Scientific knowledge vs God

1. 60

   AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years ago

   Scentific belief and dogma changes every generation, but the belief in a God of grace has persisted since the time of Abraham, and probably before. Can anyone explain this.
   God as described in the bible is infinitely more reliable, don't you think.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      schoolgirlforrealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I've heard since man existed, they believed in a sun god for example
      the egyptians believed in a god as well.
      It evolved into other beliefs, buddah, jewish, catholic.
      
      Perhaps one has not thought that "our hearts were created FOR God" perhaps this is WHY we all have sought a god
      
      and maybe many atheists just are the type that don't want RULES to follow, or to have to be a certain way like not commit fornication, or whatever so they try and Pretend there is no God, because therfore there are no rules!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         schoolgirl
         You might of been asking me this question on the other site,not sure'
         
         I prefer more kindness in the world than more religion or more politics.
         If someone insults me, it’s most likely it’s the truth about my weakness that I have. If it’s an untrue insult, I can ignore it or have them Clearfield it more to understand it better.
         
         It’s kinder for me to work more on balancing my weakness than over working my strengths.
         
         When one group claim to be all and end all, how can that group be to all that nice to the other 400 other groups, who claim the same?
         Very nice people have been known to do very bad things.

         replyreport
   2. 62

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Atjacobs:
      It seems you haven't read the bible. Am I correct?

      replyreport
   3. 71

      getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This logic is absurd.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The human species seems very superstitious. I have a 'lucky' number although there is absolutely no logic for a lucky number, it has never proven particularly lucky but I like it anyway. Not the mention the difficulty in thinking that when we die we are nothing more then a speck of dust in the winds of time, totally meaningless, its hard for our ego's to accept, much nicer to think a God of some sort thinks we are important and will reward or punish us after death. As it is I do believe in a God type force but I am not sure that I am more then a speck of dust in the winds of time to that force for all my ego.
      
      
      Not really, no.
      
      Leading a good life, being kind and generous has not reliably meant anything regarding my situation in life, weather or not I have good or bad things happen to me, all it does is give me a sense of esteem and that is more then enough to keep me kind and generous. God as described in the bible seems about as unreliable as it is possible to get! No punishments for pedophiles, child abusers, war mongers and other evil deeds done by humans like turning them to salt, yet God used to do just that! Reliable? My ass! Hence my understanding of god is as far from anything in that bible (or Koran or Talmud) as it is possible to get (I imagine, maybe it is possible but I don't see how). My belief is for ME, not for God, like she cares if I believe or not! My belief serves me as I believe I need God not the other way around, She don't need me, I am just a speck of dust in the winds of time.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      tvpuramposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Ultimate aim of Science is to define God.  Once Scientists achieve it ,they may have to explore ways for controlling mankind.  Fear is the key.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         tvpuram:
         As man evolved and gained much greater sophistication, he created an "abstract" concept of god/s so that definition and proof would be impossible.
         Science cannot prove the existence of that which is incorporeal, cannot be known and which is just imagined.
         He planned well.
         Qwark

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tvpuramposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Every thing originates from imagination or thoughts.  These thoughts cease to exist when man perishes.  May be that is the time when God also cease to exist.  Or is there God for any other living things than human? Do they have imagination of God?

            replyreport
   6. 62

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Atjacobs:
      The definition of "grace" as you use it to describe this biblical "god thing: is:
      
      a. Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people.
      b. The state of being protected or sanctified by the favor of God.
      c. An excellence or power granted by God.
      
      It is obvious to us who have "studied" the bible, that you haven't.
      
      The god of the bible ordered the murder of, the death of, all life on earth but noah and family and a few animals. Prior to that "it" flew into childish rages of anger and jealousy ordered the murder of tens of thousands of innocents!
      How can you mention this "god" thing and grace in the same sentence and expect anyone who has, in fact, studied this psychotic bastard "god," take you seriously?
      By the way "bastard" is not foul language!
      Qwark

      replyreport
   7. 78

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "... since the time of Abraham, and probably before..."
      
      "probably?"   Really?  Just probably?
      
      Are you actually telling me you have devoted your life to the God of the only holy book you ever read?
      
      Gods and religion date back with vast evidence for thousands of years before the version that became the God of the Bible, the only "probably" about it is that the existence of god stories are "probably" well over 100,000 years old.  Way before Abraham. Several gods/religions have been created SINCE the time of Abraham too.

      replyreport
   8. 71

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Scientific belief? Doesn't exist. Scientific discovery is objective, which incorporates rationalize testing.
      
      The Dogma of Religion and religious beliefs are subjective to one's imagination, filled with irrationality and ignorance.

      replyreport
2. 96

   wildernessposted 13 years ago

   Humanity has a very strong tendency to believe what they want to believe.  What they need to believe, but not necessarily what they should believe.
   
   A God of grace that will prevent their dying is a very desirable belief system to most people and thereby a very easy sell.
   
   That does make the God of the bible more reliable than science, it merely shows the gullibility of human kind.
   
   
   In addition, scientific belief does not change every generation; that is left to religion.  True, it is refined and expanded, but that is all.  Newtons laws have remained basically unchanged in the gross physical aspects they refer to for instance.  The mathematics of a lever are still the same centuries after the discovery.  The laws of thermodynamics are still valid for the conditions they were formulated for.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And everyone said the earth was flat, the sun went round the earth...
      People thought putting led in petrol was ok.
      Basic laws do not change but the concept and beliefs in science change.
      As for God He is eternally the same.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The priesthood said the earth was flat; science finally checked it and found it was not.  It was obvious the sun went around the earth; God created man to be the center of everything, until science finally checked and found it not to be so.  Lead is still OK in petrol; it will not harm the engine and does it good.  The fact it does humans harm is a different matter entirely in a different area, and this is often the object of science - to expand knowledge in a different direction.
         
         Do not confuse unsubstantiated or "common knowledge" beliefs with factual information discovered by the scientific method or even theories proposed as a possible explanation of observational data.
         
         Science does not contain beliefs in the sense that religion does.  At most it has theories that are backed by all available observational data to date.  As there are absolutely no observations supporting the concept of God it cannot be even a scientific "theory"; rather it is a belief that human beings choose to believe in without data.

         replyreport
3. 59

   secularist10posted 13 years ago

   God is a creation of the human mind, so of course it seems more "reliable" if and only if you assume God exists.
   
   In fact, the nature and description of God has changed MASSIVELY over the centuries, even within specific religions. Just one example: Christianity largely emphasized the punishing and judgmental nature of God in the Middle Ages, but today Christians tend to emphasize his loving and forgiving nature.
   
   People have hated in the name of God, and people have loved in the name of God. Doesn't seem very reliable to me.

   replyreport
4. 57

   TheWicklessCandleposted 13 years ago

   I read someone's hub about this and it opened my eyes to God and Science (pretty much the same thing.) I wanted to share it:
   
   http://hubpages.com/hub/Is-God-a-Scient … erspective
   
   Incredibly, incredibly, insightful.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      ..incredibly, incredibly BS!
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 57

         TheWicklessCandleposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm wondering if you have any scientific knowledge at all.
         
         Or even know what Quantum physics is.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If I tried to explain quantum mechanics to you, I'd be wasting OUR time.
            Don't worry about what I know, bone up on what you don't know, then come back and chat with me.
            lol
            Qwark

            replyreport
         2. 60

            AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I know a little about quantum physics, not in depth. What is the difference between my belief in God and your belief in science, it all comes down to second hand knowledge you have taken as your own. Did you actually go and do all the experiments, calculations etc..? I don't think so.
            Whereas i have read the bible and many other religions, but I did not take  it at face value, I actually experimented and found that yes God is, it is not second hand knowledge anymore it is my direct experience.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               And which God might that be?  It sounds like your experiments were based on subjective reasoning.  Scientific experiments are based on objective reasoning.  You can't compare the two.
               
               You are way off.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  As you know so much about science, i shall point you back to quantum physics which tell us that there is no such thing "objectivity" anything that you observe is affected by the observer himself. Objective reasoning means absolutely nothing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Then I guess we are all just as delusional as all of you who believe in abject improbable nonsense.  Right?

                     replyreport
               2. 61

                  mom101posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Why is he way off for holding to his belief?
                  
                  Why can't he compare the two?  He, better than you, knows the experience he had. He knows what it meant to him.  Whether or not you believe or understand, changes his experience none  in the least. Just because you didn't experience it does not mean it is delusional.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I am thinking the same exact thing.

                     replyreport
                  2. 71

                     getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     If it defies the natural laws, his experience was probably delusional.  Objective reality has nothing to do with the whimsical nonsensical beliefs of blind followers.
                     
                     He only wishes that he had a preternatural experience. There is a great chance that he is delusional, since his conclusions are absurd.

                     replyreport
            2. 61

               Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               God is my direct personal experience also.

               replyreport
   2. 59

      secularist10posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see what's so impressive about it. Not particularly different from most rhetoric that tries to reconcile naturalism with supernaturalism.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Absurd!  Damn right getirite!
         Qwark

         replyreport
         1. 60

            AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Is ther any way you can have a civilised conversation without using foul language?

            replyreport
            1. 62

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               ...what is "foul" about my comment?

               replyreport
            2. 62

               qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               ...is there anyway we can have a "civilized" conversation without the use of misspelled words?
               lol
               Qwark

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  apology for any spelling mistake smart one, i am a french speaker trying to discuss with you in a language which is not my own, i would love to see you writing anything in french without any mistakes.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Atjacob:
                     Gee! it sure would be courteous and enlightening if "speakers of another language" would make that known before offering a message.
                     It might be that we who speak English, as our native language would consider "that" when reading and give ya a break.
                     Did that "courtesy" escape your awareness?...frenchy?
                     I can accept your mistakes in English, but your mistakes in "monotheistic" belief I must challenge and will.
                     Qwark

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You seem to be a very angry person, why?
                        It is not that I have come to you with a gun to your head, is it?
                        We are only discussing and you come across as full of anger.
                        I on the other hand am fully accepting that others might not agree, great, no problem. Why is it so important to you that I disagree.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I respond, reflecting the attitude of a responder.
                           
                           "Is there any way you can have a civilised conversation without using foul language?"
                           On another thread you tried to demean me and challenged me in ref to my "intellect" You specifically referred to "quantum mechanics." suggesting I probably wouldn't understand the concept.
                           Two can play that game!
                           If you want respect, earn it!
                           Now, you claim to have read the bible and other religious works. You may have read the bible, and armed with preconcieved notions of this biblical "god thing," it seems that logic and reason had no effect upon your understanding of what you read.
                           Either that, or you "conveniently" skipped over the "lord gods" murderous intent and action.
                           Of course the bible is such a corrupted fairytale that there doesn't exist 1 credible scripture in it.
                           If you were truly an educated religious scholar, there'd be no reason for us to hash and rehash biblical garbage.
                           It is important to me that I disagree because your beliefs represent, historically, massive, disgusting and horrible human trauma and death!
                           
                           Qwark

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              AtJacobsLadderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I never sai d I was a scholar, I have studied and experienced different religious beliefs, specialising in Advaita and non dualism, before becoming a Christian. i do not ask for respect, especially from you, O enlightened one.
                              You have done nothing but "demean" and challenge, your attitude has been no different than a religious fanatic except yours is the God of science, ssame thing.
                              Anyway, this has gone far enough with the constant abuse, this was not my intention when posting this topic. so , you are welcome to continue arguing amongst yourselves, as for me I refuse to continue exchanging words with such an ignorant but enlightened "racist". Bye It is now finished.

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 ...hahaha...thank you for making my point so poignantly.
                                 Religious bigotry is so obvious to the enlightened.
                                 tsk tsk.
                                 Qwark

                                 replyreport
                              2. 71

                                 getitriteposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 
                                 
                                 Typical!
                                 
                                 This is a cop-out, because you haven't got one speck of evidence to back up your assertion.  Yet you want to be taken seriously by intelligent, educated people who live in reality.  The entire premise of this thread is absolutely absurd.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 62

                                    qwarkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    TY getitrite!  :-)

                                    replyreport
5. 62

   optimus grimlockposted 13 years ago

   they could be intertwined.... think about it!!!

   replyreport
6. 58

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   Paul Harvey said ...Sometimes we have to hear
   "The rest of the story" before we jump to conclusions when reading the Head Lines.  Now I am not saying the following IS true but is a real possibility???
   
      IF we are going to believe the Bible account  WORD for WORD?
   We must remember that the Sons of God came down and took all that they wanted of the daughters of mankind.
       MAYBE ?  every single one of them???   
      
      These accounts say that there were  SOME  deformities such as Giants etc.  ....   Scripture does NOT say that all of the descendants were unsuitably deformed.
       IF the story of the flood were true?  There would have to have been at LEAST one person on the Ark and posibly all of them with that DNA or where did Goliath come from?
       These deformities could have been the Majority of the population?  And the reason for eradicated??
   
       As I said; this is but one "possible" answer for WHY the population on earth would have been greatly reduced.
      
      Scripture does point to the descendants of the sons of God
   being the cause of the flood!

   replyreport