Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,901
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,345
    My Mood
    Pensive
    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    @Empire you said I would like to ask you if the creation of the universe is science or not.
    Science is the method for determining truth. It's not an existence in and of itself, so no.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    Is the creation or supposed release of an extremely dense matter (haven't read on how this got to be there by the way), science or religion.
    The big bang was the expansion of that dense matter. The "universe" did not exist before the big-bang, but all the matter did.


    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    In my opinion it has to be religion, for it not to be as the book said would mean that we could no longer trust it's credibility.
    Well there are several other claims holy books make that are blatantly false. I think people focus in on this one because we don't know the absolute origin of everything and probably never will. So you can just fill in that gap with "god did it" and call it a day if you are lazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    . That is the reason that everyone is frustrated that religion and science cannot mix. They are not meant to be separated, James Clark Maxwell, one of the fathers of modern science, believed that by exploring the creation that he believed God had created he was learning more of the intricate works of God.
    It's not that religion and science can't mix, it's that fundamentally religion is opposed to science because religion simply does not have the validity to back up the claims that are made.


    Imagine two people, one person believes X and the other Y.

    Now the X believer has evidence, data, and solid theories to back up his belief.

    The Y believer simply believes it because it is tradition and because he has faith that it is true.


    You see, if religion was founded within science there wouldn't be a reason to call it "religion" it would just be fact. But it's not.


  2. #17
    Threadstarter
    Studying abroad. Activity Nonexistent. Do not contact.
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Luis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    2,818
    Reputation
    348
    Thanks
    1,700
    My Mood
    Psychedelic
    Quote Originally Posted by Empire View Post


    Science is the method for determining truth. It's not an existence in and of itself, so no.



    The big bang was the expansion of that dense matter. The "universe" did not exist before the big-bang, but all the matter did.



    Well there are several other claims holy books make that are blatantly false. I think people focus in on this one because we don't know the absolute origin of everything and probably never will. So you can just fill in that gap with "god did it" and call it a day if you are lazy.



    It's not that religion and science can't mix, it's that fundamentally religion is opposed to science because religion simply does not have the validity to back up the claims that are made.


    Imagine two people, one person believes X and the other Y.

    Now the X believer has evidence, data, and solid theories to back up his belief.

    The Y believer simply believes it because it is tradition and because he has faith that it is true.


    You see, if religion was founded within science there wouldn't be a reason to call it "religion" it would just be fact. But it's not.
    Lets take a look at your arguments, first of all EVERYBODY has the same evidence, we have the same earth, the same galaxy, the same universe. We have the same data as well, and we both have our theories. The difference is our bias and how we interpret it, we are both biased when we look into the universe. You have a bias that everything has advanced continually and that you should find remnants of a continues expansion. I have a bias that the world and everything around it was created by a supreme deity. These views change how we observe and conduct our experiments as well as our data or theories. You would have to find 100% solid proof of the earth being more then 8000 years old for me to be wrong, among other ways you could "prove" it. You also said the universe didn't exist before the "big bang" but yet all the matter was there, I ask again, how did the matter get there? You replied that we (flawed finite humans) will probably (NEVER) going to know exactly how it occurred. Your correct in that, we only have the basis of the seven days. You also said that we would be lazy for "simply" believing that the Bible is the cause. Ignoring the fact that the Bible has over 50 prophecies that came true from the gap of 10 years to 1.8k years. Most recently the return of Israel. I dare you to find one place where it fails to properly have the prophecy fulfilled. Anyway back to the topic of it being "lazy" to accept the Bible's account of how it happened. Lets image that there is a chicken egg, you walk in right as it cracks open. I saw the egg being laid and watched it through it's life, however you only see the chicken that it is now. You have to trust my judgment on how it happened, you can't spend hours staring at it and figure out how the egg was laid (ignoring the fact that chicken's can also lay eggs, lets be honest, I don't think earth is going to lay an egg). I'll go back to this:
    It's not that religion and science can't mix, it's that fundamentally religion is opposed to science because religion simply does not have the validity to back up the claims that are made.
    First of all religion is not opposed to science at all, here's a quote from the Psalm 111:2 (the book of Psalms is a record of the praises King David sung after God fulfilled a prophecy that would make him the king.), "Great are the works of the LORD; They are studied by all who delight in them" According to this, science is simply the study of the creation God made. I really don't understand why we have to call it religion, sure there are things are tiny confused little brains cannot comprehend but it is all still been proclaimed and backed up by a fat load of prophecies. If you actually read this thanks, sorry if I'm a tad frustrated, have a nice day.
    Leaving mpgh for irl school opportunities.
    I will not be contacting anyone for the next three months, any skype messages sent will not be me.
    Assume I'm hacked if I try to contact you.
    I will not talk to anyone until I am secured in this new part of my life.

  3. #18
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,901
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,345
    My Mood
    Pensive
    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    Lets take a look at your arguments,
    Not really an argument. Actually all of what I said was factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    first of all EVERYBODY has the same evidence, we have the same earth, the same galaxy, the same universe. We have the same data as well, and we both have our theories.
    Well, kind of.

    You see this is equating arguments to "opinion" when the data simply does not lie. You are mistaking the casual english use of the word theory and what is a scientific theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    The difference is our bias and how we interpret it, we are both biased when we look into the universe. You have a bias that everything has advanced continually and that you should find remnants of a continues expansion. I have a bias that the world and everything around it was created by a supreme deity.
    No. You again are mistaking hard facts to be opinion based, they are not.

    The facts say that the universe is expanding right now. It's not interpretation of these facts, the facts just show it.

    What you are saying is equivalent to that of "it's just your opinion that the sun is hot."

    (also creation of the universe via the big bang does not rule out the possibility that a god caused the big bang or the matter to exist, so I don't see why you are drawing the dichotomy here).

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    These views change how we observe and conduct our experiments as well as our data or theories. You would have to find 100% solid proof of the earth being more then 8000 years old for me to be wrong, among other ways you could "prove" it.

    That's easy. Light years.
    Everything 8,000 light years + away proves you wrong. Done.


    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    Your correct in that, we only have the basis of the seven days. You also said that we would be lazy for "simply" believing that the Bible is the cause. Ignoring the fact that the Bible has over 50 prophecies that came true from the gap of 10 years to 1.8k years. Most recently the return of Israel. I dare you to find one place where it fails to properly have the prophecy fulfilled. .
    Well first off the weekly calender was not created by the bible or the jewish people.

    I don't really care what prophecies you want to claim are fulfilled because all of them are vague. No dates, no times, just "this thing will happen sometime in the future."
    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    Anyway back to the topic of it being "lazy" to accept the Bible's account of how it happened. Lets image that there is a chicken egg, you walk in right as it cracks open. I saw the egg being laid and watched it through it's life, however you only see the chicken that it is now. You have to trust my judgment on how it happened, you can't spend hours staring at it and figure out how the egg was laid (ignoring the fact that chicken's can also lay eggs, lets be honest, I don't think earth is going to lay an egg).
    I actually never said the bible.(but whatever, proceed).

    Trusting eyewitness testimony is not a reliable source of information, especially regarding supernatural claims.


    I'm sorry, but this "you just have to trust people" sort of argument is just not something anyone(including yourself) takes seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    I'll go back to this: First of all religion is not opposed to science at all, here's a quote from the Psalm 111:2 (the book of Psalms is a record of the praises King David sung after God fulfilled a prophecy that would make him the king.), "Great are the works of the LORD; They are studied by all who delight in them" According to this, science is simply the study of the creation God made. I really don't understand why we have to call it religion, sure there are things are tiny confused little brains cannot comprehend but it is all still been proclaimed and backed up by a fat load of prophecies. If you actually read this thanks, sorry if I'm a tad frustrated, have a nice day.

    You are misunderstanding still.


    The difference between religion and science is the method that they get their truths from.


    IF you applied the scientific method to religion you'd find that there is no sufficient evidence to prove any of the supernatural claims stated within.


    It's not about societal acceptance. It's not about interpretation. It's about cold. hard. facts.

    And the truth of the matter is that religion does not meet the standards that are within the scientific method to verify it's claims.

    That's why they are incompatible.
    Last edited by Empire; 03-24-2016 at 01:48 AM.


  4. #19
    Threadstarter
    Studying abroad. Activity Nonexistent. Do not contact.
    Former Staff
    Premium Member
    Luis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    2,818
    Reputation
    348
    Thanks
    1,700
    My Mood
    Psychedelic
    First of all, thanks for actually reading what I said. And to clarify your argument I meant your representation of the facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Empire View Post


    Not really an argument. Actually all of what I said was factual.


    Well, kind of.

    You see this is equating arguments to "opinion" when the data simply does not lie. You are mistaking the casual english use of the word theory and what is a scientific theory.




    No. You again are mistaking hard facts to be opinion based, they are not.

    The facts say that the universe is expanding right now. It's not interpretation of these facts, the facts just show it.

    What you are saying is equivalent to that of "it's just your opinion that the sun is hot."

    (also creation of the universe via the big bang does not rule out the possibility that a god caused the big bang or the matter to exist, so I don't see why you are drawing the dichotomy here).




    That's easy. Light years.
    Everything 8,000 light years + away proves you wrong. Done.




    Well first off the weekly calender was not created by the bible or the jewish people.

    I don't really care what prophecies you want to claim are fulfilled because all of them are vague. No dates, no times, just "this thing will happen sometime in the future."


    I actually never said the bible.(but whatever, proceed).

    Trusting eyewitness testimony is not a reliable source of information, especially regarding supernatural claims.


    I'm sorry, but this "you just have to trust people" sort of argument is just not something anyone(including yourself) takes seriously.




    You are misunderstanding still.


    The difference between religion and science is the method that they get their truths from.


    IF you applied the scientific method to religion you'd find that there is no sufficient evidence to prove any of the supernatural claims stated within.


    It's not about societal acceptance. It's not about interpretation. It's about cold. hard. facts.

    And the truth of the matter is that religion does not meet the standards that are within the scientific method to verify it's claims.

    That's why they are incompatible.
    Let me first explain why I do not believe the Big Bang could ever be caused by a God, I'll work it off that. Looking back I also notice you never said the bible, I apologize for that, its where I draw my truth so it's where I started. Anyway, in the first book of the bible about the creation of the world and the first 1k years of human history it tells the story of the first seven(6 because he rested on the seventh) days of creation. In these he details when the creatures/space/ocean/Everything was created. After that it goes into how man choose greed and pride over God, but that's a diffrent story. I don't believe we can wedge 5billion (Sorry if it's the wrong number) of years until we enter the 6k years we know for a fact happened (IE recorded as history.) It's for that reason I almost believe the Pope is a complete and utter push-over. Granted I'm not a Catholic but whatever. You say hard facts are not interpreted by opinion, lets take rock layers as an example. It seems to be general atheistic opinion that our rock layers of the earth formed of billions of years right? The christian opinion is that a world wide flood directed by God to wipe out a race of fallen angels/human mix. We believe that caused all of the earth's dirt 'n crap to mix together and cause the rock layers to rearrange with diffrent things mixed together. The difference of our "hard fact' lies because we both have diffrent interpreted facts, it "proves" both of our cases. As for the earth being more then 8k years old, what if when it was all created God (because he said, 'let there be light') Allowed us to view things immensely far away by lighting it up. (just my opinion, probably a better christian reason for it) As for the prophecies being vague, well lets take a look at that, I admit, I'm not sure who the calendar was created by, but it seems odd we now use the Birth of Christ as 0 AD (meaning roughly "year of the lord")
    Here's some verses about the return of the Israelite tribe to Israel:
    Hosea 3:4-5 - "For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days."

    Isaiah 11:11-12 NIV - "In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth."
    These passages were written more then 200 years apart. And it was still a hella long time till Israel came back.
    To end this freakishly long passage, I just want to admit we truly cannot prove the supernatural, that's why it's called the supernatural. Call it sketchy or vague if you must.
    Leaving mpgh for irl school opportunities.
    I will not be contacting anyone for the next three months, any skype messages sent will not be me.
    Assume I'm hacked if I try to contact you.
    I will not talk to anyone until I am secured in this new part of my life.

  5. #20
    Empire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    male
    Location
    .Alwayz.
    Posts
    19,901
    Reputation
    659
    Thanks
    1,345
    My Mood
    Pensive
    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    Let me first explain why I do not believe the Big Bang could ever be caused by a God, I'll work it off that.
    So you think that a god can't cause the event that is the big bang?(This ought to be good).

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    Looking back I also notice you never said the bible, I apologize for that, its where I draw my truth so it's where I started. .
    Let me stop you right there: How do you know the bible and it's tales to be true?


    Because quoting the bible and saying X other thing is contradictory does jack if the other person doesn't automatically accept the bible to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    You say hard facts are not interpreted by opinion, lets take rock layers as an example. It seems to be general atheistic opinion that our rock layers of the earth formed of billions of years right? The christian opinion is that a world wide flood directed by God to wipe out a race of fallen angels/human mix. We believe that caused all of the earth's dirt 'n crap to mix together and cause the rock layers to rearrange with diffrent things mixed together.
    Well the christian opinion is wrong then. I'm sorry but geology proves a worldwide flood would not cause that, much more so that the worldwide flood never happened.
    (also geographical placement of animals, the fact that you can't take two of one animal since there are carnivores, fish, etc. etc. etc.).


    See this is what I'm talking about. How do you know the story to be true?



    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    The difference of our "hard fact' lies because we both have diffrent interpreted facts, it "proves" both of our cases. As for the earth being more then 8k years old, what if when it was all created God (because he said, 'let there be light') Allowed us to view things immensely far away by lighting it up. (just my opinion, probably a better christian reason for it)
    Well what you're proposing is a more complex explanation with no evidence. That makes it invalid.
    (this is called occam's razor)

    Quote Originally Posted by lpmcgee12 View Post
    ) As for the prophecies being vague, well lets take a look at that, I admit, I'm not sure who the calendar was created by, but it seems odd we now use the Birth of Christ as 0 AD (meaning roughly "year of the lord")
    Here's some verses about the return of the Israelite tribe to Israel:
    Hosea 3:4-5 - "For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days."

    Isaiah 11:11-12 NIV - "In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth."
    These passages were written more then 200 years apart. And it was still a hella long time till Israel came back.
    To end this freakishly long passage, I just want to admit we truly cannot prove the supernatural, that's why it's called the supernatural. Call it sketchy or vague if you must.
    Ok you seem to not really understand prophecy. If it's vauge, no one cares. If you hit 1/100, nobody cares.

    There are tons of prophecies from different religions that have been correct. But the reason they are correct is because it's piss easy to make a prophecy with no specific data and then it be completed over a thousand years later.



    So again, if this is all you got, then I don't care.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. [Discussion] 'The Big Ban Theory'
    By hilybily123 in forum Grand Theft Auto 5 (GTA V) Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 07:51 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 03:35 AM
  3. In your opinion is the Big Bang patch a good or bad thing?
    By bartjr in forum MapleStory Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-10-2010, 09:34 AM
  4. The big bang in space
    By MaraFaraCZ in forum Showroom
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 10:33 AM
  5. The Big MPGH
    By arunforce in forum General
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 06-06-2006, 03:53 PM