That is how I see it, as really science is made from religion, It doesn't matter about intelligient design, but you will see when you die
#4: Is intelligent design a viable argument for the existence of God?
- Thread starter bacon
- Start date
- Status
kashmaster said:
science isn't made from religion. >_> Common mistake sadly. Religion and science were in fact 1 and the same thing in many, MANY cultures is the past.
I am trying to say without religion there is no science, it is kind of a symbiotic relationship
symbiotic? That's not the case! >=O
I am now going to try to tell in English what I read a while back.
In ancient Greece, there were several Gods (Well duh) and each God had Priests and such like we know today. However, the only difference between what is a Priest now and a Priest then is that the Priests then studied the wonders that the Gods provided, in the hope to get closer to enlightening and thus, closer to their Gods.
I don't know however, what made science and religion ' divorce' .
I am now going to try to tell in English what I read a while back.
In ancient Greece, there were several Gods (Well duh) and each God had Priests and such like we know today. However, the only difference between what is a Priest now and a Priest then is that the Priests then studied the wonders that the Gods provided, in the hope to get closer to enlightening and thus, closer to their Gods.
I don't know however, what made science and religion ' divorce' .
Fridge, you're obviously uneducated about the subject.
In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case it was established that Intelligent Design was just another name for Creationism. Saying ID is evidence for creation is like saying gravitation is evidence for gravity or something. It's just a synonym, not evidence. You saying you think it's not solid proof, but proof nevertheless, means you'll accept anything to validate your believes without trying to do any research, let alone reading this thread.
Of course you can't disprove God. My friend Bob here is invisible, unsensable and untouchable, prove to me he doesn't exist. Of course, he most likely won't, but you can't possibly give me any evidence for that. Fact is, though, that science has been taking the place of God and blurring his definition for so long now. What used to be some sort of solid deity walking around in the skies has now become "something which started evolution" or something even "something which started the big bang". Almost everything, from Big Bang to now, can be perfectly explained by science, and if it can't, expect science to be able to in a couple of years. Trying to fit God in there anywhere is just being stubborn and silly. God was meant as an easy answer to questions we couldn't answers at the time, just to make us feel like we did have an answer. But the supernatural isn't an answer, it's just replacing a question with another, more vague question. And we have decent answers now, based on actual evidence, so what's the point?
Just maybe try and read some of the posts in this thread, and watch some of the vids (I especially like this playlist because it explains everything from the Big Bang to the evolution of men according to science in simple videos). Maybe you'll be able to see how things could exist without the need for any deity.
In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case it was established that Intelligent Design was just another name for Creationism. Saying ID is evidence for creation is like saying gravitation is evidence for gravity or something. It's just a synonym, not evidence. You saying you think it's not solid proof, but proof nevertheless, means you'll accept anything to validate your believes without trying to do any research, let alone reading this thread.
Of course you can't disprove God. My friend Bob here is invisible, unsensable and untouchable, prove to me he doesn't exist. Of course, he most likely won't, but you can't possibly give me any evidence for that. Fact is, though, that science has been taking the place of God and blurring his definition for so long now. What used to be some sort of solid deity walking around in the skies has now become "something which started evolution" or something even "something which started the big bang". Almost everything, from Big Bang to now, can be perfectly explained by science, and if it can't, expect science to be able to in a couple of years. Trying to fit God in there anywhere is just being stubborn and silly. God was meant as an easy answer to questions we couldn't answers at the time, just to make us feel like we did have an answer. But the supernatural isn't an answer, it's just replacing a question with another, more vague question. And we have decent answers now, based on actual evidence, so what's the point?
Just maybe try and read some of the posts in this thread, and watch some of the vids (I especially like this playlist because it explains everything from the Big Bang to the evolution of men according to science in simple videos). Maybe you'll be able to see how things could exist without the need for any deity.
Firstly what gives you the impression that God is in the sky? Who says he is solid? You sometimes have to think how something works in life for the better. We are all here for a reason. Some are to stubborn to realise God or to embrace him yet others seek to become close to him.
We all will just have to wait until our Death comes
We all will just have to wait until our Death comes
You don't have to believe in God to be close to the divine that many people label God.
^ could you provide some evidence to back that claim? ... I doubt it.
And, no, the Bible is not evidence. It's a work of astronomy and fables. A great one, at that.
Most probably when religious fundamentalists (who take their holy texts literally) started repressing science because it started to provide alternatives to their "truths."
I.e. it showed that the sun does not go around the Earth, etc.
Copernicus and Galileo were heavily persecuted.
Long, long ago, religion was the preserver of science and amassed knowledge.
Nowadays, science does not need religion as a motivation. Or in any other way, for that matter. Religion only serves to instill morals into societies.
Let's say that science has "outgrown" its religion cradle.
Even the Big Bang is now tentatively being explained by string theory. Heh.
And, no, the Bible is not evidence. It's a work of astronomy and fables. A great one, at that.
afstandopleren said:
Most probably when religious fundamentalists (who take their holy texts literally) started repressing science because it started to provide alternatives to their "truths."
I.e. it showed that the sun does not go around the Earth, etc.
Copernicus and Galileo were heavily persecuted.
Long, long ago, religion was the preserver of science and amassed knowledge.
Nowadays, science does not need religion as a motivation. Or in any other way, for that matter. Religion only serves to instill morals into societies.
Let's say that science has "outgrown" its religion cradle.
True.Heavenly Spoon :F said:
Even the Big Bang is now tentatively being explained by string theory. Heh.
I remember reading somewhere that some religious authority said that God cannot be proven.
If you think that intelligent design is true without backing up your reason and you're just telling others to wait till death, then I don't think you can participate in this debate effectively. It's not that we're stubborn enough to open our hearts and whatever. I was raised religiously, and I still am to a certain extent, but I don't blindly reject all things that contradict what our interpretation of religion is.
If you think that intelligent design is true without backing up your reason and you're just telling others to wait till death, then I don't think you can participate in this debate effectively. It's not that we're stubborn enough to open our hearts and whatever. I was raised religiously, and I still am to a certain extent, but I don't blindly reject all things that contradict what our interpretation of religion is.
kashmaster said:
No, science isn't made from religion as said before, religion even made science slowing down, you know in the Middle Ages, you only had to say: ''the Earth is round'', and you would be killed cuz you were a wizard and the bible says you have to kill them and all nonsense like that...
kashmaster said:
''You can't proof God doesn't exist'' this is an example of a quote i've seen a lot and lot times before. Now i will ask the people who believe in god: ''Can you proof the existence of god?''... probably no...
And you're saying we've to die to see god? If we die our heart stopt beating, and so our brains stop working, then we'll be buried (or burned) and our bodies are gone, digested by micro-life. We don't go to heaven. (and if it exist) where's heaven? Above the clouds? Could be a problem with the airplanes and the rockets, isn't it? And after a time the heaven would be full of people, right? Where do they all have to stay then? And if we die and go to heaven and live forever in heaven that would be a torture, i mean, living forever, you'll get crazy and the worst is you can't suicide. Heaven was meant to be a place of happiness, wasn't it?
apophys said:
Eh what? I didn't mention anything about fables nor astronomy. I am more talking from my own experience. You can't proof that a Christian is closer to the divine just by believing in 'God'.
Pokequaza said:
Ahhh you see the word of God through the bible, look at many religions and then you may discover the truth about God. I enjoy science and I understand it, I couldn't argue that intelligent design is a viable excuse for God, neither could you about evolution. You can say you have evidence but you don't as this is done based on fossils and imagination. You can't exactly know what happened at the beginning of the Earth and even though most pass off that we have a detailed enough picture, you don't nobody does.
I cannot prove God like you cannot prove evolution. I can argue my case and so can you but in the end we don't know and we will never know.
You may be thinking I am arrogant in my beliefs and I am stubborn but so are you, I could call you that as I don't accept evolution but you do, whilst you don't accept God and I do.
Also about heaven. Did I say it was above the clouds? Also, you don't mind dying now? Im sure you would like to live forever in eternal happiness.
Finally, If i am wrong big deal, its not the end of the world for me but can the same be said about you.
P.S: If you say I am uneducated in the subject, then you don't know me enough to say something like that
If you say evolution doesn't have evidence, I know more than enough about you to say that you're uneducated about the subject.
If fossil records of pretty much every major step in evolution, ranked in the Earth layers precisely according to the predictions of evolution, every aspect of genetics supporting the theory, a logical, functional, real and OBSERVABLE process being the engine behind the theory, every logical prediction by the theory of evolution being true and not a single science even coming close to disproving evolution, and even supporting it is not evidence, then what is? What do you want? A sped-up film of a group of animals evolving over millions of years?
Evolution is probably one of the theories with the most evidence backing it up and one of the most examined and researched theories, claiming it's based on imagination means you're uneducated.
If fossil records of pretty much every major step in evolution, ranked in the Earth layers precisely according to the predictions of evolution, every aspect of genetics supporting the theory, a logical, functional, real and OBSERVABLE process being the engine behind the theory, every logical prediction by the theory of evolution being true and not a single science even coming close to disproving evolution, and even supporting it is not evidence, then what is? What do you want? A sped-up film of a group of animals evolving over millions of years?
Evolution is probably one of the theories with the most evidence backing it up and one of the most examined and researched theories, claiming it's based on imagination means you're uneducated.
Heavenly Spoon :F said:
Well why can't I say it is based on imagination. Do you see evolution happening right infront of you? You decide to believe that it works from fossils. I say seeing is believing in science.
Also I think you know me well enough, you can't say I am uneducated in this area, I just decide not to believe it as it isn't the best of theories
I know you are passionate about this subject, but can you calm down a bit
Spoon, its not a 'lets try and ocnvince other people do belive/not belive in God thread'. What I said was viable: No-one can prove God does or doesnt exist. I really dont see why you have to read too much into my post specifically when lots of others have said other things similar or even less acceptable. You really just read what you wanted to see in my post, and picked on me for it. I accept thjat all theories are possible, and I even said that no-one can prove God does or doesnt exist. How is that ignorant or unreasonable? My main point is that science and God don't or don't have to contradict each other. No amount of vids can explain how the world was created 'by accidenct'. They can provide theories, each one acceptable, but none of them can disprove the existance of God or say that there is no need for him. Even if there may not be a need, it doesnt meen that he wasnt there anyways. It might have theoretically been possibel fo for the world to have been creatde without a God, but it doesnt mean it was. God still has his place.
:s
Oh yeah and EDITS:I do belive that evolution is probably what took place. Its like I said, science and God don't have to contradict each other.
I'm gonna edit again:
Kashmaster, i really have to agree with spoon about the evolution thing. I mean, there is more than enough ervidence for us to realise that it is most probably true, and saying it is based on imagination is not really correct at all. It doesnt contradict religion, so don't go thinking it cant be true because it does.
And there are still some types of evolution that occur today. Tadpoles into frogs, catterpillars into butterflies, all examples of modern evolution. The theory is that the same happened with man, just over a loinger period of time. It is true that people and animals must adapt to their surroundings, otherwise why would all escimoes be qutie small (adapated to smaller bodies to contain heat) and why would polar bears have such huge fur coats (when most other bears have very thin fur?) Things like thatg are all modern reminders of how real evolution seems.
:s
Oh yeah and EDITS:I do belive that evolution is probably what took place. Its like I said, science and God don't have to contradict each other.
I'm gonna edit again:
Kashmaster, i really have to agree with spoon about the evolution thing. I mean, there is more than enough ervidence for us to realise that it is most probably true, and saying it is based on imagination is not really correct at all. It doesnt contradict religion, so don't go thinking it cant be true because it does.
And there are still some types of evolution that occur today. Tadpoles into frogs, catterpillars into butterflies, all examples of modern evolution. The theory is that the same happened with man, just over a loinger period of time. It is true that people and animals must adapt to their surroundings, otherwise why would all escimoes be qutie small (adapated to smaller bodies to contain heat) and why would polar bears have such huge fur coats (when most other bears have very thin fur?) Things like thatg are all modern reminders of how real evolution seems.
Metamorphosis =/= evolution. I don't think the change from caterpillar into butterfly involves changing the DNA. I could be wrong on this, but even so, it's still not evolution. Just wanted to correct that.
Anyhow, what I was trying to say is that there's just no point in even considering a God, not only does it overcomplicates everything, there's also no reason whatsoever to add him in anywhere. I still don't see how people can still convince themselves in this modern day and age that there might be "something" which controls everything, when it all could have happened without the need for this something, and the existence of this something just raises so many more unanswerable questions. I know you'd like to think that there's life after this one, or that you'll be rewarded for whatever you did in this life, but that's just lying to yourself, which is everything but productive. I don't mind you believing in something, I just can't help to find it silly. What I really can't stand is those who try to deny anything to verify their little fantasies, which is just despicable. Trying to convince others of their little fantasies, especially through indoctrination, is even worse. Just because you're not one of those doesn't mean I can't argue with you, right?
Anyhow, what I was trying to say is that there's just no point in even considering a God, not only does it overcomplicates everything, there's also no reason whatsoever to add him in anywhere. I still don't see how people can still convince themselves in this modern day and age that there might be "something" which controls everything, when it all could have happened without the need for this something, and the existence of this something just raises so many more unanswerable questions. I know you'd like to think that there's life after this one, or that you'll be rewarded for whatever you did in this life, but that's just lying to yourself, which is everything but productive. I don't mind you believing in something, I just can't help to find it silly. What I really can't stand is those who try to deny anything to verify their little fantasies, which is just despicable. Trying to convince others of their little fantasies, especially through indoctrination, is even worse. Just because you're not one of those doesn't mean I can't argue with you, right?
If this thread would just keep on talking about that subject, it would've died ages ago. Discussion > Going off-topic. Sounds like you're just trying to avoid this debate for whatever reason.Fridge said:
And I'm not saying that there's absolutely no way, I'm just saying that the odds are negligibly small, there's no point in even considering it until evidence somehow pops up.
I have my beliefes, and you have yours. I'm gonna stay out of hte debate if thats okay with you ;D I like the idea of talking abotu ID being proof or not, but the way its gone off topic doesnt suit what I'm comfortable talking about. And no, its not because I know I'm wrong, so don't bring that up. Lets just leave this artgument for the while.
- Status