A Creation Story for Materialists

[archangel]

this thread has been reduced to one liners...barely sentences...LOL!

 

[dilloduck]

this thread has been reduced to one liners...barely sentences...LOL!

Ain't simplicity great?

 

[Max Power]

Simply because God-based beliefs can't be scientifically proved, is not a valid reason to totally exclude it from curriculum or denigrate it, which is precisely what the advocates of "scienctific theory only" are engaged in.

That depends on what curriculum you're discussing.

I wouldn't advocate teaching big bang cosmology in a religious studies class.

 

[archangel]

Ain't simplicity great?

when a subject has been played out...zzzzzzzz! :coffee3:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Simply because God-based beliefs can't be scientifically proved, is not a valid reason to totally exclude it from curriculum or denigrate it, which is precisely what the advocates of "scienctific theory only" are engaged in.

Then, it is the responsibilitiy of the parents to provide this "education" about "God-based" beliefs not the public school system. Unless, of course, one is willing to present the beliefs of all the other world's great religions on an equal footing.

And, you have pointed out the problem with "God-based" beliefs...They cannot be proven. Religion, at it's heart, is an attempt to externalize and objectify experiences which are wholly internal and subjective. Due to the nature of human perception, and the concepts which arise from those perceptions, this is not possible.

 

[Bullypulpit]

when a subject has been played out...zzzzzzzz! :coffee3:

No, it's merely that the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" have exhausted their limited store of intellectual ammunition.

 

[archangel]

No, it's merely that the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" have exhausted their limited store of intellectual ammunition.

Bully...and I believe both sides have done a great job with this...you included...as the Biblical saying goes....'You will have all the answers to your questions at the End Time' So sleep tight bully one!

 

[dilloduck]

No, it's merely that the advocates of "creation science" and "intelligent design" have exhausted their limited store of intellectual ammunition.

or science just doesn't know when to quit and admit they don't know.

 

[Bullypulpit]

or science just doesn't know when to quit and admit they don't know.

...And so they work to find the answers. It's a matter of curiosity...not dogmatic adherence to unprovable doctrine.

 

[Powerman]

I'm not talking about before the Big Bang. I'm talking about the causation of the existence of matter. Why should science not be concerned with that?

I'm not sure that we'll ever know all of the answers. But sometimes it's ok to just say that you don't know. Your default response to "I don't know" shouldn't be that there must be some invisible being that created everything and cares if you are circumsized or not.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

or science just doesn't know when to quit and admit they don't know.

It's not that they refuse to admit they don't know as much as it is they refuse to halt their progress in studying it.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Science has been wrong quite often over the centuries---but we are to trust it to provide us with the answers for everything?--I'll wait for the finished project and decide then.

Well you trust in your religion for answers, even though religion has been proven wrong quite often over the centuries.

I think the difference between religion and science is that science is ok with admitting they don't have the answer, and then dedicates itself to the discovery of the answer. Religion seems to take care of the unknown by calling it a matter of faith and being done with it.

 

[Shattered]

Well you trust in your religion for answers, even though religion has been proven wrong quite often over the centuries.

I think the difference between religion and science is that science is ok with admitting they don't have the answer, and then dedicates itself to the discovery of the answer. Religion seems to take care of the unknown by calling it a matter of faith and being done with it.

At the risk of getting my head chewed off...

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not sure that we'll ever know all of the answers. But sometimes it's ok to just say that you don't know. Your default response to "I don't know" shouldn't be that there must be some invisible being that created everything and cares if you are circumsized or not.

LOL.

You must never have read Romans, or had it pounded into your brain over 18 years. In Romans it is made clear that physical circumcision is not necessary...

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...age=ro+2:27&version=csb&context=1&showtools=1

25 For circumcision benefits you if you observe the law, but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if an uncircumcised man keeps the law's requirements, will his uncircumcision not be counted as circumcision? 27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. 29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart--by the Spirit, not the letter. His praise is not from men but from God.

Of course that wasn't your point, but I thought it interesting to point out.

I don't necessarily think that that is their "default" it is their Faith, there is a large difference.

 

[5stringJeff]

Einstein would disagree.
And experiments have backed up his theory.

You're right. It dawned on me today that I used the wrong term. Time is one-directional.

Ahh, I see you are not familiar with quantum physics. Needless to say, you are incorrect.
See Schrodinger's cat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat
Can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time? Perhaps.

I don't disagree about quantum physics. But it's one thing to say that a particle can experience a quantum leap; it's a whole different thing to say that both there is a universe full of matter and there is not a universe full of matter at the same time.

 

[5stringJeff]

Your default response to "I don't know" shouldn't be that there must be some invisible being that created everything and cares if you are circumsized or not.

Shouldn't be according to who? You? I would be just as justified telling you that your default response to any discussion about God shouldn't be insulting religious believers out of hand.

 

[dilloduck]

Well you trust in your religion for answers, even though religion has been proven wrong quite often over the centuries.

I think the difference between religion and science is that science is ok with admitting they don't have the answer, and then dedicates itself to the discovery of the answer. Religion seems to take care of the unknown by calling it a matter of faith and being done with it.

There is no end to the study people can do in seeking spiritual answers and not all spiritual people claim they have all the answers. They simply contend that the answers lie in the spiritual realm, not the material one.
Science believes ( with no proof ) that the answers all lie in the material realm so that's where there look and refuse to admit that spiritual based answers may have some validity.
Science and religion look to different sources for answers and both are naturally more fond of their own appraoch. I don't think it makes one better than the other.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There is no end to the study people can do in seeking spiritual answers and not all spiritual people claim they have all the answers. They simply contend that the answers lie in the spiritual realm, not the material one.
Science believes ( with no proof ) that the answers all lie in the material realm so that's where there look and refuse to admit that spiritual based answers may have some validity.
Science and religion look to different sources for answers and both are naturally more fond of their own appraoch. I don't think it makes one better than the other.

The big difference I see is that, for something like the Big Bang, religion is ok with saying "God created the universe" (however that may be) and accepting that as is. Science says, we don't really know what happened, we think the big bang, but we're not entirely sure so we're going to continue to work at it until we have material proof."

Science wanting all answers in material form is no different then some religious people wanting all answers in the form of the supernatural. These are the people who refuse to believe the earth is millions of years old. But just as you may be a religious person who believes in carbon dating, so too are their scientists who believe there may accept some form of a supernatural.

What's interesting to scientists is that the religious have persecuted and killed scientific figures throughout the course of history, and now that science has begun to unravel bits and pieces of what was once thought to be holy miracles and the like, suddenly it's scientists that are persecuting the religious.

 

[Powerman]

Shouldn't be according to who? You? I would be just as justified telling you that your default response to any discussion about God shouldn't be insulting religious believers out of hand.

I'm saying that there is no merit into simply making up an invisible being to explain things. If science can't tell us what happened before the big bang or how matter was created that is in no way an argument for the existence of a God. You can just as easily ask where this God came from.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm saying that there is no merit into simply making up an invisible being to explain things. If science can't tell us what happened before the big bang or how matter was created that is in no way an argument for the existence of a God. You can just as easily ask where this God came from.

No one claims this force to be invisible or a being and since neither science or religion can prove what occurred, one is not more "right" than the other. While you love to mock the religious theorists, the "scientists" are without answers also. Are we supposed to just have faith that they will eventually come up with one?