View Full Version : Evolution, Creationism or Intelligent Design?
Since Belty's got my debating juices flowing again (it's been a while) I thought I'd poll the TWO users on their thoughts regarding the creation of life. You've got three main choices, although if you vote for one and need to clarify your stance (One can be a Young Earth or Old Earth creationist for instance) then please do so.
The question is "What do you think the source of life on Earth is?"
Your options are:
1) Evolution
2) Creationism
3) Intelligent Design
My stance is evolution. As far as I have found, there's no way of proving anything to do with Creationism or ID as they've got nothing to do with science.
I'm hoping we get a pretty lively debate going. :)
Anime_Otaku
22-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Evolution. Creationism and ID just smack of religious zealots trying to put their dogma where it plainly doesn't fit.
Omega
22-10-2007, 03:34 PM
Evolution. Creationism and ID just smack of religious zealots trying to put their dogma where it plainly doesn't fit.
Until God strikes you down wityh a thunderbolt..... or was that Thor?
I believe that the universe explodes every night whilst we're asleep and is remade at about 4:48 each morning and our memory is replaced from a very big backup on mars.
it's as sensible and proveable as anything else.
Until God strikes you down wityh a thunderbolt..... or was that Thor?
I believe that the universe explodes every night whilst we're asleep and is remade at about 4:48 each morning and our memory is replaced from a very big backup on mars.
it's as sensible and proveable as anything else.
Apart from evolution, of course. Apart from the backup on Mars, there's nothing scientifically falsifiable or available for investigation in your theory.
Big Slow
22-10-2007, 03:51 PM
Intelligent Design all the way
Murph
22-10-2007, 03:57 PM
...if creationsim is the one with God, then that one. The theory's on God have always stayed the same, but the rest seem to change all the time.
Intelligent Design all the way
Could you elaborate? I enjoy this sort of debate.
...if creationsim is the one with God, then that one. The theory's on God have always stayed the same, but the rest seem to change all the time.
Facts get checked all the time. Science's understanding of the world is refined every day. This continuous correction is what makes science so successful.
Is the fact that the theories on God have always stayed the same your only justification for your belief?
To be clear - I believe in God (call me a deist) but my God doesn't interfere with my understanding of reality.
Anime_Otaku
22-10-2007, 04:04 PM
Creationism is basicly the belief that the book of Genesis is fact, although it contains 2 stories on the creation of humanity that contradict each other, also the Papacy has officially stated that Genesis is a fable, not fact.
ID is Evolution with God shoved in.
Big Slow
22-10-2007, 04:06 PM
Could you elaborate? I enjoy this sort of debate.
Well really as long as there are things that cannot be explained by science I will continue to believe in a god-like being creating the world...not to say evolution doesnt/hasnt existed because it clearly has and I dont take the bible as gospel either I think it is a pretty rough guide and shouldnt be taken too seriously but basically I think there must have been something to start it all and there must be some explanation for the unexplainable stuff like white blood cells and how DNA has the 4 bases that only match up to pairs and all the little intricate little things like that and for me its God
Omega
22-10-2007, 04:17 PM
Apart from evolution, of course. Apart from the backup on Mars, there's nothing scientifically falsifiable or available for investigation in your theory.
We only have scientists say so on that though, they could be having a big laugh. It's certainly plausible but then again so is creationism and ID....
Well really as long as there are things that cannot be explained by science I will continue to believe in a god-like being creating the world...not to say evolution doesnt/hasnt existed because it clearly has and I dont take the bible as gospel either I think it is a pretty rough guide and shouldnt be taken too seriously but basically I think there must have been something to start it all and there must be some explanation for the unexplainable stuff like white blood cells and how DNA has the 4 bases that only match up to pairs and all the little intricate little things like that and for me its God
I agree with you up to a point. I won't discount what happened before the creation of the universe as it's impossible to infer what happened. I like to believe that God made it so. However, what has happened since is purely natural.
"White blood cells" - are you talking about irreducible complexity? DNA's four bases - what issue do you have with this that can only be explained by God? I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on television, so I'm not going to tell you I'm an expert on these things. I would like to learn about the problems that the ID crowd has with them and study them on my own though.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - nor is it evidence of God. There are things that we don't currently understand but that doesn't mean we should stop looking for answers or just throw our hands in the air and say "Ahhhh... God dunnit."
We only have scientists say so on that though, they could be having a big laugh. It's certainly plausible but then again so is creationism and ID....
ID and Creationism are unfalsifiable arguments from authority. Science is a consensus, peer-reviewed and test-based process. Maybe "process" is the most important term. Science is a process, Religion is stasis.
"Big laugh" - are you a conspiracy theorist too? :P
Big Slow
22-10-2007, 04:29 PM
Well I guess you could say I am quick to "throw our hands in the air and say "Ahhhh... God dunnit."" :lol
and all the stuff like dna i mentioned: I am basically saying I dont think the complexity and intricacy of it all and how it all works so well didnt happen by chance
Omega
22-10-2007, 04:29 PM
ID and Creationism are unfalsifiable arguments from authority. Science is a consensus, peer-reviewed and test-based process. Maybe "process" is the most important term. Science is a process, Religion is stasis.
"Big laugh" - are you a conspiracy theorist too? :P
no, but you already knew that, didn't you.... ;)
You believe science to be true due to the reasoning they give you, whats so different than someone believing in the other two theories for exactly the same reasons?
"evidence" is subjective, you can dismiss anything out of hand if you choose to see it that way. Process again is subjective, any decent theologin would point out that god is not subject to process and therefore cannot be proved OR disproved by science.
Science is just a set of rules that allow people to make sense of the world around them and so is religon...discuss
no, but you already kne that, didn't you....
You believe science to be true due to the reasoning they give you, whats so different than someone believing in the other two theories for exactly the same reasons.
"evidence" is subjective, you can dismiss anything out of hand if you choose to see it that way. Process again is subjective, any decent theologin would point out that god is not subject to process and therefore cannot be proved OR disproved by science.
Science is just a set of rules that allow people to make sense of the world around them and so is religon...
[The emboldened bit] Exactly! So if something doesn't tangibly exist how can its influence been seen or detected, whether through creationism or ID?
The reasons science gives are not comparable to those of the other two options. Science looks at our objective reality - the other two look at... what? Where did the idea come from?
Omega
22-10-2007, 04:43 PM
[The emboldened bit] Exactly! So if something doesn't tangibly exist how can its influence been seen or detected, whether through creationism or ID?
The reasons science gives are not comparable to those of the other two options. Science looks at our objective reality - the other two look at... what? Where did the idea come from?
Tangibly exist doesn't really mean anything. Nothing tangibly exists, it's all perception. You percieve the effects of gravity in the same way that someone else might percieve it as the work of god.
Bold bit: If science ONLY looks at objective reality how can it disprove anything? it's not a complete answer to anything on that basis, merely an educated shot in the dark based on half the information. Unless you choose to believe that there is nothing in the whole of existance other than what science says is there.
Science says "these are the rule books that prove what we say is right", religeous people say "these are the rule books that say we are right".
Tangibly exist doesn't really mean anything. Nothing tangibly exists, it's all perception. You percieve the effects of gravity in the same way that someone else might percieve it as the work of god.
I perceive everything as the work of God - but I don't believe in his direct involvement. Gravity is a natural, testable "thing". It exists in our universe. There's nothing in gravity from which you can directly infer the existence of God.
Bold bit: If science ONLY looks at objective reality how can it disprove anything? it's not a complete answer to anything on that basis, merely an educated shot in the dark based on half the information. Unless you choose to believe that there is nothing in the whole of existance other than what science says is there.
As I say, I believe in God. I have a sneaking suspicion that that is a result of my brain's evolution but I believe nonetheless. How can one scientifically study something that doesn't objectively exist? "Educated shot in the dark based on half the information," - I'd respond that half the information is better than no information at all. God doesn't "exist" - if he did we'd be able to test him. I can see and feel that a God exists in the beauty of the world but these are all subjective things.
Science says "these are the rule books that prove what we say is right", religeous people say "these are the rule books that say we are right".
More correctly:
Science says: "From our years of intensive analysis, experiments, peer reviews, corrections and meta-analysis, we currently understand the universe to work thusly."
Religious people say: "This (or these) books say so and that will not change."
ID is Evolution with God shoved in.I like the sound of that-science and religion joining forces!
I believe in Evolution, I have difficulty believing that one dude did all this stuff. Also, the whole idea that he made a man and a woman and they got jiggy with it, and the entire human race then came from brothers and sisters getting jiggy sort of bothers me...As lovely as the idea of creation is, as fantastical and romantic as it sounds, I just don't buy it i'm afraid!
dpddave
22-10-2007, 06:04 PM
I've come to believe in the Big Bang theory.
Slim Jim
22-10-2007, 06:13 PM
I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on television, so I'm not going to tell you I'm an expert on these things.
Well, I've just applied to study to become a scientist* at university, so I can verify that evolution is the answer.
*Computer Science, but THAT STILL COUNTS
Nemesis Enforcer
22-10-2007, 07:22 PM
Evolution is IMO the only answer, now I may be classed as biased because I don't believe in any sort of god but evolution in its simplest form can be proved by you and me tomorrow all we have to do is get a few pigeons
Decide what characteristics you want for your 'perfect pigeon' and start selective breeding using the pigeons that have said characteristics to pass on the genes you want to make stronger and eliminating the ones you don't want and you will, with enough generations, get a pigeon that looks nothing like the original ones you started with.
This is evolution in its simplest form, now why can't it happen in nature?,
A random mutation in the genes that gives the animal a competitive edge that helps it survive - larger legs, a bigger tail, bigger eyes etc - will be passed on to that animals offspring where as others born without the new adaptation will be just as vulnerable to predators and so less likely to get the opportunity to breed and so the adaptation gene gets passed on through each generation and more and more of the species get born with it and the gene is passed on into their offspring and it gets re-enforced by more and more animals in the species where as the old genes are fazed out
Omega
22-10-2007, 08:25 PM
Evolution is IMO the only answer, now I may be classed as biased because I don't believe in any sort of god but evolution in its simplest form can be proved by you and me tomorrow all we have to do is get a few pigeons
Decide what characteristics you want for your 'perfect pigeon' and start selective breeding using the pigeons that have said characteristics to pass on the genes you want to make stronger and eliminating the ones you don't want and you will, with enough generations, get a pigeon that looks nothing like the original ones you started with.
This is evolution in its simplest form, now why can't it happen in nature?,
A random mutation in the genes that gives the animal a competitive edge that helps it survive - larger legs, a bigger tail, bigger eyes etc - will be passed on to that animals offspring where as others born without the new adaptation will be just as vulnerable to predators and so less likely to get the opportunity to breed and so the adaptation gene gets passed on through each generation and more and more of the species get born with it and the gene is passed on into their offspring and it gets re-enforced by more and more animals in the species where as the old genes are fazed out
Why is it random? Can't God make it so? If you deny the existance of something then enevitably you will deny that it has anything to do with anything but it still doesn't make it so.
Even science can't say for 100% certain that evolution is what actually happens. It is after all a theory of evolution in the same way that it is the theory of relativity. You can put all the pieces there and go "well, if you fill in the gaps the way we see it it makes perfect sense".
Anime_Otaku
22-10-2007, 08:28 PM
I like the sound of that-science and religion joining forces!
It's more like Evangelicals trying to force themselves on science to get creationism taught in schools as Biology instead of Theology.
Why is it random? Can't God make it so? If you deny the existance of something then enevitably you will deny that it has anything to do with anything but it still doesn't make it so.
Even science can't say for 100% certain that evolution is what actually happens. It is after all a theory of evolution in the same way that it is the theory of relativity. You can put all the pieces there and go "well, if you fill in the gaps the way we see it it makes perfect sense".
Firstly, many, many scientists have belief. The idea of an amorphous atheistic entity called "The Scientists" is fallacious. Darwin believed that God was the source of life. Belief in God and intellectual honesty aren't mutually exclusive.
Secondly, You're making the common error of misunderstanding what the word "theory" really means. It's doesn't imply uncertainty - Barhart's definition is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." The phenomena observed (common descent, natural selection etc.) cohere into the theory of evolution.
Do you agree that the germ theory of disease is valid? If you don't then you refute all real medicine. That's only a "theory" too.
It's more like Evangelicals trying to force themselves on science to get creationism taught in schools as Biology instead of Theology.Boo, I liked my one better...
Omega
22-10-2007, 09:03 PM
Firstly, many, many scientists have belief. The idea of an amorphous atheistic entity called "The Scientists" is fallacious. Darwin believed that God was the source of life. Belief in God and intellectual honesty aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure I said 'owt about what the actual scientist's belief was. I talked about science in general which IS an amorphous atheistic entity.
Secondly, You're making the common error of misunderstanding what the word "theory" really means. It's doesn't imply uncertainty - Barhart's definition is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." The phenomena observed (common descent, natural selection etc.) cohere into the theory of evolution.
It's not a mistake, I never implied that the people who adhere to it's priniciples are uncertain. General Propositions, doesn't sound all that exact to me. Like I said A.C bits of jigsaws with missing pieces.
Do you agree that the germ theory of disease is valid? If you don't then you refute all real medicine. That's only a "theory" too.
Why would that mean I refute all medicine? I might well believe that God allows ibuprofen to cure peoples headaches. :P
If you cast your mind back to what the thread is about it's whether you believe to be true. I think there should be an emphasis on the belief part, as you are putting your "faith" in something that is true only to your personal perception (even if it's something shared with other, believed by other and "made" by other).
However as an avowed atheist I choose believe in evolution as it conforms to what I believe to be true...... but I also keep in mind that just because I believe it I (and anyone else who thinks in a similar way) might be very, very wrong.
I believe in evolution, due to the scientific evidence that supports it. If God did have anything to do with it, it would be intelligent design, not creationism. I disbelieve entirely in creationism. I know people say Genesis is a metaphoric story and such, but why would God do that? These are the most important words ever, so I'll make them nice and metaphoric, so you can spend ages working out then deliberating over the meaning of them. Shebang, I'm THE MAN!
I am basically saying I dont think the complexity and intricacy of it all and how it all works so well didnt happen by chance
Complex and intricate compared to what though? For all we know our structures could be amazingly basic compared to other beings in the 'verse. It may well only appear so complex because we don't actually know any better.
Omega
22-10-2007, 10:03 PM
I know people say Genesis is a metaphoric story and such, but why would God do that? These are the most important words ever, so I'll make them nice and metaphoric, so you can spend ages working out then deliberating over the meaning of them. Shebang, I'm THE MAN!
God didn't write the bible Ray, sorry to burst your bubble. Blokes did thousands of years ago in a language that doesn't exist now. You think that maybe it is an interpretation of the begging of creation rather than a GCSE textbook?
Nemesis Enforcer
22-10-2007, 10:07 PM
Why is it random? Can't God make it so? If you deny the existance of something then enevitably you will deny that it has anything to do with anything but it still doesn't make it so.
Even science can't say for 100% certain that evolution is what actually happens. It is after all a theory of evolution in the same way that it is the theory of relativity. You can put all the pieces there and go "well, if you fill in the gaps the way we see it it makes perfect sense".The 'Can't God do this' or the 'It was God's will to change the genes' argument has never washed with me simply because the massively vast majority of all the mutations die with the specimen they first appear in, its only a tiny fraction that produce a successful adaptation which gives the creature an advantage to survive in some way that its fellow species members doesn't have and go on to change the species though the next few thousand generations,
So if God was indeed making these mutations in the genes then surely it would be done perfect every time since as the bible tells us God is never wrong. So then why mutate the genes of something for it to never go any further then that one specimen, that would be an experiment... but God doesn't need to experiment according to Evangelicals, so their argument falls right there, either they are contradicting themselves and if there is a God it does experiment and so isn't all powerful and must see what the outcome is, like a scientist, or its just random mutation that are happening
I personally don't believe in a God (i'm a fully signed up member of The Church of Spongebob Squarepants though :lol) and do believe that everything that happens is just a random set of events, be it death via an accident or a lotto win, IMO its all random
The Evolutionary theory to me makes the most sense, random events that give random results, some good and some bad... the good mutations go on, the bad ones die out and things evolve into new diverse species. Now to me this is the most reasonable conclusion, it’s logical, the results can be observed with your own eyes and it doesn't require a belief in something that, as of now, there is no evidence of other then words written in a book by men a few thousand years ago which even the Church of England says should not be taken literally
God didn't write the bible Ray, sorry to burst your bubble. Blokes did thousands of years ago in a language that doesn't exist now. You think that maybe it is an interpretation of the begging of creation rather than a GCSE textbook?
Okay yeah I screwed up my wording. I know God didn't write the bible, but it's supposed to be an account of what he did. Why would it be written metaphorically? I just think the bible, going by a creationists point of view, it's nonsense. Which is why I disblieve in creationism.
Omega
23-10-2007, 07:16 AM
Okay yeah I screwed up my wording. I know God didn't write the bible, but it's supposed to be an account of what he did. Why would it be written metaphorically? I just think the bible, going by a creationists point of view, it's nonsense. Which is why I disbelieve in creationism.
It's written metaphoricaly because it's not meant to be a literal translation of how God created the universe because only God knows how he does that because he's.... well God! Like teaching children, sometimes you have to put things in a way that makes sense and is accessable to them.
we share so,ething like 98% of our DNA with chimps which is supposed to show we evolved from them but we share 68% of our DNA with a cabbage so does that mean we are all descended from brassicas at some point? Is your cousin a floret of broccoli? You great grandmother a head of cauliflower? :lol
I think it's fair enough that people believe in which ever of the three things they like, I just think it's a bit closed minded (not saying that of anyone on here by the way) when people dismiss what other people think. I'd fight for anyone who said they think people shouldn't know about religious views of creation as much as I'd fight anyone who said that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it's denying God. I'd rather know all the options than be told by someone else that what they think is right and ignore everything else.
It's written metaphoricaly because it's not meant to be a literal translation of how God created the universe because only God knows how he does that because he's.... well God! Like teaching children, sometimes you have to put things in a way that makes sense and is accessable to them.
we share so,ething like 98% of our DNA with chimps which is supposed to show we evolved from them but we share 68% of our DNA with a cabbage so does that mean we are all descended from brassicas at some point? Is your cousin a floret of broccoli? You great grandmother a head of cauliflower? :lol
I think it's fair enough that people believe in which ever of the three things they like, I just think it's a bit closed minded (not saying that of anyone on here by the way) when people dismiss what other people think. I'd fight for anyone who said they think people shouldn't know about religious views of creation as much as I'd fight anyone who said that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it's denying God. I'd rather know all the options than be told by someone else that what they think is right and ignore everything else.
Actually there's more than just DNA which is evidence for evolution. Going back to australiopithicene (Someone wanna check my spelling on that? Thanks.) There are much more visual species of bipedal creatures (that's walking on two feet with a hip that swings the legs forward and back. Unlike chimps who have to step and pivot, and aren't actually bipeds.) which draw lineage to neanderthal and cro magnon and then to us... as we're basically cro magnon.
But what is inteligent design really? that a supreme being is general shaping the outcomes of the universe but letting a lot of stuff play out on it's own? That's evolution, to me. If I can go big and grand scheme here; all things shape and guide the universe to their own will. Some are more powerful and aware of it, but the theory stays the same. I don't think that Jah "works miracles" "answers prayers" or "summons majick" in a way that would break the rules already set out.
It's written metaphoricaly because it's not meant to be a literal translation of how God created the universe because only God knows how he does that because he's.... well God! Like teaching children, sometimes you have to put things in a way that makes sense and is accessable to them.
we share so,ething like 98% of our DNA with chimps which is supposed to show we evolved from them but we share 68% of our DNA with a cabbage so does that mean we are all descended from brassicas at some point? Is your cousin a floret of broccoli? You great grandmother a head of cauliflower? :lol
I think it's fair enough that people believe in which ever of the three things they like, I just think it's a bit closed minded (not saying that of anyone on here by the way) when people dismiss what other people think. I'd fight for anyone who said they think people shouldn't know about religious views of creation as much as I'd fight anyone who said that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it's denying God. I'd rather know all the options than be told by someone else that what they think is right and ignore everything else.
The Old Testament is a way of explaining our world the best way that a particular cult or set of cults could at the time. There are some very good life lessons in there, there are also some terrible ones. That's why a lot of religions pick and choose which bits to use and which to ignore.
Your DNA/Cabbages thing is a total strawman. There aren't any scientists saying that. Sharing DNA with cabbages doesn't indicate that we descended from them but that they share with us a common ancestry further back than that.
Closed mindedness is believing what a particular book or set of teachings tell you and never diverting from that "truth". Open-mindedness is actively seeking the truth for yourself. I would love it if God were manifest or if ESP were proved to be real or I could contact my dead relatives but in all the looking the only ones who have "proved" these things are those whose studies don't stand up to any sort of objective reality. :(
Omega
23-10-2007, 08:37 AM
The Old Testament is a way of explaining our world the best way that a particular cult or set of cults could at the time. There are some very good life lessons in there, there are also some terrible ones. That's why a lot of religions pick and choose which bits to use and which to ignore.
thats a whole can of worms your opening their A.C! I'm not touching it with a 10 foot pole! :D
Your DNA/Cabbages thing is a total strawman. There aren't any scientists saying that. Sharing DNA with cabbages doesn't indicate that we descended from them but that they share with us a common ancestry further back than that.
There are scientists saying we share that amount of common DNA with cabbages. And it still says we are descended from the same things as cabbages and probably egg whisks as well. I'm really just trying to point out that you can doubt science and point out it's flaws and contradictions just as much as you can religion. Bumble bees and the laws of flight come to mind as an example.
Closed mindedness is believing what a particular book or set of teachings tell you and never diverting from that "truth". Open-mindedness is actively seeking the truth for yourself.
science=books and teachings, religion=books and teachings, therefore all science is closed minded by your own definition. You can seek the truth in whatever form but saying that science is the truth because it conforms to your own standards of what the truth should be is closed minded as you deny antyhing else the chance to be true because it isn't measurable on your own personal scale.
I would love it if God were manifest or if ESP were proved to be real or I could contact my dead relatives but in all the looking the only ones who have "proved" these things are those whose studies don't stand up to any sort of objective reality. :(
proved to who? science? The amorphous mass that says it's only real if you can measure it in millimeters or degrees? What if it can't be measured by science because science isn't advanced enough to be able to? 200 hundred years ago people were not able to tell the existance of black holes yuet they apparently seem to exist now, you deny the possibilty of something based on the limited knowledge of mankind sees a little short sighted to be honest.
thats a whole can of worms your opening their A.C! I'm not touching it with a 10 foot pole! :D
:lol I can dig it.
There are scientists saying we share that amount of common DNA with cabbages. And it still says we are descended from the same things as cabbages and probably egg whisks as well. I'm really just trying to point out that you can doubt science and point out it's flaws and contradictions just as much as you can religion. Bumble bees and the laws of flight come to mind as an example.
How can it be flawed if it's factual? It might make people a bit uncomfortable to realise they're not quite as special as they once thought but that's a flaw with people, not with the truth. Bees and the laws of flight is a myth. The law of aerodynamics was the issue and as the bee doesn't have a fixed wing it's not relevant to its ability to fly.
science=books and teachings, religion=books and teachings, therefore all science is closed minded by your own definition. You can seek the truth in whatever form but saying that science is the truth because it conforms to your own standards of what the truth should be is closed minded as you deny antyhing else the chance to be true because it isn't measurable on your own personal scale.
:? I quote myself in response to the first part:
Science says: "From our years of intensive analysis, experiments, peer reviews, corrections and meta-analysis, we currently understand the universe to work thusly."
Religious people say: "This (or these) books say so and that will not change."
Science can re-write its books in light of current findings. Religion generally needs a schism or reformation to effect such change - these are violent changes that are resisted by the establishment. Anything science can prove we can believe (to a degree - there's bad science out there too!) and as I've said before, if it could prove the supernatural it'd be fantastic. But in all the years of looking, it hasn't.
proved to who? science? The amorphous mass that says it's only real if you can measure it in millimeters or degrees? What if it can't be measured by science because science isn't advanced enough to be able to? 200 hundred years ago people were not able to tell the existance of black holes yuet they apparently seem to exist now, you deny the possibilty of something based on the limited knowledge of mankind sees a little short sighted to be honest.
If it can't be measured by science then ipso facto it's not science. I don't have a problem with beliefs as long as they don't impinge on real-life to real-life's detriment (creation science, the attempt to get ID taught in classrooms on a level-pegging with evolution etc.). The wonderful thing about science is that it will never no everything. This leaves an excellent space in which religion and belief can exist. That space is shrinking, though. For me, there's more excitement to be found in real things than in fantasies, wish-fulfillment and confirmation bias.
Omega
23-10-2007, 10:21 AM
[quote]
How can it be flawed if it's factual? It might make people a bit uncomfortable to realise they're not quite as special as they once thought but that's a flaw with people, not with the truth. Bees and the laws of flight is a myth. The law of aerodynamics was the issue and as the bee doesn't have a fixed wing it's not relevant to its ability to fly.
yes, I hoped you wouldn't pick up on that one! But still....
Science can re-write its books in light of current findings. Religion generally needs a schism or reformation to effect such change - these are violent changes that are resisted by the establishment. Anything science can prove we can believe (to a degree - there's bad science out there too!) and as I've said before, if it could prove the supernatural it'd be fantastic. But in all the years of looking, it hasn't.
One might say that Religeon doesn't need to change it's view on creation because it's been right all along. The proof of science is only valid if you believe that science is correct in all it's asumptions which it continuly proes and disproves all the time. Your point is that if science doesn't prove it then it musn't be but since science changes constantly then anything has a chance of existing and being true.
If it can't be measured by science then ipso facto it's not science.
And heres the point I think I'm trying to ut across. Just because it's not science doesn't mean it can't be the truth. Just because it doesn't conform to science doesn't mean it can't exist. Just because an idea is beyond the realms of human comprehnsion doesn't mean that it can't be.
I don't have a problem with beliefs as long as they don't impinge on real-life to real-life's detriment (creation science, the attempt to get ID taught in classrooms on a level-pegging with evolution etc.). The wonderful thing about science is that it will never no everything. This leaves an excellent space in which religion and belief can exist. That space is shrinking, though. For me, there's more excitement to be found in real things than in fantasies, wish-fulfillment and confirmation bias.
Would you agree that people's spiritual nature also needs to be tended to as much as their understanding of how the universe works? Is it that science should overrule religeous experience in the same way that some people would pervet science to fit in with their religeous views?
Yin and yang as far as I can see. If you don't teach people about the existential then existance is just a lot of complicated sums. People should wonder about things not just dogmaticly follow ANY one set teachings to the exclusion to the possibiltiies of the others.
yes, I hoped you wouldn't pick up on that one! But still....
:greets4:
One might say that Religeon doesn't need to change it's view on creation because it's been right all along. The proof of science is only valid if you believe that science is correct in all it's asumptions which it continuly proes and disproves all the time. Your point is that if science doesn't prove it then it musn't be but since science changes constantly then anything has a chance of existing and being true.
Possible =/= plausible. Anything is possible, not everything is likely. As far as science changing, I may have overstated the degree to which things change. There are hypotheses which are checked and rechecked. After an indeterminate period of time these will become laws or theories. These tend not to be overturned or amended but they are usually added to. People who admit their errors and correct themselves seem more trustworthy than people who are never wrong.
And heres the point I think I'm trying to ut across. Just because it's not science doesn't mean it can't be the truth. Just because it doesn't conform to science doesn't mean it can't exist. Just because an idea is beyond the realms of human comprehnsion doesn't mean that it can't be.
It does mean that it currently doesn't exist in any material way. God in all manifestations has been the most important thing to civilisation and has been subject to the most study and we've drawn a blank. I think God exists, I just don't think he exists here.
Would you agree that people's spiritual nature also needs to be tended to as much as their understanding of how the universe works? Is it that science should overrule religeous experience in the same way that some people would pervet science to fit in with their religeous views?
Science is self-correcting, religion is not. A single person will have trouble perverting the direction of science as the peer-review process means that any and all findings are picked over and criticised. The head of a church wields power and what he/she says goes. Which is more likely to have a corrupting influence?
Yin and yang as far as I can see. If you don't teach people about the existential then existance is just a lot of complicated sums. People should wonder about things not just dogmaticly follow ANY one set teachings to the exclusion to the possibiltiies of the others.
Another great aspect of science is that you don't need to follow any dogma as it's not a belief system. It's so pure that it doesn't require any belief when regarded by a critically-thinking mind. What should we teach people about the existential? Which belief systems should be taught?
The atheist speaking to the Catholic:
Atheist: We're both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you.
Basically, to believe in one religion/God is to deny all others.
You know, this thread is ruining everything for me-first Anime says that the Intelligent Design isn't a cute,fuzzy joining-of-the-masses thing, then AC says bumble bees are supposed to be able to fly. If anybody comes in and sayd that there is no man in the moon or Santas not real, I will be VERY unhappy...
Omega
23-10-2007, 11:37 AM
:greets4:
[quote]
Possible =/= plausible. Anything is possible, not everything is likely. As far as science changing, I may have overstated the degree to which things change. There are hypotheses which are checked and rechecked. After an indeterminate period of time these will become laws or theories. These tend not to be overturned or amended but they are usually added to. People who admit their errors and correct themselves seem more trustworthy than people who are never wrong.
You follow the guy who says, "lets go this way...... no this way....wait, it might be this way" rather than the guy who says "it's this way"? :)
It does mean that it currently doesn't exist in any material way. God in all manifestations has been the most important thing to civilisation and has been subject to the most study and we've drawn a blank. I think God exists, I just don't think he exists here.
Does God have to exist in any physical way? I always assumed that was part of the point. God exists but beyond our realm of experience and therefore beyond "proof".
Science is self-correcting, religion is not. A single person will have trouble perverting the direction of science as the peer-review process means that any and all findings are picked over and criticised. The head of a church wields power and what he/she says goes. Which is more likely to have a corrupting influence?
I'd say which ever one says you should ignore what the other one says.
Another great aspect of science is that you don't need to follow any dogma as it's not a belief system. It's so pure that it doesn't require any belief when regarded by a critically-thinking mind. What should we teach people about the existential? Which belief systems should be taught?[quote]
Science is a belief system as you believe in it's principles based on their scientific merit. It's just the same as a religeous belief but just with different values and a more rigerous self-testing nature.
[quote]
The atheist speaking to the Catholic:
Atheist: We're both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you.
Basically, to believe in one religion/God is to deny all others.
aww, I thought that was going to be a joke at the start! Surely science is the ultimate denoucement in God so the point doesn't really explain why any religeous system can't be correct just because other people don't believe it either.
One might say that Religeon doesn't need to change it's view on creation because it's been right all along. The proof of science is only valid if you believe that science is correct in all it's asumptions which it continuly proves and disproves all the time. Your point is that if science doesn't prove it then it musn't be but since science changes constantly then anything has a chance of existing and being true.
If someone says religion doesn't need to change because it's right as always has been, isn't that close minded? In terms of science only being valid if you believe all the assumptions, that's true, but surely that point puts science way above religion? Science's assumptions are based on tireless experiments and investigations to find evidence which is then reevaluated and improved as our knowledge improves. So in this way surely we're getting closer and closer to the answer, just as you would get to the relative frequency if you threw and recorded the counts of a die. What is religion based on though? Untrustworthy texts written by a bunch of probably unintelligent (by our standards) third parties. There is no evidence to support religion, all you can say is you can't prove it's not true.
Think about how important evidence really is. What if I said to you I have a lion on my bed? Now although that isn't technically impossible, it's extremely unlikely, and therefore without irrefutable evidence, it would be deemed untrue. False. Why is this not the case with God? It's a big fairytale to the critical mind, with absoloutely no proof or evidence, in the same way as my statement is. The lion is singing Baby Got Back by the way.
You follow the guy who says, "lets go this way...... no this way....wait, it might be this way" rather than the guy who says "it's this way"?
That depends. If the first guy, like science, is constantly rechecking and evaluating his decision based on knowledge and factual information, I'd take him over a guy who says this way without knowledge or evidence. At least the first guy would choose a way based on something.
You follow the guy who says, "lets go this way...... no this way....wait, it might be this way" rather than the guy who says "it's this way"? :)
Strawman. I'd follow the man who can tell me why we're going this way or that. I wouldn't follow the man who tells me we're going one particular way "just because" and cannot give me any specific reason for doing so.
Does God have to exist in any physical way? I always assumed that was part of the point. God exists but beyond our realm of experience and therefore beyond "proof".
Agreed. That's where we started though. You said that all beliefs or viewpoints are equal and I countered that they're not. I believe in God, I just don't think he objectively "exists".
I'd say which ever one says you should ignore what the other one says.
Both scientists and religious leaders have been guilty of this.
Another great aspect of science is that you don't need to follow any dogma as it's not a belief system. It's so pure that it doesn't require any belief when regarded by a critically-thinking mind. What should we teach people about the existential? Which belief systems should be taught?
Science is a belief system as you believe in it's principles based on their scientific merit. It's just the same as a religeous belief but just with different values and a more rigerous self-testing nature.
"Seeing is believing" so semantically I suppose you're right. For me belief, in the context of this debate, is something you need when you're trying to justify something outside the realms of true experience.
aww, I thought that was going to be a joke at the start! Surely science is the ultimate denoucement in God so the point doesn't really explain why any religeous system can't be correct just because other people don't believe it either.
You can't prove a negative. Darwin thought that his investigations brought to the fore the glory of God's creation. The anecdote illustrates the problem of many hundreds of "one true religion"s.
Jimmy Redman
23-10-2007, 12:00 PM
I personally dont have a particular opinion on creation, I've just never been that bothered by it. I suppose as a Catholic I should be proclaiming my beliefs, and as an intelligent person I should be doing the opposite :lol
Honestly, evolution seems to be the most plausible explanation we have for how things are. And I believe that God is responsible for creating it :)
EDIT: Actually I remember a brief conversation I had with my best friend about this a few months ago. It has always bothered me when non-religious types point at science and its explanation of the world as if to say "Ha, religion! Its all a lie!" I, as a believer in God, have never refuted any scientific theories or such things. I do believe, however, that God is responsible for everything, including science. I fail to see how religion and science are mutually exclusive.
I personally dont have a particular opinion on creation, I've just never been that bothered by it. I suppose as a Catholic I should be proclaiming my beliefs, and as an intelligent person I should be doing the opposite :lol
Honestly, evolution seems to be the most plausible explanation we have for how things are. And I believe that God is responsible for creating it :)
That, to me, seems the most obvious PoV for a religious critical thinker to take. John Paul II did say, "Evolution is compatible with Christian faith."
Jimmy Redman
23-10-2007, 12:06 PM
That, to me, seems the most obvious PoV for a religious critical thinker to take. John Paul II did say, "Evolution is compatible with Christian faith."
Exactly, as I edited in above, religion and science arent mutually exclusive.
Omega
23-10-2007, 12:13 PM
If someone says religion doesn't need to change because it's right as always has been, isn't that close minded? In terms of science only being valid if you believe all the assumptions, that's true, but surely that point puts science way above religion?
Science's assumptions are based on tireless experiments and investigations to find evidence which is then reevaluated and improved as our knowledge improves. SO in this way surely we're getting closer and closer to the answer, just as you would get to the relative frequency if you threw and recorded the counts of a die. What is religion based on though? A untrustworthy texts written by a bunch of probably unintelligent (by our standards) third parties. There is no evidence to support religion, all you can say is you can't prove it's not true.
your missing the point Ray, it's all about belief in a system. You can't dis-prove religion. the fact that people have tried to interprit the meaning of god in whatever guise they assume it to be doesn't make them either untrustworthy, unintelligent or anything else. How do you know that God did not put those words in those peoples heads? How do you know that God doesn't adjust the roll of a die at his whim? How do you know there is no evidence to supports religion? There's no scientific evidence but as we've already agreed the existence of God is not a scientificly provable phenomanon. So whats the test to see if God exists, shake your fist and ask him to step outside the universe for a quick dust up? I'm not a religeous person don't have the stock answer or religeous knowledge to give you the view point of any major religion but the answers are there so long as you believe the way to the answer.
Think about how important evidence really is. What if I said to you I have a lion on my bed? Now although that isn't technically impossible, it's extremely, and therefore without irrefutable evidence, it would be deemed untrue. False. Why is this not the case with God? It's a big fairytale to the critical mind, with absoloutely no proof or evidence, in the same way as my statement is. The lion is singing Baby Got Back by the way.
It wouldn't be deemed untrue at all, the burden of proof is not to say well the unlikely, without proof, is untrue. proove to me that God does not exist and you might have something but denial of the existance of anything does not mean it doesn't exist.
That depends. If the first guy, like science, is constantly rechecking and evaluating his decision based on knowledge and factual information, I'd take him over a guy who says this way without knowledge or evidence. At least the first guy would choose a way based on something.
He has knowledge Ray, it's just not the same knowledge as the other guy. You don't believe it, I get it, but you can't say that he'd be wrong just because you say he is or even that science would say he is. That really is closed minded.
Omega
23-10-2007, 12:23 PM
Strawman. I'd follow the man who can tell me why we're going this way or that. I wouldn't follow the man who tells me we're going one particular way "just because" and cannot give me any specific reason for doing so.
Fair enough, so long as you don;t dismiss the other guy then thats all good.
Agreed. That's where we started though. You said that all beliefs or viewpoints are equal and I countered that they're not. I believe in God, I just don't think he objectively "exists".
I just think it's a terrible mindset to dismiss things because you just don't believe in them. I don't believe in God but I at least allow myself to think he/she/it could in whatever guise anyone believes it does. I believe in science but am aware that science can be wrong but it doesn't stop me believeing in it either.
Both scientists and religious leaders have been guilty of this.
that was my point. :)
"Seeing is believing" so semantically I suppose you're right. For me belief, in the context of this debate, is something you need when you're trying to justify something outside the realms of true experience.
Absolutley, the semantics of belief could and should be debated for the whole of time. Personal perception is always the final factor in wheteher each person will or will not believe in something.
You can't prove a negative. Darwin thought that his investigations brought to the fore the glory of God's creation. The anecdote illustrates the problem of many hundreds of "one true religion"s.
I certainly don't pretend to say that religion has got it right, I choose neither refute or agree the existance of God to anyone. I believe what I like to believe and it suits me, doesn't really harm anyone else for me thinking it and I certainly wouldn't tell anyone else they had to think the same. I still believe 100% that I'm correct in my thinking but I allow for the fact that just because I believe it I could be wrong.:sad5:
Burakiosaurus
23-10-2007, 12:23 PM
I'm feeling the creation vibe. Evolution is a great theory, but that's all it is, a theory. Intelligent design just smacks of someone at a drawing board which doesn't push my buttons whereas creation seems like the right vibe to me, what with all of these fantastic creatures inhabiting the earth and what not.
your missing the point Ray, it's all about belief in a system. You can't dis-prove religion. the fact that people have tried to interprit the meaning of god in whatever guise they assume it to be doesn't make them either untrustworthy, unintelligent or anything else. How do you know that God did not put those words in those peoples heads? How do you know that God doesn't adjust the roll of a die at his whim? How do you know there is no evidence to supports religion? There's no scientific evidence but as we've already agreed the existence of God is not a scientificly provable phenomanon. So whats the test to see if God exists, shake your fist and ask him to step outside the universe for a quick dust up? I'm not a religeous person don't have the stock answer or religeous knowledge to give you the view point of any major religion but the answers are there so long as you believe the way to the answer.
I'm not missing the point at all. As you say, it's all about belief, but religion isn't based on anything we can prove, whereas to the best of our abilities, we can prove our beliefs in science.
It wouldn't be deemed untrue at all, the burden of proof is not to say well the unlikely, without proof, is untrue. proove to me that God does not exist and you might have something but denial of the existance of anything does not mean it doesn't exist.
Okay so you can't PROVE that I don't, but as it's very unlikely, without evidence you would think it untrue wouldn't you? I agree that denial of the existence of something does not mean it doesn't exist, but with the exception of God (it seems), a smart person would usually deem something wild like that untrue without substantial supporting evidence.
He has knowledge Ray, it's just not the same knowledge as the other guy. You don't believe it, I get it, but you can't say that he'd be wrong just because you say he is or even that science would say he is. That really is closed minded.
But his knowledge is as A.C. said "just because", whereas the other guy has based his decision on something. Is it knowledge to just say THIS WAY. Just because that's supposedly it, despite lack of anything to suggest it actually is? I'm not saying he's wrong just because I say he is, that'd make me just like him. I'm not actually saying he's wrongm, what I'm saying is the other guy is more likely to be right.
Omega
23-10-2007, 12:37 PM
I'm not missing the point at all. As you say, it's all about belief, but religion isn't based on anything we can prove, whereas to the best of our abilities, we can prove our beliefs in science.
Okay so you can't PROVE that I don't, but as it's very unlikely, without evidence you would think it untrue wouldn't you? I agree that denial of the existence of something does not mean it doesn't exist, but with the exception of God (it seems), a smart person would usually deem something wild like that untrue without substantial supporting evidence.
But his knowledge is as A.C. said "just because", whereas the other guy has based his decision on something. Is it knowledge to just say THIS WAY. Just because that's supposedly it, despite lack of anything to suggest it actually is? I'm not saying he's wrong just because I say he is, that'd make me just like him. I'm not actually saying he's wrongm, what I'm saying is the other guy is more likely to be right.
Likely but not definatly. To the best of our ability does not mean the same as absolutley, undeniably proved. As long as there is doubt, no matter how small, you can't deny the existance of anything. Even singing lions in england....
I'm feeling the creation vibe. Evolution is a great theory, but that's all it is, a theory. Intelligent design just smacks of someone at a drawing board which doesn't push my buttons whereas creation seems like the right vibe to me, what with all of these fantastic creatures inhabiting the earth and what not.
As per a post I made on the first page:
[...]you're making the common error of misunderstanding what the word "theory" really means. It's doesn't imply uncertainty - Barhart's definition is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena." The phenomena observed (common descent, natural selection etc.) cohere into the theory of evolution.
Do you agree that the germ theory of disease is valid? If you don't then you refute all real medicine. That's only a "theory" too.
Basically, the word "theory" doesn't imply uncertainty.
[...]so long as you don;t dismiss the other guy then thats all good.
I just think it's a terrible mindset to dismiss things because you just don't believe in them. I don't believe in God but I at least allow myself to think he/she/it could in whatever guise anyone believes it does. I believe in science but am aware that science can be wrong but it doesn't stop me believeing in it either.
[...]the semantics of belief could and should be debated for the whole of time. Personal perception is always the final factor in wheteher each person will or will not believe in something.
I certainly don't pretend to say that religion has got it right, I choose neither refute or agree the existance of God to anyone. I believe what I like to believe and it suits me, doesn't really harm anyone else for me thinking it and I certainly wouldn't tell anyone else they had to think the same. I still believe 100% that I'm correct in my thinking but I allow for the fact that just because I believe it I could be wrong.:sad5:
I think we've reached an accord, Omega! I find nothing in that post that I'd debate with you. It's been an excellent conversation so far. :xyx
Thanks to everyone else for joining in too - it's been very interesting. :)
Likely but not definatly. To the best of our ability does not mean the same as absolutley, undeniably proved. As long as there is doubt, no matter how small, you can't deny the existance of anything. Even singing lions in england....
In normal situations, do you go with what's more likely or unlikely? Likely, of course. But here is where it all comes down to belief, of which those who have it can't be shifted away no matter what they're evidence is poored upon their lackof. Those who believe in science change their opinions as the knowledge improves, those who believe in God/creationism say that "that's it and it doesn't change". Both in their own way close minded, but at least followers of science have reason for not believing.
Omega
23-10-2007, 12:52 PM
Me to A.C. Always good to have a nice discussion over a dubject without having people snap at you for disagreeing! :)
Omega
23-10-2007, 12:55 PM
In normal situations, do you go with what's more likely or unlikely? Likely, of course. But here is where it all comes down to belief, of which those who have it can't be shifted away no matter what they're evidence is poored upon their lackof. Those who believe in science change their opinions as the knowledge improves, those who believe in God/creationism say that "that's it and it doesn't change". Both in their own way close minded, but at least followers of science have reason for not believing.
Dude, people who believe in God have a reason to believe as well or is your point that science is the only way and evrything else is a pile of old toss? Just because a religion believes it has the correct knowledge that makes it wrong? Come on now....
Dude, people who believe in God have a reason to believe as well or is your point that science is the only way and evrything else is a pile of old toss? Just because a religion believes it has the correct knowledge that makes it wrong? Come on now....
I didn't mean it like that. What I mean is, I believe, people who who follow science can provide reasoning based on facts and evidence as to why they do not believe in God and/or creationism. Follows of religion however seem to not be able to provide that, so I believe therefore that science is more likely (but yes not definately and undoubtedly) correct.
That's all I'm saying, I'm not saying followers of a religion or believers in God are stupid, hell, I hope God does exist, I just don't think he does. Although, as a young pup, my views may well change as life goes on. I know for certain I'll beg for his love and forgiveness on my deathbed! :lol
Please don't read my posts as though they're being said in an arsey way (if you are), I'm just trying to get in on the friendly debate here. :)
Omega
23-10-2007, 01:07 PM
I didn't mean it like that. What I mean is, I believe, people who who follow science can provide reasoning based on facts and evidence as to why they do not believe in God and/or creationism. Follows of religion however seem to not be able to provide that, so I believe therefore that science is more likely (but yes not definately and undoubtedly) correct.
So you are saying the bible can't be used as evidence? If I said you couldn't use any of the teachings of Newton to prove gravoty you'd be stuck as well matey!
That's all I'm saying, I'm not saying followers of a religion or believers in God are stupid, hell, I hope God does exist, I just don't think he does. Although, as a young pup, my views may well change as life goes on. I know for certain I'll beg for his love and forgiveness on my deathbed! :lol
Please don't read my posts as though they're being said in an arsey way (if you are), I'm just trying to get in on the friendly debate here. :)
Not arsey my friend, just seemed a tad biased. Evidence is subjective and especially given the subject involved is not something that can be used to really sway the arguement one way or another. you believe this, I beleive that etc can go on to infinity. The real important thing is too understand as much as possible and make you own mind up what you believe without belittleing what other people elieve. If you don't understand what you deny then you can't really say that you know it isn't true.
by the way the you in most of that last sentance is a ray=you it's a you=the people i'm talking about.
So you are saying the bible can't be used as evidence? If I said you couldn't use any of the teachings of Newton to prove gravoty you'd be stuck as well matey!
But Newton's theory has been rechecked and can all be recreated etc, whereas the bible is just as is. So I would say again science is more likey to be correct.
Not arsey my friend, just seemed a tad biased. Evidence is subjective and especially given the subject involved is not something that can be used to really sway the arguement one way or another. you believe this, I beleive that etc can go on to infinity. The real important thing is too understand as much as possible and make you own mind up what you believe without belittleing what other people elieve. If you don't understand what you deny then you can't really say that you know it isn't true.
by the way the you in most of that last sentance is a ray=you it's a you=the people i'm talking about.
I think the apparent bias comes from my lack of being able to say exactly what I mean, I'm not that good at all this internet deep debating lark, I'm better at it in person.
The horrible thing about these sorts of debates is as you say the infinity of it all, there's generally little closure, which is damn tedious! Tonnes of great debate and it all comes down to I believe this, you believe that but let's both stay open minded so we appear nice to everyone.
As I said before, my views on all this may well change as the years pass, and my knowledge of everything grows. Damn the uncertainty of everything to hell! :lol
Omega
23-10-2007, 01:23 PM
I find it good to try playing devils advocate and actually trying to argue from the opposite point of view. You suddenly find youself stick up for things you previously tore down and pople you would normally just dismiss. You find out how much you know or don't know very quickly and also pick up things that you hadn't thought about yout own position. A.C made some great responses to points I made that really made me think about how I'd interrogate belief in the future and I hope perhaps maybe he considered some of the things I said in relation to his own perception. We never asked each other to change our opinions and even thought the infinty rule kind of applies we stuck to points of debate that weren't etheral or ephemeral in nature. It's was more a debate on how you debate! :)
I find it good to try playing devils advocate and actually trying to argue from the opposite point of view. You suddenly find youself stick up for things you previously tore down and pople you would normally just dismiss. You find out how much you know or don't know very quickly and also pick up things that you hadn't thought about yout own position. A.C made some great responses to points I made that really made me think about how I'd interrogate belief in the future and I hope perhaps maybe he considered some of the things I said in relation to his own perception. We never asked each other to change our opinions and even thought the infinty rule kind of applies we stuck to points of debate that weren't etheral or ephemeral in nature. It's was more a debate on how you debate! :)
I suppose that's the good that comes from a debate of this nature. You might not get ultimate closure but your understanding, knowledge, and ability to convey that improves.
And since I agree with your post there, I think I'm done. Who's next to challenge the mighty Omega? :lol
Omega
23-10-2007, 01:51 PM
"The Truth: Discuss"
Is anything true? Can anything be described as totally, 100% infalibley correct. Is truth merely a state of mind or is it the agreed presumption of a species on the essence of something? Is a lie really the opppsite of truth or merely the absence of the constraints of reality?
1500 words by next wednesday class!
Burakiosaurus
23-10-2007, 02:01 PM
*
Burakiosaurus
23-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Basically, the word "theory" doesn't imply uncertainty.
according to who though .... ?
that is the question
I find it good to try playing devils advocate and actually trying to argue from the opposite point of view. You suddenly find youself stick up for things you previously tore down and pople you would normally just dismiss. You find out how much you know or don't know very quickly and also pick up things that you hadn't thought about yout own position. A.C made some great responses to points I made that really made me think about how I'd interrogate belief in the future and I hope perhaps maybe he considered some of the things I said in relation to his own perception. We never asked each other to change our opinions and even thought the infinty rule kind of applies we stuck to points of debate that weren't etheral or ephemeral in nature. It's was more a debate on how you debate! :)
[Stan Marsh]I've learned a lot today,[/Stan Marsh] :lol
But Omega's right: it was more of an exercise in the end than an ideological battle of wills - and it was more satisfying as a result.
[referring to the scientific definition of Evolution as a "theory" and the meaning of the word "theory"according to who though .... ?
that is the question
That's an unreasonable question within the context of this debate.
Omega
23-10-2007, 02:38 PM
That isn't a question, who or why is a question....
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/128298508615001250urtheoryhasme.jpg
I don't really "believe" in anything as far as how the world came to be. Honestly, I don't really care. We could have been made from a giant atom, a big bang, the dream of someone in the "real world" that is far more real and out there than we are, or semen created whilst God was bumming Charles Manson for all I know or care.
As it stands, evolution sounds a lot more realistic by process of elimination, but I don't fully understand or believe in that either.
I'm more fussed with the here and now and just can't really get into the point of so much research and concern into how we came to be.
Murph
23-10-2007, 07:09 PM
I've come to believe in the Big Bang theory.
But what made the big bang?
But what made the big bang?
The Big Bang occurred prior to evolution - a different debate entirely.
Murph
23-10-2007, 07:18 PM
But Evolution is only one of the options, not solely what the thread is about, isn't it?
You follow the guy who says, "lets go this way...... no this way....wait, it might be this way" rather than the guy who says "it's this way"? :)
Yeah I know I'm just jumping in kinda late here, but... that's quite an oversimplification. I see it more as something like:
Hmmmm... Well. based on soil composition, wind direction, and anything I can measure that's relevent to the subject, I think we should go this way. Farther down the path there may be different things to observe and analyze that may suggest a different path.
and then there's the guy who rubs his body in hemp oil (truth) falls down with the THC power of God flowing through him, stands up and says: "Nrrrrgh yabadabadaddss hahahahahahgalafalaglalflalgla (that's speaking in tongues).... uhhh... where am I? Oh! ... That way!
:D
But what made the big bang?
The previous universe collapsing on itself, and exploding back out again when too dense of a mass was formed?
Omega
23-10-2007, 10:02 PM
Yeah I know I'm just jumping in kinda late here, but... that's quite an oversimplification. I see it more as something like:
Hmmmm... Well. based on soil composition, wind direction, and anything I can measure that's relevent to the subject, I think we should go this way. Farther down the path there may be different things to observe and analyze that may suggest a different path.
and then there's the guy who rubs his body in hemp oil (truth) falls down with the THC power of God flowing through him, stands up and says: "Nrrrrgh yabadabadaddss hahahahahahgalafalaglalflalgla (that's speaking in tongues).... that way!
:D
The previous universe collapsing on itself, and exploding back out again when too dense of a mass was formed?
yes, it's a dramatic over simplification but then again so was yours. If God really did tell you what the right way then it would be the right way even if there was no "explanation" to prove why it was.
yes, it's a dramatic over simplification but then again so was yours. If God really did tell you what the right way then it would be the right way even if there was no "explanation" to prove why it was.
You're right, I forgot to mention the part where the guy who spoke in tongues friends write a few letters about him decades later using no punctuation and little spacing, for it to be translated through countless languages sometimes by illiterate people merely doing there best to copy each letter. :P
Now the science guy is having numerous other objective but knowledgable people study his findings and either verify or dispute his findings.
:devil
But Evolution is only one of the options, not solely what the thread is about, isn't it?
You're absolutely right and I apologise for my flippant response. "Creationism" in the context of this thread refers to the creation of life - not to the creation of the world/universe. Sorry if I came across rude there. If someone wants to postulate that God caused the Big Bang then I, personally, have no problem with that idea whatsoever; it's outside the realms of our knowledge so, TBH, anything goes.
Omega
24-10-2007, 07:17 AM
You're right, I forgot to mention the part where the guy who spoke in tongues friends write a few letters about him decades later using no punctuation and little spacing, for it to be translated through countless languages sometimes by illiterate people merely doing there best to copy each letter. :P
Now the science guy is having numerous other objective but knowledgable people study his findings and either verify or dispute his findings.
:devil
now to me the one man has numerous other people who write long and complicated books detailing how they see things working and explaining it with their own logic and conclusions.
The other got told by God.
As for illiterate, well if in 2000 years everyone is still speaking and writing English in the same way then perhaps science will still be as well regarded as now. if however we're all speaking some new language then perhaps these badly translated texts will form the basis of some new strange cult where the universe is governed by numbers which might just be a weird thought to those future people...
Darkstar
24-10-2007, 10:37 AM
I'm feeling the creation vibe. Evolution is a great theory, but that's all it is, a theory. Intelligent design just smacks of someone at a drawing board which doesn't push my buttons whereas creation seems like the right vibe to me, what with all of these fantastic creatures inhabiting the earth and what not.
It upsets me that I dont ever know if youre joking. :lol
Much liek AC I belive that God (some God, not sure which is right :P) set it all going and then basicly sat back and watched. So evolution for me.
The other got told by God.
Not directly.
Omega
24-10-2007, 11:28 AM
why not?
why not?
Assuming he's a regular dude, won't he choose that path because that's what the teachings of his religion say? It's what the bible says and his people therefore belive? I mean yeah he could have been told directly by God, but a regular person would follow the path for the aforementioned reasons, wouldn't they?
I just thought the majority don't think God has directly spoken to them. I could be wrong though, I don't know.
Omega
24-10-2007, 12:00 PM
If the bible is God's word then even if it was just that it would still be God speaking to them. In my case it was that God was actually directing the guy rather than just some random choice based on his faith in God.
If the bible is God's word then even if it was just that it would still be God speaking to them. In my case it was that God was actually directing the guy rather than just some random choice based on his faith in God.
God told me (more like: divinely inspired me) to tell you that you're wrong. :xyx Now I've gotta go talking to some random cardinals of midlevel authority to get it put into the bible. Lord knows that plenty of worthwhile stuff has been left out that good book, but I think I could have them sqeeze that in somewhere around Ecclesiastes.
Omega
24-10-2007, 08:52 PM
meh, so some people misinterpret things. doesn't make the essence of the text wrong though. All these points of how men do this and men do that and people can't write doesn't stop God having made the universe. Prove to me he didn't guys and then you get to say science is right above everything else
Lord knows that plenty of worthwhile stuff has been left out that good book.
What stuff do you know thats been left out of the bible? Are you telling me there's an unabridged version of it out there somewhere?
Anime_Otaku
24-10-2007, 09:46 PM
Well there is Rufus, the 13th Apostle for a start and Jesus' brothers and sisters.
Seriously though I saw somewhere that entire gosples and other books were cut, I think it was during Medieval times when they were being translated cuts were made. The Bible has even had edits made in the last few years. Now Mary gives birth in 'A place not meant for dwelling'
Didn't they supposedly find the book of Judas which completely turns the story on him around?
Nemesis Enforcer
24-10-2007, 09:49 PM
What stuff do you know thats been left out of the bible? Are you telling me there's an unabridged version of it out there somewhere?The Gospels of Mary Magdaline for a start, which have recently been uncovered in I think it was Egypt and have been dated back to the same time as the other Gospals who are in the Bible, spring to mind as things that were cut from the finished article
Omega
24-10-2007, 10:09 PM
Not sure what this has to do with the topic though? I thought science got to add stuff and take stuff away as and when it corrected itself so why can't religeon.
So if they stick to what they say then they are an entrenched, close minded group of fanatasists and if they accept new things or edit out other things then that also proves that religion is a lod of guff? Show me how you give these guys a chance....
What I'm trying to say is that the Bible is an utterly fallable document, and that it'd be ridiculous to be used as any form of 'proof' of creationism.
We're just going to go around in cicrles because the founders of the Christian faith stuck in that handy little loophole of "if it doesn't make sense, then god says you need to have blind faith or you'll be burning in a lake of fire for all eternity after you die" That's bullshit to me, and I'd rather not spend eternity with a god who uses such manipulative fear tactics if he even exists in the form that Christianity claims he does.
Jimmy Redman
25-10-2007, 06:53 AM
What I'm trying to say is that the Bible is an utterly fallable document, and that it'd be ridiculous to be used as any form of 'proof' of creationism.
And science is infallible?
And science is infallible?
Science is testable and proovable. As it is far more reliable and factual than the bible.
Jimmy Redman
25-10-2007, 07:05 AM
Science is testable and proovable. As it is far more reliable and factual than the bible.
Have some faith man! :P
In all seriousness, I take your point, I just disagree sometimes with how much some people take scientific 'fact' as the complete and utter truth, as opposed to religious 'blind faith'. Its not so polar as that.
Omega
25-10-2007, 07:16 AM
Science is testable and proovable. As it is far more reliable and factual than the bible.
more factual is merely a matter of opinion though Twig. Science is testable and provable within it's own boundaries. Religion is exactly the same, within it's own logic it is utterly provable and factual. Reliable doesn't even come into as even you've agreed that science disproves itself as much as religion contradicts itself.
you choose to believe that science is factual based upon the way it presents its logic. Another person may well choose to believe in creationism based on their own belief in the logic of their religion.
Its important to see that I'm not arguing against evolution, the theory itself is great, works and is utterly believable. i'm trying to defend the point that if you believe in creationism then your not a illiterate, nut job who speaks in tounges.
more factual is merely a matter of opinion though Twig. Science is testable and provable within it's own boundaries. Religion is exactly the same, within it's own logic it is utterly provable and factual. Reliable doesn't even come into as even you've agreed that science disproves itself as much as religion contradicts itself.
It is? I was rasied Christian, Presbyterian to be exact, and was so until I was 13 when I refused to go through confirmation and formally allign myself to the church. And I've always had my questioning inquiries answered with a "you must have faith" or "look around you... the whole wooooooorld is god's proof" (in a matter way more mataphorically existential than any hippie could offer). I didn't say science disprooves itself, I said that scientists make decissions based on what they can decipher and elaborate based already on what they know. Proof of this? Drugs and medicine. We can reconize molecular structures and create our own to accomplish similar effects with lesser side effects.
you choose to believe that science is factual based upon the way it presents its logic. Another person may well choose to believe in creationism based on their own belief in the logic of their religion.
OK. Sorry to get so aggresive, its just a subject I feel very passionate about, as I feel that the opposing side is being dupped by some sick sinister assholes.
Its important to see that I'm not arguing against evolution, the theory itself is great, works and is utterly believable. i'm trying to defend the point that if you believe in creationism then your not a illiterate, nut job who speaks in tounges.
I didn't say that Christian's were illiterate tonguspeaking stoners, just that their religion is based upon them. :xyx
:devil
Omega
25-10-2007, 08:45 AM
I didn't say science disprooves itself, I said that scientists make decissions based on what they can decipher and elaborate based already on what they know. Proof of this? Drugs and medicine. We can reconize molecular structures and create our own to accomplish similar effects with lesser side effects.
if you didn't then you should, science continually re-writes it own rules as and when new information comes up. Thats not really reliable is it? It might make it more flexible but not reliable.
OK. Sorry to get so aggresive, its just a subject I feel very passionate about, as I feel that the opposing side is being dupped by some sick sinister assholes.
In which case the debate is pointless, if you have a such a strong bias against one side then there can be no debate because you already dismiss anything the other side has to say as false.
I didn't say that Christian's were illiterate tonguspeaking stoners, just that their religion is based upon them. :xyx
:devil
Case in point, if I said the same thing about science I'm sure that you'd think I was a evangelical loon (you'd be right of course) but just because I thought that wouldn;t make science any less "true" for those who believe it.
Have some faith man! :P
In all seriousness, I take your point, I just disagree sometimes with how much some people take scientific 'fact' as the complete and utter truth, as opposed to religious 'blind faith'. Its not so polar as that.
My faith's just in a different place. ;)
if you didn't then you should, science continually re-writes it own rules as and when new information comes up. Thats not really reliable is it? It might make it more flexible but not reliable.
Elaboration is a sophisticated understanding that there is simply so much information out there that it can't all be obtained or fully understood at first glance but through careful study.
Have you ever read a poem translated from a different language? It looses a lot of depth and metphore and almost all of the underlying meaning. And thats just one of the ways that I feel man has defiled, lost, and forgotten almost all sacred teachings our people may have learned. I mean, it's not like we're getting a whole lot of communication from any supreme beings lately, are we?
In which case the debate is pointless, if you have a such a strong bias against one side then there can be no debate because you already dismiss anything the other side has to say as false.
Well we sort of got stuck on the bible, and speared off on a tangent about the structure of modern Christianity.
Case in point, if I said the same thing about science I'm sure that you'd think I was a evangelical loon (you'd be right of course) but just because I thought that wouldn;t make science any less "true" for those who believe it.
If you said the same thing about science you wouldn't be speaking in facts. :-0
:devil (I've been finding this smiley quite appropriate in here)
Omega
25-10-2007, 10:27 AM
My faith's just in a different place. ;)
Elaboration is a sophisticated understanding that there is simply so much information out there that it can't all be obtained or fully understood at first glance but through careful study.
Have you ever read a poem translated from a different language? It looses a lot of depth and metphore and almost all of the underlying meaning. And thats just one of the ways that I feel man has defiled, lost, and forgotten almost all sacred teachings our people may have learned. I mean, it's not like we're getting a whole lot of communication from any supreme beings lately, are we?
I do not propose to debate the relative translations of the bible. as for the length of time between communications, anyone will point out the relative time differences between parts of the old testament happening being longer than the space between the sciptures being written and the current day. by your meaning if no one changed anything to the laws of gravity then in 2000 years we could dismiss newtons writings becuase they were too old?
Well we sort of got stuck on the bible, and speared off on a tangent about the structure of modern Christianity.
You may have, I never once talked about the structure of christianity or any other religion. I see no relevance to the original topic that has to do with the structure of any faith.
If you said the same thing about science you wouldn't be speaking in facts. :-0
Wrong, I wouldn't be speaking scientific facts. Define your terms on what is factual.
:devil (I've been finding this smiley quite appropriate in here)
funny smilies do not sway an article.....:tban
Burakiosaurus
25-10-2007, 01:40 PM
Science is testable and proovable.
it is also very evil, a demon along with marketing.
the twin demons of the last century are science and marketing.
I do not propose to debate the relative translations of the bible. as for the length of time between communications, anyone will point out the relative time differences between parts of the old testament happening being longer than the space between the sciptures being written and the current day. by your meaning if no one changed anything to the laws of gravity then in 2000 years we could dismiss newtons writings becuase they were too old?
Newton's laws are common sense put into big serious words and expanded upon into physics which never actually change what newton said. By your own sarcasm you've shown yourself that science doesn't rewrite itself, but expand upon what is already there that wasn't previously understood. But most creationist sources aren't your simple 1+2=3 but more vauge mataphorical lessons and stories. They are very different, and as more time goes on the words of creationism become more dated, literally edited and altered, and (I feel) loosses lots of meaning.
You may have, I never once talked about the structure of christianity or any other religion. I see no relevance to the original topic that has to do with the structure of any faith.
Yeah, sorry. We was a reference to the greater subconscious connecting us all, and I was compelled to right that... almost as if a benevolent force was guiding my hand. Perhaps a higher power was speaking through me, voicing its outrage for the things man have done to it's advice...
Wrong, I wouldn't be speaking scientific facts. Define your terms on what is factual.
Are you kidding? You want me to define facts? OK... Fact –noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened
Now please, I'd really like to know how to identify a Christian fact... as a fact, and differentiate it from a baseless statement, like the one I made earlier about Jhahova speaking through me.
funny smilies do not sway an article.....:tban
No, but with my stance against creationism, in it's most common interpretation, makes me feel like a cheeky devil. :Clever
Darkstar
25-10-2007, 05:06 PM
Are you kidding? You want me to define facts? OK... Fact –noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened
Sorry for jumping in, but I once saw a ghost. Does that mean they exist as a fact? After all I say its true (just to point out that I am not being sarcastic here :P). But why is that now a fact to anyone else?
People have said that God was behind ID, does that make it a fact now?
Sorry, I had to add a minor and quibbly point. :P
Sorry for jumping in, but I once saw a ghost. Does that mean they exist as a fact? After all I say its true (just to point out that I am not being sarcastic here :P). But why is that now a fact to anyone else?
People have said that God was behind ID, does that make it a fact now?
Sorry, I had to add a minor and quibbly point. :P
Take it up with dictionary.com, but I'd say it has to fit the criteria of all the deffinitions.
PS- Did you get that belt I sent ya? Or did you just think that it looked like crap? :-0
Murph
25-10-2007, 06:44 PM
The previous universe collapsing on itself, and exploding back out again when too dense of a mass was formed?
I know I'm going to start sounding like a parody of myself, so I'll only ask this sort of question one more time; what created the previous universe?
Nemesis Enforcer
25-10-2007, 07:08 PM
I know I'm going to start sounding like a parody of myself, so I'll only ask this sort of question one more time; what created the previous universe?The one before that impolding I expect and so and and so on :lol
There is of course the question of - if 'god' created the universe, then what created 'God'?
Murph
25-10-2007, 07:23 PM
He created himself :D
Darkstar
25-10-2007, 07:38 PM
PS- Did you get that belt I sent ya? Or did you just think that it looked like crap? :-0
Dont remember getting it, but I have been very busy as of late.
Omega
26-10-2007, 08:28 AM
Newton's laws are common sense put into big serious words and expanded upon into physics which never actually change what newton said. By your own sarcasm you've shown yourself that science doesn't rewrite itself, but expand upon what is already there that wasn't previously understood. But most creationist sources aren't your simple 1+2=3 but more vauge mataphorical lessons and stories. They are very different, and as more time goes on the words of creationism become more dated, literally edited and altered, and (I feel) loosses lots of meaning.
I mised the point where I contradicted myself. Science certainly does re-write itself otherwise we'd all still believe that the earth was the center of the universe. As for editing and altered I once again try to point out that despite what any text loteraly says could the actual truth be that god created the universe, however he did it?
Yeah, sorry. We was a reference to the greater subconscious connecting us all, and I was compelled to right that... almost as if a benevolent force was guiding my hand. Perhaps a higher power was speaking through me, voicing its outrage for the things man have done to it's advice...
and you called me sarcastic....
Are you kidding? You want me to define facts? OK... Fact –noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happen
Now please, I'd really like to know how to identify a Christian fact... as a fact, and differentiate it from a baseless statement, like the one I made earlier about Jhahova speaking through me.
1. God exists, prove to me that he doesn't. Any religeous person can tell you a million reasons to say he does.
2. The bible shows these things to have happened, it is a recorded source on these matter (whether you "believe" it is purely subjective, the same as reading a science text book).
3. I observe that things exist and happen that seem to be the work of God therefore it is an acknowledgable truth that God exists and therefore created the earth and all living things on it.
4. I also say it's true and is supposed to have happened. Quod est demonstratum.
No, but with my stance against creationism, in it's most common interpretation, makes me feel like a cheeky devil. :Clever
:dumb
I mised the point where I contradicted myself. Science certainly does re-write itself otherwise we'd all still believe that the earth was the center of the universe.
Just a small point but science as we know it didn't become established until long after natural philosophy had disproved Earth's position at the centre of the universe.
Omega
26-10-2007, 10:03 AM
Just a small point but science as we know it didn't become established until long after natural philosophy had disproved Earth's position at the centre of the universe.
now, you see, thats my whole point. Science was natural philosophy until modern science re-wrote the rules. What people believed to be true subsequently is changed and ruled as stupid. Who is to say all our "modern" science won't be regarded as ilinformed mumbo jumbo in 2 thousand years time?
now, you see, thats my whole point. Science was natural philosophy until modern science re-wrote the rules. What people believed to be true subsequently is changed and ruled as stupid. Who is to say all our "modern" science won't be regarded as ilinformed mumbo jumbo in 2 thousand years time?
Science is a method - the best we currently have - of finding out about the physical world. Natural philosophy was looking at things and thinking about them without any testing to find out if the thoughts were correct or not. By this rationale it would seem appropriate to look at any non-empirical or supernatural beliefs in the same was as natural philosophy - a precursor to science.
In 2,000 years time... who knows? The modern scientific method began, and has been in the process of refinement since, the mid-1500's so we've had nearly 500 years so far. Have a look at the scope of mankind's knowledge 2,000 years ago: how much of today's knowledge could be predicted? Not a bit of it.
So the question of how science might be viewed in 2,000 years is a moot point. The acceleration of discovery in the past 100 years shows no signs of slowing. This being the case, "science" will, in my opinion, continue to grow and add to and amend its bank of knowledge. I'd guess it'd be utterly unrecognisable when compared to what we think of as science today.
Omega
26-10-2007, 11:20 AM
Science is a method - the best we currently have - of finding out about the physical world. Natural philosophy was looking at things and thinking about them without any testing to find out if the thoughts were correct or not. By this rationale it would seem appropriate to look at any non-empirical or supernatural beliefs in the same was as natural philosophy - a precursor to science.
agreed.
In 2,000 years time... who knows? The modern scientific method began, and has been in the process of refinement since, the mid-1500's so we've had nearly 500 years so far. Have a look at the scope of mankind's knowledge 2,000 years ago: how much of today's knowledge could be predicted? Not a bit of it.
So the question of how science might be viewed in 2,000 years is a moot point. The acceleration of discovery in the past 100 years shows no signs of slowing. This being the case, "science" will, in my opinion, continue to grow and add to and amend its bank of knowledge. I'd guess it'd be utterly unrecognisable when compared to what we think of as science today.
I wouldn't say it's a moot point. Part of whats been brought up by twig and ray is how old the information is. i'm just trying to say that if in 2000 years everything is exactly the same in science as now I'd be surprised and shocked. Does that make science more reliable, in my eyes it doesn't because it's not constant in its assertions. (thats not the same thing as saying it's not correct by the way)
I wouldn't say it's a moot point. Part of whats been brought up by twig and ray is how old the information is. i'm just trying to say that if in 2000 years everything is exactly the same in science as now I'd be surprised and shocked. Does that make science more reliable, in my eyes it doesn't because it's not constant in its assertions. (thats not the same thing as saying it's not correct by the way)
It makes science infinitely more reliable because its practitioners know its, and their own, fallibility. If there's any way to show me that science is not the most accurate way of describing the world then I'm all ears.
Omega
26-10-2007, 12:40 PM
It makes science infinitely more reliable because its practitioners know its, and their own, fallibility. If there's any way to show me that science is not the most accurate way of describing the world then I'm all ears.
I'd say basing your belief in somthing that at any point can be disproved by the very structure you believe in isn't very reliable at all.....
I do not dispute accurate though, it is infinitly more detailed and open to examiniation than any religion every will be.
I'd say basing your belief in somthing that at any point can be disproved by the very structure you believe in isn't very reliable at all.....
I do not dispute accurate though, it is infinitly more detailed and open to examiniation than any religion every will be.
By being the most accurate it becomes the most reliable. Any other qualitative statements are redundant.
Sorry for jumping in, but I once saw a ghost. Does that mean they exist as a fact? After all I say its true (just to point out that I am not being sarcastic here :P). But why is that now a fact to anyone else?The fact is that you saw something you percieved to be a ghost. Ghosts existing isn't that fact being debated in your statement. The fact amongst that is that you saw something.
On a note about science, it always amuses me that, for the most part, it's always been easier to describe something as "like something else" rather than the subject matter itself.
Mammoth = Like a hairy elephant
Darkstar
26-10-2007, 01:22 PM
The fact is that you saw something you percieved to be a ghost. Ghosts existing isn't that fact being debated in your statement. The fact amongst that is that you saw something.
In the confines of Twiggies statement it works perfectly well.
Omega
26-10-2007, 01:25 PM
By being the most accurate it becomes the most reliable. Any other qualitative statements are redundant.
Now I disagree there. If we're talking on qualitative status then you can pick and choose your rational. There is no control subject to compare these things against and as we've both agreed they are quatifiable on the same scales. there for it's either any qualitative statement is valid or No qualitatve statement can be applied in this particular debate. Thats like saying add the colour blue and the sound of trees, whatever answer you choose to find is correct because you can follow through your own logic. you can assert the most part as much as you like but i'm sure if I could be bothered I could come up with myown qualitative assesments that would prove what I wanted. ;)
As a follower of Descartes then you should know the only true statement than can be asserted by any individual! :lol
I mised the point where I contradicted myself. Science certainly does re-write itself otherwise we'd all still believe that the earth was the center of the universe. As for editing and altered I once again try to point out that despite what any text loteraly says could the actual truth be that god created the universe, however he did it?
Possibly, but you can't seem to give me any facts on the matter, that can't also "proove" the ridiculous statement about god telling me what to write.
1. God exists, prove to me that he doesn't. Any religeous person can tell you a million reasons to say he does.
Then why haven't I heard one from you?
2. The bible shows these things to have happened, it is a recorded source on these matter (whether you "believe" it is purely subjective, the same as reading a science text book).
The bible says these things happened, but shows nothing, completely unlike science which takes it upon itself to proove its theories.
3. I observe that things exist and happen that seem to be the work of God therefore it is an acknowledgable truth that God exists and therefore created the earth and all living things on it.
4. I also say it's true and is supposed to have happened. Quod est demonstratum.
Your failing you differentiate between observation, and assumption. You're not seeing and observing that what's happening is the work of god, but assuming based on nothing but your preconceived notions that it is.
:dumb
I agree. Seeing as how the nature of the smilies in this context have been to describe the general vibe of your own post. :greets4:
Omega
26-10-2007, 05:01 PM
Possibly, but you can't seem to give me any facts on the matter, that can't also "proove" the ridiculous statement about god telling me what to write.
Then why haven't I heard one from you?
I'm not a religeous man Twig, you should read all my posts. :greets4:
The bible says these things happened, but shows nothing, completely unlike science which takes it upon itself to proove its theories.
potatoe, potatoe (doesn;t really wok as well in text...). proof is what you make it and believe actually proves something. bible proves it to the religeous, text book prove it to the atheist
Your failing you differentiate between observation, and assumption. You're not seeing and observing that what's happening is the work of god, but assuming based on nothing but your preconceived notions that it is.
No, you assume I'm not. I might well know that God has a hand in everything. Try to thkn of that in the philosophical sense rather than the literal.
I agree. Seeing as how the nature of the smilies in this context have been to describe the general vibe of your own post. :greets4:
no need to be nasty twig just *** you don;t like what I have to say...:P
Ok, not trying to be a douche, but I really don't see how the bible proves god. For what I've been taught, god refuses actually proving his existence in favor of earning blind faith from his followers.
This doesn't prove a point, but it shows mindsets. You don't often hear people asking if you've seen the proof of god, but rather if you believe in god.
Something I forgot to stick into a previous post: You said yourself that god doesn't exist in our physical plane. So god's existence is not grounded in reality, therefore ... theres something that ties that into facts...
This is all great fun. :)
Omega
27-10-2007, 03:13 PM
if we can steer clear over whether god exists or the rights and wrongs of religion then I'm happy to keep this going. You should realise that I'm not going to argue about specifics it's the semantics of how you define the reasons why one of the three creation ideas is correct.
if we can steer clear over whether god exists or the rights and wrongs of religion then I'm happy to keep this going. You should realise that I'm not going to argue about specifics it's the semantics of how you define the reasons why one of the three creation ideas is correct.
... but I thought that was the purpose of the thread... :?
Omega
28-10-2007, 12:57 PM
the purpose of the thread was to see what people believed in. not to discuss religion in general. Nothing I've said has been discussing whether any religion or religion in general is right or wrong, what I've been trying to discuss is how you define proof in the context of religion and science.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.