Conquer Club

MR. Nate wrote:People who don't believe Jesus was God assume Mary slept with a man to get pregnant, despite her testimony contrary. If Jesus had magically created Himself, the same people would assume he had been born, despite his testimony to the contrary.

What to take from this? What's the lesson? People lie. Imagine just how easy it is to make stuff up, especially when what was being said back when this was happening would be considered heresy. Don't always believe what you read.

unriggable wrote:Science = what actually happens. No commitment. I don't go to a laboratory every sunday for what seems like no apparent reason.

Wrong - Science = what our senses tell us happens. if science were "what actually happens" science would never be wrong. Ever. and there's WAAAY to much arguing between scientists for it to be right EVERY time. So there's not commitment, but just as much faith.

unriggable wrote:What to take from this? What's the lesson? People lie. Imagine just how easy it is to make stuff up, especially when what was being said back when this was happening would be considered heresy. Don't always believe what you read.

Wait, so Mary got knocked up, and started a new religion because of it? Or Jesus was embarrassed that he was illegitimate and started a new religion? What about Joseph? If he married her to cover it up, why bring up the issue at all?

MR. Nate wrote:

unriggable wrote:Science = what actually happens. No commitment. I don't go to a laboratory every sunday for what seems like no apparent reason.

Wrong - Science = what our senses tell us happens. if science were "what actually happens" science would never be wrong. Ever. and there's WAAAY to much arguing between scientists for it to be right EVERY time.

Well what you were saying was that science was essentially a religion, which is very wrong. Besides. Science is not what our senses tell us, its what hardcore investigation shows.

The point is that science =/= religion.

The reason that you don't accept religion is because it doesn't conform to your presuppositions about proof.

If you can objectively prove science without using your senses, or without using the scientific method (since that would be circular reasoning) I will accept that science is superior to religion. Until then, they simply start with different presuppositions.

MR. Nate wrote:The reason that you don't accept religion is because it doesn't conform to your presuppositions about proof.

If you can objectively prove science without using your senses, or without using the scientific method (since that would be circular reasoning) I will accept that science is superior to religion. Until then, they simply start with different presuppositions.

It wouldn't be circular because not all science is related. Example:

Satellites indicate that tectonic plates are moving. This proves that south america could have fit together at some point, as they appear to. HOWEVER this would be at least a few hundred million years ago, contradicting the 6,000 year old earth idea.

ERGO at least one part of christianity is wrong.

How does movement of tectonic plates prove anything? It tells us that the plates are moving.

We can't possibly know that they DID fit together, no one observed it, (which would be proof, according to science) we're guessing based on observable data. We can't possibly know that the earth was in existence then, you're guessing on observable data.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Science is helpful because it takes observable data - what we can see, taste, touch, hear & smell, and gives us the best explanation for that data. It gets into trouble when it starts guessing based on that data.

Religion points out that there could be more to the world than those 5 types of data, and fills in the gaps as best it can.

MR. Nate wrote:How does movement of Teutonic plates prove anything? It tells us that the plates are moving.

Surely you mean "tectonic plates"? The Teutonic plates only move when the Teutons have dinner. And I agree, a bunch of smelly knights and their smelly wives having dinner doesn't prove anything. Except possibly the value of a good deoderant.

MR. Nate wrote:How does movement of tectonic plates prove anything? It tells us that the plates are moving.

We can't possibly know that they DID fit together, no one observed it, (which would be proof, according to science) we're guessing based on observable data. We can't possibly know that the earth was in existence then, you're guessing on observable data.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Science is helpful because it takes observable data - what we can see, taste, touch, hear & smell, and gives us the best explanation for that data. It gets into trouble when it starts guessing based on that data.

Religion points out that there could be more to the world than those 5 types of data, and fills in the gaps as best it can.

My friend, you hit the proverbial nail squarely on its proverbial head.

MR. Nate wrote:How does movement of tectonic plates prove anything? It tells us that the plates are moving.

We can't possibly know that they DID fit together, no one observed it, (which would be proof, according to science) we're guessing based on observable data. We can't possibly know that the earth was in existence then, you're guessing on observable data.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Science is helpful because it takes observable data - what we can see, taste, touch, hear & smell, and gives us the best explanation for that data. It gets into trouble when it starts guessing based on that data.

Religion points out that there could be more to the world than those 5 types of data, and fills in the gaps as best it can.

Right. But see a lot of religious people (jay) are not as humble as you are and so insist that their religion is exactly what is right. That it what I am arguing against. Besides, what are the odds that everything we investigated over hundreds of years is completely false? We have the technology to correct ourselves over and over and over again.

I think that the controversy comes when we start discussing where observation begins and ends. I have never claimed that what is done repeatedly in a laboratory is wrong. What I do question is how science feels that it has the right to make claims about things that aren't observable, or they have had insufficient time to make firm statements about.

MR. Nate wrote:I think that the controversy comes when we start discussing where observation begins and ends. I have never claimed that what is done repeatedly in a laboratory is wrong. What I do question is how science feels that it has the right to make claims about things that aren't observable, or they have had insufficient time to make firm statements about.

I could make the same statement about most religions.

Why follow a series of old and outdated rules, just because "God said"?

Science tries its utmost to fix most of the holes in its theories, religion tends to try to avoid the whole subject.

Actually, depending on which religion, there has been research into it what people believe and gaps are being filled, they just don't coincide with what Atheists believe.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Actually, depending on which religion, there has been research into it what people believe and gaps are being filled, they just don't coincide with what Atheists believe.

"Depending on which religion" most likely meaning catholicism. As for "don't coincide with what atheists believe" that makes no sense since atheists believe nothing other than science.

Neutrino wrote:Why follow a series of old and outdated rules, just because "God said"?

Science tries its utmost to fix most of the holes in its theories, religion tends to try to avoid the whole subject.

If you think that Christians don't wrestle with what God meant when He said something, you're not talking to very good Christians. And you would be surprised at how many of those "old and outdated rules" are useful in the modern world.

[quote="unriggable"][quote="muy_thaiguy"]Actually, depending on which religion, there has been research into it what people believe and gaps are being filled, they just don't coincide with what Atheists believe. [/quote]


"Depending on which religion" most likely meaning catholicism. As for "don't coincide with what atheists believe" that makes no sense since atheists believe [b]nothing[/b] other than science.[/quote]

Yet, like Christians of all denominations, there are certain levels of which Atheists, are well, Atheist. Some are border line Agnostic, or even further then that, while others are hardcore, "science is true no matter what" Atheist. Also, try Christianity in general, not just Catholicism. Islam is adament in maintaining that it's original is best, so that excludes them, and not sure about Judaism.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:How does movement of tectonic plates prove anything? It tells us that the plates are moving.

We can't possibly know that they DID fit together, no one observed it, (which would be proof, according to science) we're guessing based on observable data. We can't possibly know that the earth was in existence then, you're guessing on observable data.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Science is helpful because it takes observable data - what we can see, taste, touch, hear & smell, and gives us the best explanation for that data. It gets into trouble when it starts guessing based on that data.

Religion points out that there could be more to the world than those 5 types of data, and fills in the gaps as best it can.

My friend, you hit the proverbial nail squarely on its proverbial head.

Nate i don't think that's a great get-out clause, to be honest. We can't directly observe atoms, or gravity, or electric or magnetic fields but we know they exist and have been applying that knowledge successfully and broadly for hundreds of years in some cases. The fact that your PC works is based, essentially, on 'guesses' about how electricity behaves - because all we have in the end is data and human testimony.

Science has evolved as an incredibly successful method of describing our universe. It might even be an argument for a creator, that the universe works according to laws and not chaos and that observational science works so well in describing it. But you can't pick and choose - geologists have known about tectonic shift for ages. It is 'observable' in earthquakes.
i think it is a little disingenuous to say that problems with science start when it 'guesses' based on observed data, because that is all science really does.

MR. Nate wrote:How does movement of tectonic plates prove anything? It tells us that the plates are moving.

We can't possibly know that they DID fit together, no one observed it, (which would be proof, according to science) we're guessing based on observable data. We can't possibly know that the earth was in existence then, you're guessing on observable data.

What I'm trying to say is this:

Science is helpful because it takes observable data - what we can see, taste, touch, hear & smell, and gives us the best explanation for that data. It gets into trouble when it starts guessing based on that data.

Religion points out that there could be more to the world than those 5 types of data, and fills in the gaps as best it can.

Science has to guess things, for instance, no one has observed water in every conceivable point in time, therefore we don't know that at some point in the future water wont boil at 100 degrees (standard temperature and pressure) we can only guess that it will.
If science didn't guess then the world wouldn't be how it is, I can guess that when I walk outside my house in the morning the floor wont have turned to liquid, but I don't know for sure. Science only says that certain things are probable, based on observations we have made.

I'm not arguing about tectonic shift at all. I see no reason to. What I'm saying is that current observation, even for the last 300 years, is NOT evidence that a) the world has been around for hundreds of millions of years and b) that that shift has been consistent for hundreds of millions of years.

My issue with all of the "incredibly successfully methods" of dating is that they are based on assumptions that we have no way of verifying. Most are based on decay or growth rates. How do we know that those have been consistent? (How do we know the passage of time is consistent, for that matter?)

As for the problems of science, I think that science should make an effort to do what it does best - which is observing. If they want to speculate, that's fine, but a little humility, "If this set of assumptions, which we have no way of verifying, is accurate, then we can say that ________ probably happened" But it generally is stated "We now KNOW _______" which seems arrogant.

I'm new to this thread, so sorry if I missed any cunning arguments central to the subject that weren't on pages 1 or 13, and in advance for anything stupid I say.

Why follow a series of old and outdated rules, just because "God said"?

Science tries its utmost to fix most of the holes in its theories, religion tends to try to avoid the whole subject.

Religious theories have always only needed to be justification for the rules and beliefs given, so proving that the theories are absolutely correct isn't central to religions until we could observe (as in science) enough of the world around us to start disproving religions. All societies need rules and a rational framework to function, and religion often provided that. One good example would include Israel and Judaism (not modern-day, but Old Testament times). Religious theories have never needed to utterly explain the world, so they don't really contend with empirical observation and experiment in doing so.

All right, I JUST finished reading page 12. Re the tectonic plates post in which one guy states that because the earth is not 6000 years old, at least one part of christianity is wrong: Keep in mind that the statement the earth is only 6000 years old came from a Pope, who is recognised only by catholic christianity and not, for example, the next lowest denomination, anglicanism. Tectonic plate shift would be disproving something the Pope said and the reliability/accuracy of catholicism as a result, not all of christianity.

MR. Nate wrote:I'm not arguing about tectonic shift at all. I see no reason to. What I'm saying is that current observation, even for the last 300 years, is NOT evidence that a) the world has been around for hundreds of millions of years and b) that that shift has been consistent for hundreds of millions of years.

Yet we also have no evidence that the earth has been around for only 10,000-6,000 years.

My issue with all of the "incredibly successfully methods" of dating is that they are based on assumptions that we have no way of verifying. Most are based on decay or growth rates. How do we know that those have been consistent? (How do we know the passage of time is consistent, for that matter?)

Well, the process by which sediments go through cementation and form sedimentary rock is pretty well documented and the length of time required is pretty well understood.

As for the problems of science, I think that science should make an effort to do what it does best - which is observing. If they want to speculate, that's fine, but a little humility, "If this set of assumptions, which we have no way of verifying, is accurate, then we can say that ________ probably happened" But it generally is stated "We now KNOW _______" which seems arrogant.

You speak of science as if it is a sentient being, when it is a field of study. Scientists may need to practice humility, but science itself is not a god nor is it even alive.

vtmarik wrote:Well, the process by which sediments go through cementation and form sedimentary rock is pretty well documented and the length of time required is pretty well understood.

which lends credibility to evolution assuming that the current conditions have been constant for the last hundred million years, and that no non-physical beings have had any impact on on its creation or development, and that absolutely no sedimentary rock formed quickly as the earth began it's existence.


My references to science as a sentient being were made as a generalization of scientists. Generally, they lack humility in their research, and proclaim each finding as if it were an absolute fact.

unriggable wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Actually, depending on which religion, there has been research into it what people believe and gaps are being filled, they just don't coincide with what Atheists believe.

"Depending on which religion" most likely meaning catholicism. As for "don't coincide with what atheists believe" that makes no sense since atheists believe nothing other than science.

Atheists just don't believe in supernatural beings. Thats all. No gods.

Just because one doesn't believe that magical beings exist, doesnt automatically mean they think Science is perfect and believe it all 100%. I have no idea if the big bang, tectonic plate movement, etc are correct. I tend to think they are.

But I do not believe that gods, leprechauns, demons, minotaurs, fairy's and devils exist.

MRNate, I've never really heard that. Most of the research publishing that I've read (newspapers magazines etc) just uses the phrase 'studies now suggest' or 'experiments have shown'. Nothing about 'we know'.