01 May 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbythat is not the problem of science. it is a matter of philosophy, spirituality, speculation. from a scientific point of view, if one cannot prove something, it doesn't matter. from a scientific point of view, god is not a useful theory.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
assuming you are talking about natural laws of physics, genetics, etc, yes, science discovers knowledge, it doesn't invent stuff.
yes, sir. and who would you suppose is responsible for the presence of the "natural laws of physics, genetics"?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have to disagree.
that is not the problem of science. it is a matter of philosophy, spirituality, speculation. from a scientific point of view, if one cannot prove something, it doesn't matter. from a scientific point of view, god is not a useful theory.
There is no such thing as a question of fact that is outside the purview of science.
Originally posted by cashthetrashyou get a cold, you treat the symptoms, and it goes away in at most 10 days. if you get complications, those are treated as well. that is science. not religion.
Yes I say it with a straight face because none of it trumps what God has already done is is still doing with man as one of his many tools.
So you are saying a scientist created the internet? I thought Al Gore did. He mixed up a cup of soup and poof out popped the internet. But that is just a theory similar to evolutionists stupid theory.
And now y ...[text shortened]... it's a lot healthier for us than it is after science gets a hold of it. That stuff is fattening.
"So you are saying a scientist created the internet? I thought Al Gore did"
your attempt at humor is weak. that joke got old an hour after it was created.
"Science has cured poverty and hunger"
i never said that. try to quote me if you are incapable of comprehending.
i said "we feed the hungry, cure the sick". that doesn't mean science has ciecured poverty and hunger. they are still around for socio-economic reasons. because there are unstable regions, wars.
what i said was that we have a much better crop yield at everything. we have cures for diseases that meant a death sentence merely 100 years ago.
we preserve food so it doesn't spoil.
"the truth is God creates food too"
so you mean to say that if we begin using stone age or even bronze age agricultural techniques, god will give us the same amount of food? if we stop all agriculture, god will create food for us?
"after science gets a hold of it"
science is providing tools. those tools are used by people. just because science has also given us bombs and guns and nukes it doesn't mean our present day is thousands of times better than antiquity. or middle ages. or even victorian england.
science has nothing to do with how we use it. through it, not religion, we progress as a species. religion has other uses. and it should never be mixed with science.
"it still hasn't disproved the existence of God and never will."
it (science) never tried to and never will. it simply doesn't need god to work and
01 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgewhy are we here?
I have to disagree.
There is no such thing as a question of fact that is outside the purview of science.
what is evil?
what is good?
what is moral?
where are we headed?
only a few questions that science cannot answer. philosophy can attempt to.
how about you imagine a way to find a formula for evil? what are the variables?
science has its uses. philosophy has others.
"There is no such thing as a question of fact that is outside the purview of science."
yes, that is true. as long as it is about an objective aspect of the universe.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow the universe came to be is one such question.
why are we here?
what is evil?
what is good?
what is moral?
where are we headed?
only a few questions that science cannot answer. philosophy can attempt to.
how about you imagine a way to find a formula for evil? what are the variables?
science has its uses. philosophy has others.
"There is no such thing as a question of fact that is ...[text shortened]... ew of science."
yes, that is true. as long as it is about an objective aspect of the universe.
So are questions about the existence of things like souls.
And actually science can answer all of those questions, so far as they have an answer.
For example, morality is about how people interact with each other and society to best
maximise wellbeing. Through the study of human beings and by utilising scientific
methodologies we can test competing ideas to see which are best.
Science is the study of reality.
As long as it's real it's in sciences wheelhouse.
The existence of a god absolutely qualifies.
01 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgescience can answer the question about souls existing if you have a definition for them.
How the universe came to be is one such question.
So are questions about the existence of things like souls.
And actually science can answer all of those questions, so far as they have an answer.
For example, morality is about how people interact with each other and society to best
maximise wellbeing. Through the study of human beings and by u ...[text shortened]... s long as it's real it's in sciences wheelhouse.
The existence of a god absolutely qualifies.
"morality is about how people interact with each other and society to best
maximise wellbeing. Through the study of human beings and by utilising scientific
methodologies we can test competing ideas to see which are best."
the amish community has one set of morals. they interact with each other to maximize well being. how much more or less moral would you say western civilization is? and from western civilization, do you take the french as a point of reference? the danes? the brits?
"Through the study of human beings and by utilising scientific
methodologies we can test competing ideas to see which are best"
i am curious exactly how do you propose to do that. would you say a snickers is the best chocolate there is? perhaps mars is. perhaps it is a peruvian chocoloate only available in lima. how can you say what is the best chocolate if it is subjective?
"As long as it's real it's in sciences wheelhouse."
love is real. is it a science? you might study the effect of endorphines on human physiology. do you study love? can you quantify it? can you state laws that govern it?
not everything that is real can be explained scientifically.
01 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt is not science, but it can be explained by and studied with science.
love is real. is it a science?
you might study the effect of endorphines on human physiology.
You might also study it from a psychological point of view.
do you study love?
Yes, of course you can.
can you quantify it?
Not exactly, but not all things are quantifiable. That doesn't put them beyond the reach of science.
can you state laws that govern it?
To some degree, yes. If we cannot, then do you think there are no laws? Does love not follow any patterns? Is it random? If it is not random, then it follows certain laws and those laws may be discovered through science.
not everything that is real can be explained scientifically.
Yes, it can.
An interesting story:
I've heard that the 'King James' version translations of the " Holy Bible" was ordered to come about because' King James' didn't believe in God and wanted to prove Christianity was a wrong and immoral. He hired a team of translators to translate from Hebrew into English. After studying these translations, he had a change of heart and mind and came to the Lord God through his own works and studies.
I only hope someone in this forum that disbelieves in God's existence can be intelligent enough to rethink their disbelief and become a king to those other disbelieving followers, leading them with the same great words of passion they once used against the Lord God and now with passionate words for the Lord God. That is my hope and prayer. It is a huge dream, but I have faith that along with science, a new tool will develop and make my dream a reality.
I can still be friends with anyone who disbelieves. It won't cause me to dislike them. I have always enjoyed conversations and debate because it stimulates creativity. I believe in divine creation, and I support science, but I believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be false junk science.
There are many God inspired discoveries science accepted as correct. But let's not forget science has made many blunders. Science used to believe Pluto was a planet, now we know it is not a planet. Many drugs that science thought were good treatments for illnesses have been taken off the market because it was found to do harm. The world was flat, according to science, and if one strayed to far one would fall off. Now we know it's egg shaped. Blood-letting used to be common practice in medical science for many ailments, including anema.
The only evolution I believe in is that some science in it's early stages has had to evolve or correct some of it's past mistakes, when only an idiot would still believe. Unfortunately in some cases, only to come up with new idiotic beliefs.
Shall I continue? Or do you still believe Science to be more accurate than God's word?
Originally posted by cashthetrashI had the opposite experience. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that much of it was exaggerated, or untrue. Whereas, the more I have read about evolution, the more I have become convinced that it is correct.
An interesting story:
I've heard that the 'King James' version translations of the " Holy Bible" was ordered to come about because' King James' didn't believe in God and wanted to prove Christianity was a wrong and immoral. He hired a team of translators to translate from Hebrew into English. After studying these translations, he had a change of hear ...[text shortened]... liefs.
Shall I continue? Or do you still believe Science to be more accurate than God's word?
01 May 14
Originally posted by cashthetrashIt is my hope that people like you come to realise that if you want people to take you seriously, don't start off with obviously false stories, however interesting they may seem to you.
I only hope someone in this forum that disbelieves in God's existence can be intelligent enough to rethink their disbelief and become a king to those other disbelieving followers, leading them with the same great words of passion they once used against the Lord God and now with passionate words for the Lord God.
My advice to you: don't believe everything you are told just because it sounds nice. Check your facts before passing them on.
The world was flat, according to science...
Where did you get that from?
Do you even know what science is?
01 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we cannot, then do you think there are no laws?
It is not science, but it can be explained by and studied with science.
[b]you might study the effect of endorphines on human physiology.
You might also study it from a psychological point of view.
do you study love?
Yes, of course you can.
can you quantify it?
Not exactly, but not all things are quantifiable. That doesn't pu ...[text shortened]... gh science.
not everything that is real can be explained scientifically.
Yes, it can.[/b]
if you cannot, it can either be we have not found any yet or none can be found ever because what we call love is so broad and complex that it can't be defined.
i believe the latter.
Does love not follow any patterns?
no.
Is it random?
yes
not everything that is real can be explained scientifically.
Yes, it can.[/b]
why don't all people like van gogh? can you explain that scientifically? why don't all people like mozart? why don't they all like justin bieber?
why do some people fall in love in brunettes and some with blondes? why do some people prefer fat girls why others go for skinny ones? some like old women or men, some like young.
you can't say with a straight face that there are laws governing love among humans when to every affirmation about love, there are countless counter examples. what is so scientific about something that only occurs half the time as predicted?
01 May 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziSpirituality: Quotations (Page 4) Thread 155320
If we cannot, then do you think there are no laws?
if you cannot, it can either be we have not found any yet or none can be found ever because what we call love is so broad and complex that it can't be defined.
i believe the latter.
Does love not follow any patterns?
no.
Is it random?
yes
[b]not everything that is real can be explained scie ...[text shortened]... ter examples. what is so scientific about something that only occurs half the time as predicted?
"The Four Loves is a book by C. S. Lewis which explores the nature of love from a Christian and philosophical perspective through thought experiments..."
Zahlanzi, this text on the topic of love may be of interest to you.
01 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemApropos: "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me; it's the parts I DO understand that bother me." -- Mark Twain.
I had the opposite experience. The more I read the Bible, the more I became convinced that much of it was exaggerated, or untrue. Whereas, the more I have read about evolution, the more I have become convinced that it is correct.