y2k,"You see understanding in things that is only there because of your belief in God. So you can maybe "understand" something through God that I can't understand yet. So you're happy and content with your understanding and that's that. I strive to understand what I don't get based on what I know to be true about the world, and am fully prepared to update my knowledge set of the world based on what I figure out. I'll take my approach to learning and believing every time."

Please do not claim to know what I understand or believe. Especially since you have it wrong.

I have ALL the same resources as you. I can update my knowledge set based on what I figure out. If I do not understand something, I am not happy and content with my understanding (or lack thereof). But, when I come to a dead end that I can't explain by what I observe. I am not limited to ONLY seeking an observable answer.

But your knowledge set takes for fact that Jesus died for all of our sins, right? Is there anything that could disprove that to you and change your knowledge set, and if so, would that not rock the foundation of everything you believe? That's the problem I see with using logic and rationality to observe and understand the world, but have your foundation of understanding come from a faith-based irrational belief stemming from religion.

y2k, "But your knowledge set takes for fact that Jesus died for all of our sins, right? Is there anything that could disprove that to you and change your knowledge set, and if so, would that not rock the foundation of everything you believe? "
- I fail to see how this is relevant. Understanding through science vs understanding through God are different. But, suppose someone did disprove it to my satisfaction. I would be forced to revise my understanding of it.

"That's the problem I see with using logic and rationality to observe and understand the world, but have your foundation of understanding come from a faith-based irrational belief stemming from religion."
- What you (and virtually all scientists) fail to realize is that science is faith based also. Science is based on the belief that God cannot be an explanation of anything.

Science is based on the belief that what my senses tell me is all I have as knowledge in the world, and you determine reality based upon laws you try to construct that explain that knowledge. The concept of belief only comes into play when you consider believing the recorded observations of the renown scientists that established the laws we go by today, but those scientists and laws are only embraced because of their repeatability of the observances of their truthiness. Like I've said, any observances to the contrary would immediately put the law into question. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the idea of science. If the existence of God is posed as a question to science, the answer would be he most likely doesn't exist because God hasn't been observed in any repeatable sense other than a few select people over the course of history claiming enlightenment and prophethood, and others accepting that word without seeing God themselves.

The response you have then is "If you believe in God, he presents himself to you and exists". And you know what? I think that's true. If you truly believe in God, the human mind is such a powerful thing that he will exist for you in really every way that matters. And a lot of people love that feeling. That's why I take no fault with spiritual or religious individuals. I actually envy them sometimes. It's hard sometimes living in reality. But unfortunately my faith is fully in my senses and my observations and the conclusions I draw from that.

"- What you (and virtually all scientists) fail to realize is that science is faith based also. Science is based on the belief that God cannot be an explanation of anything."

Lol no, that's not what science is based on. That's just your religious bias against science talking (because science has so often proven religion wrong). It is rather tiresome how a lot of religious people keep painting science as just another religion so they can rationalize their own unfounded beliefs as being "equivalent". Science is most definitely not a religion. And religious beliefs are not at all on par with scientific knowledge, they are in fact entirely unscientific.

Science is based on the believe that you can learn about the world through observation and reasoning. It does not start from preconceptions of how nature works (or should work) such as "God cannot be an explanation". Rather than having such preconceptions science tries to instead just understand nature as it is actually observed. And, fundamental to science, if further observations invalidate previous understanding then, very much opposite to religious beliefs, that previous understanding goes out the door.

Thus, if the hypothesis "God exists" is true then science would be happy to accept that, provided there are objective observations that actually support it. The fact of the matter is however that despite ages of trying to find such observations, none have been found. And although that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, it still means that the hypothesis that he does exist has no scientific basis whatsoever and from a scientific point of view is just as valid (or invalid really) as the hypothesis that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves) exists.

Also, science doesn't accept circular reasoning such as: God exists because the Bible says he does. The Bible is correct because it is the word of God.

y2k, "But unfortunately my faith is fully in my senses and my observations and the conclusions I draw from that."

-you summed it up nicely: Your FAITH is in your senses. This is exactly what I meant. But, it is still FAITH nonetheless.

Lol. Everyone has faith in the sense of believing something. You can't believe in nothing. I believe in what I observe, you believe in a higher power. My faith in observation makes it hard to believe in a higher power, your faith in a higher power influences your mind to actually observe Him all around you in acts of loving kindness and beauty and justice and all that. In the end though, it's observation we all use as our evidence, and you said that yourself Devotian. You guys just start from somewhere rather than from scratch.

Oscar, "Also, science doesn't accept circular reasoning such as: God exists because the Bible says he does. The Bible is correct because it is the word of God."

- You say science can only learn about the world through observation and reasoning, but this claim can't be proven through observation and reasoning. It is merely accepted as fact because Science defines itself that way. This is a circular argument.

y2k, "Everyone has faith in the sense of believing something. "

- Yes, but these things are foundational for each of us. For me it is biblical truth. For you it is your senses. It impacts how we each see things on a very deep level.

Apriori knowledge is not the same as circular reasoning. One could say that the scientific method's commitment to empiricism is itself an a priori postulate, which is contradictory, but it's not circular.

Gee....look at that....*someone* put forth a few actual opinions about the Bible and <BAM!>...a discussion about the bible, religion, God, etc...

Exactly! We're not disagreeing on that! Religion is powerful and can give someone a very extraordinary view on the world if they truly embrace it.

But if you expect me to think that religion is an accurate interpretation of what's actually happening in our world and not just an explanation for it that helps you live your life, that's where I'm sure we disagree plenty. Religion will never prepare us for what is actually coming for us, it will just let us not actually have to think about it because we somehow already know the answer because it's written in a book.

:"If Muslims think that Allah is just a word then so be it. But, I have never heard of any Christian claiming to worship Allah. "

That's because YOU speak English, and they speak ARABIC, you moron. Are you actually this dense, or is it an act? You refusal to accept that Muslims believe inthe same God of Abraham that Jews and Christians believe in is just you being a good little puppet of the state.

That' like you says "automobiles" are completely different things in Iran, for example, because in Arabic an "automobile" is called a سيارة

And can we just say that science is unduly wedded to the scientific method, which is theoretically impoverished. The scientific method does very little in helping to explain phenomenon or develop models of explanation, and there are plenty of causal processes which are unseen. Science has been synonymous with strict empiricism, but it shouldn't be that way.

"- You say science can only learn about the world through observation and reasoning, but this claim can't be proven through observation and reasoning. It is merely accepted as fact because Science defines itself that way. This is a circular argument."

It's not circular at all because unlike religion, science does not claim some sort of omniscience about the world. It just observes, finds reasonable explanations for the observations, and then tests those explanations through further observations.

Your attempts to paint science as just another religion are feeble and incorrect. Science is not a religion or even faith based. It is instead a process to produce useful knowledge. The possibility to later disprove that knowledge and/or improve on it is a fundamental part of the process that sets its miles apart from irrational faith based beliefs in random fictitious supernatural phenomena such as the Christian God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I can add that science has proven its usefulness through a humongous range of applications that have improved human life. GPS, fertilizers, cars, to mention just a tiny sample. None of those would have existed without science. In contrast, through all the long history of religion, no one has ever been able to apply religious "knowledge" to create even a single usable product.

"That' like you says "automobiles" are completely different things in Iran, for example, because in Arabic an "automobile" is called a سيارة "

Don't forget krellin, automobiles in England, although they use the same word, are also completely different because those heretics put the steering wheel on the unholy side.

Idiot it is a car.

Car = automobile = سيارة

So there we all were standing at the bottom of the hill, each of us at a different point around the circumference looking up at the peak. What an array of paths there were, snaking in and out of the trees and bushes. And yet they all finish at the same point at the top.

Go on man, let yourself go move away from the comfort of the side and start to swim.

"And can we just say that science is unduly wedded to the scientific method, which is theoretically impoverished."

I wouldn't call it unduly, but yeah the scientific method is an essential part of science.

"The scientific method does very little in helping to explain phenomenon or develop models of explanation,"

Are you just being ridiculous here? Most our understanding, i.e. explanations, of how the world works have been figured out through application of the scientific method.

"and there are plenty of causal processes which are unseen."

Lol. How do you know there are plenty of them when they are unseen? You know what else there are plenty of? Invisible Pink Unicorns. However, being invisible, they are obviously unseen.

"Science has been synonymous with strict empiricism, but it shouldn't be that way."

I don't think it has been synonymous with it, but it is certainly the case that the strictly empirical branch of science has by far produced the most useful knowledge.

Darned Brits!!

Yeah, I once had two friends, Bobby and Jimmy. We played baseball together and board games until we were 10, and then went our separate ways.

When we were 20, Jimmy and I met once again in college, where we began to recount the tales we both had heard about Bobby. I told Jimmy that I once saw Bobby driving a green mustang and he played basketball, and that someone else told me he was in school for engineering. Jimmy said I was all wrong, that he had heard that Bobby drove a Chevrolet, he had once seen him playing tennis, and that he knows for a fact that Bobby was majoring in English.

So question: Is this the same Bobby, or is this a different Bobby? Jimmy and I both agree that Bobby played baseball and board games with us up until age 10, but from there our stories are radically different.

....but different stories does not guarantee either is wrong. Bobby could have played both tennis and basketball; he could have driven both a mustang and a Chevrolet at different times, and could have changed his major once in college.

It could also be true that once person was simply misinformed about Bobby and telling a false story that he believed was true. Either way, when the three met again a week later, they all remembered that same thing about life up until age 10. As to what happened after that...well, you'll just have to meet Bobby some day on your own, and he'll tell you the whole story himself if you ask nicely.
**
The God of Abraham is the God of the Christians is the God/Allah of the Muslims.

The possibility exists that God is infinitely powerful, and for some reason has chosen to reveal Himself to different people in different ways and both Christians and Muslims are correct -- and to deny God the ability to do this is to tell me your God is not infinite, and to constrain His powers.

A second possibility is the story of God of either the Christians or Muslims is correct, and the other is wrong, a deceitful lie, perhaps created by Satan through his minions...

A third possibility is that both are wrong.

There is no way to say for certain; no way to say any of it is fact. At best you can believe it wholly with your heart by faith, and live your life accordingly.

If you need "1+1=2" proof that your God exists, then you have no faith, and you are denied your salvation, "for it is by *faith* that you are saved", not logical equations...

...less any mathmetician should rule the kingdom of heaven...

(lest, not less...)

That's all true krellin. I personally don't have faith in God because I don't have faith that there is something to be saved from, only something to discover. I can't believe something that won't show itself to me without me trying to see it. The brain is powerful to the point that it can create illusions to explain itself and its own existence, and I believe this about the brain based on observation of the way the human mind operates, so rather than grab onto illusions that explain life, I live my life trying to dispel them until I find one that can't be dispelled.

I disagree that belief in God is an illusion. To a Christian, the wonder of the world itself is the proof of God...and science was created by God, so you can appreciate the wonder of discovery and science AND believe in God. The notion by non-Christians that science and religion must stand apart is a complete lie. That some Christians choose to reject science is a personal failure, not a failure of religion.

That science itself has many aspect of "faith" is also true - there are many things that scientists will assert with the certainty of fact that are pure conjecture, yet to be proven.

To you it is highly unlikely that there is some mystical God that snapped everything in to existence. To a Christian, it is absurdity that from nothing came everything, and over the course of time everything has become increasingly more complex, rather than increasingly chaotic - as our observation of the world is that it is one of decay and a tendency towards chaos, not self-alignment and complexity.

The Nye/Ham debate was truly a debate about a single word in the bible "day". The reason some Christians believe in a literal 7 day (6 really) creation, and the "young earth" is because in the original text, the word used for "day" in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day...that is their understanding of language, so if the Bible says "God did such and such in a 'literal-24-hour-period'" then it must be so...they leave no room for error in their language interpretation, no room that this is allegory, etc.

As a person of once-strong faith, who now struggles, I used to by the 6 day creation and such...I now look at the science (for example, Nye' 386,000 layers in the ice core = 170 freeze/thaw cycles per year in a "young earth" theory, and it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile...) and I have to say, OK, science say the earth is older than 6 thousand years...it might be possible I don't understand every word of the Bible. (And to assert such absolute understanding of the revelation of God through written word is kind of arrogant, frankly...)

So really, if Ham could just say, "Yeah...maybe we don't quite understand the word "day" in the old testement" he could put aside his young earth belief, and a whole lot of arguments between Christians and Non-Christians could be laid to rest...

"The notion by non-Christians that science and religion must stand apart is a complete lie."

I am a non-Christian and I can tell you my notion is not that religion and science must stand apart (although I agree that some non-Christians do have that notion). My notion is instead that religious beliefs are unscientific. Religious people have beliefs beyond their religious ones though, and those might very well be scientific. Additionally, religion is an interesting subject for science to study both historical as well as psychological aspects of it.

Nonetheless some religious beliefs do stand apart from science such as the belief that God created the world about 6000 years ago or that praying can help cure people from disease.

"That some Christians choose to reject science is a personal failure, not a failure of religion."

Although I largely agree with this, religion also, by definition, encourages/conditions people to take things for granted based on authority or faith rather than observation and reason. Although that does not necessarily mean they will reject science it does make them, on average, more susceptible to reject it. This is one of the reasons why I think religion is actually harmful rather than helpful to mankind and why I became an atheist whereas I was agnostic before.

"there are many things that scientists will assert with the certainty of fact that are pure conjecture, yet to be proven."

Uncertainty is a fundamental part of science. So no. It are instead religious people who claim certainty.

"So really, if Ham could just say, "Yeah...maybe we don't quite understand the word "day" in the old testement" he could put aside his young earth belief, and a whole lot of arguments between Christians and Non-Christians could be laid to rest..."

It's not just the number of days it took or how long ago it was though, that puts literal interpretation of Genesis miles apart from science. Frankly, there is nothing in the entire story that fits the data that we actually observe.

It's rather funny for instance that if God created the earth and explains via the bible how he went about it, including all kinds of details, that he would fail to mention that the earth is a sphere rather than a flat surface. Or that he would mention all kinds of animals that people in the region where the bible was written already knew about but failed to mention kangaroos, or microbes.

It is quite obvious that the story just reflects what some not at all omniscient people of the time incorrectly conjectured about the creation of the earth and that makes it entirely unreasonable to believe that it is the word of an omniscient being that created the world.

oscar - yes, Christians often claim certainty, and most of them are scientifically ignorant and have no clue what they are claiming certainty about.

I will also tell you as a fact that most non-Christians claim certainty where they have no knowledge to be able to claim certainty. Let me name a few topics for which the vast majority of people simply spout "truth" as a matter of faith, not actual knowledge:
1. Global warming: Most people know nothing about this science, and repeat the claims of global warming alarmists as a matter of faith, as taught to them by the Prophets of doom on the nightly news and in political speeches. Whether global warming is true or not is not the topic -- the fact the believe believe it with certainty without any knowledge is the topic.
2. Evolution: Many people believe evolution is a scientific fact, when in fact it is a theory. And, the details of this theory are fluid - for it is not an uncommon occurence to find a media article about a new scientific discovery, a new fossil, etc that changes their understanding of evolution. but bottom line, many people believe as fact that which is fluid theory, because they have no actual knowledge of the details
3. Alien life: many people have an opinion they will state with the assertion of fact that life does/does not exist outside out little corner of the solar system, when it is simply impossible to know.

Three random areas of "science" for which many people state as fact things for which they know essentially nothing, other than what someone else told them.

Science itself takes as fact many things which change as new information is revealed, and other things they take as fact because, well, because it appears no new information will ever change that fact (1+1=2).

A Christian that wants to say "God created the heavens and the Earth" does not necessarily have to disagree with *any* science...and in fact would be a fool to do so. What a Christian's obligation is, is to say "God created the heavens and the earth" and take the subsequent stories, and then *combine* them with the scientific facts available to determine what he believes. God created...science says Big bang theory...oh, hey! Maybe the christian now has the methode of God's creation! There is no need to aruge...in fact, it fills in a hole, becaus the scientists do not have a single clue as to what was there before the Big bang...

So you see my point - it is foolish for a Christian to refute science with God's word. They actually have a much more difficult task of aligning scientific truth with God's Word...but in no way does it diminish science.

You say religious people claim certainty...I say scientific people claim just as much certainty, and leave little room for options outside their own beliefs, even though science is constantly changing. But the bottom line is that I assume you believe there are "laws" that "control" the universe we live in...laws...certainties...and it is these certainties that science is driving to discover and understand. I don't understand why a Christian saying "Here, I know a couple of things for certain" is such a bad thing, especially if they accept that these "certain things" are hardly scientific...

young earth is a silly theory if you can't refute the science that disproves it, and in the absence of science to disprove young earth, a Christian is obligated to understand why he doesn't understand the language of his book. Many do. Ham doesn't. it doesn't mean Christians as a whole are wrong it mean Ham is wrong, just as scientists argue about String theory and take up sides.