Science and God

Page 2 of 42<12345>Last »
May 27th, 2015 at 6:37:52 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4926
Quote: Nareed
(You're not looking widely around enough)


You're right. (I'm looking at you too atheists)
May 27th, 2015 at 6:43:41 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10241
Quote: FrGamble
You're right. (I'm looking at you too atheists)


(I have a mirror you can borrow any time.)
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
May 27th, 2015 at 6:43:59 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4926
Quote: Evenbob

If we have questions about the origins of
the universe, science has taught us to be
patient, keep working, we'll find the answer
eventually.


You can be patient until the cows come home but science will never find the answer to some of the biggest and most important questions about the origins of the universe. This is not a slight against science just a simple acknowledgement of its limitations. Before there was space, time, energy there is nothing to observe or test. To answer these questions we need other tools and thank God we have them in the fields of the arts, philosophy and theology.
May 27th, 2015 at 8:09:30 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10375
Quote: FrGamble
science will never find the answer to some of the biggest and most important questions about the origins of the universe.


Sure it will, nothing is a secret. For most of
our history nature was was referred to as
secretive. Natures secrets, nature won't
give up its secrets. What have we discovered
about nature in the last hundred years,
just about everything. The planet doubles
it's knowledge every couple of years now.

Religion loves secrets and abhors facts. One
of the recent popes even said awhile back
that we shouldn't look into the origin of
the universe.

'The Pope (Paul II) told the physicists they should not inquire into the Big Bang itself because that was “the work of God.” Stephen W. Hawking, in his A Brief History of Time, reported that he was among those physicists whom the Pope privately addressed. He wrote:
"I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference—the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation."

The Church loves science as long as it
supports their beliefs. When it doesn't
we're just supposed to stay away, that's
the 'work of god'.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 28th, 2015 at 6:23:05 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10241
Quote: FrGamble
You can be patient until the cows come home but science will never find the answer to some of the biggest and most important questions about the origins of the universe.


This is one possibility.

On the other hand, religion has yet to find any actual answers to anything, besides the riddles it makes up itself.

Quote:
To answer these questions we need other tools and thank God we have them in the fields of the arts, philosophy and theology.


Or Ouija boards, tarot cards, horoscopes and tea leaves (leafs??).

Arts and philosophy have their place and their uses, but divining the origins of the universe isn't one of them. Theology is as useful in this endeavor as a screen door in a submarine.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
May 28th, 2015 at 6:49:45 AM permalink
Mosca
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 16
Posts: 385
Quote: FrGamble
Because the stakes are higher with God. Science is observing and understanding the physical world around us. When you start talking philosophy or religion you are extending your reason beyond the limits of the physical world. Science is the sure foundation or the launching pad from which reason can blast off into the unknown. If your philosophy or religion is not supported by science (I'm looking at you Mormons) then you're foundation is off kilter and you might blast off in the wrong direction.


As an explanation of my question, that doesn't make any sense. In the first part of your answer you specifically posit that philosophy and religion are beyond the limits of science, and in the second part of your answer you state that they must be within the limits of science, or else be invalid.

You're better off stating that none of it matters and that you believe what you believe. Christianity is no more valid than Mormonism to me. It's based on miracles. Miracles are not explainable by science. Therefore they cannot be an on-kilter foundation from which to blast off in the right direction.
May 28th, 2015 at 6:50:59 AM permalink
Mosca
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 16
Posts: 385
Quote: Nareed


Or Ouija boards, tarot cards, horoscopes and tea leaves (leafs??).



You were right, "leaves".
May 28th, 2015 at 6:58:32 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 306
Posts: 10241
Quote: Mosca
You were right, "leaves".


Thanks.

I got a case of "this doesn't look right, but neither does the alternative."
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
May 28th, 2015 at 11:28:34 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10375
Quote: Mosca

You're better off stating that none of it matters and that you believe what you believe. .


Yes! That's what Christians used to say 50
years ago, before they got all hung up in
science. I can understand that, a person
believing something for a religion, I actually
respect it. But when they start mocking actual
science, and declaring their beliefs have a
rock solid basis in science, they have to be
challenged.

They had it way too good for way too long.
Their beliefs went unchallenged by science
for a thousand years. They want those times
back..
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 28th, 2015 at 8:03:43 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 44
Posts: 4926
Quote: Mosca
As an explanation of my question, that doesn't make any sense. In the first part of your answer you specifically posit that philosophy and religion are beyond the limits of science, and in the second part of your answer you state that they must be within the limits of science, or else be invalid.


What I was trying to say is that science is important to theology like the foundation of a tower reaching to the heavens is important.
Page 2 of 42<12345>Last »