Mor(m)ons

[comic boy]

Belief in ' God ' is illogical but so are many other things that people do , belief in itself is harmless though , it's imposing belief on others that causes problems.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes.. and no. God absolutely created at least most of the universe (even that point is debated amonst Christians.. some say there might be other universes outside of God, but its not my belief, so I will leave it at that). HOWEVER, the "actively participated" bit is the part that gets misunderstood/twisted by non Christians, in addition to being debated by Christians. I do not believe in a God like you have described above, one who acts essentially like a puppet master (or mostly like one). I believe, for example, to create species he might subtlely tweak the genes so that things move in a direction he desires. He certainly could have just plopped everything down, but did not. I can (have in fact) get into why that might be the case elsewhere, but it tends to be a long and bogged down discussion, so I will leave that part of it out for now.

Occasionally, God does intervene more directly. However, even then, most Christians would say he does so using the processes already existing within the world. He created the world the way it is for good reason, after all. Why would he have to go outside of that? Just as an example, there are possible clear scientific explanations for each of the plagues brought by Moses to Egypt. Even so, for them to have come at that particular time, etc... was a miracle.

How is "subtlely tweaking genes so that things move in a direction he desires" different from "divine intervention in the universe by defying natural law"? The only difference is the degree of subtlety, in fact I never stated how obvious or subtle a God has to be to be considered divinely intervening. You completely brought that up on your own. In the end, "tweaking genes so that things move in a direction he desires" is still defying natural law in order to serve some sort of purpose for that god, no matter how subtle it is.

No, what you call "natural law" IS the "tweaking" to which I referred. God set up the entire system. Your requirement that God go outside of the processes God created is ridiculous and not what many Christians believe. (some certainly do, but not most in mainline churches) Besides that, there is a lot more going on in evolution than just natural selection. A lot would be most readily described as "random" (not mathematical randomness, but an assortment of causes that we cannot predict or calculate or necessarily even understand at this point) or simply "unknown" . There is plenty of room for even your definition of Godly intervention.

And again, things happening when there is little probability for them happening does not make it a "miracle"

Why not? As a matter of fact, many things we now would explain very much were considered miracles in the past. That we can explain them does not make them less wonderous. Per the Christian theology part, that it happens at a specific time is enough to make it important. Also, not everything has been so explained, even today.

(in this case, "miracle" meaning divine intervention) if it can be explained in natural terms

That is just your personnal definition. Like I said, you have set up artificial requirements. Its like you are saying "I got this childhood idea of what God should be and that proved false, so everyone who believes in God must be childish".

[ Did the evolution from primordial ooze to homo sapiens happen due to divine intervention or natural selection? The answer isn't both, because natural selection describes a specific process which cannot happen if there is divine intervention to even a 1 * 10^-googolplex% degree, as I've shown above.

You are, again, using a very narrow and plain false definition of what divine intervention "must mean". Beyond that, your equation is just wrong. The REAL answer is no one knows, not there there is a xyz certainty. In fact, what IS certain is that natural selection, alone absolutely did not create evolution. It took a whole bunch of "random" events, along with natural selection. Further, even natural selection in its purest form is somewhat random, because we don't yet have any mechanism for why specific mutations happen at specific times. There is nothing to say that natural selection isn't steared by God. As I said before, God created the universe and all its systems.. why would he have to go outside that system? Why would he?

I would say that the Bible (I don't talk about other texts, as a rule) gives people rules to live buy, guidance where there are no set rules and examples of how God operates. Saying it gives examples of how God actively participates in the universe is only true if you take what I said above into account. As a key point, I certainly believe that Genesis is true, but I don't believe it means that God created the Earth and all the animals, etc within 6 of our 24 hour periods. Nor do I believe in any way, shape or form that Genesis excludes evolution. I believe it explains evolution in a way that was understandable to a very unscientific people without even a grasp of numbers like 1,000,000... never mind a round Earth, tectonic plates, etc, etc, etc.

So you can say that Genesis is a primitve way to explain the events that happened by people who did not have the information we have today. They could not explain natural selection, tectonic plates, plagues, etc. so they attributed them to divine intervention.

Not quite. I say that God chose not to explain in a more complete fashion(he absolutely could have infused their brains with an entire modern physics and biology text should he have wished, but he did not wish to do it that way). My guess as to why is that we needed to reach the point of learning on our own.

Now that we know these how natural selection, tectonic plates, and plagues work, we cannot really attribute them to divine intervention because that would require them to have happen supernaturally, which we know they do not since that is the definiton of natural law.

[/quote] I see, so, again, it comes down to "I think God is supposed to be some big puppet master, and I have proven that is not happening here, so therefore I prove there is no God". Except.. both assumptions, the assumption that God "must be" a puppet master as you describe, that God must somehow operate outside of what you describe as "natural systems" and the assumption that we actually know as much about the world as you think.. are both incorrect.

As I said from the beginning. Your basic argument, that God has to operate outside of natural systems or its just not God, is fundamentally false.

[GreecePwns]

In the future, if we can explain everything naturally, and God is making sure everything is happening naturally, how exactly is God intervening? An intervention is a disruption of what is going on. If God's intervention does nothing to alter things happening naturally, what exactly is the intervention doing? Why would God even intervene in such a way? You say, "to get the outcome he desires." But if it was going to happen naturally anyway, where's the intervention? What is he doing to intervene?

So now we get into the evolution debate.

Evolution is the result of natural selection, which is the result of the development of specific traits which suit species better to their environment and the extinction of species with inferior traits, which is the result of mutations in DNA, which is the result of errors in DNA duplication, which is the result of exposure to certain natural elements that disrupt the process of DNA duplication. This is all naturally explained. Sure, in some cases we may not know what specific elements in what doses alter DNA in what way (maybe we do, its irrelevant to the point), but do you DNA mutations happen out of sheer randomness?

You have yet to explain how a God merely making sure natural laws are followed is to be considered intervening, when natural laws are, well, naturally followed, even in the case of evolution.

And for the last time, PLAYER, I am not an atheist. My goal is not to disprove God. My goal is to merely show the ramifications of future discoveries on these sorts of discussions. If you still think I'm trying to disprove God, you are not reading my posts throughout this thread and taking from them whatever you wish. I clearly said that deism is a possibility if we explained everything through natural law, and deism is a belief in the existence of a God.

[PLAYER57832]

In the future, if we can explain everything naturally, and God is making sure everything is happening naturally, how exactly is God intervening?

God created the whole system.

An intervention is a disruption of what is going on. If God's intervention does nothing to alter things happening naturally, what exactly is the intervention doing? Why would God even intervene in such a way? You say, "to get the outcome he desires." But if it was going to happen naturally anyway, where's the intervention? What is he doing to intervene?

You ask an utterly irrelevant question. My point is that God does not have to go against what you call the "natural" system at all. In fact, I would argue that eventually, every miracle will very much be explained, and in the end we will find even more reason, not less to believe in God.
Again, you set up a straw man to debate.

So now we get into the evolution debate.

Evolution is the result of natural selection, which is the result of the development of specific traits which suit species better to their environment and the extinction of species with inferior traits, which is the result of mutations in DNA, which is the result of errors in DNA duplication, which is the result of exposure to certain natural elements that disrupt the process of DNA duplication. This is all naturally explained. Sure, in some cases we may not know what specific elements in what doses alter DNA in what way (maybe we do, its irrelevant to the point), but do you DNA mutations happen out of sheer randomness?

You can immediately substitute the colorized portion with "there be God.. somewhere:. Per the rest, are you implying I said that evolution is truly mathematically random? I have argued the opposite on many occasions. It is "random" in the sense that we cannot predict, that the elements we do understand are too complex to predict (though with computer advances that may change in time).

You have yet to explain how a God merely making sure natural laws are followed is to be considered intervening, when natural laws are, well, naturally followed, even in the case of evolution.

Why do you insist that such a requirement is necessary? In fact, my whole point is that it is not.

And for the last time, PLAYER, I am not an atheist. My goal is not to disprove God. My goal is to merely show the ramifications of future discoveries on these sorts of discussions. If you still think I'm trying to disprove God, you are not reading my posts throughout this thread and taking from them whatever you wish. I clearly said that deism is a possibility if we explained everything through natural law, and deism is a belief in the existence of a God.

If you are not an atheist, then your arguments are actually more disturbing.
But if you note, I am not just debating you on this, so some of my comments regarding logic, etc are more toward other people.

MY fundamental interest is that any group that insists that faith is in opposition to science, whether a faith group or a group attempting to claim science as the background, is doing harm to both faith and science, but that more harm will come to science than to faith.

[GreecePwns]

Before we continue, you must answer this question:

In the future, if we can explain everything naturally, and God is making sure everything is happening naturally, how exactly is God intervening?

God created the whole system.

And after that, nothing else?

Can we agree the natural world works like a clock? That it just goes about its business and will continue to do so barring interference? From what you say, it seems we can.

Does God do anything to alter this clockwork after its creation?

[jonesthecurl]

I've asked this one before: it's a variation on the rather silly "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it".


question 1
If God is omnipotent, could he create a universe he couldn't interfere in?
question 2
Did he?

[GreecePwns]

The word couldn't makes it silly.

My question is whether or not he does interfere instead of whether or not he can.

[PLAYER57832]

Before we continue, you must answer this question:

In the future, if we can explain everything naturally, and God is making sure everything is happening naturally, how exactly is God intervening?

God created the whole system.

And after that, nothing else?

Not necessarily. It is a possibility. We don't know the real answer, yet.

Can we agree the natural world works like a clock? That it just goes about its business and will continue to do so barring interference? From what you say, it seems we can.

Not necessarily, nor did I actually say that. I was saying that your argument that if this were proven so, it would essentially disprove God is incorrect. That's all.

In fact, I believe that God set up the system, that it primarily works on its own, but that God does manipulate things, at times very subtly (evolution, just as an example), at times very directly ("miracles", but also perhaps other things, like "sparks of inspiration" or such).

Does God do anything to alter this clockwork after its creation?

I believe he did (note.. I use the term "he" for convenience, I don't believe God to be either female or male). Can I prove it? Not now, no... and that is why there is room for debate.

[PLAYER57832]

Belief in ' God ' is illogical .

No, it only seems that way to you, because of your experiences. It is, however, very illogical to assume that everyone else has the same experiences or that yours are automatically superior to anyone else's.

Science is a tool, I would hazard to say about the only tool (well, math.. ) that gets around this. Science is utterly nuetral on the God question, as is logic.

[natty dread]

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

[GreecePwns]

In fact, I believe that God set up the system, that it primarily works on its own, but that God does manipulate things, at times very subtly (evolution, just as an example), at times very directly ("miracles", but also perhaps other things, like "sparks of inspiration" or such).

Well how do we know when God is manipulating things and when the system is working on its own? Are "sparks of inspiration" merely thoughts like any other thoughts? Are "miracles" simple the world working on its own in ways that are inexplicable without the proper knowledge? Are any of these manipulations observable?

If we don't know, why should we take sides either for atheism or theism when no proof is presented?

[Woodruff]

imagine there was someone in ancient egypt who believed that the earth revolved around the sun (at a time when everyone else believed that the earth was the center of the universe) because the sun was more important than the earth. which of these two categories would he fall under?

That would depend on what he did after getting the idea. See the above flow charts for specifics.

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

You are utterly missing/dismssing the real point.

I don't believe I am, no.

You consider your beliefs to be "more valid" because they are based upon your experiences/perceptions.

What? That has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. In fact, I have no idea at all why you inserted this diatribe into this discussion here, honestly.

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand.

If you do not have the ability to show other people, then you do not have evidence.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..are, well, your own

I don't believe I claimed any such thing.

SECOND.. let's take logic. Logic is irrelevant of some base proof. That is, it does not ignore it, but goes beyond proof. A young child is perfectly logical to think that Santa Claus is real if he sees Santa, if presents appear on Christmas morning.. and particularly if the child further gets assurances from adults that it is so. (even if they couch things by saying stuff like "Santa is the spirit of Christmas"). An older child or adult thinking the same thing, but having all the additional knowledge is not logical to think of Santa as "real" .. at least in the sense of a person living at the north pole wearing red. (the idea of Santa as the "spirit of Christmas" or some such is a tad different).

That is an excellent example of "science", as "further information" eliminated the previous theory that Santa Claus was real. Thank you.

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical.

Where have I said that intelligent people don't believe in God? I would never have suggested such a thing, because I know better.

The problem is, you do this without proof.

No, the problem is that I didn't do it at all.

The best you can come up with is "if there were a God, then xyz ought to happen or ought to be seen... etc.".

I have said made no such limiting statement. You are presuming biases on me that do not exist.

Except, you inevitably come up with things that [most] believers don't actually assert.

You mean like how you are coming up with things that I don't actually assert?

You dismiss real and honest explanations as "excuses".... while making your own explanaitons that are truly no more logical than those made by people of faith.

I've done no such thing.

The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with logic, it is purely experience.

I'm afraid I must disagree entirely. The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with experience, and much to do with not making shit up.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc...

It ISN'T scientific. That's not a belief...that's a FACT. That's why it's called FAITH. Good heavens, that is in fact HOW IT WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY (even presuming that God does exist, it was intentional on his part).

then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself.

I don't put that wedge there. Science does.

[Woodruff]

To put it another way, nothing at all in your chart in any way disproves or even indicates there is no God.

Of course it doesn't. Nowhere did I suggest that it did.

Perhaps you can look at that chart and tell me where it's inaccurate.

[john9blue]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will? seems to me like science and faith are both pieces of the same process, instead of being two separate processes. ya think?

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

[Woodruff]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will?

Please point out where I have suggested any such thing. This isn't a difficult concept, John, unless you're trying not to get it.

seems to me like science and faith are both pieces of the same process, instead of being two separate processes. ya think?

No, I don't. Not even remotely. The only intersecting point they have is "idea comes to me"...it diverges quickly from there.

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

The Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else

[demonfork]

The problem with the idea of a supernatural creator is that one has to ask where did he come from , who created him/her/it in the first place . You end up backing up indefinitely so never get closer to an answer , much more rational to wait for science to provide.
Having said that I approve of the concept of Inteligent Design , I dont believe in it for one second but I do think its a pragmatic and sensible way for theists to safe face and be able to reconcile their faith with scientific advance.
The alternative is tens of millions of ignorant , brain washed Muslims , Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians fighting against human progress and the pursuit of knowledge.

Because you cant view the idea of a supernatural creator from the perspective that he "originated" in a finite or time based dimension.

God exists outside of time. From an eternal perspective time has no relevance. From an eternal perspective God had no beginning and was not created. In essence God has always existed.

On another note, when are you peeps gonna start talking about Mormons again?

[john9blue]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will?

Please point out where I have suggested any such thing. This isn't a difficult concept, John, unless you're trying not to get it.

ohhh i see. so you're saying that after he starts, he's stuck in a quantum superposition between charts until he reaches an arbitrary point in his decision-making cycle (let's call it the woodruff point). funny how both charts have a square that says "START". must be an acronym or something!

seems to me like science and faith are both pieces of the same process, instead of being two separate processes. ya think?

No, I don't. Not even remotely. The only intersecting point they have is "idea comes to me"...it diverges quickly from there.

and yet, somehow, they don't decide on a chart until the "woodruff point", long after they begin gathering evidence.

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

The Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

"observation or EXPERIENCE"... hmm... i guess there must be some other kind of experience that isn't personal... an out-of-body experience? an acid trip? not sure what your latest crazy theory is, but i'd love to hear it (and please don't copy someone else's idiotic charts again to try and explain your theory, because then you won't be able to defend it)

[Woodruff]

On another note, when are you peeps gonna start talking about Mormons again?

I find this a much more interesting discussion than the ridiculousness that started this thread.

[Woodruff]

he measures the irregular movement of the sun and realizes that it's likely that the earth is moving around the sun, instead of the other way around.

people tell him that the earth cannot be moving, because that would generate huge wind storms, but he ignores their evidence (because he cannot disprove it) and clings onto his new idea.

Again, it would still depend on what he did next. If he simply stopped his research and stuck with his ideas for no further reason, then he begins to fall within the "faith" bailiwick. If he continues to research things to determine why there are no huge wind storms (or whatever reactions one might reasonably believe would happen by the Earth moving), then he remains within the "science" bailiwick. As the flowchart clearly shows, once again.

so you can switch charts at will?

Please point out where I have suggested any such thing. This isn't a difficult concept, John, unless you're trying not to get it.

ohhh i see. so you're saying that after he starts, he's stuck in a quantum superposition between charts until he reaches an arbitrary point in his decision-making cycle (let's call it the woodruff point). funny how both charts have a square that says "START". must be an acronym or something!

So you ARE trying "not to get it". Well, well done then!

Personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence.

then what does?

The Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience.

"observation or EXPERIENCE"... hmm... i guess there must be some other kind of experience that isn't personal... an out-of-body experience? an acid trip? not sure what your latest crazy theory is, but i'd love to hear it (and please don't copy someone else's idiotic charts again to try and explain your theory, because then you won't be able to defend it)

I wasn't disagreeing with you that experience is a part of the empirical cycle (it has to be, otherwise observation is impossible). I was simply pointing out what the Empirical cycle is, as there seemed to be confusion about it. The problem is that so many people want to only use the first two or three steps of the cycle, ignoring the last two very critical steps.

[PLAYER57832]

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand.

If you do not have the ability to show other people, then you do not have evidence.

No. This is an illogical and unscientific thought..and pretty central.
1. First, the "evidence" is, on one level a change in my thinking. That I think something different than you means something did happen. Claiming it is just that I am not logical and you are logical is, well, just arrogance, not science. (this is a pretty fundamental philosophical debate, by-the way)
2. Second, there are many discoveries that are first found or grasped by one person or a small group who lack the ability to transmit/show it to other people. They keep working until they find the proof.
3.Lack of proof is not proof of anything. The fact that we now know so very much means it is even MORE important to keep that fact in mind, not to even begin dismissing things you have no proof of.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..are, well, your own

I don't believe I claimed any such thing.

Its very fundamental to what you are trying to say here.

SECOND.. let's take logic. Logic is irrelevant of some base proof. That is, it does not ignore it, but goes beyond proof. A young child is perfectly logical to think that Santa Claus is real if he sees Santa, if presents appear on Christmas morning.. and particularly if the child further gets assurances from adults that it is so. (even if they couch things by saying stuff like "Santa is the spirit of Christmas"). An older child or adult thinking the same thing, but having all the additional knowledge is not logical to think of Santa as "real" .. at least in the sense of a person living at the north pole wearing red. (the idea of Santa as the "spirit of Christmas" or some such is a tad different).

That is an excellent example of "science", as "further information" eliminated the previous theory that Santa Claus was real. Thank you.

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical.

Where have I said that intelligent people don't believe in God? I would never have suggested such a thing, because I know better.

When you say belief in God is illogical or unscientific, that IS very much what you are saying.

The problem is, you do this without proof.

No, the problem is that I didn't do it at all.

The best you can come up with is "if there were a God, then xyz ought to happen or ought to be seen... etc.".

I have said made no such limiting statement. You are presuming biases on me that do not exist.

True, forgot I was not talking to natty for a moment.

Except, you inevitably come up with things that [most] believers don't actually assert.

You mean like how you are coming up with things that I don't actually assert?

You dismiss real and honest explanations as "excuses".... while making your own explanaitons that are truly no more logical than those made by people of faith.

I've done no such thing.

The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with logic, it is purely experience.

I'm afraid I must disagree entirely. The difference between your thinking and mine has little to do with experience, and much to do with not making shit up.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc...

It ISN'T scientific. That's not a belief...that's a FACT. That's why it's called FAITH. Good heavens, that is in fact HOW IT WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY (even presuming that God does exist, it was intentional on his part).

Nope, logic is not limited to scientific fact. It is a process.
and yes.. I believe that God intended faith to be a question.

then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself.

I don't put that wedge there. Science does.

[/quote]
Nope. Science is utterly neutral on the God question. And ignoring that IS very much driving as much a wedge in our society, is just as destructive as the claims made by young earth creationists.

[PLAYER57832]

Also.. what john said.

The line you are trying to draw between faith thinking and science thinking just does not exist. The difference between science and faith is the kind of evidence accepted, not the thinking process.

[Symmetry]

Neutral to the God, or gods question, sure, but it's hardly neutral to wider religious questions.

I've argued this before in a variety of ways, but attempts to use science to prove a religious myth tend to set up an artificial clash as much as attempts to use science to disprove a religious myth.

So, yes, science isn't going to prove or disprove God, or gods, but it can be a tool to disprove aspects of religious belief. Or, in other words, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything that is associated with that faith.

[PLAYER57832]

. Or, in other words, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything that is associated with that faith.

Rather, because some people believe something in a faith does not necessarily mean that is "the faith" in its entirety.

[Symmetry]

. Or, in other words, belief in God doesn't necessarily mean that you believe everything that is associated with that faith.

Rather, because some people believe something in a faith does not necessarily mean that is "the faith" in its entirety.

That's a fair way to put it. I would generally say that there is a core kind of faith that science can neither prove or disprove. Essentially the divine aspect, but there is also the aspect of faith that deals with how the divine impacts on the world.

Science is worldly, and that is the area where science can disprove faith. It's never absolute- I heard a great paper on Galileo a year or so ago that argued that his main problem with the church was necessitism, that he didn't allow that God could make things look a certain way (kind of like the argument that God could have placed fossils during creation).

Problems occur when faith encompasses worldly things that can be tested. That's when science can be opposed to religion, but not necessarily belief in God.

[Woodruff]

The difference between religion and science is not lack of evidence or thought, it is the ability to show other people what you know/understand.

If you do not have the ability to show other people, then you do not have evidence.

No. This is an illogical and unscientific thought..and pretty central.

No, it is not illogical nor unscientific. If you can not display the evidence, you do not have evidence. You may have EXPERIENCE, but you do not have EVIDENCE. Do you not understand what the term "evidence" even means? As you say..."it's pretty central".

1. First, the "evidence" is, on one level a change in my thinking.

That is not evidence. That is experience. The two are not the same.

That I think something different than you means something did happen.

It could simply mean that the neurons in your brain fire differently than the neurons in my brain. How is that evidence of anything?

Claiming it is just that I am not logical and you are logical is, well, just arrogance, not science. (this is a pretty fundamental philosophical debate, by-the way)

It's fundamental yes, but you don't seem to understand it. I don't believe I claimed that YOU are not logical, I claimed that treating faith as if it were science is not logical. Which it isn't.

2. Second, there are many discoveries that are first found or grasped by one person or a small group who lack the ability to transmit/show it to other people. They keep working until they find the proof.

Of course. Yet THEY DID NOT HAVE EVIDENCE. They had a hunch, an insight. But they did not have evidence.

3.Lack of proof is not proof of anything. The fact that we now know so very much means it is even MORE important to keep that fact in mind, not to even begin dismissing things you have no proof of.

Of course not. Nowhere have I suggested this was the case. What I have suggested is that faith does not expect any further investigation, whereas science does expect that.

Of course, anyone is free to make assertions and to attempt to prove them.. but to claim superiority because your beliefs..are, well, your own

I don't believe I claimed any such thing.

Its very fundamental to what you are trying to say here.

I believe you're allowing your personal bias toward faith to erode your perspective here. I've made no such claims.

Now, I realize you wish to claim that believing in God is, while not quite as childlike as believing in Santa, still not quite intelligent/logical.

Where have I said that intelligent people don't believe in God? I would never have suggested such a thing, because I know better.

When you say belief in God is illogical or unscientific, that IS very much what you are saying.

No, it is not at all the same thing. I know many very intelligent people who do not think very logically. I know some less intelligent people who do think quite logically. The two are absolutely disparate concepts and should not necessarily be tied together. It doesn't even make sense to me that they would be tied together.

IF people keep insisting that belief in God is illogical, is not scientific, etc...

It ISN'T scientific. That's not a belief...that's a FACT. That's why it's called FAITH. Good heavens, that is in fact HOW IT WAS DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY (even presuming that God does exist, it was intentional on his part).

Nope, logic is not limited to scientific fact. It is a process. and yes.. I believe that God intended faith to be a question.

A question, sure...but not a scientific one. God does NOT expect anything of the sort, and in fact clearly does not want it else he would not demand faith of his believers.

then you immediately put a wedge between the vast majority of humanity and yourself.

I don't put that wedge there. Science does.

Nope. Science is utterly neutral on the God question.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. From the beginning of this part of the discussion. Sheesh.

And ignoring that IS very much driving as much a wedge in our society, is just as destructive as the claims made by young earth creationists.

Saying that science is irrelevant to God's existence does no such thing. Saying that faith is not a logical process does no such thing. Any religious person with the ability to view the situation objectively would recognize that the process of faith and the process of science are completely different and non-interacting processes. The only place that faith has in science is to posit the original question. Unfortunately, that is the point which faith halts, whereas science proceeds from there.