There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[Dywyddyr]

don't worry, i'll clear any loose nuts out of there..

Yeah, there's one called NMSquirrel that's particularly annoying.

um..how many atheist have used that concept to try and convince believers otherwise? does it work?

Apparently not.

and even in science there was overwhelming evidence to convince ppl to believe a certain way only to be proven wrong (i think leaches are what i am thinking of, but i am sure there are other examples)

Heck, human history is littered with examples.
Kings rule by divine right.
The majority is always right.
Blondes are dumb.
The other guy will see my point if I argue long enough...

granted possible other topic.
and possible you are using the term 'forced' as an excuse..
(to not take responsibility for your own choices)

Meh, I merely used a common expression: the implication occurred to me after I wrote it.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I agree.
So: -

Back it up with evidence.

This link might help http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm

Dywyddyr,

There exists a complete schema that clearly describes what you want answered; unfortunately, it would take up way too much space within the limitations of such forums as these. Most Catholic Churches offer Bible study opportunities at various times during the year. I'd suggest going to one to find out when and where the next one will take place. They last only a couple of weeks, generally take place one or two nights a week, and are usually around 2 1/2 to 3 hours long. They should answer all of your questions. I dare you.

 

[SciWriter]

God is composed of spirit.

Then there is still the hierarchy of composition, as said, and the place where He was and operates, too, would have been already present.

I see there is no end to the attempt to make things up on top of things already made up.

Let's face it. Faith is the belief in the invisible imaginary unknown, as even per its definition, so there is no 'known', yet claimed as truth and fact.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

But so far you have made repeated claims of "fact" rather than belief and not yet backed up any of them.
I'll wait...

With regard to the post you quoted you'll note that the original claim was

Followed later by a statement of belief. This is why I pointed out the supposed "evidence" was not, in fact, evidence.

I think you have hit upon a very important issue, and one that truly underlies much of the problem in communicating between theists and atheists.

Atheists look for evidence to provide proof in either a scientific or philosophical way before accepting belief. In so doing certain parameters, walls, are established based on the governing rules of science and/or philosophy. This necessarily limits the ability of an atheist to accept what doesn't neatly fit those parameters.

Theists work to a different standard. That standard is a simple one. First comes the acceptance of the possibility, even probability of a higher intelligence. Perhaps this is based largely on a desire to believe, but it allows for a much wider interpretation of evidence.
Belief, or at least a genuine openness comes before evidence.

With your stand, I assume that you find the evidence weak and unconvincing. I know that a man of science leave the door open to new evidence. Now, here is the question: Are you willing to consider new evidence of the same type? By that I mean, does quantity of evidence make any impression upon your consideration?

What I see in your post is that you require God to prove himself to you, and that he must do it in a way that is acceptable to parameters that you define. You are unwilling to accept that Science is limited in a.) what it can consieve and b.) what it can measure and c) what it can repeat and that God just might exist outside of those parameters.

If you leave the door open, it seems you have two options.
1) Accept that God may very well exist because you don't know everything.
2) Reject that God exists because you don't know everything.

It is this predisposition, one way or the other, it seems to me, that determines whether one can truly come to understand the real and true existence of God.

 

[NMSquirrel]

well said Mind over matter.

 

[jayleew]

I think you have hit upon a very important issue, and one that truly underlies much of the problem in communicating between theists and atheists.

Atheists look for evidence to provide proof in either a scientific or philosophical way before accepting belief. In so doing certain parameters, walls, are established based on the governing rules of science and/or philosophy. This necessarily limits the ability of an atheist to accept what doesn't neatly fit those parameters.

Theists work to a different standard. That standard is a simple one. First comes the acceptance of the possibility, even probability of a higher intelligence. Perhaps this is based largely on a desire to believe, but it allows for a much wider interpretation of evidence.
Belief, or at least a genuine openness comes before evidence.

With your stand, I assume that you find the evidence weak and unconvincing. I know that a man of science leave the door open to new evidence. Now, here is the question: Are you willing to consider new evidence of the same type? By that I mean, does quantity of evidence make any impression upon your consideration?

What I see in your post is that you require God to prove himself to you, and that he must do it in a way that is acceptable to parameters that you define. You are unwilling to accept that Science is limited in a.) what it can consieve and b.) what it can measure and c) what it can repeat and that God just might exist outside of those parameters.

If you leave the door open, it seems you have two options.
1) Accept that God may very well exist because you don't know everything.
2) Reject that God exists because you don't know everything.

It is this predisposition, one way or the other, it seems to me, that determines whether one can truly come to understand the real and true existence of God.

Well stated, as squirrel said. When left with those two options, and accom's razor is applied, the second option becomes more logical to take. This is where personal experience and intuition comes in for the theist, which gives motivation to reject the single reason and take option 1.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Slight error:

Theists work to a different standard. That standard is a simple one. First comes the acceptance of the possibility

Atheists DO accept the possibility, but we then require that for possibility to be considered as anything other than a possibility we need evidence that it's worth considering further.

Perhaps this is based largely on a desire to believe, but it allows for a much wider interpretation of evidence.
Belief, or at least a genuine openness comes before evidence.

I dispute the "genuine openness" (i.e. you're implying, deliberately or otherwise that agnostics/ atheists aren't open), but sure, desire to believe.
An atheist says "regardless of my desires give me a reason to believe".

With your stand, I assume that you find the evidence weak and unconvincing.

I find the evidence (as evidence) non-existent.

By that I mean, does quantity of evidence make any impression upon your consideration?

Quantity? It depends largely upon the quality of evidence. If I run a single experiment with recorded, verifiable data resulting should I disregard simply because 1,000 people who have nothing other than "I don't agree" do disagree?

What I see in your post is that you require God to prove himself to you, and that he must do it in a way that is acceptable to parameters that you define.

Not quite. I require evidence that god exists, whether he himself gives this evidence is irrelevant. For example we've had a claim (in this thread) that "God is composed of spirit" well, great. Super. brilliant. yet no evidence is provided to show that spirit exists. it's a recursive and self-supporting "argument".

You are unwilling to accept that Science is limited in a.) what it can consieve and b.) what it can measure and c) what it can repeat and that God just might exist outside of those parameters.

Then how else do you show he exists?

If you leave the door open, it seems you have two options.
1) Accept that God may very well exist because you don't know everything.
2) Reject that God exists because you don't know everything.

If you look at the general tenor of my arguments throughout my ten years on SciForums it's been "what evidence is there for me to accept this as true?".
In other words, he may very well exist but there's no supporting evidence.

This link might help http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm

I'm sorry but that essentially devolves into: god exists because the bible says so and we know the bible is true because god dictated it.

 

[spidergoat]

well said Mind over matter.

Eloquent, possibly, but wrong.

Atheists don't look for proof before they accept a tentative belief, all that is required is evidence of a reliable sort.

Personal testimony, while interesting, cannot be considered reliable. Relating what others have said to experience (hearsay) is even less reliable.

Since the only evidence put forth in favor of God is so far of the unreliable sort, it's not intellectually honest to believe it. On the other side of the argument, there are many arguments supported by reliable evidence, that the universe does not work as theology states it does. This allows us to assert beyond a reasonable doubt, that the God of popular theology does not exist.

 

[yaracuy]

well i do believe in the eyes of theists god created us perfect from day one. if this is true then why do and and are we still evolving?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


We are evolving into what ?

 

[spidergoat]

There is only evolution, not evolving into something.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God is composed of spirit.

Then there is still the hierarchy of composition, as said, and the place where He was and operates, too, would have been already present.

I see there is no end to the attempt to make things up on top of things already made up.

Let's face it. Faith is the belief in the invisible imaginary unknown, as even per its definition, so there is no 'known', yet claimed as truth and fact.

Is this a response to my post?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So, yet again, you resort to inanities as opposed to actually answering the questions raised?
So much for honesty from you.

Can you reply (rationally and on-topic) to either of those points?
I doubt it.

Still no reply Jan?
Still not going to offer a response?
Still rather stick with uniformed ignorance and unsupported declarations?

 

[SciWriter]

Is this a response to my post?

jan.

Affirmative.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

God is composed of spirit.

God is described as "pure spirit", not composed of spirit.
There is no composition of spirit.

Then there is still the hierarchy of composition, as said, and the place where He was and operates, too, would have been already present.

God is One, without a second.
One is not made up of compositions, but it is the cause of compositions.

I see there is no end to the attempt to make things up on top of things already made up.

Good point, but it depends on your starting point.

Let's face it. Faith is the belief in the invisible imaginary unknown, as even per its definition, so there is no 'known', yet claimed as truth and fact.

That is your opinion, which you have chosen to adopt as your philosophy.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So if I'm against laws, I must be against God? Kind of a backhanded attempt at propaganda, isn't it?

Huh??

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

God is described as "pure spirit", not composed of spirit.
There is no composition of spirit.

The disproof still applies to a Mind in any form.

That is your opinion, which you have chosen to adopt as your philosophy.

What does your dictionary say about 'faith'?

 

[spidergoat]

Huh??

jan.

It's a common technique to accuse atheists of being so only because they desire non-accountability. It's a pretty lame argument. It's not irresponsible to refuse accountability to a non-existent entity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Correction.
The first honest thing to do is show that your contention that "god as defined" actually exists. I.e. demonstrate that "pure spirit" exists and work upwards from there.

That's called "self-realisation".
That's the point of becoming religious.
To follow the regulations in order to develop ones consciousness to a point
where one starts the journey to becoming more spiritual (as opposed to material).

Knowing this, if you choose to search for God in the dirt, or chemical combinations, you have wilfully chosen not accept God by His definition.

And why, "initially", would you choose to believe (as if belief were actually a matter of "choosing")?

You choose to believe, because your experience, and knowledge, leads you to the understanding that there is more to life, and our existence than just eating, sleeping, and so on..

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

The disproof still applies to a Mind in any form.

Can you elaborate on this?

What does your dictionary say about 'faith'?

Which is better, a description from the horses mouth, or a generalised definition, which does or cannot account for each individual.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's a common technique to accuse atheists of being so only because they desire non-accountability. It's a pretty lame argument. It's not irresponsible to refuse accountability to a non-existent entity.

Relax, I'm not in the business of accusing you of anything.
I just merely followed on from your logic, because atheists wouldn't normally
agree to that logic. They would say something like, the laws of the universe and the general definition of law are two different things.

jan.