Thread: GOD vs SCIENCE

From the debate I attended about this, the only argument that was proposed to support the religious viewpoint is this: in order for morality to exist, there needs to be an ultimate form of judgment to hold you accountable for your actions.

Everything else the pastor said was extensions of that logic or preaching/rambling.

I asked him "how do you not see our criminal justice system as holding people accountable?" To which he said nothing more than: "Because you can still get away with immoral actions."

If I had a chance, I would've asked: "But even if you get away with it, there will still always be ways of being held accountable. For example, OJ simpson was acquitted of murder, but his public reputation was ruined and his career shaken. Is that not him being held accountable; even if it's not exactly the way you would normally expect someone to be held accountable for such actions? How can you judge to say whether or not it is? Aren't you employing your own individual morals and ideas in such judgment? And that's assuming he did it and got away with it, which he quite possibly did not."

Perhaps someone here has a response to this.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

From the debate I attended about this, the only argument that was proposed to support the religious viewpoint is this: in order for morality to exist, there needs to be an ultimate form of judgment to hold you accountable for your actions.

Everything else the pastor said was extensions of that logic or preaching/rambling.

I asked him "how do you not see our criminal justice system as holding people accountable?" To which he said nothing more than: "Because you can still get away with immoral actions."

If I had a chance, I would've asked: "But even if you get away with it, there will still always be ways of being held accountable. For example, OJ simpson was acquitted of murder, but his public reputation was ruined and his career shaken. Is that not him being held accountable; even if it's not exactly the way you would normally expect someone to be held accountable for such actions? How can you judge to say whether or not it is? Aren't you employing your own individual morals and ideas in such judgment? And that's assuming he did it and got away with it, which he quite possibly did not."

Perhaps someone here has a response to this.

So, apparently, people that use the argument that ultimate judgment is needed to have morals do not feel guilt? I know that the main force holding me to my standards is knowing I feel good when doing things that I view as good and I feel guilty when I do something I view as bad.

Fathers daughter dies from diabetes because he prayed instead of seeking medical attention

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32141869...me_and_courts/

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Fathers daughter dies from diabetes because he prayed instead of seeking medical attention

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32141869...me_and_courts/

~

Your link is broken

Originally Posted by Vampyre

As stated by someone else, evolution has been observed. We can observe evolution in small things like insects and bacteria and relate the findings to the evidence of our evolution. As such, the evidence of human evolution is as accurate as it can be. People's beliefs are what obstruct it from being accepted.

There are sevaral variations of Evolution that is currently observable, Micro evolution being one, however the evolution you are referring to has not been obseved.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There are sevaral variations of Evolution that is currently observable, Micro evolution being one, however the evolution you are referring to has not been obseved.

Heeeeeeeeere we go again.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There are sevaral variations of Evolution that is currently observable, Micro evolution being one, however the evolution you are referring to has not been obseved.

That's correct, it hasn't. However, like I said, we can analyze research conducted on small-scale evolution and compare it to the evidence of human evolution. For example, we can see how the fossils of an evolving species changed and compare it to how the fossils of humans have changed.


EDIT: Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by saying it's "as accurate as it can be." What I mean by that is: without actually observing and documenting human evolution (since that's impossible; can't travel back in time) we have made every effort to prove it in other ways.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

There are sevaral variations of Evolution that is currently observable, Micro evolution being one, however the evolution you are referring to has not been obseved.

You realize that the separation between microevolution and macroevolution is essentially a way for creationists to say "Evolution has been observed? NUH-UH, doesn't count 'cause it was a single-celled organism :3." The only difference between the two types is time and generations.

Wikipedia agrees:

Misuse

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference).[3] Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[4]

[edit] See also

Originally Posted by Mark75

Heeeeeeeeere we go again.

Yup!

Originally Posted by Vampyre

That's correct, it hasn't. However, like I said, we can analyze research conducted on small-scale evolution and compare it to the evidence of human evolution. For example, we can see how the fossils of an evolving species changed and compare it to how the fossils of humans have changed.


EDIT: Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by saying it's "as accurate as it can be." What I mean by that is: without actually observing and documenting human evolution (since that's impossible; can't travel back in time) we have made every effort to prove it in other ways.

I didn’t misunderstand what you mean at all. I was just thrown by this statement:

Originally Posted by Vamprye

As stated by someone else, evolution has been observed.

I can attest that yes, there have been great strides to fill the gaps. However don’t get me wrong I’m in no way saying macroevolution is not observed it’s just not observed the way “you” think it’s observed. I know that given enough time, the process of evolution will eventually lead to the development of groups of “related species” i.e. new genra. However to ascribe to macroevolution as the theoretical evolution of all arthropods coming from some ancient ancestral species is creating the gamblers fallacy. This scale of evolution has NEVER taken place.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

You realize that the separation between microevolution and macroevolution is essentially a way for creationists to say "Evolution has been observed? NUH-UH, doesn't count 'cause it was a single-celled organism :3." The only difference between the two types is time and generations.

Wikipedia agrees:

I never said the other doesn’t happen. Just as I told Vamprye it doesn’t happen the way you are proposing it to happen. You’re using macroevolution to propose an evolutionary relationship between organisms that are vastly different, and in fact make the claim that the process is responsible for the common decent of all organisms on Earth. Now make no mistake about it, the central problem happens to be this in your version. You have absolutely no direct empirical evidence in the existence of clear-cut intermediates that evolution on a major scale had ever occurred and that any of the major divisions of nature had been crossed gradually through a sequence of transitional forms whether it be time or a timeframe of generations is a factor or not. Major pieces of the puzzle are still missing and unless proved otherwise that’s just the way it is.

Making the claim that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of microevolution causes the term to have two distinct meanings. Even most atheist can’t come to a full agreement on the true definition of macroevolution especially with regards to speciation rather it should be considered a part of macro or microevolution. I’ve seen atheist describe macroevolution as the process that produces large-scale functional and structural changes and then subsequently as being virtually indistinguishable from microevolution.

On another note, Wikipedia is inaccurate I’m not a young earth creationist.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

Your link is broken

Fixed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32141869...me_and_courts/

~

Neyo, the only reason that scientists believe that there are such evolutionary relationships is because of evidence in the first place. That is to say, fossil records.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I can attest that yes, there have been great strides to fill the gaps. However don’t get me wrong I’m in no way saying macroevolution is not observed it’s just not observed the way “you” think it’s observed. I know that given enough time, the process of evolution will eventually lead to the development of groups of “related species” i.e. new genra. However to ascribe to macroevolution as the theoretical evolution of all arthropods coming from some ancient ancestral species is creating the gamblers fallacy. This scale of evolution has NEVER taken place.
[/COLOR]

See Polyp and genetic mapping to see how this above quote is incorrect.

~

What I don't understand is why someone needs a chain letter to prove to themsleves what they believe or disbelieve. Personally I believe in the Christian faith. I am a Christian, I grew up in a Baptist church. I don't need cute little stories like this for me to feel good about what I believe in and certainly nothing any of you say can even come close to cracking my faith.

Originally Posted by davej

What I don't understand is why someone needs a chain letter to prove to themsleves what they believe or disbelieve. Personally I believe in the Christian faith. I am a Christian, I grew up in a Baptist church. I don't need cute little stories like this for me to feel good about what I believe in and certainly nothing any of you say can even come close to cracking my faith.

How did you come to have such faith?
Isn't the Bible nothing but a compilation of cute little stories?

We are all conditioned to believe one thing or another. It is our own story that we tell ourselves that make us believe one thing or the other.

Originally Posted by Howie

'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

My questions for the student:

1. Why does God allow for the absence of himself if the results are so awful?
2. Why does God allow the absence of himself to be so awful?
3. Could God make it where the present results of his absence no longer exist... without there being a problem with doing that?

I'm not sure we need this thread, Howie.

anything titled "GOD VS SCIENCE" is sort of destined for an enormous whirlwind of shit. And a whirlwind we have seen many many times here.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I'm not sure we need this thread, Howie.

anything titled "GOD VS SCIENCE" is sort of destined for an enormous whirlwind of shit. And a whirlwind we have seen many many times here.

Title and the material within are two different things. You just don't like the material. If I were in your position I probably wouldn't like it either. However, I like it and it stays.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Title and the material within are two different things. You just don't like the material. If I were in your position I probably wouldn't like it either. However, I like it and it stays.

I don't mind the material.

It's just another "let's poke fun at fundamentalism and creationism" thread. Which is all very well, but it's kind of been done to death.

Making fun of fundamentalism NEVER gets old. I laugh every time I think about that guy who said to me in total seriousness that if humans evolved from gorillas then gorillas would have all of the same races as humans.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I don't mind the material.

It's just another "let's poke fun at fundamentalism and creationism" thread. Which is all very well, but it's kind of been done to death.

Yup.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Fathers daughter dies from diabetes because he prayed instead of seeking medical attention

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32141869...me_and_courts/

~

How comical would it be if the prayer that prevented one from going to the
hospital actually kept that person from experiencing a preventable medical error
that would have otherwise ended up being the cause of death? What does the
death toll created by medical errors actually look like? My searches are giving
me numbers that go from 90,000 to 200,000+ annually in the United States
alone. That's quite a bit of death caused by the medical industry, if those
numbers are accurate at all.

Well both argument were silly in that original post. Both had a ton of things wrong in them that made no sense. Though I am not going to waste my time on all the problems, with the two.

What I do want to comment on however, is people who wonder why god allows for an absence of himself, which causes evil to appear. It is because god created free will. With free will comes the ability of people to reject him. He is every where, but people still need to accept him into their life. Because he gave people this ability though, it causes many problems. Even people who accept him, still faces the problems created by the others. Though in heaven only the believers will be there, and so the evil will be removed. Personally I believe that anyone who lives a good life falls under this and not necessary people of a specific religion but that's another topic.

Anyway, this all makes sense if you think about it. God wishes for people to love him and so he gives them free will to accept or reject him. The alternative is making everyone your slave.

Sure god could enslave all of man kind and all the problems in the world would end, but what kind of life is that? What kind of god would enslave man kind? What kind of god would create people to be his toys and puppets?

The price for freedom might be steep at times but it is far better than the alternative. Perhaps that is why people see god as a father and not as a mother. He guides people to become adults and be good. He doesn't coddle and protect them.

This is your immortal soul we are talking about. Do you want to live the protected life of a pet where you are never harmed? Or do you want to live a real life, as a free thinking adult?

Well its to bad, god in his infinite wisdom didn't give you a choice in that. He said that he doesn't want pets. He created man in his image and gave them freedom. What you do with your life is your own. You are free to find your own path to live your own life. You may even reject god should it be your wish. Freedom is a far greater gift than protection.

Alric, you talk as though there are rules God has to work within. If he is infinitely powerful, he is not bound by any rules. He could create whatever benefits with a complete absence of problems. He could make square circles and make 2 + 2 = 5. He could make suffering nonexistent without there being a problem with doing that. Could he not? If not, then how is he infinitely powerful?

Also, belief is not a choice. It is not like I believe in God but reject him. It just really seems like he doesn't exist. That is not my choice. It is just how things really seem to me.

Originally Posted by Alric

Though in heaven only the believers will be there, and so the evil will be removed. Personally I believe that anyone who lives a good life falls under this and not necessary people of a specific religion but that's another topic.

Do you become a slave in Heaven?