Why not God AND Science?

[hero]

Search for Matrix and Buddhism, I think you'll find it has Buddhist themes, the problem with this debate is your own perceptions.

I found it ironical, not key to any debate, but I agree that perspective is key, and should you read to some of my previous threads, you would know that this is a problem that i have already addressed and am attempting to rectify. It takes two to tango.

 

[flupke]

Your stereotyping of religious people has again failed to gain perspective of me. You said it was stupid, not I. I will not say it is beneath me. In fact if you look back I said I found it fascinating. If you wish to discuss it I am more than willing to read any info you are willing to send me or post. You cannot expect me to wake up and deside I have been living a lie. Because I haven't. To say God does not exists is the equivelant of saying to me that I myself don't exist. I am willing to learn, as you are not. Are you afaid of self-confrontation, of finding the truth, or do you believe that a lunatic or ancient author has managed to fool billions. Consider that statement, but dont reply. Their have been far too many topics abandoned. When you reply let us continue on one topic, and not stray. Take turns from one anothers perspective, and then form and opinion of your own.

You throw a lot of garbage at me without knowing what I have considered about 'spirituality'. You're completely assuming I didn't. I was religious at your age.
But these type of 'personal histories of believing' are not revealing anything.

I'll ask you again, and please just give an answer if you want to discuss. So far you've only been evading the question:
1. Do you think the evolutionary theory IS right ?
2. Do you think the evolutionary theory COULD BE right ?
3. Do you think the evolutionary theory IS NOT right ?

I expect you to say yes to at least one of these questions. If you say 3, could you tell me why ?

 

[flupke]

I did not grow up Catholic, but was instead raised in a very Protestant, southern christian church, and I too, could not make logical sense out of what was being told to me. I wanted it to. I still want it too.

I strongly agree. I think many atheists would 'want' there to be 'something else'. After all, the idea of a paradise is much more attractive than the common atheist's option: nothing.

This 'desire' for 'something more' seems to reach incredible proportions in some believers, to such an extent that they'll do anything to defend it. Some people think they're Napoleon, others think there is a God. Both groups of people have in common that they "just feel or know it". They don't need evidence, their "heart tells them so". How do believers know their brain is not tricking them ?





You speak to Flapke and others as if they have no concept of your God. Many times you will discover the person you are talking to, not only has a good concept of your God, but oftentimes they are former beleivers, sometimes, as in the case of myself, they are people who fervently want to become beleivers again, but cannot due to a need to be intellectually honest with one's self.

I am not intending to talk down to you because you are 15. I am just over twice your age, but I recall with very good detail, how I felt at that age. However, I promise you, as you age, if you truly look into any subject not just one as ethereal as religion, you will discover that although uncertainty is uncomfortable, certainty about any such subject is absurd. (not my original thought, but don't recall the original author to give him credit).

I think it is wonderful you are here debating. But be sure you debate with an open mind. Debates are great ways to learn, but only if you are willing to keep opposing thoughts in your head at the same time. If you are of the opinion that your conception of God is correct to the exclusion of any other possibilities, then you, right there, are not debating with an open mind. I am not saying, you must immediately renounce your beleifs, nothing could be farther from the truth.

But, you have to be at least able to entertain the thought, or you are not debating honestly, and with an open mind.

B.[/QUOTE]

 

[hero]

Hero,

Flupke already told you he grew up Catholic and in a search to attempt to make christianity make logical sense to him, discovered enough information to turn him into a confirmed athiest.

He did not grow up in a Catholic church by decision, hence grew up in. And he searched for logic in science not christianity. Perhaps you should read what it is you reply to. This brings me to a topic that i have preached about. He may have been brought up knowing what to believe, but not why. Seeing as how none of us knows flupke's past, perhaps we should stay away from asumption hmm.

I did not grow up Catholic, but was instead raised in a very Protestant, southern christian church, and I too, could not make logical sense out of what was being told to me. I wanted it to. I still want it too. I began my search into history, theology, and science in an effort to bring me closer to God, to allow me to be both intellectually honest and a good Christian. For me, and for many others I know, the search into these areas, despite the reasons for beginning the search, it often ends up at the same destination.

Another prime example of being brought up knowing the truth, but not knowing what makes it true. Pride is what obstructs our vision. Sounds like you looked for God everywhere but in his word.

You speak to Flupke and others as if they have no concept of your God. Many times you will discover the person you are talking to, not only has a good concept of your God, but oftentimes they are former beleivers, sometimes, as in the case of myself, they are people who fervently want to become beleivers again, but cannot due to a need to be intellectually honest with one's self.

Put it into perspective. You know about God. I know God. Who really knows more about Him. God is not their one moment and gone the next. It is you going in and out of believing, thus only your perspective that deceives you. Pride blinds. Humble yourself and you will see.
Story: "A communist soldier said to a christian he was beating, "I am all powerful as you suppose your God to be." "I can kill you."
The christian replied, "The power is all mine...I can love you while you torture me to death."

I am not intending to talk down to you because you are 15. I am just over twice your age, but I recall with very good detail, how I felt at that age. However, I promise you, as you age, if you truly look into any subject not just one as ethereal as religion, you will discover that although uncertainty is uncomfortable, certainty about any such subject is absurd. (not my original thought, but don't recall the original author to give him credit).

I think it is wonderful you are here debating. But be sure you debate with an open mind. Debates are great ways to learn, but only if you are willing to keep opposing thoughts in your head at the same time. If you are of the opinion that your conception of God is correct to the exclusion of any other possibilities, then you, right there, are not debating with an open mind. I am not saying, you must immediately renounce your beleifs, nothing could be farther from the truth.

But, you have to be at least able to entertain the thought, or you are not debating honestly, and with an open mind.

B.

If you did not intend to talk down to me then why dont you just use the "backspace" key like everyone else. It is not as though you did not know you could, but you didn't wont too. This miniscule wisdom of perspective has in only a slight moment revealed the amount of pride you carry. And if that makes you angry to hear than you only further prove my point. I have used this analogy several times in several different was but it often has wisdom to share:
Who would learn more about what a rainbow looks like, a blind man who for thiry years has had it described to him, or a man who has looked at one for a year. In this way your experience is vain. But why does experience bring wisdom in the first place. Because you have learned from your past mistakes, like a blind man not seeing where he is going, or simply a fifteen year old who can see and decides not to make meaningless mistakes. If a drugatic spends 20 years overcoming an addiction and a youth never falls to it, have not both learned to overcome it.
"knowledge comes in knowing that you know nothing." I understand what you are saying about cerainty and insertainties. In such a thought as certainty and incertainty to completely rule something out is to dismiss it certainly, making the very thought untrue in degree, find where its truth lies before you quote it. Understanding is the knowlege of why. Wisdom is knowing how to apply knowledge.{that is only one step to a greater wisdom, take baby steps.} It is obvious that you have neither wisdom nor understanding of that which you speak. You may have knowlegde but your tripod is broken. In my own theological concept i have made truth into a tripod. A tripod has three legs, and unless it has all three it cannot stand. Of the three legs, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, you have one. You will find that in our faith we will acknowledge that some of what we believe in we cannot entirely defend on these three. But we have been told the truth, the bible, and we many times will keep it true by faith, and others fill in the hole with its possible solution. but you have only one of three legs of truth, for someone with no faith, you sure do exercise it. Incase you havent noticed, the open perspective has been my line for several threads, but thanx for caring.
Dont take the debate personally, I am "attacking" your argument not you, but the argument comes from withing your own heart, and if your own heart offends you,it is simply another example of pride.
Cheers.

 

[flupke]

Again you prove how little you know about the God you don't believe in, the existance for me is not a matter of question, and for reasons you will fail to understand as you obviously have after my many explanations already given.

What's their to know about something that doesn't exist ?
I haven't read any 'explanation' from you, other than your personal life story about how you became religious at some point and some preaching about the fact that I'm not open to god. I'm still waiting for any real argument.

I find it ironical that you used the Matrix as an analogy for my life decision, considering, the Matrix is a movie containing biblical themes.

Well, you still didn't tell me which color pill you'd like, which is the only reason for the analogy.

 

[flupke]

He did not grow up in a Catholic church by decision, hence grew up in. And he searched for logic in science not christianity. Perhaps you should read what it is you reply to. This brings me to a topic that i have preached about. He may have been brought up knowing what to believe, but not why. Seeing as how none of us knows flupke's past, perhaps we should stay away from asumption hmm.

Preaching. You're telling "how things are" without argument.

Another prime example of being brought up knowing the truth, but not knowing what makes it true. Pride is what obstructs our vision. Sounds like you looked for God everywhere but in his word.

Some more preaching.

Put it into perspective. You know about God. I know God. Who really knows more about Him. God is not their one moment and gone the next. It is you going in and out of believing, thus only your perspective that deceives you. Pride blinds. Humble yourself and you will see.
Story: "A communist soldier said to a christian he was beating, "I am all powerful as you suppose your God to be." "I can kill you."
The christian replied, "The power is all mine...I can love you while you torture me to death."

And more preaching. Sure, god's not there one moment and gone the next. He's either there or not. That's the discussion. So instead of preaching some more about "our perspectives", it would be nice to give a real argument as to WHY you think he's there.
Can you do that ?

A tripod has three legs, and unless it has all three it cannot stand. Of the three legs, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, you have one.

An old statement about tripods and life, but this type of statements, again, doesn't help anyone any further.

but you have only one of three legs of truth, for someone with no faith, you sure do exercise it.

I'll give it one more try to make you see: instead of saying that we're "missing a leg", you have to prove we're missing it. On the same note, I can easily say it's you who is missing a leg. This kind of childish discussion doesn't help anyone any further.

 

[hero]

You throw a lot of garbage at me without knowing what I have considered about 'spirituality'. You're completely assuming I didn't. I was religious at your age.
But these type of 'personal histories of believing' are not revealing anything.

I'll ask you again, and please just give an answer if you want to discuss. So far you've only been evading the question:
1. Do you think the evolutionary theory IS right ?
2. Do you think the evolutionary theory COULD BE right ?
3. Do you think the evolutionary theory IS NOT right ?

I expect you to say yes to at least one of these questions. If you say 3, could you tell me why ?

I appologize for offending you flupke, but had I thought you to have seen the truth about God, I dont believe you would be an atheist. But more to the topic. I believe that the evolution theory is all three, but primarily number 2. You yourself said not too "buy" into science. And I said it was good advice. I am not using your word against you, I know what you meant by it, and still I agree as to the methods of scientists. I believe that what we have learned from researching the theory is true, but my faith (Christianity) goes over that with which the theory is taken true. Parts of it in my opinion are yet to be discovered, and many revalations need to occur before anyone can say its true or untrue. Such things as this and many creationist views I find ignorant to debate simply because we ourselves are ignorant at the current time.

 

[flupke]

I appologize for offending you flupke, but had I thought you to have seen the truth about God, I dont believe you would be an atheist.

Had I thought you'd be more science-minded, I thought you'd have been an atheist. But anyway, let's stick to the topic as you say:

But more to the topic. I believe that the evolution theory is all three, but primarily number 2. You yourself said not too "buy" into science. And I said it was good advice. I am not using your word against you, I know what you meant by it, and still I agree as to the methods of scientists. I believe that what we have learned from researching the theory is true, but my faith (Christianity) goes over that with which the theory is taken true. Parts of it in my opinion are yet to be discovered, and many revalations need to occur before anyone can say its true or untrue. Such things as this and many creationist views I find ignorant to debate simply because we ourselves are ignorant at the current time.

You just made a logical error. 1 and 3 are mutually exclusive. That being said, I'll assume you mean just 2.

Next question:

IF evolutionary theory is right, do you see that as a contradiction to your belief ?

Whether you answer yes or no, please specify why.

 

[hero]

Had I thought you'd be more science-minded, I thought you'd have been an atheist. But anyway, let's stick to the topic as you say:



You just made a logical error. 1 and 3 are mutually exclusive. That being said, I'll assume you mean just 2.

Next question:

IF evolutionary theory is right, do you see that as a contradiction to your belief ?

Whether you answer yes or no, please specify why.

It all goes back to the lack of what we know about so many things. I simply choose to make no opinion. I believe that is why their are so many meaningless debates. Everyone wonts to have something to say about something. I think it is a pride issue really, but I would just prefer not to argue for something ignorantly. I know what you mean about the logical error, but I made statements for all three. I find no point in arguing "if" evolution theory is right or wrong. It seems too much like arguing for the sake of arguing. I will acknowledge that it could contradict my belief on what is said in Genesis, but don't find what is said there very relevant to what I hold true about the bible(Not that I hold part true and part false). I guess my answer is more yes than no, but it all goes back to your harry potter argument, in an alternate universe.........

 

[hero]

I strongly agree. I think many atheists would 'want' there to be 'something else'. After all, the idea of a paradise is much more attractive than the common atheist's option: nothing.

This 'desire' for 'something more' seems to reach incredible proportions in some believers, to such an extent that they'll do anything to defend it. Some people think they're Napoleon, others think there is a God. Both groups of people have in common that they "just feel or know it". They don't need evidence, their "heart tells them so". How do believers know their brain is not tricking them ?

This I disagree with this. In my walk I don't consentrate on the destination, I could care less whether I live or die. Perhaps this is the nature of love.
(My)Thought: The present is the pasts future, and the futures past. In all elements of time their is the present(perspectively). To live in the future is just a dream, and the past naught but a memory. Is all the life that we see and know a journey then. Maybe so. What then is the destination?
It is an intriguing thought. I dont focus on the destination, because it is fantasy. It is something that in my present perspective I will never see in the journey, the journey being my life. The destination is the outcome of the journey, and I can not live the destination in the present. Why then focus on what in your life's perspective you will never know.
My faith has nothing to do with heaven or hell to me. It has to do with love, and how I live my life.

 

[hero]

Preaching. You're telling "how things are" without argument.

If you wont to argue logic, go ahead, the discussion is open.

And more preaching. Sure, god's not there one moment and gone the next. He's either there or not. That's the discussion. So instead of preaching some more about "our perspectives", it would be nice to give a real argument as to WHY you think he's there. Can you do that ?

The truth is you could care less WHY He's their because that would be to say that He's their, and you are unwilling to move out of your comfort zone of childish arguments, onto the world of theology and what makes sense. Knowledge of why...didn't I say that that was understanding.

An old statement about tripods and life, but this type of statements, again, doesn't help anyone any further.

This is not old, but self-made. If it has been stated upon before, please give me a reference.

I'll give it one more try to make you see:

It is kind of like the deaf teaching the blind for you to make me see, only I am neither deaf nor blind, only mute.

I'll give it one more try to make you see: instead of saying that we're "missing a leg", you have to prove we're missing it. On the same note, I can easily say it's you who is missing a leg. This kind of childish discussion doesn't help anyone any further.

I can not prove an analogical statement, your supposed to use logic. This "preaching" your speaking of is called philosophy, and all you've managed to do is complain about it. It is either debate or stay quiet on the matter, but complaining without reason is far more childish than philosophy. In fact weren't many of the early scientists philosophers, Galilao, Newton... Maybe the only reason this "childish discussion doesn't help is because the side your on isn't a discussion, but a complaint. If you wont to complain, use logic.
[/QUOTE]

 

[St0ne]

I recent observation I've made is that Christian are increasingly accepting that the story of creation in the Bible is not actually how it happened, I personally feel that any Christian who see's Christianity and Science as compatible actually must accept this as truth as science is eigther applicible in all 'time' or not applicible at all. The idea that science is not at all applicable is just nonsense and completely illogical because the only way to defend that idea is with a circular fallicy.

In fact it seems that more and more christians are 'leaving' the old testement behind and living by Jesus rather than by God (lets please leave that for another thread) I see theological problems with this but as far as Christians being at peace with other religions\cultures, etc I think it is a much more noble form of Christianity.

Does anyone else agree with this observation?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Hero,

You finally convinced me. I am going to quit thinking and simply beleive. You are a very compelling debater.

You, my good man, are a slippery fish. Congratulations on that, if nothing else.

I read your reply to my most recent post 3 times, and honest to goodness, I cannot make head's nor tails of what point you are trying to make.

I have the impression that you are an ultra religious person who refuses to accept any thoughts that do not fall directly in line with what you have chosen to beleive, with absolutely not a single bit of tangible evidence to back up those beleifs. If and when you show me the ability to have two divergent thoughts in your head at the same time, I will revise my opinion of you.

You speak of my pride, but I don't understand upon what you base this assessment. I tell you, in all honesty that I was raised in a christian church, and it was my study of history and theology that led to my religious skepticism/agnosticism/athiesm, and you tell me that I am wrong for looking to science in regard to theological questions. I really have no idea where you came up with that. I do look to science, but it was hardly science alone that led me to the point I am at today.

Flapke has asked you some straight forward questions, that you have artfully dodged. I will now make my own attempts.

1. Do you beleive that God literally created the universe/earth/life, as it says in Genesis?

2. Do you beleive in a literal Noahic Flood?

3. Do you beleive The Exodus occured?

4. Do you ascribe to Young Earth theory?

5. Are you a biblical literalist?

6. Is there any more reason to beleive in the God of the Bible than there is to beleive in Zeuss, Athena, Appollo, Ra, etc. . . ? If so, why?

A straight answer to any or all of these questions would be appreciated. This should give us some debate topics.

B.

 

[Blade]

One thing I want to know is what makes you believe so much in your scientific beliefs?

 

[mr.guy]

What makes you believe in toasters?

 

[hero]

Hero,
You finally convinced me. I am going to quit thinking and simply beleive. You are a very compelling debater.

If only that were true.

You, my good man, are a slippery fish. Congratulations on that, if nothing else.

I read your reply to my most recent post 3 times, and honest to goodness, I cannot make head's nor tails of what point you are trying to make.

What don't you understand. If you wont to know what I believe is true, allow me to try to make you understand.

I have the impression that you are an ultra religious person who refuses to accept any thoughts that do not fall directly in line with what you have chosen to beleive, with absolutely not a single bit of tangible evidence to back up those beleifs. If and when you show me the ability to have two divergent thoughts in your head at the same time, I will revise my opinion of you.

Tangiblitiy of something 2000 years old, sorry, but I don't play in sandboxes anymore. You can neither prove nor disprove spiritual with physical. That is why this debate is about God and science, not just science. If all you look at is science all you will see is science. My ablility to logic leaves me without divergent thoughts.

You speak of my pride, but I don't understand upon what you base this assessment. I tell you, in all honesty that I was raised in a christian church, and it was my study of history and theology that led to my religious skepticism/agnosticism/athiesm, and you tell me that I am wrong for looking to science in regard to theological questions. I really have no idea where you came up with that. I do look to science, but it was hardly science alone that led me to the point I am at today.

Tell me by what logic it is that you have reached this... "decision"

1. Do you beleive that God literally created the universe/earth/life, as it says in Genesis?

Simply put, yes, but please recognize the futility in a creationist argument.

2. Do you beleive in a literal Noahic Flood?

Yes. Do I have evidense of something that happened over 6000 years ago, no...again futile.

3. Do you beleive The Exodus occured?

Yes. Again I have no evidense.

5. Are you a biblical literalist?

Words, have meanings, I choose to see the meanings in the words, this is not evading the question, their are differents interpretations for different verses.

6. Is there any more reason to beleive in the God of the Bible than there is to beleive in Zeuss, Athena, Appollo, Ra, etc. . . ? If so, why?

I believe in a God that created man, not that was created by man.

 

[hero]

What makes you believe in toasters?

I can see a toaster, what makes you believe in your brain?

 

[hero]

I recent observation I've made is that Christian are increasingly accepting that the story of creation in the Bible is not actually how it happened, I personally feel that any Christian who see's Christianity and Science as compatible actually must accept this as truth as science is eigther applicible in all 'time' or not applicible at all. The idea that science is not at all applicable is just nonsense and completely illogical because the only way to defend that idea is with a circular fallicy.

In fact it seems that more and more christians are 'leaving' the old testement behind and living by Jesus rather than by God (lets please leave that for another thread) I see theological problems with this but as far as Christians being at peace with other religions\cultures, etc I think it is a much more noble form of Christianity.

Does anyone else agree with this observation?

Much is unsaid about creation, why debate what you dont know.

 

[hero]

For everyone who is debating with me:

I am getting bored with science, I am learning nothing from you people, however, whenever flupke replies to my thought of past present and future, I would like to move on into theological philosophy.

 

[linwood]

I can see a toaster, what makes you believe in your brain?

He can observe the effects of his brain.
He can see visual evidence of anothers brain he can see an MRI of his own.

It`s an evidenced FACT that he could not exist without his brain

That was the point of his statement as if you didn`t realise.

I think I now know why you`ve spent 4 pages unable to learn anything in a debate with two or three of the most knowledgeable posters here on these subjects.