God are? Us. Humans invented God. God is nothing more than an explanation; an explanation as to how everything happened. Science will eventually find out how everything happened, and God will become unnecessary.

 

[likeasong1]

Second; the point of the story is irrelevant in 2011. The bible we know today was written 400 years ago to unite England. We don't need bronze age superstitions to create a moral code. I have one just fine as an atheist. Why can't god update his shitty old book to include some calculus, and factual information?

No, the Bible was compiled into its current form that many years ago. The texts themselves are far older.

Brings me to an interesting thought; the classic omnipotence paradox. Can god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? If yes; then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock. If no; then he is still not omnipotent because he cannot create a rock he cannot lift.

There are two very good answers to this: one, no, and you don't understand the concept of omnipotence because it's not important to God to do such a thing. The purpose of power is to accomplish the tasks you set out to.

The other answer is yes, because Jesus was both truly God and truly human. Being truly human, there were rocks that he couldn't lift, but being truly God, he created those rocks.

It is the only logical demand, because if god is omniscient, he knew this would happen. He knew people would use logic to question his beliefs. His purported omniscience also destroys the concept of free will, which leads me to my next logical conclusion: god is a deviant bastard more evil than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other human being in the history, or future of mankind. Why? If god knew that there would be atheists who questioned his beliefs, and did nothing to sway them, it is his fault. He supposedly designed us, and would have done so knowing that people such as myself would be an atheist. So when I die, I will burn in hell for INFINITY. This logically concludes that god designed me specifically for the intent to burn in hell. WTF kind of asshole does that?

It's the only HUMANLY logical demand. Free will is because He wanted us to love Him back. What good is the love if they have no option not to love you? Unfortunately, some have chosen not to love Him back. Re burning in Hell: as I said in an earlier post, that's when God lets you have your way. You want to be apart from Him. Okay, you can be without Him for eternity. The torment is just the very nature of separation from God.

Ultimately, I must conclude that YHWH is a lying, paradoxical asshole. Or he doesn't exist. Occam's Razor points me in that direction.

Ultimately, I must conclude that your understanding of YHWH is fundamentally flawed.

 

[likeasong1]

God can either answer to the laws of science, or he can forever remain as he is now; an unprovable idea.
Science has limitations. These limitations are the laws of reality, and as it stands, we are unable to bend or remove those laws.

Answer how? Christians believe we'll get that answer when either we die, or Jesus returns. Except that won't be "scientific evidence", it will be "historical evidence." Science can't prove whether or not a specific person ran a stop sign (or light) and a particular intersection last night. It can prove that a car and a driver behind it can do such a thing, but not that it happened THEN and THERE. However, eyewitnesses can corroborate that such an event occurred.

You stated earlier that I would be dismissed from the field of education for my earlier statement. You would be banished from any scientific community if you uttered the phrase, "Why it happened doesn't matter". There is NO credible scientist that would agree with that. The very goal of science is to find out WHY THINGS HAPPEN.

No disputing that, except that the scientific community is not the only community worth belonging to. There are times when the scientific explanation is the most important one needed, and times when it is not.

You're right. Science will never be able to disprove God. However, I would wager that Christianity is written off as 'fiction' to the general public within the next 50 years. Most known religions will be extinguished simply because religions like to make up their own little stories of how things happened. Eventually Science will know exactly how everything happened; when it does, then most current religions will be labeled as wrong.

The same thing has been said since the foundings of Christianity. That it would all be extinguished. I don't think science will know exactly how everything happened, because it often causes more questions than it answers. We'll never run out of questions. Christianity has evolved a lot over the years, and will continue to exist. It's not going away.

Ultimately, 'God' is only the Lord of whatever his creators want him to be. Guess who the creators of God are? Us. Humans invented God. God is nothing more than an explanation; an explanation as to how everything happened. Science will eventually find out how everything happened, and God will become unnecessary.

No, God created us, not the other way around. Science will never have all the answers because it answers to God.