Cobra Cards Player Community ~ View topic

LotR TCG Wiki

→ Card Sets: All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

→ Forums: TLHH CC PC

Cobra Cards Player Community Forum Index

Forum index » General Discussion » Members' Lounge

Author

Message

Elessar's Socks

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:12 pm

Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 349 Location:

NBarden wrote:

No, but you can use science to PROVE that you can’t disprove God scientifically.

I was referring to the professor. Like I said, I don’t think you can use arguments to PROVE (or disprove) God (or a god/gods) exists. If you really want to know where everyone stands, shove them out of an airplane--I reckon even those who claim not to believe might squeeze in a quick prayer or two on the way down.

IMO the real problem science has with religion is that they have different agendas. Science aims to further our knowledge through the scientific method, revising and discarding theories as necessary. Religion aims to maintain the status quo, sticking to one explanation despite all evidence to the contrary. Adaptiveness is welcomed by science (or should be, if we didn’t have egos in the way), but it is a threat to religion. Because of this you can’t use science to teach religion, or religion to teach science.

They aren’t always mutually exclusive, though (as far as I’m concerned God could’ve said "Let there be light" and BOOM--Big Bang!), and I don’t see why if you’re a scientist, you can’t believe in God. My understanding is that even one religion may have different sects who disagree on the finer details, but they can all believe in the same God.

AgentDrake

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:34 pm

Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 667 Location: Halfway between eccentric and insane...

Quote:

IMO the real problem science has with religion is that they have different agendas.

Ah, the unfortunate division between "should be" and "is."
Theoretically, religion -- Christianity, at least, Prob. Judaism and Islam too -- ought to encourage scientific pursuit, and vice versa (from the religious standpoint, anyway.)
Unfortunately, in practice, you often end up with power hungry politicians in the church starting the Spanish Inquisition, and trying to hold knowledge to the status quo, which science naturally rails against.

Ah, for a perfect world... (In which case all of this might be academic anyway, because I’m not sure it would matter.)

Never kid about politicians. The more bizarre the joke, the more likely it is to come true.

NBarden

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:09 pm

Joined: 28 Dec 2006 Posts: 5468 Location: I don't know...

Quote:

Science aims to further our knowledge through the scientific method, revising and discarding theories as necessary.

Evolution has been so nailed, pummeled, and otherwise disproven and discredited, but "objective scientists" can’t figure out another viewpoint so they cling to it...dare I say it...religiously? To quote a leading scientist: "Only the scientist at the lowest level is an atheist" and then went on to say that the structure and synchronization of the universe is so great that its impossible to discard the idea that there is a God. Quick point here. Look at the multiple layers. 1: The body of each animal. 2: The ecosystems that each creature is vital to. 3: The earth which would collapse without those extensive ecosystems. But wait. Then take into account the location of the moon to control tides on earth, the perfect orbit around the sun which causes the optimal temperature on earth, the optimal size which causes the density of our atmosphere, along with its composition, the galaxy which the solar system, with perfectly placed planets, revolves around, and the motion of the galaxy to avoid any collisions with other galaxys, which would twist the gravity that holds the galaxies in place. To cling to "science" so blindly, is more religious than Christianity!

Quote:

Religion aims to maintain the status quo, sticking to one explanation despite all evidence to the contrary. Adaptiveness is welcomed by science (or should be, if we didn’t have egos in the way), but it is a threat to religion.

We stick to one explanation, despite all the evidence to the contrary, but what is this "evidence to the contrary?" Not one substantial EVIDENCE to the contrary can be provided! Theories and hypotheses to the contrary are numerous, but I respectfully point out that these are no more "evidence" to the contrary.

Adaptiveness is NOT welcomed by science, all your research MUST fall into the theory of evolution, or it is discarded as unfounded. And the methods for determining this evidence are completely faulty.

I’m going to start a creation vs evolution thread where we can debate science vs religion. This is a more secular philosophy vs Christianity debate than anything else.

-Trade With Me Exclamation

Add the popcorn smiley to your sig, help it achieve world domination.
What if the hokey pokey really IS what its all about? Shocked

As I lay in bed staring at the stars last night, I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"

Spotlight on....Sense of Obligation.

Sam-Wise

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:34 pm

Joined: 12 May 2007 Posts: 163 Location: Shire

Have you guys ever taken a Science called, "General Science?"

If you have, you will see that it says, and I quote, "Science can’t prove anything."

I thought that this story was very cool.

My Greatest friend is Jesus Christ.
He's the source of all power.

X+3=8-2. {X=3}. I love little algebra problems!

Celebrimbor

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:47 pm

Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 953 Location: UNKNOWN

When trying to prove that God is evil, people are good, or that God doesn’t exist period, science gets stuck when the issue of Morals comes up.

Also, the very idea of humanism is ironic. How can a man believe he is the measure of all things, at the same time hold that his great-great-great-great-great-great- ^3563 grandfather was pond scum?

My Trading List
Popcorn is not gooey like fat, and also not crunchy like potato chips, but crispy like lettuce which makes it a healthy snack. Popcorn

Elessar's Socks

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:50 pm

Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 349 Location:

NBarden wrote:

I disagree with the scientist’s proof (and that evolution has been discredited), but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in God. Didn’t I say that God could have brought the very universe into existence?

Anyway, what does that have to do with what you quoted? Do you disagree that science has revised and discarded theories, or is your beef just with evolution?

And to bring up a small point, the Milky Way Galaxy is actually predicted to collide with Andromeda Galaxy in a few billion years. But am I going to pounce on this detail and wave it as "proof" that God doesn’t exist? No.

Quote:

If you want, I can replace "evidence" with "observations" or whatever; the underlying point still stands. If you believe in creationism, you will ALWAYS believe in creationism.

Quote:

Adaptiveness is NOT welcomed by science, all your research MUST fall into the theory of evolution, or it is discarded as unfounded. And the methods for determining this evidence are completely faulty.

We used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth, but our observations showed otherwise. And slowly, and grudgingly, we came to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun. At least, that’s what I accept; I’m sure there are plenty out there who will disagree with this.

ingold55

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:50 pm

Joined: 10 Oct 2005 Posts: 1199 Location: Out on the front line

very good argument! Very Happy