When it comes to Prayer 76% of Americans Don't Give a **** About the Constitution

[Shadow Wolf]

So why would you possibly be opposed to a not more than one page in the biology text book covering the beliefs of well over 50% of our population that a higher power was involved in the creation/evolutionary process presented as one theory

Because popularity is not a way of testing scientific accuracy. It's not even an argument, except for how popular something is. Most people believe a lot of false things, and they aren't taught taught anywhere except for social science classes that cover parts of how sometimes commonly held "knowledge" is not a fact.

why shouldn't people be given choices in what they believe.

People still believe in a flat Earth, but if it's even mentioned in a science book it is inevitable that it will be followed by saying it's false. People can believe what they want, but if it's not science it doesn't belong in a science class. Much like how history has no room in a math class. Creationism can be taught in classes where the context is appropriate, such as philosophy or comparative religion, but it doesn't belong in a science class.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

total BS, theories are never facts, facts are not theories, they are to distinctly different things with different definitions. Established facts like the existence of germs might start out as theories, but once you can see them under he microscope they become facts and are no longer theories. Ask a scientist.

I have. I've heard it explain by numerous prominent scientists. I've read it in numerous books. Gravity is a theory, but I don't know anyone who is of sound mind that is going to think it's possible to survive jumping off the Empire State building. We feel the shifts of plate tectonics as earthquaks, but plate tectonics are a theory. The flammability of oxygen is a theory even though you see warning signs on every oxygen canister.

 

[Lyndon]

Because popularity is not a way of testing scientific accuracy. It's not even an argument, except for how popular something is. Most people believe a lot of false things, and they aren't taught taught anywhere except for social science classes that cover parts of how sometimes commonly held "knowledge" is not a fact.

People still believe in a flat Earth, but if it's even mentioned in a science book it is inevitable that it will be followed by saying it's false. People can believe what they want, but if it's not science it doesn't belong in a science class. Much like how history has no room in a math class. Creationism can be taught in classes where the context is appropriate, such as philosophy or comparative religion, but it doesn't belong in a science class.

That's what you don't seem to understand, God is part of science just like quasars, nebulas, and galaxies are part of science, there is nothing unscientific about giving some mention to the theory that God exists and is involved in creation

 

[Lyndon]

Search Results (for is gravity a theory or a fact, this is at the top of the page, google seach)

Conclusion: Gravitation is a known fact or a law of nature, as much as that this iPad I am typing on is a solid or that birds fly. Attempts to explain its dynamics, like general relativity, loop quantum gravity, string theory etc. are theories.
Is gravity a law or a theory? - Quora

https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-a-law-or-a-theory
Quora

 

[Shadow Wolf]

God is part of science just like quasars, nebulas, and galaxies are part of science

Nebulas and other galaxies can be seen by the naked eye under certain circumstances. I'm not sure about quasars, but we've seen those on telescopes. God, we haven't seen.

 

[McBell]

Because if God exists, God is part of science, so the existence of God is not non science at all, the existence of God/gods is ONE plausible hypothesis as to how life came to be so complex and didn't self destruct as one would predict by science.

IF
Biggest little word in world.

For example, If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

The "If" game is fun, I freely admit.
However, it does not help your beliefs to those outside your choir.

That God is not required to explain things does not mean that god does not exist.
It only means that god is not required.

Until such time as you can show that god is required...

 

[Lyndon]

Well I've seen God, and I've never seen a Nebula or a quasar but I believe they exist, what's you're point, that nebulas and Quasars are more important to us than God??

 

[McBell]

That's what you don't seem to understand, God is part of science just like quasars, nebulas, and galaxies are part of science, there is nothing unscientific about giving some mention to the theory that God exists and is involved in creation

God has not been shown to exist outside the wishful thinking of the choir.
It has not been shown that the universe was created.

Other than those two glaring points, you are correct.

 

[McBell]

Well I've seen God, and I've never seen a Nebula or a quasar but I believe they exist, what's you're point, that nebulas and Quasars are more important to us than God??

My neighbor sees Vietcong in our neighborhood on a daily basis.
What is your point?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Search Results (for is gravity a theory or a fact, this is at the top of the page, google seach)

Conclusion: Gravitation is a known fact or a law of nature, as much as that this iPad I am typing on is a solid or that birds fly. Attempts to explain its dynamics, like general relativity, loop quantum gravity, string theory etc. are theories.
Is gravity a law or a theory? - Quora

https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-a-law-or-a-theory
Quora

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.

 

[crossfire]

Silly question: when science speaks of Nature, is science talking about god? (Perhaps this would be a question for the philosophy department down the hall?)

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If you see leaves fluttering on trees you know the wind is blowing but you do not see the wind. When you see the works of God you should know God exists but your eyes have been blinded and you do not realize what you are seeing.That is what makes it difficult for people, God is invisible like the wind but you do not want to believe in God so you deny His existance but you accept the existence of the wind because you say it is natural movement of the air. And you cannot see the air either. So it comes down to faith. Almost everyone has faith that the air exists but not everyone has faith in God. And it is not your fault. God does not give faith to everyone. So He does not expect everyone to believe in Him. But you do not have to say that people who do believe are wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I've seen God, and I've never seen a Nebula or a quasar but I believe they exist, what's you're point, that nebulas and Quasars are more important to us than God??

My point is that everyone can see a nebula, quasar, or another galaxy, but there is no evidence for the existence of god.

 

[McBell]

If you see leaves fluttering on trees you know the wind is blowing but you do not see the wind. When you see the works of God you should know God exists but your eyes have been blinded and you do not realize what you are seeing.That is what makes it difficult for people, God is invisible like the wind but you do not want to believe in God so you deny His existance but you accept the existence of the wind because you say it is natural movement of the air. And you cannot see the air either. So it comes down to faith. Almost everyone has faith that the air exists but not everyone has faith in God. And it is not your fault. God does not give faith to everyone. So He does not expect everyone to believe in Him. But you do not have to say that people who do believe are wrong.

I agree.
If god exists it is as if he doesn't exist.

I hear all manner of claims that god did this or god did that.
But never have I seen or found any thing to support said claim outside the wishful thinking of the claimant.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you see leaves fluttering on trees you know the wind is blowing but you do not see the wind. When you see the works of God you should know God exists but your eyes have been blinded and you do not realize what you are seeing.That is what makes it difficult for people, God is invisible like the wind but you do not want to believe in God so you deny His existance but you accept the existence of the wind because you say it is natural movement of the air. And you cannot see the air either. So it comes down to faith. Almost everyone has faith that the air exists but not everyone has faith in God. And it is not your fault. God does not give faith to everyone. So He does not expect everyone to believe in Him. But you do not have to say that people who do believe are wrong.

The theory that wind makes leaves blow is testable.
I could use a leaf blower to create wind, & show a direct
causal correlation between where I aim, & where leaves blow.
This doesn't require faith.

But the theory that God does this or that....how could you
test it? I've never seen anyone propose a falsifiable experiment.
This is why we don't teach religious beliefs in science classes.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Well, again, you were not given the faith needed to believe. God only gives it to those who will use it wisely and the rest are left in the dark. You are happy with your beliefs and I am happy with mine. Neither of us will ever convince the other.

 

[Skwim]

total BS, theories are never facts, facts are not theories, they are to distinctly different things with different definitions. Established facts like the existence of germs might start out as theories, but once you can see them under he microscope they become facts and are no longer theories. Ask a scientist.

True.

Because if God exists, God is part of science,

Nice to see you qualify god's existence with "if." It goes a long way in explaining one reason why he can't be part of science. Science doesn't say things like X + Y + Z = 2.557 if god exists. Why? because it doesn't do anything for science. All it does is lend doubt to a the mutterings of science. Of course, if the part god plays in science is just a transcendent god-is-everywhere kind of thing then the part he plays is moot. It begs to be ignored.

so the existence of God is not non science at all,

Okay, then explain the scientific nature of god existence.

the existence of God/gods is ONE plausible hypothesis as to how life came to be so complex and didn't self destruct as one would predict by science.

Fine. Where's your evidence? So far no one who has proposed such a hypothesis has gotten any further than mere assertion. There's been plenty of concocted scenarios of course, but in the end all have come to naught because god is not subject to scientific inquiry. It's like saying such and such happened and then this and that happened and then god stuck his finger in the pot. It does nothing to advance our understanding of the world. It becomes the infamous god of the gaps crutch.


.

 

[crossfire]

Silly question: when science speaks of Nature, is science talking about god? (Perhaps this would be a question for the philosophy department down the hall?)

You've got pantheism, panentheism, monism/idealism, as the cataphatic theological concepts.
Science works via negation: disproving things. If an idea/theory is going to be investigated scientifically, then there must be a way to be able to disprove it. Otherwise, it is outside the realm of science.

Therefore, science seems to be best suited for the apophatic approach. God is not this, not that. Trying to force cataphatic concepts into science is not going to work, because science is apophatic in its method.

 

[Lyndon]

True.

Nice to see you qualify god's existence with "if." It goes a long way in explaining one reason why he can't be part of science. Science doesn't say things like X + Y + Z = 2.557 if god exists. Why? because it doesn't do anything for science. All it does is lend doubt to a the mutterings of science. Of course, if the part god plays in science is just a transcendent god-is-everywhere kind of thing then the part he plays is moot. It begs to be ignored.

Okay, then explain the scientific nature of god existence.


Fine. Where's your evidence? So far no one who has proposed such a hypothesis has gotten any further than mere assertion. There's been plenty of concocted scenarios of course, but in the end all have come to naught because god is not subject to scientific inquiry. It's like saying such and such happened and then this and that happened and then god stuck his finger in the pot. It does nothing to advance our understanding of the world. It becomes the infamous god of the gaps crutch.


.

You don't seem to understand that science is in its infancy, what we know by science is vastly outnumbered by what we don't know, yet. To claim that because we don't yet have quantifiable scientific evidence of God's existence, hence God doesn't exist is pure stupidity. No different from saying we don't have scientific proof of how to cure AIDS hence a cure cannot exist.

 

[Skwim]

You don't seem to understand that science is in its infancy, what we know by science is vastly outnumbered by what we don't know, yet. To claim that because we don't yet have quantifiable scientific evidence of God's existence, hence God doesn't exist is pure stupidity. No different from saying we don't have scientific proof of how to cure AIDS hence a cure cannot exist.

You claimed without qualification that "the existence of God is not non science at all," or in other words, "the existence of God is science." So, show us the science and stop the tap dancing.


.