Science & Religion

[Orogeny]

Of course they are right. After all, they are 15 and 19. Don’t all 15 and 19 year olds know everything? I know I did when I was their ages. Then I grew up and became dumb again!

Peace

Tim

 

[Hermione]

quote=adstrinity

“The more we find out the more it shows how it is impossible for him/her/it to exist.”

AND, from another poster, (btw, I’m “Lovye” on that site) “And Lovey, what are you laughing at. Science is disproving that there is a god more and more every day. River’s right on the money.”

Now, as of right now, I just asked them to show me how this is so. I am awaiting their reply.

If anybody can help me out, it would be MOST appreciated. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/smile.gif Thank you.
[/quote]

Ask this person if he believes he has free will, the ability to reason etc. (I’m assuming he’ll say yes.)

Then ask him how this is possible if everything that exists can be explained by the laws of physics (assuming we’re smart enough to discover them). Say that if there’s nothing more to the world than that which obeys the laws of physics, then our minds and “selves” must arise from things that obey the laws of physics (probably our brains). Tell him that every part of our brain follows the laws of physics, and neurons have as much “choice” in their behavior as rocks have when they’re thrown from a height (they can’t very well decide not to fall!!!). If this is the case, then how can our thoughts possibly be voluntary? How can any of our behaviors be voluntary? They would be the mindless products of the mindless motions of particles.

Tell him that if he’s right, then every thought he is thinking, every thing he is typing, and for that matter every action he performs is the result of the mindless behavior of particles. (And if you listen to modern physicists, these are “particles” that don’t even have definite properties until you measure them.)

Tell him he has no reason to believe he is right simply because he thinks the things he thinks not because they’re true, but because the atoms his brain is made of made him do it!!!

Of course, if he does believe that his free will and therefore his ability to reason are real, then he must agree that there must be more than the material world. And since it’s scientific to base theories on observation, he really should agree to this. After all we do observe free will!!!

 

[Hermione]

P.S. Say that science has its limits. It is a good tool for studying the material world, but it is outside its limits when it comes to questions like “why is there something rather than nothing,” “did something come from nothing,” “what came before the Big Bang,” “did something create the Big Bang,” “where do we get free will” etc.

Also say that while evolution is good at explaining how you can get one thing to become something else, it does nothing to explain how you get nothing to become something. Also say that natural selection may very well be the method God used to make the many species, that God can guide evolution etc.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Just as I mentioned in response to the original poster, science deals with the natural. The concept of a supernatural designer is outside the real of science. ID is premised on a supernatural designer. Therefore, ID is outside science. Just as Newton’s laws of gravity have no place in your religion class, ID has no place in a science class.

Peace

Tim

In its simplicity it simply posits intelligence behind the design we observe. The conclusions can be left to the individual. It should be mentioned in the context of new discoveries or theories. New theories are mentioned in science class all the time.

 

[buffalo]

adstrinity:

If I may…I went to a Full Gospel (read: Fundemental) church school for 7 & 8 Grade. Very literal, but yet, Anti-Catholic, go figure. Anyway, Ch 1-12, Gen taken to be true & accurate as is. Science classes taught how impossible evolution & the Big Bang is. First two years of high school went to a Dutch Reformed (a branch of Calvinism) School & took Biology there in my Freshman year. The teacher taught both the Creation theory and the Evolution theory…maybe only one or two classes. Basically, said both are equally plausible because they are JUST THEORIES and neither can really be proven. To do such would require many exponents we cannot reproduce. …I don’t even think the teacher even mentioned “God” per se, just that, a Creator COULD have made it as such as in Genesis.

On that note, I’ve come across a lot of Christian bashing on that other site. The 15 year old has yet to disprove God via religion (he hasn’t even tried). The other one, a 19 year old female stated, “It ISN’t sciences job to disprove religion, but it does none the less. It’s just common sense really. There is plenty of hardcore evidence supporting evolution, but there is not a single thing pointing to a God or heaven. Santa or the Easter bunny are just as probable as God.” She then goes on to bash the Christian religion, "And don’t get me started on the christian religion. The bible is so full of holes and has been rewritten so many times, I don’t imagine why people would think it all true. Honestly, do you beleive that we all came from just two people? That’s ridiculous. Another thing, the part about god dying for ours sins was totally made up by a group of Jews who didn’t want to follow all the jewish laws, such as curcumsicion, so they made am exuse so that they could sin and would still go to heaven.

Another crucial peice of info is this: all, if not most of the religions around the world claim that THEIRS is the only true religion. So if religion is true, that means that only ONE SINGLE religion is the real one, and therefore every single person on the earth, exept for those following that one one religion, will go to hell. That’s a sh*tload of people going to hell, and a fricking cruel god if you ask me!"

Despite all this, although, I could have gotten into it with her, I pointed out that evolution & religion do not necessarily conflict and all I am interested in in science to disprove God exists. I know I shouldn’t have shared the latter part of her post, but, “made up by a group of Jews who didn’t want to follow all the jewish laws…” C’MON!!!

Again, I thank EVERYBODY who has provided links (I am checking them out now).

Ask her why she assumes everyone should be allowed to enter heaven?

 

[adstrinity]

Thank you, everybody. I got what I wanted out of this. After a while, the 15 year old just stopped responding & the 19 year old admitted, “Okay, maybe it doesn’t disprove god, but it sure doesn’t prove god either, and I beleive in proof and rationale. Like I said, there is just as much evidence supporting a real Santa or Easter bunny, but if I were to worship one of them, people would think I’m crazy. In my opinion god is no different than those childish icons.” That’s where I left it. A woman, much more patient than I wrote an essay on that bored explaining everthing. The best thing I can see to argue against this is ‘Why do you believe the Bible…and the Crusades & Spanish Inquisition…’ Now, the person asking this is ALSO a teen AND, the woman he is asking is not Catholic, so, something tells me I may have to jump in again, but, for right now, it stands: HA HA! The two cannot back up their claim (nor even know what they are talking about) with science disproving religion. gloating over

Again, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Everybody!!!

God Bless you & Mary keep you!!

 

[selvaraj]

Science is not superior to the Holy Bible

Please visit:manavai.com/n_articles_p8.htm

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

In its simplicity it simply posits intelligence behind the design we observe. The conclusions can be left to the individual. It should be mentioned in the context of new discoveries or theories. New theories are mentioned in science class all the time.

So, you are claiming that the “intelligence” is natural? Or is it supernatural?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

So, you are claiming that the “intelligence” is natural? Or is it supernatural?

Peace

Tim

As a Catholic naturally it would have to be supernatural intelligence. In the science context it is simply intelligence.

 

[Ahimsa]

buffalo:

In the science context it is simply intelligence.

Can this intelligence be scientifically measured, observed, analyzed? Is this intelligence energy, matter, protons, electrons, etc.? Seems rather mysterious.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

As a Catholic naturally it would have to be supernatural intelligence. In the science context it is simply intelligence.

So, the intelligence in the scientific context is natural? Mother Nature? Gaia?

Peace

Tim

 

[john_doran]

Ahimsa:

Can this intelligence be scientifically measured

how does one measure intelligence “scientifically”?

Ahimsa:

…observed,

yes. by its effects. same way we “observe” fundamental particles.

Ahimsa:

analyzed?

see above.

Ahimsa:

Is this intelligence energy, matter, protons, electrons, etc.?

depends who you ask.

Ahimsa:

Seems rather mysterious.

it is. just like energy, matter, protons, electrons, etc.

 

[buffalo]

Ahimsa:

Can this intelligence be scientifically measured, observed, analyzed? Is this intelligence energy, matter, protons, electrons, etc.? Seems rather mysterious.

That is what the ID movement is trying to test and discover. Many scientific discoveries come from theories and are tested. If you believe the answer is no, just let them go about their way and they will find soon enough the answer is no. They shouldn’t be a threat either way.

If they are right and can deliver, then watch out.

 

[Hermione]

adstrinity:

Thank you, everybody. I got what I wanted out of this. After a while, the 15 year old just stopped responding & the 19 year old admitted, “Okay, maybe it doesn’t disprove god, but it sure doesn’t prove god either, and I beleive in proof and rationale. Like I said, there is just as much evidence supporting a real Santa or Easter bunny, but if I were to worship one of them, people would think I’m crazy. In my opinion god is no different than those childish icons.” That’s where I left it. A woman, much more patient than I wrote an essay on that bored explaining everthing. The best thing I can see to argue against this is ‘Why do you believe the Bible…and the Crusades & Spanish Inquisition…’ Now, the person asking this is ALSO a teen AND, the woman he is asking is not Catholic, so, something tells me I may have to jump in again, but, for right now, it stands: HA HA! The two cannot back up their claim (nor even know what they are talking about) with science disproving religion. gloating over

Again, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Everybody!!!

God Bless you & Mary keep you!!

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard00.html

If you need this in the future, this debate has scientific arguments for God.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

buffalo:

In its simplicity it simply posits intelligence behind the design we observe. The conclusions can be left to the individual. It should be mentioned in the context of new discoveries or theories. New theories are mentioned in science class all the time.

only when they fit observable data

 

[Ghosty]

If they are right and can deliver, then watch out.

Watch out for what? We’re orthodox Catholics. If the ID people can prove God in a scientific realm, then more power to them. Personally I think it’s a waste of time unless their proof leads to deeper understanding. Since I already believe 100% in God and the power of faith, their work means absolutely nothing to me.

 

[buffalo]

Ghosty:

Watch out for what? We’re orthodox Catholics. If the ID people can prove God in a scientific realm, then more power to them. Personally I think it’s a waste of time unless their proof leads to deeper understanding. Since I already believe 100% in God and the power of faith, their work means absolutely nothing to me.

The “watch out” was intended for atheistic evolution proponents, secular humanists, naturalists and the like.

 

[Ghosty]

Ahhh, those people would just ignore it anyway, IMO. Most say they would believe if there was “proof”, but the reality is that they are simply comfortable that such proof will never arrive. If there was such proof, they’d simply find another reason to not believe.