• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Science vs. Religion Cannot Be Discusses (Argued)

HonestJoe said:
They're not two sides. They're not in competition. They have nothing they need to agree on. Neither has anything to agree on within itself. Referring to religion vs science (or anything similar) is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the assumption of polarization or of competition either. Why would scientific fact be opposed to faith?
 
rhinefire said:
The first obvious reason is of course the two sides will never agree. But that aside Neil de Grasse Tyson said something on the Daily Show that struck me. He said "history" is a written story of man by man. This to me cannot be questioned. Science is as Carl Sagan put it "all that was, is and will ever be". This means science goes way back long before man encompassing everything. Now trying to sidestep the age of the universe issue (6,800 yrs. versus 13.8 billion) one can easily separate the two like night and day. Science can be studied in a totally different way than history including avoiding man all together. I think where things start to go "wrong" (for lack of a better word) is when history is entered in to science. It is at that single, isolated point where arguments begin. If man blows himself up or when the Sun expands and engulfs the Earth as it will then all traces of man with all it's history will be gone but science will live on.
Now I am aware of issues or points here that are subject to religious counter points but since there have been so many religious beliefs throughout "history" which one should be chosen to use for a counterpoint? Keep in mind few ,if any of the religions are based on science to argue against "science". Bottom line; we have heard every discussion, debate and argument and none of them have changed on e thing on either side. I hand it to science because science will never claim it knows until it is proven so we have scientists saying there indeed may be a single creator.............we simply do not know........................yet.
Click to expand...

I also think that the religious do not understand proof or evidence well enough. To them anecdotal evidence alone suffices. For instance Jesus' brother, wife, father, dog, all "saw" him resurrected. That they saw and reported it is anecdotal and is not enough to be considered as evidence. Until there is solid evidence that Jesus was resurrected there is no need to believe that he actually did.

For instance there is the science of archeology behind history. There is not just anecdotal evidence but there are various written statements, castles, clothing, weapons, that can be carbon detected to be of a certain time and thus serve as evidence that a civilization existed at the time. It is not just here say!
 
nota bene said:
I don't understand the assumption of polarization or of competition either. Why would scientific fact be opposed to faith?
Click to expand...

The more there is evidence the more scientists (and other logical people should) give belief/have faith on various statements. If there are none and just rumors well then the statement is as good as a fairy tale.
 
rhinefire said:
The first obvious reason is of course the two sides will never agree. But that aside Neil de Grasse Tyson said something on the Daily Show that struck me. He said "history" is a written story of man by man. This to me cannot be questioned. Science is as Carl Sagan put it "all that was, is and will ever be". This means science goes way back long before man encompassing everything. Now trying to sidestep the age of the universe issue (6,800 yrs. versus 13.8 billion) one can easily separate the two like night and day. Science can be studied in a totally different way than history including avoiding man all together. I think where things start to go "wrong" (for lack of a better word) is when history is entered in to science. It is at that single, isolated point where arguments begin. If man blows himself up or when the Sun expands and engulfs the Earth as it will then all traces of man with all it's history will be gone but science will live on.
Now I am aware of issues or points here that are subject to religious counter points but since there have been so many religious beliefs throughout "history" which one should be chosen to use for a counterpoint? Keep in mind few ,if any of the religions are based on science to argue against "science". Bottom line; we have heard every discussion, debate and argument and none of them have changed on e thing on either side. I hand it to science because science will never claim it knows until it is proven so we have scientists saying there indeed may be a single creator.............we simply do not know........................yet.
Click to expand...

Apologies first, as I don't have time to read and catch up on this entire threat. So if this repeats others' thoughts, ...
This is a pretty interesting thought. From a Christian perspective, science would be subject to God, not the other way around. So while you can prove things scientifically, all the laws we have discovered that operate in the physical world we know are but temporary controls in a temporary physical world.
One very good illustration of this is at the White Throne judgement: "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

Can you prove God scientifically? Eh, it seems a very difficult thing, since it must be repeatable. For instance, how do you repeat this:

"When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh no, my lord! What shall we do?” the servant asked.
“Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”
And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha."

I appreciate you posing this question RhineFire. You've made me look at this a new way. Science is mans study of the laws that govern our physical world. But God is beyond this. God is spirit, as Christ said: "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
Science can't touch this realm. At least not as we understand it today. To place one's sole understanding of our existence on science then seems to be somewhat short sighted. The one thing you can observe about the spiritual world scientifically is that there are a multitude of people who believe in it, and throughout history there have been a multitude who bear witness to spiritual encounters or spiritual experiences that seem to defy what we know scientifically about our world. These are facts, the witness part. The actual encounters are testimonies to something unrepeatable on demand. So in this area we are stuck with faith. Which isn't a bad thing necessarily. It's just not tangible like a rock or the sun. But if we have a spirit inside us it testifies about God, for those who will listen.

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
 
DDD said:
I also think that the religious do not understand proof or evidence well enough. To them anecdotal evidence alone suffices. For instance Jesus' brother, wife, father, dog, all "saw" him resurrected. That they saw and reported it is anecdotal and is not enough to be considered as evidence. Until there is solid evidence that Jesus was resurrected there is no need to believe that he actually did.

For instance there is the science of archeology behind history. There is not just anecdotal evidence but there are various written statements, castles, clothing, weapons, that can be carbon detected to be of a certain time and thus serve as evidence that a civilization existed at the time. It is not just here say!
Click to expand...


DDD said:
The more there is evidence the more scientists (and other logical people should) give belief/have faith on various statements. If there are none and just rumors well then the statement is as good as a fairy tale.
Click to expand...

I think I answered this in my prior post, but one added thought: A fairy tale we know for certain is a fairy tale, a made up story. The story of Christ / God was not posed as a made up story. Men have decided it was a made up story, .... or not. There is a difference, and these two shouldn't be conflated or confused with each other.
Dismiss God, or don't. But don't confuse the Spiritual with the scientifically observable. If God does exist in a spiritual realm we can't lay hold of with science, then you err greatly to dismiss it so easily, based only on what you can observe with science.
 
RiverDad said:
And this is the leap of faith which religious people make. Once that leap has been completed, then they can argue quite well for their position.
Click to expand...

Is it not also a leap of faith to assume that God does not exist? We have two camps, each leaping in different directions in fiath. One says "I can't prove God based on my understanding of my world (subjective), therefore he does not exist." The other says "I can't prove God, but I believe he exists based on my understanding of my world (subjective)"

I think one would be hard pressed to say there is any difference in the quality of either of the decisions being made. Science denies the spiritual for lack of proofs. Spiritual says that science is a of a temporary paradigm, a created nature.
 
DDD said:
I also think that the religious do not understand proof or evidence well enough. To them anecdotal evidence alone suffices. For instance Jesus' brother, wife, father, dog, all "saw" him resurrected. That they saw and reported it is anecdotal and is not enough to be considered as evidence. Until there is solid evidence that Jesus was resurrected there is no need to believe that he actually did.

For instance there is the science of archeology behind history. There is not just anecdotal evidence but there are various written statements, castles, clothing, weapons, that can be carbon detected to be of a certain time and thus serve as evidence that a civilization existed at the time. It is not just here say!
Click to expand...

If they saw it and reported it, and that is reported by various independant Sources, and the archeology of a fast growing movement based on the ressurection shows it was extremely early.

That's evidence.

Just as much as you'd expect from that time period and area.

The fact is you wouldn't Accept any evidence for the ressurection.
 
Cable said:
I think I answered this in my prior post, but one added thought: A fairy tale we know for certain is a fairy tale, a made up story. The story of Christ / God was not posed as a made up story. Men have decided it was a made up story, .... or not. There is a difference, and these two shouldn't be conflated or confused with each other.
Dismiss God, or don't. But don't confuse the Spiritual with the scientifically observable. If God does exist in a spiritual realm we can't lay hold of with science, then you err greatly to dismiss it so easily, based only on what you can observe with science.
Click to expand...

Also if God does not exist anywhere then you err by wasting time with beliefs that have no evidence.
 
RGacky3 said:
If they saw it and reported it, and that is reported by various independant Sources, and the archeology of a fast growing movement based on the ressurection shows it was extremely early.

That's evidence.

Just as much as you'd expect from that time period and area.

The fact is you wouldn't Accept any evidence for the ressurection.
Click to expand...

No their statements are just anecdotal and thus do not hold. There are many archeological evidence that go even further than the time of Christ. Why do they exist and evidence to show resurrection of Christ do not?

Further, I have told you what qualifies as evidence. A significant person should be resurrected from God today also in order for this process to be revealed, measured, and hopefully reproduced scientifically for the bettering of humankind. I for one do not see anything special in Christ for him to be resurrected and other more important people to not be resurrected at all.
 
DDD said:
No their statements are just anecdotal and thus do not hold. There are many archeological evidence that go even further than the time of Christ. Why do they exist and evidence to show resurrection of Christ do not?

Further, I have told you what qualifies as evidence. A significant person should be resurrected from God today also in order for this process to be revealed, measured, and hopefully reproduced scientifically for the bettering of humankind. I for one do not see anything special in Christ for him to be resurrected and other more important people to not be resurrected at all.
Click to expand...

You can't show archeological evidence that someone rose from the dead, Accept for empty tomb, and at the time those opposing the Jesus movement acknowledged the tomb was empty (claiming the disciples stole it).

So do you consider ALL historical writings to be "just anecdotal" Or just ones that religions you don't like hold sacred?

What made Christ special was that he was Gods messiah ... I don't know why God needs to ressurect someone YOU find special.
 
DDD said:
No their statements are just anecdotal and thus do not hold. There are many archeological evidence that go even further than the time of Christ. Why do they exist and evidence to show resurrection of Christ do not?

Further, I have told you what qualifies as evidence. A significant person should be resurrected from God today also in order for this process to be revealed, measured, and hopefully reproduced scientifically for the bettering of humankind. I for one do not see anything special in Christ for him to be resurrected and other more important people to not be resurrected at all.
Click to expand...

Christ testified to a spiritual realm that your science cannot measure. Your faith is that what your science can measure is all that there is. My faith is that Christ was right and there is more than the physical world your science can measure.
 
RGacky3 said:
You can't show archeological evidence that someone rose from the dead, Accept for empty tomb, and at the time those opposing the Jesus movement acknowledged the tomb was empty (claiming the disciples stole it).
Click to expand...

There can be many alternative explanations to a tomb being empty. Just on top of my head are: Christ never died, they did not bury him but someone else, the tomb was later dug out from Romans which use to happen to major figures at the time, etc.

RGacky3 said:
So do you consider ALL historical writings to be "just anecdotal" Or just ones that religions you don't like hold sacred?
Click to expand...

Now all historical events rely on anecdotal evidence.

RGacky3 said:
What made Christ special was that he was Gods messiah ... I don't know why God needs to ressurect someone YOU find special.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of God, much less of a relationship between a divine and a chosen few. The ones that claim so (due to lack of this evidence) are spreading fairy tales.
 
Cable said:
Christ testified to a spiritual realm that your science cannot measure. Your faith is that what your science can measure is all that there is. My faith is that Christ was right and there is more than the physical world your science can measure.
Click to expand...

Fairy tales are also not measurable. But hey, believe what you want!
 
Cable said:
I noticed you said "if"
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. Powers that be are sensitive to me using originally intended meanings. If we were at a more neutral grounds I would have expressed more freely without concerns that it may be considered as flaming in these specific areas in DP.
 
DDD said:
There can be many alternative explanations to a tomb being empty. Just on top of my head are: Christ never died, they did not bury him but someone else, the tomb was later dug out from Romans which use to happen to major figures at the time, etc.
Click to expand...

So they Crucified him, but he didn't die ... what happened to him. Also if they buried someone else, where was that guys body? If the Romans dug him out, why did'nt they ever bring that up when christianity was growing?

Now all historical events rely on anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

All historican writings ARE anectodal evidence ... It's a dude writing what happened, usually just one Source far from the event, for Jesus and early christianity though we have many Sources Close to the event

There is no evidence of God, much less of a relationship between a divine and a chosen few. The ones that claim so (due to lack of this evidence) are spreading fairy tales.
Click to expand...

The question was what eviedence of the ressurection you would Accept.
 
DDD said:
Fairy tales are also not measurable. But hey, believe what you want!
Click to expand...

As noted before, fairy tales are intentional and known fabrications from the get-go, and accepted as such by both author and reader alike. The authors of the Bible claimed their accounts were factual and true, and many gave their lives to that effect. There is quite a difference between the two types of written accounts.

Why do you think you are so invested in the Bible or the story of Christ being dismissed as a fairytale when all factual evidence to the contrary exists?
It would seem you are out to deceive, or possibly, that you are just ignorant of the difference between the two.
Can you clarify this for us?
 
DDD said:
Yes, thank you. Powers that be are sensitive to me using originally intended meanings. If we were at a more neutral grounds I would have expressed more freely without concerns that it may be considered as flaming in these specific areas in DP.
Click to expand...

Just make your factual statements. You are a man of science, no?
 
DDD said:
There can be many alternative explanations to a tomb being empty. Just on top of my head are: Christ never died, they did not bury him but someone else, the tomb was later dug out from Romans which use to happen to major figures at the time, etc.
Now all historical events rely on anecdotal evidence.
There is no evidence of God, much less of a relationship between a divine and a chosen few. The ones that claim so (due to lack of this evidence) are spreading fairy tales.
Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself. You say there is anecdotal evidence, then say there is no evidence of God. It can't be both.
 
phattonez said:
Again, that is not the problem with Galileo. The problem with Galileo was that he pushed and taught his theory as fact when he didn't have enough evidence and that he was defiant toward the clergy.

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers

The Galileo claim is a canard.
Click to expand...

Your claim is absolutely false. He was first told that he's only allowed to study his theory if he does not claim that it is true at all, and then later on when he presented the evidence for it, which he detected with his telescope, that was when he got house imprisonment. That's why you are wrong. The church was mad that he was presenting evidence for something that they didn't agree with.
 
DDD said:
There is no evidence of God
Click to expand...

Science has limitations and each of us can gain knowledge in other ways that are outside the boundaries of science. Science doesn't even address the supernatural, so how can we expect science to provide evidence of God?

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
The problem with the leap of faith is that, once science does answer the question, then religion is left with a belief that has been shown to be false.
Click to expand...

I think you can test the most important religious teachings by living them, by acting on that leap of faith. Giving service, loving your neighbor as yourself, praying, fasting, repenting, etc. All these things can be tested to see how they affect us individually. The joy and happiness I obtain when living by Christ’s teachings is enough evidence for me to know they are truth to me.

It doesn't matter whether all the events described in the Bible actually occurred, whether they are allegorical, metaphorical, or based on actual events. What matters as evidence for me is the result from trying to apply the important teachings within.
 
Enginerdy said:
I think you can test the most important religious teachings by living them, by acting on that leap of faith. Giving service, loving your neighbor as yourself, praying, fasting, repenting, etc. All these things can be tested to see how they affect us individually. The joy and happiness I obtain when living by Christ’s teachings is enough evidence for me to know they are truth to me.

It doesn't matter whether all the events described in the Bible actually occurred, whether they are allegorical, metaphorical, or based on actual events. What matters as evidence for me is the result from trying to apply the important teachings within.
Click to expand...

And what you describe as living the teachings of Jesus is one thing that science will never disprove. We know that many of the events in the Bible are allegorical and never really happened, but the route to happiness really does work and can be proven to work.
 
RiverDad said:
Sorry, all five arguments do not present incontestable proof. We still require a leap of faith.
Click to expand...

Please tell me what you find unconvincing about the arguments.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the cause is unexplained, how do you know it's god?
Click to expand...

Because that is the definition of God: the uncaused cause. He's not some old dude with a long white beard. The truth is far more complex than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom