Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can Science and Christianity be compatible? LPoT vs SoR. Also open to others.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
    If I do not get an opening from lilpixieofterror by tomorrow then I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore on this - it's been over two weeks now .
    Pretty much.

    Comment


    • #17
      Can Science and Christianity be compatible?

      The relationship between science and Christianity is inconsistent at best. Christians that try fit science into their worldview must appeal humanism to make it fit.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Well Tass, that would assume that everything that is true or possibly true must be open to falsification. And that is an unfounded claim.
        But that wasn't my claim...that’s your rather dishonest misrepresentation of what I said. What I actually said was that falsifiable hypotheses lie at the core of science. Science only investigates the physical universe whereas religion claims without verifiable evidence, nor the means of obtaining verifiable evidence, that there’s more than the physical universe.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • #19
          I've slept on it and I have decided that I no longer want lilpixieofterror to be my debate partner. I have simply put in way to much effort and gotten very little feedback from her that I can see now, she's not going to be a very good partner. First she said two days, then a week, then another week, and last Friday she told me straight up we would be starting. I know we've all got a real life to tend to but that doesn't stop you from having good manners and keeping people in the loop; she hasn't logged on in two days but she knows I've been waiting on her.

          I'll leave this topic to the rest of the forums users to with it what they will.

          Comment


          • #20
            And if you see me logged in, it's only to answer messages, as I'm taking some time away from this forum.

            I'll see you all when I see you.

            Comment


            • #21
              Have a good one Sea.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                Have a good one Sea.
                Thanks.

                For the record, I suggested to Crystal that maybe she should ask for a debate partner and I recommended you. I now wish she had simply taken the offer.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Not as far as science is concerned. Falsification is limited to the physical existence.
                  Really? How do you know that every physical event is open to falsification?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Really? How do you know that every physical event is open to falsification?
                    You have a bit of a non sequitur there, seer. Falsification being limited to physical existence does not imply that all physical events are open to falsification. It simply means that falsification doesn't work so well on non-physical existence.
                    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Really? How do you know that every physical event is open to falsification?
                      Originally posted by Yitrium
                      You have a bit of a non sequitur there, seer. Falsification being limited to physical existence does not imply that all physical events are open to falsification. It simply means that falsification doesn't work so well on non-physical existence.
                      Theories and Hypothesis based on scientific methods are dependent on the objectively observable nature of our physical existence. It is not a matter of 'knowing anything,' it is matter of the objective observable nature of our physical existence.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-07-2015, 03:38 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Science only investigates the physical universe whereas religion claims without verifiable evidence, nor the means of obtaining verifiable evidence, that there’s more than the physical universe.
                        "Observable" might be better than the emphasized word in the last sentence, might it not be?
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          It is not a matter of 'knowing anything,' it is matter of the objective observable nature of our physical existence.
                          Ok, so you don't know anything - noted...
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                            Some two weeks ago, lilpixieofterror and I had an argument in the course of which, we both decided to have a debate. Well, actually, she was talking smack that I can't refute her (and bunch of other garbage claims) and I offered her the chance to prove that by having a debate. The topic was of her choosing and she decided that debating whether science and Christianity can be reconciled was the topic she wanted to cover.

                            It's been one thing after the other to find out when this debate was going to happen or if it was going to happen at all. So I decided to make this thread so you can all discuss the topic your selves, with a catch.

                            I will be responding to lilpixieofterror and only lilpixieofterror in this thread. Do not reply to me expecting me to write back, because I won't. If lilpixeofterror wishes to respond to other poster then that is her choice. You can talk amongst each other, but please do not try to derail this thread if you can do that - though I've come not expect people to behave themselves on this site. We will not kick anyone out though under any circumstances, so consider this a free for all

                            So the topic is: Can science and Christianity be compatible?

                            Crystal, if our discussion goes off the rails then so be it.
                            Very well, here is my first point in how to deal with Genesis 1+2. I believe they are designed not to be a scientific understanding of creation, but to tell ancient peoples that God is the creator of everything around us and that he is the one in charge and not these other gods. Why do I believe this? First, what sense would it make to give ancient people break-down of science and how the universe and earth scientifically came about? It isn't as though they would know that because we were thousands of years from discovering the scientific understandings that we take advantage of today. What they needed to know is that God was in charge. Second, it has similarities to other ancient writings that we find around them. They reason that I think it does because it is suppose to. It is giving the credit of creation to the God of Israel and not to the pagan gods around them because again, they needed to know that God was the creator and not necessarily the science behind it. Now, would a YEC agree with me on these points? No, but I think it is the most accurate and logical way to take Genesis 1+2 vs the more literal accounts.
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              Wouldn't it be more productive if you started up the discussion with actual problems that you'd see with such a compatibility. Otherwise I'm not really sure what Little Pixie of Terror is obligated to do for her opening, other than make some general remarks on the effects of the Christian culture and the Church, on the enterprise of science, and end off shortly be declaring that there's no conflict. Its pretty hard to prove a negative.

                              So I'd say you should demonstrate that there's is in fact, compatibility issues. And at least define the scope of that. Is it sufficient to demonstrate that Christianity and Science in general merely can be compatible, which seems a fairly easy thing to defend, and I have no idea how you'd argue that they're not.

                              Or that there's been many practical, historical problems between Christianity and Science?

                              Creation Science would be a topic to go for in that category, and you could make reasonable case that certain subgroups of Christians have issues with science, but this topic its fairly recent in history though. You could try for a Christians killed science in Rome, or the more reasonable Christians were indifferent to the preservation of Roman and Greek texts, and so were indirectly the cause of the loss of generations of acquired knowledge. Though I'm not sure what the strength of that would be. You could try to argue that Christianity has been against curiosity, which would be interesting, because that is something condemned by Church Fathers and many saints, and the question would fall on whether this is scientific curiosity, or the kind of curiosity that drive people to step closer to an accident to see the gore.

                              There's plenty of topics to dig into, but its probably up to you to start.
                              There's tons of directions to go, which is why I picked this topic in general because it can go in a wide range of directions. Personally, I don't think Christians killed science in Rome since Roman scientific advancement seems to have already slowed down before Christians ever came to be a major force in the empire. I admit I don't know much about the church fathers on curiosity, but as you said above; you'd have to define what they mean by 'curiosity' first and I'm not sure what kind, since I haven't read enough on that to know either way. Does sound like something fun to read about though.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Pretty much. It seems that SoR will have to take a relatively small subset of Christians and try to portray their views as typical.
                                I've been trying to find what the majority of Christians are, when it comes to creation, but it doesn't seem I could find much on it. More rabid YEC's do seem to be a minority though, but a very vocal minority.
                                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                22 responses
                                82 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X