User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 150

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    The reason why those debates don't make too much sense is that two sides are different in core. The things is that those two sides can't relate to each other and they don't fully understand what other side is saying.

    1. Scientific side does not understand "God loves you thing" because entire thing does not make any sense.

    2. Spiritual side does not understand complexity of scientific argument and it has a problem with impersonal approach or reducing the importance of humanity.

    Real debate is impossble since those tow don't speak same language.

    There are people that think that you can mix those two but that creates so much philosophical problems that it question able that entire thing could works from perspective of logic.

    However I am on scientific side.
    I think you're underestimating the intelligence of spiritual people...as if there wouldn't be any such thing as religion if everyone had an IQ of 130. I think you're also underestimating the openness to new information of most scientific-leaning people.

    I don't think that the ideas of God and science have any conflict whatsoever. I think that some of the minor, conflicting dogma that divide various religions disagree with science. Things like creationism, the infallibility of the Pope, and the sanctity of certain animals. But those things only distract from the central argument. The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  2. #22
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.


    I've never understood why science and God couldn't both be true. For instance, the story of how God created the earth in seven days? What if one "day" were like a few hundred million years to us? Let's get more creative, people!
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  3. #23
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    No matter which way we cut it, the "supernatural" isn't compatible with the natural (and the study of nature: science).

    And even most liberal interpretations of the major religions recognize the supernatural.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    No matter which way we cut it, the "supernatural" isn't compatible with the natural (and the study of nature: science).

    And even most liberal interpretations of the major religions recognize the supernatural.
    I strongly disagree. Why can't the supernatural be compatible with the natural? Why can't it just be science that we don't yet understand? As George Lucas once said (God I hate having to quote that hack), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

    Think of nature as a computer program...if there is a God, isn't it plausible if not likely that he programmed himself some backdoors?
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  5. #25
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I strongly disagree. Why can't the supernatural be compatible with the natural? Why can't it just be science that we don't yet understand? As George Lucas once said (God I hate having to quote that hack), "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

    Think of nature as a computer program...if there is a God, isn't it plausible if not likely that he programmed himself some backdoors?
    Because by definition the supernatural is something that's unexplainable by nature.

    Could something we consider supernatural today be given validity by science in the future? Sure. But concerning most of what we consider supernatural, I wouldn't count of it.

  6. #26
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    No matter which way we cut it, the "supernatural" isn't compatible with the natural (and the study of nature: science).

    And even most liberal interpretations of the major religions recognize the supernatural.
    Yup, religion was once the keeper of knowledge, and now science is. Religion doesn't terribly like that.

    However, humans still need the spiritual side - there is no way around that. The problem is that religion is more about a "thing", like a flag, than anything else... and too often, like rallying around a flag, religion can trigger a negative set of behaviors.

    I see this period as transition. Religion is giving way to science, even if it is unwillingly in some places. But spirituality won't go away unless we change what it is to be human, and so religion - previously codified - will transform into something different. No idea what it would be, yet, but I do see overall increased tolerance for the most part. It'll be a long time before it filters through everywhere, but I think the forces are in motion. Course, it won't really take hold until evolution has directed it away, but... the shrinking of the world might very well help with our existing wiring. Lots of speculation, heh.

    Why do people argue over the existence of God? I think it is all tied into the search for meaning and knowledge. The concept serves a great deal of purpose in the human psyche, and this emerges from it. Those that do not believe want to believe, to some degree... and those that do believe have doubts, to some degree. Arguing serves both to solidify the stance we hold (disagreement polarizes beliefs, reinforcing them) and to explore the possibilities safely.

    The problems really start when people make decisions based on what they want to believe, rather than on evidence. Material impacts require material evidence, in my books.

  7. #27
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Personally, I love these debates. Sorting through the assumptions that the other side carries is a blast. Trying to pick them apart and get the other person to acknowledge how their assumptions lack foundation is like a game to me.

  8. #28
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I think you're underestimating the intelligence of spiritual people...as if there wouldn't be any such thing as religion if everyone had an IQ of 130. I think you're also underestimating the openness to new information of most scientific-leaning people.
    Very true... I am friends with a Christian from college who believes in creationism. She did her masters in microbiology... and have actually once worked in an evolutionary lab even though she didn't believe in the theory. Religion has very little to do with intelligence (although it seems bull-headed religious fanatics tend to be of lesser intelligence/education strata). Belief and faith seems to go beyond the category of what's rational and irrational. You're entering into territory where you can't prove or disprove one way or the other. So any explanations... gods, supernatural beings or not is perfectly "valid". Acknowledgment of the difference in believes is all you can say.

    I don't think that the ideas of God and science have any conflict whatsoever. I think that some of the minor, conflicting dogma that divide various religions disagree with science. Things like creationism, the infallibility of the Pope, and the sanctity of certain animals. But those things only distract from the central argument. The general idea of a supreme being who created the universe and imbued people with eternal souls does not conflict with science at all. In fact, if there is a God, it seems to me that science would be his language, since that would have been the mechanism by which he created everything. I can only attribute failure to see this to stubbornness from entrenched proponents of both viewpoints that refuse to give an inch.
    Nicely phrased. One of my professors once phrase something along the lines of this...

    Science is good at explaining the "how". How does something work? What's its mechanism of action? What are the steps involved to some process? All these things can be readily tested. But when it comes to "why". Science fails, as in epic fail. These things can't be tested, nor is science meant to handle such questions.

    Leave that stuff for the philosopher was what he said. I agree with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Why do people argue over the existence of God? I think it is all tied into the search for meaning and knowledge. The concept serves a great deal of purpose in the human psyche, and this emerges from it. Those that do not believe want to believe, to some degree... and those that do believe have doubts, to some degree. Arguing serves both to solidify the stance we hold (disagreement polarizes beliefs, reinforcing them) and to explore the possibilities safely.

    The problems really start when people make decisions based on what they want to believe, rather than on evidence. Material impacts require material evidence, in my books.
    So in the end it's always about the self... how typical

    May I throw in cognitive dissonance into the mix? Belief just is... there's very little logical explanation you can use to justified your believes. Yet people seem to need justifications for their decisions. Perhaps that leads to the need to reinforce their stance? That they are in the right... and thus the urge to continue arguing despite stalemate?

  9. #29
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    ...May I throw in cognitive dissonance into the mix? Belief just is... there's very little logical explanation you can use to justified your believes. Yet people seem to need justifications for their decisions. Perhaps that leads to the need to reinforce their stance? That they are in the right... and thus the urge to continue arguing despite stalemate?
    Now we're discussing fear... fear of having one's faith dispelled in some way, whether or not the faith is based on something true.

    Another problem that I have had to face (dealing with religious friends and relatives) is that, if the faith provided support to someone during hard times in their lives -- if it's the thing that helped them survive -- then they are severely prone to clinging to it even when it becomes clear later that their faith is harmful at that stage and not helpful.

    You can't take away something from someone if their lives have depended on it heavily in the past. The attachment is too strong.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #30
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Science is good at explaining the "how". How does something work? What's its mechanism of action? What are the steps involved to some process? All these things can be readily tested. But when it comes to "why". Science fails, as in epic fail. These things can't be tested, nor is science meant to handle such questions.
    But why are we to believe that ideas of God(s) and religion are capable of explaining the "why"?

Similar Threads

  1. Does The Thought of God Not Existing Terrify You?
    By serenesam in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 02:46 PM
  2. The irrefutable existence of God
    By Zangetshumody in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 07:52 PM
  3. Hologram theory and the existence of fate and/or God
    By Valiant in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 08:05 AM
  4. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  5. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO