Old 08-31-2007, 07:51 PM   #1
KA0Z R4VR
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
KA0Z R4VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 29
Posts: 287
Default God VS Science

I do believe this deserves its own thread because it has a specific subject other than the beliefs of many people, although I do encourage all other input. Of course this has been debated before, but I would love to see this specific arguement in a debate.

So here it goes:



God vs Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

This students statements are true, can you or can you not make night darker?

Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree's F.

Can you feel,taste,see,hear,or smell your brain,

Do you support this student's statement?
Do you support the teachers science?



Here's my first comment:

Scholasticism is the combination of science with god. Reason and belief. Who would have thought that they would ever come together.
As it says in Marks comment, Hate is not the absense of the good presence of God in ones heart. God DID NOT create satan. As a mtter of fact, in the Bible Lucifer was once god's archangel that became to proud and attempted the rebellion. He had his wings stripped and fell through the Earth where he had rights to his own dominion. Just because God does not answer prayers, it does not mean he does not care and that he is not good. The whole good idea is just ellaborately explained traits of a person. It has nothing to do with belief! God created humans with free will. In the Genisis it lists what god made within 1 week. We have all heard it:

God said let there be light. And there was light. So on and so forth. It very ellaboratetly dictates what God himself made. No where did it mention God said let there be bad and wrong and evil.

The concept of measurement does not apply to faith because faith is not finite. Science is a dictation over finite objects; things that can be physically measured. No one ever came with a concept of faith or sacred practices. Cold is the term we use for the absense of heat, not the opposite. In conclusion evil is the absense of good, not the opposite. Darkness is the absense of light, not the opposite. You can not scientifically aim darknes and light at eachother to see which has more prominent qualities.

When the student uses his brain analogy he is mocking the teachers arguement to only prove to the teacher that his own arguement is flawed.
He isn't trying to prove he does not have a brain; Obviously we know we do.
I believe the teacher was called out and lost this arguement.
KA0Z R4VR is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:16 PM   #2
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero
No, because the molecules stop moving.

ps didn't bother reading your thread because it looks like one of those stupid stories where a Christian "proves" a logical thinker wrong thanks to the Christian using flawed logic or the "logical thinker" using flawed logic.
__________________
Afrobean is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:19 PM   #3
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default Re: God VS Science

I am going to need a really good reason to keep this open. Not only is there a chain email taking up the larger part of it, but the rest is simple scientific statements or references to the story which is filled with logical missteps.

What's the saving grace of this thread?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:22 PM   #4
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

Both sides fell victim to multiple logical fallacies in their silly attempt to "prove" the other one incorrect. Neither side gave what I would consider to be -good- answers to any of the questions they were asked. As examples of intelligent reasonable people, one religious, the other an atheist, they fail miserably to hold up their side with any kind of intelligence or reason.

I decalre them both in need of some intro philosophy courses.

Edit: That's one snipe for you, Guido *shakes fist*
(Or was it just the absence of me sniping you?)
devonin is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:27 PM   #5
KA0Z R4VR
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
KA0Z R4VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 29
Posts: 287
Default Re: God VS Science

Well, I did not make the "colder than absolute zero comment", but I want to ellaborate on the topic. The teacher does make a few good points, and the student does use that against him in order to prove his point, but obviously if there are flaws then I want to see what people can come up with. Let this thread stand for now please :]

If you have ever done a DBQ [data based questions] before you would see what I am getting at. A document is presented and you are to prove, disagree, and agree with what you have, including the flaws. You can use the flaws to challenge someone elses logic or use it on your own to prove a point and so on.

Last edited by KA0Z R4VR; 08-31-2007 at 08:31 PM..
KA0Z R4VR is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:32 PM   #6
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

So...the way you are going to try and justify the thread's existence is that you're curious to see why we think the text of the thread sucks? Alright, I'll have a go at it.
devonin is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:38 PM   #7
KA0Z R4VR
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
KA0Z R4VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 29
Posts: 287
Default Re: God VS Science

Lol in simple words, yes. I know it seems bizzare to use a random email, but I want to see what it really holds up in a case of REAL logical thinkers.

Quote:
Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.
Does this apply to the term evil? Is it absense of good
KA0Z R4VR is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 08:56 PM   #8
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR View Post
God vs Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion."
Very many scientists have no problem with religion at all. He is using a hasty generalization. -5 points.

Quote:
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."
Religious person has claimed omnipotence exists, which is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to be omnipotent, though being incredibly powerful is certainly a possibility. -2 points.

Quote:
"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."
The bible says that he was born with original sin, and that as a human he is -prone- to the temptation to sin. It does not say he is evil. Straw manning his own holy book -5 points.

Quote:
"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."
Religious person is just being a moron here. God says man is prone to sin, but God also says man is perfectly capable of redeeming himself, doing good, and being saved. The correct answer is "Yes sir, I am good"

Quote:
"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
Yes I can answer that one: God gave man free will, God does not directly interfere in the course of humanity. Praying for intercession does nothing because God will not violate his promise to give man free will.

Quote:
The student remains silent.
The student doesn't know the first thing about his own religion. -10 points on general principle.

Quote:
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"
Why does he need to falter? God makes all things according to his plan. If it is part of God's plan that there be a force of evil in the world to work in opposition to the forces of Good, that's perfectly fine. God did create everything after all.

Quote:
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"
"Yes."
"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
This principle he quotes is something he just made up himself. There's no such universal objective principle that says "your works define who you are" His conclusion is invalid as it comes from invalid premises. -5 points.

Quote:
Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"
The natural course of the world as it took via the free will God gave it is what created them. The implication that "Because God made things, and some things are bad, God is bad" is rediculous and doesn't follow from the argument. -5 points.

Quote:
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
Oh my God, I can't believe a man of science would say such an absurd thing. He is trying to argue therefore, that only things you have personally experienced are "real" and would have to admit also say...that China doesn't exist, the pyramids don't exist, the ancient mayans didn't exist, and honestly, since "your memory" isn't a sense, he can only claim to have "proof according to science" of the things he can empiracally experience right this second. He gets -his PhD, and a kick in the face for being a moron.

Quote:
"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
So...for his stunning proof of why science hates religion and thinks it is bunk, I assess Mr Science the loss of his degree, about 40 points, and grant him a complete dismissal as a pot-stirring idiot who doesn't know how to deal with religious people.

Quote:
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"And is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No sir, there isn't."
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."
"Heat" is a word, a label, and has no objective or intrinsic value. He tries to claim that you can make something infinite;y hot but only finitely "un-hot" and thus tries to establish "heat" as some objective universal, where the least-hot we can get is called "cold" but isn't actually cold because there's a bottom limit. This is crap. He has no idea whether or not there is a maximal limit of heating things, and to suggest there is, is pretty ignorant of him. Also, just because -we- can't cool things to below "absolute zero" (and it might not be possible at all) doesn't mean a) that it is a finite limit

Quote:
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
What a pathetic class to be in awe instead of dumbfounded. They all get an F.

Quote:
"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"
His whole arguement is identical to the previous one, and just as idiotic.

Quote:
"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."
"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."
If you grant the professor's previous use of this logic as valid, this is a valid objection, however they are both full of crap and illogic.

Quote:
"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
Where -is- this argument going? "OMG you never saw it, so you have to take it on faith!!" except that while there is ample evidence to suggest evolution, there is very little (okay, no) evidence to suggest God.

Quote:
The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"
Actually, science says there are plenty of tests that are easily run, provable and reproducable that will demonstrate that there is a brain in his head. Further, if they -really- wanted to test it, they could slice his head open and look. Horribly fallacious logic, -20 points and a lobotomy.

Quote:
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
Now he's just contradicting himself because he thinks everyone forgot what he already said. There is Good and Evil in the world according to his own religion, to misrepresent himself in order to "win" a "debate" is pretty much one of the cardinal sins of argumentation and logic.


Now....on to your conclusions and questions:

This students statements are true, can you or can you not make night darker? Just because it is easier for us to create a total absence of light doesn't mean that creating a total presence of light is impossible. This is a false dilemma. -5 points.

Is it possible for it to get colder after absolute zero -458 degree's F. See above. False dilemma. Just because that's the most "un-hot" something can be doesn't mean there's not a most "hot" and just because we choose to label the general absence of warmth "cold" doesn't mean we aren't also labelling the general absence of cold "warmth"

Can you feel,taste,see,hear,or smell your brain? Given the right equipment, I can see it easily enough. I can also feel, taste and smell someone else's brain under the right circumstances.

Do you support this student's statement? Nope
Do you support the teachers science? Nope
devonin is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 09:06 PM   #9
KA0Z R4VR
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
KA0Z R4VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 29
Posts: 287
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
This principle he quotes is something he just made up himself. There's no such universal objective principle that says "your works define who you are" His conclusion is invalid as it comes from invalid premises. -5 points.
As a matter of fact, one of the most spread philosophical outlooks in the world believes that yes you are defined by what you do. In India, there were caste systems. You were born in a class and that class did define who you were. It gave someone identity and a place in society. As far as using it as a premises to disproove what the student is saying it really does not validate. Most of your quotes seem to be along the same lines of what I am thinking; Neither of them did prove their points, and when they did, it was flawed.

Quote:
The natural course of the world as it took via the free will God gave it is what created them. The implication that "Because God made things, and some things are bad, God is bad" is rediculous and doesn't follow from the argument. -5 points.
Yet again, along the same lines I am agreeing with.

God made free will, not good or evil.
KA0Z R4VR is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 09:19 PM   #10
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
You were born in a class and that class did define who you were
It defined what you did, but to say that it defined who you are is a slap in the face of the entire concept of free will, drive and ambition. As it was put so nicely in the excellent movie/book/graphic novel "Stardust"

Quote:
There are shopboys, and then there are people who just work in a shop for the time being.
What I do, and my current role in society define who I am no more than the colour of my skin, or the type of my blood.

To put it more bluntly: Consider the ramifications of the phrase "What you do defines who you -are-" with respect to the concept of slavery.
devonin is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 09:20 PM   #11
freakysnots
八一
FFR Veteran
 
freakysnots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Xinjiang, PRC
Age: 28
Posts: 2,904
Default Re: God VS Science

I believe nothing is there until it is proven to be there.

Anything beyond that is fictional until discovered.
__________________

freakysnots is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 09:25 PM   #12
KA0Z R4VR
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
KA0Z R4VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 29
Posts: 287
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
It defined what you did, but to say that it defined who you are is a slap in the face of the entire concept of free will, drive and ambition.
In the belief of hinduism, the idea is dharma and karma. It did define who you were and did take away the sense of free will. You are born who you are meant to be. You are no more than what you have been chosen to do. Of course, in India, once one was born into a caste system you were unable to get out. Fortunately we have that choice now to be who we want to be.

As far as being fictional until discovered, you are basically saying nothing exists until it exists. That holds no logic. Plenty of things exist before stated otherwise.
KA0Z R4VR is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 09:37 PM   #13
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
As far as being fictional until discovered, you are basically saying nothing exists until it exists. That holds no logic. Plenty of things exist before stated otherwise
Strawman, -5 points.

No, he's saying -he- won't believe it -himself- unless there is sufficient proof. I mean, it's a pretty absurd thing to claim anyway, but at least respond to the claim he made, not the claim you want to say he made.
devonin is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 10:14 PM   #14
jewpinthethird
(The Fat's Sabobah)
FFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
jewpinthethird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 11,711
Send a message via AIM to jewpinthethird
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"
I have. He tastes like cheap wine and stale crackers.

Fact: Science doesn't care about your God and wants nothing to do with it. Scientists don't factor in "God" when they comb over their variables. The realm of Science does not overlap with the realm of God. Theology does however. Theology is unwavering. Theology is definite. Theology is ignorance, "laws" based on nothing but the symbolic poems of primitive desert nomads. Theology has no basis nor grounding in the real world.

There have existed many Gods throughout human history. All of them are equally valid in that none of them have ever been proven to exist, that's why the foundation of religion is faith in God (and the select few who are able to communicate with God...like the Pope...or George W Bush). The religious are slaves to theology, unable to exercise their own free-will outside the limitations of their religion.

Also, science is the study of nature through the elimination of hypotheses to form a theory. Therefore, Nature's laws are universal. God's laws are not, they very region to region, God to God.

It's not a question of "proving God doesn't exist." He does that well enough on his own.

PS. I have no problem with the Religious. It's their right to live their lives as they want, but God vs. Science is an idiotic debate. No self respecting scientist would ever get involved in such an argument, simply because the argument is below them.

Last edited by jewpinthethird; 08-31-2007 at 10:22 PM..
jewpinthethird is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 11:23 PM   #15
KA0Z R4VR
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
KA0Z R4VR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 29
Posts: 287
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakysnots View Post
I believe nothing is there until it is proven to be there.

Anything beyond that is fictional until discovered.
Nothing as in non-existant is there [to be accounted for] until its proven to be there.

Anything beyond that is fictional? You are basically saying that if it hasn't been discovered then it does not exist. Most of the universe has not been discovered nor will it be for some time, but that does not mean it is ficticious. Faith is one of those things that can be discovered, but not indefinitely, but that does not mean it does not exist.
KA0Z R4VR is offline  
Old 08-31-2007, 11:41 PM   #16
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

You already posted basically that exact statement..why did you post it again? I'll just copy/paste my previous response.

Strawman, -5 points.

No, he's saying -he- won't believe it -himself- unless there is sufficient proof. I mean, it's a pretty absurd thing to claim anyway, but at least respond to the claim he made, not the claim you want to say he made.
devonin is offline  
Old 09-3-2007, 02:57 AM   #17
Grandiagod
FFR Player
 
Grandiagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Feaefaw
Age: 32
Posts: 6,122
Send a message via AIM to Grandiagod Send a message via MSN to Grandiagod
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR View Post
Nothing as in non-existant is there [to be accounted for] until its proven to be there.

Anything beyond that is fictional? You are basically saying that if it hasn't been discovered then it does not exist. Most of the universe has not been discovered nor will it be for some time, but that does not mean it is ficticious. Faith is one of those things that can be discovered, but not indefinitely, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Same argument as "Well you can't prove god DOESN'T exist."
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny
Grandiagod is offline  
Old 09-3-2007, 03:20 AM   #18
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: God VS Science

Reading that obviously fake transcript hurt my brain. No legit science professor would be dumbfound by such flimsy logic which could be used to debunk the student's very own claims, fail to state how science works by making a conclusion from facts and observations and not the other way around, and fail to state that it's mother****ing science.

It's a common argument for Creationists that science requires faith, therefore is on the same tier as religion. I was watching a I.D. program on some Christian channel (not to challenge my beliefs so much as to learn the logic behind I.D. proponents, and it was at that infinitesimally small moment before I changed the channel that I realized I had no reason to be watching it), and the guy said "blah blah FOSSIL RECORD GAPS ... what fills these gaps? Faith does. Faith fills these gaps." It's simply a crappy argument because science has a foundation, it reaches conclusions from that foundation and not the other way around. If there was evidence against evolution (not speculation!), science would move on and reach a new conclusion.

Quote:
What a pathetic class to be in awe instead of dumbfounded. They all get an F.
False presumption for all of them. If I were there, I'd either be sleeping or calling everyone out on their stupidity. Probably the latter, but I wasn't there Silence != dumbfounded. -5 points.
__________________
last.fm

Last edited by lord_carbo; 09-3-2007 at 03:35 AM..
lord_carbo is offline  
Old 09-3-2007, 12:23 PM   #19
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Silence != dumbfounded. -5 points
Um...I specifically said they -should- have been dumbfounded but weren't. Comprehension! -5 for you.

And on that note, I think this thread can lock up and die.
devonin is offline  
Old 09-3-2007, 02:56 PM   #20
lord_carbo
FFR Player
 
lord_carbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: fighting villains from afar, NJ
Age: 28
Posts: 6,223
Send a message via AIM to lord_carbo
Default Re: God VS Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Um...I specifically said they -should- have been dumbfounded but weren't. Comprehension! -5 for you.
Touché.
__________________
last.fm
lord_carbo is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution