Science & Religion

[rossum]

If you read the bible God told Eve if she ate the fruit she would die.

I don’t think so. God told Adam, not Eve, see Genesis 2:16-17. You really ought to know your Bible better. Even I know that and I am not Christian. Eve hadn’t been created when God warned Adam not to eat from the two magic trees.

You are not doing your case any good by making such an elementary error in your Bible references.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

In the context of eternity it matters far less than the reason** why** we came about!

"Why " is properly a theological question. “How” is properly a scientific question. I don’t expect scientists to shelve the “how” and start researching the “why”.

 

[StAnastasia]

Okay then what died. Because God created the living creatures, then the fish etc. According to the word of God The Lord sent no rain upon the earth and there was NO MAN to till the soil. So who died because there were no humans created yet?

What died? Well, first of all, in the Pre-Cambrian era many organisms died. Then in the Cambrian Period (650-500 million years ago) the first chordates and fish died. Then in the Ordovician and Silurian (500-420 million yeas ago) tons of plants died. Then in the Devonian (420-350 million yeas ago) the first amphibians and jawed fishes died. I’ll skip ahead 100m million years to the Jurassic and Triassic Periods of the Mesozoic era, when trillions of dinosaurs and early mammals died. Coming to the Cretaceous Period, the first primates and flowering plants evolved and died. At the end of the Cretaceous, at the K-T Boundary Event, a large asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago, wiping out all the remaining dinosaurs, except for one clade which evolved into the birds. There was a ton of suffering and death at the K-T Boundary. Then in the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods the mammals diversified and the first humans evolved. All of them died as well.

StAnastasia

 

[Ahimsa]

"Why " is properly a theological question. “How” is properly a scientific question. I don’t expect scientists to shelve the “how” and start researching the “why”.

What’s the difference between “how” and “why”?

Can’t a scientist answer “why” humans exist, by explaining the Big Bang, cosmogenesis, formation of life, evolution of primates, and rapid cranial expansion of the hominds?

 

[StAnastasia]

What’s the difference between “how” and “why”? Can’t a scientist answer “why” humans exist, by explaining the Big Bang, cosmogenesis, formation of life, evolution of primates, and rapid cranial expansion of the hominds?

Sure, except that Tonrey in 158 was assuming a metaphysical or theological meaning to “why,” not a scientific one.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think so. God told Adam, not Eve, see Genesis 2:16-17. You really ought to know your Bible better. Even I know that and I am not Christian. Eve hadn’t been created when God warned Adam not to eat from the two magic trees.

You are not doing your case any good by making such an elementary error in your Bible references.

rossum

Where in Genesis does it use the term “magic”?

 

[rossum]

Where in Genesis does it use the term “magic”?

It doesn’t. Genesis is written in Hebrew, not English. “Magic” is an English word.

My point about who God gave His warning to is correct though.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

It doesn’t. Genesis is written in Hebrew, not English. “Magic” is an English word. My point about who God gave His warning to is correct though. rossum

rossum, are you sure the Hebrew text does not warn Adam that if he eats the forbidden fruit it will cause his hard drive to crash and will wipe out all his files?

 

[rossum]

rossum, are you sure the Hebrew text does not warn Adam that if he eats the forbidden fruit it will cause his hard drive to crash and will wipe out all his files?

That depends on whether I am using the Orthodox Hebrew-English dictionary, the Catholic Hebrew-English dictionary of the Microsoft Hebrew-English dictionary.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

That depends on whether I am using the Orthodox Hebrew-English dictionary, the Catholic Hebrew-English dictionary of the Microsoft Hebrew-English dictionary.

rossum

or the StA/rossum Cynics International Abridged version.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I was speaking of human death and the answer is no. Dead was a result of sin, Before sin entered the world there was no death. If you read the bible God told Eve if she ate the fruit she would die. She died a spiritual death at first which is sin, and a physical death later.

That is why the next world will be perfect the way the beginning was to be. No death, no sadness, only happiness.

That is why it was Christ who took away the death that Adam and Eve caused us. That is why in the next world we will live with God and talk with him and have a different kind of relationship with him then we have here.

That is why Christ is the New Adam and the Blessed Mother is the NEw Eve. Because they stayed true to the Father and obeyed and did not sin.

Because if you read Gen. 2:5 there were no humans.

Your answer is without question, wrong.

 

[StAnastasia]

Your answer is without question, wrong.

Meet the ancestor of all living things on Earth: "The Last Universal Common Ancestor is the great-grandparent of everything that has ever lived on Earth. Scientists had long assumed it was a crude, simple thing, more a chemical mishmash than anything else. But our earliest ancestor holds some surprises.

"Known as LUCA for short, it’s hard to even know how to describe this…thing. For a long time, scientists assumed the LUCA was incredibly primitive, a basic assemblage of organic molecules that couldn’t even be considered a cell. That might sound like the LUCA wasn’t even alive in any sense we would understand, and that’s probably true - that’s the problem with coming up with a single organism from which everything on this planet could be descended. You have to go very, very far back into our evolutionary past to find it.

"But maybe not quite as far back as we once thought. While we still don’t have any direct evidence of what the LUCA was, researchers at the University of Illinois have found a particular organelle inside microbial cells responsible for polyphosphate storage. That may not sound like the most crucial of tasks, but the important thing is that this specific organelle is found not only in all multicellular organisms but also bacteria and their cousins the archaea. That makes it the first universal organelle, something that is shared by every living thing on the planet.

io9.com/5847099/meet-the-ancestor-of-all-living-things-on-earth

 

[tonyrey]

Sure, except that Tonrey in 158 was assuming a metaphysical or theological meaning to “why,” not a scientific one.

Indeed! “Why?” implies purpose - which is alien to science except in a mechanistic sense.

 

[tonyrey]

"Why " is properly a theological question. “How” is properly a scientific question. I don’t expect scientists to shelve the “how” and start researching the “why”.

Many assume that “how” explains “why”! :dts:

 

[StAnastasia]

Many assume that “how” explains “why”! :dts:

I can explain how the Himalaya were formed, by showing evidence of the uplift of the Himalayan massif as a result of the slow moving collision of the Australian plate with the Asian plate. That doesn’t explain why it happened in the sense of who intended that to happen.

 

[tonyrey]

I can explain how the Himalaya were formed, by showing evidence of the uplift of the Himalayan massif as a result of the slow moving collision of the Australian plate with the Asian plate. That doesn’t explain why it happened in the sense of who intended that to happen.

Indeed. My point is that physicalists explain “why” in terms of “how” - as if science can explain the scientist!

 

[SGWessells]

You have not explained why the universe and its laws are propitious for life, how life originated, why it became more complex and how rational, purposeless beings with self-control and insight into reality have been produced by irrational, purposeless processes…

Moreover you know the real world exists only because you infer its existence from our sole certainty: the fact that we are thinking. Are your thoughts less real than material objects?

So the lack of explanation for these things (assuming that there is none, which is incorrect) would prove that “God made them”? This is what has been called the “argument from incredulity” : whenever we don’t understand some process, that proves that God is responsible. That closes the door on all further knowledge. Since God is by definition incomprehensible and his ways past finding out, we cannot progress any further in our search for deeper understanding…until some scientist dares to search anyway and finds that, for example, God did not put the earth in the center of the universe after all.
Saying “God did it” adds nothing to our knowledge, since we know neither how nor why God did it. You might as well say “Blurglesplatz did it.” You have the same level of knowledge either way.

I know the real world exists because my senses tell me it exists. You are putting Descartes before the horse And my thoughts are material objects, if electrical impulses from neurons in the brain count as matter.

 

[tonyrey]

You have not explained why the universe and its laws are propitious for life, how life originated, why it became more complex and how rational, purposeless beings with self-control and insight into reality have been produced by irrational, purposeless processes…

Then you should be able to summarise them …

…would prove that “God made them”? This is what has been called the “argument from incredulity” : whenever we don’t understand some process, that proves that God is responsible.

It is a proof that the world and its contents are not self-explanatory and require explanation.

That closes the door on all further knowledge.

On the contrary. It prompts us to look for a metaphysical rather than a scientific explanation.

Since God is by definition incomprehensible and his ways past finding out, we cannot progress any further in our search for deeper understanding…

God is not **totally **incomprehensible by definition. If He were the term would be meaningless… There has been an immense amount of theological, philosophical and logical analysis and investigation of the subject based on facts about reality.

…until some scientist dares to search anyway and finds that, for example, God did not put the earth in the center of the universe after all.

Everyone already knows that science doesn’t put scientists at the centre of the universe because it cannot even explain scientists!

Saying “God did it” adds nothing to our knowledge, since we know neither how nor why God did it. You might as well say “Blurglesplatz did it.” You have the same level of knowledge either way.

Saying “Matter did it” adds nothing to our knowledge, since we know neither how nor why matter did it. How did matter create itself? Or how has matter existed forever?

I know the real world exists because my senses tell me it exists.

Incorrect. You infer that the material world exists from what you perceive - and you are no less real than the material world.

You are putting Descartes before the horse

You are putting matter before the mind even though mindless matter doesn’t even know it exists!

And my thoughts are material objects, if electrical impulses from neurons in the brain count as matter.

You **assume **your thoughts are material objects but if they are material objects material objects must be aware of material objects - a hypothesis which contradicts Godel’s incompleteness theorem and infringes the law of conservation of energy.

 

[StAnastasia]

Everyone already knows that science doesn’t put scientists at the centre of the universe because it cannot even explain scientists!

Does the universe have a center?

You **assume **your thoughts are material objects but if they are material objects material objects must be aware of material objects - a hypothesis which contradicts Godel’s incompleteness theorem and infringes the law of conservation of energy.

Have you seen thoughts that are floating around unconnected to a brain?

 

[tonyrey]

Everyone already knows that science doesn’t put scientists at the centre of the universe because it cannot even explain scientists!

The term is used figuratively!

You **assume **

your thoughts are material objects but if they are material objects material objects must be aware of material objects - a hypothesis which contradicts Godel’s incompleteness theorem and infringes the law of conservation of energy.
Have you seen thoughts that are floating around unconnected to a brain?

Have you **seen **thoughts?