RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible?

RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 10:37:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker But Creation DOES have a beginning-- it began OUTSIDE of time. So you CAN have non-linear time that has a beginning . . . the non-linear time began when he created that universe-- simple. For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple -- and wrong. ~H.L.Mencken Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. K.

mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 10:39:14 AM)
Ja, Schlau, aber nicht Wahr.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 10:46:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: huh? seriously? People are mobile, its human agency that they were in a place of a natural disaster in the first place. That said you need to explain how humans can be involved at all without some level of human agency? People seem to be everywhere and natural disasters seem to occur everywhere and frequently with little warning. I don't know of any place on earth where nature does not vent its fury in some fashion or other, except maybe under Kirata's bed. [;)] The universe and the earth are basically hostile to human existence. It is quite amazing the species has survived this long. That we have is a testament to our sciences. None of which rules out human agency since these disasters you claim that make God a criminal do not cover the whole planet at once. The only way you could reasonably rule out human agency is if God placed man somewhere on the planet and he was incapable of being somewhere else. The fact is these disasters you blame God for dont even cover .001% of the planet when they occur, man is in a place of a disaster because mans free will put him there, yet you rule out free will of the man to be where he is at any moment which is agency of man and now it looks like your argument went full circle where you include agency of man and blame it onto God.

vincentML -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 10:55:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: huh? seriously? People are mobile, its human agency that they were in a place of a natural disaster in the first place. That said you need to explain how humans can be involved at all without some level of human agency? People seem to be everywhere and natural disasters seem to occur everywhere and frequently with little warning. I don't know of any place on earth where nature does not vent its fury in some fashion or other, except maybe under Kirata's bed. [;)] The universe and the earth are basically hostile to human existence. It is quite amazing the species has survived this long. That we have is a testament to our sciences. None of which rules out human agency since these disasters you claim that make God a criminal do not cover the whole planet at once. The only way you could reasonably rule out human agency is if God placed man somewhere on the planet and he was incapable of being somewhere else. The fact is these disasters you blame God for dont even cover .001% of the planet when they occur, man is in a place of a disaster because mans free will put him there, yet you rule out free will of the man to be where he is at any moment which is agency of man and now it looks like your argument went full circle where you include agency of man and blame it onto God. Well, yeah, if the man knows shit is going to happen for sure at a specific time and place and he goes there he has agency, but everybody's gotta be someplace; it is the nature of being as is the uncertainty of future events. Another thought, many a toddler has been killed by natural events. I would not attribute agency to a child.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 10:56:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne most people today wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of sorting that out based upon the arguments I have seen on these boards. Is the reason you're so eager to tell yourself you're smarter than everyone because no one else will do it for you? not at all, there is a difference between smart and the extent of ones education. Some one who is super smart would be able to look at this Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.[3] having never heard of God before and correctly translate or CORRECTLY convert its meaning to mean the same intodays language. Now that would be truly a smart person. My claims come from research and study and my comment applied directly to the excellent point DCNovice made about first understanding the argument befoire running head fist into a brick wall. But who am I to attempt to stop you all from having so much fun [8\|]

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:00:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne However even Vince eliminated the things that humans do in an attempt to sepearate from will from the equation, you are claiming God 'does' everything and I asked you to quote it from your source because as I am sure you now realize that is not to be found in your source and I have never run across such a claim anywhere. Suffice to say, you cant quote it. I'm saying that God indirectly does everything by virtue of having magically created everything to be exactly the way it is. Free will cannot exist in this scenario.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. I didn't write it, I'm just telling you what I think it means.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:07:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: huh? seriously? People are mobile, its human agency that they were in a place of a natural disaster in the first place. That said you need to explain how humans can be involved at all without some level of human agency? People seem to be everywhere and natural disasters seem to occur everywhere and frequently with little warning. I don't know of any place on earth where nature does not vent its fury in some fashion or other, except maybe under Kirata's bed. [;)] The universe and the earth are basically hostile to human existence. It is quite amazing the species has survived this long. That we have is a testament to our sciences. None of which rules out human agency since these disasters you claim that make God a criminal do not cover the whole planet at once. The only way you could reasonably rule out human agency is if God placed man somewhere on the planet and he was incapable of being somewhere else. The fact is these disasters you blame God for dont even cover .001% of the planet when they occur, man is in a place of a disaster because mans free will put him there, yet you rule out free will of the man to be where he is at any moment which is agency of man and now it looks like your argument went full circle where you include agency of man and blame it onto God. Well, yeah, if the man knows shit is going to happen for sure at a specific time and place and he goes there he has agency, but everybody's gotta be someplace; it is the nature of being as is the uncertainty of future events. Another thought, many a toddler has been killed by natural events. I would not attribute agency to a child. So then its only human agency, free will, if man has some precognition of an event. Everyone being someplace does not rule out that the place each everyone has to be is in accord with their own free will. The agency of the child is attributable to the parent. the ice you are standing on is starting to crack Vince. Your agency position has no standing based the reasons you have given us since you have not shown free will is 'not' involved in each and every case, thus you cannot elimiate it. Which again brings us full circle to how you think that since God is the creator of nature that God is a somehow a criminal just because people die from natural events.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:14:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne However even Vince eliminated the things that humans do in an attempt to sepearate from will from the equation, you are claiming God 'does' everything and I asked you to quote it from your source because as I am sure you now realize that is not to be found in your source and I have never run across such a claim anywhere. Suffice to say, you cant quote it. I'm saying that God indirectly does everything by virtue of having magically created everything to be exactly the way it is. Free will cannot exist in this scenario. so then you believe people are puppets on a strings? Every thought including the one expressed above is by virtue of God pulling a different string in your mind? The problem you have is that people exist, and they do have free will, its inherent and inseparable, to create a hypothesis outside those boundaries has no value in any discussion since it does not represent reality.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:20:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. I didn't write it, I'm just telling you what I think it means. the same goes for those who use physics to explain metaphysics, and natural to explain supernatural demand corporeal evidence to prove incorporeal data sets which it never fails is 'always' the case and unfortunately inescapable in these discussions I can only presume because so many people do not understand the lines in the sand exist much less where those lines are to be found.

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:21:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I introduced the topic of theodicy in reply to a poster's misbegotten notions of the evolution of furry fish... Yeah, and the scary thing is that you really do think they connect somehow. Ohhhh . . . . I didn't intend to frighten you, child. Perhaps you will feel safe hiding under your bed for awhile. I'd feel safer if you could present a cogent explanation for why you think the Theological problem of evil is germane to the issue of whether Science and Religion are incompatible. It seems to me an exceedingly peculiar notion on its face, and all the more so because the so-called "problem of evil" isn't even a problem for religion generally anyway. Perhaps you might be willing to enlighten us? Some Christian theists, specifically the "Young Earthers" try to deal with the theological problem by denying the science . . . a massive incompatibility related directly to the topic of this thread. I asked you to present a cogent explanation for why you think the Theological problem of evil is germane to the issue of whether Science and Religion are incompatible. Am I to understand that your answer is, "because Young Earthers think so"? And, for that matter, where did you get the peculiar idea that "Young Earthers" believe the age of the Earth has something to do with the Theological problem of evil? K.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:22:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne so then you believe people are puppets on a strings? Every thought including the one expressed above is by virtue of God pulling a different string in your mind? We're not talking about what I believe. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The problem you have is that people exist, and they do have free will, its inherent and inseparable, to create a hypothesis outside those boundaries has no value in any discussion since it does not represent reality. I didn't say people don't exist, and I actually gave a reason for why it's contradictory to believe in both free will and an omniscient, omnipresent God. You've just told me that people have free will simply because they do, and I shouldn't argue with you because of your unsubstantiated claim that your unsubstantiated claims 'represent reality'.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:26:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the same goes for those who use physics to explain metaphysics, and natural to explain supernatural demand corporeal evidence to prove incorporeal data sets which it never fails is 'always' the case and unfortunately inescapable in these discussions I can only presume because so many people do not understand the lines in the sand exist much less where those lines are to be found. Okay, then I'm pretty sure that the reason God was able to 'be' in this pre-space/pre-time state and create the world is because of magic. Happy?

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:28:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne so then you believe people are puppets on a strings? Every thought including the one expressed above is by virtue of God pulling a different string in your mind? We're not talking about what I believe. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The problem you have is that people exist, and they do have free will, its inherent and inseparable, to create a hypothesis outside those boundaries has no value in any discussion since it does not represent reality. I didn't say people exist, and I actually gave a reason for why it's contradictory to believe in both free will and an omniscient, omnipresent God. You've just told me that people have free will simply because they do, and I shouldn't argue with you because of your unsubstantiated claim that your unsubstantiated claims 'represent reality'. There is no ocntradiction what so ever, I suggest you look up the meaning of the words you use, as you are applying them incorrectly.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:29:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne There is no ocntradiction what so ever, I suggest you look up the meaning of the words you use, as you are applying them incorrectly. Why don't you just tell me why you think there isn't a contradiction?

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:32:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. I didn't write it, I'm just telling you what I think it means. Excuse me, but what you "think it means" was precisely what I was talking about: quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker But Creation DOES have a beginning-- it began OUTSIDE of time. Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. Ergo, no cigar. K.

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 11:32:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the same goes for those who use physics to explain metaphysics, and natural to explain supernatural demand corporeal evidence to prove incorporeal data sets which it never fails is 'always' the case and unfortunately inescapable in these discussions I can only presume because so many people do not understand the lines in the sand exist much less where those lines are to be found. Okay, then I'm pretty sure that the reason God was able to 'be' in this pre-space/pre-time state and create the world is because of magic. Happy? I dont know the conditions of space and time that you describe actually ever existed, do you have any supporting evidence of such?

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 12:03:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. I didn't write it, I'm just telling you what I think it means. Excuse me, but what you "think it means" was precisely what I was talking about: quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker But Creation DOES have a beginning-- it began OUTSIDE of time. Employing temporal concepts outside a temporal context commits a category error. Ergo, no cigar. K. Oh right because it's so important for all of this to make perfect sense. Just stop.

heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 12:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the same goes for those who use physics to explain metaphysics, and natural to explain supernatural demand corporeal evidence to prove incorporeal data sets which it never fails is 'always' the case and unfortunately inescapable in these discussions I can only presume because so many people do not understand the lines in the sand exist much less where those lines are to be found. Okay, then I'm pretty sure that the reason God was able to 'be' in this pre-space/pre-time state and create the world is because of magic. Happy? I dont know the conditions of space and time that you describe actually ever existed, do you have any supporting evidence of such? Of course not. Where is your evidence that God exists?

Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 12:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne the same goes for those who use physics to explain metaphysics, and natural to explain supernatural demand corporeal evidence to prove incorporeal data sets which it never fails is 'always' the case and unfortunately inescapable in these discussions I can only presume because so many people do not understand the lines in the sand exist much less where those lines are to be found. Okay, then I'm pretty sure that the reason God was able to 'be' in this pre-space/pre-time state and create the world is because of magic. Happy? I dont know the conditions of space and time that you describe actually ever existed, do you have any supporting evidence of such? Of course not. Where is your evidence that God exists? you know if the best you can do is continually dodge counterpoints you might consider posting to a different thread

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875