[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Well that certainly was, er, black and white.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Well that certainly was, er, black and white. [/quote]
Lol.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:Do you believe that He is understanding and wants you to learn more about him? >>>[/quote]No. I belive He is holy and wanted me to repent and forsake my sin. Understanding and learning more about Him comes after that.[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:Do you think that people are flawed and there have been many cases of corruption and lying to gain power over others? Are people perfect? (People have varying beliefs so I figure I should get some important things down first)[/quote]People would never come up with what I believe. It is wholly unsuited to the manipulation of others. Do not throw Catholicism at me. Nobody abhors that church more than I do.
[/quote]
So, you came up with your beliefs on your own and they are a result of your free thought?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Well that certainly was, er, black and white. [/quote]
Supposedly drawn in 1890.
Logic and reason did not prevail ):
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Logic and reason did not prevail ): >>>[/quote]Not until the new Jerusalem descends from heaven and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ.
[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:<<< So, you came up with your beliefs on your own and they are a result of your free thought? >>>[/quote]No and no
[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]TheDozer97 wrote:
My biggest point is that the biggest function of religion (at least one of them) is to explain “why” and not “how” - “how” is the function of science. [/quote]
I usually get the impression that religions explain both “how” and “why”.
I think the reason why there is a “why” question to explain is; if it was all created by something/someone we assume there would have to be a reason, a “why”.
For me the question of “why” seems to be “jumping ahead of ourselves”, “how” is still a mystery.
[/quote]
I had been oversimplifying the four causes developed by Aristotle. http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/aristotles-four-causes.php . It is rather apparent that the first 2 “causes” are pretty much entirely the subject matter (so to say) of science while the last one (and at times last 2) are more of the content of religion. Depending upon how you interpret the third one you could try to designate it to either science or religion.
Although parts of the Bible will cover the origins of the Earth (Genesis), this is certainly not the focus of Christianity. In the typical mass, Genesis usually is not the focus as is implied in the name, the focus is usually on Christ, salvation and God. Of course, we could open this question to the others on the forum - belief can be very individualized and I try not to tell people what they want.
Answering the question of “why” gives people purpose in their lives and can also function to give them an identity. In many cases it is more important than “how”. Giving life purpose and direction will generally affect someone more greatly than simply telling them the mechanics of some phenomena around them. That and the question could be raised that “Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” In other words, would answering the first two or three causes ever lead one to answer the fourth (from Aristotle’s causes) especially when the natural and supernatural may be disjoint?
If answering the first 2 or 3 causes never leads someone to the final cause, then it doesn’t necessarily seem to be “getting ahead of ourselves” - especially because “why” is not a consequence of answering “how”, don’t you think?[/quote]
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sense of justice built into the brain
Perhaps metaphysical concepts aren’t that metaphysical to begin with?[/quote]
LOL! I’d love to see you even try to prove that…
Why would it shock anybody that the human brain has these various capacities? If humans beings can think of it, obviously the brain is capable of the thought. Humor me, please!
I am still trying to catch up…I don’t think I will be able to get to all of it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[/quote]
Well that certainly was, er, black and white. [/quote]
Ironically, that was old communist propaganda. Free thought in the most constricting controlled society in history.
Further, there is a difference between free thought and fallacious thought. Being free to think what you want, and being right are two different things. I prefer to be constricted by the truth.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Where did God come from? Why are you still assuming time is linear? Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Your views are based around proving there is a God instead of actually being open to possibilities.[/quote]Being “open to possibilities” is itself a denial of the true and living God without whom it wouldn’t even be possible for you to deny Him.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
“Why we are here?” As an atheist: Big bang>stars died>planet formed>etc for me “why” kind of looks like “how”. Unless there really is a god then the “why” becomes “why did he/she/it create it/us”. So to me it looks like both “why” and “how” go together for both. I religion the god is the “how” in science the “how” is still being explored.
The “why” question would change if I believed god existed.
“Would observations of nature and its characteristics really shed much light on characteristics of the supernatural?” I do not assume that there is a supernatural.
[/quote]
Where’d the big bang come from?[/quote]
Short answer is something from nothing, this is the answer given. Don’t ask me to explain it I haven’t even gotten around to really reading about it.
Both the big bang and god are ideas that I have difficulty understanding. Everything after the big bang is believable to me and almost none of the biblical stories are believable to me. God has not been proven to exist in a way I would believe he exists. There has been some evidence showing that there was a big bang. The big bang seems more likely, too me, than god.
Of course you could just read my above post.
<In science the “how” is still being explored.>
Can there not be things still needing to be explored and discovered and questions needing to be answered must we know RIGHT NOW how it all happened?
What if there was a big bang that just didn’t happen a zillion years ago? Yes yes I know about the math involved in the rate of expansion and quantifiable time etc. I’m jist askin. Maybe the bang was bigger than we can measure and that accounts for all the dark phenomena (which were still not sure of)? Or smaller with less precisely discernible effects? Or less precisely discernible effects in any case? I don’t know and neither does anybody else which is the point. It wouldn’t be the least bit shocking to me if several hundred years from now we’ve come full circle and most scientists are theists again (not Christian theists of course) because the more we learn the more excruciatingly apparent it is how far the scientific method is from providing ultimate answers to ANYTHING.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What if there was a big bang that just didn’t happen a zillion years ago? Yes yes I know about the math involved in the rate of expansion and quantifiable time etc. I’m jist askin. Maybe the bang was bigger than we can measure and that accounts for all the dark phenomena (which were still not sure of)? Or smaller with less precisely discernible effects? Or less precisely discernible effects in any case? I don’t know and neither does anybody else which is the point. It wouldn’t be the least bit shocking to me if several hundred years from now we’ve come full circle and most scientists are theists again (not Christian theists of course) because the more we learn the more excruciatingly apparent it is how far the scientific method is from providing ultimate answers to ANYTHING.[/quote]
As opposed to listening to a tribal storybook from millenia ago. You attempts to paint science as arrogant is like certain other posters trying to claim it is a religion. Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[/quote]
We don’t pray on the altar of science and we know that it is fallible.
It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be.
After nearly 14,000 posts, can you [u]PROVE[/u] your stance with more than ‘It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be’?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[/quote]
We don’t pray on the altar of science and we know that it is fallible.
It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
After nearly 14,000 posts, can you [u]PROVE[/u] your stance with more than ‘It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be’?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Religion and science are nothing alike, stop trying to drag science into the mud to wallow with religion.[/quote]The way it’s worshiped by people like you science IS a religion so stop trying to exalt it over the most high God who created both you and science,
[/quote]
We don’t pray on the altar of science and we know that it is fallible.
It’s not a religion, no matter how much you cry and beg for it to be.[/quote]
[/quote]
I know you have quite the hard on for me, but keep in mind:
- You’re not my type.
- Keep it to the one thread, instead of following me around like some lovesick puppy.