God&Einstein: Religion vs Science

[passwrdyserv]

Since it hard for me to make a comparison I'd like to read different ideas about this.

Personally,for me,both science and religion were created by humankind for solving some problems.
Science makes our live easier,while religion started as a need of somekind of consitution(from my point of view the 10 commitments are like a consitution- set of rulez to be followed,and most of them are common sense).
The history and the concept of past only exists to prove us how wrong both of them can be,and this fact itself reminds us that both were invented by humankind,therefore they both are imperfect.

So this topic is actually like a game.
You must believe in one of those(religion or science) or both of them.
Make a statement and after your statement put the scores.The next person that makes a statement must consider the previous score, posted by a previous person,before posting a new score.
Please do not discuss these ideas in here(actually you can do that but make sure last things in your post are: statement and score).And respect the way other's think,even if you think that they are wrong.

And by the way,you can make more statements.Make i'll get enlighted.
Personally again,i like what Mahatma Gandhi used to say(when he was alive i guess =p):
“God has no religion”
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Ok,so here is my statement:

Both religion and science were invented by humankind therefore both of them must be wrong.
We can't prove most thinks connected to religion,and science was wrong before.


Score: 1-1

[Goatboy]

Both religion and science were invented by humankind therefore both of them must be wrong.
We can't prove most thinks connected to religion,and science was wrong before.

Score: 1-1

I think the whole "score" idea is a bit skewed. Anyone posting is just going to tip the points in their favor. Regardless:

Science changes. Things that were considered the truth hundreds of years ago are today incorrect. We made the correction. Saying science was created by man and is therefore wrong is like saying cars were created by man and therefore don't work. Religions go largely unchanged for thousands of years, despite evidence against them.

Score: whatever - don't care

[passwrdyserv]

Man created the car and the car worked for an amount of time,after that it broked.
Same thing happened to religion: it worked for awhile.(or if you like better: it works for some people,for some it doesnt.but still it worked more in the past then it works now)

[Goatboy]

Man created the car and the car worked for an amount of time,after that it broked.
Same thing happened to religion: it worked for awhile.(or if you like better: it works for some people,for some it doesnt.but still it worked more in the past then it works now)

Ummm. No.

Last I checked, we still have cars, and they are still improving. Many years from now, after cars become obsolete, scientists will create an alternative. That alternative will be the new "car" and the cycle will continue, with each new incarnation (lame joke, I know) becoming better and better.

Religion doesn't go through this cycle. It doesn't adapt; it doesn't have room to admit when it's wrong. People cling to the same fairy tales for hundreds of years, regardless of the evidence against them.

[faazshift]

Religion doesn't go through this cycle. It doesn't adapt; it doesn't have room to admit when it's wrong. People cling to the same fairy tales for hundreds of years, regardless of the evidence against them.

Well, what if some religious doctrines are already perfected?! What if the evidence against them is man-made and quite flawed? Do you believe there was/is a one true church? With all the evidences supporting theology, don't you think there is something to it? From what I have seen, there is the same amount, if not more, evidence in favor of religion as there is against it. If a church is true, why would they change/adapt (when that would just introduce flaws)?!

[donod]

if you remember eistein did .........................;;; belive in god as many others scientifics so maybe it you should edit the title

[Goatboy]

Well, what if some religious doctrines are already perfected?! What if the evidence against them is man-made and quite flawed? Do you believe there was/is a one true church? With all the evidences supporting theology, don't you think there is something to it? From what I have seen, there is the same amount, if not more, evidence in favor of religion as there is against it. If a church is true, why would they change/adapt (when that would just introduce flaws)?!

The critical error you are making is in saying that there is evidence supporting theology. I think you are confusing the word "evidence" with the word "faith" in this context.

There is no evidence of Jesus' miracles. I don't deny that he existed, but rather that he was the son of God. There is no way of proving that he turned water into wine, healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, or many of his other miracles. This is simply because nobody alive today was there to witness them. I don't believe 2,000-year-old testimony counts as evidence. If people today write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does it become true in the year 4009?

In addition, the scientific method was not well developed then, and people were not as educated. They believed many things to be miracles, when they had perfectly logical explanations. Furthermore, if you do try to prove the miracles with scientific evidence, you are only proving that Jesus was a very intelligent man (using chemical powder to make wine, knowing much about human anatomy, etc.) and not a demi-god.

Now, regarding the doctrines being perfect. You argue that "evidence against them is man-made and quite flawed." I agree with you on this. There are flaws in human knowledge. The scientific community admits this. However, if you are going to suggestthat the logical evidence is flawed because it is man-made, you must also recognize that religion itself is flawed because it is man-made. Religion did not just appear. It developed over time. Demonstrating this, show me one baby that is born with knowledge of God.

On a last note, I would like to address your question of: "With all the evidences supporting theology, don't you think there is something to it?"

I will answer this simply by saying that yes, I do think there is something to it. I think a lot of people are too ignorant to open their eyes and think for themselves.

-- Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:01 pm --

if you remember eistein did .........................;;; belive in god as many others scientifics so maybe it you should edit the title

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[faazshift]

@goatboy: I, personally, don't rely on a 2000 year old testimony. I have received a witness for myself, and cannot deny it. Do you think that a God that works by faith would really just show himself, or absolute, tangible, evidence of his existence to everyone and make all believe? I think a belief must work on faith, and then it can be confirmed by the Spirit. I don't know that you will ever believe as I believe, but I have strong faith and personal witness. Also, I have seen many, many prophecies fulfilled as they were told, do you not consider fulfilled prophecy evidence?

[Goatboy]

@goatboy: I, personally, don't rely on a 2000 year old testimony. I have received a witness for myself, and cannot deny it. Do you think that a God that works by faith would really just show himself, or absolute, tangible, evidence of his existence to everyone and make all believe? I think a belief must work on faith, and then it can be confirmed by the Spirit. I don't know that you will ever believe as I believe, but I have strong faith and personal witness. Also, I have seen many, many prophecies fulfilled as they were told, do you not consider fulfilled prophecy evidence?

I am going to address the last line of your post first.

Let's say that I, right now, predict 1,000 things. They are all supposed to happen within the next hundred years, in locations all around the world. Now let's say in the year 2109, someone looks back and sees that of my original 1,000 predictions, 10 happened exactly as I stated. It seems that there is no way they can be interpreted any other way than how I wrote them. And while they may not be major, they still happened. This means that 1% of my predictions were spot-on.

Now let's say that of the original thousand, 250 were pretty close. You may need to take them metaphorically, but they fit. That means that 25% of my predictions were somewhat accurate. So all total, we can say that 26% of my predictions are fulfilled.

If we bump up the number of predictions to 10,000, we can logically assume that my number of "spot-on" predictions will rise to 100, and my "close" predictions will be 2,500. The point I am trying to make is that my predictions are of scale. If I make more originally, there are going to be more that are fulfilled.

Now, what does that say about my predictions? If someone says "100 of his predictions happened exactly as he wrote!" does that make me a prophet? Not quite. I may be good at noticing trends. I may have made predictions that were bound to happen anyways. I may have just gotten lucky. In addition, we have to look at the ratio of fulfilled prophecies. 100 may be a lot, but that means 9,900 did not happen as I wrote.

Bottom line: Fulfilled prophecy does not necessarily equal evidence.

Now regarding the rest of your post.

The truth is, you do rely somewhat on a 2,000-year-old book. You did not just suddenly have the idea of God in your head. Someone taught it to you. That person may have learned it from another person and so on, but eventually down the line, it came from a book. The only exception is the original people who lived during Jesus' time, and at some point it became less word of mouth and more formally taught. If you can somehow trace your knowledge directly back to one of the Prophets, you may win this one.

As for whether or not God can just show himself, that is a good point. I recognize that religion is not about evidence, but rather about faith. After all, if I have evidence of apples, I don't need faith to confirm their existence. So why, then, do people try to "prove" God? If all you have to do is believe, what's the point?

I think the whole "God wouldn't show himself" claim is just a clever way of saying "We can't prove God, so... Faith, therefore he exists!" Does belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster make him real? No. Does spaghetti prove his impact on Earth? No. Faith does not mean anything except that you believe something to be real.

[faazshift]

First off, I have seen the vast majority of prophecy fulfilled (not just 1 lucky percent or something), and the fulfillment of the rest seemingly upcoming. Nextly, I may have learned these things, in part, from scripture of previous time, but I have come to know that it is true. I have found the doctrine I believe to make perfect logical sense, and have prayed and received confirmation of their truthfulness. In my church, at least, we don't believe in just blind faith. We are encouraged to find out for ourselves if things are true. I really have found that they are true, and cannot honestly deny them.