atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

There's a difference to what you think is the way the universe works and the way the universe actually does work. If aerodynamics is contradictory to you, then either aerodynamics or your notions about the universe must be wrong. And when cavemen found flight contradictory, their notions of the universe were wrong.

Why? Maybe they just realised that they didn't fully understand the concept? This is the force behind scientific inquiry AND philosophy. You are examining the puzzle pieces and trying to figure out how they really fit.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

When applied to god, however, the only way for God to be real (in my opinion) is if our understanding of the universe is flawed. But how can this be when our understanding of the universe has lead to testable, repeatable and verifiable results?

Not really... NO ONE has a perfect understanding of the universe. Science has YET to create life from nothing. We don't understand how to defeat the aids virus OR the common cold. No, there is a lot about this universe we don't fully understand.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You assume thre heavens declare his handiwork.

You assume that they don't.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

The things we see in space are dictated by scientific laws, not religious ones. There are scientific explanations for what we see that do not require a god.

And when science runs out? Ah, we return to the Science of the Gaps and believe wholeheartedly that Science will one day answer all of the questions.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

For me to accept this other dimension you speak of as a solution to the problem, I'd have to see evidence of it.

Perhaps the evidence is there: you just need to interpret it correctly?

Originally Posted by Tiberius

That doesn't mean that the cavemen couldn't figure out some parts of it though. They could, I'm sure, figure out that birds needed to flap their wings...

But they didn't. They had all the time in the world to do it, and yet they didn't. They didn't solve the theory of relativity either.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

So if a believer doesn't get the answers, it's because of something they did. If they aren't healed of their sickness they just didn't believe hard enough, or pray hard enough. The non-existance of God is an answer, one theat doesn't rely on blaming people for its failures.

It might very well be something they didn't do.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Why? Maybe they just realised that they didn't fully understand the concept? This is the force behind scientific inquiry AND philosophy. You are examining the puzzle pieces and trying to figure out how they really fit.

But the cavemen could (given a source of information) understand it. And it wouldn't contradict any knowldge that they already had, provided the knowledge they already had was correct.

Not really... NO ONE has a perfect understanding of the universe. Science has YET to create life from nothing. We don't understand how to defeat the aids virus OR the common cold. No, there is a lot about this universe we don't fully understand.

Still, when we look at the ability of science to explain things that were once only explainable by God, you gotta admit that science has a pretty good track record.

true, there will be things science can't explain, but I think that those will be things of a philosophical nature. And philosophical ideas are different for each person. They don't describe the universe, they only describe our beliefs. Religion, however, attempts to describe the creation of the universe. I don't see how this is a logical approach, given that philosophy (and religion, which is extremely similar) are internal to people, and describe views about the universe, not the universe itself.

You assume that they don't.

I assume they don't because there is evidence that they don't. Why invoke a God when there are scientific laws that explain what we see in the heavens without the need for a God?

When I look at the heavens, and see star clusters, galaxies, and nebulae, I see the beauty. But I don't see the need to turn to a God to explain it anymore than I see the need to turn to the invisible pink unicorn. I have studied the science behind it, and the science explains everything we see.

And when science runs out? Ah, we return to the Science of the Gaps and believe wholeheartedly that Science will one day answer all of the questions.

You gotta admit though, that science has a great track record for it. Science has already proven itself to be much more reliable than religion when it comes to explanations of the universe, you can't deny.

Perhaps the evidence is there: you just need to interpret it correctly?

That's a lot of ifs there...

IF the evidence is there.
IF we have found it.
IF we haven't interpreted it correctly.
IF that evidence, correctly interpreted, will indicate a supernatural being.
IF that supernatural being could be described as a God.
IF that "god" created the universe.
IF that god created mankind.

But they didn't. They had all the time in the world to do it, and yet they didn't. They didn't solve the theory of relativity either.

Ah, but they did. Unless you deny that cavemen didn't realise that birds needed to flap their wings in order to fly.

And the Australian aboriginal people developed boomerangs, did they not? They are essentially wings, with a curved aerofoil cross-section. Did the aboriginals not begin to exploit aerodynamcs thousands of years ago? Don't say that they didn't just because they didn't make jumbo jets.

It might very well be something they didn't do.

Or maybe they weren't healed because they didn't pray to Zeus hard enough.

And I'm certain that you'd dismiss that idea.

When you understand why you dismiss that idea, you'll understand why I dismiss the reasons why God doesn't heal them.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

But the cavemen could (given a source of information) understand it. And it wouldn't contradict any knowldge that they already had, provided the knowledge they already had was correct.

This indeed Science of the Gaps. You indicate that they had information from watching a bird fly... so why didn't they figure it out? You seem to believe (in the name of Science) that they could have done something which by all evidence supplied to us, they couldn't do.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Still, when we look at the ability of science to explain things that were once only explainable by God, you gotta admit that science has a pretty good track record.

I don't think God ever had issues with this. Mankind has had to juggle a ton of puzzle pieces. Like when you do a real puzzle, you often sort them out... the blue ocean pieces go here, the blue sky peices go there, the pieces with the ship planks go over here. Sometimes you realise that you put a piece in the wrong pile. Ah, this "Angry God piece" really goes under "Science: Volcanos". As time goes on, we wonder where are all the God pieces going? Stand back and look at the entire puzzle. There's God. He created the laws that created the puzzle. Maybe that's why water floats when it freezes? You go God!

Originally Posted by Tiberius

true, there will be things science can't explain, but I think that those will be things of a philosophical nature. And philosophical ideas are different for each person. They don't describe the universe, they only describe our beliefs.

Perhaps. Perhaps things of an esoteric nature as well: Love, honor, etc. I don't see these endeavors as lessor to the endeavors of science.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Religion, however, attempts to describe the creation of the universe.

Not my religion. Not the religion of the Bible. Not really. The scritptures were never intended to be a science book. However, discussion of the book of Genesis would be best left for another thread.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I assume they don't because there is evidence that they don't. Why invoke a God when there are scientific laws that explain what we see in the heavens without the need for a God?

Let's see if I can point a few things out... "The Big Bang" = "God Spoke". You see, science doesn't really have an origin for us or for the universe. That we exist at all is testament to the existence of God. Unless of course, you can prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

When I look at the heavens, and see star clusters, galaxies, and nebulae, I see the beauty. But I don't see the need to turn to a God to explain it anymore than I see the need to turn to the invisible pink unicorn. I have studied the science behind it, and the science explains everything we see.

I have studied the same science and have seen it's limitations. Of course most of the stars that I look at are starfish , but the taxonomy of the underwater world is amazing. I see God in the wonderous creatures of the deep.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You gotta admit though, that science has a great track record for it. Science has already proven itself to be much more reliable than religion when it comes to explanations of the universe, you can't deny.

Does it? Science once told us that the universe circled the earth. It told us that there were only four elements: fire, earth, water and air. Like religion, it is still trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together and will hopefully continue to do so.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

That's a lot of ifs there...

IF the evidence is there.
IF we have found it.
IF we haven't interpreted it correctly.
IF that evidence, correctly interpreted, will indicate a supernatural being.
IF that supernatural being could be described as a God.
IF that "god" created the universe.
IF that god created mankind.

The same can be said for science. It is a search for order.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Ah, but they did. Unless you deny that cavemen didn't realise that birds needed to flap their wings in order to fly.

Why deny when I know you don't have any proof? Just trot out your proof of this and we can move on.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And the Australian aboriginal people developed boomerangs, did they not? They are essentially wings, with a curved aerofoil cross-section. Did the aboriginals not begin to exploit aerodynamcs thousands of years ago? Don't say that they didn't just because they didn't make jumbo jets.

I have seen an ancient boomarang. Their is no top or bottom: the profiles are the same. It appears from this cursory observation that they did not understand "lift". By the way, why don't our air planes flap their wings if that is how flight is achieved?

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Or maybe they weren't healed because they didn't pray to Zeus hard enough.

Maybe God does not deign to heal the physical? We can talk about prayer, but again, that is probably best for another thread.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

When you understand why you dismiss that idea, you'll understand why I dismiss the reasons why God doesn't heal them.

I feel I already understand why you dismiss this. Like so many others, you have given God tasks that he is unwilling to do: like healing. You are so focused on the physical aspects of this world, that you fail to see that God is all about the spiritual aspects of this existence. Remember, if dollars don't work... try a different currency.

In conclusion: God has no issues with science. Science has no issues with God. They are in complete harmony. PEOPLE may have issues with God and many times this is due to the fact that God refuses to play like a Cosmic Bell Hop and grant every one of their desires. There are quite a few people who have an issue with science and point to their belief in God as the reason. These people are in error just as those who firmly believe in the Science of the Gaps. God created the rules that science seeks to explain. Consequently, science will never, ever disprove God.

Tag... you're it!

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

This indeed Science of the Gaps. You indicate that they had information from watching a bird fly... so why didn't they figure it out? You seem to believe (in the name of Science) that they could have done something which by all evidence supplied to us, they couldn't do.

Because the knowledge that a bird has to flap its wings to fly is not, in and of itself, enough information to make a plane. They also needed the right materials - light but strong - and a light powerplant that was also powerful enough to provide the thrust. This was not acheived until the beginning of the 20th century, with the internal combustion engine.

I don't think God ever had issues with this. Mankind has had to juggle a ton of puzzle pieces. Like when you do a real puzzle, you often sort them out... the blue ocean pieces go here, the blue sky peices go there, the pieces with the ship planks go over here. Sometimes you realise that you put a piece in the wrong pile. Ah, this "Angry God piece" really goes under "Science: Volcanos". As time goes on, we wonder where are all the God pieces going? Stand back and look at the entire puzzle. There's God. He created the laws that created the puzzle. Maybe that's why water floats when it freezes? You go God!

You've stated that we don't have al the puzzle pieces yet, and I won't deny this. There are plenty of things about the universe we don't yet know.

Yet you know what the finished puzzle looks like?

BTW, the reason water floats when it freezes is this: Water molecules, like all molecules and atoms, vibrate according to how much heat they have. The hotter they are, the more they vibrate. Imagine it like people dancing. The wilder they dance - thrashing their arms and legs around - the further they move from each other to be able to dance. If they are moving less, then the don't need as much space, and can therefore be closer. When we apply this to molecules, this explains why things expand when heated and contract when cold. However, when water molecules get cold (lower than about 4 degrees celcius), the water molecules settle into a certain arrangement, just the same way that if you put a bunch of oranges into a box they will arrange themselves in a certain way. And this particular arrangement of water molecules takes up more space than the molecules do when they are in their liquid form. And when we have the same amount of mass taking up more space, the density decreases and hence it floats. There is no need to invoke a God to explain this.

Perhaps. Perhaps things of an esoteric nature as well: Love, honor, etc. I don't see these endeavors as lessor to the endeavors of science.

never said they were. But they don't describe the behavior of the universe. They describe ideas. And ideas are internal to the person who has them. And ideas are under no obligation to reflect the actual nature of the universe.

Not my religion. Not the religion of the Bible. Not really. The scritptures were never intended to be a science book. However, discussion of the book of Genesis would be best left for another thread.

Still you can't deny that Genesis does describe the creation of the universe. And there are many creationists out there who would disagree with you.

Let's see if I can point a few things out... "The Big Bang" = "God Spoke". You see, science doesn't really have an origin for us or for the universe. That we exist at all is testament to the existence of God. Unless of course, you can prove otherwise.

I don't see how you can say that the Big Bang is God speaking. is there a Biblical passage to support this? "And God spoke, and it was as a very rapid expansion of a singularity..."

Also, science does have a better explanation of the creation of the universe in the form of the Big Bang. After all, the Big Bang theory indicates that there will be supporting evidence - the background radiation - and we can find that evidence when we look for it. There's also the expansion of the universe and subsequent redshift of light from distant galaxies. All of these things are evidence of events which would have happened if the Big bang theory was true. Religion, on the other hand, has no such concrete and verifiable evidence.

Will continue in next post, it says the two combined are too long...

[Tiberius]

Continuing...

I have studied the same science and have seen it's limitations. Of course most of the stars that I look at are starfish , but the taxonomy of the underwater world is amazing. I see God in the wonderous creatures of the deep.

You see these limitations as things that science will never be able to answer, but when you say that, aren't you just guessing that science will never be able to answer them? And once again we come to what you term the science of the gaps. Even though i understand what you mean by it, I don't see it as a real thing. Throughout history, there have been many things that you would, no doubt, call the science of the gaps. What makes the sun shine? What causes lightning? Why do we hear the ocean in a seashell? What makes an arrow keep moving through the air after it's been fired from the bow? At one time, science couldn't explain it. You would have called these things examples of science of the gaps if you lived during those times, I'm sure. Yet all these things weren't gaps at all. There have been perfectly valid scientific explanations for theme, even though the people at the time couldn't figure them out.

What you call science of the gaps is really just the gaps in science. And these gaps are precisely what is needed for the God of the Gaps to operate in. So when you refer to science of the gaps, aren't you just trying to maintain gaps for the God of the gaps to operate in?

Does it? Science once told us that the universe circled the earth. It told us that there were only four elements: fire, earth, water and air. Like religion, it is still trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together and will hopefully continue to do so.

The big benefit of science is that we can test it. How do we test religion?

The big benefit of science is that it adapts to new scientific information. How has Christianity adapted to new Christian information? The Bible has been pretty much unchanged for centuries. And even then, the changes were so that people could take out parts they didn't like and add in parts they did like. The changes certainly weren't made to make the Bible more accurate.

The same can be said for science. It is a search for order.

But we can test the ifs in science. Not so with religion. Science is verifiable, religion is not.

Why deny when I know you don't have any proof? Just trot out your proof of this and we can move on.

Primitive people have always used flapping as a means for flight in their ancient stories. Icarus, for example, who attached feathers to his arms with wax and flapped. The idea has persisted to even modern times, such as the people who, in the days just before powered flight, tried to make planes that flapped their wings.

I have seen an ancient boomarang. Their is no top or bottom: the profiles are the same. It appears from this cursory observation that they did not understand "lift". By the way, why don't our air planes flap their wings if that is how flight is achieved?

First of all, non-returning or returning boomerang? I have seen a returning boomerang. I have held one, I have even thrown it and had it return to me. I have seen the different surfaces for myself, I know for a fact they have an aerofoil cross section. They may not have understood HOW it worked, but the Aboriginal people certainly knew that such a shape would work.

Maybe God does not deign to heal the physical? We can talk about prayer, but again, that is probably best for another thread.

Maybe it is best left for another thread. Nevertheless...

Originally Posted by Matthew 17:20

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

The Bible says that anything you ask for in prayer will be given to you. It places no restrictions whatsoever. According to the Bible, God does deign to heal the physical.

I feel I already understand why you dismiss this. Like so many others, you have given God tasks that he is unwilling to do: like healing. You are so focused on the physical aspects of this world, that you fail to see that God is all about the spiritual aspects of this existence.

Again, I will point you at the above quote from the Bible and the many others that say that if you pray for anything in the name of Jesus it will be granted, without restrictions to what you can pray for and without restriction to what will be granted. According to the Bible, there are no prayers that God and Jesus would be unwilling to grant.

Besides, perhaps the sick aren't healed because Zeus doesn't deign to heal. maybe Zeus doesn't concern himself with the physical.

Remember, if dollars don't work... try a different currency.

I believed and obeyed and got nothing. I tried the exact currency you suggest - obedience - and got nothing.

In conclusion: God has no issues with science. Science has no issues with God. They are in complete harmony. PEOPLE may have issues with God and many times this is due to the fact that God refuses to play like a Cosmic Bell Hop and grant every one of their desires. There are quite a few people who have an issue with science and point to their belief in God as the reason. These people are in error just as those who firmly believe in the Science of the Gaps. God created the rules that science seeks to explain. Consequently, science will never, ever disprove God.

There are issues between God and science when the only source of information about God provides information which can be shown to be scientifically false.

The Bible itself says that God will "play like a Cosmic Bell Hop and grant every one of their desires." I'm not sure how you can ignore this and indeed say the exact opposite of this in your argument unless you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are truthful and which parts are not. And if you are doing this, how do you make the determination as to which parts are truthful?

As I said earlier, science of the gaps is just a way of maintaining gaps for the God of the gaps to operate in.

Science may not be able to disprove God, but it will certainly show that a God is not required.

Tag... you're it!

I hesitate to ask, but which one am I?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Science may not be able to disprove God, but it will certainly show that a God is not required.

I have seen no greater faith in all of Israel! Herein lies the Science of the Gaps. Ring me when you get there my friend.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I hesitate to ask, but which one am I?

You are the one in the middle, my friend.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I have seen no greater faith in all of Israel! Herein lies the Science of the Gaps. Ring me when you get there my friend.

But science has done it before, hasn't it? How many things were once explained by invoking a God which have now been shown to not require a God at all?

Not based on faith. based on proven past performances.

You are the one in the middle, my friend.

Great, make me the one with the headache...