What Happens To Religion When...

[crowTrobot 2]

No, prove it in a scientific sense.

the validity of logic is a basic axiom of science. there's nothing to prove.

[Flack_attack 0]

the validity of logic is a basic axiom of science. there's nothing to prove.

Jou lik dat mengh? Eh? fock jou..

[BWToth 0]

that's true by definition.you've asked the same question in one way or another at least 4 times that i recall (use science to prove science is valid). it's a meaningless question because you're essentually asking to prove what is or isn't truth in the sense of philosophical absolutes using science, which doesn't work.science doesn't care about philosophical absolutes. it is only concerned with functional truth, not absolute truth.

Morals are a functional truth right? Can you scientifically prove one set of morality is better than another?Also, for practical usage....science proves evolution, what if god 'set evolution into motion'? Science can't prove or disprove this but we can still use science in a functional and practical manner. Or taking it back a step further....science can explain a lot of things, regarding the beginning of time but it can only go back to a certain point (at least for the time being) why is 'god' not an acceptable answer under the umbrella of science for the question of "where did all the matter that was spewed across the universe during the big bang come from?"I bet there are many scientists that see a value in absolute truth, regardless of whether absolute truth can be proven scientifically

[Jadaki 0]

Interpet heaven as heaven and HEAVENS(plural) as just that, the surrounding everything around earth. So, common sense says there must be something else out there, even though there is no proof whatsoever, anywhere, yet if I throw in "what if they have bibles" it becomes ridiculous? The idea that this is even a discussion is ridiculous because there is nothing to say that there is anything else but us.

I never said it was ridiculous, what it does is it becomes a whole different discussion. My question would be if the bible was in fact non-fiction and god created another race on another planet, wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the bible? Yea, we haven't found lifeforms on another planet yet, considering how much is out there that we have explored vs what we haven't I wouldn't write it off as nothing there because we haven't found it. People used to think you could fall off the edge of the earth too, there is a lot we don't know about space.

Heaven is not a physical place, it is spiritual. "God created the heavens and the earth" is saying just that, not to mention he actually mentions stars, etc. I realize you are just doing your best to make any argumnet possible, but come one.

You ducked my question. Space is a physical place, so how is that "heaven"? I think it's a lot more likely that when the bible was written that was the assumption at the time because they never thought about traveling to the stars.

I am saying that I personally do not think Dinosaurs as advertised existed. That's all. Like I said, it's a good thing it means **** in the long run and is useless knowledge anyway. Have you ever used your knowledge of dinosaurs in your job. Didn't think so.

What do you mean as advertised?I don't use my knowledge about mosquitoes at my job either, don't mean they don't exist. Hope you have a better point of argument than that.

[crowTrobot 2]

Morals are a functional truth right? Can you scientifically prove one set of morality is better than another?

if you define specifically what you mean by "better" (more beneficial for group? species? individual?), absolutely. morality isn't a "thing" - it's just a set of behaviors, like anything else humans do.

Also, for practical usage....science proves evolution, what if god 'set evolution into motion'? Science can't prove or disprove this but we can still use science in a functional and practical manner.

if you look at the overall picture pretented by science and not just at a specific event, for practical purposes it already has disproven the theory "god set evolution into motion". there is no objective evidence god exists. all evidence indicates the universe operates on entirely mechanical principals. the overall picture presents a clear pattern indicating that there is no reason to think intelligence is or ever was intervening at any level.IF actual evidence for ID is ever found that would change things, but from the 100% consistent pattern of purely physical explanations successfully filling in all gaps in our knowledge there is no reason to expect it to ever be found. from a scientitic standpoint "god set evolution into motion" is as baseless a theory as "there is a teapot orbiting jupiter" (to borrow from dawkins).

Or taking it back a step further....science can explain a lot of things, regarding the beginning of time but it can only go back to a certain point (at least for the time being) why is 'god' not an acceptable answer under the umbrella of science for the question of "where did all the matter that was spewed across the universe during the big bang come from?"

1. a disinterested detached deistic god is for the most part irrelevant to human religious belief. that is not how the majority defines god.2. the theory "god set the universe in motion" does not explain anything. it just pushesback the need for explanation to a whole new level. and since there's no evidence to support it it's certainly not an "acceptable answer". there's no reason to believe it.3. again, the current 100% consistent pattern of successful physical explanation indicates we should expect to find a physical explanation for the "beginning". there are already several theories that work in prinicipal that would explain where the matter in our visible universe came from.looking for god in gaps in our knowledge is (flawed) philosophy, not science.

I bet there are many scientists that see a value in absolute truth, regardless of whether absolute truth can be proven scientifically

absolute truth can't be proven period. the concept has no practical value. scientists who believe in things because they are supposedly "beyond" science are just invoking the same baseless double-standard being used in this thread.

[BWToth 0]

But the fact that absolute truths or the like cannot be proven true does not mean that they don't exist. right? My point is...doesn't the same thing go for god? regardless of whether or not we can use that idea practically or not is irrelevant.

[Loismustdie 0]

I never said it was ridiculous, what it does is it becomes a whole different discussion. My question would be if the bible was in fact non-fiction and god created another race on another planet, wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the bible? Yea, we haven't found lifeforms on another planet yet, considering how much is out there that we have explored vs what we haven't I wouldn't write it off as nothing there because we haven't found it. People used to think you could fall off the edge of the earth too, there is a lot we don't know about space.You ducked my question. Space is a physical place, so how is that "heaven"? I think it's a lot more likely that when the bible was written that was the assumption at the time because they never thought about traveling to the stars. What do you mean as advertised?I don't use my knowledge about mosquitoes at my job either, don't mean they don't exist. Hope you have a better point of argument than that.

I don't think that you should be able to take 5% of anything and make a full something out of it. Let me explain. Long ago, dude finds big bone. Maybe 2. He constructs whole skeleton out of big bone. Then, more guys find various bones, and over time we have built an imaginary list of animals, pure imagination. It's Willy Wonka science. I was tottaly into this as a kid as well, and what I found was that while there are some skeletons of unknown things,actual full sized skeletons, there are few, and not nearly enough to call this stuff fact. It's not a big deal,no one cares- they just auctioned off some "dinosaur" parts, and nobody cared. Bonos guitar goes for more at auction. I mean, there is a reason why all of the early "pictures" of dinosaurs were freakin drawings, with a bone or 2 here and there in a textbook. It was some guys drawing some cool ****, and then some nerds getting into it(like me) and then going so far as to attempt to find the imaginary animals. Like I said, though, another discussion.

[crowTrobot 2]

But the fact that absolute truths or the like cannot be proven true does not mean that they don't exist. right?

for practical purposes yes it does mean they don't exist.

[jmkiser 0]

I don't think that you should be able to take 5% of anything and make a full something out of it. Let me explain. Long ago, dude finds big bone. Maybe 2. He constructs whole skeleton out of big bone. Then, more guys find various bones, and over time we have built an imaginary list of animals, pure imagination. It's Willy Wonka science. I was tottaly into this as a kid as well, and what I found was that while there are some skeletons of unknown things,actual full sized skeletons, there are few, and not nearly enough to call this stuff fact. It's not a big deal,no one cares- they just auctioned off some "dinosaur" parts, and nobody cared. Bonos guitar goes for more at auction. I mean, there is a reason why all of the early "pictures" of dinosaurs were freakin drawings, with a bone or 2 here and there in a textbook. It was some guys drawing some cool ****, and then some nerds getting into it(like me) and then going so far as to attempt to find the imaginary animals. Like I said, though, another discussion.

..........................................................I find it sad that you reduce the evidence of dinosaurs down to "one or two big bones". Funny that if you, actually, knew anything about the topic, you wouldn't say that.

[fighter 4]

I mean, there is a reason why all of the early "pictures" of dinosaurs were freakin drawings, with a bone or 2 here and there in a textbook. It was some guys drawing some cool ****, and then some nerds getting into it(like me) and then going so far as to attempt to find the imaginary animals.

Reason, no cameras around. that is another discussion though.

[Loismustdie 0]

Reason, no cameras around. that is another discussion though.

The problem is, most of the pictures came before the "proof". That bothers me enough to not give a **** either way. But like I said, it doesn't effect my life in anyway, shape or form, and very few people care, so no big deal. My grandma had a great philosophy-"Don't believe anything you here and only half of the things you see." The idea is, everybody lies, the con is on left and right. That philosophy has made me a happy fellow.

[Flack_attack 0]

for practical purposes yes it does mean they don't exist.

No, it means it doesn't matter if they exist or not.

[crowTrobot 2]

No, it means it doesn't matter if they exist or not.

no, from a scientific perspective a theory without evidence that doesn't follow any known pattern or make any logical sense is not "potentially true" - such a theory must be considered effectively, functionally FALSE. saying it "doesn't matter" whether such things exist or not because nothing can be proven is a different philosophical POV that effectively invalidates all of science.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I don't think that you should be able to take 5% of anything and make a full something out of it. Let me explain. Long ago, dude finds big bone. Maybe 2. He constructs whole skeleton out of big bone. Then, more guys find various bones, and over time we have built an imaginary list of animals, pure imagination. It's Willy Wonka science. I was tottaly into this as a kid as well, and what I found was that while there are some skeletons of unknown things,actual full sized skeletons, there are few, and not nearly enough to call this stuff fact. It's not a big deal,no one cares- they just auctioned off some "dinosaur" parts, and nobody cared. Bonos guitar goes for more at auction. I mean, there is a reason why all of the early "pictures" of dinosaurs were freakin drawings, with a bone or 2 here and there in a textbook. It was some guys drawing some cool ****, and then some nerds getting into it(like me) and then going so far as to attempt to find the imaginary animals. Like I said, though, another discussion.

Do you believe in the coelacanth? Would you have a hundred years ago?

[Loismustdie 0]

Do you believe in the coelacanth? Would you have a hundred years ago?[/quote Would you, could you, in a box? Would you, could you, with a Fox?

[David_Nicoson 1]

Would you, could you, in a box? Would you, could you, with a Fox?

I do not like them in a box.I do not like them with a fox.I do not like them in a house.I do not like them with a mouse.I do not like them here or there.I do not like them anywhere.I do not like green eggs and ham.I do not like them, Lois-I-am.

[Loismustdie 0]

I do not like them in a box.I do not like them with a fox.I do not like them in a house.I do not like them with a mouse.I do not like them here or there.I do not like them anywhere.I do not like green eggs and ham.I do not like them, Lois-I-am.

Good catch. My kid has learned to read, so there is alot of Seuss flying about in my house. Good times.

[DerekTah 0]

Or, stray radio waves would be proof that God indeed does get his word to seeking souls. Also, why intelligent? Why come they couldn,t be just dumies?

As for the intelligent it to make a difference between a thinking and non-thinking life form. For instance if we found a new strand of bateria on the moon, that would be a non-intelligent life form. If we found a primitive alien race with only primitive forms of technology that would be intelligent life.Am I correct in thinking that as of now we have found 0 life forms out there (either thinking or non-thinking).

[Herr Mensch 0]

What if they do? The exact same bible and the exact same God?

What if they have the exact same Quran.

Here, distilled to its essence, is the essential difference that I see between the free thinkers and the blindly religious. [opinion]If an intelligent alien civilization was found to be following a religious text or doctrine that translated exactly into one of our world's religious texts, the truly wise would accept that as evidence of outside influence on the development of our worlds and begin to follow the teachings of that religion. Especially, as an example, if the aliens have exactly ten commandments, even though they have three fingers on each if their four hands and normally count in base 12.To keep the discussion within the realm of Christianity, how many Catholics would accept a new doctrine if aliens showed up carryin the Book of Mormon? How many Baptist would be willing to say "yeah, I guess you were right" if the aliens produced the Apocrypha, word for word?My guess is, rather a lot would. The rest of the crowd are the ones we have to worry about. [/opinion]

[ohGod 0]

OhGod, Louis has kids.

[Vick07 0]

Imagine with me, for a moment...You are God.Why would you allow for humans to put you in a test tube.... so that skeptics would be satisfied?

[pele_br 0]

OhGod, Louis has kids.

LMAO ... They are going to grow up believing that dinosaurs are imaginary beings like unicorns. It baffles me to realise that "inteligent" and educated people are capable of believing in god, but not dinosaurs. I hate to butt in the conversation being new here Lois, but I hope you at least understand how your views are percieved by most people. It is also misleading to say that 50% of scientists believe in god, when you know that the great majority of these scientist are not refering to a god as described by practically every religion. Similarly, christians often refer to the founding fathers as religious people, when it is a well documented fact that most of them were deists, and once again bear no relation to the god's described in the Bible, Torah Quran, etc.

[Loismustdie 0]

LMAO ... They are going to grow up believing that dinosaurs are imaginary beings like unicorns. It baffles me to realise that "inteligent" and educated people are capable of believing in god, but not dinosaurs. I hate to butt in the conversation being new here Lois, but I hope you at least understand how your views are percieved by most people. It is also misleading to say that 50% of scientists believe in god, when you know that the great majority of these scientist are not refering to a god as described by practically every religion. Similarly, christians often refer to the founding fathers as religious people, when it is a well documented fact that most of them were deists, and once again bear no relation to the god's described in the Bible, Torah Quran, etc.

I find it entertaining that I must believe in that which matters not. How does a general belief in Dinosaurs better my life? How does it matter? It doesn't, and the day that I base how I think because of people perception of me is the day that I become a robot, led not by me but by what you think of me. I would rather play in traffic.

[profxavier9 0]

I could be wrong with this but haven't they proven that at one point there was water on mars? and with water comes life. So if our next door neighbour has had "life" on it what are the chances that the rest of the Universe, brazillions and brazzillions of planets dont have any form of life. Eventually your going to hit a royal flush.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

if you define specifically what you mean by "better" (more beneficial for group? species? individual?), absolutely. morality isn't a "thing" - it's just a set of behaviors, like anything else humans do.if you look at the overall picture pretented by science and not just at a specific event, for practical purposes it already has disproven the theory "god set evolution into motion". there is no objective evidence god exists. all evidence indicates the universe operates on entirely mechanical principals. the overall picture presents a clear pattern indicating that there is no reason to think intelligence is or ever was intervening at any level.IF actual evidence for ID is ever found that would change things, but from the 100% consistent pattern of purely physical explanations successfully filling in all gaps in our knowledge there is no reason to expect it to ever be found. from a scientitic standpoint "god set evolution into motion" is as baseless a theory as "there is a teapot orbiting jupiter" (to borrow from dawkins).1. a disinterested detached deistic god is for the most part irrelevant to human religious belief. that is not how the majority defines god.2. the theory "god set the universe in motion" does not explain anything. it just pushesback the need for explanation to a whole new level. and since there's no evidence to support it it's certainly not an "acceptable answer". there's no reason to believe it.3. again, the current 100% consistent pattern of successful physical explanation indicates we should expect to find a physical explanation for the "beginning". there are already several theories that work in prinicipal that would explain where the matter in our visible universe came from.looking for god in gaps in our knowledge is (flawed) philosophy, not science. absolute truth can't be proven period. the concept has no practical value. scientists who believe in things because they are supposedly "beyond" science are just invoking the same baseless double-standard being used in this thread.

This is really good. Crow, you may as well copy this and paste it as the response to 99% of the questions asked in this forum.