[Baseball_Fan]

The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line.

the difference between science and religion is regardless of your beliefs, science is true

Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.

The objectivity of science allows you to modify it, change it. Over time, science refines itself through the method that it is established. This is not because of there is no absolute truth in science, but because science seeks the absolute truth inherently and continuously. Scientists continuously question and challenge established theories and principles with new data to refine the theories already put forth to produce a more accurate description of our universe. Religion does not do that. Religion assumes there is a God responsible for everything around us, and it stops there. What sort of logical route is that?

It is very logical. God does not do things because we demand it. God does things in his own logic, which is superior to our own. We are limited to our perceptions, He is not. I'll give you an example out of scientific research, the superstring theory. Those scientists believe we live in more dimensions than we can perceive. Why should humans be so narcissistic to demand that we're capable of being all knowing? There are many things we will never know; at least not while we're mortal beings on earth.

I would rather take the absolute truth in God and hold it dear, than to take the relative truth of science. That is not to say I don't believe science can be usefull, I just undertsand the limitations of science.

You can have both. You can believe the absolute truth in God, while using the senses that God gave us to make life as good as possible while we're on earth.

[constant thinker]

These are things I try to avoid thinking about. I'll go as far as thinking what our world is made of, and how our planet and us were formed.

I avoid thinking about where everything came from. Things like String Theory, Big Bang, God, etc., I just avoid it, because it only leads to more and more questions. I just accept that something major happened a long time ago that caused all of the things on the standard model to come into existence, and that's that. I just accept the standard model.

I do think about how everything interacts though and how we evolved, things like that, but that is a real brain twister because there is so much.

O and by standard model, I'm talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model

[Will]

We are limited to our perceptions, He is not. I'll give you an example out of scientific research, the superstring theory. Those scientists believe we live in more dimensions than we can perceive. Why should humans be so narcissistic to demand that we're capable of being all knowing? There are many things we will never know; at least not while we're mortal beings on earth.

I would rather take the absolute truth in God and hold it dear, than to take the relative truth of science. That is not to say I don't believe science can be usefull, I just undertsand the limitations of science.

You can have both. You can believe the absolute truth in God, while using the senses that God gave us to make life as good as possible while we're on earth.

I think you need to look at superstring theory more carefully; those 'extra' dimensions are only on the scale of the actual supersymmetric strings themselves, and to put it simply, they just vibrate in more dimensions than those we see. I don't see how this prooves that we are limited to perceptions. Do you want us to have supersymmetric string-level microscope eyes that can see/perceive these (pointless in the macro-world) dimensions? Is 'God's' supposed design of the human not good enough for you?

I don't know any human that thinks they can be all-knowing, but it doesn't stop humans from knowing most things. To be quite honest, I would say christians are the ones who think they know it all because they are so adamant that 'God' exists, with very poor 'proof' (if you can call it that) of a god exisiting. This:

There is too much beauty in nature for it to be random. When I look into the night sky, and see the stars, it is like a painting.

The proof of God is Jesus. He walked the earth. He is not just "some guy from history". Too many people witnessed his acts, his miracles. He cured people who were sick. He rose from the dead. And even today, there are miracles by people like Mother Teresa. There are miracles that science can not expalin.

is not proof. Proofs aren't undocumented miracles which haven't been explained yet.

I don't see why you have to believe in 'God' to make life as good as possible while we're on earth. Just think of all the resources wasted on churches, and the time wasted by people who go to church could've been better used. You don't need christianity or 'God' to be spiritual or good-doing.

[constant thinker]

I have a question for everyone to think about.

If there really is a God, how do we know we are perceiveing what he/she/it really is or wants us to see?

Think about it, there are many different versions of "god". In some religions there are gods. Religions of have changed continuosly and have evolved. A lot of them show striking similarities. Catholicism shows some similarities the the "pagan" religions. There are so many stories about him/her/it with the Quran (sorry if I didn't spell it right), the Old Testament, the New Testament, and whatever stories/prophecies from other religions.

Also is there anyone here capable of explaining to me how religion came about? I have my own views on it, but I want to see what others think. What if God were being explained in science?

And to think, I was going to try to stay out of this discussion.

[Baseball_Fan]

I have a question for everyone to think about.

If there really is a God, how do we know we are perceiveing what he/she/it really is or wants us to see?

There is a proof that Rene Descartes gives which answers your question. Most know him for his contributations to mathematics, but he was an excellent philosopher. I won't do him justice, but here is a snapshot of his proof of God. I'm paraphrasing him, if you want to read his proof get a copy of his Meditations. He starts with the question "How do I know what I am seeing is really true, and that I'm not deceived by an evil devil?". From this first question, he answers that in order to be deceived, he first must exist which proves his existence. He then continues to ask "how do I know my perceptions are not deceiving me". His answer is that in dreams he can see things which are not true in reality, so perhaps he can not be 100% certain of his senses. He gives an example of wax, that he sees it in one form, but when melted it is in another form. But the thinking man still knows it is wax, even though it is in two different forms. So he can be certain of is his thinking, that his thoughts are his own and not deceived. He then continues that he is an imperfect being, as all humans are imperfect, but he has a perfect thought of God, and since he is imperfect it is impossible for him to have created the thought of a perfect God. He concludes that God must have placed the knowledge of God deep inside Descartes.

Like I wrote earlier, I'm not doing him justice and am probably writing it wrong. But the way Descartes writes it, his conclusion is convincing. It is worth reading. 

[woelen]

Baseball_fan, I am a christian as well, and I agree with many things you write. I also believe Jesus is very special, yes, that he is the son of God.

But I also want to point out something:
1) The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
2) The non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.

God is beyond science. There of course are many other things which provide evidence for the existence of God, and you mentioned some of them (e.g. how beautiful creation is, look at the sky as you mentioned), but these are not scientific proofs of the existence of God. If there really were a scientific proof, then belief would not be belief anymore, then belief would be knowing.

Belief in God, however, can affect how science is practiced. With most sciences it doesn't (e.g. chemistry), but with some it sure does (e.g. evolutionary biology).

[tamim83]

Funny, I don't think my minister thinks that way.  He made, what I believe was a snipe at me last month when he said that scientists are trying to surpass God with our work.  Of course, I don't think this is true.  So I think a lot of religions do scoff at much of science for that reason.  My minister, for example was all for me becoming a teacher but once I switched from teaching to research, all of a sudden he makes anti-science comments in his sermons.  Oh well.   

I am a Christian and I do believe quite strongly in God and Jesus.  However I am a "believer" (if that what it is called) in evolution, the possibility of life on other planets, and many other things that other Christians do not.  I mean you really cannot argue with proof and evidence, which there is a lot of in evolution.  I think the problem is not God but people who claim to be "for God" who use religion to push their beliefs on others or to control what others believe.  It is a widely known fact that people have always used God to achieve their own very wrong ends. 

[constant thinker]

See the thing with some religions today is that they are rigid and still operate by beliefs that are 100s of years old. We know A LOT more than we knew way back when The Bible was published. Some of those stories may be scientifically explainable, and depending on your views the science explanation may reinforce god or it may not.

A lot of things have changed in culture. Back in 17th and 18th centuries there were those witch burnings. Back then people believed in witches. In this modern world it generally is accepted that witches are nothing but fairytales. Basically what I'm trying to say is that culture and our knowledge of the world has changed dramatically, so come of the stories, prophecies, etc. are in a sense out dated. We know now that microorganisms and viruses cause disease. It isn't the wrath of god because you did something bad (although I guess that can be disputed my some).

Imagine if The Bible was written (or really voted upon) in the 21st century. I'm 100% sure the stories would be completely different, and there would be science in it.

As far as evolution goes, "How do we know evolution isn't Gods work?"

I feel that this kind of debate will never ever end. It will go on as long as man is a free thinking species. Some people will have God(s) and all the things that come along with him/her/it, and they will hold onto it and defend it furiously. Others will defend science furiously. While still others will take the middle road and believe in a mix of God and science. The worlds current view of God almost seams to be straight out of the 2nd century. Sure the practices of the Catholic Church and other religions has been moving progressively to a liberal environment, but even then that is a relatively new thing.

The world works in funny ways, and everyone has a different view on these things.

By the way, thanks geo for making a new topic.

[woelen]

I feel that this kind of debate will never ever end. It will go on as long as man is a free thinking species. Some people will have God(s) and all the things that come along with him/her/it, and they will hold onto it and defend it furiously. Others will defend science furiously. While still others will take the middle road and believe in a mix of God and science. The worlds current view of God almost seams to be straight out of the 2nd century. Sure the practices of the Catholic Church and other religions has been moving progressively to a liberal environment, but even then that is a relatively new thing.

This is a VERY good point. All these discussions seem to be futile. A creationist remains a creationist, someone, who accepts evolution still will accept evolution and finally these discussions just tend to become bashing each other.

I myself indeed are somewhat in the middle. I believe that earth is old (billions of years), but I have serious questions about evolution. I, however, just want to say that this makes me humble. I have no answers, and I will not claim anything. I wish I had answers on some of these questions, which I think are quite interesting, but I doubt I will ever obtain them. It be so... My belief in Jesus, and God, however, is not affected by these questions, and it does not depend on how precisely life developed and how old the universe is.

[Baseball_Fan]

Imagine if The Bible was written (or really voted upon) in the 21st century. I'm 100% sure the stories would be completely different, and there would be science in it.

The bible was not written to be voted on, it was written as the word of God. As the word of God, it is the absolute truth. I can't pick what parts of it I want to accept, and throw out the rest. I must accept it all, and I happily do.

At the same time, I do realize that many parts of the Bible were written as parables, and not as a history. If God wanted a complete history of the world, and how we came to be, I bet it would be too long to finish reading in one lifetime.

When you look at the themes in the Bible, they are just as good today as when it was first written. Don't be greedy, don't steal, don't lust, don't envy, don't do perverted acts. All the negative emotions the Bible warns about have made people suffer.

Pope John Paul II wrote in one of his books that a grave sin people make is to believe they are smarter than God. We're not. John Paul II gave the example of Adam and Eve, and how they were given rules by God, and how they were happy. But they ate from the tree of knowledge, and because of that one act, they were given the new power to Judge. When humans try to rationalize acts against the rules God has given, it leads to more suffering. If Adam and Eve never would have committed that first sin, we would all be in heaven right now. We're paying for their sin.

[constant thinker]

By voted on I was referring to The Council of Trent. I was taught that the modern day bible was a result of a voting during the 16th century by some ecclesiastics.

I do like the themes of the bible. Although I admittedly don't always live them out. 

[Donaldson Tan]

There of course are many other things which provide evidence for the existence of God, and you mentioned some of them (e.g. how beautiful creation is, look at the sky as you mentioned), but these are not scientific proofs of the existence of God. If there really were a scientific proof, then belief would not be belief anymore, then belief would be knowing.

This is one of the fundemental differences between religion and science. Both approaches towards the existence of God are fundementally different. Science may validate religion, but religion definitely cannot validate science since religion is based on beliefs.

Baseball_fan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5098608.stm

So he can be certain of is his thinking, that his thoughts are his own and not deceived. He then continues that he is an imperfect being, as all humans are imperfect, but he has a perfect thought of God, and since he is imperfect it is impossible for him to have created the thought of a perfect God. He concludes that God must have placed the knowledge of God deep inside Descartes.

Unless Decartes already assumed there is a perfect God, how did he conclude he has a perfect thought of something and since that thought is perfect, it must come frm a perfect God?

Pope John Paul II wrote in one of his books that a grave sin people make is to believe they are smarter than God. We're not. John Paul II gave the example of Adam and Eve, and how they were given rules by God, and how they were happy. But they ate from the tree of knowledge, and because of that one act, they were given the new power to Judge.

But I also want to point out something:
1) The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
2) The non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.

Where does the Pope's example come from? It comes from a source that cannot be verified, unless belief is knowing.

[Baseball_Fan]

Unless Decartes already assumed there is a perfect God, how did he conclude he has a perfect thought of something and since that thought is perfect, it must come frm a perfect God?

There is only one Descartes, and I'm not him. I could not do his book justice in a paragraph. I suggest reading his original words in meditations. He provides more than one proof of God. I offered just one simplified example. If you read his work, you don't need a premise of a God to come to the conclusion of God, which is what you are suggesting.

[Baseball_Fan]

This is one of the fundemental differences between religion and science. Both approaches towards the existence of God are fundementally different. Science may validate religion, but religion definitely cannot validate science since religion is based on beliefs.

God sent his son to walk on the earth, there were witnesses. The acts Jesus did are proof that God exists. Just because you want God to continue to prove himself, does not require God to prove anything. He proved it once. I believe that proof. 

If you don't believe Jesus walked the earth, than you can not accept any history as true because you were not personally there to witness it. Does that mean that Napoleon never walked the earth and did everything history claims? What about Caesar, did he do everything history says he did?

[constant thinker]

Who disputed that Jesus ever walked the Earth? I personally didn't see anyone dispute it. I think it's fairly well accepted Jesus walked the Earth, but it's what he did that people dispute.