Religon Vs. Science

[milk_man]

So God created all these rules which if we break we're going straight to hell? Why didn't got just create humans who didn't sin? At some point in his creation he would have to been like fuck well just for lols let's make a small percentage of them like their own sex. Fucking lol.

Mannn I'm definitely not gonna go over the fall of man with you haha. But we could start a new thing called milk_man's Sunday school and we can talk all about it

According to Christianity God created us without sin, but with the ability to choose to sin. If we didn't have free will what would be the point of living? None of us would be unique

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

We are talking about a hypothetical situation involving a being that cannot be proven. Your argument is circling around the fact that we cannot prove there is a God. What I'm saying is humanity has agreed on some characteristics of God, should he exist. My point was that a unicorn creating science does not have the same validity as God creating science

Just because the majority of people believe in something with no proof doesn't make it any more valid. The majority of people once believed the world was flat, didn't make it more valid than the opinion that it was round. The majority of people once believed the sun orbited the earth, didn't make it more valid than the opinion that the earth orbited around the sun. Your logic is off. They are equally as valid because both have 0 facts to support them.

 

[S.J.W]

Mannn I'm definitely not gonna go over the fall of man with you haha. But we could start a new thing called milk_man's Sunday school and we can talk all about it

According to Christianity God created us without sin, but with the ability to choose to sin. If we didn't have free will what would be the point of living? None of us would be unique

well then America is fucked. Because apparently price is a sin, and therefore all these christians who are like "USA USA USA" are showing pride and therefore sinning. What about all the fat christians? That's a sin too. Don't eat too much. Actually I like that. God seems alright.

 

[milk_man]

They are equally as valid because both have 0 facts to support them.

There is a God: He did create science

There isn't a God: He didn't create science

There are unicorns: Unicorns don't create things

There aren't unicorns: They didn't create science

I wasn't saying the fact that everyone has a clear definition of God means there is a God. Never did I even slightly say that. I'm taking down the dumb claim that unicorns creating science has as much validity as God creating science.

If God exists he DID create science

If unicorns existed we would have no reason to believe they created science

 

[arnie_grape]

There is a God: He did create science

There isn't a God: He didn't create science

There are unicorns: Unicorns don't create things

There aren't unicorns: They didn't create science

how do you know unicorns don't create things?

does it say in the bible?

also why were there no unicorns on the arc???

did god banish them for trying to take credit?

 

[arnie_grape]

There is a God: He did create science

There isn't a God: He didn't create science

There are unicorns: Unicorns don't create things

There aren't unicorns: They didn't create science

how do you know unicorns didn't create god?

did god also create circular reasoning??

you've really provoked my thoughts with your certainty.

 

[californiagrown]

how do you know unicorns didn't create god?

did god also create circular reasoning??

you've really provoked my thoughts with your certainty.

Who created time, matter, and "the beginning"?

 

[arnie_grape]

Who created time, matter, and "the beginning"?

god bro didn't you read the thread

 

[californiagrown]

god bro didn't you read the thread

Moral of the story: your view is no more valid than mine. Be a nice dude, do good things, and make the world a better place for all. If you just wanna prove your righter, get fucked.

 

[arnie_grape]

Moral of the story: your view is no more valid than mine. Be a nice dude, do good things, and make the world a better place for all. If you just wanna prove your righter, get fucked.

I'm righter.

fight me cunt

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

Who created time, matter, and "the beginning"?

It doesn't have to be a who...

 

[JGWI]

Who created time, matter, and "the beginning"?

If time didn't exsist before the Big Bang then the concept of something preceding time creating the universe is a bit baffling.

 

[californiagrown]

It doesn't have to be a who...

Sure. What created time and existence?

If time didn't exsist before the Big Bang then the concept of something preceding time creating the universe is a bit baffling.

So, what created or who created time and existence?

 

[JGWI]

Sure. What created time and existence?

So, what created or who created time and existence?

Idk, but saying it was a bearded man in the sky who cares about my sexual desires and cures peoples stuffy noses seems a bit far fetched and unimaginative.

"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar, despite all our best efforts, we haven't been very inventive. In the west, heaven is placid and fluffy and hell is like the inside of a volcano. In each societys religion we find government hiarchies headed by gods and devils applying something resemboling our own moral codes to the cosmos, few found the similarities suspicious." C Sagan

What am I getting at? Perhaps the concept of creation is incorrect in the origins of the cosmos we know.

 

[californiagrown]

Idk, but saying it was a bearded man in the sky who cares about my sexual desires and cures peoples stuffy noses seems unimaginative.

What am I getting at? Perhaps the concept of creation is incorrect in the origins of the cosmos we know.

Damn you must be one creative motherfucker if you don't think the bible and the concept of god is unimaginative haha.

Explain the last part further. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say there was no begining, but instead the universe and time has always been in existence?

 

[MIHoodlum]

For me I accept I don't know which is the truth. It is ok for you to require intagable emotional solice and believe in science.

 

[californiagrown]

For me I accept I don't know which is the truth. It is ok for you to require intagable emotional solice and believe in science.

Gtfo with your logic and tolerance. This is a discussion about religion vs science!!

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

Sure. What created time and existence?

So, what created or who created time and existence?

We created time lol...as for existance, I personally don't know, but that doesn't mean it couldn't/didn't happen randomly. Blaming another entity for things we can't explain is just human nature I guess. Shallow thinking tho...stop settling...

 

[californiagrown]

We created time lol...as for existance, I personally don't know, but that doesn't mean it couldn't/didn't happen randomly. Blaming another entity for things we can't explain is just human nature I guess. Shallow thinking tho...stop settling...

We created time? You're thinking "keeping time". Humans sure as shit didn't create time.

Who is settling? You are belittling people for having an explanation to a problem you won't even attempt to tackle. I'd argue that is shallow thinking.

 

[3than0d311]

For me I accept I don't know which is the truth. It is ok for you to require intagable emotional solice and believe in science.

Off topic, but S/O to Nubs man

 

[macavity]

nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everyone is going to die.

Alright buddy, sit the fuck down. Not looking for negativity. Not saying you are wrong, just looking for input not negg

I'm like 110% sure this was a reference to rick and morty so I wouldn't get too worked up over it

 

[onenerdykid]

We are talking about a hypothetical situation involving a being that cannot be proven. Your argument is circling around the fact that we cannot prove there is a God. What I'm saying is humanity has agreed on some characteristics of God, should he exist. My point was that a unicorn creating science does not have the same validity as God creating science

First- not all religions believe that God is all powerful. The 3 Abrahamic religions do, but many modern poly-theistic religions do not. Many gods are VERY powerful, not perfectly powerful, and lack the power of creation.

Second- since unicorns do not exist to prove otherwise, we could easy change the definition of a unicorn to include that it can create things. And that's my point- simply because you define something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it exists. This is the problem with St. Anselm's proof of God- existence is not a logical predicate. You can't say that a perfect being would exist because to not exist would be less perfect.

I'll grant you the argument you made on the previous page, that IF God (as an all-perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. being) exists, then of course science would be a result of such a being's creation. But since there is no evidence for such a claim, your claim lives in the world of non-contradictory hypothetical ideas, just as flying spaghetti monsters and unicorns do.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

We created time? You're thinking "keeping time". Humans sure as shit didn't create time.

Who is settling? You are belittling people for having an explanation to a problem you won't even attempt to tackle. I'd argue that is shallow thinking.

If we didn't "keep time" there would be no time. Time is simply a measurement. Humans created measurements.

And to me religion is a form of settling, especially in relation to the topics you've brought up. Instead of going out and seeking a true answer to those questions you settle by blaming it on an all powerful being that has 0 proof backing up its existence. Meanwhile evidence rolls in every day pointing us in the direction of our origins yet you and others discredit that work based off your belief in a religious text written by men that didn't understand how the world worked...

 

[californiagrown]

If we didn't "keep time" there would be no time. Time is simply a measurement. Humans created measurements.

And to me religion is a form of settling, especially in relation to the topics you've brought up. Instead of going out and seeking a true answer to those questions you settle by blaming it on an all powerful being that has 0 proof backing up its existence. Meanwhile evidence rolls in every day pointing us in the direction of our origins yet you and others discredit that work based off your belief in a religious text written by men that didn't understand how the world worked...

Ah, so mass doesn't exist either eh? Before humans existed, nothing existed because we couldn't measure it... is how your logic goes. Sounds damn close to creationism....

What have I discredited? Other than your ability to disprove god? Lol.

So, what created time and the begging of time? Or do you have zero theories, zero motivation to find out, and just hold a blind faith in science to eventually explain it all?

 

[milk_man]

First- not all religions believe that God is all powerful. The 3 Abrahamic religions do, but many modern poly-theistic religions do not. Many gods are VERY powerful, not perfectly powerful, and lack the power of creation.

Second- since unicorns do not exist to prove otherwise, we could easy change the definition of a unicorn to include that it can create things. And that's my point- simply because you define something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it exists. This is the problem with St. Anselm's proof of God- existence is not a logical predicate. You can't say that a perfect being would exist because to not exist would be less perfect.

I'll grant you the argument you made on the previous page, that IF God (as an all-perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. being) exists, then of course science would be a result of such a being's creation. But since there is no evidence for such a claim, your claim lives in the world of non-contradictory hypothetical ideas, just as flying spaghetti monsters and unicorns do.

Yeh we went over St. Anselm's proof of God in philosophy and I'm not trying to use that.I was just saying and still hold to the fact that spaghetti monsters and unicorns do not hold as much credibility as God.

 

[californiagrown]

Yeh we went over St. Anselm's proof of God in philosophy and I'm not trying to use that.I was just saying and still hold to the fact that spaghetti monsters and unicorns do not hold as much credibility as God.

In as much as vastly more people people claim to have had direct contact/experiences with God, as opposed to a spaghetti monster? And God has a much more established religon to back him up?

 

[onenerdykid]

I was just saying and still hold to the fact that spaghetti monsters and unicorns do not hold as much credibility as God.

For sure there is more theology/history of argument behind God than unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but do you see the irony in your claim? The only credibility that God has is one based on simple popularity. Just because a lot of people believe it, it doesn't make it actually credible or any more true. If belief in God were to die out and be replaced by a flying spaghetti monster and billions of people really believe that a flying spaghetti monster is the ultimate cause of all things, then it's the same thing. Both lack any sufficient evidence for their reason to be or the claims made on their behalf.

 

[Charlie_Kelly]

For sure there is more theology/history of argument behind God than unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but do you see the irony in your claim? The only credibility that God has is one based on simple popularity. Just because a lot of people believe it, it doesn't make it actually credible or any more true. If belief in God were to die out and be replaced by a flying spaghetti monster and billions of people really believe that a flying spaghetti monster is the ultimate cause of all things, then it's the same thing. Both lack any sufficient evidence for their reason to be or the claims made on their behalf.

Literally been trying to explain this to him

 

[arnie_grape]

For sure there is more theology/history of argument behind God than unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but do you see the irony in your claim? The only credibility that God has is one based on simple popularity. Just because a lot of people believe it, it doesn't make it actually credible or any more true. If belief in God were to die out and be replaced by a flying spaghetti monster and billions of people really believe that a flying spaghetti monster is the ultimate cause of all things, then it's the same thing. Both lack any sufficient evidence for their reason to be or the claims made on their behalf.

but...but the definition of god....

 

[Campeador]

Allah doesn't exist.

Mohammed was an illiterate, schizophrenic pedophile who lived in the desert.

There are no 72 virgins for Islamic terrorists in the afterlife.

Pardon my "racism".

 

[Campeador]

While I don't really believe anything from the Christian Bible on a religious level, I'll always defend Christian culture. In that sense, Christianity has value to me.

When I consider the sheer size of the universe, it's difficult for me to believe that God has any special interest in planet Earth. If there is a God, the Deist theory of God as a clockmaker I think is the most rational.

 

[onenerdykid]

There are no 72 virgins for Islamic terrorists in the afterlife.

[img=]841363[/img]

 

[miroz]

how do you know unicorns don't create things?

does it say in the bible?

also why were there no unicorns on the arc???

did god banish them for trying to take credit?

how do you know unicorns didn't create god?

did god also create circular reasoning??

you've really provoked my thoughts with your certainty.

Late to the thread, but these hilarious, upvote

 

[Crux]

Good question. Just hard to chose because with science if there's a massive break through and the gov doesn't want people knowing then people won't know. So is there a higher power, could be. Could science answer all our outrageous questions, well we're gonna have to wait a lot longer for some answers so for now it seems like go with the higher power.

 

[californiagrown]

Good question. Just hard to chose because with science if there's a massive break through and the gov doesn't want people knowing then people won't know. So is there a higher power, could be. Could science answer all our outrageous questions, well we're gonna have to wait a lot longer for some answers so for now it seems like go with the higher power.

What massive scientific breakthroughs has the government withheld in the past?

 

[Crux]

What massive scientific breakthroughs has the government withheld in the past?

Well if you do some research there's some random numbers you type into google and supposedly it's the cure to AIDS with a patent to prove it. If you've ever been on the deep web there's tons of cover ups that have been done in the past floating around. I'm not saying they would hide a scientific breakthrough but if you wanna look at coverups they've done like the Roswell crash in 1947 and then a few years later we're developing better military technology? I mean they could not cover it up. But I think if there's a profit to be made then the government would try and hold back and try to make a fortune before things get released. Unless it's some small private science company but the big ones that the government looks at you never know

 

[californiagrown]

Well if you do some research there's some random numbers you type into google and supposedly it's the cure to AIDS with a patent to prove it. If you've ever been on the deep web there's tons of cover ups that have been done in the past floating around. I'm not saying they would hide a scientific breakthrough but if you wanna look at coverups they've done like the Roswell crash in 1947 and then a few years later we're developing better military technology? I mean they could not cover it up. But I think if there's a profit to be made then the government would try and hold back and try to make a fortune before things get released. Unless it's some small private science company but the big ones that the government looks at you never know

So you know of exactly zero massive scientific breakthroughs the govt has covered up?

You say its easy to find but can't site a single example.

 

[Crux]

So you know of exactly zero massive scientific breakthroughs the govt has covered up?

You say its easy to find but can't site a single example.

1946-1947 the U.S. Took scientists and military to the Antarctic to "test their weapons" in sub degree weather. The fact WWII had just ended and they run to the Antarctic is a but suspicios. They made many discoveries such as two hot spots in the middle of the Antarctic. They never released what their research showed and what they found there after studying in the Antarctic for over a year. They then just left and never disclosed what their research found and what else they found there, they just left.

 

[californiagrown]

1946-1947 the U.S. Took scientists and military to the Antarctic to "test their weapons" in sub degree weather. The fact WWII had just ended and they run to the Antarctic is a but suspicios. They made many discoveries such as two hot spots in the middle of the Antarctic. They never released what their research showed and what they found there after studying in the Antarctic for over a year. They then just left and never disclosed what their research found and what else they found there, they just left.

Oh lord. THIS is your example of the government making a massive scientific discovery and not telling us about it? Seriously? This is worse than mentioning the Philadelphia experiment hahahaha

 

[Crux]

Oh lord. THIS is your example of the government making a massive scientific discovery and not telling us about it? Seriously? This is worse than mentioning the Philadelphia experiment hahahaha

If the government finding hot spots in a

Supposed to be frozen area and realizing the earth may not be solid to the core doesn't sounds interesting then Idk man

 

[californiagrown]

If the government finding hot spots in a

Supposed to be frozen area and realizing the earth may not be solid to the core doesn't sounds interesting then Idk man

Wait what? It was common knowledge the earth wasnt solid to the core way before the late 1940s haha.

And do you know what volcanos and geothermal hot springs are? Cause Kennewick man even knew that lol.

My goodness!

 

[Crux]

Wait what? It was common knowledge the earth wasnt solid to the core way before the late 1940s haha.

And do you know what volcanos and geothermal hot springs are? Cause Kennewick man even knew that lol.

My goodness!

I apologize I wasn't able to come up with new information that blew your mind!

 

[californiagrown]

I apologize I wasn't able to come up with new information that blew your mind!

You didn't come up with ANY new information haha... other than some research scientists found some hotspings in Antarctica back in the 40s lol.

What massive scientific leaps have been kept secret by the govt for a long time? You seemed very sure of this, and I'd be interested to learn of any examples

 

[Crux]

You didn't come up with ANY new information haha... other than some research scientists found some hotspings in Antarctica back in the 40s lol.

What massive scientific leaps have been kept secret by the govt for a long time? You seemed very sure of this, and I'd be interested to learn of any examples

Seems to me you're just looking to prove me wrong and argue

 

[californiagrown]

Seems to me you're just looking to prove me wrong and argue

You made a very interesting claim. I'd like to hear occurrences that made you hold that belief.

 

[miroz]

Seems to me you're just looking to prove me wrong and argue

Then stop claiming things you don't know about.

 

[JGWI]

behaha!

I can't tell if this is satire or not but non the less is rather funny.

https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/masturbation-is-murder-6/

 

[Crux]

You made a very interesting claim. I'd like to hear occurrences that made you hold that belief.

In 2014 scientists came within a fraction of a second of the echoes of the Big Bang. A very significant find. However they were told to keep tight lipped about it and only speak of it too their colleagues.

Sorry for not replying sooner, it said new account can only post 5 times a day.

 

[californiagrown]

In 2014 scientists came within a fraction of a second of the echoes of the Big Bang. A very significant find. However they were told to keep tight lipped about it and only speak of it too their colleagues.

Sorry for not replying sooner, it said new account can only post 5 times a day.

What do you mean came within fractions of a second?

Proof the government told em to keep quiet? How long did the quiet last?

 

[Crux]

What do you mean came within fractions of a second?

Proof the government told em to keep quiet? How long did the quiet last?

They're still quiet about it. They were able to locate the Big Bang and come very close to reaching it as it continuously expands. When interviewed scientists told they were too keep quiet about their discoveries by higher officials. I am not sure if it is government or not. But a higher power told them to keep quiet and do not discuss their finds with others. And that was confirmed by the scientist that were working on the Big Bang.