Science, Philosophy & The existence Of God

[Ulrich]

I do Ulrich. I see that in the odd coincidence of size and distance that the moon would block out the sun so precisely. In the speed the earth rotates and the days it takes the earth to go around the sun. Is it me or does it seem that the objects that surround the earth also display it’s inner life. A sun and a moon a man and a woman. How is it that things far away can be such precise symbols of things deep inside? Would it be like that if we lived on some other planet in some other galaxy?
I’ll bet the pattern you see close and far is also a pattern we make as a race and as individuals and I’ll bet that pattern is precise within deep forgotten of our hearts. A star guided men to the very spot on earth that God lay in a manger. It did guide them, they brought gifts fit for a King! Urlich I see it too brother.

Thank you Benadam. I already thought that I am kind of invisible in this forum… Why am I not surprised that Oreoracle apparently is ignoring it? Atheists pretend to see but are blind in reality. The worst is when they close their eyes.

 

[Oreoracle]

Thank you Benadam. I already thought that I am kind of invisible in this forum… Why am I not surprised that Oreoracle apparently is ignoring it? Atheists pretend to see but are blind in reality. The worst is when they close their eyes.

I just don’t listen to that emotional nonsense, sorry. In the end, I know the human mind is always thirsting for parallels in this universe, and you’ll always see what you want to see. One should not develop a belief in God and proceed to collect evidence for his existence, they should collect evidence and then develop belief. Otherwise, a person will use arguments like yours…I’d rather not accumulate false hope again. Faith has hurt me once. It always hurts when you realize what produces it.

 

[Ulrich]

Nice try Oreoracle, but I will not lose my time debating with you…

Benadam, I like your comparison of the couple sun/moon with that of man/women. The probability that the apparent discs of celestial bodies come so close is fanishing little. There is no other couple in the solar system coming nearly so close. The sun is also an image of God as it is in the center of our solar system, almost infinitely bigger than the planets, emitting its life giving light everywhere. Its the image of a father. In this sense, the moon is the image of a mother, of Saint Mary who likewise reflects the light of God. This is why the mother of God is standing on the moon in Revelation 12.

In a lot of cultures the moon phases symbolise fecundity because menstruation periods go almost over the same time. In this sense, the moon phases prefigure the apparitions of Mary around the world because they are also fecund in that they renew our faith and cause conversions. Mary is a spiritual mother giving birth to sons and daughters believing in her Son. If you want to know more about go to historycycles.tripod.com/mary5.html.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*Faith has hurt me once. It always hurts when you realize what produces it. *

If you think faith hurts, wait until you have lived your whole life without it!

 

[MindOverMatter]

Trying to taunt me isn’t going to get you anywhere.

It wasn’t a tuant, it was a statement of what i believe to be fact.

Please prove me wrong.

 

[j1akey]

MindOverMatter:

It wasn’t a tuant, it was a statement of what i believe to be fact.

Please prove me wrong.

I’ll jump in on this later once I get done with work and not trying compose my thoughts between trying to get things done. Until then, please enjoy this comic.

http://media.fukung.net/images/784/sciencevsnorse2pe.jpg

 

[SimonArizona]

but the Catholic Church believes in science. It developed the scientific method. and founded the college system.

 

[j1akey]

SimonArizona:

but the Catholic Church believes in science. It developed the scientific method. and founded the college system.

As far as I can tell from the research I’ve done there were 3 catholics that did contribute to the developement of the scientific method which include Roger Bacon, William of Ockham(Occam’s Razor), and Galileo.

Galileo was put on trial and placed under house arrest for heresy until he died. He was found guilty of heresy “for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world” (as in the earth revolves around the sun) and his writings were banned.

William aof Ockham was also asked to answer charges of heresy and was later excommunicated from the church for reasons other than his work in science.

Roger Bacon was imprissoned for his work but historians still debate this.

The scientific method was developed over centuries and many people from different cultures contributed to it starting with Aristotle several hundred years BC.

So as far as I can tell the church did not come up with the scientific method at all. Some catholics may have contributed to it but I can’t say the church developed it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

j1akey

*As far as I can tell from the research I’ve done there were 3 catholics that did contribute to the developement of the scientific method which include Roger Bacon, William of Ockham(Occam’s Razor), and Galileo.
*

Did you forget Copernicus?!

All four were Catholic; three were Catholic priests.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

That would be a very different cartoon if it was a debate between an atheist scientist and a Catholic scientist. It would the the atheist screaming at and bludgeoning the Catholic!

 

[Ulrich]

He also forgets or ignores Isaac Newton, not a Catholic but a fervent Christian anyway. Both Christians and atheists are everywhere and made contributions to any possible field. Its just ridiculous to discuss on that.

 

[j1akey]

The statement was that the catholic church introduced the scientific method. As far as I can tell neither Newton nor Copernicus contributed to the method itself although both were great scientists. I was trying to point out that there were many people involved rather than just catholics, some of whom the church locked up or excommunicated for what they said. The church in general can’t take credit for the work of others even if they were catholic unless it set up a mandate specifically for the cause of such research and development.

The Catholic church was founded right around the time of Jesus I think and the priciples of the scientific method were formed several hundred years before. I’m not talking about who was and who was not a catholic scientist.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The statement was that the catholic church introduced the scientific method. As far as I can tell neither Newton nor Copernicus contributed to the method itself although both were great scientists. I was trying to point out that there were many people involved rather than just catholics, some of whom the church locked up or excommunicated for what they said. The church in general can’t take credit for the work of others even if they were catholic unless it set up a mandate specifically for the cause of such research and development.

The Catholic church was founded right around the time of Jesus I think and the priciples of the scientific method were formed several hundred years before. I’m not talking about who was and who was not a catholic scientist.

what exactly do you think makes a debate between science and faith? science explains nothing of import to faith, its great for exploration of the mechanical universe, but as even a spatially or temporally infinite universe requires a first cause, that cannot be described by science because science only deals with empirical data.

the upshot being that is is a mistake to think that science speaks in any way on the existence of G-d.

i am happy to engage you on any argument that you think disproves, or provides an alternative to a creation ex nihilio.

 

[Benadam]

.

One should not develop a belief in God and proceed to collect evidence for his existence, they should collect evidence and then develop belief.

 

[Benadam]

Thank you Benadam. I already thought that I am kind of invisible in this forum… Why am I not surprised that Oreoracle apparently is ignoring it? Atheists pretend to see but are blind in reality. The worst is when they close their eyes.

I like the website you posted. Thanks Ulrich. And your welcome.
Atheists can’t make sense out of a universe that reveals a mystery. Atheists and mystery don’t mix.

I hope I didn’t offend the atheists on board, I have no doubt a beer and a steak on the grill would be a great time with any of you.

 

[j1akey]

warpspeedpetey:

what exactly do you think makes a debate between science and faith? science explains nothing of import to faith, its great for exploration of the mechanical universe, but as even a spatially or temporally infinite universe requires a first cause, that cannot be described by science because science only deals with empirical data.

the upshot being that is is a mistake to think that science speaks in any way on the existence of G-d.

i am happy to engage you on any argument that you think disproves, or provides an alternative to a creation ex nihilio.

Ok…once again…I was pointing out that the catholic church was not responsible for developing the scientific method.

Secondly since you brought it up, science doesn’t even attempt to answer anything related to any god. If it did it wouldn’t be science.

As far as an argument that provides an alternative to creation from nothing, I think the idea of an all power creator would need to be an actual argument for it in the first place. It’s a philisophical notion and nothing more. There are a bunch of ideas out there as to how the universe formed that do not include any kind of god but of course they’re untested. Because something can’t be explained, the only thing that says is that we don’t know and that’s perfectly fine with me. The notion of a creator just fills in the gaps of our lack of knowledge even though there’s nothing beyond philosophy to back it up.

 

[Benadam]

c’mon, formed? what is ‘being’ formed? not a term able to describe ex-nihilio

 

[Ulrich]

There are a bunch of ideas out there as to how the universe formed that do not include any kind of god but of course they’re untested. Because something can’t be explained, the only thing that says is that we don’t know and that’s perfectly fine with me. The notion of a creator just fills in the gaps of our lack of knowledge even though there’s nothing beyond philosophy to back it up.

I agree with you that the existence of God cannot be proven in a way that would convince atheists. God made us free to think and believe whatever we want. He doesn not want that we discover Him by any method that wouldnt allow another choice. The belief in God is speculatif at first and supported by the will to belief. You can then argue that any further developpement of the faith of a believer tends to see what he wants to see. However, I argue that one cannot discover something in any possible field of research without the will, the motivation and intuitif knowledge that there is something to discover. Science would have never taken place without this. So you can stay there on your stone like the Rodin statue and confort yourself in your conviction that there is no God. I recommend you to go around instead and discover your environnement with a open mind and not excluding any possibility a priori. If you then still discover that there is no God, ok, I have no problem with it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Modern science originated in the essentially religious culture of the Middle Ages. This much is certain. The principal scientific minds of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were all religious men. Good luck finding an atheist among them.

It should therefore not be taken as a given that science and atheism are more compatible than science and religion. If anything, they are less compatible, except for the sad exceptions of people like Richard Dawkins & Co.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As far as an argument that provides an alternative to creation from nothing, I think the idea of an all power creator would need to be an actual argument for it in the first place. It’s a philisophical notion and nothing more. There are a bunch of ideas out there as to how the universe formed that do not include any kind of god but of course they’re untested. Because something can’t be explained, the only thing that says is that we don’t know and that’s perfectly fine with me. The notion of a creator just fills in the gaps of our lack of knowledge even though there’s nothing beyond philosophy to back it up.

as we cant observe anything prior to a planck time, none of those scientific speculations are falsifiable. so a scientific sounding answer that is unfalsifiable is better than a philosophical answer that is unfalsifiable? obviously not. using “science of the gaps”, is no better than a “G-d of the gaps”. either way the answer is unfalsifiable, untestable.

we could at this point the simply say “i dont know” but that leaves you in the exact same position as any theist, in having “faith” that science can provide an answer even though it is unfalsifiable. this is an unaccpetable situation to a rational person.

so i will grant the idea of a perfectly scientifically explainable universe, infinitely cycling with no beginning or end using whatever theory you like, 'branes, strings, VP, etc.

now having this universe i can still ask, “why does the universe exist at all, where did this infinite chain of cause and effect come from?” in fact science demands the question according to its ultimate basis, the principle of sufficient reason (PSR).

so why does it?

did it bring itself into existence? obviously something that doesnt exist cant act to make itself exist, so we can rule that idea out.

that leaves only the idea that the universe doesnt need a cause. making it logically necessary. just as First Cause is to the theist. now we can rule out that idea because the universe might not have been, and therefore requires a cause to exist in any form because it is contingent. (it might not have been because there are an infinite number of possible universes.)

so where are we now? back to First Cause, a being necessitated by the existence of a contingent universe. so as you can see, even if you were right, you still wind up back at first cause, even with a beginningless universe. can you see how atheism is an idea that is dead on arrival now?