Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Uh-Oh, here comes a God vs Science thread
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Does it include a timeline?

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

video

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
avatar

Does it include a timeline?

That's an interesting interpretation. I do see how you get to the existence age (edited, used the wrong word) of the universe being undefined from it. However, doesn't it still put the dawn of man at ~6000 years (if what I've heard other people say is correct)?

Sorry if you've answered this hundreds of times in the past already.

__________________________________________________
Skoobalon Software
[ Lander! v2.5 ] [ Zonic the Hog v1.1 ] [ Raid 2 v1.0 ]

J-Gamer
Member #12,491
January 2011
avatar

@Arthur: Hilarious :D :D

" There are plenty of wonderful ideas in The Bible, but God isn't one of them." - Derezo
"If your body was a business, thought would be like micro-management and emotions would be like macro-management. If you primarily live your life with emotions, then you are prone to error on the details. If you over-think things all the time you tend to lose scope of priorities." - Mark Oates

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

StevenVI said:

However, doesn't it still put the dawn of man at ~6000 years (if what I've heard other people say is correct)?

Some people say that. Some say otherwise. Again, I wonder what people who think there's a contradiction believe it's saying and why.

And that's the second time someone has called something taken as read an "interesting interpretation." No it isn't! ;D

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Looks at hook dangling in front of him and decides not to bite. ;D

---
“I love you too.” - last words of Wanda Roy

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Neil Roy said:

Looks at hook dangling in front of him and decides not to bite. ;D

But the hook is harmless, it's only spaghetti...

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

StevenVI
Member #562
July 2000
avatar

And that's the second time someone has called something taken as read an "interesting interpretation." No it isn't! ;D

You could just as easily interpret the passage as saying that the universe was created, then a week later humans were, too. In fact, I would say it is easier to interpret it that way.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it right. :P

__________________________________________________
Skoobalon Software
[ Lander! v2.5 ] [ Zonic the Hog v1.1 ] [ Raid 2 v1.0 ]

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

StevenVI said:

You could just as easily interpret the passage as saying that the universe was created, then a week later humans were, too. In fact, I would say it is easier to interpret it that way.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it right. :P

I don't believe either. I have very little belief in anything those passages say, because they're very vague. What I want to know is the beliefs of those who say there's a contradiction, as someone who can't invest enough faith into any given interpretation to say one way or the other. Especially since those people seem to belief that their own interpretations somehow impact the beliefs of others. :)

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
avatar

Because I don't know that we evolved from apes.

We did not. Saying we evolved from apes is about as accurate as saying we evolved from amoebae.

The farthest point to which creationism can go alongside science is the view that God created the laws of nature that allow for evolution to happen, and that in all His wisdom and glory, He foresaw that evolution would at some point produce homo sapiens sapiens.

Personally, however, I think haemorrhoids, cancer, the eye's blind spot, our inability to grasp spatial problems beyond 3 dimensions (and many in 3 dimensions), the spleen, and a few dozen more design flaws in the human body, are pretty sure signs that if we were intelligently and willfully designed by a creator, then he did a rather sloppy job.

Still kinda curious why Dizzy believes God is at odds with science. Is there a single major religion that the information in the first post contradicts? Honest question. Anyone know?

Sure. Some orthodox Christians and Jews believe the Earth is some 7000 years old. Many Christians believe dinosaurs and man were both created at the same time. The Bible says (or at least, a lot of self-proclaimed Bible experts say) that homosexuality is unnatural. Unfortunately, my cultural background doesn't give me enough ammunition to list similar clashes for other religious movements, but I'm pretty certain one could easily come up with Muslim, Hindu, or even Buddhist (although Buddhism is not technically a religion) teachings that bear similar flaws. Of course, a Christian belief that does not interpret the Bible literally, and instead tries to dig to the core of what it tries to say, does not have this problem. In fact, it is even possible to be a Christian (as in, a follower of Jesus) while rejecting the Bible as a whole (one would of course still use it as an important source of information about Jesus, but it doesn't have to be the ultimate authority about everything).

cgman24 said:

Would you bet on it?

Oh yes.

Pascal had it wrong, because he approached the whole thing from a context where belief in God was the norm. I'm coming from the other side, and from where I stand, the story goes more like, let's question everything. Then if someone proposes an arbitrary deity, why would I bet my money on it? What if I have two deities to choose from? What if I have 15? The whole God thing only makes sense if it offers a better explanation for my unanswered questions than my current set of beliefs, which it doesn't. Pascal himself doesn't even provide a useful definition of his god - he presents God as "unknowable", which, by nature, is also undefinable, and thus a useless concept in any rational reasoning. Pascal got away with it because again, in his time, belief in God was the norm and everybody pretty much took the God concept for granted. (On a side note, I think defining God as "the undefinable" is pretty much spot-on, as it's a nice parallel with the core of Gödel's theorem, a statement that says of itself to be false - if God is defined as the undefinable, is He defined or not?)

Another problem is that his premise (everything to win, nothing to lose) is ultimately wrong. Belief in God does not provide "free happiness"; instead, it can be the source of extreme misery. By wagering against God, you win the freedom to choose your own meaning, you win the right to not be bound by religious rules, you win ultimate responsibility for your own actions. By wagering for God, you win the comfort of an intelligent being looking after you, (possibly) the comfort of an afterlife, a ready-made set of rules to structure your life, and answers to your unanswerable questions.

And then the third flaw; you are not obliged to wager. Agnosticism is perfectly valid, nothing wrong with admitting you're not sure either way.

---
Me make music: Triofobie
---
"We need Tobias and his awesome trombone, too." - Johan Halmén

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Sure. Some orthodox Christians and Jews believe the Earth is some 7000 years old. Many Christians believe dinosaurs and man were both created at the same time. The Bible says (or at least, a lot of self-proclaimed Bible experts say) that homosexuality is unnatural.

We're going to have a repeat of last thread, aren't we? I'm not asking what people believe, I'm asking what the religion says. And if you're going to say people's opinions represent the religion itself, stupid as that is, then provide percentages of Christians who think that (and if those percentages are in the minority, you suddenly become flat wrong). I'm pretty sure if nothing else, the Catholic church endorses most if not all of your points from the science side ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
avatar

OK, let me rephrase it then: Some orthodox Christian and Jewish religious leaders believe and teach that the Earth is some 7000 years old. Similar for the other arguments.

And I have never heard the Pope admit that homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing, even though all scientific evidence leads to that conclusion.

I also explicitly explained that the Christian religion as a whole does not contradict science, as it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and fully subscribe to scientific methods. There is no such thing as one uniform Christian religion though, and some variations clearly contradict scientific facts in their teachings, while others don't.

---
Me make music: Triofobie
---
"We need Tobias and his awesome trombone, too." - Johan Halmén

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

If something is natural, does that make it right?

If something is unnatural, does that make it wrong?

Enlighten the Supreme Loser.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

Quote:

Pascal's Wager

{"name":"Pascal03.JPG","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/3\/137fbe90b17f3882bcb3a6eb1af97def.jpg","w":1201,"h":766,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/3\/137fbe90b17f3882bcb3a6eb1af97def"}Pascal03.JPG
(Yes, I'm aware of the spelling errors, and no, I don't know who created it)

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

We're going to have a repeat of last thread, aren't we? I'm not asking what people believe, I'm asking what the religion says

I didn't want to get into this. What does religion say? Do you actually know? Or are you just interpreting what you've been taught and what you read? Does anyone actually know? I find it hard to believe that anyone actually can know without any doubt what happened over 2000 years ago based on some highly suspect re-translations of documents written much after the fact. Some written by crazy ass cults no less.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

I didn't want to get into this. What does religion say? Do you actually know? Or are you just interpreting what you've been taught and what you read? Does anyone actually know? I find it hard to believe that anyone actually can know without any doubt what happened over 2000 years ago based on some highly suspect re-translations of documents written much after the fact. Some written by crazy ass cults no less.

Without even bothering to refute some of that ... you speak like you have a better source. What are your beliefs on the topic based on? :)

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

ou speak like you have a better source.

We all have the same sources. So I really can't say mine is any better. Some people just like to think their way is better.

I like how you dodged my question though. Seriously, do you KNOW? I don't think you can do any better than interpreting what exists in your own frame of reference. And trying to claim anything more than that is pure hog-wash.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

I like how you dodged my question though. Seriously, do you KNOW?

Sorry if you thought I dodged; I felt it was a question answered. I really have no dog in this fight. And if we don't know what the religion says, then on what grounds is there a contradiction? Science contradicts ... nil? Argument defeated I guess, good job.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I wasn't really including myself in the current debate, just a part of it that I thought you were being silly on. You seem to claim that you (can) know what religion says with out a doubt, with no interpretation. I refute that.

btw, you dodged again.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

You seem to claim that you (can) know what religion says with out a doubt, with no interpretation. I refute that.

If it's literally wide open to interpretation then there's still no dialog possible. The text says what it says. If you can't trust it then you can't analyze it. Apply that thinking to science; how could you study something if the results randomly changed every time you performed the experiment?

Personally I think the integrity of the texts kicks the ass of every other historical text out there (history, not science; if you going to compare anything compare that) but if you know better then cool story, bro. Gotta agree to disagree I guess.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Many people believe in a literal creation. What will those people do if science proves something else? That is the question.

You people are funny that you make it into some theoretical debate.

But, to Mr. Egg, you can look to the past for your answers. Things devout religious people have believed have been discredited by science many times. They continue to believe because they change their opinions of what their holy texts say and mean.

Regarding creation itself, well, science will never be able to "prove" anything about it (unlike, say, explaining what lightning is), so there will always be people who happily believe in a literal creation.

Glad I could clear that up for you. >:(

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Religion is not science and vice versa. They aren't related.

Completely false. Religion is the original science. If there was no religion, there would be no science, because using empirical evidence to prove things would just be the norm. Many religions still maintain a parallel with science, but science "broke free" of religion because people found out they were lying.

Not the ones that Abraham made, of course. Many followers of those religions even bicker about details like evolution.
[edit: That's worded bad. I meant Abraham's religions don't follow science]

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

The text says what it says.

So basically we should take the bible literally, and follow it word for word? I think I'll need to get some stones.

Quote:

Apply that thinking to science;

Its a good thing religion is not science, and science is not religion. Of course that's not to say there isn't some faith involved in science. But clearly the two are very unrelated in this day and age. Mainly, I think because the extreme zealots on both sides like to keep it that way.

Quote:

Personally I think the integrity of the texts kicks the ass of every other historical text out there

Based on your faith and your own frame of reference I suppose? Unless you know. But then that's not what religion is about, or so I think you've said before.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

So basically we should take the bible literally, and follow it word for word?

Who's dodging now? The thread is about religious and scientific contradictions. "Following" the Bible isn't on the menu; I could be making these comments as an atheist quite comfortably. What exactly did you think we were talking about, specifically? I sense another of our misunderstandings here ...

Quote:

Based on your faith and your own frame of reference I suppose?

From what I've read of historical and scholarly studies. Again, this is only on the integrity of the texts. Nothing more.

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.



Go to: