sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6967|Argentina
Are Science and Religion destined to conflict?  What do you think?  To answer this question I propose a challenge between those who believe Science is the answer and those who believe God has something to do with everything.

Science refers to any system of objective knowledge or acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method and the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life.

The challenge consists in testing the claims of Religion vs. the claims of Science.  Any person of science can bring to the table a theory and challenge religious persons to dispute that theory and explain it through Religion.  And in the same way, any Religious person can bring his viewpoints on a specific issue and ask for a scientific answer.

Science and religion are two systems with the same goal: to explain the universe. The most popular example of this explanation is that of perhaps the most basic question: where did the universe come from in the first place?  The difference between the system is, religion expects you to be satisfied with that answer, and science doesn't. 
Religion will say: "It all came from God creating it.", but who did create God? and they will say "He always existed", but do you have proof? and they will go "You must have faith".
Science will say: "It all came from a big bang", but what was there before the big bang?, "Well, we still don't know, but we will with more time and money".

So here goes the first challenge:

The Creation of Universe: How do you explain it?

Let's see what both sides have to say on this one.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6894|United States of America
Here is what Einstein, and also I, think about the first portion of your query, "I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand."
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6810|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

The Creation of Universe: How do you explain it?

Let's see what both sides have to say on this one.
Humans are incapable of understanding this since everything we know has to have a beginning. Until we can fully grasp non linear dimensions anyone telling you otherwise is full of it.
I'm sure some here are aware of string theory.
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-18 04:45:35)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6967|Argentina

DesertFox423 wrote:

Here is what Einstein, and also I, think about the first portion of your query, "I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand."
Religion can be disproven by scientific means. In fact, this has been going on almost continuously since Galileo and before, but the Catholic church and others have managed to pretend that this is not the case. Unfortunately, science can also be disproven by religious means, mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him". Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6894|United States of America
According to that last arguement, I fit in nowhere. Saying that God exists is not proving science wrong; I am not rejecting it at all. Religion hasn't been disproven either, for that matter. Surely, you can prove the universe is not geocentric or that the earth is much older than people at that time believed but still that is what the leaders think (or thought) since it is not true of the belief system in itself. I am not bound by some code to believe everything the Catholic Church says, I do not have accept orders from the pope.
There are plenty of scientific scientists who accept a religion and probably many more religous religous people who accept the advancements of science.
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6919|Charlie One Alpha

DesertFox423 wrote:

According to that last arguement, I fit in nowhere. Saying that God exists is not proving science wrong; I am not rejecting it at all. Religion hasn't been disproven either, for that matter. Surely, you can prove the universe is not geocentric or that the earth is much older than people at that time believed but still that is what the leaders think (or thought) since it is not true of the belief system in itself. I am not bound by some code to believe everything the Catholic Church says, I do not have accept orders from the pope.
There are plenty of scientific scientists who accept a religion and probably many more religous religous people who accept the advancements of science.
/Agree. I'm a very sceptical person myself, and I enjoyed scientific education in physics at university. But I am also religious (albeit not Christian). I think the quote of Einstein earlier says it all. Science and religion are not opposites but complement each other.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6967|Argentina

LaidBackNinja wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

According to that last arguement, I fit in nowhere. Saying that God exists is not proving science wrong; I am not rejecting it at all. Religion hasn't been disproven either, for that matter. Surely, you can prove the universe is not geocentric or that the earth is much older than people at that time believed but still that is what the leaders think (or thought) since it is not true of the belief system in itself. I am not bound by some code to believe everything the Catholic Church says, I do not have accept orders from the pope.
There are plenty of scientific scientists who accept a religion and probably many more religous religous people who accept the advancements of science.
/Agree. I'm a very sceptical person myself, and I enjoyed scientific education in physics at university. But I am also religious (albeit not Christian). I think the quote of Einstein earlier says it all. Science and religion are not opposites but complement each other.
But not all the Religious persons think like you two.  Many of them reject basic scientific facts.  I don't say they can or can not coexist, but you have to admit most of the Religious people have been refusing science since a lot of a time.  In fact the Vatican admitted Galileo was right in 1992, 350 years later.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-01-18 05:11:21)

herrr_smity
Member
+156|6837|space command ur anus
haven't we already disccued this subject, not that its boring to see christians and free thinking rational human beings bash each other  all day long 


ps: i will hunt down anybody that post that stupid image of jesus riding a dinosaur
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6891|Disaster Free Zone
Why can't both sides co-exist. A lot of things in the Bible (can't speak for other religions) can be scientifically explained if you don't take what is said as exactly literal.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6765
Why does there have to be a 'creation'? The chances are the universe has existed forever and will continue to exist long after we are gone and out into the black black infinity of time ahead of us.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6577|Columbus, Ohio
I have not heard of too many scientists touching little boys.


/scientists.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6967|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

Why does there have to be a 'creation'? The chances are the universe has existed forever and will continue to exist long after we are gone and out into the black black infinity of time ahead of us.
The universe hasn't existed forever.  So, something happened like 15 billion years ago.

PS: Come and attack our titan.  I'm always defending it, when they can break our shield.  You can also find me on the field when playing conquest.  I have 2 screenshots with Sergeriver[killed]CameronPoe, lol.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6810|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Why does there have to be a 'creation'? The chances are the universe has existed forever and will continue to exist long after we are gone and out into the black black infinity of time ahead of us.
See previous http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php
Xbone Stormsurgezz
BlAiR_AgaiN
Member
+12|6555|Slovenia
I trust science more but I don't think these two should be mixed. I see a religion (and whole Bible) as a long instruction for better living. And we must also see the difference between the Church as an institution (which did many nasty and bad things and just used the religion for its own interests) and a religion (which did many good things).<---a bit offtopic here
The story of creation is not to be taken literally.
D34TH_D34L3R
Member
+48|7026|Belgium
Simplified;
Science - Deals with how things happen(ed).
Religion - Deals with why things happen(ed).
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6810|132 and Bush

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Simplified;
Science - Deals with how things happen(ed).
Religion - Deals with why things happen(ed).
There are plenty of religions that attempt to explain how. Christianity being one of them. Apparently it was all done in a week.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=31;

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-18 07:02:03)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6967|Argentina

Kmarion wrote:

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Simplified;
Science - Deals with how things happen(ed).
Religion - Deals with why things happen(ed).
There are plenty of religions that attempt to explain how. Christianity being one of them. Apparently it was all done in a week.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=31;
Didn't "he" rest the last day?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6810|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Simplified;
Science - Deals with how things happen(ed).
Religion - Deals with why things happen(ed).
There are plenty of religions that attempt to explain how. Christianity being one of them. Apparently it was all done in a week.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=31;
Didn't "he" rest the last day?
Rumor has it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6919|Charlie One Alpha

BlAiR_AgaiN wrote:

And we must also see the difference between the Church as an institution (which did many nasty and bad things and just used the religion for its own interests) and a religion (which did many good things).<---a bit offtopic here
The story of creation is not to be taken literally.
Good point.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
D34TH_D34L3R
Member
+48|7026|Belgium

Kmarion wrote:

D34TH_D34L3R wrote:

Simplified;
Science - Deals with how things happen(ed).
Religion - Deals with why things happen(ed).
There are plenty of religions that attempt to explain how. Christianity being one of them. Apparently it was all done in a week.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=31;
Actually, that isn't supposed to be taken litteraly.. Well most of them aren't supposed to be taken litteraly..
And you do have to place those "stories" into context.. The Babylon one for example was created when they we're captivated and really really down.. So it kind of was made to give hope..
I don't think that some guys sat down together at one night and said; "Hey! Let's explain how the world and life on earth was really created!"
EVieira
Member
+105|6688|Lutenblaag, Molvania

sergeriver wrote:

Unfortunately, science can also be disproven by religious means, mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him". Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.
What you seem to fail to see serge is that most scientists are religious, as is most of the worlds population. If science and religion are so conflicting as you propose, how can ANY scientist believe in god?

What you also fail to see is that the time of burning people alive because they believed the world was round or that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around is long gone. In those periods of time people were very ignorant. Today the religious people who deny the theory of evolution is a minority, I know alot of religious people who aren't creationists and I bet you probably do too.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6919|Charlie One Alpha

EVieira wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Unfortunately, science can also be disproven by religious means, mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him". Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.
What you seem to fail to see serge is that most scientists are religious, as is most of the worlds population. If science and religion are so conflicting as you propose, how can ANY scientist believe in god?

What you also fail to see is that the time of burning people alive because they believed the world was round or that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around is long gone. In those periods of time people were very ignorant. Today the religious people who deny the theory of evolution is a minority, I know alot of religious people who aren't creationists and I bet you probably do too.
QFT.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6926

EVieira wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Unfortunately, science can also be disproven by religious means, mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him". Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.
What you seem to fail to see serge is that most scientists are religious, as is most of the worlds population. If science and religion are so conflicting as you propose, how can ANY scientist believe in god?

What you also fail to see is that the time of burning people alive because they believed the world was round or that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around is long gone. In those periods of time people were very ignorant. Today the religious people who deny the theory of evolution is a minority, I know alot of religious people who aren't creationists and I bet you probably do too.
Science is a broad subject...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
EVieira
Member
+105|6688|Lutenblaag, Molvania

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Unfortunately, science can also be disproven by religious means, mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him". Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.
What you seem to fail to see serge is that most scientists are religious, as is most of the worlds population. If science and religion are so conflicting as you propose, how can ANY scientist believe in god?

What you also fail to see is that the time of burning people alive because they believed the world was round or that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around is long gone. In those periods of time people were very ignorant. Today the religious people who deny the theory of evolution is a minority, I know alot of religious people who aren't creationists and I bet you probably do too.
Science is a broad subject...
Religion is probably even more
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
IsaacLeavitt
Member
+24|6561
even though it is retarded to argue over religion on this forum... I find that religion and science DO NOT conflict... they complement each other. it is a mater of fact that science does not prove that God does not exist... it can't. I personally do not believe in evolution, and science does not prove evolution... evolution does not prove that God does not exist because no matter what everything came from something, and even evolution does not explain where the first elements of matter came from... so i would appreciate that anyone who is interested in this topic read my essay that i wrote below...

Philosophic Explanation on discovering the existence of God through Human Reason

    Using only the human reason, it is possible to discover that an all-powerful God exists. There are primarily two main ways, which are called arguments, which our reason can use to come to the conclusive decision that God exists. These two main ways are by contemplating our universe and by contemplating the human nature, these two primary methods are then broken down into the various arguments which confirm the judgment that God exists. By contemplating the universe one comes to two arguments: the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument; and by contemplating the human nature one comes upon: the Moral Argument and the Historical Argument. Through these arguments one can come to the rational conclusion that there is a God. 
    The Teleological Argument rests its case on the order and plan in our universe. Our reason tells us that where ever one sees order and plan it shows that an intelligent being is at work; and because every affect has a cause, the greater the plan and order the higher the level of intelligence is required perform it. Therefore when one sees our universe which is so full of an unimaginable amount of plan and order shown through the universe’s natural works of art full of beauty, grandeur, perfection and variety that greatly overshadows any human craftsmanship, one can only come to the reasonable conclusion that it was all created by an All-powerful God. The Teleological Argument has been attacked by unbelievers with several arguments; the greatest of these is the blind chance argument which tries to attribute the order and plan in the universe to random chance. This false notion has been recently resurfaced by Darwin and his evolutionary theory, but this theory is proven wrong because it contradicts Newton’s law of entropy, that all things in nature degrade for the worse, entirely destroying the “blind chance” theory, not to mention that “blind chance” does not give any explanation of the original source of the universe. Another common refutation of the Teleological Argument is that nature contains many things that have no apparent “purpose” such as rudimentary body organs, but as scientists have been discovering, many of these “worthless” items do have vital purposes. Another attempt to refute the Teleological Argument is the presence of pain, suffering, pests, vermin, and disease in the world, but in perspective each has it purpose and in the case of pain and suffering it was sent as a punishment after Adam fell, and as a way not only for God to punish men, but for man to atone for his sins.
    The Cosmological argument proves that God exits through showing that all matter, force and motion must have a cause, which is God. Nothing can come from nothing, therefore something, a Necessary Being, must have created all matter and life. In addition, our universe is filled with motion and according to Newton’s first law which states that every object will remain at rest unless force causes it to move and that once in motion an object will remain in motion until force causes it to rest. Since there would be no motion without a God, the only sensible conclusion is that evidently there is a God because something must be the primary all powerful Force behind all motion in the Universe. There have been several attempts to refute the Cosmological argument: that motion is an attribute of matter, but this has been renounced by Newton’s First Law of Thermodynamics; that life simply sprung from matter, which was proven as false by the scientific work of Louis Pasteur; and the commonly used argument against the fact of God’s creation of all things is that ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing is made out of nothing) but God did not create the universe from nothing. God is thee necessary and self-sufficient Being, so when He created the universe it came from an act of His infinite Will, meaning that in fact the universe did not come from nothing.
    The Moral Argument rests mainly on the fact that man has a conscience which is the sense of right and wrong written in the hearts of all men, along with a sense of moral obligation to do right. That voice in our heads, which tells us what is right and wrong, torments us when we have done wrong, rewards us when we have done good and forces a moral obligation upon us, is the conscience. All mankind has a conscience and even though man is free, he is governed by this conscience. When taking these facts about the conscience into consideration, it becomes evident that the conscience must be the tool God uses for instructing and enforcing His natural laws. The conscience is and always has been seen as a foreign voice, because it often contradicts one’s will; therefore, man has always recognized the conscience as the voice of God. The Moral argument has been challenged by unbelievers who claim that the conscience is a result of an education and environment, but it is easy to see how this is false when the basic principles of morality are held in high esteem by all men: from the most uncivilized and ignorant to even the most highly cultured and extensively educated.
    The Historical Argument shows that there is a God because not only is man religious by nature but that all nations, civilized or not, have held knowledge of a Supreme God who created man and rules over them. By looking at history anyone can see that man has always worshiped some god/s which they attributed the creation of the universe, and through the voice of their conscience man has realized that their god must be the author and enforcer of moral law. When looking at this fact the inevitable conclusion is that man is religious by his nature and will; man’s knowledge of a God is an instinctive thing, and as Aristotle said “what all men, impelled as by instinct, hold to be true, is a natural truth”. 
    Through these arguments it becomes clear that man, through his reasoning, can easily discern that there is a God. Through the Teleological Argument we can see that there is a God through the order and plan in our universe. By the Cosmological argument we can prove that God exits through laws of the universe. And through the Moral and Historical Arguments we can prove God’s existence by through man’s religious nature and mans historical record of acknowledging a Supreme Ruler and Creator. Therefore, through His infinite Goodness, God has given man the means of knowing and proving His existence so that all men can believe in Him with an unshakable Faith.

Last edited by IsaacLeavitt (2007-01-18 08:10:17)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard