Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest
Phat
Member
Posts: 18351
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 5 of 174 (715571)
01-07-2014 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by scienceishonesty
01-06-2014 8:10 PM


Is It Honest To Prefer An Answer?
Shi writes:
How can this be? asks one person, God did it replies another. God has always been invoked as the answer when we don’t quite know what to make of something and how it works. But with so many real scientific discoveries in front of us there’s less and less room for God as an explanation for why known phenomena are occurring or have occurred. Plenty of people still believe that there’s enough room for God — and it could be that there still is if you want there to be, at least for now.
So in essence, God-Of-The-Gaps is still allowing a small gap? What about saying that there either is or there is not? period?
God either exists or He does not, regardless of how you or I feel and regardless of evidence and/or lack thereof. God has never been a concept requiring evidence to begin with.
Sci writes:
Science works, it has worked in the past and will continue to work going forward. No matter how strong your faith is in your particular deity or religion, it will not stand the test of time like science will because science is simply an honest exploration in search of the truth. That is why science will win.
Win what? Science is but a tool for exploring what can be explored. It is not a defacto theology for what is and what should be.
Science is a mechanism for yielding real answers and accumulating facts, not made up ones.
Fervent believers have been convinced that God is real not simply by making stuff up. It could be argued, however, that some of us prefer fantasy over reality...and that were we honest, our conclusions were premature. How can we tell a man to keep asking questions and to never settle for an answer, however?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by scienceishonesty, posted 01-06-2014 8:10 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by scienceishonesty, posted 01-07-2014 4:16 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18351
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 6 of 174 (715578)
01-07-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by scienceishonesty
01-07-2014 9:47 AM


Re: Summed Up In One Post
I asked Sci:
quote:
A couple of questions:
1) Do you see evolution as a scientific reality?(In other words, is science eternally evolving?
2) Do you see any and all Creationism as a product of the human mind?(In other words, we create the gods we serve?)
Sci relied:
quote:
1. In so many words, yes. It is the only explanation that has withstood scrutiny.
2. I do. There's no evidence to suggest otherwise.
This is a bit like demanding that one prefer math over literature since math is a precise science whereas literature is vague and fluffy.
In my opinion, the issue is not demanding honesty be arrived at through cold hard facts. The issue is a philosophical one. It leads to questions such as:
1) When we die do we cease to exist?
2) Is a soul purely a biochemical,physical reality or is it non-existent through lack of proof?
3) This ancient book known as the Bible...has it been a consensus of human minds(only) or is it something more mysterious...
4) Is absence of evidence a default conclusion and evidence of absence?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by scienceishonesty, posted 01-07-2014 9:47 AM scienceishonesty has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18351
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 36 of 174 (715675)
01-08-2014 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by scienceishonesty
01-08-2014 9:35 AM


Re: false dichotomies.
So as a Christian you believe that Christ died for the sins of the world, right?
I do. In context, sin=separation. You present science as a more logical solution. Yet what has science given humanity? Many good and noble things...to be sure. Yet we have always engaged in wars with greater and greater destructive potential. In fact, I would wager--given human nature---that weapons of mass destruction will yet be used in a future conflict.
Belief only makes sense if God exists, however...and if He is good. I would further argue that such a belief held by an individual does not make them ignorant of science. We as humans need to recognize that philosophy is not always scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by scienceishonesty, posted 01-08-2014 9:35 AM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by scienceishonesty, posted 01-08-2014 10:09 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18351
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 159 of 174 (717426)
01-27-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Stile
01-27-2014 10:44 AM


Re: ultimate purpose
quote:
I find no peace from a purpose that comes from somewhere other than my own decisions.
It's a bit too close to giving up my sense of free will.
Now im beginning to understand you. Since you have remained open-minded to the whole "meeting Jesus" idea, I don't have anything to add. Hypothetically, would it concern you if the contingency on meeting Jesus would be to surrender your free will to Him? Is there any other way the relationship could proceed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Stile, posted 01-27-2014 10:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Stile, posted 01-27-2014 12:02 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18351
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 166 of 174 (717524)
01-28-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Stile
01-28-2014 1:33 PM


Re: ultimate purpose
Stile writes:
I was more thinking along the lines of a silly scenario like this
God: I created the universe! And I gave you the ultimate purpose of causing suffering on this planet! That's why there's things like germs and disease and birth defects... so that you could learn from them and create your own chaos!!!
Me: Uh... okay. That sounds stupid. I'm going to decide to do something else for my ultimate purpose...
vs:
God: I created the universe! And I gave you the ultimate purpose of being a good person! That's why there's things like happiness and love and charity... so that you could learn from them and create your own paradise!!!
Me: Uh... okay. That sounds pretty good. I'm going to decide to go along with it as my ultimate purpose...
As shown above, my point is more along the lines of "regardless of God giving us an ultimate purpose... we still personally decide whether or not to agree with it. Therefore... the "ultimate purpose" isn't ever God's... but what we decide to go along with.
This agrees with jars belief in personal responsibility. According to him, A&E were not burdened with original sin---rather they were given the gift of awareness of choice between good and evil.
In that context, God is no longer necessary on a day to day basis.
We already have the inner awareness of what to do and what not to do.
I disagree with this only because...when under pressure...I have found that humans will look out for themselves before looking out for others. Hence we need the help of an authority over us.
You would probably say that its all built in already...that through our conscience and wisdom we have all we need already. Am I close?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 1:33 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 01-28-2014 2:12 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024