If God doesn't exist...

[amrchaos]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

 

[LittleNipper]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been Designed a few thousand years ago..

This post proves that 'god' doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.

The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone. Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.

And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.

The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.

"Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."

Wow, Rick Perry is that you?

Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct? Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.

I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?

Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.

Sorry, but such scientists have left out GOD. Without GOD all computations become warped and distorted. Say for a moment you were God. Now say you said, "Let the stars appear." And suddenly there are stars. How old are those stars? Not how old do they appear --- but how old are they REALLY? Now, a scientist will say --- but it will take many years for the light of those stars to reach the earth. But oddly, the Bible clearly indicates that GOD created the light BEFORE HE created any sources for that light? How did ancient man formulate that light takes time to travel. I believe they didn't --- GOD revealed it to them.

 

[LittleNipper]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been Designed a few thousand years ago..

This post proves that 'god' doesn't exist as perceived by theists.

Not at all!
We are talking of Christians and not theists. Theists merely believe that GOD is likely. They do not always believe in HIS revelation or the Bible or Christ.

 

[LittleNipper]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You ask a lot of interesting questions; however, is not water found in outer space? Think of comets and the polar caps of Mars. What is space exactly? What is a species? Science is not absolute ---- does that make science of no value?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If God were to exist, that's where I'd be.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible

In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra

Wouldn't that depend on what one considers God?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

Prove that you and the rest of the universe are anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on to play more than a nanosecond ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

Nah, I'm sure that 'proof' is in your head somewhere. Go with that.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.

The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone. Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.

And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.

The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.

"Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."

Wow, Rick Perry is that you?

Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct? Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.

I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?

Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.

I never put a number of years on how long Adam walked in the garden. I don't believe time as we know it, started being counted until the apple was taken from the tree, and sin entered the world.

Evolution may be accepted as fact by scientists, but not all of them accept it. There are too many holes in the theory, and many holes the scientific community does not want to acknowledge. Where are the fossils that show an evolving creature? Where is the evidence for macroevolution? The Cambrian explosion has shown great holes in the 'theory' of evolution. Holes big enough to bring the whole theory crashing down. Yet many scientists just make excuses. Excuses are not facts.

Like it or not, and we know you don't, and you could never admit, that evolution is just a theory. A theory that is being disproven, more and more, as every day passes.

The Scientific Case Against Evolution The Institute for Creation Research

But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.

The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone. Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.

And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.

The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.

"Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."

Wow, Rick Perry is that you?

Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct? Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.

I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?

Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.

I never put a number of years on how long Adam walked in the garden. I don't believe time as we know it, started being counted until the apple was taken from the tree, and sin entered the world.

Evolution may be accepted as fact by scientists, but not all of them accept it. There are too many holes in the theory, and many holes the scientific community does not want to acknowledge. Where are the fossils that show an evolving creature? Where is the evidence for macroevolution? The Cambrian explosion has shown great holes in the 'theory' of evolution. Holes big enough to bring the whole theory crashing down. Yet many scientists just make excuses. Excuses are not facts.

Like it or not, and we know you don't, and you could never admit, that evolution is just a theory. A theory that is being disproven, more and more, as every day passes.

The Scientific Case Against Evolution The Institute for Creation Research

But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.

Ridiculous. The evidence for evolution is mountainous. Honestly it is hard to believe anyone today would attempt to make a claim that evolution is "being disproven". The exact opposite is the case. The more time passes the more evidence is accrued. Many more dinosaur fossils have been found with feathers, confirming birds evolved from dinosaurs. And there are many examples of organisms evolving over time.

You believe in 'gods' and magic, do whatever makes you happy.

I follow evidence and fact.

And please do not post up links from 'The Institute for Creation Research'. Its like the 'Creation Museum'. Not worth the time. The whole 'Intelligent Design' scam is just that, a scam to try to put religion on the same scientific pedestal as science. It isn't and never will be.

 

[amrchaos]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You ask a lot of interesting questions; however, is not water found in outer space? Think of comets and the polar caps of Mars. What is space exactly? What is a species? Science is not absolute ---- does that make science of no value?

I do not know what you mean by the term 'absolute'. However science is practical to man, and that is where science value lies--with man.

Now I am curious. Although I do not understand you meaning of the term 'absolute', but question do follow.

Do you think something must be 'absolute' in order to have value.
Are there any absolutes that does not have value?
What is do you mean by 'absolute' and 'value'?

 

[amrchaos]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

1st--when did I say those things? i don't think I claimed anything by way of science beside the fact that it can disprove Genesis by observation.

We can see the things described in Genesis do not exist or are not what is described. That is proof that Genesis does not come from some all knowing God.

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red).

I think you are setting yourself up for another fail here. Do you remember how I described science?

Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.
Let us attack: You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?

1)Humility: The Big Bang is a working theory. If it is demonstrably false, science will admit its mistake and try to come up with a different theory.

2)Clumsy: The Big Bang theory is a mixture of an accidental observation and theology. Science basically 'tripped' over it and got some help from a astronomer/theologian(The same one who came up with the basic idea for the Big Bang theory!)

3)woefully inquisitive:The majority of 'observations' made to support anyone of the Bang Theories(there are numerous competing versions by the way) is due to questioning what should happen if the Universe did start from an explosion. Thus scientist go out to find these traces or evidence for there theories to see if it is present or not. Again humility plays here

Note--You do not need to see with your eyes to prove an event occurred. You do not need to believe if you can demonstrate a claim is false.

For instance: How does the forensic expert prove which bullet comes from which gun if they did not see any guns fired? This is a key question that pops up in murder cases. If the forensics specialists does not see it, how does he prove which gun? He does not see it, but he is able to prove which gun!

No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made.

I am sure the above is another fail.
Science is not theology.

Science job is to help describe our reality, the physical world, around us. Theology is to discipline its followers in a set of behavior, to teach morals. All of which is necessary to promote our self worth, associations with others and to form just judgements--plus a lot more.


Science can not teach morals. Theology is horrible when it comes to describing reality and does not need to.. However both are practical and has value to man.

No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

Yes, philosophers and scientist can admit they are wrong. Science is humble, remember?

You didn't list any leaders of a religion. Can theologians admit their beliefs are wrong? No--that is blasphemy. Religions are arrogant, remember?

 

[PratchettFan]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You can't apply science to religion any more than you can apply religion to science. They are not he same thing. They do not use the same standards. To attempt to treat them as the same results in error no matter which side you approach it from. If you look at Genesis as a literalist, it really doesn't matter if you do so as a believer or disclaimer, because it is not intended to be taken literally. And actually, given the limited information available to the authors, the overall story isn't that far off from what we now think happened.

 

[amrchaos]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You can't apply science to religion any more than you can apply religion to science. They are not he same thing. They do not use the same standards. To attempt to treat them as the same results in error no matter which side you approach it from. If you look at Genesis as a literalist, it really doesn't matter if you do so as a believer or disclaimer, because it is not intended to be taken literally. And actually, given the limited information available to the authors, the overall story isn't that far off from what we now think happened.

I don't think I suggested that. I think Eagle wanted me to demonstrate how I would approach these questions.

Even so, I do agree with you: science is not religion. They serve distinct roles.

 

[PratchettFan]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

That's not what I've been seeing of how people feel about science lately. They appear to think it's some sort of end all... When truly it is simply a beginning.

My what a broad brush you use to paint all religions.

Are you sure about that last statement? The creation myth has been around for thousands of years and the Hindu's and Buddhists appear to have some interesting thoughts about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Concerning Hindu and Buddhism, is any of it verifiable? Anyone can propose a hypothesis, but can they show it is true. Religions don't do this.

1)The hypothesis they form are over-assuming
2)The expectation that you should believe without any proof is arrogance
3)The use of promises of rewards and threats, some religions going so far as to order their follows to harm non-followers, is heavy-handed.

And this is not the only cases where I can talk about religions being arrogant, over-assuming or heavy-handed.

Best to discard blind faith and approach these concepts with skepticism.



On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

You can't apply science to religion any more than you can apply religion to science. They are not he same thing. They do not use the same standards. To attempt to treat them as the same results in error no matter which side you approach it from. If you look at Genesis as a literalist, it really doesn't matter if you do so as a believer or disclaimer, because it is not intended to be taken literally. And actually, given the limited information available to the authors, the overall story isn't that far off from what we now think happened.

I don't think I suggested that. I think Eagle wanted me to demonstrate how I would approach these questions.

Even so, I do agree with you: science is not religion. They serve distinct roles.

Ahhh.... I admit to skimming most of the posts. My apologies.