Only read if you are NOT religious and/or do not believe in any 'supreme' being (othe

To be honest, I guess I am amazed that people will give such leeway to science but not leeway in the aspects of faith in God.

There are several good points to make for both sides. But how is it that someone can trust that science will eventually find an answer for something? Science is flawed... it is limited... and it is faulty. People can "believe" that wormholes are out there and can help one travel to different parts of the universe or even potentially time-travel, but how in the world can they believe that? There is no proof, and very limited evidences.

The same is for God. No one can prove God within our finite and limited minds. We are flawed as human beings. But, there are limited evidences as well, along with a vast amount of people who claim a personal experience with a God that is very real. Those personal experiences can not be discredited as simple delusions of grandeur just as much as one won't discredit a scientist for saying that wormhole time travel is possible if the conditions are right.

Is it human nature to state that we are accountable to a higher being, or would you say that it is more human nature to do things that are self-preserving? Believing in God is a difficult thing because it requires one to trust in something that is beyond themselves. But technically, isn't that the same as the scientist who comes up with an idea that has limited evidences, like wormholes?

I personally think that many people have a God... but it's a god that's called science. And it's socially acceptable for them to trust that... they are supposedly wise, in fact. But in reality, it takes just as much faith to trust in science as it does to trust in God.

So if one is delusional, both must be, no?

My take is, I give leeway to science because science comes out and admits it's not the answer to everything. It is the study of the universe and will always be updating and learning new things (which may make old things turn out to be wrong).

Religion leaves no such leeway. Religion says "I am the answer and the way". Anytime someone presents me with an absolute I start to question the crap out of it because there are very few (if any) absolutes.

Believe it or not... I give science leeway because it's humble (well compared to many religions) anyway...

It is an absolute that this earth began and we can not prove how it may have with science, correct?

Plus, personal experience is valuable as well... if someone has personally experienced a wormhole or has seen one, we would be more apt to believe them, correct? Would you believe someone who has said that they've traveled through time?

If someone knocked on your front door and told you that they were your great great great grandson and that they are visiting you from the future, would you believe them or would you say that they are crazy? But science thinks this is a possibility.

Here I stand (and many others) telling you that I have experienced God. I know in my heart that God exists. I know that he has spoken to me in various ways, and I know that I can speak to him as well and he listens. How is this any different than a personal experience that someone may have with science?

If you find that your initial reaction would be that the person knocking on your door is psychotic, then I suppose you can realize that it takes an equal amount of faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God.

I would say it's an absolute that the earth is here now and that science does not yet have understanding of the tools to fully understand it's origins. The two statements, while close, are not the same.



If I experience something I am more likely to believe it... but I have experienced plenty of things that I would be wrong to believe. One has but to go to see a magic show in Vegas to get that far. In fact I have never seen the earth from space in person... but I can verify that it certainly looks more flat than round from where I stand... I wouldn't venture to say that my experience makes me believe it's flat.

Someone else experiencing something makes me more likely to be intrigued... how much it effects whether I believe it depends on the person and the likelihood of the event.




I would think very likely they are crazy and try to find a flaw in their story to prove it to myself. I would only entertain a very long shot possibility they are telling the truth. Given that I could not disprove the time travel story I would simply accept it is a possibility and have to rely on judgment and caution to put myself in the position of least risk.

But yes, I might believe his story... I also believe enough monkeys and typewriters given enough time would recreate the entire works of Shakespeare. You would not see me betting on any set of monkeys though.

I do not have the tools to verify your statement and the process cannot be reproduced under circumstances such that I can eliminate the significant likelihood of it being a mistake or improper observation on your part.

A few hundred years ago I could have gathered any number of people around you who had experience the earth as being obviously visibly flat and the starts and sun rotating around the earth. It would make it no more true.



My initial reaction would be doubt, but given enough evidence I would come to accept. I would not believe him on faith alone.

And that, my friend, is called free-will.

Ok, let's succeed that point... let's say you can prove you love your mother... what about the next point. 200 years ago you couldn't... people still loved their mothers then... how foolish was it to believe someone loved their mother then?

I must have misunderstood...

Also... how do you prove a negative?

The spirit of the not YET statement wasn't that we haven't disapproved, but rather that obviously things can exist that you can't prove, at least given your current tool set.

BTW I would say that believing in something that has little or no proof is absolutely an achievement! A leap of faith is the most dangerous kind of leap there is... accomplishing such a leap is nothing to slouch at... as can be empirically proven by the rarity with which I can accomplish it

To be honest, I guess I am amazed that people will give such leeway to science but not leeway in the aspects of faith in God.

There are several good points to make for both sides. But how is it that someone can trust that science will eventually find an answer for something? Science is flawed... it is limited... and it is faulty. People can "believe" that wormholes are out there and can help one travel to different parts of the universe or even potentially time-travel, but how in the world can they believe that? There is no proof, and very limited evidences.

The same is for God. No one can prove God within our finite and limited minds. We are flawed as human beings. But, there are limited evidences as well, along with a vast amount of people who claim a personal experience with a God that is very real. Those personal experiences can not be discredited as simple delusions of grandeur just as much as one won't discredit a scientist for saying that wormhole time travel is possible if the conditions are right.

Is it human nature to state that we are accountable to a higher being, or would you say that it is more human nature to do things that are self-preserving? Believing in God is a difficult thing because it requires one to trust in something that is beyond themselves. But technically, isn't that the same as the scientist who comes up with an idea that has limited evidences, like wormholes?

So if one is delusional, both must be, no?

Here I stand (and many others) telling you that I have experienced God. I know in my heart that God exists. I know that he has spoken to me in various ways, and I know that I can speak to him as well and he listens. How is this any different than a personal experience that someone may have with science?

5,000 years ago, some guy comes around telling people he's god/god's son. He says he can miraculous things. A small number of people start to believe him, and as time goes by more and more people start believing him. 15,000 years later, with the help of science -- proof is offered that he was actually only a person, and not god's son and didn't do any miraculous things. He was a very wise man though to get so many people to believe him.

So what evidences would be needed to be able to accept that young man's word?

I do not believe in God on faith alone. I have experience. Not only that, but I have education as well.

See, the issue is that so many people are willing to accept science as faulty, but they are not willing to accept a human who is faulty saying that something exists that is perfect (i.e. God).

You can have someone defend science and they will have inconsistencies. Because humans are flawed. So in essence, to attack God as being flawed because the people who believe in it are flawed is... well, flawed.

You can not hold belief in science on a higher platform than belief in God. Science is a study of things that we do not know. Religion is a study of things that we do not know. There are evidences for both. But one fact is regardless, a flawed human is defending it... so in essence, one can not say God is not real because a flawed human is saying that he is... just the same as I can not say that science is not to be trusted and is not real because of an inconsistency that I can find in what you, or any other person here, might be saying.

So that puts religious people and scientific people on an equal playing field. For that reason, I would much rather listen to someone who chooses to educate themselves in BOTH before I would listen to someone who chooses to discredit one or the other as being a possibility.

My take is, I give leeway to science because science comes out and admits it's not the answer to everything. It is the study of the universe and will always be updating and learning new things (which may make old things turn out to be wrong).

Religion leaves no such leeway. Religion says "I am the answer and the way". Anytime someone presents me with an absolute I start to question the crap out of it because there are very few (if any) absolutes.

Also, x years ago (to lazy to look it up) people believed and had faith and etc. that the earth was flat, and BAM one day it was proven to be round.

A video about free will

I have another serious question -- not sarcastic. Why do people go to church to ask for forgiveness through a priest, if you can talk to god directly? I see it as pointless, and a way the church makes money off you religious people.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. (Scholars don't agree on when Isaiah was alive but it's between 5-600 BC and the 7th Century BC.)

Clearly Isaiah knew that the earth was round. Who did he learn that from?

We're directed to go into a closet and pray. However, I agree with you that we shouldn't need to give our repentants to someone sitting on the other side who is merely mortal. My thoughts on going into a closet to pray means to do it where others cannot see or hear you. Praying is done in the name of Jesus.

How does a church make money off of that? I've never done it so I wouldn't know if they have a collection box next to the 'closet' or what.

Give me an example of someone arguing an inconsistent science. If it's a theory, then yes it could be faulty/inconsistent (just like the theory of god). If there is evidence/proof then it's no longer inconsistent. Please give me an example, I'm not following your perspective here.

And about the evidence that there is god, show me. Don't tell me about stories passed on from generation to generation until they were finally written down. Show me scientific evidence.
-- the fact that it can't be explained now, is not evidence that there is a god.
---- i.e. lack of evidence for X, is not automatically evidence for Y.

Is that comment directed at someone here? or is it just a general comment.

I have another serious question -- not sarcastic. Why do people go to church to ask for forgiveness through a priest, if you can talk to god directly? I see it as pointless, and a way the church makes money off you religious people.