Tycho Brahe
Emperor
Oh but of course. And their age are known through the religion of carbon dating.
Are Science and Religion Incompatible?
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
Oh but of course. And their age are known through the religion of carbon dating.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I know. That's why I asked. Got a little weary of the other non-conversation.
Everything good is a reflection of God's creation. Why not the bad? Do you mean that the good is the way God intended it's creation, did the bad come from somewhere else. Our own fallible selves maybe?
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
EM
You all forget one small thing:
G-d can provide you with all the "evidence" in the world, if you choose to deny Him as a lifestyle.
He confirms the choice, and then waits, "wondering" when you will see its failure YOURSELF.
G-d needs no zombies!
Leo
OK, probably I'm too tired.
My idea was about extrapolation.
I'll reiterate the point:
If scientific theory A works in one field X, but is superseded in another Y by theory B...
Can you extrapolate from A(X), that it MUST also be the perfect explanation for Y?
Should the answer even depend on you knowing or not, that there is a possibility to use B on Y?
So, can you?
Back to evolution:
Micro (short term) evolution works = A(X).
It is extrapolated into Macro = A(Y).
But how do you know, that there's NOT a B(Y), which is not YET found out - a fully scientific theory, that somehow can be put together with Genesis.
We don't know how - but we don't know whether it exists or not, too.
My point is, I consider extrapolated science to be not strong enough to declare the possibility of B(Y) = null.
Is it clear now?
Sorry for a bit of a mess with the fancy names, I just got kinda confused by trying to get everything in one bottle.
You all forget one small thing:
G-d can provide you with all the "evidence" in the world, if you choose to deny Him as a lifestyle.
He confirms the choice, and then waits, "wondering" when you will see its failure YOURSELF.
G-d needs no zombies!
Leo
OK, probably I'm too tired.
My idea was about extrapolation.
I'll reiterate the point:
If scientific theory A works in one field X, but is superseded in another Y by theory B...
Can you extrapolate from A(X), that it MUST also be the perfect explanation for Y?
Should the answer even depend on you knowing or not, that there is a possibility to use B on Y?
So, can you?
Back to evolution:
Micro (short term) evolution works = A(X).
It is extrapolated into Macro = A(Y).
But how do you know, that there's NOT a B(Y), which is not YET found out - a fully scientific theory, that somehow can be put together with Genesis.
We don't know how - but we don't know whether it exists or not, too.
My point is, I consider extrapolated science to be not strong enough to declare the possibility of B(Y) = null.
Is it clear now?
Sorry for a bit of a mess with the fancy names, I just got kinda confused by trying to get everything in one bottle.
Well, disease, intolerance, war, pain and so on are manifestations of mortal error conspiring with mortal mind to confuse you and leave you unable to perceive God's divine plan for his dearly beloved children. Our fallible selves is exactly the point, hence why there is no devil and no hell, as both are just massive religious excuses to explain away man's inhumanity to man.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Much easier to claim an outside force is tempting you to do evil than admit the evil emerges from yourself.
Anyway, analysing. I see a claim, but it's not a claim in the realm of science. Although I can't relate to the claim made, I don't know of any science with disputes that claim. I think this might qualify as compatible because of lack of overlap.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
Arakhor
I truly loved your last sentence.
The "satan" and his result the "hell", are basically the manifestations of the "spiritual animal" in the HUMAN.
Our entire life goal (for which we were created), is to subjugate that "animal" to work for the "human" in us.
G-d never intended to "eternally punish" anyone - WE punish ourselves by becoming "animals".
If you use a violin to fight your neighbor, it's not a musical instrument anymore...
You're degrading something that can uplift and create beauty, into something that only hurts and destroys.
This is what our entire life is all about.
And you need no science to see it, use it, and finally achieve it.
I truly loved your last sentence.
The "satan" and his result the "hell", are basically the manifestations of the "spiritual animal" in the HUMAN.
Our entire life goal (for which we were created), is to subjugate that "animal" to work for the "human" in us.
G-d never intended to "eternally punish" anyone - WE punish ourselves by becoming "animals".
If you use a violin to fight your neighbor, it's not a musical instrument anymore...
You're degrading something that can uplift and create beauty, into something that only hurts and destroys.
This is what our entire life is all about.
And you need no science to see it, use it, and finally achieve it.
This is the second time this topic has come about in this thread so I hope it want be out of place to put once more some insights by Aurobindo:
God is beyond good and evil; man moving Godwards must
become of one nature with him. He must transcend good and
evil.
God is beyond good and evil, not below them, not existing
and limited by them, not even above them, but in a more absolute
sense excedent and transcendent of the ideas of good and evil.
He exceeds them in his universality; they exist in him, but the
values of good and evil which we give to things is not their
divine or universal value, they are only their practical value
created by us in our psychological and dynamic dealings with
life. God recognises them and seems to deal with us on the basis
of this valuation of life, but only to such an extent as may serve
his purpose in Nature. In his universal action he is not limited
by them. But into his transcendent being of which his highest
universal is the image, they do not at all enter; there in the highest
universal which is to us transcendent is only the absolute good of
which both our good and evil have in them certain differentiated
elements. Neither our good nor our evil are or can of themselves
give the absolute good; both have to be transformed, evil into
good, good into pure and self-existent good, before they can be
taken up into it.
This explains the nature of the universe which would otherwise
be inexplicable, inconsistent with the being of God, a
forcefully inconscient and violently active enigma. God must be
beyond limitation by our ideas of good, otherwise the universe
such as it is could not exist whether as the partly manifested
being of a divine Existence or a thing created or permitted by a
divineWill. He cannot, either, be evil, otherwise in man, his highest
terrestrial creature or his highest terrestrial manifestation,
there could not be this dominant idea of good and this stream
of tendency towards righteousness. He cannot be a mixture
of good and evil, whether a self-perplexed and struggling or
a mysteriously ordered double principle, Ormuzd and Ahriman,
or at least he cannot be limited by this duality, for there is
much in the universe which is neither good nor evil. Perhaps the
greatest part of the totality is either supramoral or inframoral or
simply amoral. Good and evil come in with the development of
mental consciousness; they exist in their rudimentary elements
in the animal and primitive human mind, they develop with the
human development. Good and evil are things which arrive in
the process of the evolution; there is then the possibility that
they will disappear in the process of the evolution. If indeed
they are essential to its highest possible point of culmination,
then they will remain; or if one of them be essential and the
other non-essential, then that one will remain and its opposite
will disappear.
God is beyond good and evil; man moving Godwards must
become of one nature with him. He must transcend good and
evil.
God is beyond good and evil, not below them, not existing
and limited by them, not even above them, but in a more absolute
sense excedent and transcendent of the ideas of good and evil.
He exceeds them in his universality; they exist in him, but the
values of good and evil which we give to things is not their
divine or universal value, they are only their practical value
created by us in our psychological and dynamic dealings with
life. God recognises them and seems to deal with us on the basis
of this valuation of life, but only to such an extent as may serve
his purpose in Nature. In his universal action he is not limited
by them. But into his transcendent being of which his highest
universal is the image, they do not at all enter; there in the highest
universal which is to us transcendent is only the absolute good of
which both our good and evil have in them certain differentiated
elements. Neither our good nor our evil are or can of themselves
give the absolute good; both have to be transformed, evil into
good, good into pure and self-existent good, before they can be
taken up into it.
This explains the nature of the universe which would otherwise
be inexplicable, inconsistent with the being of God, a
forcefully inconscient and violently active enigma. God must be
beyond limitation by our ideas of good, otherwise the universe
such as it is could not exist whether as the partly manifested
being of a divine Existence or a thing created or permitted by a
divineWill. He cannot, either, be evil, otherwise in man, his highest
terrestrial creature or his highest terrestrial manifestation,
there could not be this dominant idea of good and this stream
of tendency towards righteousness. He cannot be a mixture
of good and evil, whether a self-perplexed and struggling or
a mysteriously ordered double principle, Ormuzd and Ahriman,
or at least he cannot be limited by this duality, for there is
much in the universe which is neither good nor evil. Perhaps the
greatest part of the totality is either supramoral or inframoral or
simply amoral. Good and evil come in with the development of
mental consciousness; they exist in their rudimentary elements
in the animal and primitive human mind, they develop with the
human development. Good and evil are things which arrive in
the process of the evolution; there is then the possibility that
they will disappear in the process of the evolution. If indeed
they are essential to its highest possible point of culmination,
then they will remain; or if one of them be essential and the
other non-essential, then that one will remain and its opposite
will disappear.
I think part of the problem of your argument is that your trying to get everything into one bottle and lose all complexity and nuance in the process.Leo
OK, probably I'm too tired.
My idea was about extrapolation.
I'll reiterate the point:
If scientific theory A works in one field X, but is superseded in another Y by theory B...
Can you extrapolate from A(X), that it MUST also be the perfect explanation for Y?
Should the answer even depend on you knowing or not, that there is a possibility to use B on Y?
So, can you?
Back to evolution:
Micro (short term) evolution works = A(X).
It is extrapolated into Macro = A(Y).
But how do you know, that there's NOT a B(Y), which is not YET found out - a fully scientific theory, that somehow can be put together with Genesis.
We don't know how - but we don't know whether it exists or not, too.
My point is, I consider extrapolated science to be not strong enough to declare the possibility of B(Y) = null.
Is it clear now?
Sorry for a bit of a mess with the fancy names, I just got kinda confused by trying to get everything in one bottle.
Anyway, I think your misconception here is that science needs to be verifiable, which it at no point claims to be. Science is only falsifiable, and that is what people are getting at when they're telling you to read up on Scientific Method.
Scientific models (like the model of Evolution) give explanations that are consistent with all the evidence that is available. If evidence turns up that doesn't fit with the model, it needs to be adjusted or be dropped and replaced. This kind of evidence has falsified the model. What you're saying is basically "you don't have all of the evidence one could possibly imagine so who knows if later evidence might contradict it". The thing is, you can never have all of the possible evidence, making a verified model impossible. So you could argue against every model in that way, without ever being able to get any meaningful insight at all.
And for the record, the theory of evolution matches all the archeological and genetic evidence available to us, which cannot be said of the accounts of Genesis, which neither meet your impossible standards nor the much more practical standards of science. Why exactly do you give Genesis a free pass when you're all sceptical about everything else?
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Arakhor
I truly loved your last sentence.
The "satan" and his result the "hell", are basically the manifestations of the "spiritual animal" in the HUMAN.
Our entire life goal (for which we were created), is to subjugate that "animal" to work for the "human" in us.
G-d never intended to "eternally punish" anyone - WE punish ourselves by becoming "animals".
If you use a violin to fight your neighbor, it's not a musical instrument anymore...
You're degrading something that can uplift and create beauty, into something that only hurts and destroys.
This is what our entire life is all about.
And you need no science to see it, use it, and finally achieve it.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
EM
You all forget one small thing:
G-d can provide you with all the "evidence" in the world, if you choose to deny Him as a lifestyle.
He confirms the choice, and then waits, "wondering" when you will see its failure YOURSELF.
G-d needs no zombies!
True. The Creator can provide ample evidence regarding reality, nature, and morality. And yet, some people will still worship a book that taught that murdering homosexuals used to be A-okay.
The Creator put a very detailed record into the ground, into the stars, and into the DNA of living organisms. But some people will still worship a book that teaches that it was A-okay to murder homosexuals.
You say that *I'm* denying the Creator, but you're worshiping something that all evidence points against and which encouraged some fairly wicked thinking. I'm not worshiping something mythical that's "pretty good, all considered", that's for other people, with lower standards.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
EM
Sounds dandy, except that "my" Creator actually communicated with people and gave them some specific rules, and also some info on Himself.
What has "yours" done of similar type and value?
I understand you, but it basically becomes just another personal assumption, not based on any sources.
If it is - I'm all ears.
Also, "mine" had direct contacts with people, did "yours"?
Sounds dandy, except that "my" Creator actually communicated with people and gave them some specific rules, and also some info on Himself.
What has "yours" done of similar type and value?
I understand you, but it basically becomes just another personal assumption, not based on any sources.
If it is - I'm all ears.
Also, "mine" had direct contacts with people, did "yours"?
I don't care how impressive the trick is, you cannot magic your way into it being moral to murder homosexuals. The ability to be impressive doesn't affect whether or not your morality is correct. Being amazed by someone's power doesn't excuse their followers, either. It's basically the Milgram experiment and the Nuremburg defense.
Hearing a third-hand account about someone's prowess doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to murder homosexuals.
All of nature has aligned to communicate to us this moral fact, believing a story about something 'extraordinary' doesn't overrule this.
Hearing a third-hand account about someone's prowess doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to murder homosexuals.
All of nature has aligned to communicate to us this moral fact, believing a story about something 'extraordinary' doesn't overrule this.
EM
How come you suddenly went all "homophilic" on me??? O_o
What about more general crimes, like baseless murder and simple stealing???
Or is the only reason you dislike G-d, well, HOMOS??? FUNNY...
I have many reasons. I just figure that "murdering homosexuals" was something that can easily be mutually agreed upon as being questionable, and doesn't become less questionable with mere displays of supernatural power. (and especially does not become less questionable with third-hand reports of supernatural power)
When you're positing a god, it doesn't make sense to critique areas where their 'teachings' are debatable. The critique is just as easily focused on where they're obviously wrong. A god only has to be obviously wrong once to be unworthy of worship. Any other errors are merely more confirmation.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Sheesh El Mac, God forgives you, why can't you return the favor?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
See, that's why you need to educate yourself about science.
We have a theory that works. 1. It makes predictions that have all come true and 2. There is no evidence yet that contradicts it.
We don't need a new theory because the existing one works so well. That's not to say that it wouldn't be in a scientist's benefit to come up with a new one - it would make him/her FAMOUS. Imagine how famous you would be if you came up with a theory that explains the available data BETTER than the theory of evolution. You'd be a superstar!
There is no reason to suspect that there is such a thing as a better theory - for the 2 reasons I raised above:
1. The existing theory's predictions have all come true
2. There is no piece of evidence that contradicts the theory, and we've been gathering evidence for over 150 years.
So yeah, there might be something that we're missing and there might be a better theory out there. But with what we know, it seems very unlikely.
The Theory of Evolution is just the best theory we have that explains the diversity of life on the planet. I do believe it is also the ONLY theory that does that.
You are probably not even going to take this in and continue to be ignorant about science.. but I hope not.
Its like an instinct of selfpreservation- its good to be careful of what you worship...
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
warpus
Let's say this way: I trust G-d more, than humans.
And from what I know for now, many points in evolution are real guesses of "we see the result, we have no clue what really happened, but we made up a nice system, and it wasn't contradicted yet, so let's celebrate it".
It's good for those that DON'T have an alternative, but not good enough for those that DO.
Anyways, let's drop it.
Like I said before, it's QUITE irrelevant in our everyday life, so why go on a rampage for either verrsion...
Let's say this way: I trust G-d more, than humans.
And from what I know for now, many points in evolution are real guesses of "we see the result, we have no clue what really happened, but we made up a nice system, and it wasn't contradicted yet, so let's celebrate it".
It's good for those that DON'T have an alternative, but not good enough for those that DO.
Anyways, let's drop it.
Like I said before, it's QUITE irrelevant in our everyday life, so why go on a rampage for either verrsion...
I've already forgiven the Creator!
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
So your position is than an omnipotent, omnipresent and all powerful god is deceiving me, as a test to see whether I can see through a perfect illusion?
No, it's not. All you've shown is that you don't understand science, common history, or the word extrapolation.
The theory of evolution was not based on "micro evolution" (I'm using quotes there because "micro evolution" is not actually a separate theory, or even a theory at all). We simply observed the way animals interacted with their world, and concluded that creatures would compete for limited resources. More adaptable and capable species and individuals would prosper, others would die out. It's a brilliant, and incredibly simple idea, but it wouldn't become as established as it is until it's synthesis with Mendelian genetics. Both theories are testable together and separately. There's no extrapolation required.
Yet you trust human reproductions of the word of God...
Seriously, you need to go read about this stuff. Wikipedia as a start, actual books to follow. And not just books about why Darwinian evolution might be incorrect, though even understanding that argument would almost require an actual understanding of what Darwinian evolution is and how the scientific method works.
Anyways, let's drop it.
Like I said before, it's QUITE irrelevant in our everyday life, so why go on a rampage for either verrsion...
No, you can't drop stuff like this. Evolution is extremely relevant to our every day life. It is the basis of much of modern biology and medicine. If you reject evolution, you reject those fields as well.
Similar threads
