Contradictions in the Bible?

[liberalogic]

Creation and evolution both are beliefs.

Let's not manipulate words. I'll rephrase my question for you:

With the little tangible evidence that we have of creationism, do you think that it should still be considered a scientific theory?

And again, my difficulty is not with anyone's belief in creationism, but instead its infiltration in science.

I look at it this way: science is not the end all be all of everything...we simply can't prove many things. Faith (for those who have it) picks up from where science ends. But remember, people have different faiths and therefore different beliefs. And without evidence we can't conclusively state that one belief is worthier than another. So let's teach science for what it is and leave the unexplained in the hands of the individual.

 

[dilloduck]

Let's not manipulate words. I'll rephrase my question for you:

With the little tangible evidence that we have of creationism, do you think that it should still be considered a scientific theory?

And again, my difficulty is not with anyone's belief in creationism, but instead its infiltration in science.

I look at it this way: science is not the end all be all of everything...we simply can't prove many things. Faith (for those who have it) picks up from where science ends. But remember, people have different faiths and therefore different beliefs. And without evidence we can't conclusively state that one belief is worthier than another. So let's teach science for what it is and leave the unexplained in the hands of the individual.

Why do people think that they can separate the spiritual world from government, science or anything else for that matter?

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you want everything easy?

Doesn't address or answer the question Dillo...

 

[dilloduck]

Doesn't address or answer the question Dillo...

Dude---it IS the answer. It ain't gonna happen if it's done the easy way. He tried that once and STILL there are doubters.

 

[Joz]

Let's not manipulate words. I'll rephrase my question for you:

With the little tangible evidence that we have of creationism, do you think that it should still be considered a scientific theory?

And again, my difficulty is not with anyone's belief in creationism, but instead its infiltration in science.

I look at it this way: science is not the end all be all of everything...we simply can't prove many things. Faith (for those who have it) picks up from where science ends. But remember, people have different faiths and therefore different beliefs. And without evidence we can't conclusively state that one belief is worthier than another. So let's teach science for what it is and leave the unexplained in the hands of the individual.

Not manipulate words??? Where in anything I've said has there been a manipulation?

Only in rare cases has creationism been called a scientific theory, so my answer is , No.

 

[Dr Grump]

Dude---it IS the answer. It ain't gonna happen if it's done the easy way. He tried that once and STILL there are doubters.

hhhmmmm...you see I see that answer as an easy out. IOW, nobody can give a decent answer because (IMO of course), there isn't one (well, not a logical one)....

 

[Diuretic]

Bork describes religion as: "the means for which we explain that which exists outside ourselves; the transcendant." By that definition, evolution can be a religion.
The problem, with those independants that believe evolution, is that they deem it as the sole explanation of life. People who believe in creation donot exclude the possibility of evolution but a possibility by means of an initial Creator.

No, you can try as hard as you like but you can't define a scientific theory as a religion. There is nothing transcendant about science, except perhaps in the highest realms where science and metaphysics start to come together. And plenty of experiences other than religious ones are transcendant. It can come from drugs or from meditation or simply from climbing a mountain. None of those are necessarily religious experiences (save perhaps the use of peyote by certain natives).

Evolution as a theory seeks to explain certain things, it doesn't seek to explain everything. I mean science itself is pretty sure it knows how life began on Earth but it doesn't step up and say who or what was responsible for it.

Anyway I don't see any clash between science and faith. You can be a scientist and still believe, you can practise good science and still believe. You can be a scientist and not believe. It doesn't matter.

Of course you can be a scientist and believe and try to twist the science to fit your faith - to me that's the most dishonest act of all. It's almost as if someone really doubts but hasn't the courage of their convictions to face the existential angst that drove poor old Kierkegaard up the wall and then tries to bolster their faith by proving their doubts wrong. They are the unhappiest of all.

 

[LOki]

Why do people think that they can separate the spiritual world from government, science or anything else for that matter?

On what basis do you assert the existence of a "...spiritual world..." that is necessarily indisscociable from "...government, science or anything else...". And if there is this "...spiritual world..." that is necessarily indisscociable from "...government, science or anything else...", why must it be distinguished from the very "...government, science or anything else..." that it is necessarily indissociable from?

 

[dilloduck]

On what basis do you assert the existence of a "...spiritual world..." that is necessarily indisscociable from "...government, science or anything else...". And if there is this "...spiritual world..." that is necessarily indisscociable from "...government, science or anything else...", why must it be distinguished from the very "...government, science or anything else..." that it is necessarily indissociable from?

I get it--If science or reason can't prove it then it doesn't exist. Correct?

 

[Diuretic]

I get it--If science or reason can't prove it then it doesn't exist. Correct?

Good question. But I think that attitude would be self-defeating for science. Science searches for the unknown and tries to know it. Therefore the attitude must be that "something's out there, we just don't know what." Science is about inquiry, about curiousity, not about smug assumptions that because we don't know it, it's not there.

As for reason proving anything - I think it can hint at the existence of something, in fact it makes assumptions something exists. Doesn't algebra do that? You know, if we know two values, we know the third unknown value? I 'm hopeless at maths so that could be completely wrong but something reminded me of the value of x.

 

[Joz]

No, you can try as hard as you like but you can't define a scientific theory as a religion. ......

Evolution as a theory seeks to explain certain things it doesn't seek to explain everything. I mean science itself is pretty sure it knows how life began on Earth but it doesn't step up and say who or what was responsible for it.

Anyway I don't see any clash between science and faith. You can be a scientist and still believe, you can practise good science and still believe. You can be a scientist and not believe. It doesn't matter.

Of course you can be a scientist and believe and try to twist the science to fit your faith - to me that's the most dishonest act of all. It's almost as if someone really doubts but hasn't the courage of their convictions to face the existential angst that drove poor old Kierkegaard up the wall and then tries to bolster their faith by proving their doubts wrong. They are the unhappiest of all.

I didn't say scientific theory was a religion. But you said it all right here.

And yes, it does matter.

 

[Diuretic]

Joz - you're going to have to explain what you mean to me. I don't understand the point you're making.

 

[Joz]

Joz - you're going to have to explain what you mean to me. I don't understand the point you're making.

Evolution as a theory seeks to explain certain things.....I mean science itself is pretty sure it knows how life began on Earth but it doesn't step up and say who or what was responsible for it.....It's almost as if someone really doubts but hasn't the courage of their convictions

They don't know. Evolution is a belief.

 

[dilloduck]

For those who are willing to take the time the is a facinating web lecture called Christ-the Misunderstood Redeemer. I stongly recommend it as is speaks directly to many questions posed here. If you make an effort you may hear something that will help you understand.

http://www.gnosis.org/971219.htm

 

[Joz]

Once again, I ask the question I did on the very first page? By accepting the Bible & it's teachings, what do you have to lose?

If I'm wrong, then when I die, I'll be dead. Maybe I'll come back as a pest of some sort.

But what if I'm right? Then I'll see my son again, I'll live in the New Earth for eternity, I'll receive my reward for putting up with all this crap. I'm sorry, the price is too high, not to believe.

 

[Fisherking]

Amen Joz. Very well put.

 

[Dr Grump]

Once again, I ask the question I did on the very first page? By accepting the Bible & it's teachings, what do you have to lose?

If I'm wrong, then when I die, I'll be dead. Maybe I'll come back as a pest of some sort.

But what if I'm right? Then I'll see my son again, I'll live in the New Earth for eternity, I'll receive my reward for putting up with all this crap. I'm sorry, the price is too high, not to believe.

You have nothing to lose by accepting the bible other than (in my case) it would be a false belief....

 

[Joz]

You have nothing to lose by accepting the bible other than (in my case) it would be a false belief....

I'm not being a smart alec here, but what do you use as a guideline or standard of measure for living your life & the way you conduct yourself?

 

[Phaedrus]

It's a question of "Authenticity" in the existential sense. "This above all: to thine own self be true" (Hamlet). "Know yourself" (Socrates/Plato). Is your faith real? What is "Real"? What is "Faith"? What are "You"? And for the love of God, what is "Is"?

Edit: this post is in reference to post #97

 

[-Cp]

But if I really wanted to I could trace the warehouse, get on a plane and go find it. Plus I have tangible evidence that the warehouse exists (or a source at least) due to the fact that I have the product delivered. You can't say that same for a god. It is all faith.



Not speaking for liberalogic, but in my heart I know that it is right (there is no god)...

Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."