There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
um..did you mean to fall into your own hole?
IE; you are using the flawed idea that because knowledge in religion changes, the whole thing is worthless..
as applied to your comment about jesus..
why?
again why would it?
Study of life on Earth shows no evidence of things that appear with no predecessor.
this would be more scientifically accurate.
god can utilize you whether you believe or not..
Unethical is a bit strong a term-they believe what they believe even if they aren't quite brave enough to fully admit they have no empirical evidence. It's not that they are being dishonest. They have a very strong faith-an intense emotional response.
I admit I have no concrete for what I believe, but I believe it anyway,mostly, and don't care. I make no pretensions of being an entirely rational person.:crazy: I go for functional. Belief in certain things helps my functionality, so I choose to believe.
I do not expect you to believe in them, as I have no empirical evidence, and you have no desire or need for spirituality.
Anecdotes, yeah, but nothing hard, nothing that's going to convince a skeptic...so why bother trying?
You...don't...need..this...stuff...anyway.
But just for kicks and giggles, what if it truly exists (that being deity) for its' followers, and does not for its' non-followers?
Just thought I'd throw that into the ring....
Yes, strong emotions have a direct path into consciousness, as shown even here by those still making claims, which is why I had them go off and think about some things. Jan must still be thinking, which is a good sign, if he is.
'God' was disproved, including a Deity, and they showed nothing, so here we are with emotions, and probably hard wiring and grooving due to their sociological, geographical, and/or familial influences, not to mention that natural selection itself may have had a hand in the nature spirits ideas.
The end is not just near; it is at hand.
'God' was disproved, including a Deity, and they showed nothing, so here we are with emotions, and probably hard wiring and grooving due to their sociological, geographical, and/or familial influences, not to mention that natural selection itself may have had a hand in the nature spirits ideas.
The end is not just near; it is at hand.
Yes Atheism is growing . It is much simpler not have to account to any body like Supreme, ( I know you atheists grow of rocks ) you guys are gods yourself , that is fine with me.
Is that what you are doing? Being accountable? Accountability means there is an accountant. By questioning my discipline you are guilting me into believing, you trickster!
However, evidence shows that theism makes people less accountable for their actions in this life.
Exhibit A:
Last edited:
Sorry friend, that was not my intention , you live as you please , you are a free being
I don't understand your logic here. How do you justify introducing the dimension of time to whatever "state" of affairs existed before the Big Bang? Many physicists believe that this is when time began. The most that anyone else can do is speculate, which is what you're doing.
Having said that even if we accept that time is absolutely fundamental to any and all states of existence it still doesn't necessarily follow that something must have come before God. Perhaps God simply exists throughout the complete fullness of all time; that no matter how far you go back there is simply always God. This must after all be true of any sort of reality that might have existed before our universe began. It simply always has to be there.
Whatever the case may be, speculation can not form the basis of a legitimate proof (or disproof).
spidergoat,
Laws mean there is a lawmaker.
jan.
Laws mean there is a lawmaker.
jan.
Dude, don't kid yourself.
I suggest you think about what it is you're trying to get across, being sure
that it relates to any questions put to you.
Be straight up front, and with regards to me, you must utilise scripture, or show that scripture is a product of the mundane mind.
Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind my freind.
jan.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
A true revelation could never be proven false. Just because someone claims to have a revelation, that doesn't make it a revelation from God. Using this formula, we can rule out many religions because they made the mistake of claiming to have a revelation that was later falsified.
Double standards Jan?Jan Ardena said:
So, give an example of a "true revelation".
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I'll take these questions in reverse order.
2) How about the big 3: free will, consciousness, and conscience. It is precisely by virtue of possessing these characteristics that we are "created in the image and likeness of God."
1) Regarding free will: Don't show up for work tomorrow and when you're boss asks you why you weren't there tell him, "My lack of free will made me stay home" and see if he buys it.
Regarding consciousness: It is not an inherent property of pure matter to become self-aware. I have no anxiety that the rocks in my garage will spontaneously (or even slowly) come to life and chastise me for keeping them tucked away in boxes. Not even in a billion years or 5. Matter comes from matter.
Regarding conscience: no culture in the history of mankind has ever held liars, cheaters, traitors, or cowards in high esteem. You can't quantify courage, loyalty, honor, justice, respect, honesty, and the like, all of which we long for and are universally recognized as virtues.
I'm not sure what these are supposed to be examples of.
1) Free will has not been shown to exist.
2) Consciousness and conscience are products.
He won't buy it because his lack of free will won't let him.
Sorted. You'll have to do better than that.
Another flat statement (of belief). Can you prove this?
No.
So what? This doesn't address the issue.
And you're wrong.
Examples:
Esteemed cheat - Maradona. Still highly regarded. (Or some insider traders).
Esteemed liar - Münchhausen (Or Clinton...)
Esteemed coward - George Bush. Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz.
Esteemed traitor - Stauffenberg.
Nonsense. You're supposing again. And (one more time) if god exists (with the attribute of omniscience as assigned to him by large numbers of theists) then free will cannot exist. See the threads I linked to in an earlier post.
So if I'm against laws, I must be against God? Kind of a backhanded attempt at propaganda, isn't it?
No, because science never pretends to know all.
A creator could create something new because that's what you guys say all the time, that species did not arise from a single common ancestor, but independently all at once by God.NMSquirrel said:
Because created things can start with a clean slate, evolved things have to work with the material they inherit.
i was just drawing attention to how you had judged all worthless, on one verse, then accused him of doing the same.
that supposes whether he would.
?
which the cambrian explosion validates both views.
i am sure there was more than one pool of muck to give birth.
what do you mean by clean slate?
I was just pointing out the shifting benchmarks of your religion, science never pretends to know everything all at once, as if science were divinely inspired. Science can retool it's theories, religion just adds complexity to them, which is the mark of a bad theory.
The Cambrian explosion does not validate an intelligent designer.
By clean slate, I mean the design flaws in a parent species do not have to roll over into the offspring species. In evolution, they do.