You probaly lost faith because religon is flawed. Science cannot co exsits with religon because of its fundementals. Science is the process of understanding phenomenas of the universe through observable evidence. Religon is the exact opposite of that. It puts blind faith in things that cannot be observed. Also omnipotence is a paradox which makes relgion less credible. Maybe some outside figrue did start life in teh universe but it can't be omnipotent.

Religion and science ARE compatible. Many scientific accomplishments were brought about by men of religious standing.

As for me, I look at science as a way of explaining how God's world works. The more I look at it, the more intricate I see it becoming...and it only makes me appreciate God's creation even more.

That's how I look at it. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and they can most definitely coexist.

Technicly philosphy is the grey ground between science and religon as I interpret. So religon and science may be intermixable but that does not mean religon is right. Ultra surely you must of heard of the ominoptence paradoxusing any three of the subjects i doubt you could rebuke that.

That's why there's free will.

And God's ways are not man's ways. Who knows how He thinks?

All we - as humans - can do is try to understand the world around us.

So should I dictate my life with philosophy?

Regarding the omnipotence paradox: This merely demonstrates that there are logical considerations which constrain what is usually understood by "omnipotent". This is not to say that a being cannot be omnipotent, just that there are common misconceptions as to what omnipotence entails. Either that or to be omnipotent you are capable of acting beyond logical consideration, which is something which we tend to find difficult to conceive of. In other words, either the paradox is based around a misunderstanding of "omnipotent", or logic does not apply to omnipotence, thus it is by it's very nature liable to produce paradoxes, and hence the presence of paradox in relation to it is harldy surprising.

Technically, philosophy is the study of knowledge (translating from greek, it means (approximately) "lover of knowledge"), so in that sense overlaps with science (which to a certain extent developed from philosophy) and religion. However, philosophy is much more than just the "grey ground" between science and religion.

As for science and religion being compatible, science is a practice of asking "how". Good science should never be claiming to answer "why". Several people choose to base explanations of "why" on scientific evidence, but this does not preclude other explanations (granted, the principle of Occam's Razor provides support for not having too outlandish a theory for "why", but this is far from conclusive). Religion tends to answer "why". There are various occasions in which religious texts claim to explain "how", most notably being various creation myths, but, assuming these are not held literally, this leads to there, in principle, being no reason for science and religion to co-exist.

Faith is liable to be shaken since it is based mostly on belief rather than evidence - although perception of evidence has some influence. Ultimately, only you can decide what you believe to be true. If you believe that scientific evidence indicates the lack of a God, and that there is no way God can exist within the world science describes, then you will see no compromise. Many professional scientists, however, are committed Christians or similarly religious, as well as many who are atheists.

Quote:

---

So should I dictate my life with philosophy?

---

Did i ever at any point say philosphy was better than science. Although it is an intresting subject matter science is far more truer. You should folow science as it is verfiable.

Science may look at what is verifiable (although technically this should be what is potentially falsifiable but has not yet been falsified, due to various philosophical considerations - see Hume and the Problem of Induction), but this is most likely a fairly limited scope of what is out there. I would suggest, rather than considering only one way of looking at things, take the opportunity to research several possible ways of understanding the world, and decide which you feel works best.

Thank you for the help. Science shall overpower religon

I doubt that. People need scapegoats. Science doesn't give them scapegoats. Religion does.

~Rico

Bull. Pompousvampire's being mislead if you ask me. Science cannot always beat religion. Sicence is the idea that anything can be measured and calculated. Not everything can be. For example, the human soul (although the book STIFF looks into that) can't be measured.

You can't depend on God or Science. You can't depend on other people's theories. You hafta find faith for yourself.

I think we've all been around the block, some more than others. Me personally, well I've seen things that no person should see. I've been abandoned, mislead, raped, torn between friends and family. But I believe all of that is part of my plan. Is that God's work? Who knows?

I believe that Christianity is something to give many people 'hope'. 'Faith' in something. But either people turn away from that hope, or become dependent on it. They expect to get everything they want if they stay 'true' to the religion.

The bible is embellished quite a bit. One of my friends and mentors tought me some very interesting things. She tought me that I hafta find my own faith. Now I'm passing that knowledge on to you. Don't listen to tverybody else. Look into yourself and find what you think is right.

Sicence [sic] is the idea that anything can be measured and calculated.

Um... No it isn't?

But he is right in that Science is in part, theories. Science may have a lot more proveable fact to it than Religion. Science may have killed QUITE as many people. Science books may not have QUITE as much hogwash in them as the bible. But it's still not perfect. Nothing is.

You do have to establish your beliefs, your morality. The problem with religion is that it needs to be seperate from legal stuff. We learned from the ancient catholic church what happens when the religion takes over the law. People rise up and fight it. The way to keep religion alive is to leave it as just that, a faith. Don't try to make others bend to your will and your beliefs, or you will do just the opposite of what God wants. You'll astrange people from Him and not bring them closer.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of God and his little ant farm power game but I believe people have every right to believe in it. I've always found Religion fascinating but most people are too wound up with it for me to discuss it with them.

Reiterating, I don't think one can "beat" the other anymore than Islam and beat Buddism. The big thing thats WRONG with religion is that it creates hatred between the different mythos'. When religions learn to accept each other, then people may learn to accept each other. Then and only then can we really hope to keep religion alive.

~Rico'Ki

But he is right in that Science is in part, theories.
The scientific theory is an entirely different beast from the layman's theory.

I'll start off by stating that I do not believe science to be a futile pursuit by any stretch of the imagination. However, for the purpose of making some of these arguments, I will be generally attacking the foundations science is based on harder than I normally would.

Firstly, science either relies on the future resembling the past, or on merely showing certain theories to be false or "not yet shown to be false". Given there is no basis by which induction can be demonstrated to exist, since there is no hard evidence that events are caused by prior actions, merely constant conjunction between such events has so far been seen to occur.

Secondly, science relies on our perspective on the world to be accurate. This is not necessarily the case (although this is a weak argument, since you can claim that, if our perspectives produce a coherent and consistent world, then science is a perfectly good way of describing it, and that is all we need to be worried about).

Thirdly, science is an evolving doctrine. No-one suggests that Newton's "Principia" be used as a model for how the world is these days. Hence why should we believe that science is correct in its current modelling of the universe now?

Finally, science relies on things being determined and absolute in order to be regulated. This fails to account for any free-will in living beings (at best, it will presume "random" or "chaotic"). Since I, and I believe many people, wish to maintain that humans have free-will, there is a definite limit provided to the scope of scientific explanation.

Quote:

---

Bull. Pompousvampire's being mislead if you ask me. Science cannot always beat religion. Sicence is the idea that anything can be measured and calculated. Not everything can be. For example, the human soul (although the book STIFF looks into that) can't be measured.

---

Theres one problem with your point. There is no human soul. Unless you can prove to me with any evidence that there is one your point is null. But you are right about your choosing your own faith.

Everyone in this thread needs to get their ass over to Wikipedia. Seriously.

On science:
Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means. The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research...

Most scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.

...

Science is reasoned-based analysis of sensation upon our awareness. As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means. When a manifestation of our reality previously considered supernatural is understood in the terms of causes and consequences, it acquires a scientific explanation.

On the relationship between religion and science:
The relationship between religion and science takes many forms. Generally speaking, religion and science use different methods in their effort to ascertain truth. The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are typically more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, through any combination of: revelation, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value and morals. However, some science also attempts to explain such "why" questions, and some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict.

Historically, science has had a close and complex relationship with religion; religious doctrines and motivations have often been central to scientific development, while scientific knowledge has had profound effects on religious beliefs. A common modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Another view known as the conflict thesispopularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, but now largely rejected by historians of science- holds that science and religion inevitably compete for authority over the nature of reality, so that religion has been gradually losing a war with science as scientific explanations become more powerful and widespread. However, neither of these views adequately accounts for the variety of interactions between science and religion (both historically and today), ranging from antagonism to separation to close collaboration.

...

In the Medieval era some leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, undertook a project of synthesis between religion, philosophy, and natural sciences. For example, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, like the Christian philosopher Augustine of Hippo, held that if religious teachings were found to contradict certain direct observations about the natural world, then it would be obligatory to reinterpret religious texts to match the known facts. The best knowledge of the cosmos was seen as an important part of arriving at a better understanding of the Bible.

Quote:

---

Theres one problem with your point. There is no human soul. Unless you can prove to me with any evidence that there is one your point is null. But you are right about your choosing your own faith.

---

Theres one problem with your point. There is a human soul. Unless you can prove to me with any evidence that there isn't one your point is null.

/insert Elmer Fudd laugh here.

~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper

So far theres no scientific evidence

All scientific research has failed to prove that there is a soul. The only evidence for a human soul several religous texts that ay have been mistranslated and go against many laws of nature. Also if there was a god, an omnioptent being, who by teh definition exists outside of our logical frame work, why did he/she make a logical framkework for our universe which would keep us from fully understanding how such a being can exist for an eternity without beggining.

Nytloc, you're asking science to falsify something that is not falsifiable, and using its inability to do so as an argument against it. High five.

There have been scientific tests on the existance of the soul. No results, but it is generally theorised that the soul weighs 21 grams if it does, indeed exist.

Though, I shouldn't have to mention it, as movies and TV have made it common knowledge.

I thought those 'scientific' tests were all proven to be bunk, though.

Just a second, I'll look it up.

Snopes.com says it's true. Snopes never lies.

The tests happened. They just don't prove anything besides a body will lose 21 grams when the final beat is dead.

I never said they didn't happen, Craig.

I just said they were bunk, which by no means are they not.

actually my link mentiosn what craig said. but i guess no one paid attention to me. Bunk isn't a good word choice though as it is not wodely known and it has way to many meanings.

Quote:

---

Nytloc, you're asking science to falsify something that is not falsifiable, and using its inability to do so as an argument against it. High five.

---

Why thank you, Cycle! That was exactly the point I was trying to get past. 😛

Delivering ultimatums and going, 'lawl, scynce cant use it' is idolatric at most, as science can't even sanctify the existance of our universe.

~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper

Wow I said science was in part theory and got jumped? You all need happy pills. Oy.

~Rico

there is scientific evidence for Creation, but that is rarely known, but the problem with this debate thread is that some people are assuming religion is wrong, and some are assuming it is correct, which will lead to nothing over a forum. There is nothing scientific that has disproven Christianity (Except for mormonism). I think the Quran might have had some wrong dates in there, but i'm not sure.

Quote:

---

there is scientific evidence for Creation,

---

No there isn't.

ok, its more like against evolution, but I am against religious debates over internet forums, so I don't think it is apropriate for me to post them, (If I could even find it) Basically, the sun is waaaaay to big to be billions of years old. Nasa originally thought there would be tons of dust on the moon, like miles and miles, that is why the first moon scooters had thick treads. The reasoning is that if the Earth is millions of years old, the debri on the moon would stack up to miles, but when they got there it was only a few inches. There are doubts the fossil layers are millions of years old, because fossils go through multiple layers (like 3 or 4). I should really stop so this doesn't become a big Creation verses evolution debate (Man I hate those )

Man, what?

^Second'd.

I kind of caught that, as I have a broad range of understanding, but some elaboration would be greatly helpful.

~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper

actually I don't know much about it, but I will try to explain better.
The sun is constantly shrinking, because it is burning up. Well, millions and billions of years ago the sun would be big enough to touch the earth, the earth would have been vaporized.
The moon is conatantly collecting dust, and space particles, but there are only a few inches up there, Nasa thought there would be tons of stuff there because it was supposed to be billions of years old. There are other stuff besides that. I have a book called "Fatal flaws: What evolutionists don't want you to know" By Hank Hanegraaff. That is where you can find some more stuff about the problems with evolution.

Because we all know if it's in a book, it must be true!

EDIT: A book of which Wikipedia has no record as to its existence, no less.

But it does exist, at least according to Amazon.com, they're selling it after all. 😛

It made sense to me, and I know some stuff about science, about as much as the next person.

Making logical statements that lead to illogical conclusions is not exactly hard.

Do I need to link to some books that we know are full of bullcookie? No? Good. Lets get back to topic, mmmkay?

Keep faith alive in YOU. The way it will survive is if you do what you know is right. Maybe its not 'right' but if its within the law you're allowed that mistake. Anymore the line between right and wrong is so blurry its hard to see it clearly. D:

~Rico

Well, if you unknowingly make a mistake, you will still sufure the consquinces whether it is Illegal or not

If its not illegal, then its your opinion if its a mistake or not.

~Rico

For some reason, the above sentence makes me giggle.

~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper

I doubt it was because you realised what it meant. That would be too much to hope for. It was probably due to you taking it out of context, then realizing I'd slap your face through a steel bridge support if you made the topic FURTHER offtopic so you decided; instead, to attempt, and fail at, a witty remark.

~The name is Rico Sauv, Savvy?

Quote:

---

~The name is Rico Sauv, Savvy?

---

Maybe not exactly, but close?

Quote:

---

Well i am a religious person(spiritualism)and one day i found my self questioning faith and belief and started to lose faith in spiritualism. I try to put science and religon together in my beleifs. But can they co-exist? Does anyone else have this problem?

---

well dear, think about it. there's 6 billion people in this world, the majority of them are followers of religions. if you say that sense "science" can't exist with the heart "faith" then there wouldn't be so many people holding onto their religion.

if you have doubts in your faith, read books talk with someone with great knowledge in the religion you follow. there's always an answer if you look for it.

I hope that helps answer your question. religion is a personal quest, good luck finding your path.

PS:I suggest you first try to find the answer as to why most people have religions? that will help. an atheist or agnostic can help with that answer, if you ask him/her the right question

Quote:

---

If its not illegal, then its your opinion if its a mistake or not.

---

If you decide it is ok to kill yourself will it still hurt?
If you murder your best friend legally will you still miss him? Humans can do something and realize they don't like the cosequences. I think you should be carefull about everything you do to make sure you won't regret it down the road. But you make it sound as if nothing will happen.

Quote:

---

If you decide it is ok to kill yourself will it still hurt?

---

Not if you do it the right way

Quote:

---

Not if you do it the right way

---

We could go into afterlife, but I'm getting tired of this topic.

but I'm getting tired of this topic.

Nobody's making you post, kid

Good Point Wonderbat. Nobody says you have to post. And There is a human soul. What makes you feel emotion? Hm? C'mon. Come up with proof that there isn't, and then maybe I'll believe you. And I also heard about the human soul weighing in at about 20 to 21 grams. That said something about blood loss and fecal release after death so that might be where the other 21 went. Who knows?

Anyway, people need to believe in something. Anything at all. Wnd when there is already an established faith, than they don't have to take all the time to establish one for themselves, hence Christianity. I don't think anybody even thinks of that (existing Christians I mean), but I really do believe that.

I don't care what you believe in. I'm open. I'm Christian, dating the daughter of two pastors, but that doesn't make me evangelical. You want to know about my faith? I'll tell you. I'm not going to force it on you.

That said, atheism confuses me. I see nothing more hopeless. Invent a religion of your own, I don't care, at least you'll give yourself purpose.

Do those who denounce religion (or spirituality, at least) entirely understand the proclamation they're making? If we have no immortal souls, or if, in death, we become nothing, then is there not a point to life? And if there isn't a point to life, why bother living it? And a true atheist, I don't think, can give the, "You only get one life, live it to the fullest," speech, because really if you become nothing in the end, you'll have no recollection of the full life you've lived. Therefore, it would be best to end it now and be done with it, right?

And furthermore, logically, if nothing anyone does matters, then the entire system is pointless. If we don't remember what we've done in life after life, then life for everyone is meaningless, and thus so are all things in existence. Therefore, from the standpoint of a religious person such as myself, there must be SOME point to all this otherwise it would not exist. That's how nature works, right?

I'm not trying to beat up on atheists. I'm simply trying to understand. I know a lot of very caring atheists... but that's just the thing. Isn't 'caring atheist' a contradiction in terms?

I'm intersted to hear some responses. Am I way off?

-Jake