The Biblical Believers....

[beefcake28]

In philosphy there are no physical truths, they are meta physical discussions. They continually ask the question, why, but do not tell you how. Most religious types I know love to tell you how. How humans got here. How we can live a fulfilled live. How not to go to hell.

Exactly. No matter what, anytime you try to incorporate, or negate, a religious arguement, even with science... it automatically becomes a philosophical arguement instead of a scientifi one... meaning that there is no assumed correct answer, and the final verdict is left up to the individual.

All I'm pointing out by stating this is... is that initiating a scientific debate that incorporates religion, of any form, is impossible to win. So, what's the point?

Remember: Most "religous types" =/= all "religious types". Some of us are more open minded... or, more educated.

I could believe the EXACT same thing that you do, as far as scientific fact goes, but choose to believe that there is a God behind it all. Does that make me wrong? If so, prove it. It can't be done. Just like I can't PROVE that there is a God behind it. It is a matter of belief.

I know that is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point quite nicely...

 

[Lestat]

Exactly. No matter what, anytime you try to incorporate, or negate, a religious arguement, even with science... it automatically becomes a philosophical arguement instead of a scientifi one... meaning that there is no assumed correct answer, and the final verdict is left up to the individual.

All I'm pointing out by stating this is... is that initiating a scientific debate that incorporates religion, of any form, is impossible to win. So, what's the point?

Remember: Most "religous types" =/= all "religious types". Some of us are more open minded... or, more educated.

I could believe the EXACT same thing that you do, as far as scientific fact goes, but choose to believe that there is a God behind it all. Does that make me wrong? If so, prove it. It can't be done. Just like I can't PROVE that there is a God behind it. It is a matter of belief.

I know that is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point quite nicely...

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

I can believe that plants get their energy through photosynthesis, and you can think that they get it from eating worms, or that god is simply behind it (both false) and I cannot prove that you are wrong?

 

[beefcake28]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

I can believe that plants get their energy through photosynthesis, and you can think that they get it from eating worms, or that god is simply behind it (both false) and I cannot prove that you are wrong?

Dood... What part of "I could believe the EXACT same thing that you do, as far as scientific fact goes" don't you understand? Scientific facts are just that... FACTS. Facts are not up for debate. The science both of us believe in is the same as far as little things like that go...

I'm talking about things like the "Big Bang". You could believe that the "Big Bang" happened at random, and I'll believe in the "Big Bang" as well, only I'll believe that there was a God causing it. Neither one of us can prove the other wrong, as the laws of Physics don't allow for that kind of definition, only speculation...

For example: Let's say you are in a room, and something that sounds like a gunshot happens... You ask "what caused that?". Someone tells you "nothing, it happened at random", or comes up with a theory about how the sound could have happened. Do you choose to believe in random (or the theory), or do you believe in a cause behind it? That's what it all boils down to... Same with the "Big Bang". You can believe that it happened at random, and I can believe it happened because of a cause (i.e. a God causing it), but regardless, we both believe it happened... Trying to prove it either way is impossible.

I understand photosynthesis, and agree completely with it. I'm a chemistry geek. If you want to debate that stuff, it's pointless, because I believe in all the same science stuff you do. No educated Christian would try and debate PROVEN scientific principles when we agree with them.

 

[puddlemonkey]

Just go with agnostic and you wont have to deal with these debates anymore.

 

[Lestat]

Dood... What part of "I could believe the EXACT same thing that you do, as far as scientific fact goes" don't you understand? Scientific facts are just that... FACTS. Facts are not up for debate. The science both of us believe in is the same as far as little things like that go...

I'm talking about things like the "Big Bang". You could believe that the "Big Bang" happened at random, and I'll believe in the "Big Bang" as well, only I'll believe that there was a God causing it. Neither one of us can prove the other wrong, as the laws of Physics don't allow for that kind of definition, only speculation...

For example: Let's say you are in a room, and something that sounds like a gunshot happens... You ask "what caused that?". Someone tells you "nothing, it happened at random", or comes up with a theory about how the sound could have happened. Do you choose to believe in random (or the theory), or do you believe in a cause behind it? That's what it all boils down to... Same with the "Big Bang". You can believe that it happened at random, and I can believe it happened because of a cause (i.e. a God causing it), but regardless, we both believe it happened... Trying to prove it either way is impossible.

I understand photosynthesis, and agree completely with it. I'm a chemistry geek. If you want to debate that stuff, it's pointless, because I believe in all the same science stuff you do. No educated Christian would try and debate PROVEN scientific principles when we agree with them.

Ok I see your point a bit more clearer now.

With regards to the big bang, an excellent example, there are many possible causes for something like that. Just because you cannot prove any single one 100% correct, or in this case you can't prove that any theory did NOT happen, does not make all possibilities equally as likely to exist. We have a decent idea of how things came to be, its not 100% bulletproof quite yet, but science rarely is. You take the collection of all of the knowns in the world, and use it the figure out unknowns. Its ever expanding and evoling.

You can have your theory, and I can have mine, but that doesn't mean they are as equally likely.

 

[biteme]

God exists, I have met him. Oh well, noone will believe me anyway so it doesn't matter.

 

[beefcake28]

Ok I see your point a bit more clearer now.

With regards to the big bang, an excellent example, there are many possible causes for something like that. Just because you cannot prove any single one 100% correct, or in this case you can't prove that any theory did NOT happen, does not make all possibilities equally as likely to exist. We have a decent idea of how things came to be, its not 100% bulletproof quite yet, but science rarely is. You take the collection of all of the knowns in the world, and use it the figure out unknowns. Its ever expanding and evoling.

You can have your theory, and I can have mine, but that doesn't mean they are as equally likely.

Even Stephen Hawking's most recent theories on the "Big Bang" are circular in nature... if you have something better than his ideas, I'd love to hear it. I am VERY familiar with his arguements, among other prominent physicists, so take your best shot. By what standard to you compare one arguement to another? Circular arguements carry no more weight than arguements formed through pure speculation.

You are exactly right... We do have a very good idea of how things came to be, and chances are, that I believe the same things you do as far as that goes. What we don't know is what (if anything) caused things to become what they are... and that is where the plausibility of religion fits in. The current laws of Physics cannot define that for us, so it becomes a personal decision at that point.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

Hey beefcake, didnt we talk about this a bit when we walked by that Christian scientist building the other day... ironic lestat is jumping in the middle of an argument like this posting rhetorical nonsense, but that's just his nature. I too am a Christian with a BS in biology and dont feel the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Lestat]

Even Stephen Hawking's most recent theories on the "Big Bang" are circular in nature... if you have something better than his ideas, I'd love to hear it. I am VERY familiar with his arguements, among other prominent physicists, so take your best shot. By what standard to you compare one arguement to another? Circular arguements carry no more weight than arguements formed through pure speculation.

You are exactly right... We do have a very good idea of how things came to be, and chances are, that I believe the same things you do as far as that goes. What we don't know is what (if anything) caused things to become what they are... and that is where the plausibility of religion fits in. The current laws of Physics cannot define that for us, so it becomes a personal decision at that point.

I find the theories of the Big Bang that i've heard to be much more rational, logical, and just make more sense than anything pertaining to the origin of earth and all its species that I've read in the Bible. Its been shown clearly that evolution is how so much complex life came to be on earth, so if something more complex than us set it all in motion, the first question I'd ask is, who was responsible for that being, and so on. Its an infinite regression that you cannot escape, unlike a circular argument that will become more linear as we get more evidence.

 

[juiceddreadlocks]

Raise your keyboard if you're actually familiar with the scientific method? Internal and external evidence testing? Basic statistical methods?