Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

[JBeukema]

If deity exists, then the moment it interacts with the natural world it becomes a natrual phenomena than science can address

No, that's a myth. When something unexplainable interacts with the natural world it remains unexplainable, thus is still outside the realm of science. We will be able to see the effect and how it was accomplished, but always unable to explain what influenced it.

Now you're just pleading ignorance. If it exists and interacts with the real world- then it is a apart of reality and can be studied. Whether we have the necessary tools and information t this point is irrelevant to that point. You're no different from those who said the heavens could never be understood because it was outside of Man's domain- only to have modern science make a fool of you.

 

[KittenKoder]

If deity exists, then the moment it interacts with the natural world it becomes a natrual phenomena than science can address

No, that's a myth. When something unexplainable interacts with the natural world it remains unexplainable, thus is still outside the realm of science. We will be able to see the effect and how it was accomplished, but always unable to explain what influenced it.

Now you're just pleading ignorance. If it exists and interacts with the real world- then it is a apart of reality and can be studied. Whether we have the necessary tools and information t this point is irrelevant to that point. You're no different from those who said the heavens could never be understood because it was outside of Man's domain- only to have modern science make a fool of you.

Oh, I am very different ...

There are many things we theorize about in science, and there are many influences we have not come close to understanding because all we can do is theorize on it, look at dark matter for a perfect example, by it's nature we cannot see or detect it simply because it is undetectable, and therefore is only approached as a theory. We know atoms or made of something smaller, but we don't know what that is, not even close. They theorize that is is quarks, just smaller "particles" ... but really, we have no idea. So no, you are trying too hard to look for answers if you ignore one or the other, you are taking the easy route.

 

[Toro]

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?

I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. ...

Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy." These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example. ...

Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science. J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science. ...

Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions." ...

Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus. So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature. Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.

Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs -- as well as in the rest of the physical world -- reason is the better guide.

Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is "Hiding in the Mirror" (Viking, 2005).

God and Science Don't Mix - WSJ.com

 

[JBeukema]

look at dark matter for a perfect example, by it's nature we cannot see or detect it simply because it is undetectable,

-with currently available methods

and therefore is only approached as a theory. We know atoms or made of something smaller, but we don't know what that is, not even close

We have a good idea of some of the,

. They theorize that is is quarks, just smaller "particles"

and muons, gluons...

..

. but really, we have no idea.

Wrong. If we had 'no idea',. then we wouldn't have a theory

You have successfully refuted yourself.

So no, you are trying too hard to look for answers

You're just trying to think of an excuse to give up and claim ignorance.

 

[geauxtohell]

No, that's a myth. When something unexplainable interacts with the natural world it remains unexplainable, thus is still outside the realm of science. We will be able to see the effect and how it was accomplished, but always unable to explain what influenced it.

Now you're just pleading ignorance. If it exists and interacts with the real world- then it is a apart of reality and can be studied. Whether we have the necessary tools and information t this point is irrelevant to that point. You're no different from those who said the heavens could never be understood because it was outside of Man's domain- only to have modern science make a fool of you.

Oh, I am very different ...

There are many things we theorize about in science, and there are many influences we have not come close to understanding because all we can do is theorize on it, look at dark matter for a perfect example, by it's nature we cannot see or detect it simply because it is undetectable, and therefore is only approached as a theory. We know atoms or made of something smaller, but we don't know what that is, not even close. They theorize that is is quarks, just smaller "particles" ... but really, we have no idea. So no, you are trying too hard to look for answers if you ignore one or the other, you are taking the easy route.

But we can ask questions about those matters, make a hypothesis on them, and run experiments to build scientific models to explain them.

A good example of this is the discovery of ATPase. We can't directly observe the protein molecules functioning as turbines to make ATP by utilizing a hydrogen gradient, but we can set up experiments to support that notion. Tomorrow something completely new could come out that could knock the whole theory on it's head, but for now all the evidence and data complies with they hypothesis.

 

[Avatar4321]

Religion relies on revelation. Knowledge from God.

Many rely on the revelations of the past interpreted either poorly or accurately by men in the present.

Living religion relies on revelation in the present and learns from revelation from the past, with the anticipation of revelation in the future.

The beauty of revelation is we can learn from experience whether its correct or not. Unfortunately, few if any bother to experiment on the Word and learn for themselves. In fact, most scoff at the idea. Which is rather ironic when they are often the ones yelling the loudest about how important science is. You would think that they would be the most willing to experiment.

But then, in my observations those who yellow loudest in support of science and against religion tend to understand both subjects the least. That's probably why they assume there is some inherent contradiction to begin with.

 

[JBeukema]

Religion relies on revelation. Knowledge from God.

So, basically the voices in your head?

Many rely on the revelations of the past interpreted either poorly or accurately by men in the present.

So, basically your god can't protect its word or chooses not to?

Living religion relies on revelation in the present and learns from revelation from the past, with the anticipation of revelation in the future.

Doesn't that render past revelations and holy texts useless?

The beauty of revelation is we can learn from experience whether its correct or not.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again asshole YOU don't want us preaching to you, so STOP doing the same to us. It is a simple concept. You claim when someone tries to preach religion to you they are harassing you, they are annoying you, they are bothering you. Yet you have no problem doing the EXACT same thing to those that believe. Over and OVER, day in and day out. I do not think you can go a day with OUT pushing your disbelief on those that believe. Once again you are the BIGGEST Hypocrite on this board.

As to the idiotic post, God made a pact with Satan to prove a point. That pact will end when God decides Satan and man have had enough time to prove they can not rule themselves effectively. At which time we will have the Coming of Christ, the Final Battle and day of Judgement, followed by all those found to be faithful living the rest of their perfect lives, with no disease or death for ever.

You want to preach, then we will respond.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are numerous theories that Science has that can neither be tested nor have experiments repeated. So much for the claim that Science only believes in that which can be observed and repeatable experiments conducted.

 

[JBeukema]

There are numerous theories that Science has that can neither be tested nor have experiments repeated.

No, there are not. Any such assertion is a hypothesis

Now stop crying like a little bitch jsst because I replied to ava's post and he has yet to come up with a rebuttal

 

[JBeukema]

God made a pact with Satan to prove a point. That pact will end when God decides Satan and man have had enough time to prove they can not rule themselves effectively. [/wrong]

So an omniscient and omnipotent being had something to prove?

You have failed to address Epicurus' point

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are numerous theories that Science has that can neither be tested nor have experiments repeated.

No, there are not. Any such assertion is a hypothesis

Now stop crying like a little bitch jsst because I replied to ava's post and he has yet to come up with a rebuttal

So, the Big Bang theory can be tested, proven and retested? The theory of the beginning of life, which ever one you want to pick, since there are more than one, can be tested, proven and retested?

Those are the easy two. There are TONS more, other wise you DUMB ASS they would not still be called THEORIES.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

God made a pact with Satan to prove a point. That pact will end when God decides Satan and man have had enough time to prove they can not rule themselves effectively. [/wrong]

So an omniscient and omnipotent being had something to prove?

You have failed to address Epicurus' point

No I have not. Satan lead a revolt. God allowed Satan to prove his point, in order to prove Satan was wrong. Not to Satan but to those that support him. And it is very much in evidence that Satan and man have failed to rule effectively this planet or the Human Race. God acts in his own time, not at the beck and call of dumb asses like you.

 

[JBeukema]

Tests can be performed to test the theory by testing its predictions, you fool.

Your god never acts, for it is but but a pipedream of the ignorant like youerself

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tests can be performed to test the theory by testing its predictions, you fool.

Your god never acts, for it is but but a pipedream of the ignorant like youerself

In other words, as I stated, one can NOT test the theory, one can only make shit up that can be tested and claim that indirectly proves the theory. Ohh wait, not even that as Science STILL calls it a THEORY until PROVEN.

 

[Toro]

Yeeeaaahhhh but...

Though I'm usually on the other side of the Rapture crowd, this is the argument "If the is a God, why is there evil and suffering?"

You could turn that around and say, "If there was no God, why is there so much love and good in the world?"

Simply because bad things happen does not mean there is no God.

 

[JBeukema]

You could turn that around and say, "If there was no God, why is there so much love and good in the world?"

The moral instinct, social contract, evolution, and mutual benefit

Simply because bad things happen does not mean there is no God.

It stands as evidence against a very specific type of god, said to have certain characteristics

 

[Toro]

It stands as evidence against a very specific type of god, said to have certain characteristics

Hard to say. God in the Old Testament ain't exactly a loving, benevolent God.

Having said that, I take a more benign view of God, one that doesn't banish people to hell because they don't believe exactly what is in the Bible.

 

[JBeukema]

Hard to say. God in the Old Testament ain't exactly a loving, benevolent God.

Anyone who says that christians worship the god of abraham is a liar or a fool. That includes christians