abe,

science is based on error. it continuously corrects itself by first making virtually blind statements (hypothesizes) and then trying to prove them right or wrong. is that what you want to put your faith in? whatever. if you ask me it's not much different from putting faith in a being you haven't seen/encountered.

I did a big mistake in quoting the death/fire of hell verse. It was kind of out of context to begin with, but I was just trying to make a specific point (about death). To correct myself; you shouldn't believe in God out of fear, that will never work -- it would be fake to begin with. You should believe in God because he is the truth - because you feel that truth. And everyone feels that truth, if they want to. some people reject it even after feeling it. most people ignore it.

C-C-C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=60488

@abe, Science is slow and plodding... but very very systematic. The negative aspect is that it may not be a way to "The Truth" in any quick and easy way... on the other hand, when it eliminates something as false, it is pretty darn sure about it. The things we know due to science we know pretty darn well. It is evidence based, uses controlled studies to eliminate bias, and is very careful. I see nothing wrong with science. (only when something [such as ID, for example] calls itself science but doesn't follow the rules) You state science is based on error... only in the sense that uses negative feedback... i.e. we know when we are wrong. This is deductive reasoning - and there is nothing wrong with that. Rock solid, matter of fact.

I meant to address that last to @rollerfiend.

dexter,

In my view the mechanism of science is quiet doubtful and doesn't deserve blind faith. And that is what we are questioning here: is it worth believing in science, forever and for always? I don't think so. It's like asking a person wearing a blindfold to walk you out of a maze. Whatever steps he takes, you know they are true, whatever steps he bumps into something, you know they aren't. But how do you know if you will ever reach the end of the maze? (or reach a conclusion about God)?

I don't believe Science will ever answer the question of God vehemently. Personally I believe it will pile on the evidence on both sides -- evidence that there is a God/Creator but at the same time never confirming it. (and this reflects Einstein's quote that I published earlier)

well i sure as hell know i won't get out of that maze by just standing there and praying i teleport to the exit.

Rollerfiend, do you believe in mind-body dualism? That is - do you think minds exist separate from bodies?

Putin, Possibly. I'm not sure, this is the first time I've heard of this. Pretty interesting but I will have to educate myself about it. Thanks for idea

@dexter: "The things we know due to science we know pretty darn well."

Actually, false. Are you familiar with Hume's arguments about induction? To skip to the chase, there is no possible way to know whether nature is really uniform -- whether science detects real regularities, or if we've just gotten really lucky so far. There is no way to know the sun will rise tomorrow, and science can do absolutely nothing to show us it will.
Before you say, "That's stupid, of course we know the sun will rise tomorrow," I would ask, how do you know? Certainly not from science. Science can only tell you what will happen if the universe continues to behave regularly.
Certainly not because the universe has behaved regularly in the past; that says nothing about whether it will in the future (and to assert otherwise begs the question, per Hume's deservedly famous argument).
Why, then? Why do you believe science gives real knowledge? Blind faith?
After all, a priori, if one considers the set of possible universes consistent with our observations so far, one would have to assign probability (or conditional probability) 0 to the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow.

@orangefarm - lol
@rollerfiend, "blind faith" in science?? I'm confused by this idea. What faith are we talking about? The only assumption ("faith") that I believe science makes is that the world is rational and consistent and therefore knowable (testable). Alas, we can't live much of a life if we don't make such an assumption in our everyday existence either. Beyond that, is the idea that science can only analyze evidence... it cannot do anything with untestable theories - such as God. But heck, I also can't come to any definitive conclusion on God based on any other system either. God is, by definition, unknowable. He never makes an appearance - and if he did (or did in the past) it is always debatable whether what was experienced was actually God or some powerful alien or the devil or whatever else. You can choose, as you obviously have, to accept on faith with no rational foundation (other than, I imagine, a general "it would make sense" or something like that) - I, on the other hand, cannot bring myself to that - nor am I tempted. Why would I be tempted to delude myself? Besides, if I'm *choosing* to have faith, then, in a real sense its no longer blind faith is it? It's more like leaping despite my doubts. (the doubts would remain)

@roller

yes, but i feel like you genuinely believe I will burn in hell as a heathen, which i find interesting.

The thing about science is that it's ok to be wrong. We base our lives off of what we know, and as that changes, we change with that knowledge. We used to think the earth was flat, now we don't. We used to think the sun rotated around the earth, now we dont. We used to think the world was deterministic, now we think it's probabilistic. I'm ok with changing my views as we learn more about the universe. You claim to be about truth, but your truth hasn't changed in 2 thousand years. Really, what are the odds you got it right.

Again, how silly will you feel explaining to Charon that you're a Christian as you float down the River Styx?

@semck83, I stated the assumptions at the onset. I assume rationality and consistent physical laws. Yes, there is faith in that.... And I realize that I cannot 100.0% know that gravity won't suddenly reverse itself - or that I imagined my life up til a second ago, or whatever. But it seems like a very solid working theory to assume that the universe is rational. After all, it fits all known data so far. And that is all we can ask of a theory - that it does a good job of explaining observed data. Will I ever *know* the truth? Not anymore than you. Besides - my world view assumes less than yours. Mine does not assume an unseen spirit realm and a host of magic beings and a god that had a son that died but lived and that a book that contradicts itself is entirely true and dependable despite the fact that it was written many years later and that there is an afterlife even though no one has any evidence of it and no one can report on having been there and that there is such a thing as souls even though the energy involved has not been measured and is completely unclear on how it works, etc. etc. You make far far more assumption than I do... and, thus, I believe your theory to be less robust and more likely to be incorrect. ...based on available data.

Amazing how Hitler could justify his persecution of the Jews by referring to Jesus, who was Jewish himself on both his natural (maternal) side and his adoptive (paternal) side.

I love the maze analogy because I've written a program that can solve itself out of any maze and I use the algorithm (in my head) when driving through a subdivision that I know is "no outlet" to look at Christmas lights every year.

Not really; Hitler was a sociopath. If Christianity didn't exist, he would have found some other way to manipulate the masses. The whole Hitler discussion is incredibly stupid, imho.

abe,

"I'm ok with changing my views as we learn more about the universe. You claim to be about truth, but your truth hasn't changed in 2 thousand years. "

isn't that proof that it could be the true truth? what kind of "truth" changes itself? :)

dexter,

as far as science goes, people put blind faith in it just the same as theists put blind faith in their scriptures/God. For example, Science believes in the atom. You probably believe in the atom. But what have you done to literally prove that to yourself; have you conducted all the right tests and gone through the process? Probably not. You simply believe. That's the blind faith in science I'm talking about. See my point?

p.s. the doubts evaporate :)

@Putin - When I suggest God is infinite, I am assuming a ***very** standard and accepted definition. In fact, it is a biblical definition, which is what your discussion is based upon. Don't be such a disingenuous asshole that you can't even accept the premises of your own argument/debate about God. Again....this simply proves what an ass you are. If you don't want to talk about God (all-powerful, infinte creator), then put up a post about the aliens that seeding the planet with life. Again...this siply demonstrates and proves that you ENTIRE purpose of this post was to set up a straw man to bash people. You are *such* a loser, man. You don't even have the integrity (Mr. Grad Student....lol....makes me hold my stomach I am laughing so hard at you) of keeping true to a definition in the debate, including the CENTRAL theme of God. Do your professors let you get away that that sort of bullshit?

@roller

The universe operates in some certain way regardless of what we think. Which is more reasonable? That as we progress through history, we become closer to that truth, or that we guessed exactly right 2000 years ago?

But, here's the think. I *can* do those experiments if I wish. In fact, my lab is right down the hall from a clean room, so I personally know people that manipulate atoms every day. What I don't know is someone who's job it is to part rivers, or talk to burning bushes, or rise from the dead. Do you see the difference?

@ Dexter: In response to "What legal-historical evidence? Yes, Julius crossing the Rubicon, 28 accounts... most, I suspect, historians with no particular axe to grind. Gospel stories of Jesus' miracles? 4 accounts...." Actually there are just 28 copies of one document that were produced within 100 years of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. But there are literally thousands of partial and complete copies of the four gospels produced within 100 years of Jesus' life. Legal evidence doesn't prove the truth, but it does provide evidence of it, and the weight of the evidence is heavily in favor of Jesus life as portrayed in the gospels. But... if you have an open mind, as any scientist must, who don't you ask God if he exists? Nothing to lose! If he responds, voilá, you've just made the most important discovery of your life. If your spirit is unsettled, press on to find the truth. I want to see you at the feet of Jesus in eternity, with me.

I believe in one omnipotent God. The God of the Abrahamic religions, the one who created Adam, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. A God above the idea or constructs of mankind, something that cannot be defined, something there is nothing alike. I reject all the other deities as false, again believe in only One being as the true omniscient.

And to the Christians out there, let's keep this respectful. It's what Jesus would do. :-)

@JACK "I don't have to comprehend an infinite God because....He doesn't exist."

I note that earlier you stated that you can not prove a negative. Likewise, you can neither prove nor disprove God. That you choose to look at a miraculous universe and say it is random, and others say this miraculously ordered universe is by a God;y design is a choice we make. But....you disbelief is NOT equal to disproof.

That being said, the central idea of my comment --- that you as a finite being can not POSSIBLY comprehend the idea of an infinite and all the complexities that lie therein --- is an idea you specifically ignore....no doubt because you have to admit that I am correct. It is the same way in which our scientists, for all their knowledge, can only dance around the fringe of the Big Bang....they have a general idea, but they can not, and WILL not ever be able to comprehend it. If nothing else, they will never be able to understand what was there BEFORE the Big Bang, when arguably physics, and thus existence itself, were *completely* different than what we understand now.

Ahhhh. I love you Jack. You stick to you guns no matter how wrong you are! :) Stay true to yourself, brother! I know I will! (Which is why we *must* but heads! But I do it lovingly, I hope you know that.)

I think science is amazing! It's the study of God's creation, and scientists increase our knowledge of it every day! And in fact many prominent scientists are Christians.

abge,

we are talking about divine truth, not just any truth... divine truth has to be unchanging, has to pass through time unscathed.

As for science, let me use a different example, if a science book told you Jupiter had 12 moons, would you believe it or would you wait to look them up with a telescope first? Which one? If the first, you put "blind faith" in science, no arguing about it. You take it as truth solely because it was said in the name of science. The state of which your mind is in when you accept that truth, is blind. And thus, it is no different than the mind of a theist. That's my point.

p.s. i just realizede your name is abge, and i've been calling you abe the whole time! lol

Oh and I forgot to address an earlier comment claiming that the gospels are sloppy. Once we look at the particular points of view of each gospel and realize that each one has not only many of the same stories but also a different perspective on the same events, it's much easier to understand. And we are still learning about the historical context of the time. I think they are very clearly written, and they don't pull any punches or glorify Jesus' followers, as evidenced by the story of Peter's betrayal and the several instances of Jesus' rebuking the disciples for lack of faith in who he was--they call it like it is.

Putin, thank you for putting up this strand.

Strand=Thread

@roller

truth is truth. Either there is a god or there isn't. Whether or not we know, doesn't actually change that, would you agree? What I'm saying is: why would I trust a civilization about the nature of god, when they were so clearly wrong about so many other things? Is that clearer?

As to Jupiter's moons. I do know Jupiter is a planet, and many planets have moons. And, I own a telescope and have, in fact, seen some of Jupiter's moons. So, while I can't (easily) confirm that Jupiter has 12, it really isn't that big of a leap. Again, if I wished, I *could* verify for my self exactly how many moons Jupiter had. I *cannot* verify for myself anything in the bible.

hey if any of you need a break from you're philosophical banter, there is a game starting soon gameID=60494