OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

astro you've been selective yourself, the preceding and antecedent words [which you missed out] are crucial to understanding that piece of text -


" .. the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord,"

as Dave said discuss it if you want but don't post a misleading quote as if it explains your point.

 

My opinion that Christians have promoted the idea of Hell doesn't require Bible verses to back it up, it is a historical fact

 

cringing...

 

genius astro.

 

Your experience appears to have given you a misrepresented view of science. A scientist mouthing off about God, doesn't mean he's being scientific! Just like a man proclaiming to be faithful doesn't mean he's virtuous.

If God (whichever one you believe in) exists, science will either discover him or they won't and if they don't faith will be required for those that believe he does. If Science proves he does exist then faith will no longer be required. If they prove beyond doubt at some point in time that he doesn't then the believers of that era can either accept it or live in denial. But all are still possibilities under science. That's not limited at all! The answer "God" is simply one answer to the question is this all there is? Obviously to you, it's the only answer, you've chosen through your faith to limit your choices...doesn't mean you chose wrong.

People misusing or misunderstanding science to attack religion and science being misunderstood by some religious folks as the enemy is the problem here.

You looked at the "prove it" as almost an accusation against religion, and that's understandable given experience (even on this thread) but wouldnt it be just as scientific as you alluded to, to say "prove God doesn't exist" and apply the same rules that science insists on? The same arguments thrown at you are thrown back. Science isn't refuting God or denying his existence, it's merely saying that without evidence both are merely theories. You call it faith, they call it theory both are true to the individual.

I think however you are mistaken on the scientific approach limiting investigations. The opposite is true. Science is simply an application to study any question raised by the human mind, which is limitless. The strive for proof or difficulties obtaining it doesn't stop the question being asked merely that under science , until the evidence is gained it remains only possible, probable or improbable not an absolute truth.

If it truly required absolute proof , then string theory wouldn't exist. Physiicists would have stopped at this is gas, this solid this liquid and we'd all still be living in caves.

Science merely insists on discipline and equal treatment of any theory. I mean I can come up with the idea that I can walk on water but never try it and insist scientists prove me wrong...until I personally attempt it they can only prove that it would be highly improbable. And that's that.

If however I ask the question and apply scientific methodology I will try and sink. That leads to the question why did I sink and then, how do I avoid sinking....thinking in absolutes or unilaterally would be to say "it's the law that I must sink and questioning why will lead to my damnation" for example or IT IS AGAINST X LAW TO GO INTO WATER! Again, if we'd obeyed instructions like that popped up through religious institutions (note my use of "institutions" before reacting) over human history we'd still be in that cave. That's not a go at Christianity it applies just as much to pre Christian ideas of earthquakes being x God's punishment,. woman being dirty during menstruation etc etc..

So science shouldn't intrude on a person's faith unless that person asks a scientist the question "does God exist" or actively tries to convert a scientist.

But neither should religion intrude on science. Telling scientists "this is fact, don't question it" is just as bad as saying you can't believe in God.

Which is why never the two should meet in an ideal world. The scientist can have faith inside but he can then not work scientifically on the question "is there a God?" He can work away on why does this table stay up though!

Just as a person who holds scientific principals above all else can't advocate belief in God.

Most people are not on either end of that spectrum and in real life can accommodate both without difficulty.

 

Historically, you're right about that, but ..... it looked like you did require Bible verses [albeit wrongly] or why use one?

 

Well, obviously, the scientific proof isn't there for 'everything' - we are still in the infancy of scientific progress. You'll have to infer a bit, extrapolate, imagine progress thousands of years from now from the solid footing we have gained in the last 5 centuries...

If you do THAT, you will be rewarded with a solid confident outlook that god is not needed for the universe to roll on, especially the clearly manufactured and intrusive gods of the religions.

As regards good and evil, that is certainly an oversimplification in man judging another man's actions - Evil simply being what was threatening to the commune's survival, bearing no upside.

 

I don't think I have a misrepresented view of science at all and I'm not sure why you say that.

"A scientist mouthing off about God, doesn't mean he's being scientific! Just like a man proclaiming to be faithful doesn't mean he's virtuous." - goes without saying surely?

"If Science proves he does exist then faith will no longer be required." - that's just silly. Why can't you have faith in something that's proven to physically exist?

"Obviously to you, it's the only answer,you've chosen through your faith to limit your choices...doesn't mean you chose wrong. " - that's a very arrogant assumption.

Why does science get to call the rules?

"So science shouldn't intrude on a person's faith" - which I've said repeatedly, as it simply doesn't intrude on mine and also why there are many deeply religious scientists, which just wouldn't happen if science was in any way a threat to individual faith - it isn't a threat.

What is religion telling scientists not to question? Did you see my quotes earlier about the Vatican scientists? Men with serious standing in the science world and also deeply religious. They are continuing their research which appears to be suggesting having evidence of extraterrestrials, this would seem evidence to the contrary for your statement - "a person who holds scientific principals above all else can't advocate belief in God."

 

Mainly for the lols

 

Now do you get more lols out of Moyes interviews with the press or Jesus's with the apostles?

 

So come up with a theory? Then attempt to test it. But as you state having a theory beyond your means to test it doesn't mean it's automatically incorrect does it? Even from your point of view the various religions are just each answers forwarded to the same question, some more probable or improbable than others but for you to be scientific, unless you can categorically prove one is correct or all the others incorrect, the most you can say is your theory is more probable than theirs. To say theirs are simply incorrect is unscientific.

And other than that one specific assumption if religious people allow all other questions to be asked and tested scientifically then in what way are they limiting their lives? As you would use against them, religions like science have evolved since their individual inceptions...as long as that evolution doesn't limit the rest of us what is the issue?

Your insistence on what they should believe is based on our as you rightly stated very young and imperfect understanding of this universe. You could be basing it on beliefs that turn out to be as false or incomplete as theirs?

It's the insistence of conformity that you seem to both reject in religion but insist on with what you believe.

Science is an open but disciplined mind.

 

Well it is easy to laugh at stuff you don't understand I suppose.

 

Frank, even with science in its infancy, its already SOLID footing (cast in maths, 100% empirical congruence, interlinking physical laws, etc) makes me confident and content in the answers I get. I fail to see how one should need to include god in these answers in order to make them more logical.

It is the opposite actually - once one includes god in their answer, logic has already flown outta window fast. Therefore it is impossible for someone of faith to elucidate their answers without getting mired further into illogical fantasy. And that is why people of faith in here are so shy and slanted in their posts.

 

This is something that interests me and I've spoken to several Christians about. The whole "if you don't think Jesus died on the cross for your sins your going to hell" stuff, what do you take it to actually mean?

As you clearly don't think it has a literal meaning? Or is it just a commonly misquoted piece of the bible?

 

Re: Christmas

The people who celebrate Christmas and aren't Christian are not hypocrites. I assume this was said tongue in cheek?

 

****Fundamentally?they are saying you can't question an existence where a God exists and is the creator. Other than that "religion" is not generic. So you may be enlightened, others calling themselves religious think Satan lives in all scientists. By your own arguments why are they wrong in their belief but you are right?

Your last sentence just can not ever be correct JB. A person with faith (either your definition and mine) in the existence in God could never approach the question does God exist scientifically. You can't explore a question scientifically you accept only one answer to. No more than I can test your faith on litmus paper.

They can explore all the other realms of science without that contraction just not that one narrow question.

 

I hate christmas, its ****!

 

i bet you ruddy love xmas roast dinner though lol

 

Ah, you guys all know my soft spot too well...

My Christmas dinner is always cooked to absolute perfection too

 

Frank - "Obviously to you, it's the only answer," - is wrong. [I didn't feel I was being attacked and I wasn't being defensive with my reply btw. it is arrogant to assume the other persons view without seeking a full explanation from them]

How can you possibly know that I've selected 'just one answer' - actually I'm not even sure anymore what the question is that I only have one answer for

I'm getting confused all round tbh - with not knowing if you are addressing me personally with these issues or believers in general because you go between 'you' and 'some'.

Just to be clear I'm speaking on my own behalf and not as a representative [unless specifically asked - and answered] - on my Church. Therefore, I don't propose I am right and anyone else is wrong - it's all personal opinion.

Your last paragraph - you can't say with any certainty that a person who believes in a God won't change their mind at some point in the future, either 'if' evidence is provided to prove non-existence, or just on a personal disavowal.