Whey do science & religion have to be at odds with one another?

[BananaSlug]

So here we see one example of a creationist who believes there is no physical evidence of creation vs. others who believe such evidence is everywhere.

Again, if there is no physical evidence that shows the earth was created by the direct actions of a deity, what basis do we have to believe one religion over another?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not about mimicry, it's making a point.

Which appears to not have been grasped...

I grasped it --- that's why I pwned it so effectively.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going off topic here, but love is most certainly a natural phenomenon.

Isn't "natural phenomenon" a contradiction in terms?

 

[BananaSlug]

No.

Phenomenon- any observable occurrence. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however commonplace it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

Phenomenon- any observable occurrence. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however commonplace it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe it.

Is faith a 'natural phenomenon'?

 

[Gracchus]

A good reference for my origianal post is "Summa Of Theology" by St Thomas Auinas.

I remember being surprised that Aquinas actually did discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

The section titled The Cause Of Existing: God
I left it out because I was trying to be breif. If your not farmiliar with the text, the bottom line is that everything has a first cause.

Even if we grant that everything has a cause, we need not grant that everything has a first cause. The chain of causation might be an infinite regression.

Nothing can call itself into existance. Example a stone can't throw itself. If you believe the big bang theory what caused the big bang. Aquinas believed that if you went back to the first cause, no matter what it was, you find God.

I don't remember how he addressed the question of what caused God.

God created man from the dust of the earth in a day.

Dust isn't very cohesive. Perhaps he used mud?

We have the raw ingrediants, but not the recipe he used.

My mama told me that first he didn't bake the mud long enough and out came the white man. Then he baked it too long and out came the black man. Then he used to much butter, and out came the orientals. And finally, he got the recipe right and out came the Native American. My mama said it, so it must be so.

Later we find out that to God a day is a thousand years & draw the conclusion that time is relative.

Einstein's conclusion was reached more rigorously.

Hope that helps.

Not so much, no.

I like the house analogy though.

What house? Must have fallen down during the earthquake.

 

[anyman]

So here we see one example of a creationist who believes there is no physical evidence of creation vs. others who believe such evidence is everywhere.

Again, if there is no physical evidence that shows the earth was created by the direct actions of a deity, what basis do we have to believe one religion over another?

The point is that if you believe the Earth was created, you don't have to reject a scientific explination as to the fine details. I'm not trying to prove anything or convert anyone. I'm saying that you don't have to reject science over religion or vice versa. I think the issue your refering to is wether or not it just happened or if there was an inteligent design.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I grasped it --- that's why I pwned it so effectively.

You keep believing it, AV -- may nothing strip you of your feelings of your own greatness.

 

[anyman]

I remember being surprised that Aquinas actually did discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

O................K..................


Even if we grant that everything has a cause, we need not grant that everything has a first cause. The chain of causation might be an infinite regression.

Christianity teaches that God is infinite

I don't remember how he addressed the question of what caused God.


Again infinite

Dust isn't very cohesive. Perhaps he used mud?

Maybe

My mama told me that first he didn't bake the mud long enough and out came the white man. Then he baked it too long and out came the black man. Then he used to much butter, and out came the orientals. And finally, he got the recipe right and out came the Native American. My mama said it, so it must be so.

Funny........a little mean, but still funny.

Einstein's conclusion was reached more rigorously.

And

Not so much, no.

What house? Must have fallen down during the earthquake.

Again i'm not debating creation vs. evolution. If your interested in that there's an apologetics thread. The point is that if you do believe in the God of the Bible you don't have to shun science.

 

[jpcedotal]

Well this thread started off good....

 

[BananaSlug]

Is faith a 'natural phenomenon'?

Yes.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes.

Not only natural, but I would argue inevitable for any sapient being -- although I don't necessarily mean religious faith.

 

[BananaSlug]

I just wonder if I gave him the answer he wanted or not.

 

[Split Rock]

I'd say so.

Where are your eyewitnesses?

Do I need to bring up the witnesses to the Book of Mormon again??