There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[NMSquirrel]

If you want to gain some understanding of God then you can find
it in scripture.
Don't limit your search to the bible.

this is what i am saying..don't limit your search to the bible.

otherwise you will try and understand God from your own
perspective. Our own perspective is based on our current position which is
undoubtedly one of ignorance, and selfishness.

yes there is the persian flaw, we solidify our faith by our personal experiences and perspective, but that experience and perspective is subjective to our own humanity, the bible can help sort out our humanity from our spirituality,some are not intelligent enough to 'think for themselves' and default to a 'do as i am told' mentality, this i feel is dangerous to their spirituality and does not encourage god to work in their lives.
[/QUOTE]

jan, i do not want you to lose your faith, on the contrary, your faith will be stronger by standing up to scrutiny.
just be aware that what god wants for you in your life may not be what god wants for others.

 

[Jan Ardena]

:bugeye:

Although we require oxygen, breathing is not a law of nature. And your half hearted attempt at evasion is duly noted.

What are the laws of nature?
And your superior knowledge of the laws of nature may well be duly noted.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And your superior knowledge of the laws of nature may well be duly noted.

Oh more than that: it's been demonstrated.

 

[Jan Ardena]

NM,

jan, i do not want you to lose your faith, on the contrary, your faith will be stronger by standing up to scrutiny.
just be aware that what god wants for you in your life may not be what god wants for others.

What point are you making with these statements?

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

NM,
What point are you making with these statements?

not to get too frustrated with dyw..

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh more than that: it's been demonstrated.

For that statement to be true you will have to provide evidence.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

For that statement to be true you will have to provide evidence.

The evidence has been provided.
You conflated breathing with a law of nature.
It has been pointed out that is is not. Specifically by gmilam.

Since you were incorrect and he wasn't then that should at least indicate who has the superior grasp.

 

[Jan Ardena]

not to get too frustrated with dyw..

Frustrated?
It's dialougue, and that primarily why I'm here.
Life goes on, so learn to enjoy them, even
if it evokes emotion.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The evidence has been provided.
You conflated breathing with a law of nature.
It has been pointed out that is is not. Specifically by gmilam.

Since you were incorrect and he wasn't then that should at least indicate who has the superior grasp.

guilam decided that i said breathing was a law of nature.
The truth is, I didn't.
And if Mr. guilam was honest, he would have questioned my statement
before making assumptions.

Also, "laws" are defined as rules and guidlines.

jan.

 

[gmilam]

What are the laws of nature?
And your superior knowledge of the laws of nature may well be duly noted.

jan.

We'll start with these three

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion

Is it possible to transgress these laws? How? What are the consequences?

 

[Dywyddyr]

guilam decided that i said breathing was a law of nature.

Ah so you raising that specific question in response to that specific point was... what? Trolling? Ignorance? Deliberate diversion?

And if Mr. guilam was honest, he would have questioned my statement
before making assumptions.

And if you were honest you wouldn't have either A) raised that spurious question or B) declared it to be non-relevant after it didn't make your "point" for you.
The exchange is quoted here:

So, how does one transgress the laws of nature and what are the penalties?

Try and stop your air supply and see what happens.

Now, were you deliberately obfuscating or is it that you've realised you were wrong to use that as an example?
Plus, of course, all gmilam did was point that your question was nothing to do with laws of nature.
Please tell us again about "honesty".

Also, "laws" are defined as rules and guidlines.

Except, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread alone, in the case of physical law. Natural laws are not guidelines nor are they "rules": they are descriptions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Ah so you raising that specific question in response to that specific point was... what? Trolling? Ignorance? Deliberate diversion?

At what point did I mention "breathing"?

Now, were you deliberately obfuscating or is it that you've realised you were wrong to use that as an example?

Show me where my example was wrong.

Plus, of course, all gmilam did was point that your question was nothing to do with laws of nature.

Who says it has nothing to do with the laws of nature.
Demonstration pleas?

Except, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread alone, in the case of physical law. Natural laws are not guidelines nor are they "rules": they are descriptions.

Say's who?

jan.

 

[gmilam]

guilam decided that i said breathing was a law of nature.
The truth is, I didn't.
And if Mr. guilam was honest, he would have questioned my statement
before making assumptions.

Also, "laws" are defined as rules and guidlines.

jan.

Your transparent attempt at attacking my honesty exposes you as the troll you really are.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your transparent attempt at attacking my honesty exposes you as the troll you really are.

You're being dis-honest again.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

At what point did I mention "breathing"?

Ah, and now we get onto quibbles over actual wording as opposed to the semantic meaning. What is an air supply required for? Any guesses?

Show me where my example was wrong.

An air supply is a requirement for breathing. But breathing is not a law of nature, and not having an air supply is NOT a "transgression".

Who says it has nothing to do with the laws of nature.
Demonstration pleas?

Could you point to any law of nature that shows breathing is a requirement?
There is no law that says you have to breathe. You can't prove a negative.

Say's who?

This is yet another example of your dishonesty.
You have been given links and quotations showing that your opinion is incorrect. If you choose to ignore them that's fine. But don't keep repeating requests for things that have already been given to you.
Reported.

 

[gmilam]

You're being dis-honest again.

jan.

Case closed. You join the hall of shame on my ignore list. Bye.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Ah, and now we get onto quibbles over actual wording as opposed to the semantic meaning.

Answer the question.

What is an air supply required for? Any guesses?

If cut off the air supply, then you are without Air.

An air supply is a requirement for breathing. But breathing is not a law of nature, and not having an air supply is NOT a "transgression".

But cutting of your air-supply, or that of another, IS.

Could you point to any law of nature that shows breathing is a requirement?
There is no law that says you have to breathe. You can't prove a negative.

No.

You have been given links and quotations showing that your opinion is incorrect.

Linking me to a description of Kelpers law, hardly prove my statement incorrect.

Reported.

Pathetic.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Answer the question.

Okay> you didn't mention breathing.
Now you answer one: what was the point of the question?

If cut off the air supply, then you are without Air.

And....

But cutting of your air-supply, or that of another, IS.

Only in man-made law, not natural law.

No.

So you can't dispute the point other than the fact that you don't like it.

Linking me to a description of Kelpers law, hardly prove my statement incorrect.

Fail. I linked you (or quoted) MORE THAN ONCE to descriptions and explanations of the difference.

Pathetic.

Correct, hence why you were reported.

I'm done with you. I've had my fill of lies, evasions and general dishonesty for the time being.

 

[SciWriter]

Yes, done for, since nothing was shown but man's construction of a Being who supposedly did and does everything, and yet a Being cannot be fundamental.

This big mess of a notion continues to have more magic plastered onto it, but it is just a hopeless wish.

Time to get back to science.

There was is some tiny elemental stuff of electrons, positrons, photons, and quarks, just stuff, and it is not marked 'holy' or even 'made in China'. Either it or its necessarily simple basis of such as QM uncertainty was around forever, so, no creation, thus no Creator. The Guy is just a pipe dream modeled after the human form, which is complex and composite, too, a result of billions of years of evolution. Look to the future for some universal mind, not the past or to the simpler, which is the absolute complete wrong direction.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Time to get back to science.

science in the religion forum? :bugeye:

Look to the future for some universal mind, not the past or to the simpler, which is the absolute complete wrong direction.

now this i can agree with..
too much is humanity focused on what is wrong and not enough on how to fix it.