 |
| |
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Because that idea, even if it allows for the idea of God, contradicts the "Word of God", and for faiths that are built on the interpretation or literal assumption of the Bible, this throws a chinck in the works.
If the Bible is wrong about Man being made on the sixth day in the image of God, then Revelations could be wrong about the end times, or one could pausibly challange the denounciation of homosexuals in the bible, so forth and so on. |
That's the problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible. People need to remember that the Bible was written by humans and translated many times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Actually, yes.
I believe in the scientific theory of evolution in which God had no role in. However, he chose to give humans the gift of having a spirit/soul. |
It's not like science has proven that God had no role in evolution. Why are you so against the idea of God starting and directing physical evolution?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Remember the thread in which Boris and others have stated why people who believe in the scientific theory of evolution usually choose not to enter into a prolonged debate with creationists? Remember how they discussed the various ways in which creationists manipulate the form of debate to make it unfair for those who believe in scientific evolution?
Well for those reasons, I am not going to waste my time debating with you right now. |
I'm not asking for debate, nor am I a biblical creationist. I'm just trying to understand why someone who calls himself a christian would come to believe that God has nothing to do with physical creation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
quote:
Why are you so against the idea of God starting and directing physical evolution?
|
because it cant be scientificly proven |
There are many things science can't explain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
How could it when I am not a creationist nor an evolutionist? |
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ....
ID/creationism isn't about science - it's nothing but religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
quote:
There are many things science can't explain. |
true but the big difference is that science knows it own limitations and tries to reset those boundries...
and if you want to replace a working scientific theory with something not scientific without an scientific explaination you have no ground to stand on.
they can not prove that the evo theory is wrong (scientificly or otherwise) i am all for explaining the religious way of how the universe was formed but then in a different class...a science class is there to teach students basic theories that the can apply to solve problems or apply to the reality of the world around with great enough precision...I.D. doesnt do that thus making the science class void. |
I don't have anything against evolution being taught in school, as long as it is not taught that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ....
ID/creationism isn't about science - it's nothing but religion. |
Believing in God does not a creationist make.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
From the link i posted earlier:
3. Too Fine-tuned for Chance
There is a general view amongst physicists that the laws of nature that have allowed our creation are accidental. They are simply a property of mathematical principles that have nothing to do with our existence, or the existence of anything else for that matter. Life, the universe and everything exists by pure accident.
Another view emerged as the laws of nature came under increasingly detailed mathematical scrutiny and it became apparent that tinkering with them just slightly could make life impossible. It looked as though the laws of nature had been accurately set purposely to encourage the evolution of life.
The laws of nature can be defined by a set of numbers that provide the parameters for the evolution of the universe as we know it. One of these numbers in particular, the so-called cosmological constant has to be very tiny if the universe is to grow old enough and big enough to contain stars, and life.
The cosmological constant can be considered as the intrinsic mass and volume of empty space, which Einstein had suggested was not zero. It turns out that this number needs to be set to an accuracy of one part in a trillion, trillion trillion, trillion trillion, trillion trillion, trillion trillion, trillion. Any minuscule variation and life is a non-starter.
This raises all kinds of dilemmas for physicists who understandably shrank from the conclusion that pointed toward Intelligent Design. Martin Rees has remained steadfast: ‘Some people are satisfied with a religious explanation, whereas I think it is a scientific question, which deserves to be addressed by cosmologists.’
I see all these questions as ones that philosophy(and by extension religion) AND science can answer.
For many of our lives a spiritual level(religion) is as important as a real world level(science).
I'm glad that science decided to make computers, and not religion, imagine a religious computer - how frustrating that could be when all i wanted was a game of Civ! for example.
Each has merits and a reason for being, and hopefuly a useful part to play in our society imho.
But biggotry in any form isn't the way we can better ourselves as individuals.
I see religion and science as like the Yin and Yang 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:22
|
|
I'm done with working on my thesis until later today now. So to answer Cal's question in full as to how I can believe that God has no role in the physical world, but has a role in the spiritual realm.
First, there has been no scientific evidence produced by rigorous, repeatedly tested experiments to substantiate any claim that God created the world, and created life.
Second, I do not see any strong interconnection between the physical world and the spiritual realm. The physical world involves material things in all shapes and forms, from the largest skyscraper to the smallest microbe; these are all tangible, physical things.
The spiritual realm is separate from the physical world in that a person's spirit/soul is intangible. I believe that this is where God played such an important role. He gave humans the gift in that each individual person has his/her own spirit/soul that provides some kind of indirect connection with God. This also means, that with my belief, animals and plants have no connection with God for two reasons:
first, God never created any life
second, animals and plants, based on my personal belief, have no spirit/soul which is how one is connected with God in the first place
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
second, animals and plants, based on my personal belief, have no spirit/soul which is how one is connected with God in the first place |
And that rises the interesting question - was it god that made the first humanlike beings sentient or was it the first sentient beings that invented gods to explain the unexplainable ?
I think the right answer is the last one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
First, there has been no scientific evidence produced by rigorous, repeatedly tested experiments to substantiate any claim that God created the world, and created life.
|
Nor is their any scientific evidence that God created souls, yet you believe it - why?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
We humans did not invent God -- he always existed even long before humans evolved. |
And god was just taking a nap to approx 2000 years ago ?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2005 20:13
BUT atleast science has the flexible framework of being able to be constantly worked on and improved upon and disproved without any particularly terrible outcome. Something religion could learn from and avoid lots of bloodshed 
|