His point was that you can't really call the lack of automatic garbage collection a "memory management problem". It's a different programming paradigm - in C, you just have to keep track of things. Just because it's hard sometimes doesn't mean it's a problem.
I think, to an extent, when you pick a language you're trading developer time for user time.
Write a quick five-liner in python, it might take 100ms to run. Spend a few hours writing equivalent code in C, it might take 10ms to run. Scale this up to million-line (in C code) applications.
Yes, I pulled those numbers out of my ear, and I've never actually seen Python code, but you get what I mean.
Yeah except that the people who "care" are people who don't want him to make movies. That has to carry some weight.
I mean, could I have a hundred thousand people sign a petition saying they want me to stop programming, then take that petition to a potential employer saying "Look, a hundred thousand people care whether I write software!"? Once the potential employer actually reads the petition, I'd be laughed out of the office. I'd venture to guess the same would happen to Uwe Boll. Unless they just take his word for it. Then we'd be screwed.
how do you reconcile Adam and Eve with science? I don't actually see what needs to be reconciled. The creation took place over six "days" (the hebrew word translated as "day" means "period of time"). During the sixth, Man was created. The language used to describe Adam and Eve's creation is symbolic; the details or processes involved are not as important as the event itself, and so those details are not included.
Jesus' reprimand to Thomas was not that he wanted to touch Jesus, it was that Thomas refused to believe unless he could touch Jesus.
Regarding Jesus' comment "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed": one must act on that belief, or there can be no salvation. Jesus taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." The terms "to believe" and "to have faith" are not synonymous. Belief is only part of faith.
In the New Testament, Hebrews 11 is full of examples of biblical people who had true faith - these people did not simply believe, they acted on it. In the Book of Mormon, Alma 32 explains somewhat concerning faith, comparing it to a seed which must be nourished in order to grow.
You are doing what most anti-religious people do - you take one or two verses out of context, and claim that they are representative of the scriptures as a whole. There are verses and chapters which contradict what you claim the scriptures teach, but you conveniently fail to mention them.
Unless you provide evidence that I am misinterpreting "my favorite holy book" such that it becomes scientifically plausible but the words do not permit such an interpretation, it will be obvious that you are simply repeating something you were told without having any evidence, since you have failed to provide any after several requests.
Yes, a lot of religious people interpret scriptures in ways that the scriptures obviously do not intend. No, it is not ok for them to do so. However you have presented no evidence that I have done so, so stop accusing me of it unless you have proof.
Regarding faith: yes, the dictionary definition of faith simply states "belief without proof". However, blindly following what someone says will not, by most religions' beliefs, qualify as faith. Faith in a religious sense is more than simply believing without proof. Many religions believe that simply believing in Christ (i.e. belief without thought or evidence) is sufficient to save them. That view is both unscriptural and illogical. The scriptures clearly teach that faith is merely a starting point - from faith must come obedience. From that I take my definition of faith.
Do not argue whether a person can be saved, whether there's a heaven, etc. That is irrelevant. I'm simply providing context for my comments on faith.
You have the right to your opinion. You asked a question and I answered.
My first draft of the post you replied to here read something along the lines of "my answer depends on whether you're asking honestly or whether you're looking for another method of attack."
It appears I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt (which I gave despite all your other posts today). You are not interested in learning what my views and opinions are, or whether or not they are plausible, you are simply interested in attacking them.
To you, religion is a blight on the earth that must be eradicated at all costs, regardless of its merits, and to that end you attack the way you have without taking the time to actually understand what it is you're fighting against.
You're not going to admit my opinions are plausible (note: I'm not saying you have to believe them, just that you should admit they are obviously plausible), and you have provided no evidence that they are not, so this discussion has become unproductive.
I will say this again to end the discussion: If you think it is impossible for science and religion to coexist, you do not understand religion.
Sorry, this proves nothing. What's more, if the "prophecy" had turned out to be wrong, today you would be "reasoning" that "alcohol, tobacco and hot coffee" were not to be taken literally, it was all some kind of big fat metaphor for something else. What prophecy? It was not a prophecy, it was counsel with an accompanying benefit. The prophetic aspect of it, if there is one, is that this counsel was given decades before medicine decided these things are harmful. Furthermore, the counsel turns out to be right. Why are you so derisive toward something that helps people be healthier?
Do you have any evidence that I would make excuses if it had been wrong? Upon what past behavior on my part do you base this conclusion? I tell you this - it was not wrong, and I base my opinions on that. If it had been wrong, my opinions would be entirely different.
Regarding faith, again you are mistaking faith for opinion or belief. Faith is nothing more than the desire which motivates a person to perform an experiment. That principle has its place everywhere.
Calling something unscientific when it is clearly not is foolish. I apologize for stating the truth so bluntly, however I did not call you foolish, I called your opinion foolish. Even intelligent people have dumb ideas once in a while. It was not my intention to insult you.
In any case, what evidence do you have that I have "coerced texts into saying things that just aren't there"? I think that sort of thing is wrong as much as you do. But if your argument is based on differing interpretations of passages (where the meaning might be ambiguous or uncertain) then your argument is invalid.
Regarding faith... You seem to misunderstand what faith really is. Faith is not a rejection of scientific principles, or a blind, unquestioning obedience to some book or person. Faith is not the antithesis of knowledge, instead it is a stepping stone to knowledge. Allow me to explain:
What, may I ask, is the scientific method? Quite simply it is this (I paraphrase wikipedia:
1) Upon finding a problem, attempt to make sense of it, and search for existing answers. If they are unsatisfactory or nonexistent, proceed to step 2. 2) Form a conjecture. Try to explain what is happening and how. 3) Deduce a consequence of the conjecture. If 2 is true, what follows? 4) Test the consequence predicted in step 3.
Now, how is this relevant?
Simple: I can (and have) applied this exact same method to deducing the truth of religious principles. Faith, in the context of testing a religious principle, enters the picture at step 4: we have faith that the consequence promised by step 3 will occur, and then we test it. Once our faith has been confirmed by experience, we no longer need faith in that principle. Put another way, faith is simply a precursor to knowledge; it is the desire for truth that allows us to gain knowledge.
For example, suppose a verse of scripture promises a blessing for obedience to a particular principle. The proper method for deducing whether said scripture is true is to test it - and in fact, several verses of scripture instruct us to do just that.
I will give an example from modern times. In 1833, Joseph Smith received a revelation known as the Word of Wisdom. It instructs members of the church to abstain from such things as alcohol, tobacco, and hot drinks such as coffee, and promises that obedience will result in improved physical and mental health.
In the 1830s, for those of you who are unfamiliar with history, alcohol and tobacco were by no means considered unhealthy in any form (except drunkenness, I suppose), and so this may not have made sense to people at the time, but had they tested the principle, they would have found that it is true, and the benefit promised by revelation is real.
And yet now, with modern medical insight, it has been proven that the promise given for obedience to this principle was dead on - abstaining from alcohol and tobacco and such things leads to a healthier body and mind.
(A note to all you anti-Mormons out there: I'm not interested in debating whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. I am simply giving an example of what I've been talking about in this post. If you really want to debate, I suggest doing it by e-mail.)
The Holy Spirit will testify of the truthfulness of any true scripture. I have explained this principle elsewhere in this thread.
Alternately, any book which claims to be scripture will be doctrinally self-consistent in its original form and context. (Obviously, to claim a book is incorrect simply because someone butchered the greek-to-english translation a thousand years after the greek was written is ridiculous. A book must be judged by its original content.)
We don't have to observe it to postulate its existence. Hence the search for things like the Higgs particle.
Or I could take a different route and say that science allows for the existence of things which we can't directly observe, but which we can observe indirectly by its effects, like black holes.
I and many others have observed God indirectly by the effects of His actions; therefore, by that same scientific principle, I can postulate that He exists. You may argue whether those things were caused by God or not, but that's largely irrelevant - the principle (a thing may exist if it can affect the universe) is sound. That's all I'm saying.
No religion ("valid"? ROTFL...) can be consistent with science, since God's very existence is assumed by faith, and not proven. The unprovability of something does not make it scientifically impossible. For example, there are a myriad of theories about black holes, yet many of them cannot be proven because to attempt such a thing would result in death. That does not make those theories impossible.
The idea that it is impossible to prove empirically whether or not God exists does not make it impossible.
Sure, through convenient "reinterpretation" of $HOLY_BOOK, you can coerce $HOLY_BOOK into saying things that aren't there in the actual text, so as to make it appear "right". Define "reinterpretation". Using a different interpretation than the Catholic Church? Using a different interpretation than anti-religion zealots?
People like you think it is wrong for me to interpret scripture in light of scientific principle. That is a foolish opinion.
Yeah, people have a lot of trouble with this principle. You've hit the nail on the head there. The trouble often stems from either a) not thinking for yourself at all, or b) not understanding how the holy spirit inspires people, or both.
To be truly inspired by the spirit, a person must abide by a few conditions. First, they must be willing to accept the answer, regardless of what their own opinion is (this is probably the number one reason people don't recieve answers to their prayers). Second, they must first search the scriptures and their own knowledge and reach some sort of tentative conclusion - God isn't just going to give us answers on a silver platter; we wouldn't learn anything that way. Third, they must ask, when they pray, if the conclusion they have reached is the correct one, and then listen for an answer in their mind and in their heart. Answers often come in different forms to different people; God knows us, and knows how we'll best understand his answer.
But perhaps the step people miss most often is this: God may not answer right away. Far too often people equate "I got no answer" with "my own decision is correct". I'm not saying God will always answer our prayers directly; in fact in my own experience He does not, preferring instead to have us learn by our own experience sometimes. But if a person is earnestly seeking to know the truth of a doctrinal principle, the spirit will testify whether something is true or not.
Furthermore, if after sincere continued prayer (read: if you pray about it several times over several days, and do so sincerely) no recognizable answer has been received, we should go with our gut, with what we concluded on our own.
As for knowing whether or not an answer is Satan tricking a person, that answer is usually simple - if the answer received contradicts other true gospel principles (to pick an extreme example, if a supposed answer would claim "God is a banana", which contradicts several scriptures) then it most likely is not the truth and can be safely discarded.
The true gospel of Christ must be self-consistent - this is the major failing of most major Christian denominations. It appears to me that doctrinal beliefs which themselves are not self-consistent (let alone their inconsistency with the rest of a religion's beliefs) cannot be true by their very nature. I hesitate to give the examples that come to mind in order to avoid conflict with members of a certain denomination, but if you want examples you can e-mail me at the unobscured address next to my username.
No, because not every $HOLY_BOOK is actually holy;) Furthermore, though the doctrinal principles contained in true scripture are true, it is still possible that the men writing them made mistakes - for example, Moses made a few errors regarding animal classification in his writings, but that does not invalidate the doctrines he taught. Books may contain typos or printing errors that are often difficult or impossible to notice; I know of a misplaced comma in a verse of scripture that literally reverses the meaning of the sentence it is in.
All I'm saying is that the doctrines of any true religion will be consistent with proven scientific principles.
Your understanding of the universe is flawed. The universe is not similar to a statue of Lincoln. I did not say the universe is similar to a statue of Lincoln. I said the creation of the universe is similar to the creation of a statue of Lincoln in the middle of nowhere.
Under the right circumstances (however unlikely), it is indeed possible (however unlikely) for wind and water erosion to shape a rock into a statue. The two civil engineers I work with agree. My comparison is valid.
The reason we don't see statues in the desert is because erosion tends to happen uniformly, unless there is something blocking the wind or water. Hence the "under the right circumstances".
Prove, please, that the Big Bang was inevitable. Prove that there was no outside influence causing the Big Bang to occur.
I didn't think you could.
Again you are assuming that there is an ability to manipulate something and then basing your whole thought project on that without actually providing any reason that anyone should assume your "god" can do this. If such manipulation of quantum probability is possible, it is logical to assume that an all-powerful being is capable of doing it. Therefore, if there is a God, it is logical to assume that He can do such things. I have no further need of evidence in this regard.
I am not attempting to prove that there is a God, or that He can do such things. I am simply stating that if there is a God, and He can do such things, then that is consistent with scientific principle.
It is not necessary to prove that God is capable of such things, and indeed that task would likely be impossible (the "easiest" way would be to invent a machine that could do it; if a machine could do it, then so could God). It is enough to show that it is a plausible explanation.
Claiming science doesn't work with religion is understanding reality. Claiming science is incompatible with religion is closed-minded, foolish, and irrational. (I think that's the fifth time I've said that.)
The fact that we can explain fire through natural means does not mean we cannot create fire ourselves. The fact that we can (in some fashion) explain the creation of this planet through natural phenomenon does not mean it is impossible for an intelligent being to have directed those events. For example, the fact that islands can form naturally through volcanic activity does not mean it is impossible for men to cause volcanic activity in order to create an island.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you I'm right - I'm simply trying to show you that my views are just as scientifically plausible as yours.
I have noticed that most anti-religion people are perfectly happy to allow scientists to pursue weird and often unprovable theories (think string theory), and yet any hint of religion is completely taboo simply because it is unprovable. This is quite the double standard. By your own scientific standards, unprovability is no barrier to theory; why, then, is God not treated the same way?
Here, let me reword something you said:
Claiming science doesn't work with string theory is understanding reality. String theory was created to fill gaps in things we don't understand. That's almost the same as what you said about religion, and just as valid. You see, string theory is largely unprovable and yet it is generally accepted among scientists.
What, I can't say that? Well, what I just reworded will be what people say if string theory is ever disproven, so I certainly can. If you can prove that God does not exist, then you can say what you said about science and religion not coexisting.
However, as I have pointed out here and elsewhere, countless times, it is impossible to prove or disprove (scientifically speaking) the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God. There is no scientific method which you could follow to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God.
Do you have any evidence that "god" can manipulate these probabilities? If not then the rest of your statement is really worthless.
Do you have evidence that it is impossible to manipulate these probabilities? If not, then your statement is just as worthless. In any case, I was simply presenting a possibility, it was not supposed to be taken as absolute truth.
It is easy to show that a "god" doesn't effect anything of the above things, because in the entire documented history of man, nothing has ever violated a physical law and most of the stuff that the Christian god is supposed to have done almost always violates some physical law.
No, man has not violated a physical law, nor would it be possible for such a thing to occur. Do you have examples of supposed broken laws of physics in biblical beliefs? Note that "we don't know how that would work" or is not an example of violating a physical law; we don't understand much of quantum physics, and as far as I know it contradicts to some of what we understand about physics at larger scales, yet that does not make quantum physics invalid.
I suppose you're going to claim that Christ's healings and such are not possible. Considering that I have personally witnessed similar healings, I have to disagree. Call me a liar if you wish, but I know what I've seen. I do not understand the physical processes involved with things like that, however if you assume that a being such as God could manipulate quantum probability then pretty much anything is possible.
For god to exist it requires the violation of the laws of energy conservation and everything we know about matter.
Not if the energy for whatever God does in this universe comes from outside of this universe (or even from elsewhere in this universe). All energy must come from somewhere, yes? Matter can theoretically be converted to energy, and vice versa, yes? It is plausible for God to take matter from somewhere (say, an asteroid belt), convert it to energy, and use it for His own purposes.
Where did the energy contained in this universe come from? I'm pretty sure science can't explain that one. (No, I don't have one either. But claiming that God can't take energy from somewhere to use it is the same as claiming the universe can't exist because the energy necessary for the big bang had to come from somewhere.)
For a "god" to have setup the physical laws that govern our universe he would have had to exist before said universe existed. So where did he come from? Are you proposing that an "all mighty" sentient being just popped into existence?
No, I do not believe God simply popped into existence at random, however I do not have an answer for you. It does not make me uncomfortable to know there are some questions I cannot answer; science has the same "failing" (what is outside the universe? what was there before the universe came to being? are there parallel universes populated by sentient beings? etc). In those cases, all we have is speculation. Do not equate "doesn't have all answers" with "must be false"; that view condemns science as well as religion.
Believing God created the universe is no more invalid than believing the universe randomly popped into existence in some giant explosion.
An example. Theoretically, it is possible for wind and water to erode a large boulder away such that it duplicates the statue of Lincoln found in Washington, D.C. However, if such a statue were found in the middle of a mountain range, no one in their right mind would think it was simply created by wind and water, instead everyone would assume someone went out to that boulder and carved it.
Similarly, it might be possible for a universe to simply pop into existence on its own, however like the statue in my example, it seems far more likely to me that someone constructed this complex universe. You are welcome to disagree if you'd like, but I will not elaborate on this particular point any
I prefer the alternate explanation: you blindly refuse to admit that science and religion could be reconciled.
Yes, there are existential (and largely irrelevant) questions like "can an omnipotent being create something so heavy he can't lift it." In fact, that question is flawed - "heavy" is relative to the gravitational pull on the object, so for an object to be heavy it would have to be in the presence of a gravitational field of something far larger than it, and close enough that something could stand on the larger body to lift the smaller (yet still infinitely heavy) body. This situation is impossible according to our understanding of the universe. Perhaps a better question would be, could God return from the event horizon of a black hole?
I do not believe God is exempt from the laws of nature; I believe He works within them, but has a far greater understanding of them than we do, and can thus do things we currently consider impossible. To call this idea impossible is both irrational and unscientific. It was thought for quite some time among scientists that it would be impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, and yet now we do it all the time.
Just because scientists (or you) think something is impossible does not mean it is. (There is of course its antithesis: just because I think something is possible doesn't mean it is.) Let's face it, science can not now, and never will, prove or disprove the existence of God. But if God exists - and I know He does - it is illogical to think He would break the laws of nature that He presumably created.
And that's exactly the kind of response I was talking about when I said "And before I get flamed by people saying 'you're just trying to explain away problems so you can still believe in God'..."
It was not my intention to say that my view is the only valid one. I'm simply saying it is valid from a scientific standpoint. Science does not (nor can it) disprove the existence of God, nor should it try, nor should you expect it to. Science is only "the complete counter-point to religion", as you put it, if you mistakenly think that it can disprove the existence of God.
Yes, the universe can be explained without referring to God. There are still questions that we have no concrete answers for (though there are always theories). Perhaps that simply means our definition of physics is incomplete (which is probably true).
He has fallen from "the guy that created everything and watches everything you do, judges, punishes, helps, can see into the future, breaks the laws of the universe to perform magic and generally is involved in everything all the time" to "he twiddled some knobs and pushed the start button". What part of "created the laws of physics" implies that He could no longer judge, punish, help, see the future, "perform magic" (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, remember), or be generally involved in everything all the time? Presumably, God has an understanding of the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, and so forth, to a far greater degree than we do, and could obviously work within them. In fact, assuming God does exist, it is logical to believe that time itself does not have the same meaning to God that it does to us.
I have an example I like to use, far-fetched though it may seem. IANAQP (I am not a quantum physicist) but to my understanding, there is a tiny probability that a particle will randomly appear along with its antiparticle, and of course they instantly destroy eachother. There is a much smaller chance that a particle will appear without its anti-particle. If God could somehow manipulate the probability that this will occur, then any number of things are possible, including what we might think is "magic". Turn water to wine? Sure, just add the right particles to the water in the right proportions. (Disclaimer: If my understanding of this principle is incorrect, or if it's wrong entirely, I'd appreciate an explanation.)
I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to show you that insisting that science and religion cannot mix is foolish.
That in and of itself is only a problem when people blindly follow a particular translation of their holy text rather than try to discern what the true meaning of the text was in its original language. For example, to understand the prophecies of Isaiah, one must understand Jewish culture in the time of Isaiah. To understand the Mosaic Law, it is highly useful to understand the world at the time of Moses. And so on and so forth.
Many people forget that, and they assume that their version of the Bible is completely correct - even when it has been shown to be a flawed translation. My copy is the King James Version, but it has footnotes pointing out where a translation differs from the original greek or hebrew, for example. Even the original is not always enough, however; one must read the scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit in order to fully understand what the original author's intent was. (No flames, please, general slashdot populace, it's just what I believe.)
Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for God to obey the laws of physics (or create them, for that matter). Arguments about whether this theory or that law proves or disproves the existence of God are stupid - for example, it is possible that God decided to create man through evolution.
I, too, know many scientists who are actively religious. Most of them say things along the lines of "my studies in field X have opened up to my mind the glory of God" or "the universe and its workings bear witness that we are God's creation".
I'm not trying to say that science can prove or disprove religion (or vice versa)... that's impossible. All I'm saying is that if you believe in God, science isn't going to contradict that belief.
And before I get flamed by people saying "you're just trying to explain away problems so you can still believe in God", it is my firm opinion that any valid belief in God will be consistent with science - any valid religion should be able to withstand that sort of scrutiny. As of yet, I personally have not come across anything scientific that cannot be reconciled with my religious beliefs. There is a world of difference between blindly explaining away problems and reconciling apparent issues.
Slashdot Mirror
His point was that you can't really call the lack of automatic garbage collection a "memory management problem". It's a different programming paradigm - in C, you just have to keep track of things. Just because it's hard sometimes doesn't mean it's a problem.
I think, to an extent, when you pick a language you're trading developer time for user time.
Write a quick five-liner in python, it might take 100ms to run. Spend a few hours writing equivalent code in C, it might take 10ms to run. Scale this up to million-line (in C code) applications.
Yes, I pulled those numbers out of my ear, and I've never actually seen Python code, but you get what I mean.
Actually "warlords" is only one word.
I'd mod you +1 Funny and +1 Insightful if I could...
Yeah except that the people who "care" are people who don't want him to make movies. That has to carry some weight.
I mean, could I have a hundred thousand people sign a petition saying they want me to stop programming, then take that petition to a potential employer saying "Look, a hundred thousand people care whether I write software!"? Once the potential employer actually reads the petition, I'd be laughed out of the office. I'd venture to guess the same would happen to Uwe Boll. Unless they just take his word for it. Then we'd be screwed.
Jesus' reprimand to Thomas was not that he wanted to touch Jesus, it was that Thomas refused to believe unless he could touch Jesus.
Regarding Jesus' comment "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed": one must act on that belief, or there can be no salvation. Jesus taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." The terms "to believe" and "to have faith" are not synonymous. Belief is only part of faith.
In the New Testament, Hebrews 11 is full of examples of biblical people who had true faith - these people did not simply believe, they acted on it. In the Book of Mormon, Alma 32 explains somewhat concerning faith, comparing it to a seed which must be nourished in order to grow.
You are doing what most anti-religious people do - you take one or two verses out of context, and claim that they are representative of the scriptures as a whole. There are verses and chapters which contradict what you claim the scriptures teach, but you conveniently fail to mention them.
Unless you provide evidence that I am misinterpreting "my favorite holy book" such that it becomes scientifically plausible but the words do not permit such an interpretation, it will be obvious that you are simply repeating something you were told without having any evidence, since you have failed to provide any after several requests.
Yes, a lot of religious people interpret scriptures in ways that the scriptures obviously do not intend. No, it is not ok for them to do so. However you have presented no evidence that I have done so, so stop accusing me of it unless you have proof.
Regarding faith: yes, the dictionary definition of faith simply states "belief without proof". However, blindly following what someone says will not, by most religions' beliefs, qualify as faith. Faith in a religious sense is more than simply believing without proof. Many religions believe that simply believing in Christ (i.e. belief without thought or evidence) is sufficient to save them. That view is both unscriptural and illogical. The scriptures clearly teach that faith is merely a starting point - from faith must come obedience. From that I take my definition of faith.
Do not argue whether a person can be saved, whether there's a heaven, etc. That is irrelevant. I'm simply providing context for my comments on faith.
You have the right to your opinion. You asked a question and I answered.
My first draft of the post you replied to here read something along the lines of "my answer depends on whether you're asking honestly or whether you're looking for another method of attack."
It appears I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt (which I gave despite all your other posts today). You are not interested in learning what my views and opinions are, or whether or not they are plausible, you are simply interested in attacking them.
To you, religion is a blight on the earth that must be eradicated at all costs, regardless of its merits, and to that end you attack the way you have without taking the time to actually understand what it is you're fighting against.
You're not going to admit my opinions are plausible (note: I'm not saying you have to believe them, just that you should admit they are obviously plausible), and you have provided no evidence that they are not, so this discussion has become unproductive.
I will say this again to end the discussion: If you think it is impossible for science and religion to coexist, you do not understand religion.
Do you have any evidence that I would make excuses if it had been wrong? Upon what past behavior on my part do you base this conclusion? I tell you this - it was not wrong, and I base my opinions on that. If it had been wrong, my opinions would be entirely different.
Regarding faith, again you are mistaking faith for opinion or belief. Faith is nothing more than the desire which motivates a person to perform an experiment. That principle has its place everywhere.
Calling something unscientific when it is clearly not is foolish. I apologize for stating the truth so bluntly, however I did not call you foolish, I called your opinion foolish. Even intelligent people have dumb ideas once in a while. It was not my intention to insult you.
In any case, what evidence do you have that I have "coerced texts into saying things that just aren't there"? I think that sort of thing is wrong as much as you do. But if your argument is based on differing interpretations of passages (where the meaning might be ambiguous or uncertain) then your argument is invalid.
Regarding faith... You seem to misunderstand what faith really is. Faith is not a rejection of scientific principles, or a blind, unquestioning obedience to some book or person. Faith is not the antithesis of knowledge, instead it is a stepping stone to knowledge. Allow me to explain:
What, may I ask, is the scientific method? Quite simply it is this (I paraphrase wikipedia:
1) Upon finding a problem, attempt to make sense of it, and search for existing answers. If they are unsatisfactory or nonexistent, proceed to step 2.
2) Form a conjecture. Try to explain what is happening and how.
3) Deduce a consequence of the conjecture. If 2 is true, what follows?
4) Test the consequence predicted in step 3.
Now, how is this relevant?
Simple: I can (and have) applied this exact same method to deducing the truth of religious principles. Faith, in the context of testing a religious principle, enters the picture at step 4: we have faith that the consequence promised by step 3 will occur, and then we test it. Once our faith has been confirmed by experience, we no longer need faith in that principle. Put another way, faith is simply a precursor to knowledge; it is the desire for truth that allows us to gain knowledge.
For example, suppose a verse of scripture promises a blessing for obedience to a particular principle. The proper method for deducing whether said scripture is true is to test it - and in fact, several verses of scripture instruct us to do just that.
I will give an example from modern times. In 1833, Joseph Smith received a revelation known as the Word of Wisdom. It instructs members of the church to abstain from such things as alcohol, tobacco, and hot drinks such as coffee, and promises that obedience will result in improved physical and mental health.
In the 1830s, for those of you who are unfamiliar with history, alcohol and tobacco were by no means considered unhealthy in any form (except drunkenness, I suppose), and so this may not have made sense to people at the time, but had they tested the principle, they would have found that it is true, and the benefit promised by revelation is real.
And yet now, with modern medical insight, it has been proven that the promise given for obedience to this principle was dead on - abstaining from alcohol and tobacco and such things leads to a healthier body and mind.
(A note to all you anti-Mormons out there: I'm not interested in debating whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. I am simply giving an example of what I've been talking about in this post. If you really want to debate, I suggest doing it by e-mail.)
The Holy Spirit will testify of the truthfulness of any true scripture. I have explained this principle elsewhere in this thread.
Alternately, any book which claims to be scripture will be doctrinally self-consistent in its original form and context. (Obviously, to claim a book is incorrect simply because someone butchered the greek-to-english translation a thousand years after the greek was written is ridiculous. A book must be judged by its original content.)
We don't have to observe it to postulate its existence. Hence the search for things like the Higgs particle.
Or I could take a different route and say that science allows for the existence of things which we can't directly observe, but which we can observe indirectly by its effects, like black holes.
I and many others have observed God indirectly by the effects of His actions; therefore, by that same scientific principle, I can postulate that He exists. You may argue whether those things were caused by God or not, but that's largely irrelevant - the principle (a thing may exist if it can affect the universe) is sound. That's all I'm saying.
That's how science works, you see.
The idea that it is impossible to prove empirically whether or not God exists does not make it impossible. Sure, through convenient "reinterpretation" of $HOLY_BOOK, you can coerce $HOLY_BOOK into saying things that aren't there in the actual text, so as to make it appear "right". Define "reinterpretation". Using a different interpretation than the Catholic Church? Using a different interpretation than anti-religion zealots?
People like you think it is wrong for me to interpret scripture in light of scientific principle. That is a foolish opinion.
It doesn't mean $THING doesn't exist either.
Yeah, people have a lot of trouble with this principle. You've hit the nail on the head there. The trouble often stems from either a) not thinking for yourself at all, or b) not understanding how the holy spirit inspires people, or both.
To be truly inspired by the spirit, a person must abide by a few conditions. First, they must be willing to accept the answer, regardless of what their own opinion is (this is probably the number one reason people don't recieve answers to their prayers). Second, they must first search the scriptures and their own knowledge and reach some sort of tentative conclusion - God isn't just going to give us answers on a silver platter; we wouldn't learn anything that way. Third, they must ask, when they pray, if the conclusion they have reached is the correct one, and then listen for an answer in their mind and in their heart. Answers often come in different forms to different people; God knows us, and knows how we'll best understand his answer.
But perhaps the step people miss most often is this: God may not answer right away. Far too often people equate "I got no answer" with "my own decision is correct". I'm not saying God will always answer our prayers directly; in fact in my own experience He does not, preferring instead to have us learn by our own experience sometimes. But if a person is earnestly seeking to know the truth of a doctrinal principle, the spirit will testify whether something is true or not.
Furthermore, if after sincere continued prayer (read: if you pray about it several times over several days, and do so sincerely) no recognizable answer has been received, we should go with our gut, with what we concluded on our own.
As for knowing whether or not an answer is Satan tricking a person, that answer is usually simple - if the answer received contradicts other true gospel principles (to pick an extreme example, if a supposed answer would claim "God is a banana", which contradicts several scriptures) then it most likely is not the truth and can be safely discarded.
The true gospel of Christ must be self-consistent - this is the major failing of most major Christian denominations. It appears to me that doctrinal beliefs which themselves are not self-consistent (let alone their inconsistency with the rest of a religion's beliefs) cannot be true by their very nature. I hesitate to give the examples that come to mind in order to avoid conflict with members of a certain denomination, but if you want examples you can e-mail me at the unobscured address next to my username.
No, because not every $HOLY_BOOK is actually holy ;) Furthermore, though the doctrinal principles contained in true scripture are true, it is still possible that the men writing them made mistakes - for example, Moses made a few errors regarding animal classification in his writings, but that does not invalidate the doctrines he taught. Books may contain typos or printing errors that are often difficult or impossible to notice; I know of a misplaced comma in a verse of scripture that literally reverses the meaning of the sentence it is in.
All I'm saying is that the doctrines of any true religion will be consistent with proven scientific principles.
Under the right circumstances (however unlikely), it is indeed possible (however unlikely) for wind and water erosion to shape a rock into a statue. The two civil engineers I work with agree. My comparison is valid.
The reason we don't see statues in the desert is because erosion tends to happen uniformly, unless there is something blocking the wind or water. Hence the "under the right circumstances".
Prove, please, that the Big Bang was inevitable. Prove that there was no outside influence causing the Big Bang to occur.
I didn't think you could. Again you are assuming that there is an ability to manipulate something and then basing your whole thought project on that without actually providing any reason that anyone should assume your "god" can do this. If such manipulation of quantum probability is possible, it is logical to assume that an all-powerful being is capable of doing it. Therefore, if there is a God, it is logical to assume that He can do such things. I have no further need of evidence in this regard.
I am not attempting to prove that there is a God, or that He can do such things. I am simply stating that if there is a God, and He can do such things, then that is consistent with scientific principle.
It is not necessary to prove that God is capable of such things, and indeed that task would likely be impossible (the "easiest" way would be to invent a machine that could do it; if a machine could do it, then so could God). It is enough to show that it is a plausible explanation. Claiming science doesn't work with religion is understanding reality. Claiming science is incompatible with religion is closed-minded, foolish, and irrational. (I think that's the fifth time I've said that.)
The fact that we can explain fire through natural means does not mean we cannot create fire ourselves. The fact that we can (in some fashion) explain the creation of this planet through natural phenomenon does not mean it is impossible for an intelligent being to have directed those events. For example, the fact that islands can form naturally through volcanic activity does not mean it is impossible for men to cause volcanic activity in order to create an island.
Again, I'm not trying to convince you I'm right - I'm simply trying to show you that my views are just as scientifically plausible as yours.
I have noticed that most anti-religion people are perfectly happy to allow scientists to pursue weird and often unprovable theories (think string theory), and yet any hint of religion is completely taboo simply because it is unprovable. This is quite the double standard. By your own scientific standards, unprovability is no barrier to theory; why, then, is God not treated the same way?
Here, let me reword something you said: Claiming science doesn't work with string theory is understanding reality. String theory was created to fill gaps in things we don't understand. That's almost the same as what you said about religion, and just as valid. You see, string theory is largely unprovable and yet it is generally accepted among scientists.
What, I can't say that? Well, what I just reworded will be what people say if string theory is ever disproven, so I certainly can. If you can prove that God does not exist, then you can say what you said about science and religion not coexisting.
However, as I have pointed out here and elsewhere, countless times, it is impossible to prove or disprove (scientifically speaking) the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God. There is no scientific method which you could follow to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God.
Do you have any evidence that "god" can manipulate these probabilities? If not then the rest of your statement is really worthless.
Do you have evidence that it is impossible to manipulate these probabilities? If not, then your statement is just as worthless. In any case, I was simply presenting a possibility, it was not supposed to be taken as absolute truth.
It is easy to show that a "god" doesn't effect anything of the above things, because in the entire documented history of man, nothing has ever violated a physical law and most of the stuff that the Christian god is supposed to have done almost always violates some physical law.
No, man has not violated a physical law, nor would it be possible for such a thing to occur. Do you have examples of supposed broken laws of physics in biblical beliefs? Note that "we don't know how that would work" or is not an example of violating a physical law; we don't understand much of quantum physics, and as far as I know it contradicts to some of what we understand about physics at larger scales, yet that does not make quantum physics invalid.
I suppose you're going to claim that Christ's healings and such are not possible. Considering that I have personally witnessed similar healings, I have to disagree. Call me a liar if you wish, but I know what I've seen. I do not understand the physical processes involved with things like that, however if you assume that a being such as God could manipulate quantum probability then pretty much anything is possible.
For god to exist it requires the violation of the laws of energy conservation and everything we know about matter.
Not if the energy for whatever God does in this universe comes from outside of this universe (or even from elsewhere in this universe). All energy must come from somewhere, yes? Matter can theoretically be converted to energy, and vice versa, yes? It is plausible for God to take matter from somewhere (say, an asteroid belt), convert it to energy, and use it for His own purposes.
Where did the energy contained in this universe come from? I'm pretty sure science can't explain that one. (No, I don't have one either. But claiming that God can't take energy from somewhere to use it is the same as claiming the universe can't exist because the energy necessary for the big bang had to come from somewhere.)
For a "god" to have setup the physical laws that govern our universe he would have had to exist before said universe existed. So where did he come from? Are you proposing that an "all mighty" sentient being just popped into existence?
No, I do not believe God simply popped into existence at random, however I do not have an answer for you. It does not make me uncomfortable to know there are some questions I cannot answer; science has the same "failing" (what is outside the universe? what was there before the universe came to being? are there parallel universes populated by sentient beings? etc). In those cases, all we have is speculation. Do not equate "doesn't have all answers" with "must be false"; that view condemns science as well as religion.
Believing God created the universe is no more invalid than believing the universe randomly popped into existence in some giant explosion.
An example. Theoretically, it is possible for wind and water to erode a large boulder away such that it duplicates the statue of Lincoln found in Washington, D.C. However, if such a statue were found in the middle of a mountain range, no one in their right mind would think it was simply created by wind and water, instead everyone would assume someone went out to that boulder and carved it.
Similarly, it might be possible for a universe to simply pop into existence on its own, however like the statue in my example, it seems far more likely to me that someone constructed this complex universe. You are welcome to disagree if you'd like, but I will not elaborate on this particular point any
In Soviet Russia, memes protect you!
I prefer the alternate explanation: you blindly refuse to admit that science and religion could be reconciled.
Yes, there are existential (and largely irrelevant) questions like "can an omnipotent being create something so heavy he can't lift it." In fact, that question is flawed - "heavy" is relative to the gravitational pull on the object, so for an object to be heavy it would have to be in the presence of a gravitational field of something far larger than it, and close enough that something could stand on the larger body to lift the smaller (yet still infinitely heavy) body. This situation is impossible according to our understanding of the universe. Perhaps a better question would be, could God return from the event horizon of a black hole?
I do not believe God is exempt from the laws of nature; I believe He works within them, but has a far greater understanding of them than we do, and can thus do things we currently consider impossible. To call this idea impossible is both irrational and unscientific. It was thought for quite some time among scientists that it would be impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, and yet now we do it all the time.
Just because scientists (or you) think something is impossible does not mean it is. (There is of course its antithesis: just because I think something is possible doesn't mean it is.) Let's face it, science can not now, and never will, prove or disprove the existence of God. But if God exists - and I know He does - it is illogical to think He would break the laws of nature that He presumably created.
It was not my intention to say that my view is the only valid one. I'm simply saying it is valid from a scientific standpoint. Science does not (nor can it) disprove the existence of God, nor should it try, nor should you expect it to. Science is only "the complete counter-point to religion", as you put it, if you mistakenly think that it can disprove the existence of God.
Yes, the universe can be explained without referring to God. There are still questions that we have no concrete answers for (though there are always theories). Perhaps that simply means our definition of physics is incomplete (which is probably true). He has fallen from "the guy that created everything and watches everything you do, judges, punishes, helps, can see into the future, breaks the laws of the universe to perform magic and generally is involved in everything all the time" to "he twiddled some knobs and pushed the start button". What part of "created the laws of physics" implies that He could no longer judge, punish, help, see the future, "perform magic" (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, remember), or be generally involved in everything all the time? Presumably, God has an understanding of the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, and so forth, to a far greater degree than we do, and could obviously work within them. In fact, assuming God does exist, it is logical to believe that time itself does not have the same meaning to God that it does to us.
I have an example I like to use, far-fetched though it may seem. IANAQP (I am not a quantum physicist) but to my understanding, there is a tiny probability that a particle will randomly appear along with its antiparticle, and of course they instantly destroy eachother. There is a much smaller chance that a particle will appear without its anti-particle. If God could somehow manipulate the probability that this will occur, then any number of things are possible, including what we might think is "magic". Turn water to wine? Sure, just add the right particles to the water in the right proportions. (Disclaimer: If my understanding of this principle is incorrect, or if it's wrong entirely, I'd appreciate an explanation.)
I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just trying to show you that insisting that science and religion cannot mix is foolish.
That in and of itself is only a problem when people blindly follow a particular translation of their holy text rather than try to discern what the true meaning of the text was in its original language. For example, to understand the prophecies of Isaiah, one must understand Jewish culture in the time of Isaiah. To understand the Mosaic Law, it is highly useful to understand the world at the time of Moses. And so on and so forth.
Many people forget that, and they assume that their version of the Bible is completely correct - even when it has been shown to be a flawed translation. My copy is the King James Version, but it has footnotes pointing out where a translation differs from the original greek or hebrew, for example. Even the original is not always enough, however; one must read the scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit in order to fully understand what the original author's intent was. (No flames, please, general slashdot populace, it's just what I believe.)
Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for God to obey the laws of physics (or create them, for that matter). Arguments about whether this theory or that law proves or disproves the existence of God are stupid - for example, it is possible that God decided to create man through evolution.
I, too, know many scientists who are actively religious. Most of them say things along the lines of "my studies in field X have opened up to my mind the glory of God" or "the universe and its workings bear witness that we are God's creation".
I'm not trying to say that science can prove or disprove religion (or vice versa)... that's impossible. All I'm saying is that if you believe in God, science isn't going to contradict that belief.
And before I get flamed by people saying "you're just trying to explain away problems so you can still believe in God", it is my firm opinion that any valid belief in God will be consistent with science - any valid religion should be able to withstand that sort of scrutiny. As of yet, I personally have not come across anything scientific that cannot be reconciled with my religious beliefs. There is a world of difference between blindly explaining away problems and reconciling apparent issues.
That episode didn't make sense in so many ways...
What of Lazarus, indeed.
The first thing I thought when I read the summary: "two gas planets + a half-size sun != similar to our solar system."