Equilibrium

[Cartel41]

I don't understand why there is a debate. If you want you can interpret the bible or quran or whatever any way you want. Therefore, reconciling sci & relig should not be a problem. When I was younger, I could take scripture and make it fit to any modern problem or situation. I have since stopped but anyone could do it. So the big bang and genesis are not mutually excdlusive, to borrow a term from stats.

With all love peace and violence I can muster.

Kisses

 

[Skwim]

But people don't select their religious beliefs so as to accommodate the findings of science. They choose them to service their emotional needs, and, as is too often the case, the two are incompatible. Therefore, on various points of difference debate arises over which should take precedence as truth.

 

[jonman122]

And it's brutally obvious that Science should take precedence over religion for any debate that occurs, because science only bases its theories and facts off of proven material, you can even look in to the "big bang" theory (which really has nothing to do with banging) if you want more on that. It's far more interesting, and far more likely then the idea that we were poofed here by god one day.

you might as well drop out of science class, because everything in science contradicts the "god done it" theory. There is literally NO corellation between science and scripture, they were two completely different time periods and have nothing to do with each other at all.

if the bible took precedence, heres a few things we'd have "faith" are facts:
*the earth is flat
*the dead can come to life (prove this has occured 3 days after death, not within minutes)
*dragons and unicorns and satyrs exist(ed)
*the earth is 6000 years old
*the universe was created in 6 days
*the stars were created with the light they project about 4/5ths of the way to earth
*the entire planet was flooded (this has been flawlessly disproved with science)

these are just a few small facts thanks.

 

[brbubba]

My experience is that people believe what they want to about the bible. Trying to have an interpretive discussion about bible passages with a bible thumper is impossible. I say, "well you could interpret this like such and such," and they go, "well it's not." And then I say, well you haven't gone back to the original greek/aramaic/etc and translated that, maybe it means something else. And they go, "that doesn't matter."

 

[Eliot Wild]

Yeah, I agree with these other guys. A lot of people are incapable of reconsidering their beliefs even when science or reason exposes them as deficient.

It has been my experience that many religious adherents will cling to their "faith" even in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, there are even those who wear their "faith" as a badge of honor, believing that it makes them a stronger practitioner of their particular religion when they dismiss or even denounce science for its challenge to their subscribed truth.

As to the vagueness of the Bible, that is one of most compelling pieces of evidence as to why I find it incapable of being the infallible word of God. It often lacks the clarity and inarguable soundness that I would expect, or at least HOPE, God would employ in His attempts to communicate truth to mankind. Why not communicate with man in a medium as undefilable and inarguable as mathmatics? When I take two objects and combine them with two other objects, regardless of my natural language or place of origin or the current conditions surrounding me, I will most certainly arrive at the conclusion that I have compiled a group of four objects.

2+2=4. In this simple mathmatic equation, I have expressed four distinctly recognizable concepts. I have expressed the concept of "two"; I have expressed the concept of addition, of combining something with something else; and I have expressed the concept of equality, as well as the concept of "four".

To me, this seem much less vague and inarguable as certain Biblical concepts, even simple ones such as John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whomsoever should believe in him shall have everlasting life . . . " In this passage, the concept of God is arguable and undefined; so too is the concept of "belief" and "everlasting life". Do I need to believe that God has a son? Does this mean that I must believe that Jesus was real? Or do I have to believe that Jesus was the son of God? Or do I need to believe that Jesus was the sacrificial atonement required to save me from sin? And what exactly is meant by "everlasting life"? Will I live forever physically or will my self-awareness continue forever?

Anyway, I hope everyone can see that the cryptic and highly interpretable nature of the Bible leaves open much to still be determined. And this is supposedly one of the easier and more clear passages to wrap our limited understanding around.

 

[gnostic]

Religious don't deal with facts, nor the understanding of nature or man-made technology.

Science and religion are completely unrelated.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes I agree Equilibrium was a pretty sweet movie.

 

[Yerda]

In keeping with the title of the thread I'd like to add that Le Chatelier's principle is wrong cause God makes the world work, and wee chemicals can't do these things by themselves.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't understand why there is a debate. If you want you can interpret the bible or quran or whatever any way you want. Therefore, reconciling sci & relig should not be a problem. When I was younger, I could take scripture and make it fit to any modern problem or situation. I have since stopped but anyone could do it. So the big bang and genesis are not mutually excdlusive, to borrow a term from stats.

With all love peace and violence I can muster.

Kisses

It's amazing that no-one else has ever thought of this.

 

[Epicurus_UK]

I think we should remember that a lot of religious people have been brought up believing this stuff as, for want of a better word, gospel.

I have friends who belong to all three of the major abrahamic religions, and trying to get them to aknowledge scientific fact or philosophic logic is like trying to get comedy out of Jay Leno's writers.

Completely and totally impossible.