There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[Mind Over Matter]

Incorrect. What you actually mean is "Everyone here who is a Christian believes they know what the truth is"


The reason no-one says it is because it isn't true. You don't know, you simply believe.


Because your spade isn't a spade. You can't even show that it exists.

I'd just like to point out the difference between Truth and Understanding. Think of the three blind men and the elephant!

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'd just like to point out the difference between Truth and Understanding. Think of the three blind men and the elephant!

Which still doesn't support your contention.
You may make all the claims you like but you can't show that they're true.

And having to resort to stories doesn't do anything for your credibility.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Which still doesn't support your contention.
You may make all the claims you like but you can't show that they're true.

And having to resort to stories doesn't do anything for your credibility.

Ok, Dywyddyr, are you absolutely sure you are an atheist?

Is this absolutely true?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ok, Dywyddyr, are you absolutely sure you are an atheist?
Is this absolutely true?

Well let's see.
Is Wiki any good? (If not pick any other source).
Wiki:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Let me check...
Thor? Nope.
Osiris? Nope.
"God"? Nope.
Etc...
Yep I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist since have no belief in any "deity" that I've seen named. (And I don't belief in un-named deities either that I'm aware of).
Is your contention somehow that I do believe but I'm not aware of that belief?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Well let's see.
Is Wiki any good? (If not pick any other source).
Wiki:

Let me check...
Thor? Nope.
Osiris? Nope.
"God"? Nope.
Etc...
Yep I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist since have no belief in any "deity" that I've seen named. (And I don't belief in un-named deities either that I'm aware of).
Is your contention somehow that I do believe but I'm not aware of that belief?

I was not talking about the future, it was just a simple question that if honestly answered proves absolute truth exists. Of course in the the future we can change the status of objects but when talking about an absolute truth at a specific time that is a fact. Future events do not change facts unless they were not understood correctly in the first place.
Those are theories not facts.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I was not talking about the future

Neither was I. Why bring that it in? Or are you taking a leaf out of Jan's book and using gratuitous obfuscation when you have nothing worthwhile to say?

it was just a simple question that if honestly answered proves absolute truth exists.

Fail.
That, in no way, proves "absolute truth exists".

You're still waffling.

Of course in the the future we can change the status of objects but when talking about an absolute truth at a specific time that is a fact. Future events do not change facts unless they were not understood correctly in the first place.

This is self-contradictory.
Something is either a fact or it isn't.
You'll have to specify exactly what you mean by "absolute truth".

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Neither was I. Why bring that it in? Or are you taking a leaf out of Jan's book and using gratuitous obfuscation when you have nothing worthwhile to say?


Fail.
That, in no way, proves "absolute truth exists".

You're still waffling.


This is self-contradictory.
Something is either a fact or it isn't.
You'll have to specify exactly what you mean by "absolute truth".

I agree that "Jesus is the Truth" does not answer your question. As a Christian, I would certainly say that He IS the Truth -- but that is a faith statement. It is a conclusion that has not demonstrated how it is reached. "Just believe" might work for some people. Others require (and should be respected for it) a more deliberate and rational approach.

The question about the Gospels goes to a whole different issue. The differences reflect views of the proverbial elephant, not contradictions.

 

[Dywyddyr]

In other words: you've got nothing.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

In other words: you've got nothing.

Ok, so where's the contradiction?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ok, so where's the contradiction?

The contradiction between science and religion?
As already stated: there is no requirement for god in science. It's an extraneous concept with no demonstrable foundation.
You might as well add pixies and goblins for all the "good" it does.

Let's go back to one of your earlier claims:

Everything in science only serves to confirm God if you can only open your eyes and see it.

Please support this or withdraw it.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

The contradiction between science and religion?
As already stated: there is no requirement for god in science. It's an extraneous concept with no demonstrable foundation.
You might as well add pixies and goblins for all the "good" it does.

Let's go back to one of your earlier claims:


Please support this or withdraw it.

Agreed. Good science and proper reasoning will be true. But then that is the problem no isn't it?

-------

Truth applies to everyone, even to atheists. Look at this way.---

You don't believe in Hell? That's ok, you will when you get there.

What is true is true weather you believe it is true or not. It's getting everyone to agree on what is Truth and what isn't that's hard.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Truth applies to everyone, even to atheists.

Agreed. But you can't show that what you believe actually is true.

You don't believe in Hell? That's ok, you will when you get there.

You're making assumptions.
Namely:
1) That Hell does exist.
2) That I'll be going there.

What is true is true weather you believe it is true or not.

Agreed. (Apart from your spelling of "whether"). But you have yet to show that what you believe is actually true.

It's getting everyone to agree on what is Truth and what isn't that's hard.

Especially since you persist in claiming that you have the truth but can't demonstrate this (and in fact haven't even tried). All you're doing is making repeated baseless posts.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Agreed. But you can't show that what you believe actually is true.

You're making assumptions.
Namely:
1) That Hell does exist.
2) That I'll be going there.


Agreed. (Apart from your spelling of "whether"). But you have yet to show that what you believe is actually true.


Especially since you persist in claiming that you have the truth but can't demonstrate this (and in fact haven't even tried). All you're doing is making repeated baseless posts.

The fact that anything exist at all = creation. This is an absolute truth that seems easily lost in the world. It's too simple for science to deal with, yet it's obvious. This truth kind of deletes the pure chance theory IMHO.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The fact that anything exist at all = creation. This is an absolute truth that seems easily lost in the world. It's too simple for science to deal with, yet it's obvious.

Two things "wrong" with that.
One depends on what you mean by "creation" i.e. are you claiming that there must also be a "creator"? Or simply that "something happened"?
The other is that things could have always existed (in one form or another), in which case there's no requirement for "creation".

This truth kind of deletes the pure chance theory IMHO.

Except that it doesn't.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Your point was in error.

No, your point was in error which was why you had to shift the goal-posts.

No. The truth is that, despite your opinion that god plays a part in my life you cannot show that this is so. In other words you're introducing needless "features".

I made no mention of God playing a role in your life, but after this slip-up I'm beginning to wonder if He does, but you don't want to say.

And an early start to the obfuscation. You usually save that until you're really losing. One more time: the second of the two which were linked to the word "here" in the post you quoted.

Ahh! I get you now.
You lost that one, not me.
As long as disregard the scriptural definition of God, which is the original understanding, and replace it with your own idea, you will never win.

If that's not clear to you, that's not my problem.

I see you fail, as usual, to read what is in front of you.
You claimed that my statements didn't apply to everyday life:

I simply pointed out that they in fact are.

How?

Huh?
There is, so far as we can tell, no need for god. And no evidence that he exists. It's that simple.

Who?
Atheists?
Well duh!

As for evidence, if God exists, then everything is evidence. This is why it is initially a question of belief, because there has to be a process by which one can understand how this can be possible. Hence the real reason for religion.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, your point was in error which was why you had to shift the goal-posts.

Wrong. I didn't shift goal posts. You have yet to show me how "god plays a role in my life".

I made no mention of God playing a role in your life, but after this slip-up I'm beginning to wonder if He does, but you don't want to say.

Did you not?
Me: Because then god turns out to be an unnecessary "step". If science can work out how and why everything occurs then what requirement is there for god? He's done nothing, isn't required and has no influence. Might as well not exist. Oh, wait...

You: This only applies to people whose lives are entirely based around pursuing the knowledge of everything. If you can find such persons let me know.

In other words the "god playing a role" was already in the conversation.

Ahh! I get you now.
You lost that one, not me.
As long as disregard the scriptural definition of God, which is the original understanding, and replace it with your own idea, you will never win.

Wrong again. You failed to provide any "answer" other than "if it's god it doesn't count. Which is why you resorted to deliberate obfuscation, lies and back-pedalling.

If that's not clear to you, that's not my problem.

Correct. Your problem is intellectual (and other types of) honesty.

How?

What do you mean "how". Or are you claiming that god (somehow) does play a role in my life? If so please indicate where and how.

As for evidence, if God exists, then everything is evidence.

Ah, there's the sticking point for you. IF god exists. But you can't show that he does except by circular arguments.

This is why it is initially a question of belief, because there has to be a process by which one can understand how this can be possible. Hence the real reason for religion.

Also wrong. It's always a question of belief, not just initially.
Real reason for religion? Social control.

 

[wynn]

Also wrong. It's always a question of belief, not just initially.

Making a statement like that implies that you are omniscient, or have special revelation.
Either way, you imply we must bow and listen to you as if you were in the position of God Himself ...

Real reason for religion? Social control.

Social control for what purpose?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Making a statement like that implies that you are omniscient, or have special revelation.

Incorrect.
If it were to alter from belief to provably true then these proofs would have been offered and belief wouldn't be required. It's that simple.

Social control for what purpose?

To keep those in control in control. Among other things.
For example: dietary restrictions were originally purely practical matters until they became so ingrained that they were treated as "the word of god" and then used as a means of identifying "us" (the good guys, of course) from "them" (the bad guys, or at least the wrong guys).

 

[wynn]

To keep those in control in control. Among other things.

For what purpose?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why does anyone who is in control wish to remain in control?
Presumably (never having been "in control" myself) there are perks that one wouldn't wish to relinquish.
One can shape the society to one's desires.