The science thread - Controversial

[Giaguara]

Christianity CAN claim absolute truth, because born again Christians CAN know the will of God.

But then, the _not born again_ but _RAISED_ as christians are TOLD what the truth is... - regarding what I casually read today about the Sikh religion - I want to know what the Sikh version of the origin of the world is. ... I never asked to be born or to be a christian, i was just raised as one, as the dad of my mother was one (he never questionized it) (and my never questionixed she was either).

What is the will of the god to those that a) don't have a god that is impersonalized as a person (e.g. a sikh god) or b) just don't believe there is any god ?

 

[Arden]

Christianity CAN claim absolute truth, because born again Christians CAN know the will of God.

In the time before Jesus Christ, the will of God was known by the priests and by personal visitations by God. After Jesus Christ died (sacrificed) Himself for us, the barrier was broken, and men could know God personally, and know His will. The Comforter (the Holy Spirit) that was sent to us when Jesus returned to heaven shows the born again the will of God.

We are called the sons/daughters of the Father for good reason; we walk with Him as sons and daughters.

For a verse that talks about the Holy Spirit, go to John 16:12 NIV (Jesus is telling His disciples He has more He wants to tell them, but they aren't ready yet).

In John 16:13 NIV, Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit coming to lead the disciples in the will of God (The Holy Spirit will guide Christ's followers in truth; just a quick Greek note, the word guide seemed to have been used in the sense of to teach, to give guidance to, to "lead on one's way"
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3594&version=nas This verse gives the Greek reference.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/freqdisp.cgi?book=joh&number=3594&count=1&version=nas
This verse gives the Bible verse in the book of John.
(the verses from the lexicon are from the New American Standard Bible.)

Therefore, the Holy Spirit was going to, and does, guide people by teaching them.

What is it He teaches Christians? That's answered in John 16:13 as well;
Jesus says that He (the Spirit) will only speak to the Christian what He hears. Direct quote from the Scripture (NIV, John 16:13, the last part of the verse; "; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come." We can know the will of God, because the Spirit (who a person of the Triune God) communicates to us the will of God.

I'm going to go out on a fairly shaky and unstable limb here and call all of this a bunch of deer crap. I'm sorry if I offend you, but that's what I believe. You really can't come to a thread like this and preach religious doctrine as if it were truth and not expect to be flamed.

How do you know that God or Josh (Jesus is Greek for Joshua) actually speak to people? How do you know that they aren't simply being influenced by (un)controlled substances or making stuff up? The fact is you don't know. No matter how much you want to believe, you can't provide a shred of evidence to the contrary, and this is where religion really falls apart in my mind, despite the blind faith of the masses.

Quite often I see people with bumper stickers and the like on their cars that say stuff like "Jesus saves." Jesus saves what? 20% at Burlington Coat Factories? His favorite mug from falling off the table? Or is it something less likely, like he saves us all from the sin that we inherit from our ancestors (yeah, and I'm a green flying fish)? Well, if he can do it, why can't I? I mean, I'm made of nothing different than what he was made of, skin and bones and some stuff in between. God has never spoken to me, just like he never spoke to Jesus. Please provide quantifiable evidence to the contrary, and I may believe it.

 

[Cat]

Is your God just a middle man?

That is what Gnosticism tells us.

eph115: you are assuming that the bible is true. Before you can convince me of something by using the bible as an argument, you have first to convince me that the bible is true. I do not think the bible is true, so appealing to what is written in the bible doesn't convince me in the least that a "born again" christian can know absolute truth, or the will of god, since IMHO there is no such thing.
I can quote scores of books which have been part of the christian bibles at some point in time which directly contradict what you claim. But you wouldn't believe me, you wouldn't believe they are true.

AFAIK christianity doesn't claim any form of resurrection in this world (which would be reincarnation). Our souls go to heaven and after the apocalypse, when this world will be destroyed there will be resurrection. So what do you mean with "born again christian"?

When a priest or prophet had a dream or vision about god visiting him, that is exactly what happened: he had a dream or a vision. How can you tell whether a god indeed visited him or exists at all if all you have are visions or dreams? I dreamed a lot of stuff, but I wouldn't go around claiming it is the truth.

 

[pds]

Here's a question for y'all; how can evolution be proven to be real?

Real is no big trick. There didn't used to be big animals and now there are. The underlying question that you want to ask is what is the force or the motor behind the process.

 

[eph115]

I'd like to see you prove the Christian's God is real.

I've seen evidence of evolution. I've seen proof of the process around me every day. The path of evolution is the part that is still theory, and will most likely always remain that way as we can not possibly have all the pieces. From what we know an image of the path is viewable. It is not completely clear, but the general picture we have today works nicely to help out in other areas of study.

But God (any deity for that matter) is something I have yet to see any proof of.

Do you have proof? Why is God unable or unwilling to provide even the simplest proof like He supposedly did at one point in time? And why provide contrary evidence to the writing on creation within His own handy work (the Universe)? Why is God steeped in human failings? Shouldn't he be above such things?

And who made God? Did God rest on Sunday out of respect for his God? Are you worshiping the right God? Is your God just a middle man?

Responding to a question with a question ,eh?

Ok,

What is proof of evolution? Define evolution for me.
If the case of evolution is that, according to you,

I've seen evidence of evolution. I've seen proof of the process around me every day. The path of evolution is the part that is still theory, and will most likely always remain that way as we can not possibly have all the pieces. From what we know an image of the path is viewable. It is not completely clear, but the general picture we have today works nicely to help out in other areas of study.

the path is still theory...... Evolution is a theory; can it follow the Scientific Method ? Remember:

I. The scientific method has four steps
(http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

University of Rochester)

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


Unless someone can point me otherwise.

By Ken Bingman's own mouth.... (9th grade biology teacher)
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/1/quicktime/e_m_1.html)

"To qualify as science, it has to be observable, testable, and within the real of science"

Does evolution qualify?

I'd like to stay and talk, but I'm doing my homework for class, so I'll be back.

Here's something for you:

I'll continue on, but why doesn't someone take the opposite angle and show why God isn't real?

eph

 

[RacerX]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

-and

Does evolution qualify?

Yes.

The process of evolution is scientific fact and has been shown so via your qualifiers. The theory of evolution uses an understanding of the fact of the evolutionary process along with evidence uncovered via other disciplines. The full course of prehistoric evolution shall always remain a theory as there are always going to be information we can't uncover or information that shows a part of the theory was wrong and need correcting.

Science is a quest for knowledge, in it's purest form it should be without bias. The average person who believe may want to hold it up as all conclusive, but that is not what it is. Nor is that the power of it. It is a theory. A model used to describe and understand nature. It is the best model we have and it will be replace with better models as time goes on.

That is how Science works.

I still want some proof of a God. Anything at all would be a good start. Any evidence?

the will of God was known by the priests and by personal visitations by God.

Why doesn't God visit us now?

we walk with Him as sons and daughters.

Why would he walk with some people and not others? Why doesn't he show himself in some way?

I can actively do science. I can actively study nature. I can fulfill all my questions in those areas by starting a process of solving those questions.

But other than someone telling me that God exist, I have no other confirmation of it. And the people who say he exist don't seem to have any other confirmation either.

That is a pretty sad situation. Can you solve this problem for the rest of us?

And don't quote or refer to biblical passages. A book written by man is a book written by man. Today, here and now, is there any evidence that God exist?

Has god touched you or any one you know in an unmistakable way? Maybe growing an arm back or rising from the dead. These aren't big tricks for God I would imagine (happened before didn't it?).

 

[pds]

eph115

What will you do if the spirit of truth comes and says things that don't fit your paradigm? You have expectations that he will confirm the things that you have already sussed out. Still, Jesus warns us that he may have to chastize the faithful. I realize that you count the "born again" as the ones who will escape that chastizement, but that is not by knowledge, only by faith.

Historically, it was the unwashed, the ones who were too busy with life who became J's disciples. The traditional religious guys were too sure of their doctrine to hear the word. Jesus had the deepest chastizement for those who were nominally the ones best prepared to receive him. Where will you be if the same thing happens again.

You do not know what the "spirit of truth" has to say, because you are not him.

Unfortunately the "I'm right and you're wrong" approach does two things. It paints you (and by association faith) in a bad light and it nullifies the debate.

RacerX

You have become more strident as the conversation has polarized, and I find that unfortunate.

And unfair too. You can do science. You can do nature. You can do religion too. There are methods and practices that can open one to the existence of a spiritual realm and there are "things" within that realm that solve questions and problems. They are not science in itself, but there are not inconsistent with scientific method within their sphere. They are of an intimate and personal nature but they are objectifiable within the context of that spirituality, they are applicable to people in different circumstances. The "doing" requires intellectual integrity and being consequent to our discoveries.

They do not include the quoting of scripture as infallible. They may include reference to texts for moral reasoning.

You do science, but do you put the same effort into spirituality? Possibly not, it seems it is not a calling. To me that is not a real problem, in the area that you do exert effort you have taken some of the lessons that even "faithful" people sometimes don't get. The extra change conundrum and the 4d conal light on space time are to me spiritual concepts that I can understand and are not inconsistent with my experience with god (though I'd like to hear more about space/time). In a complex way I agree that "original sin" can't be expunged and I agree wholeheartedly that the idea that Jesus' crucifixion atones for my "sins" tomorrow is laughable.

I have been meaning to point out the puzzle hoax is a bit disengenuous as proof of what science is and what the problem with religion is. In science we start with a premise of what we may find doing such and such. We start out with a glance at the box-top, an idea of where we are going. Unfortunately some religious people may say that the seal's face is a polarbear's, but that was not the case, was it. Some scientists also bend their facts to keep their grants, don't they? (BTW what is IDG or whatever the initials were).

 

[RacerX]

I do not mean to say (or imply) that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. The contrary seems true from what I've seen of many scientist. I've known quite a few scientist who were driven by a love of God's creation. The study of physics, chemistry, biology and even evolution was their way of getting closer to the only true possible link to a deity, the universe created by that deity.

If what God (or whom ever) did while creating the universe doesn't match up with what was written, that which was made by the hand of God should rightly out weigh that which was written by the hand of man.

I have no evidence of a deity. So I study aspects of nature.

As for spirituality, I'm not fully sure how that is defined in my case. Does my studies of math and physics cross over into my study of philosophy? Yes. Does my study of philosophy influence my studies of music and art? Yes. Does my studies of music and art influence my studies of math and physics? Yes. Does any (or all) of these venture into the realm of metaphysics? Yes. Does that qualify as spirituality? I don't know.

Some scientists also bend their facts to keep their grants, don't they?

Yes. There are honest and dishonest people in all walks of live. There are those who can accept the truth and those who can't. There are those who have banked on an outcome to the point of changing the facts to match that preferred outcome in many areas, including science.

Physics is one area I knew that both dogma and social interactions slowed progress because people with influence have banked on their theories.

Knowing this, having seen it in person, is why I am skeptical of most publicized scientific results. Until I have a chance to read the original papers and data, I assume the results are being reported are most likely exaggerated.

Quick example:

I read in the newspaper in the early 90's that scientist using the Hubble Space Telescope had determined that the universe was only 8 billion years old. This was quite a bit shorter life span than had previously been theorized. In fact it was so short that it made it hard to imagine our solar system (which is a little over 5 billion years old) would have been able to form from a previous generation of stars (which was needed to create the heavier elements we are made of). I dismissed it until I had a chance to research the basis of the report.

As it turned out, a 10-15 year long study of distant galaxies had been started to try and more accurately determine the Hubble constant (the expansion rate of the universe). It was to average the speeds (with relation to the distances) of thousands of galaxies to get the results. The first test galaxies (a group of about a half dozen) had yielded a Hubble constant that would have had the Universe's age at 8 billion years. Galaxies (like stars and planets) often revolve within systems, and this test group could have been moving towards us in relation to the system they were part of.

It wasn't a real result. But that didn't stop the press from publicizing it as one. Later progress reports had the Hubble constant at a more reasonable figure (the Universe being 12-16 billion years old).

Cold Fusion is another example which seemed bogus and turned out to be in the end.

Skepticism is healthy in an informed population, even of science reporting in the media.

(BTW what is IDG or whatever the initials were).

ICR: Institute for Creation Research.

It is a small building in an industrial park in Santee California (right next to the Santee Drive-In Theater actually), that does research to prove the Bibles version of creation.

 

[eph115]

eph115

What will you do if the spirit of truth comes and says things that don't fit your paradigm? You have expectations that he will confirm the things that you have already sussed out. Still, Jesus warns us that he may have to chastize the faithful. I realize that you count the "born again" as the ones who will escape that chastizement, but that is not by knowledge, only by faith.

Historically, it was the unwashed, the ones who were too busy with life who became J's disciples. The traditional religious guys were too sure of their doctrine to hear the word. Jesus had the deepest chastizement for those who were nominally the ones best prepared to receive him. Where will you be if the same thing happens again.

You do not know what the "spirit of truth" has to say, because you are not him.

Unfortunately the "I'm right and you're wrong" approach does two things. It paints you (and by association faith) in a bad light and it nullifies the debate.

If Jesus had to chastize the faithful, it's because they have left their first love (look to the churches that are talked about Revelations; I can't remember which one was unfaithful). Next, the Bible will confirm what the Spirit says, Third, the Pharisees were the ones who were chastised; the Pharisees and Sadducees rejected Jesus because He didn't fit what they wanted. That's why He chastised them; they claimed to know truth, and because they claimed they knew truth, but didn't accept Jesus, Jesus chastised them.

Fourth, we can know what the Holy Spirit says, because Jesus says that His sheep know His voice; look at the traditional shepherd to understand that statement. I don't have to be the Spirit; the Bible clearly states that God talks to His kids. Even if He never talked to us again, we still have His will: the Bible.

 

[RacerX]

because Jesus says that His sheep know His voice;

Like I said, skepticism is healthy.



Makes me glad I'm not part of the sheep.

 

[eph115]

Like I said, skepticism is healthy.



Makes me glad I'm not part of the sheep.

Why are you so rude?

Have I insulted you?

 

[RacerX]

Why are you so rude?

How was that rude? Please explain after showing proof of God.

Have I insulted you?

Not to my knowledge. Were you considering it?

Proclaiming your undying and unwavering faith in church or among the faithful is fine, but in a discussion thread a little discussion would be helpful.

How did you come by your faith?

 

[guapagirl]

After trawling thru this thread, it seems to be religion v science. They can exist together but, whislt I am emphatically NOT religious in any way, it does seem that science has become a religion in many ways. It's like some one says "it's scientifically proven" so we have to accept it. Over here in the uk there have been a lot of arguements over scientists saying stuff only to find that they have been pressurised by sponsors or government to toe the line. Remember scientists have done a lot of bad things as well as beneficial stuff and they can lie just like the rest of us.

 

[RacerX]

After trawling thru this thread, it seems to be religion v science. They can exist together but, whislt I am emphatically NOT religious in any way, it does seem that science has become a religion in many ways. It's like some one says "it's scientifically proven" so we have to accept it. Over here in the uk there have been a lot of arguements over scientists saying stuff only to find that they have been pressurised by sponsors or government to toe the line. Remember scientists have done a lot of bad things as well as beneficial stuff and they can lie just like the rest of us.

Like I said, skepticism is healthy.

(hopefully you won't take that as being rude like eph115 did)

We should all be critical of everything. Sure, it requires more effort on our part, but at least we have a fighting chance of being informed. If we take what is handed to us as undisputed facts, we really have no one else to blame but ourselves.

One thing that we should all watch out for from others when they are passing on information is if they have an agenda. An agenda could be many things. Sometime it may be profit or self promotion, other times it may be insecurity (there are people who need others to believe what they believe to validate those beliefs).

This type of critical information gathering is important far beyond science and religion. Here in America we had a poll recently that asked three pretty straight forward questions. Here are the questions and the percent that got them wrong:

• 
  (1) Has the United States uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda? (48% wrong)
  (2) Have weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq? (22% wrong)
  (3) Did most people in other countries backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein? (25% wrong)

What was surprising about the poll was that it also ask those polled where they got there news from. When that was broken down against what the answers were, this is what it showed:

• 
  Fox News: 85% got one wrong, 45% got all three wrong
  CBS News: 71% got one wrong, 15% got all three wrong
  PBS/NPR: 23% got one wrong, 4% got all three wrong

That is a surprising number of our population who have not taken the time to double check the facts which they believe to be true. Whose fault is it? It is their fault for not putting in the extra effort and not checking to see of those presenting them with the information have agendas.

It can't be said enough: skepticism is healthy.

 

[chemistry_geek]

Originally posted by guapagirl
It's like some one says "it's scientifically proven" so we have to accept it.

"Scientifically proven" is an idea that lay people discuss when referring to scientific topics. I would like to add that science CANNOT PROVE anything. One cannot prove anything with science, one can only support a hypothesis or a theory with evidence, and disprove an idea/observation with science. And I really hate it when I hear the press ask a scientist "Do you have any theories on the matter Dr. So-and-so?" A scientist doesn't have any theories about anything. The reporter should be asking the doctor if the scientistist has any ideas on a particular subject. It really irks me when the press and the masses don't get the terminology right, because, this leads to confusion, misunderstanding, unnecessary heated discussions. As someone pointed out earlier, I think it was Giagara, a theory is not the end-all-absolute trueth, it's just an idea that has been accepted by a large part of teh scientific community to explain an observation in the best way possible to date.

I'd really like to participate more in this thread, but due to time constraints and the lack or a *REAL* internet connection at my current residence I cannot join in this discussion. RacerX brings up a lot of good points, ideas that I agree with completely, but could not put into words myself due to the constraints listed above. Trust him when he says "question everything" and "don't be a lemming or a sheep".

 

[pds]

Like I said, skepticism is healthy.
....
This type of critical information gathering is important far beyond science and religion. Here in America we had a poll recently that asked three pretty straight forward questions. ... When that was broken down against what the answers were, this is what it showed:

• 
  Fox News: 85% got one wrong, 45% got all three wrong
  CBS News: 71% got one wrong, 15% got all three wrong
  PBS/NPR: 23% got one wrong, 4% got all three wrong

That is just plain scarey. (however that word is spellt )

I have never seen Fox News, but know that most TV news is infotainment seeking to sell soap. Do you suppose the misinformed are so because of their news preference or the preference is result of their tendency to be lax in their facts?

 

[RacerX]

I think those numbers represent two groups of people who are misinformed. There are those who watch infrequently and get much of their news via sound bites, and then there are those who watch the news that matches what they want to hear.

I would guess that CBS's audience falls into the range of those who aren't able to get the full story or the follow-up information. The failure is most likely unintentional on both the parts of the news providers and the audience, but clearly can be summed up by a lack of effort by both parties.

From what I know of Fox News, they seem to have an agenda in mind. They are quick to report any possibilities that match their agenda as facts and don't follow-up when those initial reports turn out to be wrong. They have a motto: "fair and balanced", which seems like an odd thing to need to state to begin with. In this case the failure may actually be more of a success. Fox News wants to project the news that supports their agenda (and appears to be doing a good job) and their audience is most likely watching to hear what they want to hear from their news.

Just as some people put effort into finding out the details of news events, there are others who spend as much effort in finding "news" that supports their preconceived views of the world. The internet actually has added to the problem of misinformation (disinformation) by supplying us with so many alternatives. It is not hard to find sites that present the news with a spin that appeals to us. It is a trap that (again) requires active conscious efforts on our part to over come. There may have been a time when journalistic standards protected the people from agendas, but in todays world people need to take more of that responsibility on themselves.

Back to the subject we've been looking at in this thread, both those who follow science and those who follow religion without active efforts to question either are generally staying within the bounds of what is comfortable for them.

I would like to believe that people can escape the faith of science and in turn find the study of science even without spending years for an extensive education. It is hard for me to speak on this (being someone who has spent years on an education in science), but I would like to believe that actively questioning everything put before you with the label science would make even the average person able to filter out the hype that is often a byproduct of publicized science.

In a world teaming with information, the quick and easy path is almost always the wrong path.

 

[Cat]

Someone earlier asked to prove that god does not exist. Some thoughts:
1) proving the non-existence of something that is undefined is quite hard. First we need to carefully define the object under consideration. What is your definition of god?
2) The existence of some objects is self-evident (e.g. our own consciousness), the non-existence of others is self-evident (e.g. colour without extension). We need proof of the existence and non-existence of objects only if they do not fit one of the self-evident categories. Doesn't god according to the christians fit the first? Doesn't god according to the atheists fit the second? What is the sense of a discussion in these cases?
3) I do not require a god, so why would I need to prove or disprove his existence? Your faith presupposes a god, so why would you ask me to prove or disprove his existence if the outcome doesn't affect you?

There is a little Zen-story:
A famous westener scientist came to the Dalai Lama to learn. They had a cup of tea: the Dalai Lama started pouring in the cup until it was full and then continued until it overflowed. The westener asked: what are you doing? Can't you see that cup is full? The Dalai Lama said: You see, you are as full as this cup of prejudices. If you want to learn something new, first you have to become empty again.