The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[PocketRocket]

The BIBLE and SCIENCE.....

......are pretty much incompatible.

[jbg]

......are pretty much incompatible.

As are your posts with logic and common sense.

[Guest TrueMetis]

As are your posts with logic and common sense.

No he's right the pretty much every statement in the Bible is wrong. My favorite three are 1) Pie is exactly 3 2) some guy lived inside a whale 3) the creation account which was pretty much the opposite of what science tells us.

Show me one thing in the bible that is scientifically verifiable. Oh and common sense sucks. Remember Common sense means the earth is flat.

Edited October 31, 2009 by TrueMetis

[DogOnPorch]

Religion as of late is upset with science as science performs miracles every day while religion...not so much.

[Thomas Kwon]

Religion as of late is upset with science as science performs miracles every day while religion...not so much.

pretty much everything that "jesus" did in the bible can be re-done by science or trickery.

[Shwa]

"pretty much everything that "jesus" did in the bible can be re-done by science or trickery."

So are you saying that Jesus was a scientist?

[GostHacked]

"pretty much everything that "jesus" did in the bible can be re-done by science or trickery."

So are you saying that Jesus was a scientist?

I'd say he is more of a magician, or illusionist.

[Shwa]

I'd say he is more of a magician, or illusionist.

Well, there is value in entertainment after all.

[ToadBrother]

I'd say he is more of a magician, or illusionist.

I think he was just a holy man who a bunch of excitable followers started attaching over the top stories to. Remember, this was the day and age when seers read the entrails of animals.

[Shwa]

I think he was just a holy man who a bunch of excitable followers started attaching over the top stories to. Remember, this was the day and age when seers read the entrails of animals.

What seers? The contemporary seers of Christ in Jerusalem? Heck, there are entrail reading seers nowadays.

The interesting thing about the stories of Jesus Christ - the rest of the Bible aside - is that he had a peculiar knack for using psychological treatments with much reported success. Now, supposing he was some mere holy man, but discovered some means to correct or 'heal' afflictions that were considered serious in that day, well, yeah that would excite his followers wouldn't it?

[ToadBrother]

What seers? The contemporary seers of Christ in Jerusalem? Heck, there are entrail reading seers nowadays.

The interesting thing about the stories of Jesus Christ - the rest of the Bible aside - is that he had a peculiar knack for using psychological treatments with much reported success. Now, supposing he was some mere holy man, but discovered some means to correct or 'heal' afflictions that were considered serious in that day, well, yeah that would excite his followers wouldn't it?

The Bible claims he cured lepers and raised a man from the dead. Those aren't psychological problems.

[Shwa]

The Bible claims he cured lepers and raised a man from the dead. Those aren't psychological problems.

Are you certain that is what the Bible claims?

[ToadBrother]

Are you certain that is what the Bible claims?

John Chapter 11.

Yes, Lazarus was dead three days and then raised by Jesus.

[M.Dancer]

John Chapter 11.

Yes, Lazarus was dead three days and then raised by Jesus.

Jesus Wept.

[Oleg Bach]

The whole thing just took place on it's own. Nothing turned into something. It evolved. Why are people willing to believe in this magic but not in the idea that there is a creator? The idea of there not being a God makes less scientific sense than there being a God. To say that reality and mass and energy came from nothing and evolved sounds more superstitious than the alternative.

[ToadBrother]

The whole thing just took place on it's own. Nothing turned into something. It evolved. Why are people willing to believe in this magic but not in the idea that there is a creator? The idea of there not being a God makes less scientific sense than there being a God. To say that reality and mass and energy came from nothing and evolved sounds more superstitious than the alternative.

Could you explain precisely how God scientifically answers this question? If you insist on a Prime Mover, then I want to know where the Prime Mover came from, and if you insist that the Prime Mover is exempt from the logic you attempt to invoke to make its existence necessary, then I'll invoke Occam's Razor, remove the unnecessary entity, and state that the Universe requires no Prime Mover.

Thanks for playing. Pick up your free toaster at the door.

[Shwa]

John Chapter 11.

Yes, Lazarus was dead three days and then raised by Jesus.

Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well?

Any ideas?

[Oleg Bach]

Could you explain precisely how God scientifically answers this question? If you insist on a Prime Mover, then I want to know where the Prime Mover came from, and if you insist that the Prime Mover is exempt from the logic you attempt to invoke to make its existence necessary, then I'll invoke Occam's Razor, remove the unnecessary entity, and state that the Universe requires no Prime Mover.

Thanks for playing. Pick up your free toaster at the door.

Science and God are interchangeable like duel wives or husbands - You can not have two masters. If you have two then you will love one and hate the other.

This Prime mover has always existed. Because we come from a realm of plant and animal - where we grow produce seed and die...it is difficult for us to understand the extention of this natural to the super natural..we live and we die - so we assume that everything in the physical world does the same..natural is physical - super or extended natural goes into a realm of phyiscs that is no longer phisical and it does not have a creation or dystruction - a begining or an end.

Yes you can remove God at will if you want - I am sure he does not give a shit. So far you will never dis-prove the existance of God - nor will I proof Gods existance - In that I am similar to god - I don't give a shit because it is of absolutely no consequence...yet - but here may be surprises for both of us once this life is over - personally - I don't gamble and God does not play dice with the universe - a quote from a science minded man brighter than you.

[ToadBrother]

Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well?

Any ideas?

I don't play that game. It didn't happen. People that are truly dead for three days don't come back. In a climate like Palestine putrefaction would be well under way and all the tissues would be breaking down.

It's a made up event, no truer than, say, Zeus regularly cheating on Hera and fathering half-divine children or Krishna showing up as an avatar every once in a while.

[ToadBrother]

Science and God are interchangeable like duel wives or husbands - You can not have two masters. If you have two then you will love one and hate the other.

They are not interchangeable. One is based upon a rather rigorous methodology, the other is, well, a god.

This Prime mover has always existed. Because we come from a realm of plant and animal - where we grow produce seed and die...it is difficult for us to understand the extention of this natural to the super natural..we live and we die - so we assume that everything in the physical world does the same..natural is physical - super or extended natural goes into a realm of phyiscs that is no longer phisical and it does not have a creation or dystruction - a begining or an end.

Yes you can remove God at will if you want - I am sure he does not give a shit. So far you will never dis-prove the existance of God - nor will I proof Gods existance - In that I am similar to god - I don't give a shit because it is of absolutely no consequence...yet - but here may be surprises for both of us once this life is over - personally - I don't gamble and God does not play dice with the universe - a quote from a science minded man brighter than you.

You just committed the fallacy I predicted you would. If the Universe requires a Prime Mover, by your logic, then so does the Prime Mover. If the Prime Mover doesn't, then you have stated an entity that requires no creator can in fact exist, and therefore an application of basic logic would indicate that the simpler explanation is that the Universe is just such an entity.

[Shwa]

I don't play that game. It didn't happen. People that are truly dead for three days don't come back. In a climate like Palestine putrefaction would be well under way and all the tissues would be breaking down.

It's a made up event, no truer than, say, Zeus regularly cheating on Hera and fathering half-divine children or Krishna showing up as an avatar every once in a while.

Wow! You purport to be on the side of science, yet when a challenge is presented for you to try and reconcile two seemingly conflicting facts using a scientific method, you fold faster than a tissue paper tent in a class 5 hurricane. If real scientists were as closed minded as you, we'd still be reading and cooking our toast by candlelight.

No matter, the question stands whenever you decide you have the means to tackle complex questions with science. {Hint: use anthropology as your starting point.}

In the meantime thanks for playing. Pick up your free candle at the door.

[Oleg Bach]

They are not interchangeable. One is based upon a rather rigorous methodology, the other is, well, a god.

You just committed the fallacy I predicted you would. If the Universe requires a Prime Mover, by your logic, then so does the Prime Mover. If the Prime Mover doesn't, then you have stated an entity that requires no creator can in fact exist, and therefore an application of basic logic would indicate that the simpler explanation is that the Universe is just such an entity.

Should have read more carefully. I assumed that Prime Mover was your name for God. So I committed the "fallacy" - a falsehood. How can one committ a lie? Or create one for that matter - a lie does not exist! The universe does exist. Just because you use such terms as "rigorous methodology" means nothing - the method that you so rigorously use might be incorrect to begin with. As for prime mover - you and I are movers (and shakers) What I do in the next second will effect you for eternity - SMACK! Did you feel that - did you believe in that? No matter what for that instance I was your god. It is up to you to decide though your fearless free will if you want to be effected or not - it's about sensuality - and to be controled by your senses is considered a biblical sin- being human is pure sin - so is all of nature - so I choose to be above nature - to be super nature - to strive to be supernatural..besides the woman think it's sexy.

[ToadBrother]

Wow! You purport to be on the side of science, yet when a challenge is presented for you to try and reconcile two seemingly conflicting facts using a scientific method, you fold faster than a tissue paper tent in a class 5 hurricane. If real scientists were as closed minded as you, we'd still be reading and cooking our toast by candlelight.

The existence of God cannot be determined scientifically, I'm afraid. But I know that you probably have little interest or understanding in how science actually works, and what phenomena it can analyze and what phenomena it cannot.

No matter, the question stands whenever you decide you have the means to tackle complex questions with science. {Hint: use anthropology as your starting point.}

In the meantime thanks for playing. Pick up your free candle at the door.

Like I said, you don't understand science. Science, being a naturalistic discipline, is incapable of testing the supernatural. If its testable and measurable, then it really isn't supernatural at all. God, being an entity that is allegedly capable of any action, could explain any, and I mean any observation, and thus can explain nothing. I could scientifically demonstrate that you wrote the post I'm replying to, but I could also invoke God. Maybe God wrote it. How could I tell, what test could I bring to bear?

It isn't that God is incompatible with science, it's that God (if such a being exists at all) is fundamentally unfalsifiable.

[Oleg Bach]

God has left the building...I think he might be going off to play some loud guitar in another world..This debate is so tiresome - I bet even God has stopped paying attention - I know I have.

[ToadBrother]

God has left the building...I think he might be going off to play some loud guitar in another world..This debate is so tiresome - I bet even God has stopped paying attention - I know I have.

What debate? You just invoke tired old arguments that were countered while our great great great grandparents were still in nappies.