• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
let me understand this, you believe in God and methodological naturalism.

Yes

I can actually appreciate naturalism as a method. but I won't concede my conviction that intelligent agency plays a role in evolution. perhaps their is room for both; methodological naturalism, and methodological intelligence in science.

God does not only have a role, God is the Creator. I believe by the natural laws and methods science observes,

either way let the naturalists be free, and let the religious be free as well.

freedom from religion, is just as important as freedom of religion to me.

OK

it's when people demand conformity to either one, that I oppose.

The only conformity required by science is the nature of our physical existence. By its nature Methodological Naturalism cannot address theological/philosophical questions that cannot be falsified with objective verifiable evidence using scientific methods.

I am glad science is well honored and respected, and I hope that there is a diversity of convictions, among scientists, and a strong common ground among them all as well because religious and non religious scientists have both contributed to society majorly.
OK

I actually hate to see religious people be put down so hard in society as well.

Our society is dominantly Christian, and yes their is criticism of Christianity, some justified and some not. Most of the justified criticism concerns evolution

The biggy is that a plurality, if not majority of Christians reject the science of evolution. Fortunately the polls indicate that this trend may be decreasing.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I don't think you know what "proof" means.

Oh, I think I do. Proof to the theologian/exegete is not possible because history cannot be made present, verification is not possible. Only by consensus is the most probable solution arrived at.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Oh, I think I do. Proof to the theologian/exegete is not possible because history cannot be made present, verification is not possible. Only by consensus is the most probable solution arrived at.

Based on that, i'm going to stick by with my previous statement: I don't think you know what "proof" means.

You are talking about evidence, but you use the word "proof." That says it all.

If you don't understand a concept this simple, how are you going to present an argument in this context?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
You are talking about evidence, but you use the word "proof." That says it all.

The OP is concerned with science AND religion. It is more than obvious there is little understanding of religious language without which there cannot be an informed discussion. While it is possible for the scientist to observe and verify the evidence, this is not possible for religion. The only evidence is Scripture, and because history cannot be brought to the present, no observation is possible, only a hypothetical based on probability.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
The OP is concerned with science AND religion. It is more than obvious there is little understanding of religious language without which there cannot be an informed discussion. While it is possible for the scientist to observe and verify the evidence, this is not possible for religion. The only evidence is Scripture, and because history cannot be brought to the present, no observation is possible, only a hypothetical based on probability.

Now i actually understand your argument, thanks for the clarification.

I still don't think it's logical though. Now you equate evidence to that which is directly observed in the present. That's a limitation on your part. WHO said that history cannot be be brought to the present? There would be no present without preceding events and phenomena. Surely you understand that.

I simply cannot agree with such a simplistic understanding of reality.

/E: TLDR, in case it's not obvious from my post: I don't think scripture is even hypothetical. History can be verified and falsified, therefore scripture can be verified and falsified. And if we attempt that, it doesn't exactly stand up to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:

Diak (Jack) Anosh

Member
Premium Member
So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated. I'll give you an example, you crawled out of a ***** and you don't have any clue where you are. Nobody does. It's the greatest mystery that nobody likes to talk about. We like to pretend that we know everything, and we like to give things names because if we name something we can claim that we know what it is, but the reality is that we don't know anything. The reality is that we are very good at pretending things just like we did when we were kids. In fact I plan to make a point that there is two realities. The natural world aka the real world, and the pretend society that we create to hide from the gruesome natural world we all fear.

Before I get off topic, Science vs Religion. Who wins? That's easy...

Answer= Nobody, we all lose, because they are the same thing.

Crowd gasps, "What did he just say?"

Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith.

While that definition petty well mirrors what scripture tells us, it is not the worldwide definition of "Religion."

Religion is a movement based upon the unknown, often driving one to do things they would never consider otherwise, but superstition is as strong a reason for religion as Faith is to a Christian or a Jew.

The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven.

Assumes things not in evidence. I doubt the theory of gravity will be among the "disproven" things of science, not the theories of light, waves, string, photons, and such stuff.

Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.

That's a simple one. A "Holographic man" is an invention whereby an image of a man is projected upon a non-surface, making it appear as though he is among others who are now aware of the Holographic effect of the one under consideration.

A "Holographic image" may be programmed to receive impulses like sight, sound, even detecting meaning from facial it is still an expression, but it is still an image projected, and has no ability to understand.

I could get into deep heated argumentation over this no doubt,

It is already too deep for consideration, for you to suggest an Holographic projection can understand. I would stop while I am ahead, if I were you, at least on that issue.

.....
but I believe I can easily destroy anybody's scientific arguments with the following sentence.

Life itself is a paradox. Therefore all attempts at explaining life using science aka observing the universe is futile. Don't believe that life is a paradox? Here I'll show you it's easy:

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.
(We know that is impossible because something can not come from nothing everything must have a beginning.)

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

Both of those options defy all logic yet there is no other alternatives.

There you have it indisputable proof that life itself is the greatest mystery and an unsolvable paradox. Something that all kids know. I don't think I'm smart for telling you this, in fact, I'm aware that you already knew this, but doesn't it feel refreshing to hear somebody say it?

You have a problem. Your "paradox" is no more valuable than a "pair of sox" as far as explaining the origin of anything at all.

Consider:
A:1. Energy always existed.
2. Matter always existed.
3. Energy acted upon Matter and cause what is.

B: God always existed and brought forth that which is.

The question then becomes, which is easier to deal with? A pre-existing triple assumption, based upon nothing other than three speculations?

Or one assumption of a pre-existing creator who not only made it all, but communicated to Men, that fact, and set out to demonstrate the truth of it all?

I for one, choose to believe Someone who says He created all things, then demonstrated the truths of His words by telling us to "prove all things," which seems fair, and then tells us of a king who at some time two-hundred years into the future, will send Israel back from captivity to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple walls; this while Israel was at peace and were not in captivity, and the walls were still standing, and had not been torn down.

Then this one identifying Himself as "God" told us the name of this king, so that when the king reads the Hebrew scriptures some two-hundred years into the future, and sees His name and what is prophesied about himself, begins to do exactly according to the prophecy.

Now, THAT's not an event easily copied by Charlatans and false prophets.

And THAT is the basis of my acceptance of God, until someone of equal credentials, displays an equal ability to defend messages to the contrary.

The truth is that were scared of the natural world. Its terrifying. Imagine being in the woods alone at night with something stalking you trying to eat you. Sounds like a nightmare right? No, its real. It could happen. We live in a predatory parasitic world where to survive living sentient beings must be slaughtered and their flesh consumed for energy transference its quite sick and disturbing if you actually stop to think about it.

So, which Cow approached you and said TO YOU "I think, therefore I am?" THAT is a demonstration of sentience. And I am aware of no other sentient beings other than MAN upon the earth.

Parasites and Predators are not logically thinking, and capable of communicating to Men, much beyond an appetite and the ability to provide for it's satisfaction through brute force and quick reflexes.

Its no wonder we would literally do anything to distract our self from this thus we have created modern society which is mostly a huge distraction, and its no wonder the ancients used to worship the sun, their risen savior who brought light to the world and let them see the predators trying to eat them.

"Ancient?" Japan was a sun-worshipping nation until their defeat ending World War II. Their Emperor was alleged to be in a direct line of Emperors born of the Sun.

Religion your not getting off the hook so easy either. For starters all the religions contain ancient texts that predate the books they are presented in today. All these ancient texts were written by ancient man, but they are not divine, and they have been manipulated by your rulers with some things left out and some things added.

Have you ever heard of a Secretary? That is someone who writes the words of another, for communication to others.

God is the author, Men, both scribes and prophets, were the early form of secretaries, who wrote precisely what God told them to write.

You are partially correct in your assessment of what some Men have tried to do in the centuries since its origin, but God has preserved the original, hidden among the efforts of Men to remove it.

The ancients were people doing what people do best, pretending and making things up to distract themselves from reality just the same as we are still doing today. In fact its better to argue about which is better, science or religion, then to think about the fact that your going to die and your entire existence may have been pointless.

Well, I suppose if you began with "three assumptions" you would have three times more reason to "Assume" the correctness of your position, but I, with only one assumption followed by verification and demonstration, choose to follow a faith based upon reason, and integrity to details of things projected far into a future foretold by a loving God who explains it all, if you take the time to seek, and find, rather than waste away attempting to disprove three assumptions.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started. It's all conjecture and opinion so lets stop pretending, arguing, and fighting over whos made up b.s. is better. My god is better than your god because my god has a giant cock!

But My God is the one who created your giant rooster, and then gave Him a Hen by which to reproduce after his own kind. I still choose My God over yours god.

Maybe the ancients were smarter then we give them credit for because they told us that to find real truths you must look deep within yourself, because that's where the true universe exists. You are infinite consciousness. You are a paradox, and you have the power!

And I have the breath of God giving me life.

Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.

How sad!
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Yes, it the limits within which theology exists.

They are not as limited as you seem to imply.

Minus time travel how would you?

So. As per your claim, we would need a time machine to know that dinosaurs existed(or still exist depending on how much you "put faith" into evolution.)

That's just super. But for the record: How do you think we verify past phenomena and events? Well, either indirectly, or more or less directly: What do you think happens to a 30 million year old rock? It won't just disappear. It might be ground to dust, but all the constituents still remain somewhere to be observed and evidenced.

Like i said, i think your understanding of reality is needlessly simplistic and limited.

Basically: Nothing ever disappears into nothingness. Therefore, anything that happened in the past, is still in possibly modified form just as possible to ascertain as it was back then. That is why we can verify history.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
So. As per your claim, we would need a time machine to know that dinosaurs existed(or still exist depending on how much you "put faith" into evolution.)

You are considering 'tangible' evidence through archeology. That works for science. In theology 'archeology' is through the many layers of manuscripts seeking the earliest extant through the stages of biblical formation.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
You are considering 'tangible' evidence through archeology. That works for science. In theology 'archeology' is through the many layers of manuscripts seeking the earliest extant through the stages of biblical formation.

I say it works the same for both. Belief is different from scripture and theology. Scripture and theology are subject to the same forms of evidence as any other works of literature. Historical or otherwise.

And i say all evidence is either tangible or not evidence at all. It has to be, well, evident to other people as well for it to be evidence. Otherwise it's personal experience + personal sensory observation misunderstood as evidence.

Furthermore: Most Christians make the claim that their belief is supported by actual historical evidence. Jesus' existence is NOT a metaphysical question after all. I would say most such theists make the claim that he is "tangible."

/E: changed an instance of "theists" into "Christians"
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Is it? In what way, please?

From the widest perspective, theism is inclusive, it allows for both creative and materialistic forces accounting for reality as we know it 'nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo.
Theism has no need to banish materialistic forces to allow creative ones to 'win out'

Not so for Atheism, it must utterly banish one of these forces from the playing field, in order to achieve the desired result 'creation without creativity'- this creates a lot more problems scientifically- hence all the failed atheist theories; static/ eternal universes, steady state, big crunch etc, which explicitly sought to make creativity redundant

Its trying to solve a puzzle while forbidding some pieces to be touched, leaving out whichever ones don't help complete the desired picture.. that's inherently unscientific and probably why it's had such a poor track record of predicting outcomes
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
From the widest perspective, theism is inclusive, it allows for both creative and materialistic forces accounting for reality as we know it 'nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo.

Only when it supports the original claims. If it doesn't, it's thrown out. Cherry picking.

Theism has no need to banish materialistic forces to allow creative ones to 'win out'

I'm not convinced.

As for the rest of your post, i think you need to understand what confirmation bias is before i can start taking you seriously.

/E: You'll probably also notice that no one here is talking about atheism except you.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
From the widest perspective, theism is inclusive, it allows for both creative and materialistic forces accounting for reality as we know it 'nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo.
Theism has no need to banish materialistic forces to allow creative ones to 'win out'

Not so for Atheism, it must utterly banish one of these forces from the playing field, in order to achieve the desired result 'creation without creativity'- this creates a lot more problems scientifically- hence all the failed atheist theories; static/ eternal universes, steady state, big crunch etc, which explicitly sought to make creativity redundant

Its trying to solve a puzzle while forbidding some pieces to be touched, leaving out whichever ones don't help complete the desired picture.. that's inherently unscientific and probably why it's had such a poor track record of predicting outcomes
Calling it "creation" doesn't make it so.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Scripture and theology are subject to the same forms of evidence as any other works of literature. Historical or otherwise.
True.

evident to other people as well for it to be evidence.

That's when a consensus is formed.

Most Christians make the claim that their belief is supported by actual historical evidence. Jesus' existence is NOT a metaphysical question after all. I would say most such theists make the claim that he is "tangible."

Problem is there is no historical evidence, in our understanding of historical, for the most sacred tenants of Christianity.
Secularists, who dismiss religion as simply false, and fundamentalists, who insist on literal truth, both miss the point.
Christianity rests upon the story of the resurrection. For the sophisticated persons, the doctrine of the resurrection, literally understood, is an absurdity.
That a man, three days dead, might be revived, to mingle again with the living, talk to them, and move about much as if nothing had happened to him, violates the most basic certainties of reason and common knowledge. The dead become dust and ashes. They do not rise. The 'truth' of the resurrection is embodied in myth, a truth that cannot be stated. Christianity is founded on a Mystery.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
It actually does. It implies a creator. Which is the reason you call it "creation" in the first place. ;)

Pick a word which implies a natural creation of something if you prefer, it doesn't change the substance of what was actually created does it? or the difficultly of accounting for it while forbidding creativity
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
That's a self-contradictory claim. Creation of any kind, like thought and existence, require before, now, and after moments, meaning time. The concept of creating time is flawed.
Are you trying to say that space-time is eternal in reference to the past? IOW the past number of seconds is infinite?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
From the widest perspective, theism is inclusive, it allows for both creative and materialistic forces accounting for reality as we know it 'nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo.
Theism has no need to banish materialistic forces to allow creative ones to 'win out'

Not so for Atheism, it must utterly banish one of these forces from the playing field, in order to achieve the desired result 'creation without creativity'- this creates a lot more problems scientifically- hence all the failed atheist theories; static/ eternal universes, steady state, big crunch etc, which explicitly sought to make creativity redundant

Its trying to solve a puzzle while forbidding some pieces to be touched, leaving out whichever ones don't help complete the desired picture.. that's inherently unscientific and probably why it's had such a poor track record of predicting outcomes
Well, you see, I see it quite differently. Theism, first and foremost, must do one thing I can't fathom at all -- in order to explain the simplest things about what you call "creation," theism must first posit that the most wondrous thing of all -- and all-powerful, omniscient, immaterial, timeless, intelligent, purposeful and creative thing must exist ------ without any explanation at all.

And of course, once you've allowed that impossible-to-explain precondition, well everything else is monstrously simple, isn't it?

Yet, while it is certainly true that science hasn't got all the answers -- and for all I know might never have all the answers, nor might their even necessarily BE an ultimate first answer -- science has managed to show over and over and over again how wondrous "creativity" is easily possible and explicable with just a very few basic bits and rules by which the bits act. You don't know or understand this, of course, because science isn't your bag. But fortunately for the rest of us, it doesn't depend at all upon your understanding for its success.
 
Top