26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerOf course.
Obviously no one can prove the existence of God using science, however there may be certain scientific discoveries that a theist will see as evidence of a creator. An atheist could obviously interpret such evidence differently since it does not align with their atheism.
Not long ago there was an IDer who saw proof of an Intelligent designer because we have solar eclipses on Earth, not knowing that every moon project its shadow on its motherplanet now and then, without exceptions. He projected his religious faith in a normal phenomenon that easily can be described and explained by science. Faith is a strong religious feeling. However, it has nothing to do with science.
You show me time after time evidence of the incompatibility between science and religion. Turn the steak and taste the flavor of my thoughts, and how much more easy we could interact. Me respecting your religious views and you respecting science. You don't have to defend your beliefs (because they are religious and not scientific) and I don't have to defend my ideas (because they are scientific and not religious). Your domain untouchable by me, and my domain untouchable by you. How very much easy wouldn't that be?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasWe all have beliefs about the origin of the universe that science cannot fully explain. We all make assumptions about the supernatural, unfortunately those assumptions may be different and may lead us to making different conclusions when looking at the same evidence.
Of course.
Not long ago there was an IDer who saw proof of an Intelligent designer because we have solar eclipses on Earth, not knowing that every moon project its shadow on its motherplanet now and then, without exceptions. He projected his religious faith in a normal phenomenon that easily can be described and explained by science. Faith is a strong ...[text shortened]... domain untouchable by me, and my domain untouchable by you. How very much easy wouldn't that be?
26 Sep 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @dj2beckerFor religion 'faith' means everything.
We all have beliefs about the origin of the universe that science cannot fully explain. We all make assumptions about the supernatural, unfortunately those assumptions may be different and may lead us to making different conclusions when looking at the same evidence.
For science 'faith' means nothing.
Science don't know everything, but strives to know more and more in an iterative process according to scientific methodology. There are always more to know.
Religion don't know everything either, if you don't accept 'goddidit' as an valid explanation.
The two domains use different methodology, and they are totally incompatible.
What would science be if Newton said "I have faith that gravity works!", would we know more or less about gravity if Newton acted on faith only? Who taught us that the Earth is not the center of the universe? Not even the Sun? What do we know now with the aid of science? A lot. But not everything.
You bring up 'supernatural', which is not science either. It is natural, and science can tell things about it. And there is supernatural, and science can tell nothing about it. Supernatural phenomena happens in the domain of religion.
Do you want me to exemplify? Okay, afterlife.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
26 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @fabianfnasI imagine Newton's faith in God was actually strengthened when he discovered the law of gravity, because if makes sense for the creator of the universe to put laws in place that govern it, such as gravity etc.
For religion 'faith' means everything.
For science 'faith' means nothing.
Science don't know everything, but strives to know more and more in an iterative process according to scientific methodology. There are always more to know.
Religion don't know everything either, if you don't accept 'goddidit' as an valid explanation.
The two domains use diff ...[text shortened]... ural phenomena happens in the domain of religion.
Do you want me to exemplify? Okay, afterlife.
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHe was religious, that's true, but he wasn't satisfied with the faith alone. He built a scientific theory out of his observations, and math, left his faith aside, and was a marvelous scientist of his time!
I imagine Newton's faith in God was actually strengthened when he discovered the law of gravity, because if makes sense for the creator of the universe to put laws in place that govern it, such as gravity etc.
So was Darwin. And Galileo. And Einstein. And the Belgian priest Lemaître who was the first with the thought of a Big Bang, although he called it the Cosmic Egg.
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAnd rightly so.
Because atheism negates any possibility of the supernatural.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasSure, their science though never made them forsake their faith because they didn't have to choose between the two since the two were perfectly compatible with each other.
He was religious, that's true, but he wasn't satisfied with the faith alone. He built a scientific theory out of his observations, and math, left his faith aside, and was a marvelous scientist of his time!
So was Darwin. And Galileo. And Einstein. And the Belgian priest Lemaître who was the first with the thought of a Big Bang, although he called it the Cosmic Egg.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhich in your opinion is being open minded?
And rightly so.
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerNo, not at all. With faith, no equations are necessary, no theory is necessary. Gravity exists anyway. Religiously speaking, faith and faith only is enough. But doesn't bring knowledge forward. If he (Newton) rely on faith only, there wouldn't be any science. And no space technology could ever evolve. Science works, faith does not.
Sure, their science though never made them forsake their faith because they didn't have to choose between the two since the two were perfectly compatible with each other.
Can you give me any science where faith is needed?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasYou are totally missing the point I'm not saying that the one relies on the other, I'm saying they are not mutually exclusive. In other words you don't have to choose between the two because you can be a scientist and have faith without the two interfering with each other.
No, not at all. With faith, no equations are necessary, no theory is necessary. Gravity exists anyway. Religiously speaking, faith and faith only is enough. But doesn't bring knowledge forward. If he (Newton) rely on faith only, there wouldn't be any science. And no space technology could ever evolve. Science works, faith does not.
Can you give me any science where faith is needed?
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2becker"because you can be a scientist and have faith without the two interfering with each other."
You are totally missing the point I'm not saying that the one relies on the other, I'm saying they are not mutually exclusive. In other words you don't have to choose between the two because you can be a scientist and have faith without the two interfering with each other.
I don't deny this. If they are not interfering with each other, then I don't mind.
A medical doctor, christian and science inclined, does this all the day. He treat the patient with medicine and send a prayer to god at the same time. The patient is in danger when he forgets the treatment and have faith in the prayers alone.
Prayers doesn't help. Because if it would, then hospitals wouldn't be necessary at all. Scientifically speaking.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasMaybe prayer doesn't help for you because you have no faith. 😵
"because you can be a scientist and have faith without the two interfering with each other."
I don't deny this. If they are not interfering with each other, then I don't mind.
A medical doctor, christian and science inclined, does this all the day. He treat the patient with medicine and send a prayer to god at the same time. The patient is in danger ...[text shortened]... help. Because if it would, then hospitals wouldn't be necessary at all. Scientifically speaking.
Try telling that to someone who prayed for the healing of the child and had their prayers answered.
26 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIf prayer worked, then no hospitals are necessary, right? Then why not?
Maybe prayer doesn't help for you because you have no faith. 😵
Try telling that to someone who prayed for the healing of the child and had their prayers answered.
Scientific experiments have been conducted. In a cancer clinic they formed a group of cancer patients. Half of them was prayed for, the other half wasn't. The prayers was made by men from church. The doctors didn't know which half was which. It was a blind test.
What result did they come up with, do you think? The mortality was the same, no matter what half you was in. The probability was the same for both. The result showed clearly that prayers didn't work. Done.
Would you rather be prayed for or or would you rather be treated by science in order to survive?
I already know your answer.
I say - let the science work as it should. And let the religion work with what they are good at. Don't mix the two, they cannot be mixed.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @eladarIf you want to be taken seriously, then you should act seriously.
Men from church? They are obviously children of God if they are men from a church.
If you want to be taken as an ignorant child? Then you are on the right track.
Haven't you heard church leaders who happen to be men in other churches than children of god? Then you should visit the Vatican. Or just ask your parents.