Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rainycity" data-source="post: 53546265" data-attributes="member: 246231"><p>Ok, I'm not exactly sure what ''a anti God existance" is, but you can believe in God, and you can 'believe' in science at the same time. Science and religion (or a belief in God or christianity or whatever), are not mutually exclusive. There are religious scientists, and lots of well known influential scientists of the past believed in God. To answer one of your rhetorical questions in another thread </p><p></p><p>"If one wants to work with in that society or a related Field aren't they forced to publicly denounce a Christian system of belief in favor of the doctrines laid out by the scientific communities?"</p><p></p><p>No. There are christian scientists and they don't have to publicly denounce their belief system. You could even be an evolutionary biologist and a creationist if you wanted, and your work will still be accepted if its sceintifically valid. You could write papers on evolutionary biology, and publicly announce that you're a creationist and you don't believe in evolution. Other sceintists would be baffled, amused, critical of your opinions, but that doesn't mean they'd be critical of your facts. </p><p></p><p>And If creationists actually wrote scientifically valid papers on creationism or intelligent design and presented valid evidence and a theory, their work would be taken seriously by the scientific community. Ditto for an evolutionist writing a sceintifically valid paper on intelligent design. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is <strong>no</strong> demand for devotion. Not even a little bit. Scientists don't revere what scientists say, in fact, like you had pointed out already, there is debate regarding the details of many theories! "Science" isn't a system of beliefs, "science" is a method of discovering facts i.e. "truth", about anything at all. If you or anyone discovers facts about God, that's science. "Science" is just a word which is used to point to something, you're using it to point to something which doesn't exist; some sort of faith or religion, a dark ages church which is going to start burning christians at the stake soon. Usually when someone talks about "science" they're pointing to the scientific method, and or the body of knowledge acquired with the scientific method. "Science" is not an institution, not a person or a group of people, science is a discipline. It means literally knowledge, and can even be used to refer to methods or bodies of knowledge which aren't a part of the western discipline of science. A method for acquiring knowledge has been developed in the west which takes basic rationality we all recognise and use, and carries it into more complicated matters. </p><p></p><p>How do you think the laws of physics were figured out? How about gravity? Take any random object, hold it out at shoulder hieght above the ground, and drop it.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>How do you want it to be accepted? Do you want it to be accepted as science? it can't be accepted as science because it's not science.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>you don't. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you have claimed evolution is false, and that scientific theory in general is false. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Science is not a faith, but other then that you're basically correct - scientists trust facts, because they're facts, any sane person does. And of course they're going to defend the facts. But then you say, ''above and beyond the need to believe in truth in any form''. How can we know truth apart from facts? Facts <em>are</em> truth, and they're discovered with the scientific method. If you don't agree with the scientifc method, then you don't agree that gravity exists. Scientists don't accept truth by revelation, you seem to be saying they should. Why should they? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>what "fact" are you reffering to here? the refutation of your basic argument? you've also said that facts aren't truth, so by putting fact in inverted commas implying its not really fact, you're now showing me that you do put stock in facts...so which is it? facts aren't really facts like you originally said, or facts do point to reality? </p><p></p><p>and what exactly are these "facts" you're refering to which I've padded my responses with to avoid addressing a simple truth? what's the simple truth I've avoided addressing?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because scientists don't lay any belief in "ever changing facts". This is the point you don't seem to grasp: scientists don't believe in any set thing. There is no "belief", at least, not in the context in which you envision. Instead science is continually in search of the truth.</p><p></p><p>Gravity is a fact that hasn't changed, along with all of the other facts that innumerable technologies and luxuries which you benefit from are established on. </p><p></p><p>Faith is belief without evidence. These scientific theories and hypotheses are by definition <em>not </em>faith since they have evidence to support them. When there's debate among which explanation is correct, the debate is because different lines of evidence seem to support different explanations. That's a gap in our knowledge which we're trying to fill with experimentation, study, and evidence. <u>That's not faith</u>.</p><p></p><p>But you know what? There is a kind of faith. You're kind of right about one thing: scientists have more faith in the scientific process then of the facts themselves, why? <em><strong>because it works. </strong></em></p><p><em></em> </p><p></p><p></p><p>What, you don't know? you're challenging major scientific theory without even knowing what it says? 20 years ago, 50 years ago, no scientists were claiming the earth is too young for evolution.</p><p>The Earth doesn't have to be X number of years old. There is no set amount. It should, however, be "old" (i.e. whatever that number is, and it can be many different numbers ) and not "young". In other words, it should be enough time for all the diversity we see here to take place. The current approximation for the age of Earth is plenty of time.<u> If we make our approximation even more precise than what it is now, that does not require evolution to change at all.</u> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>That certain details change does not mean that the whole theory must change, which is what you keep failing to understand. Science is all about giving the best answer it can with the resources/evidence it has at the moment. That's a good thing. What do you want us to do? Give the worse answer we can? Or not give an answer at all even though there's ample evidence supporting one?</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>You're mangling the analogy. It would be illogical to say Pearl Harbor occurred during the civil war because we know the civil war happened before Pearl Harbor. In the analogy it would be like claiming the formation of Earth happened before the formation of our Galaxy, which is utterly ridiculous and no scientist has ever done. You're purposely making it sound absurd.</p><p></p><p>The analogy I offered worked fine: It's like saying that just because the detail of a battle turned out to be wrong, that no battle took place. It's ridiculous, which explains why you've resulted to mangling it instead of refuting it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rainycity, post: 53546265, member: 246231"] Ok, I'm not exactly sure what ''a anti God existance" is, but you can believe in God, and you can 'believe' in science at the same time. Science and religion (or a belief in God or christianity or whatever), are not mutually exclusive. There are religious scientists, and lots of well known influential scientists of the past believed in God. To answer one of your rhetorical questions in another thread "If one wants to work with in that society or a related Field aren't they forced to publicly denounce a Christian system of belief in favor of the doctrines laid out by the scientific communities?" No. There are christian scientists and they don't have to publicly denounce their belief system. You could even be an evolutionary biologist and a creationist if you wanted, and your work will still be accepted if its sceintifically valid. You could write papers on evolutionary biology, and publicly announce that you're a creationist and you don't believe in evolution. Other sceintists would be baffled, amused, critical of your opinions, but that doesn't mean they'd be critical of your facts. And If creationists actually wrote scientifically valid papers on creationism or intelligent design and presented valid evidence and a theory, their work would be taken seriously by the scientific community. Ditto for an evolutionist writing a sceintifically valid paper on intelligent design. There is [B]no[/B] demand for devotion. Not even a little bit. Scientists don't revere what scientists say, in fact, like you had pointed out already, there is debate regarding the details of many theories! "Science" isn't a system of beliefs, "science" is a method of discovering facts i.e. "truth", about anything at all. If you or anyone discovers facts about God, that's science. "Science" is just a word which is used to point to something, you're using it to point to something which doesn't exist; some sort of faith or religion, a dark ages church which is going to start burning christians at the stake soon. Usually when someone talks about "science" they're pointing to the scientific method, and or the body of knowledge acquired with the scientific method. "Science" is not an institution, not a person or a group of people, science is a discipline. It means literally knowledge, and can even be used to refer to methods or bodies of knowledge which aren't a part of the western discipline of science. A method for acquiring knowledge has been developed in the west which takes basic rationality we all recognise and use, and carries it into more complicated matters. How do you think the laws of physics were figured out? How about gravity? Take any random object, hold it out at shoulder hieght above the ground, and drop it. How do you want it to be accepted? Do you want it to be accepted as science? it can't be accepted as science because it's not science. you don't. I think you have claimed evolution is false, and that scientific theory in general is false. Science is not a faith, but other then that you're basically correct - scientists trust facts, because they're facts, any sane person does. And of course they're going to defend the facts. But then you say, ''above and beyond the need to believe in truth in any form''. How can we know truth apart from facts? Facts [I]are[/I] truth, and they're discovered with the scientific method. If you don't agree with the scientifc method, then you don't agree that gravity exists. Scientists don't accept truth by revelation, you seem to be saying they should. Why should they? what "fact" are you reffering to here? the refutation of your basic argument? you've also said that facts aren't truth, so by putting fact in inverted commas implying its not really fact, you're now showing me that you do put stock in facts...so which is it? facts aren't really facts like you originally said, or facts do point to reality? and what exactly are these "facts" you're refering to which I've padded my responses with to avoid addressing a simple truth? what's the simple truth I've avoided addressing? Because scientists don't lay any belief in "ever changing facts". This is the point you don't seem to grasp: scientists don't believe in any set thing. There is no "belief", at least, not in the context in which you envision. Instead science is continually in search of the truth. Gravity is a fact that hasn't changed, along with all of the other facts that innumerable technologies and luxuries which you benefit from are established on. Faith is belief without evidence. These scientific theories and hypotheses are by definition [I]not [/I]faith since they have evidence to support them. When there's debate among which explanation is correct, the debate is because different lines of evidence seem to support different explanations. That's a gap in our knowledge which we're trying to fill with experimentation, study, and evidence. [U]That's not faith[/U]. But you know what? There is a kind of faith. You're kind of right about one thing: scientists have more faith in the scientific process then of the facts themselves, why? [I][B]because it works. [/B] [/I] What, you don't know? you're challenging major scientific theory without even knowing what it says? 20 years ago, 50 years ago, no scientists were claiming the earth is too young for evolution. The Earth doesn't have to be X number of years old. There is no set amount. It should, however, be "old" (i.e. whatever that number is, and it can be many different numbers ) and not "young". In other words, it should be enough time for all the diversity we see here to take place. The current approximation for the age of Earth is plenty of time.[U] If we make our approximation even more precise than what it is now, that does not require evolution to change at all.[/U] That certain details change does not mean that the whole theory must change, which is what you keep failing to understand. Science is all about giving the best answer it can with the resources/evidence it has at the moment. That's a good thing. What do you want us to do? Give the worse answer we can? Or not give an answer at all even though there's ample evidence supporting one? You're mangling the analogy. It would be illogical to say Pearl Harbor occurred during the civil war because we know the civil war happened before Pearl Harbor. In the analogy it would be like claiming the formation of Earth happened before the formation of our Galaxy, which is utterly ridiculous and no scientist has ever done. You're purposely making it sound absurd. The analogy I offered worked fine: It's like saying that just because the detail of a battle turned out to be wrong, that no battle took place. It's ridiculous, which explains why you've resulted to mangling it instead of refuting it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
the origins of the bible
Top
Bottom