-
It depends on the religion. Christianity can't. Carbon dating and evolution have more evidence.
-
Unfortunately, they can not. The Bible, for example, has a vast array of scientific inaccuracies.
-
The Bible should not be the end all be all when it comes to religion.
-
I didn't say it was, I stated that it was an example. You simply stated that religion and science can coexist, which is a false statement.
-
How is it false? The Bible being filled with scientific inaccuracies isn't exactly compelling evidence.
-
Yes, it is. If the Bible says one thing is true, while science says it is false, then they can not coexist. For example, according to Genesis, there was light before there were stars. From where did the light come? And if you dare say, "God made it", then please provide evidence.
-
You can't be on both sides of the coin my man. I said that the Bible was not the end all be all when it comes to religion. You even agreed to that statement. The Bible is a book. A book written by men over many generations. To take every word in it as literal truth is lunacy. As I've previously stated, my personal belief is that science merely explains how God has made things. As if God is an architect and science reads the blue prints of the construction. Therefore they can coexist. To many people hold onto archaic beliefs that no longer apply today.
-
Then explain how God's existence is plausible in the first place, if you claim the ONLY "proof" available for his existence has been written by men over many generations.
-
Edited by zXShermanXz: 5/14/2015 11:21:59 PMAgain, not ALL things in the bible are accurate. I think the core of its teachings are still sound. Especially since they seem to be accepted by most monotheistic religions in the world today. Something had to happen for an entire world to go from a belief of multiple gods to one unified belief. Also, and I will state it again, I believe that our mere existence would be impossible to happen by chance. The odds are to astronomical. The earth, the universe, the harmonious way everything works is proof enough for me. There is also no point in arguing about this. Show me irrefutable proof that a God does not exist. Since you can not do that anymore than i can show you definitive proof that he does no one is right and no one is wrong. I didn't try to convert anyone or push my beliefs on to you. I merely made a statement that both sides can exist together. I feel the reasoning behind that statement has been explained simply enough. Whether or not you completely understand it, are open minded enough to accept it's plausibility, or just looking to start an argument where there is none is entirely up to you. My life will continue unchanged.
-
Edited by Lord Puncake: 5/15/2015 12:01:56 AMThe core of its teachings? If you're referring to morality, then you're reading the wrong book. Misogyny, racism, genocide, infanticide, as well as many other "moral" things are in the Bible. Also, the odds aren't as astronomical as you may think. Stephen Hawking stated that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of there being a planet capable of sustaining life. With the billions, if not trillions or more, of planets, it's perfectly possible for such an occurrence. I never stated that God does not exist. I stated that it is illogical to believe in one due to a lack of evidence and the fact that the books based around their existence (Bible, Qu'Ran, Torah, etc) are full of scientific inaccuracies. I didn't state you are attempting to convert beliefs. I understand that all you're doing is trying to show that both sides can exist together, however I am stating the opposite. Furthermore, is it truly me that is "not open-minded" enough? I give you evidence, and yet you choose to deny it. I'm not making any accusations around who is more close-minded, I'm just stating what's been happening.
-
Way to focus on all of the negative. So God was vengeful. Aren't children still disciplined today for bad behavior? Not only that but those aren't the things most people take away from the bible. Not in my experience in dealing with them anyway. Stephen Hawking can throw out whatever number he likes. He has no scientific evidence that could remotely come close to backing up those claims. Not saying other life doesn't exist, just saying that it is an anomaly. Life can't come from nothing. Spontaneous generation was disproved long ago. Even if prokaryotic bacteria survived the creation of the universe, the vacuum of space, and the intense scorching heat of a new planet that luckily had the exact nutritional requirements for life, it still had no catalyst for evolution. I believe it is typically held in the scientific community that cyanobacteria were among the first to be present in the toxic sespool that eventually became our oceans. It had no need to evolve. Not only that but micro organisms don't evolve into multicellular organisms of a different type. Staph is always staph. It only becomes mrsa through DNA manipulation that changes its enzyme production and or cell wall. It doesn't however become algae. Back to the original post... Bible says God created Earth - big bang theory explains how God created Earth Bible says God created man - evolution explains how God created man. This is what I meant when I said science merely explains how God accomplished certain things. And before you say I contradicted my statement about evolution...if the path was overseen by divine intervention to make sure ever single tiny nuanced detail was present to force wanted evolutionary responses then it could happen. Believe it or not I actually enjoy science. Always have. Astrology, anthropology, biology, all of it. I've had every reason in the world to doubt God's existence, but the more I learn about science the more I find it illogical to believe that billions or even trillions of coincidences just so happened at the right time to make us. These conversations are extremely taxing to have in a message board by the way.
-
And giving one example from one religion proves him wrong? Okay seems legit.
-
It does. He implied that ALL religion can coexist with science. I gave proof that Christianity can not, therefore his statement is incorrect.
-
[quote]People do know science and religion can coexist right?[/quote] Where is he say all religion? In his response he actually specified that he wasn't talking about all religions (or at least implied it)
-
Only if you are a deist my friend, only if you are a deist.
-
Only with the "god of the gaps" logic, which is shitty to say the least.
-
Please explain.
-
People used to explain natural phenomena with gods, now we explain it with physics. People used to explain disease with gods, now we explain it with pathogens. People used to explain mental illness with gods, now we explain it with genetics/trauma/ect. God can only exist where our knowledge doesn't, i.e. God of the Gaps.
-
Edited by zXShermanXz: 5/9/2015 1:41:36 AMOr...science could just be the explanation of how God does things. Deciphering the blue prints so to speak. This is what I was originally speaking about.
-
There is no evidence to suggest a god, therefore any faith in a god's existence is inherently unscientific. End of discussion.
-
There is also no evidence for many scientific theories relating to astrophysics. They are merely guessing that something unknown exists to make the math come out right. Also, as I've said to other people, you can't prove that he doesn't exist. You have your beliefs and I have mine.
-
No credible astrophysicist believe in those hypothetical astronomical bodies. Instead, they are open to the possibility of their existence based on their relation to current information. Science doesn't work with negatives. The "can't prove doesn't exist" argument is unscientific and illogical. For instance, you cannot prove I am not God. Go ahead, try. Prove that I am not God. Again, belief in a god is inherently unscientific. End of.
-
Which religion?
-
I don't ascribe to any one religion. Most of them are the same anyway. Only the fine print changes.
-
Just a excuse people make after their religion is proven wrong.