O/T
For some reason when I saw this thread I thought it was titled 'Dentists hail stunning Fossil' ...

Quote from amp88 :

Debating science vs religion is just a waste of energy because both sides believe so strongly that they're not going to change.

Wrong though, there are scientists who realize the ultimate answer isn't nearly in reach with the limited power of human wisdom; and there are religious people who are awared that the point of faith is to look pass the "facts" in the bible:

There are actually quite some people in the middle, and a good scientist should be the biggest critic of science itself. Even Isaac Newton once said:
“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

The differences between religion and science is that, in science you made a hypothesis on something that is plausible for human to analyse, than you proceed to validate whether the hypothesis is correct; while in religion you acknowledge some questions are beyond the reach of what scientific analysis can achieve in the moment, and seek an answer from the wisdom of a higher power, trying to see the consistency in the philosophy and find an intermediate resolution.

To me it's just two paths to answer the same questions, while we can prove the ones we can comprehand, we wouldn't know what hits us if the ultimate power presents us the working behind the universe right before our eyes, hence we are settle with a "believe". There's no contradiction in there, in my opinion.

So religion is just fine, churches on the other hand though.........

Heh, that's actually a very awesome post.

Quote from JJ72 :

To me it's just two paths to answer the same questions

and you were doing so well up until then

the questions science and religion/philosophy are after are completely distinct from each other with no overlap
science is doing what it can to answer the how while religion is after finding an answer for why

inevitably any scientist who knows what hes doing will eventually end up with something that goes beyond science simply because science being based on observation must hit its limit with things that are impossible to observe eg whats outside or before the universe (which is where youd logically place any god)

any religious person that has a mind thats remotely well adjusted on the other hand must know that people 2000 or more years ago didnt know as much about the universe and how it formed as we do now and thus their ideas which you can find in eg the bible of how it works and formed wont have much of anything to do with whats really going on around us
however thats hardly relevant since what eg genesis has to say is not that the universe formed in 6 days but that it was created by some supreme being

Quote from Shotglass :

however thats hardly relevant since what eg genesis has to say is not that the universe formed in 6 days but that it was created by some supreme being

ex-freaking-sactly.

As a Christian, I get very annoyed that some of my fellow Christians think "God made the universe in 6 days" literally :doh:

Hard to do when one day is based around things that He hadn't created yet, furthermore time being a part of creation itself (IMO of course).

Quote from JJ72 :

Even Isaac Newton once said:
“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

While pondering this nice quote it does not hurt to remember that at the time a couple reverent words could indeed go a long way for those intending to die in their old age

There could very well be a God. It's just that people's definitions of God could be completely innaccurate. I would define God as simply the creator. It doesn't mean that he/she/it built a universe out of bits and bobs with some sticky tape and glue. God could be absolutely anything, maybe something that is not worth worshipping like people do, but surely something created the spark, and whatever it was that made the action that caused this amazing re-action, I would call God, because I define God as simply the creator. Not a big man in a white glowing robe with a big beard. Not a stranger walking in the clouds that somehow flopped his penis from the heavens and violated a virgin called mary. Just something that created everything.

I disagree, gills. You can't break down the existence of god down to a definition.
The universe we see around us has to come from somewhere, as the most acknowledged theories proclaim, and as our finite mind can't really cope with infinity and thus needs a "beginning". Seeing the vastness of it, and the mass and energy it contains, let alone the force that ignited the spark of life and makes it thrive forward and evolve, makes it quite clear that whatever the source of the universe and ultimately us was, it needed to be an almost uncomprehensibly tremendous source of energy (even more so if there wasn't any mass to begin with).
Now here comes the definition part in: was that source merely a natural phenomenon that triggered a reaction which lead to our universe and life simply by chance.
Or was it rather willfully designing the universe?
I for one think it was the first, as God per "definition" is a scentient being, thus, even a theoretical blob made out of all the energy and mass in the universe wouldn't qualify, as it would lack a consciousness. Saying that the source of our universe had a plan in creating it seems to me about as plausible as the sun willfully and deliberately shaping clouds in our sky.

Still, seeing the source of our universe as god isn't as utterly stupid as believing in an anthropoid old guy creating us from his image. Speaking of which, that wouldn't make god anthropoid, but rather us theoid.

Well by what you're saying in a way you are not disagreeing with me because you are saying that the universe has had to of come from somewhere. It has to have been created by something, I don't mean it has to have been carefully designed, but it has to have been created. Just like any action creates a re-action. I just define God as that thing that made the action that caused the re-action because I see God as the creator, whatever the creator is. I am not religious at all, it is just the name that I give for the thing that made the action.

It could be that the 'universe' has always existed and had no beginning. And that the 'Big Bang' was merely the reversal of a previous 'Big Crunch'. I don't think we'll ever know. But I sure as hell (how ironic) don't think that it was designed by a man in a beard, or that we lived alongside dinosaurs a few years ago, because that's just silly and doesn't fit in with anything humans have observed.

I don't think christians are really interested in hard evidence for or against religion. To imagine that a christian would renounce their faith because of lemur fossils is as plausible as an athiest finding god because they 'miraculously' survived a freak accident.

Personally, I consider myself more of an agnostic but since I'm conservative its just easier to call it Christianity.

Quote from Gills4life :

Well by what you're saying in a way you are not disagreeing with me

Oh yes I am! A god is by definition a quasi omnipotent scentient person. A high energy entity with no "personality" and no intentions thus doesn't qualify as a god. Also, you can't reject the concept of religion without rejecting the concept of god, because as soon as you believe in any form of a god, you're in a religion, no matter how it's organised and how many members it has. So you'd basically just have a religion for your own.

And Tristan: Well, I know that it's just as plausible that the universe is infinte on both directions on the time axis as having a point to start somewhere. I think the latest trend in the univers' origin is the string theory, with multiverses colliding and thus generating new universes with different orientations in the space time continuum. Which might be true, but I lack the brains to wrap them around it

So God is by definition an actual person?

Well I, along with other people that I know, including a few very religious people who actually have a bit of common sense, define God differently. One of them being my Grandfather who goes to church every sunday. He believes that God is different to how most people define. That God is merely the creator, that does not mean that God has to be a "him" or a "her" as a person. I think that this is a more intelligent way of perceiving God that defining God as a person walking around in the clouds, don't you?

And just because I define God differently does not mean that I HAVE to have a religion of my own. That's nonsense, I don't HAVE to create a religion to believe differently to other people. I am hardly religious for believing that God could be anything, am I? I just try to have a more sensible view on what God could actually be.

Quote from Gills4life :

So God is by definition an actual person?

Well I, along with other people that I know, including a few very religious people who actually have a bit of common sense, define God differently.

Nope, read any writing about god, be it the bible, the Qu'ran, anything. It's always a person, or, if you like to go polytheistic, multiple persons.

The whole concept of religion wouldn't work if it wouldn't regard gods as persons who act with intentions and decide. A blob of energy can't do both these things, thus it can't be a god, even if it was the source of the universe.

Let me explain it with the ordinary sun cult: people think the sun is a god. As a god, it's likely to have quirks and bad moods. Thus, the "god" has to be pleased with sacrifices and prayers, so it doesn't one day decide "**** it" and refuses to go up in the morning, making everyone really misreable until they die of cold or lack of oxygen. Thus, rituals are developed to constantly please the god.
Now take out the concept of a god being a person with needs, intetions and moods, and what's left? nothing, because there would be nothing that has to be pleased.

So in short: Without the concept of a person as a god, there would be any religions at all. So, if you take out the "person", you also take out "god".

EDIT to answer your edited post: Even if god is "just" the creator, he/she/it would still need a mind, because a mind is the basic premise for "creativity". If a stone falls into water, does it "create" the ripples, or does it "cause" them? That might be semtantics, but to me, it's still an important point, as it pronounces the difference between chance and design. So even that creator god would be a "person" in the widest definition.

And yes, because you define god differently, you are in fact in a religion. You might be the only member of it, and thus also the prophet and head of it, it still would be a religion. Just because you don't have a strict set of rules and rituals doesn't make it less religious, it just makes it less official.

I think you kind of miss my point. I say I am not religious, so I do not follow all of these religions. Thus, I have my own theories about God. I am sure that my theories about what God could be, do not coincide with what the Bible says. That doesn't mean that my theories can only be incorrect because the Bible says different. You can't tell me that everything in the Bible actually happened because no one really knows.

Actually, it's the other way round, you don't really get what I am saying.
Religion does not equal chrisitan belief. A religion is a system of beliefs.
You have formed your own system of beliefs, thus you have created your own independent religion.
Also, it doesn't have to do anything with right or wrong, because if it had, again, there wouldn't be any form of religion. Unless the point would be to be wrong.

No, I do understand what you are saying by that and I do agree with you to some extent. The thing is, my Grandfather is a catholic and does go to a roman catholic church every sunday. He has the same belief about God as I do, but that does not mean that he has had to create his own religion to worship God by himself in his own way. People inside the same faith can have different beliefs aswell.

Well, that's more like a side-effect of how lax the churches have become nowadays.
If he doesn't believe everything the roman catholic church proclaims to the letter, he is in fact no roman catholic. He might be calling himself a catholic, and he might believe he is one, but, and that's the thing about beliefs, it sure doesn't make him one.
In darker times, he would've faced a fiery death at the stakes for the "blasphemies" you describe.

And it doesn't matter what religion you're coming from. As soon as you disagree with it, and be it in less important points than the nature of god (which should actually be the most important common factor for all followers of a religion), you're not part of it anymore, be it officially aknowledged or not.

I mean, that's the point in a religion, isn't it? Believing in it, following it, taking part in it's rituals. If you don't do that what makes you being a part of it?

Well I think it is down to people having more knowledge of our past these days. I consider my Grandfather to be an extremely intelligent man, and although I may be biased, he is a mathematician and an engineer and I wouldn't have thought someone could be either of those without being smart and using logic. I think his way of thinking about God is a lot smarter than the way the Church teaches. He might have been burned at the stake all those years ago, but we know today that that would be wrong to do so and I believe that is partly down to the fact that the church knows that some of it's teachings have been made obsolete so cannot accuse people of blasphemy. Doing so would cause an uproar.

I think you are wrong to say that he is not a catholic. He knows more about religion and Christianity than the both of us put together, I can assure you. In darker times, people were wrong. In darker times the earth was flat. I have not really described blasphemies. They might have been seen as blasphemous in those "darker" times, but today they wouldn't be. I wouldn't even go as far as saying that he is disagreeing with religion, all he does in perceive God in a different way. He still acknowledges that there is a God and he celebrates God along with everyone else that goes to the church. He celebrates the death and the resurrection of Christ. He is a catholic.

So, what makes your Granddad cling to being a catholic, even though he himself sees that it's falsified in so many places?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to insult your granddad or you. It's IMHO just one of those thousands of cases were a membership to a religious group is down to tradition rather than belief or conviction.

He doesn't "cling" to being a catholic at all. He doesn't need to. He was baptised into the catholic church and he is a very respected member of the church that he goes to. He made the alter and tabernacle for the church himself. He is a catholic because he shares the same beliefs as other members of the church about Christ.

:haha: