• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

God vs Science

If what that kid said is true, then God isn't all powerful. If there is an absence of God, then that god clearly isn't "God", at least not in the christian sense. How can there ever be an absence of God if God is all powerful and all knowing etc, unless there are limitations to his power? Either his power is limited or he is willingly ignoring certain parts of the world, knowing that bad things will happen...which means that he is deceitful. So basically this kid is saying "I think god exists but he is either not all powerful and/or he is not benevolent". On top of that, most of the things he said HAVE been observed etc etc...where did you even find such a ridiculous story? The kid's argument doesn't make sense from a strictly logical or strictly religious point of view.

This "story" is flawed beyond belief, even someone who believes in God should be able to see through it. I don't really feel like rehashing what everyone else has said so I'll just leave it at that.

Deck Knight said:
The only time "science" conflicts with "religion" is when religion's moral precepts get in the way of a particular scientist's ambitions. This is pretty much what happens when anything conflicts with "religion." The only reason people buy into this duality is because it is much more convenient to call your opponents Bible Thumpers then it is to lay out an actual argument for government funding of your repeatedly unsuccessful, results-devoid human experimentations, among other things.
Click to expand...

And on the other side of that coin, the only time "religion" conflicts with "science" is when the arbitrary behavioral restrictions set forth by "religion" conflict with observable, reproducible and predictable research. The only reason people buy into this duality is because it is much more convenient to call your opponents immoral than it is to lay out an actual argument against government funding for promising reproducible evidence from experiments.
 
Deck Knight said:
Science and God are not two inherently opposing forces. They are not a duality in any sense whatsoever for a normal human being.
Click to expand...

Oh my gosh DK, I suddenly grew respect for you!

That needed to be said.

The same thing works if you put Evolution and Creationism (or whatever they call the story of how the earth was created in the Bible).

If you know for sure how god creates organisms, and how long a "day" is in the life of an eternal being, then you have a chance to argue a point, but seeing as we can't know either of those points, you can't possibly argue that Creationism and Evolution are contradictory. (Rather, you can't possibly LOGICALLY argue that Creationism and Evolution are contradictory.)

Edit: I'll be watching this thread closely because I come from a house where some people are extremely religious, while others are firm evolution/science believers.
 
You bring up a good point. There are many logical challenges to religion, coming both from the philosophical and scientific areas of study. I think, though, that many of those who criticise religion truly mis-understand it. (Plus I wouldn't trust anyone who follows Richard Dawkins life of belief.) Religion is surely a personal journey, you accept that doctrine is human and false, you accept that arguments for God are human and falses, but still you feel there must be something.

For me, why is pi 3.14159...? I don't know, either we will find a theory of everything that provides a truly logical explaination for why all the fundamental mathematical constants are so, or we must look elsewhere.

EDIT: Yeah, Deck Knight hit the nail on the head.
 
No actual scientist on Earth would ever debate for or against the existence of God, nor would they claim that anything "exists" or is "proven."

In science, we have two key schools of thought, whose isolation creates the ridiculous pseudo science you see before you in the previously related fairy tale of a classroom setting. These schools, while they can be described using many names, are the two forms of reasoning: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The so-called scientist in the above story is reasoning deductively; that is, he bases his entire knowledge library on the idea that anything which exists can be observed, coded, and quantified in some fashion.

This, of course, leaves out the fairly common metaphysics concept that our senses are often mislead; therefore, anything we observe is not necessarily "real," "tangible," or otherwise "true," to use broad and relatively unwieldy terms.

When alone, this empirical form of studying our surroundings is virtually worthless, yet this is what mass media (and many religious pundits unwilling to learn about their "opponent," who isn't really an opponent at all) calls "science." A real scientist will tell you that mere observation is not enough to learn anything. One must be able to connect his observations to both logical (deductive) and rational (inductive; as in, does this make sense?) thought in order to decide upon anything useful or conclusive.

In effect, science nor religion can prove much of anything. Anyone who claims that things such as "truth," "facts," or "proof" exist clearly has not studied much history, and definitely has not studied much philosophy.
 
Gay Dolphin said:
If what that kid said is true, then God isn't all powerful. If there is an absence of God, then that god clearly isn't "God", at least not in the christian sense. How can there ever be an absence of God if God is all powerful and all knowing etc, unless there are limitations to his power? Either his power is limited or he is willingly ignoring certain parts of the world, knowing that bad things will happen...which means that he is deceitful. So basically this kid is saying "I think god exists but he is either not all powerful and/or he is not benevolent". On top of that, most of the things he said HAVE been observed etc etc...where did you even find such a ridiculous story? The kid's argument doesn't make sense from a strictly logical or strictly religious point of view.

This "story" is flawed beyond belief, even someone who believes in God should be able to see through it. I don't really feel like rehashing what everyone else has said so I'll just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

The story is indeed terrible. This guy is no C.S. Lewis or Thomas Moore. Evil is defined in the Christian tradition as the willful disobedience to God. God granted human beings free will, and when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, he effectively passed the capability of sin onto the rest of humanity by disobeying God's only law for him. That is mostly backstory however. Modernity gives us ample evidence of the fruits of good and evil. I am not a hard creationist.

And on the other side of that coin, the only time "religion" conflicts with "science" is when the arbitrary behavioral restrictions set forth by "religion" conflict with observable, reproducible and predictable research. The only reason people buy into this duality is because it is much more convenient to call your opponents immoral than it is to lay out an actual argument against government funding for promising reproducible evidence from experiments.
Click to expand...

Yeah GD, I'm pissed at the costs warmists try to impose on the rest of us (irrational CAFE standards, indulgence-esque carbon trading schemes, banning incandescent bulbs and replacing them with poisonous, single-manufacturer (monopolized) CFLs, EnviroCops, Retrofit Police) too for their utterly shortsighted and scientifically erroneous claims, but this isn't really the topic for bashing nonsensical, but popular cults. Imagine listening to a bunch of people who claim your breath and the breath of every creature on earth is a pollutant. Haven't these guys heard of tic-tacs?
 
Gay Dolphin said:
If what that kid said is true, then God isn't all powerful. If there is an absence of God, then that god clearly isn't "God", at least not in the christian sense. How can there ever be an absence of God if God is all powerful and all knowing etc, unless there are limitations to his power? Either his power is limited or he is willingly ignoring certain parts of the world, knowing that bad things will happen...which means that he is deceitful. So basically this kid is saying "I think god exists but he is either not all powerful and/or he is not benevolent". On top of that, most of the things he said HAVE been observed etc etc...where did you even find such a ridiculous story? The kid's argument doesn't make sense from a strictly logical or strictly religious point of view.
Click to expand...

Not to shoot down your post or make a ridicule person out of you in any way, but did you get this from Epicurus'-should-be-famous quote?

Epicurus said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Click to expand...

I want to see DK say something about this quote too. Just for kicks.
 
I quite like Iranaeus' Theodicy to answer Epicurus' "Inconsistant Triad" criticism.

Essentially what he says is that we are working our way towards a God-like state. We cannot improve as moral beings if we do not experience some types of suffering. "Soul-making" is the term that he uses...

Either way, it's all philosophical discussion, which is limited by the problems with religious language. One could easily argue that all such discussion is meaningless, and it certainly has very little impact on the faith of the common believer.
 
The one problem I have with Iranaeus' Theodicy is that seems to be "putting words" in God's mouth, and you can't even see the Theodicy ever talked off in the Bible. At least that I know.
 
I liked the first story, but I really enjoyed Xia's story. Some arguments were so bad that they could work :s
 
The Bible was written by humans, so surely they were also putting words in God's mouth? Either way, I hope for the sanity of humanity that most lay Christians don't take the Bible as the absolutely true word of God, religion is just as much about interpretation as it is anything else.

Either way, I guess the real point that I am trying to make here, is that at the end of the day, faith is really a very personal matter. It is not often influenced by the arguements of philosophers or scientists. It is something completely different.
 
Yeah, it only comes down to personal faith, no matter what anyone may say. I actually like Christians that don't take the Bible step by step, yet are excellent people (and Believers). Quite the person to find.

edit: fix fix
 
why do people assume all, or even most, or even more than a small fucking minority of Christians oppose evolution?

Virtually every mainline church either endorses evolution, or is neutral.

I really hate the fundies for completely ruining the image of religion - forgetting that it was Christianity and Islam that essentially preserved what was left of Greco-Roman learning, as well as led the way in science, math, philosophy, and so forth.
 
Ancien Régime said:
why do people assume all, or even most, or even more than a small fucking minority of Christians oppose evolution?

Virtually every mainline church either endorses evolution, or is neutral.

I really hate the fundies for completely ruining the image of religion - forgetting that it was Christianity and Islam that essentially preserved what was left of Greco-Roman learning, as well as led the way in science, math, philosophy, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Similarly what the FLDS, a separatist cult of so called Mormons that split from the main group because they were condemned for their polygamous activity.
Now because that tiny group somewhere in hick-America, people immediately associate Mormonism with multiple wives. It's sad.

Though I'm not a Mormon, I studied their culture for a assignment.
 
Ancien Régime said:
why do people assume all, or even most, or even more than a small fucking minority of Christians oppose evolution?

Virtually every mainline church either endorses evolution, or is neutral.

I really hate the fundies for completely ruining the image of religion - forgetting that it was Christianity and Islam that essentially preserved what was left of Greco-Roman learning, as well as led the way in science, math, philosophy, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Two things, actually. First, the majority of Christians worldwide are Roman-Catholics, who, last I checked, do not endorse evolution in any form. If you mean to say that most Protestant Christians are open toward evolution, that is likely closer to the truth, although I still doubt that supporters make up the majority. Of those who are actually educated on the subject, directly? Now we might be getting somewhere. So, let's say that most institutionally-educated Protestant Christians endorse evolution. I can live with that statement.

As for Christianity and Islam preserving Classical mathematics, science, and so on... you're half correct. Christians were actually the ones who worked the hardest to ensure that Classical knowledge was destroyed (they burned Babylon, repeatedly attacked the Great Library at Alexandria, and so on). If not for Islam, we would have next to none of that knowledge in the present day.
 
Originally Posted by Fat Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Click to expand...

Serious theologians have answered this far better than I can, but here's the bulletted list.

We'll assume Epicurus's God is omnipotent.

Epicurus's God has several limitations:

1) He must not allow free will, for himself or humanity.

Essentially this God must be an ever-present nanny protecting all people from all harm. He must thus be a God incapable of understanding humanity or allowing it to operate independent of him. He is an automaton actively preventing all harm.

2) If he allows free will, this can only mean he supports malevolence.

Epicurus believes inaction is equivalent to malevolence. This goes back to point 1). Will is not really free for this God, because any time he does not act he is evil, and therefore an unjust God. Assuming his stance is monotheistic, than this God is self-defeating.

Addressing point 3 in Epicurus is simple. Free will allows men to do evil. Specifically, disobedience to God brings evil into the world. However, men are also capable of doing good by obeying God, and by doing so willingly they can fight the evils their fellow humans unleash.

Moreover, suffering is not inherently evil. Humanity learns more from suffering and trial than they do from pleasure and luxury. Most simplistic beliefs about God believe that if a deity allows something that is painful and difficult they are unjust. They believe in a God concerned only with doling out praise and rewards rather than true concern for moral righteousness.

More importantly, people with simplistic faiths expect a God who offers temporal rewards, not eternal ones. This is where most jaded atheists and agnostics come in. They see crushing poverty in the world and wonder "where is God to end this cruelty?" as if some divine hand will pop out from the heavens and it will start raining bread and fish. God enables human beings as his moral agents, who if they follow his teachings regarding personal obligation to the poor, would find that horrible poverty alleviated. The Catholic Church does this every day in every nation, but here in America the only references you hear are to a few disgraced priests who acted in direct violation of the faith to the frustration and outrage of every decent Catholic, clergy and laity alike. These critics are not really interested in global poverty, obligation to the less-fortunate, or any of their talking points from "God's goodie basket doth not appear in Africa, therefore God, if he exists, is cruel."

The most ironic thing is the God of Chrsitianity lived his life enduring precisely the suffering, temperance, and obligation to others that we only whine about. He lived a materially poor life, begging from place to place, staving off multiple temptations, and instructing the people of his time in moral matters, only to suffer the cruelest death possible in that time period. A God that understands man's trials is the only God fit to judge man. Not Epicurus' cookie cutter God limited in his own power by Epicurus' inconsistent rules. How can his God be omnipotent if he has no will by the very nature of his supposed purpose?

God has power over death, and power over the unkillable, immortal soul. That is omnipotence itself. What good would manifesting his power temporally do to those who do not believe in the first place? People do not want to believe God is present in random acts of kindness or the adoption of sick children, or missionary work to the world's deepest areas of poverty. They are looking for a cliff face jutting out of a highly improbable location with "I AM" etched in the front.
 
Nerdling said:
The problem is...all the student's arguments can be scientifically tested to determine their validity.

On electromagnetism:
Electrons are observed, studied, and quantified all the time through myriad experiments done by scientists around the world. I'm not going to go into the whole quantum-mechanical arguments about uncertainty, and whether or not they exist before being observed, etc.
Here's a nice link for reference...Maxwell's Equations of Electromagnetism

-=edit=-
If any more proof is needed about electromagnetism, here is a link concering a famous experiment that more or less proves that electrons can be observed. The experiment itself isn't the important part, it's the fact that the plate is registering the impact of individual electrons.
link

On Evolution
Evolution HAS been observed and verified in plenty of labratory situations. For example, this fairly well known labratory experiment.

On the professor's brain:
It's called an MRI, genius.

A little analysis and the student's entire argument falls to bits. He's gonna fail college.

</thread>
Click to expand...

One question about evolution is that where are the fossil records, the proof that bacteria evolved into more complex beings. Is there any evidence, that bacteria actually turned into humans, that were there records of small itsby bitsy steps taken?

But this whole arguement is flawed. I'm Christian and I still think the student is a dumbass.

Oh and I do have some faith in Creationism and evolution. It's a hybrid really. People need to stop assuming that just because we're Christian, we hold up signs saying "FUCK EVOLUTION."

Also, for the people saying "Roman Catholics oppose evolution," my friend is Roman Catholic, and his church believes in evolution, which pretty much kills off what you said.
 
Eraddd said:
One question about evolution is that where are the fossil records, the proof that bacteria evolved into more complex beings. Is there any evidence, that bacteria actually turned into humans, that were there records of small itsby bitsy steps taken?
Click to expand...

You're not REALLY that much of a dumbass, are you?

There's 3.8 BILLION FUCKING YEARS of fossil records!

please shut up and never post again...
 
Nerdling said:
You're not REALLY that much of a dumbass, are you?

There's 3.8 BILLION FUCKING YEARS of fossil records!

please shut up and never post again...
Click to expand...
He was probably thinking of some of the small gaps. Some people expect evolution to be like a flipbook. Even though this is possible, you would need for every single animal (or the majority of one) to become fossilized. Fossilization, to my understanding, needs some very specific and circumstantial process, so there are bound to be gaps.
 
Deck Knight said:
Science and God are not two inherently opposing forces. They are not a duality in any sense whatsoever for a normal human being. The vast majority of scientists claim some kind of religion. This is because religion informs them morally where science informs them empirically. Science cannot determine good and evil, it can only describe events. Science can be used for good or evil, but cannot self-determine which it is. The results of human tolerances in Nazi gas-chambers being a prime case of bioethics where clearly the scientific method is used to analyze the results of what most would consider an atrocity.
Click to expand...

You need religion to tell you what is good/evil or good/bad?

In any case, most discussions about God are pretty pointless, because he defies logic.
 
Nerdling said:
You're not REALLY that much of a dumbass, are you?

There's 3.8 BILLION FUCKING YEARS of fossil records!

please shut up and never post again...
Click to expand...

Hey dumbass. Post that evidence showing that bacteria actually evolved into horses. Then I'll shut up ;)

Yes I know there was 3.8 bilion fucking years. My point was where's the evidence that small single celled organisms evolved into huge complex mammals.
 
Euthanasia said:
Two things, actually. First, the majority of Christians worldwide are Roman-Catholics, who, last I checked, do not endorse evolution in any form.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If you mean to say that most Protestant Christians are open toward evolution, that is likely closer to the truth, although I still doubt that supporters make up the majority. Of those who are actually educated on the subject, directly? Now we might be getting somewhere. So, let's say that most institutionally-educated Protestant Christians endorse evolution. I can live with that statement.
Click to expand...

Let's look at official statements from Protestant churches.

http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1381 (neutral, but tends to be liberal in general)

Really, the only Christian group that has consistently opposed evolution is fundamentalist Southern Baptists, which, on the grand scheme of the Christian body of believers, are about as much of a fringe sect as Wahabists are to Islam. It just so happens that it (like the Wahabists) have spawned some absolutely destructive and psychopathic personalities.

. Christians were actually the ones who worked the hardest to ensure that Classical knowledge was destroyed (they burned Babylon, repeatedly attacked the Great Library at Alexandria, and so on).

Wrong.

The only thing close was some edict to destroy pagan temples, and it is not clear that it destroyed actual scholarly material.

And Babylon was a ruin before Jesus was even born.

Please do research before spouting shit.
 
People, please don't turn this into petty squabbling. I may be new here but I have witnessed many of these "discussions" on other boards and if people aren't mature about this, it turns into a big pissing match and everyone loses.

Now then, here is my stance on this.

The existence of God and other controversial subjects is something we will never know or understand and simply isn't worth arguing about. You can have an opinion and that's about it.

Now, Religion itself is a good and bad thing, like everything else is in life. On one had, it brings hope to millions, gives their lives meaning when none can be found and on a small scale, forms a strong community for networking and friendship. On the other hand, religion brings about hate, corruption, exploitation and intolerance. I've seen people do great things in the name of Jesus, such as charity work and community involvement but I've also seen people harassed or hurt due to religion. Not to mention the killing of that abortionist, the wide spread war and other issues that can be linked to religion out of control.

To me, religion is like a weapon or drug (not a narcotic). It can bring good things like protection, relief, safety and the like, if used properly but it is far too easy for it to be exploited and used to control, hurt and restrain people from reaching their full potential.

Take it for what you will, but please don't hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top