Some Mothers Chosen By God

Post Reply New Topic

This thread is an excellent demonstration of how anti-science people don't even understand what science is.

Mitochondria were around long before humans, or even fish for that matter.



That is in fact EXACTLY THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE. Science does not attempt to handle the supernatural because it can not. If the supernatural exists, then it is natural and can be measured, even if we haven't figured out how to do it yet. Or if it can not, then it is unknowable, and all bets are off. If you can make a ruler that can measure God, I will consider it as evidence. But if God is unknowable, then there is no reason to bother since he can't have any kind of influence. I can say this because any influence of God (or any other phenomenon) should be identifiable as evidence of his existence. If it does exist but isn't identifiable, then it may as well not exist anyway.

In a sense, it is justified to say that God > Science in that God is defined as being all-encompassing and would contain science, but this does blindly assume the existence of God. Moreover, it has no real impact on what science is to us or how we should use it. The fact that science can be defined as a subset of anything else (God in this case) does not change the need for evidence and objectivity.

Well, I still wouldn't say it is faith. It is just impractical to think otherwise. For all I know, I could just be a brain in a jar being fed sensory input or some sort of computer program. There was actually an interesting paper that came out awhile back about that. Completely speculative, but still interesting. Anyway, it would be impractical to live my life without the assumption that reality is what my senses can perceive. I define faith as belief in something without or contrary to evidence. But at that point I guess we are just arguing semantics again, so if you want to call if faith, go right ahead.
As for free will and God being malevolent, I still think that he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent without being evil. If he set up the rules and he created us, why make suffering part of the equation at all? It honestly doesn't seem to serve any grander purpose. It doesn't matter whether diverting a hurricane or earthquake would cause problems somewhere else, since he set up the rules in the first place, he could simply change them so that nothing bad ever happens. From my reading of the Bible, it seems we are nothing more than the playthings of a being with far too much power and far too little responsibility for it. Spider-man is a much better role model, IMHO.

What I find really interesting, is that the DNA in mitochondria use a slightly different code than the DNA found in every other living thing on earth, indicating that they were part of a totally different evolutionary chain that just didn't make it.

We can relate to Spider-Man because's he's essentially human, like us.

I agree. There is no such thing as an accident or even chaos. Chaos is just a label we apply to effects for which the cause is unknown. Everything happens because of events that preceded it, all the way back to the Big Bang. Everything you are thinking right now is a result of chemical reactions in your brain which in turn are results of chemical and physical reactions before them and so on. Our existance is NOT random chance and science does not say this. But this does not mean there is intelligence behind it.

And "with great power, comes great responsibility" is such a wonderful message.

On that we can all agree.

Well, apparently they did make it, inside of our cells. You could say they've flourished.

I was actually being literal. That there isn't more than one definition of science. As seen by my previous post, more than one definition of the word science does in fact exist. From Merriam-Webster, there are 5 definitions of science.





Ah... There we go. What we all must conclude, it really does come down to semantics. Though, I really like that we came to it without too much "bicker" and a good solid debate. Thanks! I do so love a good debate.



I must say, this one does have me thinking, but I'm always up for a challenge. From my belief, sin (suffering) entered into this world because of a human's choice, but then we go the step further. My belief tells me that it wasn't just human choice, that it existed even before that because the serpent lied to Adam. So this serpent was evil, and so evil did exist on this world.

Now I will admit those are the facts of my religion, so yes, there was even a point that God could have said "Be gone serpent!" and he would have disappeared. From there, I would have to do a huge guessing game. Just as I can't know why you do the things you do without you first explaining it to me, I can't tell you why God did the things he did.

I also don't see God as a role model. I see Jesus, His son, and Him, depending if you believe in the trinity as one or three, as a model. A man without sin who died so we could sin. A martyr if you will, the first real martyr. Someone who believes in helping his neighbor, and doing no wrong against others. That's a good role model.

I don't know about you but everything I'm thinking right now is because my brain is a part of the cosmos, in fact much larger than the cosmos. I try to get rid of the clutter whenever possible but it's sometimes essential in order to survive here.

Gary I agree with you 100%.

What kind of parent thinks children are dumb?

My guess would be one that's not actually a parent.

I don't know, they claim to be upset at someone who is a "dumb kid" for lecturing to them that they might know something that parent doesn't. Sounds like more, "Your not a parent!" shreiking in order to avoid contending with real world issues that involve removing one's self from the safety of the baby bubble.

The really annoying thing is that the person said this not knowing that I am damn near 30 and have 3 kids. Not sure how I'm a "dumb kid".

You know what? No one here needs to explain to anyone else here WHY they believe as they do, not even because you've asked. You don't have to explain yourself to me; I don't have to explain myself to you. What I ask is that you RESPECT that beliefs are reasonably arrived at WITHOUT demanding to see the logic behind them. Funny thing about logic, no matter how black and white it appears to one person, someone else can always turn it and make it something else, so there is no black and white universal infallible knowledge except when it comes to mathematics. EVERYTHING ELSE involves either a subjective or qualifying element, no matter how great your logic is. I know that I could explain myself blue in the face, share the entirety of my life experience, and no one else would see everything exactly as I do, so why would I take the time? Some days I may be in the mood to, others I won't be, but it doesn't make my positions any less valid just because I choose not to answer every little question someone on a message board asks. We ALL have a right to our beliefs, and we ALL have a right to have those beliefs - yours or mine - RESPECTED.


-----

Not sure if the above is still appropriate since the thread has evolved since, but I'll let the post stand.

Just one final note:

My 11 year old AS son, who loves and excels at science and is fascinated by religion concluded years ago that "God is science." He explained why, and it's not faith the way I see it but it works for him. I always thought it was cute the way he got to that, and am proud of how he applies it to his life, so I found it interesting to hear others say essentially the same thing. Is there anything wrong with letting people reconcile all the complexities in their world in whatever way suits them, as long as it leads to positive results?

Or is that the argument, that it can't lead to positive results?

On that, I beg to differ. What leads to good isn't the same for everyone, and there is no basis for judgment simply based on a stated belief.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 11 Dec 2008, 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.