• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why must science preclude religion?

W

Woodchuck2000

Golden Member
At the risk of jumping on the 'Atheism vs Theism' bandwagon...
Do people agree that all evidence theists cite for the existence of God can be explained in a scientific context? Would people agree that all science's discoveries can be explained in terms of religion?

As I see it, religion and science merely present differing explanations of the same world. Discuss...
 
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
At the risk of jumping on the 'Atheism vs Theism' bandwagon...
Do people agree that all evidence theists cite for the existence of God can be explained in a scientific context? Would people agree that all science's discoveries can be explained in terms of religion?

As I see it, religion and science merely present differing explanations of the same world. Discuss...
Click to expand...

Science doesn't preclude religion... it's faith where the problem arises.
 
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
At the risk of jumping on the 'Atheism vs Theism' bandwagon...
Do people agree that all evidence theists cite for the existence of God can be explained in a scientific context? Would people agree that all science's discoveries can be explained in terms of religion?

As I see it, religion and science merely present differing explanations of the same world. Discuss...
Click to expand...

Science doesn't preclude religion... it's faith where the problem arises.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
At the risk of jumping on the 'Atheism vs Theism' bandwagon...
Do people agree that all evidence theists cite for the existence of God can be explained in a scientific context? Would people agree that all science's discoveries can be explained in terms of religion?

As I see it, religion and science merely present differing explanations of the same world. Discuss...
Click to expand...

...or they can be the same. Evidence of God does not exist. However, evidence that there is no God also does not exist. There you go. There is no reason for an Atheist to believe, but no reason for a <insert religious alignment> not to believe, either.
 
Science doesn't preclude or even oppose faith, just some absurdly literal interpretations of the Bible (specifically that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old).

Faith in the bible as exact and literal truth does contradict physics and biology. Faith in the bible as an inexact human view of divine events does allow for the existence of science -- for example, if a "day" in the story of creation is really a billion years or more.
 
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
At the risk of jumping on the 'Atheism vs Theism' bandwagon...
Do people agree that all evidence theists cite for the existence of God can be explained in a scientific context? Would people agree that all science's discoveries can be explained in terms of religion?

As I see it, religion and science merely present differing explanations of the same world. Discuss...
Click to expand...

Science doesn't preclude religion... it's faith where the problem arises.
Click to expand...
How so?
Click to expand...

Um, because science is based on empirical evidence and rationalization, while faith is based on... faith.
 
That said, Science is still based on a set of axioms which cannot be proven.
I know people who's faith is as logically consistent as contemporary science.
 
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
That said, Science is still based on a set of axioms which cannot be proven.
I know people who's faith is as logically consistent as contemporary science.
Click to expand...

That's why i said it doesn't preclude religion.
rolleye.gif

 
Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
That said, Science is still based on a set of axioms which cannot be proven.
I know people who's faith is as logically consistent as contemporary science.
Click to expand...
Actually sicence is based on a set of axioms which have never been disproven (despite rigorous testing) a hugely important difference.

Physics work as predicted by our theories within the limits of our ability to measure effects. Physics are testable and create predictable, reproducible results.

Confession might lead to eternal salvation but there is no way to prove or disprove this. It has no predictive ability and is not testable by anyone alive. (Without them dying)
 
I think religious people will never totally believe in science so it's a moot point. They're running an "operating system" installed on them when they were too young to know any better. You can show them scientific proof of evolution, but to them proof is not enough. Nothing will overrule their blind faith, and I think that's where the major problem lies. They trust blind faith more than reason.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Science doesn't preclude or even oppose faith, just some absurdly literal interpretations of the Bible (specifically that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old).

Faith in the bible as exact and literal truth does contradict physics and biology. Faith in the bible as an inexact human view of divine events does allow for the existence of science -- for example, if a "day" in the story of creation is really a billion years or more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a very common misconception. Most people tend to think that the bible says creation lasted seven 24 hour periods, when it fact the hebrew word for day can mean 24 hours, 12 hours, or an indefinite period of time.
 
Originally posted by: rockyct
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Science doesn't preclude or even oppose faith, just some absurdly literal interpretations of the Bible (specifically that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old).

Faith in the bible as exact and literal truth does contradict physics and biology. Faith in the bible as an inexact human view of divine events does allow for the existence of science -- for example, if a "day" in the story of creation is really a billion years or more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a very common misconception. Most people tend to think that the bible says creation lasted seven 24 hour periods, when it fact the hebrew word for day can mean 24 hours, 12 hours, or an indefinite period of time.
Click to expand...

Religious people keep trying to redefine what their Bible means in order to maintain some relevance in the modern world. Look how far the story has changed since the middle ages. The past doesn't change, modern people are trying to change the meaning of what was written to keep the story believable. Religions are cults.
 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: rockyct
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Science doesn't preclude or even oppose faith, just some absurdly literal interpretations of the Bible (specifically that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old).

Faith in the bible as exact and literal truth does contradict physics and biology. Faith in the bible as an inexact human view of divine events does allow for the existence of science -- for example, if a "day" in the story of creation is really a billion years or more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a very common misconception. Most people tend to think that the bible says creation lasted seven 24 hour periods, when it fact the hebrew word for day can mean 24 hours, 12 hours, or an indefinite period of time.
Click to expand...

Religious people keep trying to redefine what their Bible means in order to maintain some relevance in the modern world. Look how far the story has changed since the middle ages. The past doesn't change, modern people are trying to change the meaning of what was written to keep the story believable. Religions are cults.
Click to expand...

Check my sig.
 
because fools try to push the bounds of religion into the realm of the physical. "the meaning of life" that can be explored through religion. "why mountains exist" type questions should not be answered by religion. a religion if foolish for trying, it only undermines itself in doing so. think of the persecution of galileo by the church. a more current example would be evolution etc.
 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
. You can show them scientific proof of evolution, but to them proof is not enough. Nothing will overrule their blind faithq]

Ok.. time to see the scientific proof you speak of..
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Provider
Originally posted by: Marshallj
. You can show them scientific proof of evolution, but to them proof is not enough. Nothing will overrule their blind faithq]

Ok.. time to see the scientific proof you speak of..
Click to expand...

Do you choose to ignore the thousands of skeletons that we've unearthed that show slight changes that progress from ape-like beings to modern humans? Or do you have a clever rebuttle for that too?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Science doesn't preclude or even oppose faith, just some absurdly literal interpretations of the Bible (specifically that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old).

Faith in the bible as exact and literal truth does contradict physics and biology. Faith in the bible as an inexact human view of divine events does allow for the existence of science -- for example, if a "day" in the story of creation is really a billion years or more.
Click to expand...

I see, a billion years or more, yet we worship every 7th day, why? Shouldn't it be worshipping every 1 billion years or more then?

See the contradictions that occur when you start interpreting the bible? People say you can't take it literally so you must interpret it. What they mean is you must make up the meanings as you go and change it to better support you view.
 
OK... Your so called Proof that God is NOT real has just as many holes as the Proof that God IS real.
Do you guys really think this is a new topic or that somthing you say is new? well it's NOT!!
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you.... just give it up LET IT GO!
 
Originally posted by: Provider
OK... Your so called Proof that God is NOT real has just as many holes as the Proof that God IS real.
Do you guys really think this is a new topic or that somthing you say is new? well it's NOT!!
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you.... just give it up LET IT GO!
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to?

If you're talking to me, I did not attempt to prove that god does not exist, I was pointing out the proof that evolution is real.

And you cannot prove a negative, so don't ever bother asking for proof that something does NOT exist.
 
Originally posted by: Provider
OK... Your so called Proof that God is NOT real has just as many holes as the Proof that God IS real.
Do you guys really think this is a new topic or that somthing you say is new? well it's NOT!!
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you.... just give it up LET IT GO!
Click to expand...

Name me a SINGLE piece of evidence that God *is* real.
 
Originally posted by: Provider
what you show is that things adapt there is no proof that man came from ape.
Click to expand...

And yet there is proof that we came from a single man and woman in a garden with a talking snake?
 
Originally posted by: Provider
what you show is that things adapt there is no proof that man came from ape.
Click to expand...

You don't spend much time doing research , do you?

Question: Why do you think all those scientists and researchers (who DO spend time doing research) believe in evolution? Why is evololution the accepted school of thought for scientifically minded people, while creationism is the accepted school of though for closed minded religious people who are not flexible in their views?
 
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: Provider
Question: Why do you think all those scientists and researchers (who DO spend time doing research) believe in evolution? Why is evololution the accepted school of thought for scientifically minded people, while creationism is the accepted school of though for closed minded religious people who are not flexible in their views?
Click to expand...

So what you are sayig is that you trust in what others have to say? what is is so different about somone going to a church and going by what a preacher says?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Provider
So what you are sayig is that you trust in what others have to say? what is is so different about somone going to a church and going by what a preacher says?
Click to expand...

Because one group's belief is based on research, knowledge, and scientific testing, and the other group's belief is based on disregarding that research and having blind faith.

One side is looking around for facts, and the other side has its head in a hole like a proverbial ostrich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top