Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[nichomach]

No you haven't. The single paragraph about Jesus in Josephus work (he writes more about John The Baptist!) is widely accepted to be forged, both by Christian and non-Christian scholors.

Incorrect; noted and cited, obit.

[kalniel]

The purpose of science is to define the natural laws which govern the world around us.

And thus by your own arguement it is beyond it's remit to try and use science to define anything outside of the world/universe around us.

Science does tackle a lot, but there's a lot it doesn't tackle, quite rightly. Spiritualism is one of them, philosophy is another, as is ethics.

[Bazzlad]

Mate, Science can't even prove it's own theories. Scientists spend time arguing and making theories with absolutely no proof.

Am I right in thinking Gravity is unproven?

[Kezzer]

Am I right in thinking Gravity is unproven?

They recently discovered something to do with gravity not being as they thought it was. It was in an NS article I read recently.

[Sinizter]

They recently discovered something to do with gravity not being as they thought it was. It was in an NS article I read recently.

Was it something new and not just the discussion about dark matter ?

[Sinizter]

Gravity linky -> http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_041018.html

[kalniel]

Mate, Science can't even prove it's own theories. Scientists spend time arguing and making theories with absolutely no proof.

Not really - science works by paradigms (if you go by the Kuhn way of describing things rather than Popper). We empirially collect evidence from the world around us, we then fit a paradigm to that evidence and hopefully use that paradigm to extend our knowledge and help us determine new evidence. Eventually we find things that go against that paradigm, and as this happens more and more we have to come up with a new paradigm that explains the new. Each paradigm properly proves the evidence that it was defined to fit.

It has never been the role of science to explain that which we've not come across yet, save only for extension of our existing paradigms.

[Lee H]

I was doing an order at work and the following, but very relevant message came up on the waiting screen

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

How very true

[kalniel]

Reformation? Women priests? Gay priests?

[nichomach]

Unfortunately, Lee, that's probably a result of Sagan not engaging in theological debate very much; people of faith are unlikely to engage with the "science is everything and nothing is true that cannot be scientifically proven" viewpoint, simply because, as kalniel eloquently states above, they are two completely different frames of reference. That said, there is a lot of debate within and between faith communities concerning doctrine, scriptural interpretation, morality etc., and positions do change. I suspect that Sagan's quote had more to do with the disinclination of people of faith to change their position to agree with him.

[TeePee]

Looks like you've misunderstood the scientific viewpoint there, there are many things without scientific explanations, let alone proof.

It could be better described as 'Everything has an explanation, even if we can never know what it is'.

I wouldn't say that using the supernatural as an explanation was a different frame of reference. I'd say it was ignorant.

[kalniel]

I wouldn't say that using the supernatural as an explanation was a different frame of reference. I'd say it was ignorant.

No-one is trying to use the 'supernatural' to explain things of science though, that's the point. Whether doing so would be ignorant or stupid it doesn't really matter to me, it's just wrong

[nichomach]

Looks like you've misunderstood the scientific viewpoint there, there are many things without scientific explanations, let alone proof.

Yet you demand scientific proof of the existence of God; and absent that, declare with utter certainty that He doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say that using the supernatural as an explanation was a different frame of reference. I'd say it was ignorant.

Because you don't believe in the supernatural, since it is at odds with the idea that everything is either capable of scientific proof or untrue.

[TeePee]

In that case, you can believe whatever you like!

But 'things of science', means everything which occurs in the universe, including it's 'creation'. Any observable or detectable phenomena.

Outside of that, have at it, and good luck.


('luck', btw, subject to scientific test )

[fuddam]

You cant convince most religious people the god does not exist. People 'want' to believe in god and thus delude themselves. Proof, knowledge and ultimate truth pay no part in their thought process.

arrogant and presumptious

most religious people's knowledge of religion comes solely from the teaching of a completely contrived book, thats been manipulated, changed and re-written for various reasons for hundreds of years, and is full of blatant lies and contradictions.

fallacious & ignorant

And quite frankly, if the new testament, and especially the old testament are to be believed - i would have nothing to do with god even if i believed in him. He is a selfish and sadistic lunatic. And he gave up on us long ago, so quit sucking up to him.

selfish? dying for his creation is selfish? doing so for love is selfish? absolving his creation of all pride / wrong doing free of charge is selfish? Free forgiveness is sadistic?

Surely then your life must offer a better example right? Yep, I thought not.

Oh, and here is a question for the Christians here - if you were born in a Muslim country, brought up by a Muslim family and never read the bible or left that country- can you honestly say hand on heart that you would have become a Christian within that setting?

I know MANY Christians from a strict muslim background. My professional occupation revolves around Iranian converts, from the strictest muslim country in the world. You have no knowledge of what you refer to.

If you have not read it, read the God delusion by Richard Dawkins. The man is a genius.

to the ignorant, yes he is. your faith in his assertions is as blind as ever.

[Bazzlad]

[Devils advocate]
Ok Teepee Mc Scientist answer me this:

1) In the beginning there was nothing.
There had to be nothing, things can't just appear.

2) There was a big bang.
Made of what?

What was there in the beginning, if there was nothing?

Go on Mr Scientist.

My belief states that God is infinite, and thus explains this.

How does your lack of God define this?

[/Devils advocate]