[aquatus1]

[Stellar]

[tendo]

[Q-La]

IMO, reasons God create the world thorugh science is that:

1) He is a God of beauty (order, consistency, variations none the less) so the world reflect his style.

2) We (would like to include alien civilizations if I know any applicable) can take care of the world (animals, plants, and all resources), make good use of it as instructed to Adam and Eve (Not that I believe the old testament word by word, but I believe there are facets of truth in what's written). I'm confident that God knows we have the potential to find Science, his handmaid in a sense and we will see her as we became more aware (civilization toddler stage?).

3) It's a backup route to faith in the existence of God should the J.C. routine bypass our souls.

This post has been edited by Q-La: 20 June 2004 - 05:47 PM

[moe eubleck]

Why did god create science ? tis simple really :

God eventually grew tired of babysitting us morons so he created things like video games and message boards to keep us at home.

[Chauncy]

[Q-La]

Hehe Chauncy, I thought you are more open to discussion reasoning to reasoning. Take a break. And no need to label me or call names, seriously, I have never visit any 'Apologetic' website and would be first one to be pissed off by anyone who don't respect logical thinking. Not everyone believe in the co-existence of God and science is a moron or hypocrite.

[snuffypuffer]

Man created science because god gave us a mind and means us to use it.

What would you do, Chauncy, if scientific evidence came about proving god exists?

[Stellar]

Obviously he'd have to deal with it, and I know he would, and so would I. What would all you guys do if scientific evidence came around disproving God? Judging from what religion has done thus far... you'd still cling to the idea that God exists... Most of you atleast....

[Chauncy]

[Stellar]

Chauncy, I think he means, would you finally believe in God if God was scientifically proven? If the Christian God was scientifically proven (which it isnt and I feel safe to say--wont) then I'll stand by you punching him Chauncy... but if he is proven to exist and be the creator of everything and all that funky sh**, I'd have to believe in him... I may not like him (depending on which God he really is) but I would have to accept him. But like I asked and like Chauncy asked... what would you do if he was scientifically disproven?

Chauncy: I think we both know what most of the people would do... just look at how they act now.

[Q-La]

I think to the end, science cannot be used as a tool to prove the existence of God. I am not sure if you can disprove God by science on the other hand for similar reasons that you can't prove it. Although I believe God create the systems (magnetics, kinetics, chemistry, grivational properties..) and we use science as a tool to read the world, to the end it's all about faith to say 'ok there's God' or 'no there's not God'. Since I believe if God's the one who's created the world, and his existence does not depends on the his creation, how am I going to prove this using science, or to disprove it?? If anyone can disprove God, I think it's philosophical reasoning and not necessary science, which I believe may not be able to transcend from this world to beyond if this world is indeed a creation and science is what's happening inside the created system. Let's say if you've made up your mind that science is the only way to prove/disprove God, I just think that there won't be concrete conclusion that can be made if you've already made up your mind(God/noGod).

It would be interesting if someone can really disprove the existence of God (not the bible, I don't believe the old testament word by word). And I'm open to re-examining the relationshop between the existing systems of the world which we use science to understand and God.

edit: Always have to come back to correct my poor spelling

This post has been edited by Q-La: 21 June 2004 - 05:36 PM

[Q-La]

[Monkyburd]

It angers me none of the believers in here will respond to Aqautas1's post. Its very good and I think it demands a second look.

QUOTEY QUOTE-"Please, you're arguing semantics.

It hits right on one of my personal pet peeves when people so blithely compare faith in a religion to faith in science. It is right up there with the interchangeable use of the word "theory", in its scientific sense, with the word "theory" in its civilian sense. It is, at best, an indication of ignorance concerning the implications of the different definitions, and at worst an outright attempt at deception using the aforementioned ignorance.

As many people here know, I don't really care a great deal about people's various belief systems. What I care about is science. As long as people don't attempt to redefine or misuse science for the advancement of their opinions, I simply doesn't matter to me. But I take exception, to the point of insult, when people compare my "faith" in science to the same "faith" in religion.

My "faith" in science is nothing more than a measure of probability. I have spent so many years working on proofs, on experimental analysis, on re-tracing the foundations of studies, investigating their credibility, their repeatability; I have, along with so many other scholars, re-traced the steps of hundreds of researchers whose discoveries in science have brought us to where we are today. I "know", not because I have been told to know, but because I have personally followed the logical path from the most basic empirical evidence to the logical conclusion (or conclusions) that can be drawn from it, and have then gone on to verify my answers with completley unbiased seperate sources than my own.

I ask you then, I seriously ask you because I cannot conceive of it; Please tell me how you can justifiably say that the "faith" that you use to believe in your God came about the same way that my "faith" in science came to me. Right now, the only conception I have of religious "faith" is an ad infinitum recitation of your favorite book of faith, until you have memorized and can repeat relevent lines. Am I wrong? Is there something to this "faith", that does not involve relying on a third party to provide you with information? Is there anything that can described as anything other than a subjective experience?

You have attempted to redefine the words logical, faith, and knowledge. I would ask you to defend your statements. "

[Chauncy]