How To Run Religion Out Of Science

Discussion in 'Religion' started by newnature, Mar 24, 2016.

  1. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    At one time something was true, but now something else is true. Science would indeed want to know the facts about this changed. Science is about facts. Science has the Apostle Paul's writing, it's about the facts.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So what, exactly WAS true and what is true now?
    Can you show that any evidence for the claim?


    Please provide illustrations as to what you mean because, as it stands, it doesn't make sense (I'm assuming English isn't your first language).
    Science doesn't regard Paul's writing as factual. And provide EVIDENCE, not just claims.

    Correct.
    What facts are in Paul?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science would look at the fact that all the human race are wrath-worthy; there is none good, not even one (except for one 'Gen. 3:15'). The entire human race is guilty when it comes to human merit, performance, and production and all fall short, continually coming short of the righteousness of God himself.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    "Wrath-worthy" and "good" are not scientific judgements, so you're wrong on that.
    And, even if those did fall under the scientific purview, who - exactly - is the "one"? I assume it's Jesus. Again, the CLAIMS about Jesus are NOT scientific and are not accepted by science.

    Yeah.
    Please stop spouting utter drivel and answer my questions.

    YOU started this thread, YOU brought up the topic of science. Yet, so far, you have posted absolutely ZERO scientific content.
     
  8. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
     
  9. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science shows that Christianity developed the notion of original sin.

    So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.

    Science says this a is a fact. Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.

    Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.

    Science would what us to use history to tell the story about Gen. 3:15.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Nah, that would be history. Which isn't a science.
    And, even if it were, it doesn't help your case since all it does is state where that concept originated: it doesn't provide a scientific basis for the concept itself.

    Nothing to do with the argument.

    No it doesn't.

    Nothing - again - to do with science.
    "Evil" s not a scientific concept.

    Not even close to being science.

    No it wouldn't.
    Repeating a ridiculous claim doesn't suddenly make it valid.
     
  11. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science would want to know about the history that led up to Gen. 3:15. The history of what was going on before that tree was eaten of and the history afterwards. Science is about facts, and it is a fact that Adam and Eve was living life with a childlike innocents. Science is about facts, and it is a fact that the mortal choice of good and bad enter the human race. The human race made the human race
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Still false.
    Either stop making this claim or provide some evidence for it.

    Science does not accept (i.e. does not subscribe to the belief) that there was any tree or forbidden fruit.

    No it's not. There is - again - no evidence whatsoever that this is a fact.

    Neither is this a fact.

    Nor is this.
     
  13. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science would indeed want to know this history. The cave man that were before Adam and Eve. But God did not create them in his image. Being created in the image of God means that we must view ourselves as intrinsically valuable and richly invested with meaning, potentially and responsibilities. We are to be and to do on a finite scale, what God is and does on an infinite scale.

    By virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities.

    Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God. We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come. Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.

    So these cave people, they would have to have everything we have,

    These cave people would not have had a God conscious, like God has given to the human race a God consciousness, the conscious perception that we could say that there is a God somewhere and that ultimately the human race is accountable to that God. These cave people would have been smart, knowing how to make a living. Science likes history; what, around five billion years of science here in this fifth 'a day'?
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    It's not history, therefore science wouldn't want to know it.

    You really don't have a clue, do you?

    Unsupported claims.

    Nor has "god" been shown to have any of these attributes,

    Unsupported crap.

    As is this.
    And please stop posting videos that you have no idea whatsoever about.
     
  15. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science does indeed want to understand this history; three stages of history. No history, no science. Science would want to know why the individual who was talking to Eve that day at the tree, tried to breed the human race out of existences. The offspring of the fallen angles. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15). Science indeed wants to know this history.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    False again: it's not history, there is no evidence that "angles" exist - either fallen or not, nor has Yahweh been shown to exist.
    Therefore I can only assume that when you (keep) say(ing) "science wants to know" you actually mean that YOU want science to accept your fairy stories and consider them to be factual.
    Unfortunately for you there is nothing whatsoever to show that those fairy stories are factual nor any indication that they could be.

    Given your massive (and wilful) ignorance on how science (and reality for that matter) operates - and your continued failure to actually address my questions/ points - I'm not going to bother with this thread any more. You're obviously incapable of forming a coherent rational argument.
     
  17. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science would want to about why these individuals influence Nimrod. Because of what was started at the Tower of Babel, because now science can dismiss religion from this point on. These individuals can keep the issue of sin through religion on the table of God’s justice. Science understands why it can now dismiss religion from here on out.
     
  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Were these angles obtuse?
     
    exchemist likes this.
  19. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science don't care about them fallen angles, because they are about keeping sin on the table of God's justice, that is religion. Science wants to understand Gen. 1:14-19. Because this is the first mention of the heavenly bodies that can be seen from the earth. The groupings of the stars, there is no articulate speech or voice, and no words are heard, but their sayings have gone out into all the world (Ps. 19:1-6). Science would indeed what to know if this Gen. 3:15 came to pass.
     
  20. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    OK - so you must be the obtuse one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle
     
  21. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science now understands how Gen. 3:15, how the sin issue was taken off the table of God's justices. Science now knows what to dismiss when it comes to religion.
     
  22. newnature Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    Science can have fun with the bible. I did miss spell that word 'angles' that is funny, thanks gmilam for the laugh. But science can't touch the overall context of the bible and the bible can't touch the overall context of science.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    There's a few assertions that have been glossed over that must be addressed before such a discussion can go anywhere.

    Science, as a discipline, has nothing to say about God, Eden, or Adam and Eve. Nothing at all.

    As far as the scientific community is concerned, there is no evidence that can be scientifically examined, and therefore it is entirely outside the scope of scientific analysis.

    Let's first address that, before going any further.
     

Share This Page