Science vs Religion - Page 5

Traak · 2011-09-30, 07:50 AM

People largely believe what they want to. I have seen people presented with irrefutable evidence of various things that just flat refused to believe it.

The will trumps reason every time. Audi Murphy went past reasoning and willed to do things that others could probably demonstrate with charts and graphs would not work.

The average person will face decisions through life that require a triumph of will or reason. Which they decide will determine their results. Like guys presented with video or photo evidence that their faithful sweetie is seeing others, and gets mad at the PI they hired!

Quovatis · 2011-09-30, 11:59 AM

Science will never be able to prove god doesn't exist. God is an idea without testable attributes (except that there is no evidence whatsoever for a god). But science doesn't need to prove god doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the unbeliever. If I say I have an invisible unicorn that doesn't interact with its surroundings on my desk, it's up to me to prove that it exists. It's silly for everyone to assume the unicorn is there until it is disproved. Placing me, the "unicornist", on the same rational and acceptable level as the "aunicornists" is rather stupid. The unicornist view has no basis for belief until there is evidence to support it. The same logic applies to god. The theist and atheist views are not equally acceptable. Theists must prove there is a god. Atheists don't have to prove anything.

MadPenguin · 2011-09-30, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

All this hullabaloo about he-said/she-said you're-wrong/I'm-right lalala-I'm-not-listening is stupid for everyone involved.

I just have to back up what Quovatis is saying here. Correct me if im wrong but if two people were having an argument about whether unicorns existed, you wouldn't be tempted to interrupt and use this line. If you joined in at all i assume you would back up the one arguing against the existence of unicorns. (despite unicorns not being disproved) Its one thing to say you cant prove God doesnt exist, its something entirely different to say you have any reason to believe in God.

The point is you are using one set of reasoning for God and another set for other things of the same nature.

Traak · 2011-09-30, 01:40 PM

What I think is funny is the convolutions people will go through mentally to prove God didn't do what he obviously just did.

Such as life on Earth. God didn't create it, they say. It was marshmallow-throwing aliens from planet Zleeb who missed the fire, and one of the marshmallows fell on the ground and became our universe. Yes, see, you idiots who believe in God!

Or, atoms randomly decided to come together to create complex food webs where removing any one element would destroy the entire system, but somehow they up-evolved from atoms to entire ecosystems, unassisted.

I just wonder how termites survived without the bacteria in their GI tract that break down cellulose. Oh, that's right, anything is possible if you throw in a few hundred million years. So, given that there are roughly 11.3 million species on the Earth, and they started as one species, that up-evolved... how long did that take? and why aren't we being inundated with ever-increasing numbers of new species every year? Why do animals that live below a certain depth in the sea have colors that can only be perceived by someone with an artificial light source? What is the evolutionary purpose? How did clownfish survive before there were anemones? How is it that some nudibranchs move swallowed stinger cells from anemones to their surface to act on their behalf? What came first? The nudibranch or the stinging cell? And, how did the entire ecosystems around 400+ degree sub-oceanic vents get there? A tube worm randomly survived an accidental fall to that depth, laid eggs, and presto! an entire ecosystem sprung up that was completely co-dependent and cross-linked. Oh, yes, in millions of years. That's the ticket. It's ludicrous to believe that with God all things are possible, but the zenith of intelligent analysis to believe that with time, all things are possible?

The questions are rhetorical.

Evolutionists claim to be backed by science, but it is carefully selective "science". Darwin himself said that the idea that the eye could have evolved is ludicrous. But, again, the issue isn't evidence or lack of it. It's a decision of the will. The decision is,. most often, "I refuse to believe in God." The evidence is no longer the issue. It's the decision.

I have seen tons of evidence that proves God is real. I see new evidence daily. But, I don't try to convince people who don't care to hear about it. I just enjoy this life with God through Jesus Christ. Yes, both sides marvel at the other side and their choices, it's age-old. We preach to others that Jesus Christ came and died for your sins, and you can believe he is alive and ask him to be your savior and begin a life with him. The choice is up to you. God knows heathen "culture" is brought to us fresh daily from every available angle, so we also have the choice to abandon Jesus and pretend he doesn't exist.

As I said earlier, however, it comes down to choice. People believe in God or don't believe in him, and whatever they decide, they can stick with, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Crator · 2011-09-30, 02:05 PM

Science is actually getting pretty close to an answer on evolution. Most major evolutionary stages occur when major environment shifts happen. So, let's say, a meteor hits the Earth and changes the whole atmosphere. The organisms adapt, evolve, to the new environments. A good explanation of this I've heard recently was trying to answer the question about why were the dinosaurs such large creatures. The answer that sounds very sound is that the atmosphere and surroundings at the time allowed them to be that large. But when a meteor hit the Earth and atmosphere and environment changed drastically thus evolving the remaining living organisms into something that can survive the environment. Of course these thing happen over long periods of time.

Geist · 2011-09-30, 02:08 PM

I have read every post in this thread and something I've noticed is this isn't a Science vs Religion thread, it's a science vs God thread(and like others have said before me, no, god is not needed for a spiritual organization).

The OP is correct in many ways, Religion and Science should not be in conflict, yet people seem eager to do so anyway. Science is the observation and understanding of the laws of nature, while religion is the development of the spirit and a purpose to our lives here on Earth. Why should one disprove the other, when one is learning of the physical and the other being metaphysical, they are as opposite as can be.

The fact is, when religion strays into the realm of "how", it will always get beat down by science, and when science delves into the realm of why, it turns into religion.

On another note, in regards to the thousands of years old holy books, why anyone would take anything that old that has been rewritten and translated so many times as having any sort of literal meaning today is definitely mentally challenged somehow. Religion has always influenced a vast majority if people, and if someone wants power, and no one to question it, he says, " God said so." and how one makes sure it's a long lasting rule? Write it in a holy book. That's why, even if it was written by god directly, and was the most perfect written text ever created, it could not have endured that many years of human infallibility.

Quovatis · 2011-09-30, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

What I think is funny is the convolutions people will go through mentally to prove God didn't do what he obviously just did...

Wow. Pretty much every example you gave has good explanations by science. Go to a natural history museum or read up on it. And your Darwin quote is just wrong. Please read the next paragraph after that in Darwin's book. The quote you took is out of context. Here is the next paragraph:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144) "

I guess you believe Einstein is a theist too because he said "God doesn't play with dice"? Many theist make that mistake.

Originally Posted by Traak

I have seen tons of evidence that proves God is real.

Please share this evidence. I'm interested.

Traak · 2011-09-30, 02:57 PM

It isn't evidence someone who has made up their mind that God isn't real would believe.

You could bring someone back from the dead, and people will still not believe. Belief is more about choice than evidence.

Quovatis · 2011-09-30, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

It isn't evidence someone who has made up their mind that God isn't real would believe.

You could bring someone back from the dead, and people will still not believe. Belief is more about choice than evidence.

I am open minded. If it is actual scientific evidence, I will not dismiss it. Please share.

If I saw a decapitated body suddenly come back to life, yes I would instantly believe in a higher power. But people do come back from the "dead" regularly with modern medicine. It's not a miracle.

Traak · 2011-09-30, 03:15 PM

No, seriously, the usual response to "I saw this amazing thing" is
A ) It was fake
B ) It wasn't _______ in the first place
C ) They lied about it.

Or some such. What is funny, comical, though sad, really is watching people who HAVE witnessed or directly experienced something that provides irrefutable evidence, and they still just live as if God isn't real. Everyone still has a free will, regardless of external evidences, pressures, or rewards.

Baneblade · 2011-09-30, 03:30 PM

Well if it was evidence, it would be fact based not perception based.

Wahooo · 2011-09-30, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Spectre

I've noticed is this isn't a Science vs Religion thread, it's a science vs God thread(and like others have said before me, no, god is not needed for a spiritual organization).

We, need to better explain a religion maybe? Is one's self proclaimed spirituality a religion? What makes something a "religion".

Science is not in conflict with religion. The scientific method is in conflict with many aspects of many religions that stray from what some here are saying the point of a religion is, defining the why's in life, or listing our moral values so we all get along nicely.

Crator · 2011-09-30, 04:23 PM

Eyewitness events are typically inaccurate.

Sirisian · 2011-09-30, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Eyewitness events are typically inaccurate.

That's why science is mostly about reproducible experiments. Like "hey I observed a particle going faster than light in my lab!". Then someone else will go "oh cool. Let me try to reproduce it". If you can't reproduce it then it isn't really science. (Kind of the pedantic definition one learns in school).

Crator · 2011-09-30, 04:42 PM

Correct