I just read a survey that was taken in the UK that showed 89% of the public believe in the existence of a superior/ paranormal being - God.

I was quite surprised to read that, so I decided to make my own poll about it.

So, do you believe in God? Why?

Yes.

Why not ?

Dear infinite sadness,

Yes, I believe in God. I believe I have a conscience for a reason.

I believe in an authority that stoops to wash a poor man's feet. I believe in a banquet where sinners learn to love, eating in company with their God. I believe in the words that God has left for men, words that can fashion hope from darkness, and turn bitter loneliness into love. And I believe in humanity, fashioned in mystery by God. I believe in the beauty of our mind, the force of our emotions, the fire and loyalty of our love.

As I wrote in another post, people could, indeed, call Christ God, even as I do, in simple and indefensible faith. Others might find their God in "Church" or "Abraham" or "personal honesty."

Take Care.

No, I don't believe in God.
Why? Because I have no faith in any religion. Nearing my use by date I have experienced so many wars that were based upon differences in religion.
Anti semitism before WW2, Irish Catholics - v - Protestants, Jews - v - Muslims, Hindu -v -Moslems and the list doesn't stop. Even in Iraq right now when different moslem sects are fighting each other.
If there is a god, what sort of bastard is it that condones the attack on the twin Trade towers in New York on 9/11?
I believe in the love of other people. That makes sense.

not since the tooth fairy stiffed me at age 8.

absolutely not,I totally don't believe in god

I've been told that god controls what happens in this world,& whatever happens,happens according to his wish.But I'll give one example & there are probably hundreds of thousands of such examples, when Tsunami happened,back in December 26, 2004,where was he & did he want Tsunami to happen & kill all those innocent people?

The universe is way cooler and more amazing than the prudish, thin-lipped bloke who's parcelled his people into groups and rated them in order of preference, who's not a fan of poofs, who sees behaviour not in all its complex beauty but in the dulls shades of "sin" and "virtue", who invented a great place like Heaven but acts like a bouncer at the gates, who is so desperately insecure that he demands everyone bang on about how much they adore him.

The universe, meanwhile, just magnificently, inconceivably is. It dwarfs us, yet it is made of us and we are made of it. We are all, as Dr Sagan said, star-stuff. And humans, with our unique capacity for self-reflection and morality, get to try and get our heads around it all. It's too cool.

It amazes me that some people think it's atheists who are without morals. Our deep, natural responsibility to co-operate seems inescapable to me. Aside from Foxy, all the Christians on this forum seem to do is instruct others on who to hate.

Anyway, I guess it's pretty obvious that, no, I don't believe in god.

Dear Infinite Sadness....

YES..I believe in God... for 2 reasons.

1/ SCRIPTURES -I find the evidence of the Scriptures, taken in totality, and in most cases in isolation from the rest.. to be persuasive to the point of irresistability. I read of a history of Gods dealings with a people.. who were not chosen for any essential goodness or merit they might have, but so that God might communicate his will to the world. Why didn't he just put some huge writing in the sky and announce it "I'm here"... beats the heck out of me.. I don't have a clue. Rather than dance around the philosphical mulberry bush hoping some berries will drop of into our mouths.. the end of the intellectual quest for the Almighty will always end at the same point.
"He is soveriegn..and will do as He sees fit with His Creation."
Does He know all things from the beginning ? Yep
Does He have the 'ability/power' to stop natural disasters in His created world? Yep
Do we then have the audacity and arrogance as the 'created' to question the why's and wherefores of the Creator's dealings with the world ? I sure hope NOT.
Should we hide behind flimsy excuses which in themselves are in fact an admission of belief in God, but then we reject Him? (Don't talk to me about GOD.. I've seen this or that atrocity/disaster kind of thing.)
The strange thing is.. the people expressing such ideas would not have such ill will toward God if they did not deep down believe in Him.

2/ EXPERIENCE. Jesus once healed a man born blind. His method is quite interesting if you think about it... but John 9 is the chapter. Why not read about it?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=9&version=31

I've felt that healing power in my own body/life. "Instantly" from a fractured elbow.

CONCLUSION
On the basis of persuasive documentary evidence and person experience, I absolutely believe in God..and that He has revealed Himself in fullness and finality in Christ Jesus for our Salvation.

phoenix94: You are directly blaming God for all the bad things that happened in this world. It's his world , he can do whatever he likes.

If you have a fishtank, you are in a way "Their God", they rely on you to feed them and keep the tank clean. If one day you decide to throw a shark in with them, then they have no authority to question why you did that.

You have to accept things and learn that there is no evil in this world. There is simply a lack of goodness.

Different religions have different perspectives on God. If you choose to be an Atheist that's fine. But at least respect other people's beliefs.

No, I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural beings and I have never believed in any god in my life.

There are so many versions of God that everyone is an atheist to someone else's idea of what God is.

Gods seem to be disposable as well; throughout history all kinds of gods have appeared and disposed of later.
The same will probably happen with the most popular Gods of today if we wait long enough.

The reason I don't believe is because there is no evidence of the existence of any god.

If it makes some people happy to believe in supernatural beings, that's fine with me; let there be freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.

I'll start believing in a god when I'll see proper evidence for the existence of one.

The only thing that makes sense is the theory of evolution; creationism makes no sense whatsoever and is, in one word: laughable.

Having said all that, I have sometimes wished that I ever believed in a God, just so I'd know what it feels like to believe in a being so great; I've heard that there is a lot of comfort in faith when you need it.
Unfortunately for people who find comfort in believing; no matter how much comfort people are getting out of faith; it doesn't make the existence of any god a fact.

Careful what you say celivia, you might find BOAZ trying to convert you!

No I do not believe in any God.
I wonder at the devisions we men let God place between us nations, cultures and different races.
Is it not clear if God created us all we should all be his children?
Yet we find reason to hate those who are different in Gods name?

It is not a perfect world. If that was God's intentions then there would be no use for all this.

The concept of god is a human one to explain the inequitities,unfairness and hardships of life.If we could create our own perfect world,there would be no need for godly concepts.
To seek god,is to seek a father figure.Basically we have to solve our own problems.The atheists on the other hand have not the solutions also.Some athieists like our religious fanatics believe too much in their disbelief,as apposed to religious belief.Just have faith in yourself.

The flawed pseudo science of evolution and the lies involved with it seems dumb to me when you can see the handiwork of a magnificent Creator.Also the Holy Scriptures that speak of a wonderful Saviour contain so much more wisdom than any other document ever written. I suppose that why it is the world's best seller year after year.

I believe in God. Design and intelligence indicates a mind greater than ours has given it rational form and purpose.

Excellent. Are we going to have an argument about evolution. G'arn Runner, why is Darwinism as pseudo-science then?

I'm a Christian and in my opinion, science isn't pseudo.

Most stuff is very insightful.

Science is a very useful tool to enable greater care for each other (eg, inventing medicines).

Every religion is different in their own ways.
Every person who is not religious believes what they want to believe.
Every atheist denies the existence of God.

I don't agree with the writings of Richard Dawkin's. His whole context is evolution based. Religion is a form of evolution.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I'm saying it's the workings of God, and we evolve to how he wants us to evolve.

I conclude our minds are not evolved enough to understand the purpose of all things, or WHY they happen the way they do. The processes in which these happen are great knowledge, but they are just processes.

I think that God exists in the minds of those who believe in him/her/it. Vidal was of course quite correct - credulous people create their God/s in their own image, in the sense that the particular form that 'God' takes for any individual would be a product of their particular needs, experiences and fantasies.

No.

No I don't but I used to.

Why
- The lack of any credible evidence that is consistant with a faiths revealed teachings which is not explained adequately by other belief systems.
In relation to the main middle eastern god in it's two various forms.
- I find it impossible to believe a being to be superior who has sat by and allowed his or her followers to do the harm to fellow humans that followers of Yahweh/Allah have done.
- I find it impossible to consider a being superior who allows those who claim his name to molest children year after year or to blow up innocents in his name.
- I can't consider a being superior who set up a crooked game in which his son is the only one who passes and everybody else needs to come on bended knee before him to avoid an eternity of torment.
- I can't consider a being superior who's instruction manual is so confusing that his or her people can't reach a common understanding of some fairly fundamental issues but can believe that they have the absolute truth.
- A can't consider a being superior who's followers have embraced sexual discrimination, slavery, wars of conquest throughout history amd in recent years the unceasing posting of dribble on OLO.
- I can't consider a being superior who allows the likes of Benny Hinn to continue to claim to represent him (likewise with others of his ilk).
- I can't consider a being superior when the most likely determinant for believing in his or her existance is the accident or when and where you were born but where that knowledge is supposedly vitally important.

R0bert

Of course, I belive, but I know the one who's doing all to persuade everybody in NON-existence of supernatural and mystical...by means of his vids. Look at this

Mirror Ghost Girl http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1080086/mirror_ghost_girl_debunk

Yes, I believe in god.

Too much abjectly silly sh+t happens every day for it to be simply within the realms of a logical untampered-with universe.

I feel like the puppet of a higher being….a being that is as flawed as any human….which imposes stupid sh^t upon you just out of the blue, and good stuff as well, just on a whim….with no rhyme or reason.

It’s almost as though our god is some silly adolescent trying to find his place in his godly world amongst millions of other gods.

Ps. That’s your best post yet Ginxy.

Unfortunately Ludders I can't say the same for you.

Aaaaah haaaa hahaahahahaaa. That’s funny.

So Ginx, you reckon I’ve written much better posts.

Excellent. So do I!

.
I do believe in god, but certainly not one that is all-mighty.

An almighty god would not let us get hopelessly out of whack with a sustainable existence…unless he wanted us to suffer a huge crash event in which millions of innocent people suffer terribly. He would not allow humanity to threaten the existence of many other species. He wouldn’t allow us to fight amongst ourselves.

So, god is pretty damn slack. Basic ecological principles drive our destiny while he seems to just sit back and bludge.

Creationism makes man responsible for the maintenance and sustaiability of his environment Gen 2:15. Atheistic evolution has no such commission to manage species and environments and places no one as responsible for it all it just happens anyway without reason.

Philo,
Now that's pretty good food for thought ! To be honest I have never been religious & so far as the existence of God is concerned I'll find out sooner or later. If God is real I'm not concerned but if he is not then all those religious hypocrites will get away with it.

SNAKEY :) I'm insulted mate.. what's this 'MIGHT' bit eh ?

It not a might..it's a foregone conclusion, an absolute certainty, and irresistable force.. yes..I will try to Liberate (convert) not just Celivia but all who come here.

Snake..if you want some really gripping reading..(seriously).. I hope you will read this. Its inspiring. just 2 chapters from Acts...not much. 25 and 26

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=25&version=31

It concludes with these words....

28Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

Paul replied, "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

The build up to that point is fascinating...truly.. you will gain insights of the ways of those days unavailable in other places, except perhaps Josephus.

In those moments.. you have the brute force and might of Rome...encountering the humble Galilaean's Spirit in Paul..who relates in graphic detail his former life.. and his conversion..
how any reasonable person can claim this is a 'fairy tale' is totally beyond my human comprehension.

Who... who indeed would have thought, that with the odds so stacked against Jesus and his disciples.. against Paul..

<<The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer.>>
(Parenthesis..I sometimes feel there are those here who feel that way about me :)

...that this 'fairy tale' would ever amount to anything.

Aah.. but Paul knew his Redeemer.. he knew that the Kingdom of God.. growing in the hearts of men and women.. like a tiny grain of mustard seed, would become a giant of trees..and 270 yrs later, Constantine would recognize that the mighty Roman Empire...had become 'Christian'

....no sword.. no army...no fighting..no terrorism, no bombs- the Glorious Son of Man changed the inner person, and made them new.

No.. fairy tales don't achieve that result...but the Spirit of God does

individual, if it's any comfort most religious types will share the same fate as non-believers if a god exists. There are so many ideas about god around that if one exists most who believe in a god won't believe in the correct one.

Even if they do believe in the correct god they may not believe the right way and gods seem to be rather fussy about that sort of stuff.

It's a long odds proposition to try and pick the right god then the right way of following him/her or it.

R0bert

RObert,
no qualms about your view in this quarter. S'ppose it's a wait'n see for all of us.

Boazy said: "it's a foregone conclusion, an absolute certainty, and irresistable force.. yes..I will try to Liberate (convert) not just Celivia but all who come here."

Just out of interest, has anyone here been converted by Boazy? Has anyone felt closer to god after reading his posts?

Or has anyone else, like me, felt even less sympathy for Christianity the more Boazy posts?

Vanilla, for the record Boazy does a great job of reminding me why the fundamentalist christain god is an abhorent construct.

Boazy has impressive help from some of his less well humoured friends but even without them his contributions are enough to keep me well away from that type of christianity.

R0bert

To Noah, God gives a command after the Flood:

So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand." (Genesis 9:1-2)

OK....so God sure got the "multiply," "fear" and "dread" bit right and we've done what he told us to do and trashed everything that has got in our way including bumping off a few million of our own species in His name and in defence of His religion.

Oh yes, but back to planet Earth. Perhaps the believers will now ask him if he could overcome the deaf, blind and dumb afflictions he's had to endure for a couple of thousand years, and advise us how to get out of the mess his command created for us in the first place?

I've been sitting here reading all of your posts - laughing at some - being depressed at others. But that's all right. We've got different ways of looking at things - depending I suppose on our culture, upbringing , education, and personal experiences.

Why do I still believe? I've tried to answer that in my earlier post - but realised - it wasn't a very good response. So again I asked myself, "Why do I still believe?"

I was raised a Catholic. And slowly with time, I began to wonder how did we ever produce the legalistic Church that took the treasures of the Gospel and transformed them into wards and ideas that can tell a modern person how to live and love.
Our theology became a tale of tired truths. I began to reject such narrowness. I needed freedom from a legalistic Church that had transformed the simplicity of a personal and Christian love into a world of fear and guilt.

The Church did not encourage us to think. It trained us to defend. We were not asked to reflect, but to memorize.

We were taught to keep laws, to avoid sin, to fear hell, and to carry a cross that we'd built ourselves.

Why do I still believe? I really don't know. I just know that I do.

Yes, hands up everybody who's been converted to Christianity by Boazy's activities in this forum!

Philo said “Creationism makes man responsible for the maintenance and sustainability of his environment Gen 2:15.”
Ah, are you saying that theists care for the environment better than atheists, and is that why the Christian right love the Greens so much?

Dickie made an excellent point about multiplying- does your god expect us to keep on multiplying even though with more than 6 billion population it’s very hard to maintain the earth’s resources?

Snake said, “you might find BOAZ trying to convert you!” Hehe, now that sounds scary! I’m safe though, there is no way anyone could convert me unless it’s God him/herself knocking on my door and turn my bottle of water into a quality Merlot!

Vanilla: “has anyone else, like me, felt even less sympathy for Christianity the more Boazy posts ”
Generally, yes! I’m really put off by Bible quotes and usually just skim over them.
I haven’t read a large amount of posts by BD, but from what I have seen I most often disagree although I have to admit that he sometimes has some good discussion points to share.

It has been around forever like that thing you glimpse out of the corner of your eye.
Notice in a thread like this those of us who do not believe are given names like atheists?
And told we hate Christians?
Or the followers of any God?
Or can even be sued if we talk about one of the newest recently invented Gods?
Why the control? why try to throw dirt at us?
Again tell me of one God that did not make all men?
Why has he failed to keep us one?
There is no God just mans inventiveness and maybe greatness too in wanting to invent a better comforting blanket.

Last night I attended a Church community service meeting in Blacktown NSW.
A young man of 24, whom my wife and I have known for about 7 years, told of his miraculous healing. At seven months he had a stroke that left the left side of his body with palsy till last thursday night.

The Surgeons at that time had taken an artery and placed it under his skin on the side of his head behind his ear and drilled a hole in his skull to get blood to the part of the brain that had been damaged. That artery was always very sensitive as any presure cut off oxygen to his brain. He always had a limp and twisted wrist and a hoppy short leg so was never able to join in in any sport or hand games.

On Thursday night last week two people concerned about his handicap decided to have prayer for his healing. After talking with him for about 20 minutes they prayed for healing of his condition. As he lay there his parents watched his leg grow to the same length as the right one and his hand gain strength and straighten, he could feel all this happening and beside - the hole in his skull closed up, and the artery was no longer sensitive. He demonstrated his healing by running up and down the aisles doing hi-five's with those in the aisle seats.

You ask him if he believes in God and if God answers prayers. He has had difficulty gaining employment because of his handicap. He is a trained computer programmer. He believes God has now given him an opportunity to work and ministry and a full opportunity of life experience. I tested his strength in his hand with an arm wrestle. He put me down. Is there a God? Sure is!

Wow! Friends Thanks for your interesting comments...

Can you go deeper into yourself and think.
When you're in danger and want help don't you ask for guidance and help for a superior force (it doesn't matter how you call it: God, Jesus, Buddha, Alla, stones, crystals, drugs...)
Russel said that he doesn't believe in God, but he's afraid of him?
I think he tricks himself, he wants a God for free!

Nice story, Philo, but the fact that prayer sometimes seems to work is because prayer, for believers, can be an autogenic placebo.
If the subconscious of the person being prayed for totally 'believes' that the body is being healed by a supernatural being (or a pill, or a fire dance under the moon, or a magical stone), the subconscious does the actual healing and the result seems like a miracle.

In no way does a 'miracle' prove the existence of a supernatural being.

I once came across someone who questioned:
If God is so great that he can perform miracles and heal people, then why won't he heal amputees?

I don't suppose anybody thought to record Philo's claimed 'miracle'? And I don't suppose there's be any verifiable independent evidence of this miraculous event - you know, like of the supposed surgery?

Believe what you like, Philo - but until I see evidence I'll maintain that it's only real in your head.

Late 1970,s small country village a man on his way to the head of his church no small one knelt and called on God.
The task was to heal the broken arm of a young boy, three days of praying.
God was not watching it appears.
That same man in a growing church filled many meeting rooms and went on to fill very big venues but the day his mother in law hobbled up to be healed got to me.
She walked away just great,as well in fact as she usually did before that night on crutches.
I do not know if she lied or was just trying to help her God but I know it was wrong.
That man still talks of his God but in another church now I wounder if he still has those crutch's?

ONGOING FASCINATION.... is how I encounter the various posts here.

Foxy (I realize she has retired for the time being) has so much in her post worthy of extended and serious discussion... her open heart is truly a valuable asset for the forum.

Key Words from her post:

"Treasures of the Gospel"

How wonderfully true this is "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly"

"Legalistic Church"

"The truth shall make you free, and if the truth makes you free, you will be free indeed"

"Tale of Tired Truths." (good aliteration)

2"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God.

"From Simplicity to a world of Fear and Guilt"

6Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

"Don't think...just defend"

I wonder if anyone is seeing "Jesus" in all this ? notice how the Gospel he proclaimed and embodied contrasts with the traditional structures built by people.. Foxy's last statement describes absolute cult mentality. "Don't think.. defend..memorize" etc..

I guess it doesn't occur to some, but it is against those very things that I am focused.

CELIVIA "I'll believe If he turns water into a quality merlot"

Just yesterday, I was talking with my cousin (family_re-union) and Aunt(his mum) about a healing from deafness when he was around 6.
My uncle who considers himself a 'stud' even at age a million(it seems) always wanders off if the discussion turns to faith issues.
Aunty confirms all the teachers, doctors knew "R" was deaf in one ear. He went forward himself at a meeting for prayer and was healed.
Aunty believes. Uncle does not. The evidence is living with them daily.

Cel.. I maintain, if you don't "want" to believe, even if the Lord turns Maroodah dam into the finest wine, you won't :)

I JUST NOTICED IT......

The post of Philo about the young man healed and Celivia's post.(plus CJ's)

CELIVIA
a) "I won't believe unless God knocks on my door and changes my water bottle into Merlot"

b) BD to Celivia (after relating another healing) "if you don't 'want' to believe, even Jesus turning Maroodah dam into wine, you won't "

c) Celivia to Philo (earlier) "In no way does a 'miracle' prove the existence of a supernatural being."

Cel..I'd call that 'Game/Set/Match'.... you don't WANT to believe no matter what.

CJ then gives us the headline of the year "Did anyone think to record this miracle"?

aaah CJ.. even if they did... can you honestly say "I'll humble myself at the foot of Christ's cross, repent of my sin and unbelief, give my whole life for Christs service, abandon my career if need be and serve Him all my days, proclaiming His greatness and love"...

Please don't answer. It's just a question to your heart.

The surgeons and physicans who continually attended to this young man and his lifetime of disability will see him this week to make their acessment. Verifiable facts will not convince people blinded by scepticism. They are incapable of blessing others lives with encouragement because their spirit is dead because of unbelief.

Boazy: "I'll humble myself at the foot of Christ's cross, repent of my sin and unbelief, give my whole life for Christs service, abandon my career if need be and serve Him all my days, proclaiming His greatness and love"...

What sane person would do that?

Philo: "Verifiable facts will not convince people blinded by scepticism"

Rubbish. If you credulous clowns could produce verifiable evidence we rational types wouldn't be so sceptical about the spurious claims you make for your imaginary friend. Why can't you?

P.S. I note that nobody's put their hands up as having been 'converted' to Christianity by Boazy's interminable blathering in this forum.

Yes I do.
Our lives have meaning. Our universe came from some devine being. Mere chance of our earth and creation is a distant remote possibility.
A sense of help through prayers provides me with strong belief in a God. I too am saddened about how religion has been used to justfy wars of the past (& present). This does not preclude the existence of a God. it just shows how destructive some people can be.

YES I do believe in God's existance His creation His love and His greatness. The thing that really blows me out is the ammount of people who continually blame GOD for everthing bad that happens in the world they dont realize that most of it was caused by "MAN's" hands.

1. Natural disasters - MAN has stuffed the enviroment and that is causing an inbalance and slow distruction of Gods beautiful creation. Love God means love his creation also. Sorry man hasnt!
2. Wars - religious fanatics fighting for their religion WRONG God says love thy neighbour NOT kill him.

That is my opinion and GOD says that I should not force anyone, just show them his great love.
If you read the bible you will see more clearly

Yes I do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, even when we die, if Christians were wrong, at least we have had something good to keep us going for the whole of our lives. I mean, when I die, and IF I am wrong (which I 10000000% doubt, because GOD is real) at least I have had something good going for myself my entire life. When I am down, God is there. Miracles have happened. Its awesome! And when I die, I know I have heaven to go to. I mean, if I am wrong, what have I lost? Absolutely nothing! But if people who don't believe die, and find out that God does exist (which he does) what have they lost? EVERYTHING.
I prove a good point, no?

ChristianChild - "I mean, if I am wrong, what have I lost?"

You have lost some of the joy of a life lived taking responsibility for your own destiny, beliefs and choices. The challenge and joy of what Boazy calls "make it up as you god morality". The difference between the experience a child has of life and the experience an adult has. The child may have a lot of fun and some adults may look back with longing at childhood but most adults don't want to be treated as children even if that means less responsibility.

Childhood can be comforting but being adult is better for those who embrace it.

What if when you die god turns out to be muslim or god turns out to be Ogg represented by a carving in jungle hut somewhere?

The chances of selecting the correct god and correct way of following him/her/it are very remote and unless you make the right call you have lost much of what life can be. A pretty big loss really.

R0bert

BD
“If you don’t ‘want to believe, you won’t”
Yes I honesty would- if Jesus/God personally knocked on my door to turn MY water in my fridge into everlasting Merlot as I and other witnesses (skeptical scientists as well as theists) were watching then I WOULD believe. (I thought I’d make the order ‘everlasting’ – and I’d even donate the money I save on buying Merlot to a church of God’s choice!)

”I'd call that 'Game/Set/Match'.... you don't WANT to believe no matter what.”
No offense but it sounds more like you WANT to believe no matter what.
I assume that once one accepts religion one becomes gullible.
Why is it so hard for you and Philo to see that it’s far more likely that people’s subconscious mind can heal their body then it is to believe in faith healings?
How else would you explain the placebo effect? (Unless perhaps God miraculously turns these sugar pills into real medication as people swallow them).

Philo,
Verifiable facts will not convince the gullible blinded by religiosity.

Mega Bites,
I feel the same way (well almost). The thing that blows me out is that some theists give God credit for all the great things that happen in life (and even claim that these things are God’s miracles) while they blame mankind for all the crap that happens in the world.

CC “I prove a good point, no?”
You are talking about Pascal’s Wager. But believing in a supernatural being is not something I and many other ‘unbelievers’ can choose to do.
I could pretend to believe in a god, but wouldn’t God know that I’d be only pretending and simply judge me as being dishonest?
I think that if there were a god it would at least be a rational one, a reasonable one. S/he’d look at how one actually lived one’s life- how has one treated other human beings, animals, the earth?

Why would a reasonable God prefer people who blindly believe? Perhaps a reasonable God values people who question and investigate life more than those who blindly believe anything they're told.
If God so badly wants us to believe, then he has to present some evidence of his existence.

And, as RObert pointed out, how would you know whether you’ve chosen the correct religion?

Robert,
I did not think you believed in a destiny beyond this life. Quote, "You have lost some of the joy of a life lived taking responsibility for your own destiny." I find most Christians I know take total responsibility for this life as admirable citizens as it affects their afterlife. So what destiny are you talking about?

Celivia,
The basis for your belief is based in selfishness and self interest. I suggest you get out more and turn other people's ordinary lives into a top shelf drop and you will find life. Quote, "Yes I honesty would- if Jesus/God personally knocked on my door to turn MY water in my fridge into everlasting Merlot as I and other witnesses (skeptical scientists as well as theists) were watching then I WOULD believe. (I thought I’d make the order ‘everlasting’ – and I’d even donate the money I save on buying Merlot to a church of God’s choice!)"
God is not found in religion, God is found reality.

I have just read a site that challenges the millions of years erosion theory and such indicates short term existence.
http://creationontheweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5612&Itemid=99999999

Interesting that the Christians on this thread have skipped over the very important point that Celivia raised earlier...

<<If God is so great that he can perform miracles and heal people, then why won't he heal amputees? >>

Either there's more in this question than the Christians here are realising, or they know that it contradicts their belief in divine miracles, so like everything else that contradicts their beliefs, they ignore it.

Think about it. Every 'miracle' healing (or at least the one's we know definitely happened) that God has supposedly performed, has been possible – EXTREMELY unlikely, and sometimes well beyond belief – but still possible.

But we know that Humans CANNOT re-grow limbs, and coincidentally, God doesn't perform this miracle.

Are we Christian folk starting to put two and two together here?

Boaz..I'd call that 'Game/Set/Match'.... you don't WANT to disbelieve no matter what.

Philo,

The so-called evidence of a young Earth that you linked to is just plain silly. It ignores so much and assumes that the current coastlines were always the coastlines.

Here's just a few links that counter and disprove any young Earth claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD610.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD620.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE230.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE311.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH200-CH799
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEW1oQBZu-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2B4AideIU

So no, the Earth is not young at all.

Philo,

I must say I thought that link was very silly too. It seems to assume that all landmasses are made of the same stuff as their coastlines are made off. So that erosion at the coastline could conceivably just continue to eat into the landmass. In fact, it seems to assume that all rocks have exactly the same level of stability. You only need high school geology to see that it's fallacious.

Is that really the standard of young earth "science"?

AJ Philips: Why does God have to heal Amputees? He's not their slave, he doesn't have to just make everyone perfect. You know why? No? Neither do I. Why should we have this knowledge?

The God made people with Amputees - which illustrates and example of an imperfect species - which is exactly what we are. Hence how can we even consider our brains to have the capacity to understand the REASONS for his creation of this universe and the REASONS for why he runs it the way he does. You should go take a long hard look at yourself and work out a way to heal the corruptness that your brain has come to in believing the wrong information and maybe he will spare your soul!

Now I'm sure you'll re-post saying - "how I know all this", well think of this. Does a population of completely blind organisms know that the world is visible? No they don't - they go on about their lives - completely blind to how imperfect they actually are and completely arrogant about who they are.

Kroy,

<<Why does God have to heal Amputees? He's not their slave, he doesn't have to just make everyone perfect. You know why? No? Neither do I.>>

Well isn't that just too easy?

You've explained away a perfectly logical and rational point with the “God work in mysterious ways” argument. Not only is that weak, but it lacks any sort of critical thought.

I never implied that God should be anyone's slave, just that it's a little too coincidental that he's never re-grown a limb for an amputee... And you dodged it in a classic way that is nothing more than a turn-off to Atheists.

If Christians truly want to be 'Fishers of men', then they're going to have to try a little harder than that.

<<Why should we have this knowledge?>>

I never said we should. I simply repeated the question. But any rational thinker would, and should, take this into consideration.

<<The God made people with Amputees - which illustrates and example of an imperfect species>>

So much for the Creationist's perfect design theory then, eh?

Please don't bother going down the 'sin caused genetic defects', or the 'genes have deteriorated over time' road. It simply doesn't cut it.

<<...which is exactly what we are.>>

From what I understand of the Bible, it implies that we're imperfect because of our 'sinful' nature. If you have chosen to interpret the Bible so that it says that we are all-round imperfect, then again, that just puts a big dent in the 'design' argument of Creationists.

<<Hence how can we even consider our brains to have the capacity to understand the REASONS for his creation of this universe and the REASONS for why he runs it the way he does.>>

Another argument that's just too easy.

Again, you can't explain something so you explain it away with the old “God work in mysterious ways” argument.

Continued...

...Continued

<<You should go take a long hard look at yourself and work out a way to heal the corruptness that your brain has come to in believing the wrong information and maybe he will spare your soul!>>

Ahh... Yes. The threat of Hell. The sure sign of evil and unwise God.

Think about this Kroy: Would you deliberately leave your own child to suffer an eternity of torment simply because they rejected you and didn't love you? Even if they were a perfectly kind-hearted human being?

No, you wouldn't, would you? Then you are wiser than your God.

Do I know for sure that God doesn't exist? Of course not. I don't believe that anyone can truly be certain about that.

Do I believe in an evil and deceitful God, who would hide himself so well and then punish his beloved creations who couldn't see him because of the rationalisation that he blessed them with? Absolutely not!

But please don't patronise me. I used to be a devout Christian until all that darned logic and reason infected my brain.

<<Now I'm sure you'll re-post saying - "how I know all this", well think of this.>>

That was a bad prediction now, wasn't it?

I know how you think you know all this. I've been there before.

<<Does a population of completely blind organisms know that the world is visible? No they don't - they go on about their lives - completely blind to how imperfect they actually are and completely arrogant about who they are.>>

You're assuming Atheists are blind just because they don't believe as you do. Your entire argument here, is dependent on the existence of not only a God, but a God that exists just you believe he does.

I'm not going to both with all your pointless arguments. I was not targeting atheists. The logic sure has infected your brain. Too bad it can't reason outside of that logic.

I thought the point of this forum was to find out if people did or did not believe in God, not so both sides can have a slinging match against the peoples opinions and beliefs. I have stated already that I do and given my reasons why.

Philo, OK I could think of other, serious and unselfish ways of asking God to prove himself … lemme think… *pulls dead-serious face* I’ll ask God to grow limbs for a roomful of amputees then. I’m sure that some religious amputees have been praying for a healing for a long time. While God (according to some believers) miraculously heals people through prayer, he’s always sadly ignored amputees. Why do you think that is, Philo? Does God hate amputees like he hates homosexuals? Or has he lost his power?

You say, “The basis for your belief is based in selfishness and self interest”.
What kind of belief would that be? A lack of belief in something is not a belief.
And what, BTW, is the basis for YOUR belief? Is it the selfish need to go to heaven?

AJ thanks for clearing up the young Earth thing for Philo.
But don’t be surprised if he looks at all these links blindfolded and ear plugged- he’s quite factophobic.

Excuse me people if I don’t come across as serious enough but I find the creationist’s logic highly amusing; I mean…a 6000-year young earth for god sake! Miracles!

Anyway Philo don’t restrain yourself if you feel the urge to tell us that stories such as Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark literally happened… not that I’d want you to feed my evil need for more amusement… (Grin).

Mega bites, many people on OLO do like to debate more about many topics than just stating their opinion, but no one is obligated to take part in the debate.
Thanks for your opinion.

Vanilla: "Is that really the standard of young earth "science"?"

Philo's demonstrated time and again that he doesn't understand scientific reasoning. This, of course, underlies his claim about sceptics and verifiable evidence.

It's ironic that they can't provide verifiable evidence for their magical claims, yet they are happy to trot out garbage like that 'article', or resort to arguing that their mystical texts are evidence enough.

Surely God could provide them with some real, verifiable evidence in order to turn us sceptics into believers? I mean, they're always tring to convert us, so why not produce something that would settle the matter?

While I don't exactly "want to believe", I'm always willing to be persuaded by rational argument and verifiable evidence.

If there is still a place in this forum to address the original topic...

I believe in God's existence.

Why? Because I didn't have enough faith to remain an atheist. The shift was difficult as the lifestyle had its moments but Christianity definitely has its own rewards.

God and Christianity make sense to me. Contrarily arguments put forward by atheists don't make sense to me.

Further, the most obvious products of Christianity seem to work better than most major human innovations albeit with some human imperfections. This suggests a solid foundation. Examples include science, Universities, and Churches. These aren't perfect but the problems are overshadowed by wonderful accomplishments.

Science by its nature was something of a gamble of faith. Its success affirms the faith. It is no longer pursued solely on faith that God created the world in a particular way. Indeed people of all religions use it as a tool and many ironically believe in it without believing in a God at all. It has centuries of track history to support the assumptions of its founders and has benefited humankind greatly along the way.

"Further, the most obvious products of Christianity seem to work better than most major human innovations albeit with some human imperfections. This suggests a solid foundation. Examples include science, Universities, and Churches. These aren't perfect but the problems are overshadowed by wonderful accomplishments."

Sorry to be thick, but I don't understand what you're saying here. What are the "obvious products of Christianity"? Are you suggesting science is an obvious product of Christianity? Do you think that all ideas and progressions that occurred in Christian countries are products of Christianity?

And what are the "human innovation" you're contrasting the products of Christianity with?

Hi Vanilla,

Thanks for taking an interest in my reasons for believing.

"What are the "obvious products of Christianity"?"

Anything that resulted directly from Christianity. I believe the most obvious ones are the ones I listed. (I figure that they are the most obvious 'cause they are the only ones I thought of that are intimately linked with Christian beginnings and their existence is extremely obvious)

"Are you suggesting science is an obvious product of Christianity?"

Yes

"Do you think that all ideas and progressions that occurred in Christian countries are products of Christianity?"

No if I take that question at face value. Obviously that question could be approached with different levels of complexity.

"And what are the "human innovation" you're contrasting the products of Christianity with?"

I'll do my best to think of examples:

Slavery
Attempting to eradicate cane beetles by introducing cane toads.

Even harder to do a long list for this due to the broadness of the categories in the other list and because of the long Christian heritage of our society. Particular wars come to mind for the list but the category should be war and that gets complicated. Even the cane toad thing is probably too specific.

Mjpb

Well, I have to confess I am having trouble understanding you.

Are you claiming that before Christianity there was no science, or research, or technology of any kind?

Big claim, that. Hanging out for answer.

:D

Hi Fractelle,

"Well, I have to confess I am having trouble understanding you."

Your not the only one. Perhaps I should have stuck with some cute one liner... Maybe I'm not articulating this very well.

"Are you claiming that before Christianity there was no science, or research, or technology of any kind?"

I don't claim there was no technology. A hut or a spear may be technology.

I don't claim that there was no research. In the sense that information was gathered.

I am claiming that there was no science. The Christianness leaps out when, but for the mindset, other societies could have started science so easily (eg. Greece or Persia). Indeed they were so close it is surprising that they didn't unless you consider their worldview. Science is consistent with the Christian view of God and how God does things.

Hmm. I am interested in what you belive mjpb, but I'm certainly not convinced yet by your argument. Why call science an obvious produce of Christianity, but not slavery, when science is not mentioned in the Bible and slavery is sanctioned by it. Why shouldn't I believe that you like science but not slavery, so you'll claim one and offload the other? Because that's what your argument would suggest so far.

If science is a natural product of Christianity, then why have some Christians been hostile to it from its "inception" (for want of a better world) to as recently as about three posts above yours?

I agree with you that modern science, as we understand it, arose in a Christian culture. Obviously, though, we need more evidence to establish cause and effect. What can you offer? Or is this just a matter of belief?

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods. He said to himself:

"What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!"

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charge towards him.He ran as fast as he could up the path.

He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer.

He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

The Atheist cried out: "Oh, my God!..."

Time stopped. The bear froze.

The forest was silent. As a bright light shone upon the man, a booming voice came out of the sky:

"You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident.

"Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"

"Very well," said the voice.

The light went out.

The sounds of the forest resumed. The bear dropped his right paw brought both paws together and lifted his head toward heaven and spoke:

"Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

A theist was taking a walk through the woods. He said to himself:

"What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals! What a great job did with creation"

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charge towards him.He ran as fast as he could up the path.

He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer.

He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

The Atheist cried out: "Oh, my God!..."

Time didn't stopped. The bear ran on.

The forest was filled with screams of the thiest as his leg was eaten.

If he'd been in the mood for reflection he might have asked himself "why for all the healing god supposedly does on telly does he never replace missing limbs?"

Epicurus [341–270 B.C.] Greek philosopher

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Buggered if I know!

Too funny, RObert!
Sorry,,,can’t write for a few days, typing too slow, getting uaed to new keyboad layout (Dvorak), Sloooooooooooooooow!

Vanilla,

What you probably should ask yourself is why the pop culture powers haven't revealed something as important as the origins of science but that is of course up to you. In the mushroom situation foistered upon us the natural assumption is that science came after Christianity as some type of substitute. That is wrong.

Okay I'll try to explain and expand minds with a brief look at history together with a look at the relevant aspects of my religion. Hopefully this will explain the apparent anomaly of how Europe, which arose from barbarism and the rubble of Rome, created science and that the birth of science in Christian Europe is no mere coincidence.

Firstly you need to understand the Christian concept of God. We have one God who is a rational omnipotent being who created the Universe as their personal creation. This made it a lawful stable structure that could be comprehended by humans to the extent it can be observed. God believes in human progress and has historically revealed divine will in accordance with our ability to understand.

Thus Christians have always valued reason to better understand things including the will of God. In the second century Quintus Tertullian wrote "Reason is a thing of God inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason, nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."

Next you need to understand what science is. Charles Darwin pointed out "How odd is it that anyone cannot see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of service." Science has been defined as a "method utilized in organised efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and correction through systematic observation". As you can see it incorporates the lawful, discoverable,and progressive Christian viewpoint.

-cont-

I'll discriminate between what is or isn't science to help clarify. Science is not Aristotle theorizing that the speed at which objects fall is proportionate to weight. If he took the time to drop rocks off Greek cliffs he would have discontinued that theory. Science is not Euclid merely describing portions of reality with geometry. Although albeit operating in a different sphere science is not consistent with Epicurus's idea that God is not omnipotent but rather must fulfil Epicurus's requirements. Epicurus's God must be a God of random intervention to suit Epicurus rather than an orderly God. By analogy, Epicurus might not like gravity because it can hurt people. Epicurus would reason that if God exists then gravity would be abolished or at least God would stop people falling. By constrast the Christian viewpoint is that God exists and is orderly so we can work out why gravity exists with theory and observation. Science is not the alchemy of China, Islam, India, Greece and Rome. By contrast science is the chemistry that developed from alchemy in Christian Europe. Science is not the astrology of many ancient societies but is the astronomy that developed in Christian Europe.

Co-author of Principia Mathematica Alfred Whitehead noted that science arose in Europe because of the "faith in the possibility of science...derivative from medieval theology." Indeed 16th Century scientific genius Rene Descartes explained his search for natural laws on the basis of God's perfection thus meaning that God "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible" subject to rare miracles.

Hopefully you now understand how Christianity generated science even if science's success has enabled it to infiltrate all belief systems even ironically atheism. To Christians God is a conscious rational being of unlimited power who cares about humans and has created an orderly rational system including moral codes and responsibilities. We are left with natural moral and physical laws. Science is our tool for discovering the latter.

“What you probably should ask yourself is why the pop culture powers haven't revealed something as important as the origins of science but that is of course up to you.”
Firstly, may I say how little I enjoy the patronising tone you employ in your posts. Let’s just stick to the argument, and I’ll take it as read that you think I’m dense but you rather admire yourself.

And why “the pop culture powers,” by the way? Do you think there’s two systems, Christianity and pop culture?

“In the mushroom situation foistered upon us the natural assumption is that science came after Christianity as some type of substitute. That is wrong.”
Obviously, as an atheist, I fully agree, and fight against those who regard Christianity and science as competing theories. And as I said earlier, I agree science arose in Christan Europe.

“Hopefully this will explain the apparent anomaly of how Europe, which arose from barbarism and the rubble of Rome, created science and that the birth of science in Christian Europe is no mere coincidence.”
To reveal the ending, no, it didn’t. But again you’ve set up a false dichotomy. Are you suggesting that either science is a product of Christianity or that it’s appearance in Christian culture is coincidence? Can you see no third path?

“Firstly you need to understand the Christian concept of God…”
All you seem to do here is define god to fit neatly into the definition of science you’re about to give. Clearly, as an atheist, I believe that the universe is observable because it exists, not because god made it so. Empiricism is more ancient than Christianity. And cultures prior to Christianity celebrated reason — reasoning is a human trait with which Christianity has had a love/hate relationship. So, in sum, I understand that *you* believe this is the Christian concept of god – though I have heard many other, entirely different, definitive Christian conceptions of god, including ones which are profoundly anti-science – but I don’t believe *in* that concept of god.

Cont...

cont...

“Next you need to understand what science is.”
Lordy be, how you love to patronise. Anyway, I agree with your definition.

“As you can see it incorporates the lawful, discoverable,and progressive Christian viewpoint.”
I see nothing of the sort. How do you imagine you’ve proved science “incorporates” a Christian viewpoint. All you seem to be linking some key scientific words that so conveniently popped up in your definition of Christianity — observation, progress, reason. (While torturing the natural subject-verb-object pattern of a nicely delivered sentence, I might add.)

“Hopefully you now understand how Christianity generated science even if science's success has enabled it to infiltrate all belief systems even ironically atheism.”
It’s not ironic. Science sits with other “belief systems” because, while it certainly did arise in Christian Europe, and while the ideas and culture of Christian Europe helped shape and form it, it was not “born out” of Christianity. In fact, the relationship between Christianity and science, and Christianity and the Enlightenment, has not been easy. But Science can sit with belief systems, and can do so because it sits above them — it doesn’t seek to answer the same questions, it values observation over faith.

So I'm afraid you haven't QEDed me with that explanation.

Vanilla: "So I'm afraid you haven't QEDed me with that explanation."

Vanilla, meet mjpb, one of OLO's cleverer Christian sophists. I'm sure s/he's delighting in reeling in another humanist to engage in endless textual games. Don't get him/her on to the subject of homosexuality, whatever you do ;)

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time.

A (very) brief history of science

Around 3500 BC, in Sumer (now Iraq) the Mesopotamians began attempts to record observations of the world with extremely thorough quantitative and numerical data. A concrete instance of Pythagoras' law was recorded, as early as the 18th century BC: the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet. Both early example of writing and maths. Even today, astronomical periods identified by Mesopotamian scientists are still widely used in Western calendars: the solar year, the lunar month, the seven-day week.

Significant advances in Ancient Egypt include astronomy, mathematics and medicine.

Scientific thought from the 6th century BC in pre-Socratic philosophy (Pythagoras). In circa 385 BC, Plato founded the Academy. Plato's student Aristotle begins the "scientific revolution" of the Hellenistic period

Linguistics (along with phonology, morphology, etc.) first arose among Indian grammarians studying the Sanskrit language developing a high level of linguistic insight and analysis; circa 1500 BC.

Indian mathematicians contributed to the development of the decimal number system, zero, negative numbers, arithmetic, and algebra. In addition, trigonometry, having evolved in the Hellenistic world and having been introduced into ancient India through the translation of Greek works, was further advanced in India. These mathematical concepts were discovered by travellers from the Middle East, China, and Europe and led to further developments that now form the foundations of many areas of mathematics.

Clearly there was much learning, research and discovery long before Christianity.

If anything Christianity has impeded scientific discovery; the agony of years before Darwin published his theory of evolution was due to the fact the he knew he would be received with disparagement and disbelief. Darwin had reason to fear just look at Galileo.

Contd.

Galileo (1564-1642) has been called the "father of science", his championing of Copernicanism (the idea that the earth revolved around the sun) was controversial within his lifetime.

The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of Heliocentrism as potentially factual, because the theory had no decisive proof (this being before space ships) and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.

Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

Christian biblical reference: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

Yes folks, they were quoting the bible and taking it literally, hence Galileo was persecuted and his theory wasn’t accepted by the church for many years. Fortunately other scientists had more sense than to take the church so literally and we have the knowledge of the universe that we do today. And the really good thing is that religion has no such power over scientific endeavour as it did in the past.

Therefore, humanity will continue to learn and create. And hip hip hooray for that.

I’m not saying that there weren’t significant Christian scientists, Newton comes immediately to mind and his contribution to Einstein’s work can not be disputed.

However, the conclusion is that science evolved in spite of Christianity – not because of it.

Mjpb – I am becoming increasingly saddened by your lack of knowledge, ability to reason and your inability to value other beliefs, philosophies and ideas that are not a part of the Christian doctrine. You are illustrating my point that religion stifles human development rather than enhances it.

Cheers bro

Vanilla,

If that is a chip on your shoulder (cf. disingenuousness) then please remove it would stop wasted time. I may have a dig at the pop culture but there’s no reason to jump to the other conclusions. For the record I have no reason to think you are dense and I assumed you were reasonably clever.

” Are you suggesting …”

No I’m asserting the obvious rather than brainstorming irrelevant alternatives.

”All you seem to do here is define god to fit neatly into the definition of science you’re about to give.”

That was the whole purpose but the definition is valid. Would you like evidence eg. early Christian comments?

“Clearly, as an atheist, I believe that the universe is observable because it exists, ... Empiricism … reasoning is a human …”

Certainly, and Christianity (like science) brings it together. Observable without order gives no reason to start science. Empiricism alone is no reason to start science. Hence my mentioning of the relevant attributes of our religion.

““Next you need to understand what science is.”
Lordy be, how you love to patronise. Anyway, I agree with your definition.”

No I like to spell things out so they are clear to anyone who reads these forums. There is a big difference.

” Science sits with other “belief systems” because, while it certainly did arise in Christian Europe, and while the ideas and culture of Christian Europe helped shape and form it, it was not “born out” of Christianity.”

I believe that is an artificial distinction but we are clearly looking at the same fact in different ways. If you were mistaken about the underlying facts I’d dispute it but I can’t do anything about how you choose to view them.

“In fact, … But Science can sit with belief systems….”

In a sense it does these days but how do you explain that so many civilizations were so close but didn’t get it off the ground? Do you want me to have a bash at comparing other religions at the time with the thinking required for science?

"If that is a chip on your shoulder (cf. disingenuousness)"

It really isn't. Don't be so quick to assume I'm clever, because I do have a problem understanding the way you phrase things sometimes. Even in the above quote, I spent about a minute trying to work out why you are asking me to compare the theoretical chip on my shoulder with disingenuousness, and still don't get it. (Are you asking if it is one or the other, or are you further defining a chip by comparing it to disingenuousness?) Anyway, I was being neither, for the record - I was genuinely taken aback by your tone, and I honestly did think your sentence about pop culture was serious.

Thank you for replying, I was sincerely interested in your idea, but from here on in I anticipate that this could quickly turn in to a long but ultimately fruitless corrospondence. Let's quit while we're ahead. Again, thanks for explaining.

Fractelle, thank you for that excellent precis. I must say it immediately rings true.

mjpb says: "Indeed 16th Century scientific genius Rene Descartes explained his search for natural laws on the basis of God's perfection thus meaning that God "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible" subject to rare miracles."

mjpb. To my knowledge, Descartes never received any awards or honours. While he is often revered for his mathematical genius, some historians claim he had a disposition which was cold and selfish. One thing's for certain, your Christian hero was a sadist.

Descartes (clearly a sycophant to the Catholic church) once described nonhuman animals as dumb machines which, when they no longer prove useful, can be killed with no more feeling than should attend the disposal of a broken clock.

He expanded on the Christian humanist philosophy, asserting that as animals did not have a language this was evidence that they were not capable of rational thought. They therefore possessed neither minds nor souls and were no more that machines that could not think or feel but merely reacted in a mechanical manner to external stimuli.

Descartes argued that the cries of pain and writhing of animals undergoing vivisection were no more than mechanical reactions and the squeaking of un-oiled cogs of robots. This 'Beast Machine' was a convenient if implausible concept for vivisectionists.

In addition, sicko Descartes was too sadistic to consider that animals have a marvellous sixth sense which humans appear to have lost or perhaps never had.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." (George Bernard Shaw)

I'll drink to that George!

Dickie,

Absolutely correct about Descartes stomach turning mechanical reaction stuff. I cited him for his science rather than Christianness. It is upsetting reading that but anyone who doesn’t know should have the opportunity to be aware of that side of Descartes.

Vanilla,

Have you considered the more likely explanation that my expression might have been poor rather than it being some limitation on your part? For future reference I believe I only bite when bitten (see interactions I’ve had with people like CJ Morgan) so if you think I am savaging you perhaps ask questions first rather than let it hurt your feelings.

On the basis of your previous post I would agree with your 3rd paragraph. You just interpreted facts differently and you are obvously entitled to form a different belief and when it gets to that level how fruitful can discussion get? If that is what you want I won’t be baited by your 4th paragraph.

Fractelle,

I consider science to be as per the definition in my previous post. Thus describing portions of reality by anyone from a Mesopotamian “scientists” to Euclid isn’t what I consider science. The same goes for ancient Greece where they had the components but the components just didn’t seem to come together. Is your post a long winded and patronizingly insulting way of saying you disagree?

I don’t claim that there was no technology, innovation or research prior to Christianity if that is what you think. My only claim is that Christianity gave birth to science. Many ancient civilizations were very close but didn’t get science off the ground.

I agree with the factual aspects of your discussion of Gallileo. I invite you to note particularly your label of him as “the father of science”. How does that rest with Mesopotamian "scientists"? Are you aware that Copernicus didn’t experience the same problem even after dedicating his book to Pope Paul III? So what impeding occurred between Gallileo back then and Darwin in about 1842? As you implied Gallileo’s work had long been accepted by the Church. Didn’t science flourish during that time?

Dickie,

I cited Descartes for his science and how Christianity drove his approach rather than his personal Christian virtue I should say. I think his dealings with animals were appalling. Just thought I should clarify.

I maintain that 'science flourished' in spite of religious interference - which still occurs today, just off the top of my head; stem cell research.

Again you use the words 'patronising' with regard to my posts - how giving a brief and verifiably accurate history of scientific development and discovery can be misconstrued as such, reveals more about the manner in which you think. Long winded? Nice try, but others disagree - perhaps you just found it difficult to follow?

You clearly love being a christian however, many people don't see the religion through your rosey little lenses. Get over it. There are far more enlightened religions than the Abrahamic varieties. Buddhism continues to provide wisdom without the preaching and claims of superiority that you indulge in.

BTW not all christians would agree with you either - they have room in their hearts for differing POV's and they acknowledge that many different religions and beliefs have much to offer that is valuable (where is Foxy when you need her?). But if your chip on your shoulder is so huge that you need to indulge in a petty game of "mine is bigger than yours" why don't you sling it out with Boaz, someone with whom you have much in common.

Christianity no more invented science, than deities restore limbs to amputees, than Jesus walked on water and his mum was a virgin.

"We are formed and molded by our thoughts" Buddha

You might want to consider that, next time you try to promote your religion as superior to anyone else's way of thinking.

Put simply, the first person you are lying to is yourself - never a good thing.

“… religious interference ...”

What was the interference with science between Gallileo and Darwin?

”Again you use the words 'patronising' with regard to my posts - how giving a brief and verifiably accurate history of scientific development and discovery can be misconstrued …”

My delusion was that giving that history followed by comments including “Mjpb – I am becoming increasingly saddened by your lack of knowledge, ability to reason ...” meant that the key thrust of it was to provide evidence so that you support a conclusion about my alleged deficiencies. That would be extremely patronizing. Am I imagining your conclusion? Is the post just a history?

You appear to say that science predated Christianity. The examples are inconsistent with the definition I gave of science. Your insults would seem to make sense only if you disagree with my definition. So are you saying you disagree with the definition and how do you define science?

”… many people don't see the religion through your rosey little lenses.”

In what way are the lenses rosy. The fact that I believe in Christianity or my assertion about science?

“Get over it. There are far more enlightened religions than the Abrahamic varieties. Buddhism continues to provide wisdom without the preaching and claims of superiority that you indulge in.”

Or do they claim to be the ones providing enlightenment? If alternatively the people within the religion don’t claim the superiority that you assert how do you know it is true?

”… christians would … acknowledge that many different religions and beliefs have much to offer that is valuable.”

You don’t need Foxy I’m happy to acknowledge that many religions and beliefs have much to offer that is valuable. Indeed I am rather partial to a Buddhist scripture I know: “As long as we concentrate on others faults we deprive ourselves of the light that shines in varying degrees from everyone.” Trouble is if you don’t concentrate on other people’s faults and thus aren’t careful to avoid any misunderstandings people sometimes jump to conclusions and it can socially backfire but the sentiment is good.

Fractelle,
Are you aware of the religious convictions of researchers of stem cell technology? I'd be interested to know.

The most advanced science in stem cell research that has verifiable results is consistent with Christian beliefs. However Embryonic stem cell research is condemned by Christians because it takes perfectly healthy embryos and desicrates them with total disregard to the healthy potential of the embryo itself.

Atheist believe Christians are ignorant and intellectually backward. This is ignorance! The first and most advanced computer of its time built in Australia for the Government and for early space travel and research was built by a six day creationist who attends the same church as myself. He was Manager of electronics at the school of science. He is a close friend of many American astronaughts who are also Christian. He upholds the Earth is fixed in its orbit as the Psalmist states and cannot be moved so pre-planning calculations can be done to advance secure space travel.

Question.
When were the coastlines of the White Cliffs of Dover formed? When did they rise 80 meters above sea level?

When did the Great Australian Bite rise up out of the ocean floor?

At the current rate of erosion caused by the sea it was not too long ago. If it happened millions of years ago then there would be evidence of chalk in or under the sea bed that demonstrates when it happened.

Fractelle,

I’m starting to wonder if the issue is the history I point to or the fact that it relates to Christianity. If I was Chinese I could point out that noodles are originally from China and that they must be useful food because they have spread throughout the world. Would someone challenge this saying that Mesopotamians baked bread so noodles aren’t from China and avoid answering me if I asked if their concept of noodle was different from mine? Would someone point to partial noodle bans once every couple of hundred of years in China and argue that noodles are in spite of China rather than because of it? Would someone turn on me telling me I am ignorant and I need to come down off my high horse and stop thinking my culture is superior just because I cited something positive that China produced?

I don’t think so. This doesn’t seem to be about the facts. Hopefully you aren’t prejudiced and don’t think that Christians are ignorant and intellectually backward and feel threatened by contrary information. Hopefully the problem is just a breach of atheist dogma. I’m the one who is supposed to be religious but I’m just trying to point to history. You seem to be getting very emotional about the issue as if atheism or another non-Christian belief system is more of a religion to you then Christianity is to me. This type of reaction reinforces in me that I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. I just hope I have enough faith to be a Christian. I am otherwise Christian but do I have enough zeal?

I agree with Philo’s comments about stem cell research. Claiming it is interference in science is like saying criticizing Nazi experiments on Jews is interference in science. Bear with me. If you look past the rhetorical nature of the comparison (honestly the only one that came to mind) the point is just that Christians offer one of many ethical opinions that relate to a subset of stem cell research. That is incomparable with Gallileo interference.

The noodle analogy is pure sophistry. Why does the Flying Spaghetti Monster spring to mind?

mjpb: "I agree with Philo’s comments about stem cell research. Claiming it is interference in science is like saying criticizing Nazi experiments on Jews is interference in science"

There you go. Once again, Godwin's Law comes into play. Withdrawal from this excuse for a discussion is perfectly permissible.

Mjpb & Philo

I couldn't have made my points without you.

Thank you

Quod erat demonstrandum

CJ,

“The noodle analogy is pure sophistry. Why does the Flying Spaghetti Monster spring to mind?”

Because if, with wishful thinking, you convince yourself that the noodle analogy is sophistry then other sophistry involving spaghetti would come to mind.

Is the noodle analogy sophistry or a reasonable comparison? One group is responsible for one thing and another group another. Not much room for sophistry. But people inadvertently make invalid analogies all the time. If you stop chanting sophistry and have a go at a genuine critique you never know your luck.

”There you go. Once again, Godwin's Law comes into play. Withdrawal from this excuse for a discussion is perfectly permissible.”

“Coincidentally”, that extreme application of that version of Godwins law conveniently suits your previous post even though it seems to go against the grain of the obvious purpose behind the termination rule.

I guess the question is whether Godwins law tradition for discussion groups applies or should apply only when the first person compares the other with a Nazi (the normal grievance) or whether it applies in completely different situations as in this case. Heck it isn’t even hyperbolic just rhetorical and that is acknowledged and worked around. Christians believe the relevant types of experimentation kill babies so the depth of feeling about the ethics is similar. It is still the only other example of human experimentation being criticized on ethical considerations that I have thought of.

Maybe there is automatic termination if the word Nazi pops up. However it has been suggested that using a Nazi comparison for yourself is outside the rule because you are not attacking your debate opponent as a Nazi. This suggests that the usual use falls within the rule but my type of use does not. Indeed it has been argued that Godwin’s law can be abused fallaciously as a distraction or diversion… analogous to your sophistry claims.

Fractelle,

umm you are welcome...presumably after revisiting the posts I'll admire the subtlety...see you next time

Will creationists automatically disown more highly educated and more knowledgeable christians who affirm the following:

"We are convinced the masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and the other primates beyond serious dispute." (PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES)

Oooh......was the Pope happy about that?

Interestingly enough, Christians do try to tell you where you're going...I demand answers and evidence from their Masters. If they know where we're going, then they should treat their own claims with the same expectation of evidence that they want from science.

mjpb, of course your noodle analogy is sophistry, this is beacuse you have made a serious category error. Noodles are a thing, an object, science is not. Science itself is a multifactorial process not an object or invention, as such it cannot have been "invented". The "scientific method" may have been invented somewhat, but even that isn't fully acknowledged to have been by "Christian Europe" (google: Al-Biruni + scientfic method)

In fact many sciences predated Christianity (eg astronomy, even if the purposes were not strictly scientific, the descriptive measurements and predictive values are still considered scientific) and many of the ideas that science incorporates in the accumulation of knowledge are ancient.

Science is not like "noodles", science is more like "cooking" - who invented "cooking"?

mjpb, you said “I didn't have enough faith to remain an atheist.”

Why do you view a lack of belief in something as faith?
Faith is a belief in something that is not based on proof. Faith is about belief; not about lack of belief.

Of course, I belatedly realised where this whole line of argument started with mjpb:

"Further, the most obvious products of Christianity seem to work better than most major human innovations albeit with some human imperfections. This suggests a solid foundation. Examples include science, Universities, and Churches. These aren't perfect but the problems are overshadowed by wonderful accomplishments."

These 'examples' of 'obvious' products of Christianity are neither, the foundations of them predate Christianity, and have been used in civilisations and cultures parallel to Christian ones, universities and academies were used in ancient civilisations (Greece, Rome etc.) and Islamic cultures (eg Timbuktu). 'Churches', of course predate Christianity, but of course Christian churches don't!

'Christian' nations can lay a lot of claim as to what was invented or developed within their purview, however to attribute much of that to Christianity itself being a guiding force is stretching it a bit. Good ideas have a habit of pushing through and science has pushing through the veil of mysticism for ages, and there was a big shift during the Enlightenment and Renaissance periods, however since there was about 1000 years or more of Christianity beforehand, how much can Christianity really take the credit for? Is not a more likely explanation that technology and philosophy and politics converged to enable great advances in ideas and exchange in ideas? Along with transport and trade links and the invention of the printing press etc? (a nice piece of machinery hat Christians CAN take credit for!)

Philo,

<<“Atheist believe Christians are ignorant and intellectually backward. This is ignorance!>>

Here you go, making assumptions about the positions of others, again.

Not all Christians are intellectually backward. Some Evolutionary Scientists are Christians who believe that God created humans through an evolutionary process. Let's face it, they can't exactly deny it – unless they're intellectually backward.

<<The first and most advanced computer of its time built in Australia for the Government and for early space travel and research was built by a six day creationist...>>

Care to give a name? I can't find one, sorry.

<<He was Manager of electronics at the school of science.>>

What do electronics have to do with Geology?

<<He is a close friend of many American astronaughts who are also Christian.>>

Who said Astronauts couldn't be Christian? Not all Christians are intellectually backward.

Even if these Christian Astronauts believe in a six day creation, what does that prove? Just because they deny the biological and geographical science that conclusively disproves their creationist beliefs, it doesn't mean that they can't still be experts in their own field.

And besides, a pilot could deny physics and still fly a plane, just as a doctor could deny evolution and still treat sick people.

<<He upholds the Earth is fixed in its orbit as the Psalmist states and cannot be moved so pre-planning calculations can be done to advance secure space travel.>>

Are you implying that our Solar System is standing still in the Milky Way? Or that the Milky Way isn't moving through the universe?

Either way you'd be wrong. How do we know that you're wrong?

Parallax;
Main Sequence Fitting;
Cepheid Variables;
Red Shifts.

All of which (among others) are reliable methods of measuring the universe and the movement of the galaxies.

Therefore either you and/or this person you speak of are lying, or you are terribly confused. Because the fact that both the Solar System and the Milky Way

In regards to your second post, here's some information on the Dover Cliffs that may clear up your confusion:

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/white-cliffs-of-dover/biography/how-they-formed

Continued...

...Continued

You didn't even bother to look at the links I posted before, did you?

None if the information in them is disputed or disputable. Creation Scientists (the EXTREMELY small amount of them) know the evidence, they simply deny it and push it away because it conflicts with what the Bible says. Consider this statement from Answersingenesis.org:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

There is no serious debate going on here, Philo. Just a few fundamentalists making a lot of noise.

There is solid and conclusive proof that literal interpretation of the Bible is undeniably wrong. So considering that we now know for a fact that the Bible is wrong (litterally speaking), how can we know there is a God? We can't.

Hi Celivia,

I was going to pull mjpb up on that one too. But after seeing how awfully confused he/she is, I didn't bother.

As a former Christian myself, I can tell you that the mindset of a Theist makes it impossible for them to see disbelief as being any different from the religious style of belief (yes mjpb, I know you were apparently an Atheist once before, but you were obviously not an Atheist that gave the concept of God much thought).

The scrambled mind of a Theist prevents them from realising that Atheists are not religious, and that they're just individual thinkers (not bound by an old absolutist doctrine) who simply don't believe that a God exists.

It was once suggested to Dawkins that he start an Atheist movement to help dispel the irrationality of religion throughout societies, but he replied by saying that organising Atheists would be like trying to heard cats, they're too intelligent and independently minded to be rounded-up.

Ooops... The second last line of the first of my last two posts should have read:

"Therefore either you and/or this person you speak of are lying, or you are terribly confused. Because the fact that both the Solar System and the Milky Way are moving, are facts that are not disputed."

Celivia: "The only thing that makes sense is the theory of evolution..."
This is only outwardly so. I don't think The Theory of Evolution stands up to scrutiny at all.

AJ Philips: "...the Bible is wrong (literally speaking), how can we know there is a God?"
You made a sweeping statement.
I don't have a problem believing parts that I consider right, but leaving out the rest.

Philo: "The surgeons and physicans who continually attended to this young man and his lifetime of disability will see him this week to make their acessment (sic)"

So what was the verdict from the "surgeons and physicians", Philo - is it a verifiable "miracle" or not? I'm still open to persuasion if you can provide some verifiable evidence.

I’m not sure why it matters whether or not science developed before or parallel with Christianity or even by Christians. Even if Christians were the greatest scientists, so what? Is this supposed to be evidence that God exists?

Whether the people involved in science worshiped a supernatural being or not is irrelevant because science is a secular discipline and any ‘believing’ falls outside the framework of religion. Since beliefs are not incorporated in science and science doesn’t require any world view, political view or religion, scientists can belong to a large variety of sub groups, which are independent of science.

Gz “I don't think The Theory of Evolution stands up to scrutiny at all.”
Evolution is supported by evidence but creationists are welcome to present new evidence that disproves it (finding fossils of mammals in Precambrian rocks, for example).

Science, unlike creationism, is not threatened by new evidence; it will simply change the hypothesis.

Even though there are (still) some gaps in the theory of evolution, the theory is very strong.
Creationists may believe in a God of the Gaps (and use these gaps as the places to set op their soap boxes) but science has caused the gaps to become smaller.

AJ, that analogy of atheists and cats is an excellent one.
Glad that you, as an ex-Christian, are able to shine some light on their thinking processes.

"I don't think The Theory of Evolution stands up to scrutiny at all."

Why not?

Celivia/AJ,

Two issues to consider:
(1). From non-life to existence of life.
(2). Evolution of life-forms.

The theory of evolution struggles to explain (2), but completely unable to explain (1).

If there's no life-form, then theory of evolution explains nothing !!

The theory of evolution is an essential scientific study but contrary to your thinking, to claim evidence amounts to a big leap of faith. ie. You both are mere BELIEVERS of a theory not supported by the truth.

gz
The theory of evolution does not struggle to explain evolution (2).
In case you’ve forgotten how science works: it works by first making observations, then come up with an idea to explain the observation which is the hyposesis.
Next, design experiments to test that hypothesis which usually include more observations – this is a cycle that is repeated to build up evidence for the hyposesis.
If at anytime during this process a new observation or experiment proves the hyposesis wrong, the scientist will have to come up with a new hyposesis and the process restarts. If all the experiments keep confirming the hyposesis, a theory is formed. A scientic theory is the higest status that a concept gets- as close you can get to ‘proven’ by using the methods of science.

The term ‘proof’ is actually a term of mathematics and that’s why scientists don’t use it.
The theory of evolution is called a theory because it’s supported by the evidence scientists have found so far.
Creationists are free to disprove their evidence.
Even if creationists were able to disprove evolution, there still would be no evidence that God 'did it'.

And about (1) What did God use to create Adam? A clump of dirt.
And the evidence for that claim is?

I'm not a scientist, but the theory of evolution does indeed explain how different species evolved. The clue is in the title. Why do you think it "struggles"?

As Celivia points out, so much evidence supports evolution that it is widely regarded as indisputable. If even *one* piece of evidence was proved to contradict the theory of evolution, the whole theory would have to be abandoned. This has never happened.

Evolution is relevant to abiogenesis (the study of the origin of life), but does not seek to explain it. Scientist don't yet know how life originated.

Some people — and I'm assuming you're one of them — think that if science cannot explain something (during their lifetime) then that means god must exist. I struggle to see the the validity of this theory.

Celivia,
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, in a way we never 'disprove' the theory of evolution because it is only a theory. All that happens is the theory is constantly updated, adjusted.
Unfortunately evolution science is full of subjectivity and opinions. Inevitably, scientists have to base their assumptions on previous scientists findings (that are themselves subjective). This is because no one has the time and resource to research everything from scratch. Not to "re-invent the wheel", so to speak. Consequently, errors can often be cumulative and it is quite conceivable a piece of bone may erroneously lead to a drawing of some ancient monsters, (by an artist of course).

I'm saying evolutionary science cannot be trusted. This is not the fault of science but mostly fault of scientists themselves. They do have to draw conclusions to show some results, from time to time.

But the big question is not evolution or the lack of it. It is whether life can naturally come from non-life. I categorically claim that evolution of life is false, unless it is proven life can naturally occurs from non-life. This may be a simple true/false question but is the MOST critical one.

There is no known scientific process, chemical or physical, natural or artificial that can create life. I'm sure science will never get there.

I have my own opinion about creationism. But not prepared to discuss at this point.

Vanilla,
If even *one* piece of evidence was proved to contradict a THEOREM/LAW, then the whole THEOREM/LAW would have to be abandoned. This does not apply to theory. A theory is not something that is proven to be true.

Cheers...

Dickie,

No I don’t believe Christians can ignore that. That doesn’t mean we will ever treat scientific theory as dogmatic but we need to seriously consider such expert opinion.

Bugsy,

Whether my categorical error is sophistry or affirms my comment below will remain a matter of opinion:

“But people inadvertently make invalid analogies all the time. If you stop chanting sophistry and have a go at a genuine critique you never know your luck.”

As regards astronomy my understanding is that it didn’t pre-exist Christianity. If astrology is defined as astronomy or Sumerian’s considered scientists then yes but that is not consistent with my understanding of these things.

The longstanding foundations you refer to in your next post I consider an argument in favour of the influence of Christianity rather than undermining it’s responsibility and I don’t share your convergence/coincidence theory.

A J Phillips

Can I take it you agree with Dawkin’s cat analogy?

Cevilia,

“I’m not sure why it matters whether or not science developed before or parallel with Christianity or even by Christians. ...”

Yes science and religion do tend to consider different things. Yes I wouldn’t expect someone to convert solely because of science and have been surprised by the strong reaction. Without seeing completely eye to eye I generally relate to what you are saying and find it refreshing. In the context of my personal beliefs I pointed out that Christian thought correlates with scientific thought and this in conjunction with the time, place, and lengthy period of being on the verge of science supports the view that Christianity gave birth to science. Science has been enormously successful and beneficial. Since I believe correlation between the birth of science and Christianity can be attributed to Christian belief I feel more comfortable with my chosen belief system and am happy with the positive contribution. If science had failed or been useless that wouldn’t be an option.

mjpb, I can see that you believe that Christianity has shaped the development of science. We differ quite radically on this: it is the other way around. For over 1000 years of Christianity didn't change that much, but after influential developments in scientific thinking and rationality, backed up by objective data, Christian thought itself began to change. It had to. To then project back the idea that the religion can take credit for these developments and thus validate itself is ridiculous.

Vanilla,
I once came across an intriguing article about abiogenesis which, unfortunately, I haven’t kept; but from memory, the author discussed how difficult it is to actually determine the essential differences between life and non-life. The line isn’t always clear when we consider living things that barely fit the definition of life and non-living things that almost appear alive.
There was a checklist of characteristics of life e.g. growth, nutrition, metabolism but even then it is sometimes unclear where to draw the line.

Mjpb,
I agree with Bugsy’s point but I suppose I’ll accept your choice about your belief. I have limited knowledge of the history of Christianity or of science so it’s possible that I’m missing something that you’re trying to convey, but I still fail to see how, or why, it’s relevant that there is a correlation between Christianity and science- not only because correlation doesn’t mean causation but, as I said, even if Christianity gave birth to science this doesn’t implicate that God exist. At least, not for me.
I’m getting ‘something’ across of what you’ve been saying and I have the feeling that you’re merely trying to explain what your personal view is and how it contributes to your level of happiness without a strong need to convince others that your view is the best, the correct one etc. Correct me if I’m wrong.

PS I’ll be a bit slow in replying due to my frustration with my reduced typing speed and limited time atm.

Celivia,

Yes to alot of that. Obviously you are not a Christian and have different outlooks and biases but you seem to 'get it'. As a bonus you aren't taking my comments as a personal attack and don't feel the need to insult me.

I wouldn't convert merely on that basis (as a hypothetical) if I was you either. Which leads to something very close to yes in response to the balance of your questions. It is my personal view and does contribute to my level of happiness and it doesn't really change alot whether or not people consider it the better view. Asked whether I believe in Christianity and why, I threw that in after answering the two questions.

To be honest I expected the general commencement period of science (defined in what I believe is the most typical manner) would be uncontroversial. Why science commenced is a real post mortem job which I have an opinion on and can cite reasons which I'd like people to understand but I don't take for granted a shared interpretation. However the discussion got stuck unduly on Sumerian scientists. I think I'm getting to that point of fully explaining my post mortem but only because I'm communicating with different people.

When I give reasons for the view in the historical context and someone agrees with me on a definition for science (and makes negative attributions about me for defining it in the first place) but then says that something not within the definition is science I feel the need to pin down what they mean. I even had someone claim that someone from European Christendom was the father of science but in the same post claimed Sumerians were scientists. Requests to find out if they subscribed to a different definition of science (which they are entitled to) were never answered.

Take your time responding I have enjoyed the communication breakthrough too much to be impatient.

Bugsy,

Then hopefully I’m not doing that. Whether or not Christian thought was affected by science I think it is more than coincidence that science took off where and when it did. I believe that existing attributes of Christianity add weight to this lack of coincidence theory particularly when contrasted with beliefs of other cultures with the knowledge and capabilities to get science off the ground. I don’t believe projecting backward is necessary.

I'd like to address your 1000 plus years of inaction suggestion. At the beginning of the 1000 years Christian Europe was a combination of barbarism and the rubble of Roman outposts. I’m presuming that Christian Europe built on Greek knowledge. Did Europe mull over Greek knowledge for over a thousand years or is it more historically valid to consider that the peoples discovered it in medieval times after it was translated into Latin? I invite you to do your own historical research but I don’t believe Greek knowledge which later invigorated them was widely available during that time. Without the Greek knowledge Christian Europe seemed to have focused their reasoning on theological issues. With the benefit of Greek knowledge and turning thoughts to the natural world science seemed to take off fairly quickly. I share the view of co-author of Principia Mathematica Alfred Whitehead who noted that science arose in Europe because of the "faith in the possibility of science...derivative from medieval theology."

Certainly, they didn’t go it alone. Without the platform provided by the Greeks it might not have happened or might have taken much longer. However other groups had that advantage but didn’t get science off the ground. The question does need to be asked why Christian society did it but they didn’t?

"...the essential differences between life and non-life. The line isn’t always clear..."
"...a checklist of characteristics of life e.g. growth, nutrition, metabolism..."

True, very difficult questions indeed.

Since I'm the one who brought up the issue, I shall put my neck on the chopping board and try differentiating life from non-life, using my own definition:

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
In the broadest sense possible, a material life (as opposed to spiritual life) is an entity with a finite boundary that is capable of accepting one or more input(s), capable of processing the input(s) on its own accord (ie. it has a standalone intelligence) to produce one or more output(s).
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Is there any scientist out there to discuss this with?

mjpb: 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is a logical fallacy. One that you really should look into.

Maybe one question should be asked: why are not the contributions of scientists such as Al-Biruni, Ibn al-Haytham, Brahmagupta or Su Song not considered science? Why are contributions of non-Christian origin ignored or even put down as superstitious mumbo-jumbo like astrology?

gz, your defintion needs serious refinement, it is so vague that in fact that it is operationally useless. Further, the term "stand-alone intelligence" as it applies to the definition needs to defined itself.

A solar powered calculator could fit that definition.

I don't know why people believe God could be proved or disproved by science. According to theology God exists outside the physical universe. Science is applied within the domain of the physical universe. These two domains do not intersect.

Bugsy,

It's paradoxical I know. I simply see the need to cover off what Celivia alluded to - that there are "...living things that barely fit the definition of life and non-living things that almost appear alive".

My definition is a one size fits all. I'm not willing to abandone/change it until I have explored it much further.

According to my definition, a solar powered calculator indeed has a life of its own - it turns on when light shines on it.

Now stretch your imagination - if that calculator is actually made of flesh and bone, the electronics inside are all replaced by their biological equivalence (if there are such things) and the processor chip replaced by a fleshy 'brain' tissue that performs calculations and it has ten 'eyes' that display the result of computation, then I would argue it is in essence a life-form, albeit a very primitive one that has no emotion, unable to metabolise, grow and multiply.

My definition extends 'life' beyond convention. A life-form does not need to be intelligent, it does not need to metabolise and grow to qualify as being a life-form.

Assuming a transcient life-form (with a short life span) is created in a test tube. By conventional wisdom it may not qualify as a life-form but my definition actually caters for this scenario, provided of course that it fits the criteria of my definition.

Any comment?

I will probably run out of comment quota soon, but I will just say that any definition of 'life' that can include simple electronic devices and machines, i.e. inanimate objects, is functionally worthless.

I must admit that finding an overarching definition that covers all the bases is difficult. Most just have a list of properties or criteria that must be fulfilled, but there are still certain grey areas, for things like viruses. Are viruses alive? Do they fit your criteria? They could not be said to have a "stand alone intelligence" by any current definition of intelligence and yet they are biological and probably much closer to being alive than a calculator.

Kroy, you said, “According to theology…”
Has theology actually ever said anything that can be demonstrated to be true?

Yes Bugsy and gz, to properly identify and define “life” including inchoate life forms for the purpose of abiogenenis discussions remains difficult.
However, the evolution theory is quite a different field than abiogenesis. The evolution theory is not influenced by any findings or outcome of abiogenesis.

Bugsy, Your comments got me thinking again...

Here's my refined statement in simple English:

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
The minimum criterion for a material life is that it must be an entity with a finite boundary, capable of accepting at least one input, capable of processing the input on its own accord (ie. it has standalone intelligence) to produce at least one output.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Note the words "minimum criterion".
By "standalone intelligence", I don't mean a life must be intelligent. No, all it requires is the ability to PROCESS an input ON ITS OWN ACCORD, (implying it has some independence)

Although a solar calculator meets the above "minimum criterion" for life, it is not a life-form due to obvious reasons.

But a virus quite likely satisfies the above "minimum criterion" for life.

Everything is covered off, I believe. Any comment?

Celivia,
On the contrary, I believe the evolution theory is very much dependent on abiogenesis. Inability to make the connection means the evolution theory will lead to nowhere.

But firstly, are we ageeable on GZ's "Minimum criterion for a material life"?

Bugsy,

Sorry I don’t speak much Latin. For those in a similar boat that don’t have the time to google around and find out I’ll take the liberty of providing the English.

after this, therefore because of this

Further, from my googling apparently the fallacy is in assuming that, because an event occurred after another event, the first event caused the second event. It applies when other factors that might apply are not considered and the sequence is the only thing considered.

Okay I’ve done my homework and now know what your learned saying means. But you might need to explain to me how it applies here. Yes I believe I am taking the timing as a big factor but I don’t believe it is the only factor.

I don’t believe that contributions of non-Christian origin are ignored or put down just because they don’t fall within ‘my’ definition of science if that is what you mean. Indeed the Greek learning I referred to in my most recent post was of non-Christian origin. Failing to come within the scope of a particular thing, namely science, doesn’t undermine the intellectual merit or accomplishment of something else. As positive as I am about science and its accomplishments there was life, learning, and achievement prior to science. It has been said that Rome was famed for its drains Greece for its brains yet the practices of the ancient Greek intellectual heavyweights don’t fall within my definition.

You are entitled to rely upon a different definition as many clearly do if you so choose and thereby take science back as far as you like. If so then we can just agree to disagree on the definition and my beliefs about the relationship with Christianity will be irrelevant to you. If Thales of Miletus is considered the father of science then Al-Biruni was certainly a scientist. If however Gallileo or someone of that time period was the father of science then the situation is different.

mjpb, in case you hadn't noticed about the only thing you have written that comes close to proper definition of science (or whatever definition that you are using) is:

'Science has been defined as a "method utilized in organised efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and correction through systematic observation" '.

The rest of your rhetoric seems to be confined to what you believe science isn't. Given this, why are not the contributions from ancient and mediaeval non-Christian examples counted as science? They fit your earlier definition. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, and that what you really mean is that Christian Europe gave rise to the kinds of science that arose in Christian Europe.

gz,

Inserting the words "minimum criterion" do nothing to change the problems with your definition. You will likely have to define 'process' as well, as it is a massively ambiguous word. Seriously, a dog food cannery would fit your definition also. It needs much more to be workable.

Bugsy: " I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse "

Yup. Got it in one.

"...a dog food cannery would fit your definition..."

Too funny :D

Bugsy,
There is no ambiguity with a dog food cannery in fact.
A criterion is just that, a criterion. To be a life-form, something MUST satisfies a minimum criterion. But the converse does not apply.
An analogy- A man is a human being but conversely a human being may not be a man.
Therefore there can be no mistake. A dog food cannery cannot be regarded a life-form simply on the basis that it meets that minimum criterion.

CJMorgan, (Whooop)...A good one...You obviously laughed too early, which indicates a level of ignorance, no doubt.
But not to worry, I will not ask you for ideas. Your infantile behaviour (due to ignorance) is embarassing enough, frankly.

Bugsy,
You are right "Process" is the next big problem. My thinking cap is still on and will deal with that in due course. But somehow I feel that the sanctity of such an important topic has been rudely violated.
Perhaps I would appreciate contributions from others along the same line, before throwing mine back in.
In the meantime I would welcome any realistic suggestion of a life-form that does not meet that minimum criterion.
Cheers and thanks for your patience.

It's nearly time to re-visit other threads...

I understand what you are trying to get at here, and maybe I will try to explain something about set theory and definitions. I hope this helps you.

In your man-human analogy: man is a SUBSET of HUMAN, thats fine.

To define something, you really want to approximate what that set is about. You cannot define a man by saying that his minimum criteria is that he must be human. There needs to be more specificity: i.e. what distinguishes men from other humans?

At the moment you are defining life by saying that whatever it is, it has to be something that does something to something else. Ok, that is one criteria, but it doesn't define what life is at all. It's useless. The criteria is so general that an almost infinite (or at least very very large) number of things can fulfil it. You need more criteria, much more.

It's like saying that the minimum criteria that defines a dog is that it must be an organism with teeth, capable of eating meat. Yes, dogs fit this criteria, but this criteria doesn't define a dog.

Yours is not a criteria that can define "life". Sorry.

Bugsy,

Gee, I simply cannot resist leaping back to this topic.

Thanks for the comments.

You misunderstand where I was coming from though.

In terms of set theory, my attempt was really to first identify a "Super Set" that all life-forms must belong in. If an almost infinite number of things fit in this "Super Set", then so be it. It's a good place to start from.

Such a "Super Set" must corresponds to a minimalist criterion, agree?

The next step (I suppose) is to reduce the "size" of this "Super Set" to exclude non-life out of it, as much as possible. For instance, do this by codifying the "process" in the minimum criterion and/or increasing the number of inputs/outputs that a life-form must be able to process.

One reason for an all-encompassing "Super Set" (hence my minimum criterion) is facts that we do not understand how some viruses operate and we need to cast a wide net. Could it be possible some viruses satisfy that minimum criterion, but no more. In which case we have a "Super Set" that maps directly to those viruses.

To define life-forms of a higher order (eg. cats & dogs) is to move away from the boundary that separates life from non-life. What is important is to identify that boundary, not that we need to define a complex life-form.

Do I make some sense?

Gz, the evolution theory is about how existing life has developed; it makes no claims about the origin of life as it begins with the premise that life already exists.
Whether the origin of life took off naturally from non-living material or was created by God, the evolution theory explains development of life- not origin of life. Even if someone discovered that God created the first inchoate live form, evolution’s evidence would still explain how life has developed from there.
The line between the two can be confusing though- they may sometimes appear to overlap especially since evolution biologists have a keen interest in the question where life exactly begins.

I don’t really grasp what your aim is in regard to “Super Set… minimum criterion”. Science has worked out already what life (and non-life) is away from the boundary- the difficulties with defining life merely exist along that boundary line.

gz, I am only using higher life forms as an example. Your broad "super set" though is too broad, and while it it seems that it may encompass non-living things, I suspect it may actually exclude things like viruses. Not so bad in itself, there is a school of thought that viruses are non-living and so the definition would be applicable, but probably for the wrong reasons. It also gives no indication as to how likely something is to be alive. Some organisms may only be capable of "processing inputs" under particular circumstances, and then it's quite obvious that they're alive, not so obvious under other circumstances. Eg. a dormant grain of wheat.

Definitions or criteria must be useful in a scientific sense in that they define what is actually being talked about and that people can understand exactly what is being talked about. At the moment many of the concepts outlined in your definition are subject to so many different interpretations that it is unworkable. It should be becoming increasingly obvious that you are having to explain several different concepts (eg "input", "process", "stand-alone intelligence", "output"), which are ambiguous when applied to living or non-living organisms. In this sense the definition needs much more refinement as it doesn't describe the boundary between living and non-living things (not even close), which I suspect was the original intention?

gz,

CJ's infantile behaviour is just a manifestation of his nasty personality rather than ignorance in respect of a particular topic. He wants to hurt our feelings and is surprisingly unconcerned about embarassing himself.

Bugsy,

"mjpb, in case you hadn't noticed about the only thing you have written that comes close to proper definition of science ... is:

'Science has been defined as a "method utilized in organised efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and correction through systematic observation".

The rest ... confined to what you believe science isn't."

You consider it a proper definition. I agree. When I'm saying what it isn't I'm not defining it. I agree. Originally I said what it isn't is in the belief that saying what something isn't helps explain it. Subsequently I have said what it isn't in response to people giving examples of the use of systematic observation alone or explanations alone that didn't go farther or stillbirths of science. Would it be clearer if I said that if only a portion of the definition applies I don't believe it fits the definition? For these reasons I believe science got off the ground at a time period and place.

I value ancient and mediaeval non Christian examples of learning, innovation, observation or explanation just as I value science. I just don't consider them science for the reasons given above. Yes that is the same as saying that Christian Europe gave rise to the kind of science that arose in Christian Europe because that kind of science fits the definition that I believe equates to science. This is not because of some preference for that type of science but because I believe it is a reasonable definition of science. I'm not the only one. People who call Gallileo the father of science must be saying the same thing. However people who use the label science to historical figures as far back as Sumerians appear to subscribe to another definition. They keep denying it and I'm trying to make sense of that anomaly.

I googled this early on in the discussion and was planning on using it to better express something I believed but the topic keeps spiralling away. It is from someone at Columbia University who wants to share the opinion of someone called Stanley Jaki who argues for the birth of science being due to Christianity. To be honest the main reason I'm putting it here is to keep it somewhere I can find it but it deals with something that has been touched upon in here.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

While I acknowledge that Galileo is often referred to as the father of modern science, that is still an opinion, one not met with consensus I might add.

At this point, you may have to clearly outline where the previous contributions to science do not fit your definition.

Also, the contention that Christianity gave rise to science (where this probably should be "modern science"?), relies greatly on timing. The link between Christian thought giving rise to scientific thought is tenuous and appears to me to be largely circumstantial. Nothing happens within a vacuum, everything tends to grow from foundations laid previously. That is probably why so many people have trouble with evolution, it happens gradually, inexorably from the past, into the future, where so many people want to pinpoint the exact time and place something started.

Galileo himself also found his work at odds with the prevailing Christian thought of the time. Since then, science has often found itself at odds with the prevailing Christian thought of the time. Guess who changed? Science attempts to describe reality, Christianity (and religion in general) is understandably threatened by this. If you think there is nothing to fear from finding out the truth of things, you are right. However, if you think that science will not change your religion eventually and irrevocably, you are wrong. It cannot replace religion, but it will change it. A lot.

Bugsy,Celivia,

To go with my minimum criterion, my minimalist definition of "process", quite simply - an ability to do work in a consistent fashion.

The inherent characteristic of such a "process" (any productive process):
(1) It consumes energy;
(2) It causes an observable change (ie. there is an output);
(3) The output is structured (ie. not random).

First, a dilemma - Must at least one process be active for something to be considered a life?
YES, in case of animals (Heart constantly beats even when sleeping, hybernating)
NO, in the case of "a dormant grain of wheat". (Thanks for your input)
( A dormant grain of wheat cannot possibly sustain a constantly active process, like having a "heart beat". Otherwise the wheat grain would exhaust all its energy and dies.)

To include "a dormant grain of wheat" in the "Super Set", there must be no requirement for the minimalist "process" to be constantly active.
Paradoxically this means a "life", although classified as a life, may have a state of non-life. It may literally be DEAD at times.

Yet, human life (with non-stop heart beats) satisfies such a minimum criterion; A dormant grain of wheat also satisfies such a criterion, and fit within the "Super Set".

In fact a virus falls neatly in the same category as a grain of wheat - It can switch from non-life to life, and vice versa. Now my minimum criterion allows a virus to be included in the "Super Set" as well.

To avoid making a total fool of myself, I decided to google search. Then I found this gem :

http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/virwhat.html

Quote: "...the only real criterion for life is: THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE" !!

bingo... !!

A virus can replicate on its own accord. Replication is in fact a sub-set of "process", agree?
A grain of wheat germinates on its own accord. Germination is also a "process".
A virus is literally DEAD, a non-life. But when it replicates, it is ALIVE !!

To be continued....

A difficulty I had was my criterion that "a material life...must be an entity with a FINITE BOUNDARY".

I learn that a virus is in fact merely "the current slice in a continuous lineage" -- It does not contain a finite cell boundary at all.

Then I found, a virus contains "...a protective protein coat called a capsid" (Wikipedia)
Therefore even a virus contains substance within a boundary of sort.

So yes, in fact my minimum criterion has gone too far -- It may even covers "life-form" MUCH MORE PRIMITIVE than a virus (if there is such an organism)

In order to shrink my "Super Set", I do agree the process in my minimum criterion be defined to satisfy the most primitive organism known - a virus.
Therefore the minimum requirement for a "process" is: THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE"

The process of replication does involves an INPUT (the host environment) and produces an OUTPUT (another copy of oneself)

A good reason to search for a minimum criterion for life, is simply to search for a meaning of life.

Once we know the minimum criterion for life, then we can re-visit that question - Can the SIMPLEST life-form occur naturally, or artificially??

If the SIMPLEST life-form is proven to be created naturally, then the evolution theory has significant credibility.
However, if there is no known natural process that is able to create even the SIMPLEST life-form, then Ummm...., I kid you not, creation in the Bible may well be a statement of TRUTH.

Because it is only a matter of time scientists ARTIFICIALLY CREATE the simplest life-form.

Any comment?

mjpb,
In the Bible Jesus mentioned a seed must first drop to the ground, be DEAD, before it grows and produces many fold. Can you confirm this?
In fact until today, I always wondered how Jesus (who claimed to be God) got it so wrong, by saying something is dead, but then alive again.
Well, I'm satisfied my puzzle is now resolved :)

Enough for my mental strain.... Over to you all :)

Yes, I guess Jesus may well have thought that a grain of wheat would be dead. But it is in fact dormant. However, DEATH is not DORMANCY, otherwise ma frozen IVF embryo would be classified as dead, which is clearly not the case.

Anyway, I think you are certainly getting a little closer to a better definition. Just a thought though: conventionally, the criteria of life often include criteria like: organization (closely analogous to your ‘finite boundary’), metabolism (consumption of energy), growth (process), reproduction (process/output), movement (process/output), response to external stimuli (process/output), and adaptation (process/output). But some of these criteria have been recognised to have certain problems under particular circumstances and may not be universal.

It appears to me that you may have just simplified these criteria, but simplified them past a point where it includes too much (ie non-life).

Another observation, there is by no means any consensus that viruses are living organisms, as they can't actually replicate by themselves or with just an energy input. They need host cellular machinery to do it (ribosomes). But they do replicate under particular circumstances, but then, so do prions. Viruses use up energy from host cells, but they don't have a metabolism in the conventional understanding of metabolism.

So, given all this, what is it that distinguishes your definition from previous criteria apart from them being bit simpler and thus being a tad too broad for recognition of what is "alive"?

Bugsy,

You are non committal even with the term "modern science". I am happy to call what I consider science "modern science" for the purpose of the discussion. However you haven't clearly committed to even that description.

We don't have the same view about the tenuousness of the link between Christian thought and science but you are probably correct that it is at best "largely circumstantial". I believe the Greeks (and Christians) provided the foundations that were built upon. The difference between the Greeks and Arabs and the Europeans was that Europeans built modern science on the Greek foundation for some reason. I have a theory about the reason. I note that other cultures eg. Chinese also came close to getting science (modern science?) off the ground.

I agree with the bare fact you assert about Galileo. However I'm not in the same mind regarding the implications. Gallileo came unstuck officially on something that was previously ok for Copernicus. Had Gallileo not forcefully played theologian with the Catholic Church at a time when Martin Luther had just rattled the cart and creating defensiveness and had he not undermined his credibility with assertions that were challenging (eg. claiming circular orbits cf. Keplers eliptical orbits and claiming tides proved Copernicanism as tides were due to earth's orbital frequency rather than Kepler's theory they were due to sun and moon gravity) things may well have been different. The Church later saw the light and "changed" but did science really "often find itself at odds with the prevailing Christian thought"?

mjpb, a couple of points;

1) you still haven't clearly outlined where the previous contributions to science do not fit your definition. It does not matter whether I have committed to it or not, you clearly have. If you show clearly where this is the case (i.e. the previous contributions to science don't fit or partially fit the def.), then I can understand that you have a legitimate point using that definition (ie the logic is internally consistent), regardless of whether I agree with it (the definition) or not. If you cannot, then your argument (that the previous contributions to knowledge aren't science) isn't even internally valid.

2) Galileo found himself at odds with the Church, yes, not necessarily science in that case, point conceded. Science, however, has found itself at odds with prevailing Christian thought a number of times since. Eg, evolution, stem cell research etc.

"a couple of points;

1) you still haven't clearly outlined where the previous contributions to science do not fit your definition. It does not matter whether I have committed to it or not, you clearly have. If you show clearly where this is the case (i.e. the previous contributions to science don't fit or partially fit the def.), then I can understand that you have a legitimate point using that definition (ie the logic is internally consistent), regardless of whether I agree with it (the definition) or not. If you cannot, then your argument (that the previous contributions to knowledge aren't science) isn't even internally valid."

It seemed like quite a project proving all those negatives. Excuse the delay. I considered it prudent to hold it in abeyance due to the word count. I'll start with Sumerians. They were big on observation but light on theory. I'd submit that without a link to testable theories, the observations remain facts rather than science. Again I'll use the term modern science in lieu of science if you become confident enough to commit yourself to that label. Otherwise I'll plod along with your interest in the internal consistency and hopefully some day relate Christianity to the European "something".

"2) Galileo found himself at odds with the Church, yes, not necessarily science in that case, point conceded. Science, however, has found itself at odds with prevailing Christian thought a number of times since. Eg, evolution, stem cell research etc."

Evolution probably. This forum demonstrates it is still the bugbear of some Christians. However I dispute the fairness in characterising criticism of certain types of stem cell research as science being at odds with Christian thought in any comparable manner. Stem cell research per se is not the issue it is stem cell research considered unethical that is criticised. It is appropriate for Christians to comment on the ethics of anything from relevant types of stem cell research to cosmetic testing on animals to the former oppression in communist Poland. They are rejecting poor ethics not a scientific theory.

Can I cheat with China? I notice in these forums atheists consider any atheist assertion in relation to religion as dogma irrespective of how implausible it might be. Would you be willing to accept as authoritative a plausible portion of a comment of famed atheist Bertrand Russell? He opined "Although Chinese civilization has hitherto been deficient in science, it never contained anything hostile to science..." It is understandable that Russell was surprised by China in this regard. China had a magnificent civilization.

Ancient Greeks spent centuries a hairbreath from achieving science. Some made systematic observations of the natural world. Others engaged in speculative philosophy. The example of Aristotle has been used including the suggestion that if Aristotle had gone to a Greek cliff and dropped rocks he would have quickly dropped his theory that objects fall at a speed proportionate to their size. In the other direction science is not Euclid merely describing portions of reality with geometry.

Ancient Romans absorbed Greece including its knowledge and scholars without moving it forward. Likewise Greek knowledge was carefully preserved and studied in Islam with clever advances in mathematics but without getting science off the ground.

I believe that lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning and knowledge perse are not science. I acknowledge the benefit and achievement inherent in much of this in the ancient world.

What I believe those cultures lacked that explained Christian Europe's achievement in relation to getting science off the ground was Christianity and Christian thought.

Sumerian astronomers/astrologers not scientists- check. No argument here. Except of course they had theories, just not very good ones or 'scientific' ones as it turns out.

Evolution- check (lots of subsets here too).
Stem cell research- check, I agree. It's more an ethical issue rather than paradigm change, point taken.
Although it hasn't happened yet, physics and cosmology may yet find itself at odds with religious thought (again?)- but thats a wait and see.

Please, continue. I don't suppose there is an easy summary of common ways the pre-modern contributions don't fit your definition of science? Are they all failing in different ways?

Bugsy,

You recently pointed out something I hadn't addressed. There is something else.

"However, if you think that science will not change your religion eventually and irrevocably, you are wrong. It cannot replace religion, but it will change it. A lot."

I wasn't completely clear on how to take that but that wasn't why I hesitated. I don't want to say that science will or won't change religion but it could even though they generally operate in different spheres. Now Having thought about it the best way to respond is probably just to acknowledge that. I guess that is a little like my own cautious check.

Good to see all the meetings of mind. You did arouse my curiousity with one comment though. When you mentioned cosmology did you have in mind the Catholic priest cosmologist who recently won the Templeton Award?

Bugsy,

Just for the record I have adopted the following criterion:

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
The minimum criterion for material life is THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I google searched a bit to learn about the simplest life-form; whether scientific studies have been undertaken to determine how such life-form might have come from non-life. It's all futility and frankly I don't know where to look at present.

Even simple viral life-form appears to be so complex in replication.

If it is a matter of time scientists will artificially create a simple life-form, it would be hell of a long time too.

Now back from the “sin-bin”, I can address this august thread,

Do I believe in God
Yes. I have faith in the concept of a supreme, divine entity. Who I talk to (but he don’t necessarily answer back).

Do I believe in the teachings of the church, theology and all that
Not at all.

All the theologians and bishops, priest, curates, vicars and Imams have done is give God a bad name.

The organized religions have pretended each to be the exclusive conduit for any relationship between man and God.

This exclusivity has been defended and enforced by use of torture, murder and along the way has re-written, censored and corrupted the word of God to suit their own political agenda and defend their sense of self importance, at the expense of the innocent.


Hope that answers the question.
It is nice to be back (and having fun).

gz,

So close yet so far. You're on the right track though. The ability to replicate is important, however it's not the only criteria. Self-replicating molecules have been known for some time now. Replicating systems of molecules and DNA can be performed in the lab without the need for a living organism. It's little understood generally, but enzymes that are generally required for replication can be reasonably complex molecules (as enzymes often are), but they contain a metal ion in their active site (magnesium in most cases). What is not often known is that the catalytic activity of the metal ion in the enzymes active site can occur even WITHOUT the enzyme surrounding it. What the enzyme does is add specificity to the reaction, i.e. what molecules bind to it etc. This also has the added effect of increasing the speed (processivity) of specific reactions.
In essence, catalytic reactions with DNA and RNA can occur without the need for the proteins that surround the active sites the enzymes that generally perform these functions. Metal ions themselves can function as primitive enzymes catalysing a great many reactions.

The big mistake would be looking at the final product of billions of years of molecular evolution and expecting that we should be able to make cells from scratch in the lab right now. They are still working on how many genes are needed to comprise the minimum gene set for cellular life, and what are the simplest forms of these genes. It cannot be expected that even the simplest cells alive today are the simplest possible. They are still the products of billions of years of evolution.

Ancestral forms may even be as simple as cellular organelles mitochondria or chloroplasts, which are generally recognised as being simple cells which were subsumed as symbiotic life forms. They even have their own genomes and replicate separately from the rest of the cell. If all the minimum criteria that you have held to "had all the bases covered", then I guess that these organelles could be considered life forms in their own right. Ponder on this.

Bugsy,

I don't think we should regard the simplest cells "the products of billions of years of evolution". We do not know that.

Although it is completely logical to think something that exists must have come from somewhere, the abundance of earthly life-forms also places a very high burden-of-proof on the evolution theory.

In fact it is not what little evidence there is that matters. Rather, it is the total lack of OVERWHELMING evidence that is the problem.

If the theory of evolution is true, we should be observing concrete evidence of evolution everywhere we turn.

For a start, there is no observable proof that simplest cells are being created by nature TODAY that will evolve into higher life-forms billions of years later.

Such absence is a really glaring problem, I would think. And this is just one problem with the evolution theory.

Why don't you do some reading on the matter, eh?

Plug 'evolution' into Google scholar and away you go. Lack of overwhelming evidence my Aunt Fanny.

And what have we been talking about then? If abiogenisis happened, it only need have happened once, not everyday, and then all life is the product of billions of years of evolution. Even the simplest of cells. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that the earliest life forms would be exactly like these simple cells.

Bugsy: "If abiogenisis happened, it only need have happened once..."

This is only an assumption. A very questionable assumption that I suppose the evolution theory requires as its base.

In fact no less than saying God had created life in the beginning.

The claim that billions of years ago, there was an UNKNOWN combination of physical and chemical conditions that allowed abiogenisis to happen is not credible, especially when there is NO KNOWN natural process today. No way, Jose, no way. The above assumption is fallacious at best and requires a leap of faith.

I think what is regarded as evolutionary evidence may not be evidence at all, just the published result of some cumulative errors of judgement.

If you'd like, identify one "convincing" evidence and we shall see.

So, "[INSERT ENTITY OF CHOICE HERE] did it", is therefore more credible is it?

Ok, one piece of evidence about crocodiles:
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/v047448555324286/

Have at it.

Bugsy,
Sorry, don't have time now. This will have to wait.
Thanks for the discussions... cheers