The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm aware it's a week or so sooner than the monthly "Science vs Religion" yawnfest postfrenzy we have, but this article is worth a read.
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Especially if you're a stupid fundementalist
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html[/URL]
Page:
It depends what type of scientific or religious believer you are.Hardliners on both sides are never going to compremise whereas more liberal believers like me are willing to try and find common ground between science and religion.
Science can't be used to explain Creation ... a working theory on how God made man from dust, and woman from a bit of bone doesn't exist, because it would be wrong in all scientific light.
As I say, God is supposedly outside of time and space, so science cannot be used to explain anything he did, because science relies on the strict laws regarding time and space in order to be functional and provable.
As I say, God is supposedly outside of time and space, so science cannot be used to explain anything he did, because science relies on the strict laws regarding time and space in order to be functional and provable.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being,
> exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from
> a scientific view-point.
I think you're missing his point, and I disagree anyway. I think science and religion can be merged, and the idea of Creation is perhaps a good example. The Bible states he did it in 7 days and 7 nights (with a rest day), but when God created the World he did it outside the laws of space and time. Therefore, the book of Genesis is explaining how God created the World in terms we can understand.
We don't know how God created the World exactly, but I think to simply believe he created it in the first place is believing in Creationism. Why shouldn't science be used to help explain how God did it?
> Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being,
> exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from
> a scientific view-point.
I think you're missing his point, and I disagree anyway. I think science and religion can be merged, and the idea of Creation is perhaps a good example. The Bible states he did it in 7 days and 7 nights (with a rest day), but when God created the World he did it outside the laws of space and time. Therefore, the book of Genesis is explaining how God created the World in terms we can understand.
We don't know how God created the World exactly, but I think to simply believe he created it in the first place is believing in Creationism. Why shouldn't science be used to help explain how God did it?
The notion of God himself being Scientifically explainable is out of the question, as he is exempt from the rules. However, that does not mean that all of the various religious stories and points of view can't be justified or compared against some Science.
Religion and Science don't want to mix, to put it bluntly. It's like tying to meld a bar of soap to a Goats' head; possible but very hard and it's not going to happen. Scientists disregard all that religious believers say whilst religious believers refuse to acknowledge or even listen to anything that goes against their viewpoints on God and religion.
Religion and Science don't want to mix, to put it bluntly. It's like tying to meld a bar of soap to a Goats' head; possible but very hard and it's not going to happen. Scientists disregard all that religious believers say whilst religious believers refuse to acknowledge or even listen to anything that goes against their viewpoints on God and religion.
I didn't ask you to prove he existed, I asked you to use science combined with religion to explain something he supposedly did. Which is impossible, because it can't be scientifically explained.
Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being, exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from a scientific view-point.
Thus, the two do not merge - the entire notion of a supreme being, exempt from the laws of space and time, is completely impossible from a scientific view-point.
Maybe I explained myself craply.I believe God created everything and that that doesn't exclude science from being correct.I am not saying that you can prove the existence of God just that science and religion can co-exist.I don't claim to be able to prove the existence of God.
Scientifically explain how God created man, then.
But religion and science do mix.God created a world in which scientific principles brought about the world we have today.God created everything and the stories in the Bible are ment to mainly be lessons not fact.
Before I say this,I am religious and I have a lot of respect for all religious texts.The story of Noah's ark and others are meant to teach people like the story of the boy who cried wolf.You shouldn't be bad is what some of the stories in the Bible say like you shouldn't lie as people will stop believing you is taught by the boy who cried wolf.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE COMPATIBLE
Before I say this,I am religious and I have a lot of respect for all religious texts.The story of Noah's ark and others are meant to teach people like the story of the boy who cried wolf.You shouldn't be bad is what some of the stories in the Bible say like you shouldn't lie as people will stop believing you is taught by the boy who cried wolf.
RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE COMPATIBLE
tnc wrote:
> Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough
> detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the
> question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught
> about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly
> unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from
> single cells is possible.
Heh, that made me smile.
You really can't try to scientifically reason out everything in the Bible like that, because it simply won't work. God is supposedly all-powerful, outside of the retraints of time and space - if he wants to do something, he does it, even if it is physically impossible.
'Slightly unbelievable' doesn't come into Christianity ... you either believe it, because you believe God can do anything, or you try to explain it out in human terms and work yourself into an impossible knot.
Which is why science and religion don't mix ... all these people who try to try to reason out how all the animals would have fitted in the ark etc etc are really wasting their time, because they'll always have the backup "God did it" card, which instantly explains everything. And with the "God did it" card, you don't need to try and explain anything in the first place, unless you're trying to convert to sceptics to Christianity through scientific calculations, which is completly rediculous.
> Again, there's another thing that Creation doesn't explain in enough
> detial for me (as you said, the Bible skims over it) and that is the
> question of how God did actually create the world. I've been taught
> about how he created Adam from his rib, which is slightly
> unbelievable but (as Science has shown as) cloning and building from
> single cells is possible.
Heh, that made me smile.
You really can't try to scientifically reason out everything in the Bible like that, because it simply won't work. God is supposedly all-powerful, outside of the retraints of time and space - if he wants to do something, he does it, even if it is physically impossible.
'Slightly unbelievable' doesn't come into Christianity ... you either believe it, because you believe God can do anything, or you try to explain it out in human terms and work yourself into an impossible knot.
Which is why science and religion don't mix ... all these people who try to try to reason out how all the animals would have fitted in the ark etc etc are really wasting their time, because they'll always have the backup "God did it" card, which instantly explains everything. And with the "God did it" card, you don't need to try and explain anything in the first place, unless you're trying to convert to sceptics to Christianity through scientific calculations, which is completly rediculous.
In my belief you can't always take religious texts literally and I am myself a religious believer.The whole business of God creating the Garden of Eden,Adam and Eve should be taken as a story to teach people of how they should live and not as fact.I believe in evolution because unlike others I think that religion and science are compatible.Maybe Adam and Eve were the first actual humans through the process of evolution.
The Garden of Eden however I think was used to show humans that the should follow the path of God otherwise bad things would happen which is in my opinion Hell.God ,in my opinion,didn't create Adam from his 'ribs' because of the belief that God has no phsical form as that would limit his omnipotence and omnipresence.It is just used to show how God created humans with some of the same qualities to a lesser extent.
So I am basically saying that the Bible should not be taken literally in some cases.I believe that you should take the miracle stories literally because Jesus was one of the most holy prophets(I'm a Muslim).
On the topic of Creationism I believe that it's place in the RS classroom and not the scientific one.
'Tis all.
The Garden of Eden however I think was used to show humans that the should follow the path of God otherwise bad things would happen which is in my opinion Hell.God ,in my opinion,didn't create Adam from his 'ribs' because of the belief that God has no phsical form as that would limit his omnipotence and omnipresence.It is just used to show how God created humans with some of the same qualities to a lesser extent.
So I am basically saying that the Bible should not be taken literally in some cases.I believe that you should take the miracle stories literally because Jesus was one of the most holy prophets(I'm a Muslim).
On the topic of Creationism I believe that it's place in the RS classroom and not the scientific one.
'Tis all.
Page: