There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

[SciWriter]

The hierarchy of a Great Mind being First fails due to its complexity, plus the simpler upon the simpler cannot end in some gigantic composite thing. Believers are looking in the complete wrong direction, and still proclaiming magic. No one but Rav attempted to undo anything, and he is an honest agnostic, realizing, perhaps, that the God vs. no God stance is not by any means an equiprobable situation.

Nor is scripture written by human mammals relevant. God never said a word.

The church is emptying out, now alert to mere notions being falsely presented as fact and truth.

I remain in these discussions because science gets improved by them, not only in cosmology, but also, for example, that we are now onto why people strongly believe in unknown 'knowns', that being demonstrated here by the magical answers that still don't prove anything at all about God. We see psychological 'neglect' right and left here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SciWriter,

The hierarchy of a Great Mind being First fails due to its complexity, plus the simpler upon the simpler cannot end in some gigantic composite thing.

That would make sense if God were made of matter.
God is defined as pure spirit. So the first honest thing to do
is to understand the difference between the spiritual, and material nature.

Believers are looking in the complete wrong direction, and still proclaiming magic.

I think you need to be more specific when you use the term "believers', as we are not robots.
What you regard as "magic" is understood as having complete control over nature.

Nor is scripture written by human mammals relevant. God never said a word.

That's hardly scientific, is it?
What makes you so sure?

The church is emptying out,

By design.
The church leaders do not talk about God, as He is defined in scripture.

I remain in these discussions because science gets improved by them, not only in cosmology, but also, for example, that we are now onto why people strongly believe in unknown 'knowns', that being demonstrated here by the magical answers that still don't prove anything at all about God. We see psychological 'neglect' right and left here.

Learn about God, not this composition atheists seem to satisfy their arguments with. Try and refute Him, if you can.

You'll find that initially, it boils down to whether you choose to believe or not.
Science can only help in understanding God's separated energy (matter), not determine whether or not God exists.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That would make sense if God were made of matter.
God is defined as pure spirit. So the first honest thing to do is to understand the difference between the spiritual, and material nature.

Correction.
The first honest thing to do is show that your contention that "god as defined" actually exists. I.e. demonstrate that "pure spirit" exists and work upwards from there.

You'll find that initially, it boils down to whether you choose to believe or not.

And why, "initially", would you choose to believe (as if belief were actually a matter of "choosing")?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Correction.
The first honest thing to do is show that your contention that "god as defined" actually exists. I.e. demonstrate that "pure spirit" exists and work upwards from there.

Don't be silly.

And why, "initially", would you choose to believe (as if belief were actually a matter of "choosing")?

Again, don't be silly.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
Don't be silly.
Again, don't be silly.
jan.

So, yet again, you resort to inanities as opposed to actually answering the questions raised?
So much for honesty from you.

Can you reply (rationally and on-topic) to either of those points?
I doubt it.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Correction.
The first honest thing to do is show that your contention that "god as defined" actually exists. I.e. demonstrate that "pure spirit" exists and work upwards from there.

the trick in that question is the term 'as defined'

And why, "initially", would you choose to believe (as if belief were actually a matter of "choosing")?[/QUOTE]

you don't think belief is a choice? does that mean you think belief is a state of being? once you have it you can't lose it?

so which statement is more accurate?;
i believe that ice cream cones exist.
or
i believe my boss is gonna give me a raise.


the first is inaccurate and is how you are using the term 'belief' in your statement above.

 

[Dywyddyr]

the trick in that question is the term 'as defined'

That specific wording was Jan's. Take it up with him.

And why, "initially", would you choose to believe (as if belief were actually a matter of "choosing")?
you don't think belief is a choice? does that mean you think belief is a state of being? once you have it you can't lose it?
the first is inaccurate and is how you are using the term 'belief' in your statement above.

Can I choose to believe god exists if I actually don't?
I am led to believe by evidence/ information/ whatever. I cannot, so far as I can see "choose" to believe anything. I may claim something e.g. "I believe in god", but personally, no matter how many times I say it won't be true.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Can I choose to believe god exists if I actually don't?

can you choose to believe your wife loves you even if you actually believe she doesn't?

I am led to believe by evidence/ information/ whatever.

fair enough.

I cannot, so far as I can see "choose" to believe anything.

you can choose to believe you children will grow up to be ok,
or you can choose to believe they will grow up to be deviant.
which attitude would be better?

I may claim something e.g. "I believe in god", but personally, no matter how many times I say it won't be true.

you choose to believe that your criticism is beneficial,even when evidence to the contrary is presented.
yet you continue to choose to believe your criticism is beneficial,
no matter how many times you say it is beneficial,it won't always be true..

 

[sifreak21]

I will comment on the Thread title but could you add a little more to your OP please.


God is not a contradiction to science nor are some religions, but some religions are a contradiction to truth and scientific observation. To state that Christianity does not contradict science would be pushing it though because anybody who has read the bible would know different.

Some religions do contradict scientific truths and if I stated otherwise it would be a Lie, God and the faith in god does not contradict evolution or any scientific facts. Religion on the other hand does in many cases go directly against what we have found to be scientific fact later down the historical line.


Wisdom

well i do believe in the eyes of theists god created us perfect from day one. if this is true then why do and and are we still evolving?

 

[Dywyddyr]

can you choose to believe your wife loves you even if you actually believe she doesn't?
you can choose to believe you children will grow up to be ok,
or you can choose to believe they will grow up to be deviant.
which attitude would be better?

Again, all of these come back to the same thing: do you actually choose or are you led by (whatever)?

you choose to believe that your criticism is beneficial,even when evidence to the contrary is presented.
yet you continue to choose to believe your criticism is beneficial,
no matter how many times you say it is beneficial,it won't always be true..

Ooh nasty dig.
What makes you think I believe that?


Regardless, I didn't choose - I was led to believe by (whatever) and having formed that belief will seek confirmation. Get it?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

So, give an example of a "true revelation".

The Bible.

Plus one may have personal revelation, such as things contained in the Bible which have yet to be read by an individual because the Bible has been unavailable to him or her. Or the revelation that God is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It is public that I believe what a Catholic should believe based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church; you could have figured out what I would say without asking. So, did you ask the question thinking you could falsify one of the accepted revelations of Catholics?

 

[Dywyddyr]

The Bible.

Uh huh. And how exactly is the bible a true revelation?
It has been shown to be inaccurate on a number of counts so what, exactly, is the actual revelation therein and how do you know it's true?

Plus one may have personal revelation, such as things contained in the Bible which have yet to be read by an individual because the Bible has been unavailable to him or her. Or the revelation that God is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Once again: how do you show that these are true?

It is public that I believe what a Catholic should believe based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church; you could have figured out what I would say without asking. So, did you ask the question thinking you could falsify one of the accepted revelations of Catholics?

No, what I'm actually asking is how do you KNOW these claimed true revelations are TRUE?
All we have, so far, is claim after claim after claim (but all unsupported) that they are true.

 

[NMSquirrel]

if this is true then why do and and are we still evolving?

how are we still evolving?

Again, all of these come back to the same thing: do you actually choose or are you led by (whatever)?

Regardless, I didn't choose - I was led to believe by (whatever) and having formed that belief will seek confirmation. Get it?

you use the term 'led' as an excuse to believe..
you are not realizing that you are still choosing to believe.
(you are choosing to let the info lead you to believe.)

that confirmation is completely subjective to what you value as confirmation.
(you choose to believe the info is valid for your confirmation)

 

[Dywyddyr]

you use the term 'led' as an excuse to believe..
you are not realizing that you are still choosing to believe.
(you are choosing to let the info lead you to believe.)

Ah I see. Can you actually show that I make the choice?

that confirmation is completely subjective to what you value as confirmation.
(you choose to believe the info is valid for your confirmation)

Nearly. Having been led by prior evidence into a belief, the belief that I know hold leads me to accept confirmatory "evidence" and deny other "evidence".

 

[NMSquirrel]

The Bible.

Plus one may have personal revelation, such as things contained in the Bible which have yet to be read by an individual because the Bible has been unavailable to him or her. Or the revelation that God is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

revelation (as applied to god) to me comes with learning certain concepts and then finding those concepts in the bible.

and for the record revelation is not an exclusively religious term.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Ah I see. Can you actually show that I make the choice?

i am not inside your head..(maybe..but beside the point)
i cannot read your mind, so i do not know how i would show you how you make your choices.

Nearly. Having been led by prior evidence into a belief, the belief that I know hold leads me to accept confirmatory "evidence" and deny other "evidence".

now you are starting to sound like a believer..
(statement applies to both atheist and theist)

but the point is you can choose NOT to believe based on other evidence.
point being belief is not a permanent condition.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i am not inside your head..(maybe..but beside the point)

Get out get out!!!!

i cannot read your mind, so i do not know how i would show you how you make your choices.

Okay let's try this: have you ever heard the expression "the evidence was overwhelming"? People can be led to believe despite their wishes otherwise. They do not "choose".

now you are starting to sound like a believer..
(statement applies to both atheist and theist)

I'm aware of that. We all, even in our everyday life, accept confirmatory evidence and reject the other stuff. On many different topics. Heck, kids being a brilliant example.
You know what utter and complete little b*stards the kids across the street are, but does their mother think that? Nope, to her they're not far short of angels.

but the point is you can choose NOT to believe based on other evidence.
point being belief is not a permanent condition.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on choice/ led. Maybe a topic for another thread. I see it as being convinced by (whatever), maybe because I have (despite what you may think) been forced to change my mind on some things.
Hmm I wonder why the wording is forced to change my mind rather than chose to change my mind.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Show it.


In other words your "evidence" isn't evidence. It's simply a claim of yours that you can't substantiate.
Can I equally claim that clouds and flowers are evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you accept that as evidence?

If you make a statement "God exists!" or "God does not exist!" you should back them up with evidence. On the other hand if you say "I believe God exists!" or "I don't believe God exists!" then the statement is one of belief and not fact, requiring no further proof.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Get out get out!!!!

don't worry, i'll clear any loose nuts out of there..

Okay let's try this: have you ever heard the expression "the evidence was overwhelming"? People can be led to believe despite their wishes otherwise. They do not "choose".

um..how many atheist have used that concept to try and convince believers otherwise? does it work?
and even in science there was overwhelming evidence to convince ppl to believe a certain way only to be proven wrong (i think leaches are what i am thinking of, but i am sure there are other examples)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on choice/ led. Maybe a topic for another thread. I see it as being convinced by (whatever), maybe because I have (despite what you may think) been forced to change my mind on some things.
Hmm I wonder why the wording is forced to change my mind rather than chose to change my mind.

granted possible other topic.
and possible you are using the term 'forced' as an excuse..
(to not take responsibility for your own choices)

 

[Dywyddyr]

If you make a statement "God exists!" or "God does not exist!" you should back them up with evidence.

I agree.
So: -

So, give an example of a "true revelation".

The Bible.

Back it up with evidence.

On the other hand if you say "I believe God exists!" or "I don't believe God exists!" then the statement is one of belief and not fact, requiring no further proof.

But so far you have made repeated claims of "fact" rather than belief and not yet backed up any of them.
I'll wait...

With regard to the post you quoted you'll note that the original claim was

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
There is evidence for God, you just don't accept it.

Followed later by a statement of belief. This is why I pointed out the supposed "evidence" was not, in fact, evidence.