A thought about conscience...

[Rughugger]

-supersnip-

It's only arguing if you make it seem as such.

Imagine if you or me went back 2000 years and showed them a computer. Imagine how "Godly" and supernatural we'd seem in comparison when we take things like that for granted now. Imagine someone from 2000 years from now showing up with a magical device that allows him to jump from one end of the Earth to another in the blink of an eye. You see no obvious booths or hand held devices that control his movement, nor do you hear him make any communication to any supposed ship in orbit (if that's even how he traveled to the past.) How would you explain it? What if the entire process went against everything your science today holds to be solid fact? The point is, your "facts" of today can easily be thrown out the window tomorrow without so much of a notice. Does it make you doubt your faith in science? Nope. It's the same with any religious person. Tommy Lee Jones said it best in Men in Black when he said:

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

All of those examples were deeply held scientific fact. Imagine if people like you won every one of those arguments that Science fact remains true. We'd still be scientific handicaps who thought that germs never existed, it was the work of rats or some other animal. People knew for a fact that rats caused the plague. They were wrong. It was the fleas on the rats that carried and transmitted the disease. Science can and has been wrong fact or not. The day you learn to accept that, the smarter you become.

Science was born through the people's need to understand how "God" works. In the process they found out that a lot of it is just natural occurrences. Whooptee do, it happens. Science will inevitably prove that some supreme being, alien or not, manipulated the human genome to allow us to exist as we are now and thus we were created from more or less nothing. Just like we can manipulate genetic structure and create a plethora of things including bacteria that may one day heal damaged or severed nervous tissue in the back and even reconstruct teeth.

You seem to think that I'm not for science and all of that, but if you read my posts, I'm an avid believer of science and how it will explain everything I doubt in my faith.

[Ad Bot]

[Zenthrox]

Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on proof.  Science is based on evidence.

False. Faith is defined as a belief in something that isn't completely proven, but isn't necessarily lacking evidence. Look at how I change a part of your last post.

I believe the facts that support Christianity because there are facts that support Christianity.  I don't take Christianity on only faith, but on veritable evidence.

"What evidence?" you ask? I look around at the world and I find it difficult to believe this all appeared without a designer. Our planet's position from the sun is just right for supporting life. Our body parts work without conflicting. "We got lucky" someone might say. We must have had a universe full of luck to get where we are now. Not to mention science has failed to create life numerous times. I just don't see how it could be convincing.

Looks like you need to read a bit more pal.  Creationism refers to the belief that everything was created by a supernatural being.  You just said that we created them, which is not an example of Creationism.  As for them not evolving, you couldn't be more wrong.  Science has taken DNA and manipulated it, because it has evolved to that point.

Ah, but who made the DNA? And if a scientist breaks apart the DNA and uses the pieces to form a new sequence, who made the nucleotide bases?

Also while we can never prove if god exists or not, we can prove whether religions are wrong or right.

Just thought I should note that while morals can be proven wrong, and existence of a God can't. Seeing as an existence of a God is the basis for Christianity (belief in a God), Christianity can't be disproved.

Zen, it's impossible to disprove your god because no matter how advanced we get, Christians are going to go "well god can bypass that". The god idea is something impossible to disprove, but the fact is there's already overwhelming evidence supporting the incorrectness of your bible.

Yuki said back at page 1 that "Even if we could 100% disprove the existence of a god, people would still call shenanigans and claim God still exists.". I was just saying that if there was a way to disprove Christianity, I'd be the first Christian to become an Atheist.

In other words, if what I believe is proven wrong, I'll gladly accept the truth.

christianity comes from my new religion were we believe a giant octopus in the sky created the universe by having love with a walrus. You can't prove me otherwise so I'm just going to say mine was first and caused all others.

And... what was your point with this? All this does is support my post, but I'm guessing it was meant as an attack.

[nitt]

tl;dr

[Wizard]

Yeah see the difference between science and religion, rughugger, is that science IS the latest, religion adapts slowly and unwillingly. I'm not even going to try to defend science always being right because it isn't. But it's the right METHOD because it changes to support real, physical evidence. The church only supported the earth not being round because it had to or be obviously wrong, science changed because of the facts pointing otherwise. Religion adapts to fit science, science adapts to fit evidence. Since we obviously can't hold "evidence" as our worldview, the next best option is science.

1) False. Faith is defined as a belief in something that isn't completely proven, but isn't necessarily lacking evidence. Look at how I change a part of your last post."What evidence?" you ask?

2) I look around at the world and I find it difficult to believe this all appeared without a designer. Our planet's position from the sun is just right for supporting life. Our body parts work without conflicting. "We got lucky" someone might say. We must have had a universe full of luck to get where we are now.

3) Not to mention science has failed to create life numerous times. I just don't see how it could be convincing.
4) Ah, but who made the DNA? And if a scientist breaks apart the DNA and uses the pieces to form a new sequence, who made the nucleotide bases?
5) Just thought I should note that while morals can be proven wrong, and existence of a God can't. Seeing as an existence of a God is the basis for Christianity (belief in a God), Christianity can't be disproved.
6) Yuki said back at page 1 that "Even if we could 100% disprove the existence of a god, people would still call shenanigans and claim God still exists.". I was just saying that if there was a way to disprove Christianity, I'd be the first Christian to become an Atheist.

In other words, if what I believe is proven wrong, I'll gladly accept the truth.
7) And... what was your point with this? All this does is support my post, but I'm guessing it was meant as an attack.

1) Dictionary .com Faith- Noun - belief that is not based on proof.

2) First of all, what you feel or find difficult to believe is not evidence, and second of all life as we know it would not have developed under suitable conditions, so a being who could live farther out would observe exactly the same perfection. And it's not like our climate is perfect for us either, take deserts and polar ice caps (all of which are explained by science, by the way), for example. We can't live there without technology that WE developed.

3) So because science can't do something it's a failure. All you're proving is that we're not yet advanced enough to create life.

4) We've been able to emulate some of these necessary early-earth processes since the eighteen hundreds.

5) This is actually a flaw, a belief that is built on a concept meant to be undisprovable is foolish. When you come up with a disprovable hypothesis for a god I'd be willing to listen.

6) See #5.

7) It was meant to demonstrate #5.

[Zaran]

Rughugger:

If we went back 2000 years ago, we would be speaking with humans less along the evolutionary chain then ourselves.  The opposite can be said about going 2000 years ahead.  The key fact you seem to be missing is evidence.  If he somehow could travel the globe in the blink of an eye, science would mandate evidence to support this fact.  He would not seem to be such a godlike figure, using magic and supernatural powers to traverse the world.  The fact that you mentioned a ship gives hints towards science and not divine design.

People "like me" don't argue that every single science fact is true, just that science on the whole explains everything.  I already said that theories don't always pan out.  Rats were the most obvious choice for the black plague.  It was deduced that they spread everywhere the plague had.  But what you don't seem to understand is, the handicaps that didn't know about fleas continued to study these rats, showing that it was indeed fleas that carried the disease.  That's how scientific method works.  We learn from our mistakes.

Science was not born simply to disprove religion or God.  Science wasn't born at all.  Science exists because human curiosity exists.  As long as we quest for knowledge, we will seek out new information and devour it.  Ours is a constantly growing race, one that studies the world around it.

You assume a lot of things.  You have faith that science will reveal the existence of a God.  That is pure faith, there is no evidence to support your theory.  Science is not a religion, because it is based on evidence.  Not necessarily facts, but evidence.  There is a plethora of evidence supporting evolution, hence the study of nature and living creatures.  We have proven that certain bacteria and viruses can help cure diseases, antibiotics. 

Your quote from Men in Black is stupid and should be left in the scene and plot of the movie.  We don't know that we are alone in the universe or on this planet.  Right now, evidence supports life on other worlds, we have after all found bacteria on Mars.  We have not however found any proof whatsoever of any God.  All you have is your faith, your religion.  You can support science all you want, but it is not a religion.


Zenthrox, you're a handicap.  You find it hard to believe that the world came to be without a designer.  You have zero evidence to support your theories.

belief that is not based on proof: "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

Straight from Dictionary.com.  You tell me where the evidence is supporting supernatural design.  I want facts that show God shaping a human, molding a planet.  You think God made DNA, that's faith.  There is no evidence.

Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

Right now, that cannot be proven.  However, more evidence supports the above quote than supernatural design.

Another favorite quote of mine:

What can be asserted without proof can be denied without proof.

You deny Jsk's statement but don't provide any reason why anybody else should believe you.  Christianity cannot be disproved yet, nor can it be proved.  If you're going to enter an intelligent debate, bring logical reasoning with supporting facts.

[Jsk2003]

-snip-

Your points were mostly fine, it was fun reading it, until...

Science will inevitably prove that some supreme being, alien or not, manipulated the human genome to allow us to exist as we are now and thus we were created from more or less nothing.

LOL

[Wizard]

Your points were mostly fine, it was fun reading it, until...

To be honest that was a pretty lame post coming from Rug.

[Zenthrox]

1) Dictionary .com Faith- Noun - belief that is not based on proof.

2) First of all, what you feel or find difficult to believe is not evidence, and second of all life as we know it would not have developed under suitable conditions, so a being who could live farther out would observe exactly the same perfection. And it's not like our climate is perfect for us either, take deserts and polar ice caps (all of which are explained by science, by the way), for example. We can't live there without technology that WE developed.

3) So because science can't do something it's a failure. All you're proving is that we're not yet advanced enough to create life.

4) We've been able to emulate some of these necessary early-earth processes since the eighteen hundreds.

5) This is actually a flaw, a belief that is built on a concept meant to be undisprovable is foolish. When you come up with a disprovable hypothesis for a god I'd be willing to listen.

6) See #5.

7) It was meant to demonstrate #5.

1) Built in Mac dictionary: Faith - A strong belief in a theory. According to the scientific method, a theory is a hypothesis that has a considerable amount of proof, but isn't completely proven yet.

2) My feelings aren't evidence, but life is proof. To say it developed from random chance is very unconvincing.

Furthermore, you say that there aren't places on earth that can't support life, while ignoring the areas on earth that do. That there's any place on earth that supports life is amazing in my eyes.

3) No, because science can't do something means it can't do something. All I'm saying here. Also, by saying science isn't advanced enough yet implies that we'll be able to in the future, which does nothing for the argument. As humans, we do have limits.

4) This is as much of an accomplishment as GreenBH re-coloring a build.

5) Christianity was designed to be disprovable? Look at it the other way around. If you were able to create a religion that could be proved, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be called a fact.

6) I saw it.

7) As you say.

You tell me where the evidence is supporting supernatural design.  I want facts that show God shaping a human, molding a planet.  You think God made DNA, that's faith.  There is no evidence.

Prove to me he didn't. My question has the same amount of credibility as yours.

Christianity cannot be disproved yet, nor can it be proved.  If you're going to enter an intelligent debate, bring logical reasoning with supporting facts.

Why are you here then? If you know there's no way to prove or disprove Christianity, why are you arguing?

[Wizard]

1) Built in Mac dictionary: Faith - A strong belief in a theory. According to the scientific method, a theory is a hypothesis that has a considerable amount of proof, but isn't completely proven yet.

2) My feelings aren't evidence, but life is proof. To say it developed from random chance is very unconvincing.

Furthermore, you say that there aren't places on earth that can't support life, while ignoring the areas on earth that do. That there's any place on earth that supports life is amazing in my eyes.

3) No, because science can't do something means it can't do something. All I'm saying here. Also, by saying science isn't advanced enough yet implies that we'll be able to in the future, which does nothing for the argument. As humans, we do have limits.

4) This is as much of an accomplishment as GreenBH re-coloring a build.

5) Christianity was designed to be disprovable? Look at it the other way around. If you were able to create a religion that could be proved, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be called a fact.

6) I saw it.

7) As you say.
Prove to me he didn't. My question has the same amount of credibility as yours.
Why are you here then? If you know there's no way to prove or disprove Christianity, why are you arguing?

1) That isn't the faith you're invoking, that's willingness to commit to a theory, which is different.

2) Evolution is NOT random chance. It's only logical that those beings who are superior thrive and those who aren't die out. I know you're going to invoke the nucleotides etc. That brings me back to my point which is that we HAVE constructed these things.

3) Of course we have limits. Science aims to stretch them. Furthermore, it would have been considered nonsense a few centuries ago to claim that one day humans would be able to jump out of airplanes and survive, or be immune to X disease. As HUMANS we have limits, but we have no idea what our technology can do.

4) My point was that 1) it isn't so impossible as you claim and 2) a supernatural being is not required.

5) I said that it WASN'T designed to be disprovable and if it WAS it might have some scientific merit.

It turns out creation isn't quite as amazing as you thought.

[Jsk2003]

1) Built in Mac dictionary: Faith - A strong belief in a theory. According to the scientific method, a theory is a hypothesis that has a considerable amount of proof, but isn't completely proven yet.

Show me what your Mac dictionary says a theory is, let's see if it coincides with Science's version of a theory.

[oromis]

tl;dr

This explains the last few pages. Ima copy this link in case i ever need a religion vs science essay.

[Cucumber!]

Well humans have found water on the moon, yey. Now we could try to colonize there, if we launched rockets, we could get farther because alot of the fuel on a rocket is used to break the atomosphere.

I'm probably wrong, because someone's gonna say something super scientific about air pressure and stuff.

[dkamm65]

It's only arguing if you make it seem as such.

Imagine if you or me went back 2000 years and showed them a computer. Imagine how "Godly" and supernatural we'd seem in comparison when we take things like that for granted now.

You can use that same logic to explain why people though Jesus was so miraculous when he may very well have been some average guy that knew how to trick people. Also, two-thousand years is a pretty big time period for stories to be blown out of proportion. Just sayin'

[Zaran]

Zenthrox, there is more evidence supporting evolution than God.  While there is certainly no surefire way to disprove Christianity yet, it is highly unlikely that we were all created by some all knowing deity.  Until ignorant people accept that fact, I feel compelled to argue.

Life is proof that we exist, not proof that we were created by God.  We are intelligent enough to design things, evidence of evolution is everywhere.  If you put the evidence for these together, you will see that the chances of us being created by some supernatural being are slim to none.

Your question holds much less credibility than mine.  For Christianity, you have a novel depicting a not-so-nice god creating everything we see today.  For evolution, you have thousands of years worth of growth and advancement.  You see survival of the fittest occurring everywhere in nature.

[Inv3rted]

Zenthrox can be disregarded because he's a creationist. Until you people explain to me how every animal in the fossil record existed at the same exact moment (and refute the actual evidence for evolution, which I'm sure you don't even know about), I am going to say "forget you and have a nice day" every time you open your mouth.

As for Rughugger, you're a massive dolt. Science is not a religion because a religion requires faith. There. Done.