Religious Belief vs. Scientific Fact

Many of the arguments in "My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God" concern the validity of religous beliefs versus scientific facts. Now, if you suppose that religious beliefs and scientific facts eventually become electrochemical impulses to be intrepreted by other such electrochemical impulses in the brain, what makes one impulse more correct than the other? What makes an impulse better than another one? Human existence is uncertain and therefore subjective.

Soren Kierkegaard illustrated in one of his writing that religion(and what it entails) is something that resides in the interior and spiritual realms, thereby eluding logical or direct communication. Kierkegaard believed in God.

By rejecting the idea of a religous or spiritual soul, the scientific idea of a neurological soul ultimately fails because scientists must inevitably appeal to the higher faculties to whom their relevance they deny.

The human existence is something to be lived; it can not be comprehended.



(I don't want any bullshit religious bias posted here)

[This message has been edited by NihilisticAinSophAur (edited 07-28-2004).]

[Digital_Savior]

So, how do you scientifically prove a soul, or even faith ? (it is impossible...nothing tangible to test)

So many ask for scientific proof for the existence of God, and the reliability of the Bible, so to ignore this question would be unreasonable.

With the information we have, we can present science that DOES prove God's existence, in certain aspects. The validity of the Bible can be proven in certain aspects as well, but it should also be noted that it is a spiritual book, and this aspect obviously cannot be tested.

To completely prove God's existence, and the validity of the Bible as a means to support this existence is IMPOSSIBLE.

We are not meant to fully produce scientific data to prove these things.

If we were, there would be no need for souls, or for faith, since we would be unable to deny His existence, and therefor would have no need for these things.

And this goes back to fulfillment. If your creation is forced to love you, how fulfilling would that be ?

It all ties in...one big picture, that cannot possibly be explained a scientific theory, or physical data.

[---Beany---]

Is soul not the same thing as consciousness?

If not what's the difference?

Being as we can never be certain, seriously, who gives a fuck?

Digital_Saviour, what science proves that God does exist? I'm curious. Science can neither prove or disprove God. And why are we not meant to fully produce scientific date to prove these things?

By the way, you completely missed the point of this thread.

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Is soul not the same thing as consciousness?

If not what's the difference?

I believe consciousness is awareness of self, to a certain degree.

I believe souls are completely separate entities, though "assigned" (for a lack of a better word) to each of us. We each have our own...it's us, but an extension of us, which cannot be explained.

Makes ya feel better, eh ? *laughs*

Forgive my crude explanation.

Meh.

[Digital_Savior]

Sorry, son, but this forum is for RELIGIOUS DEBATE, so for you to say you don't want any religious bias is ridiculous.

I didn't miss the MAJOR point of your thread.

Also, simply because I am Christian, does not mean I am religious. Trust me, there is a difference.

The impulses you are referring to lack one thing...an explanation. I don't believe for one minute that chaos, over however many billions of years you think it has adapted in, could have accomplished such complex neural transmissions and responses. It is NOT possible !

I focused more on your complaints of the misuse of science to respond to your obtuse thread to begin with.

Everyone has an opinion, even Christians, and mine are just as valid as yours.

If you want to see what science proves that God exists, see my thread: Refuting the Evidence. It's a starting point.

Digital Saviour, you did miss the point, I neither support science or religion.

[Digital_Savior]

Wasn't saying you did. I responded using both as examples of why I disgreed with your point, which is that existence is complex, and cannot be defined (or understood), NO ?

[Sniper]

I always wanted to know why do people oppose science to religion...

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 07-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

I always wanted to know why do people oppose science to religion...

Im a Christian.....I dont oppose "Science"...I oppose Fairy Tales taught under the word "Science".....

quote:Creationism is not opposed to legitimate scientific inquiry! In fact, the biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand the physical processes at work in the universe, which is the general purpose of science. Once we leave the realm of data, however, and enter in a discussion of interpretation, science ends and religion begins.

I suppose you could say I'm "Christian" in that I do believe that jesus died for our sins. ect.

BUT...

I don't really think its a good idea to take every word of the bible totally seriously, particularly Genisis.

I mean, Jesus did most of his teaching in parables.

Anyway, I don't see why God would need to break the natural laws he set in motion.

There isn't any need for science and religion to conflict.

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Im a Christian.....I dont oppose "Science"...I oppose Fairy Tales taught under the word "Science".....

Well I invite you to refute this then:

http:../../www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.htm

Sniper Piper, you posted that list before, it's half-truths and crap presented as the definitive truth.

[This message has been edited by Mr.Happy (edited 07-31-2004).]