I don't understand why the majority of people believe that religion contradicts science and vice versa. I suggest you read "Why the Universe is the Way it is", by Hugh Ross. It may or may not influence some, but it does show that theism and science intersect.
My faith is tested, with evidence enough to convince me that it is more than self-delusion. Unfortunately, the evidence I have cannot be shared and is a private nature. To me, it stands as theory. I can't call my evidence empirical, but that doesn't matter to me. I can't convince you of what I believe, nor would I try to. "Faith is not a perfect knowledge, but a belief in things hoped for" I would add that faith is personal, a life-style, a choice. I do not ask that you understand, or approve.
I love this video as a christian and a science fan-boy. It frustrates me that my brothers and sisters preptuate ignorance. They claim no one knows how God made us or the earth, then state they know how it wasn't made. I won't limit God to some magic. He wrote the laws of science, it makes sense He'd use them. He may well have used evolution.
Because religion is faith based when science is evidence based. The former claims to now things that either can't be known or aren't knowable as of right now, where the latter is willing to admit it doesn't know everything and is peer reviewed when tested. That's why religions and science can't interact with each other without "getting into a fight".
What makes you think I haven't? Besides, lack of empirical evidence does not preclude belief in a theory. Knowledge and Faith are different. Similarly I believed in the dark matter theory when I first heard it before any major efforts were made to prove the theory. That doesn't mean I knew it was right, I believed it might be real because it made sense with the data we had, and would continue to accept it as the most likely until it was proven or dis-proven.
No, it is not a theory in a scientific sense. It's a personal belief based on what I feel and my hopes. As long as it does not interfere with my ability to see other truths around me, what does it matter? All I ask is tolerance. It's fine with me if you think it's nonsense, The only point I wanted to make is faith is not always damaging to a world view, and the Metaphysical can't have evidence in the physical - anybody who thinks so has fooled themselves.
thats exactly what its like. ive tried the whole religion thing a few times throughout my life. didnt work for me because of a deep love for science. i was just being too logical about all of it and it just didnt add up. I'd feel things, do things, etc, but thats just me wanting it to be real right? if a god created existence, and mearly set into motion all of time and the big bang and evolution, etc, thats the closest i can come to believe in god. but only because it seems to lie in a realm
Just because you come to understand something doesn't disprove that God exists...that argument is hilarious to me. It just means you figured out how something ,that was already put into place, works. Science is important to the growth of humanity but God is the msster mind behind the science. The things we discover are just the understanding of what was already there, and God was the one who put it there
You have completely missed the point of the clip, then. When someone claims, "We can't understand it. Therefor it's god.", then we figure out what we assumed was something only god could do, is just sad. "It just means you figured out how something ,that was already put into place, works" ---That's not the argument. The argument is what I just described and is what is talked about in the video. "Science is important to the growth of humanity but God is the msster mind behind the science. The things we discover are just the understanding of what was already there, and God was the one who put it there" ---Prove it.
+Christonagapon the difference is you could observe the creator of hamlet, you know that people write books, you've probably written a small version of one in school, you have evidence it is possible. You've never seen a god, you've never seen someone create an existence and you've never seen someone rise from they dead. You're simply making an assumption that god exists without evidence. If you'd like to assume, no one is stopping you. The problem we all have is you're limiting your input. You're making an assumption that something is a certain way and giving up on observing to determine wether those claims are true or not. When someone tells me a boat floats and to get in, I use my observation skills to determine wether that boat is actually floating or not. You close your eyes and jump in. Life doesn't need a god to exist, gods need life's to exist, we create them based on images and ideals about our selfs.
that's not very hard to do (destroying o'reilly), but it was fun to see... so entertaining in fact that they should make a weekly tv show (hopefully hosted by neil... lol) dedicated to destroying all people in position of power who say stupid shit like bill-o, palin and co
I don't believe in the same kind of God as O'Rielly and think him a fool for closing his eyes to science. My faith is very different to most people you will have every met. I believe in evolution, celestial time scales, accretion of planets from dust and many other things most people of faith reject in close-minded ignorance. My God is NOT dis-proven. Nor is it easy to do so. Nor is He proven. That's where faith comes in. It's theory, I choose to live as if it were fact in hope.
As God can't be proven, you may disbelieve. As God can't be dis-proven I may choose to believe. I FEEL it is right, it has nothing to do with science. What is foolishness to you feels right to me. I will not pit my faith against science. It's separate. If a theory is established with a sufficient body of evidence I accept it.
Science is true whether or not you "believe" in it. Period. You don't "believe" that gravity is real. It is real and we can prove it by observing its affects, yet when religious idiots claim they can prove the existence of god, they say "look to the sky and and the ground. That's your evidence." False. Seeing a tree, or a flower, or water, or light is not proof of the existence of god. It's merely evidence of itself. There is no connection. The connection is the evidence of god. Try again.
Found it! "The Moon, the Tides, and why Neil deGrasse Tyson is Colbert's God"
dr neil degrasse tyson is a smart man!
Not only did he correct O'Reilly's poor argument he also aided his point by giving an appropriate argument.
Where is the full interview?
A theory is a proven hypothesis, by use of testing and observation.
A hypothesis is an unfounded claim.
I don't understand why the majority of people believe that religion contradicts science and vice versa. I suggest you read "Why the Universe is the Way it is", by Hugh Ross. It may or may not influence some, but it does show that theism and science intersect.
"My God is NOT dis-proven. Nor is it easy to do so. Nor is He proven"
---Occam's Razor fallacy.
My faith is tested, with evidence enough to convince me that it is more than self-delusion. Unfortunately, the evidence I have cannot be shared and is a private nature. To me, it stands as theory. I can't call my evidence empirical, but that doesn't matter to me. I can't convince you of what I believe, nor would I try to. "Faith is not a perfect knowledge, but a belief in things hoped for" I would add that faith is personal, a life-style, a choice. I do not ask that you understand, or approve.
Love this man.
I love this video as a christian and a science fan-boy. It frustrates me that my brothers and sisters preptuate ignorance. They claim no one knows how God made us or the earth, then state they know how it wasn't made. I won't limit God to some magic. He wrote the laws of science, it makes sense He'd use them. He may well have used evolution.
Because religion is faith based when science is evidence based.
The former claims to now things that either can't be known or aren't knowable as of right now, where the latter is willing to admit it doesn't know everything and is peer reviewed when tested.
That's why religions and science can't interact with each other without "getting into a fight".
What makes you think I haven't? Besides, lack of empirical evidence does not preclude belief in a theory. Knowledge and Faith are different. Similarly I believed in the dark matter theory when I first heard it before any major efforts were made to prove the theory. That doesn't mean I knew it was right, I believed it might be real because it made sense with the data we had, and would continue to accept it as the most likely until it was proven or dis-proven.
No, it is not a theory in a scientific sense. It's a personal belief based on what I feel and my hopes. As long as it does not interfere with my ability to see other truths around me, what does it matter? All I ask is tolerance. It's fine with me if you think it's nonsense, The only point I wanted to make is faith is not always damaging to a world view, and the Metaphysical can't have evidence in the physical - anybody who thinks so has fooled themselves.
thats exactly what its like.
ive tried the whole religion thing a few times throughout my life.
didnt work for me because of a deep love for science.
i was just being too logical about all of it and it just didnt add up.
I'd feel things, do things, etc, but thats just me wanting it to be real right?
if a god created existence, and mearly set into motion all of time and the big bang and evolution, etc, thats the closest i can come to believe in god. but only because it seems to lie in a realm
Just a tad bit excessive on showing us that picture
Just because you come to understand something doesn't disprove that God exists...that argument is hilarious to me. It just means you figured out how something ,that was already put into place, works. Science is important to the growth of humanity but God is the msster mind behind the science. The things we discover are just the understanding of what was already there, and God was the one who put it there
You have completely missed the point of the clip, then.
When someone claims, "We can't understand it. Therefor it's god.", then we figure out what we assumed was something only god could do, is just sad.
"It just means you figured out how something ,that was already put into place, works"
---That's not the argument. The argument is what I just described and is what is talked about in the video.
"Science is important to the growth of humanity but God is the msster mind behind the science. The things we discover are just the understanding of what was already there, and God was the one who put it there"
---Prove it.
I don't know.
Soldier4USA2005 is a god! There's an extra minute of dead air at the end of this video... can't explain that! God uploaded the video!
+Christonagapon the difference is you could observe the creator of hamlet, you know that people write books, you've probably written a small version of one in school, you have evidence it is possible. You've never seen a god, you've never seen someone create an existence and you've never seen someone rise from they dead. You're simply making an assumption that god exists without evidence. If you'd like to assume, no one is stopping you. The problem we all have is you're limiting your input. You're making an assumption that something is a certain way and giving up on observing to determine wether those claims are true or not. When someone tells me a boat floats and to get in, I use my observation skills to determine wether that boat is actually floating or not. You close your eyes and jump in. Life doesn't need a god to exist, gods need life's to exist, we create them based on images and ideals about our selfs.
Sweet.
that's not very hard to do (destroying o'reilly), but it was fun to see... so entertaining in fact that they should make a weekly tv show (hopefully hosted by neil... lol) dedicated to destroying all people in position of power who say stupid shit like bill-o, palin and co
I must have been in some mood, as I have just re-read your comment and it's fine.
My bad.
I don't believe in the same kind of God as O'Rielly and think him a fool for closing his eyes to science. My faith is very different to most people you will have every met. I believe in evolution, celestial time scales, accretion of planets from dust and many other things most people of faith reject in close-minded ignorance. My God is NOT dis-proven. Nor is it easy to do so. Nor is He proven. That's where faith comes in. It's theory, I choose to live as if it were fact in hope.
As God can't be proven, you may disbelieve. As God can't be dis-proven I may choose to believe. I FEEL it is right, it has nothing to do with science. What is foolishness to you feels right to me. I will not pit my faith against science. It's separate. If a theory is established with a sufficient body of evidence I accept it.
Science is true whether or not you "believe" in it. Period.
You don't "believe" that gravity is real. It is real and we can prove it by observing its affects, yet when religious idiots claim they can prove the existence of god, they say "look to the sky and and the ground. That's your evidence."
False. Seeing a tree, or a flower, or water, or light is not proof of the existence of god. It's merely evidence of itself.
There is no connection. The connection is the evidence of god.
Try again.
Ha ha ha ha!!!!