Science

As usual, you post things that really have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The universe and its laws are what they are. It is our ability to measure and explain certain things that I call into question.

 

Obviously this comparison has some limitations, but if you would look at it a little less literally, it does work. Science rarely rejects new theories until they are disproven - we accept that gravity works for us and until we discovered that it broke down at certain levels, we thought it was pretty much an absolute. There are now lots of theories to explain these inconsistences. Same as religion pretty much - most people who believe in religion accept the basic framework, but have disagreements on some of the smaller stuff. So no, catholocism didn't fade away after luther, but the belief that the only way to salvation was through the clergy, belief that the pope is God's representative on earth and infallible, etc. did change - and those are pretty major changes.

We've discussed this before. The problem is not what is being measured, it is the measurement system being used. No one has currently proven or disproven the existance of God - period. Maybe one day that will happen - I don't know. But what you call supernatural now may be scientifically explained at some future date.

They really are. The people who are fervent believers in one or the other bristle at any suggestion that their belief system has any flaws whatsoever and generally attack anyone who dares believe differently.

 

And I just explained to you why the Scientific Method is the only reliable method in the humans arsenal for measuring and explaining.

 

That's absolutely not true again. There are a billion things that we don't understand about the universe, it doesn't invalidate the scientific method vs. the "I just believe it, that's why" faith in religion. Scientific method is an ongoing process.
And it's not a pointless discussion because *I* have made up my mind (fyi: I have never had a moment where I "felt the presence of god", which to me is the only way spiritual belief makes any sense, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with spirituality - I do think religion is evil by it's very nature though as it's men using other men's weaknesses/desires to control them). It's a pointless discussion because religion/spirituality is completely separate from science, their foundations are completely different, they do not overlap. Of course they can coexist, of course evolution can be consistent with religion.

 

it changed for some people, but not for catholics. or jews. or muslims. or hindus. etc.

scientific discovery affects all of science, religious "discovery" simply branches off a new sect.

well, you can't disprove god so that won't happen. and you gotta realize that a lot of science is actually learning things that people used to attribute to god(s), thus rendering them no longer religion but science.

that doesn't make them similar. people argue about sports, politics, religion, entertainment, etc. does that mean they're all comperable? the nfl is like science? movies are like religion?

 

And you are missing the point. I am not discussing the validity of the scientific method.

And I don't think that the 2 are as seperate as you would like to believe. There are an awful lot of holes in many of the theories that science holds dear than many would like to admit, and many fill those holes with a "faith" that we will eventually fill those holes with hard data. Evolution is a perfect example of that. It is accepted, even though we have never found a true transition species and the obvious conondrum of why many of the long term evolutionary gains were actually detrmental to the short term survival of the species (walking upright is an example of this).

 

Perhaps you could quote a post where I have ever said otherwise?

 

Absolutely untrue. There are different camps for lots of competing theories that fervently believe in the superiority of their respective ideas.

Yet.

Perhaps you could point out where anything that I am posting is inconsisten with this.

No - but of course you know that.

 

Here are a bunch of threads on pretty much this same topic.

http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1582277

One thing that I had forgotten is about how do you explain the status of the universe pre-bang.

 

you're talking about in the religious sector, yeah? cuz in the scientific sector, bad ideas die. you point to things like the edge of the universe, but you don't bother with stuff like electronics, flight, medicine, mechanics, etc. the cutting edge will always have some questions which means there will always be people who have differing beliefs in what is the correct answer. but science has a pretty long track record of consensus when it comes to theories that survive a few decades of testing.

with religion there are beliefs that haven't changed for literally THOUSANDS of years. it doesn't matter if mormon fervently believe they have the best religion, the fact is that if a new religion crops up mormons aren't going to suddenly say "omg, we totally had it wrong" and jump ship.

ever. if god is all powerful, then he could simply let us think he's been disproven when in fact he hasn't been. his powers lie beyond the ability of science to measure -- if they didn't, he wouldn't be god, he'd be ET.

you said whay might be supernatural now might be explainable with science one day. my point was that once there is a scientific accounting for something, it fails to be religious.

of course i know that. that's why i said it. if you argue that A is like B because of C and i point out that C applies to many other things that you don't believe are alike, then C must not be a valid reason for considering A and B to be alike.