Science Vs. Religion

The following is my interpretation of which wins, in the arguement Science against Religion.

Ok, Science says all things have a beginning. Humans came from monkeys, which came from aquatic life forms, which came from bacteria, which came from dust left behind after the earth was formed. The earth was formed by swirling gas and dust, circling to a common point of gravity. This dust and gas came from a giant exploding ball of rock, gas, and other materials. Aka, the big bang theory.

If you ask science, where did this large mass of rock,gas, and other materials come from, science could probably trace the rocks existance further back to the extent of a single atom. Science then could continue to go back to the presence of a single proton/electron. And thus going back even further until all that is left is an un-imaginable size (small) partical that sparked the creation of the universe.

But this is as far back as Science can go. When you ask science, where did that partical come from, science can go back no further. And can only simply say it "popped" into nothing.

Religion, would then say, God created it of course. He/She created the partical and let nature take course.

Science would counter this saying. Then where did God come from. And this is where Religion wins. Due to the fact that Religion has one trick up its sleeve that science doesnt.

God needs no reason to exist. God follows not the laws of nature. God does not have to have a beginning to be there.

Of course Science pokes the question further and says, Then the bible and other sacred texts, origin stories are false, and Science will say that you've just proved your theory wrong.

But once again Religion come on top. In saying that, the days of creation are no time limit. Never does the bible proclaim that the first day of creation was the first day of existance. A google amount of years could have past before god influenced the creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

In my opinion, Religion defeats Science in argument, no matter how you look at it.

Editors note: I am not a man of Religion.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by spaceman16]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by spaceman16]

Well, I guess that settles that. I guess Religion wins a cookie.

Oh, just one little thing. What about those religions that don't have a god, like Buddhism? Or what about the ones that are animistic, so they don't really have a god per se, but they see natural things as having certain spirit-like qualities? Do they get a cookie, too?

Originally posted by Nohup


Oh, just one little thing. What about those religions that don't have a god, like Buddhism?

Buddhism does not consider itself a religion. It is a lifestyle, as defined by its own followers.

Originally posted by Nohup

Or what about the ones that are animistic, so they don't really have a god per se, but they see natural things as having certain spirit-like qualities?

Go on, name some "religions" like that. And I will bet money, those "religions" do not previece themselves as religions.

Religion defined: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

God defined: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in ...

www.google.com...

www.google.com...

Huh... strange enough.

reply to post by spaceman16


I don't get what religion wins, could you please explain? Science has no interest in the metaphysical world and only concerns itself with what can be known. It doesn't matter to science if a higher being made existence or not, unless it can be measured, only how it came to be in a physical sense.

You've taken two vaguely defined terms, religion and science, and then made even more vague judgements about how they can be compared. It's an infinity argument, unfortuately; for example:

Science vs. Religion vs. Woland's supertheory

a) Same arguement as before.
b) Woland's supertheory says you're all in my head and my body is a manifestation of my thought. Science, having no way of testing if I am a manifestation collapses in a heap and religion runs off in to a corner having suggested that there's a God that created Woland, yet Woland says that he dreamt God up last week and back filled religion's history.

Science vs. Religion vs. Woland's supertheory vs. MacDonald's

a) and b) as before
c) Ronald MacDonald arrives a says 'Woland, although you believe it's all in your head, in fact, you're just a sensation that exists inside a delicious Big Mac. We've so loaded the flavours into this delicious sandwich that some think they're real'. Woland ask Ronald to prove it. 'Oh you're see when you're eaten'.

&c. As absurd as these are, the fact one can comprehend them means they are real posits and both in turn supercede the previous assumption. It's all very well saying science says... then religion says... but ultimately there's no true logic to this and it fails, not because what you suggest isn't possible, but becuase its terms are too open to amendment and easy supposition.

Lastly, where's the conspiracy?

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Woland]

Originally posted by spaceman16
God defined: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship

How can something be perfect and omnipotent, yet still have a motivation or need to create and rule something? Need, after all, requires incompleteness. You're continuing my streak of never encountering a definition of God that isn't inherently paradoxical and therefore worthless in a rational discussion.

I like that whole dismissal of Buddhism as a "lifestyle," though. That's a good one. And you should get to know some animists. They're good people.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Nohup]

Originally posted by Nohup
How can something be perfect and omnipotent, yet still have a motivation or need to create and rule something? Need, after all, requires incompleteness.
[edit on 7-11-2007 by Nohup]

I don't want to derail the OP's original question, but logically even if need did require incompleteness then it doesn't necessarily follow that perfect cannot have an external incompleteness. A perfect man would still require a woman to create a child and thus it is only from man's perspective that a god is perfect. Taking your argument to its logical extreme only nothingness is perfect; if a perfect man can think he is incomplete, thus not perfect; if a perfect film can be interpreted in two ways it is not perfect; left only with nothingness, perfection is nothingness.



[edit on 7-11-2007 by Woland]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Woland]

Originally posted by spaceman16
This dust and gas came from a giant exploding ball of rock, gas, and other materials. Aka, the big bang theory.

I'm not sure that is what BB theory states, but whatever.

But this is as far back as Science can go. When you ask science, where did that partical come from, science can go back no further.

How do you know this? Is this an assertion or have you consulted the oracle?

Religion, would then say, God created it of course. He/She created the partical and let nature take course.

Religion can say a lot of things, it's great when you're not constrained by actual evidence or the real-world.

God needs no reason to exist. God follows not the laws of nature. God does not have to have a beginning to be there.

Of course, we could also assert that it was all due to a great pixie who burped the singularity into existence.

But once again Religion come on top. In saying that, the days of creation are no time limit. Never does the bible proclaim that the first day of creation was the first day of existance. A google amount of years could have past before god influenced the creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

Aye, religion wins every time because religion can resort to 'making sh!t up'.

Well done religion.

In my opinion, Religion defeats Science in argument, no matter how you look at it.

I could just say that it is a big cycle that has has been going on for infinity past, and infinity future. But I tend to wait for actual evidence before making grand claims, science tends to stick to evidence and logic, religion can resort to assertion and fantasy. Two different rules to the game.



[edit on 7-11-2007 by melatonin]

Religion is just a made up man invention to control our lifes. And can religion stand up to the progress of science? Now God's a different story.

That comic strip, made me laugh.

And either I'm horrible at presenting online sarcasm or you guys are horrible at picking up on online sarcasm.

The point i was making, is that indeed all arguements in the field of "Science Vs. Religion" are lost causes.

Due to the simple "tool" that religion has over science.

And that is exactly the ability to make # up.

You can argue the existance of god and true religion all you want, but it's just a matter of time, before the believer declares that religion needs no purpose and follows its own rules.

Science is handicapped, because it has to follow certain laws and rules.

Im terribly sorry for those who didnt pick up on my sarcasm, was just trying to make a simple point, that arguing for science in Science Vs. Religion is wasting your breath. I love to argue science over religion, and i know its wastful efforts, but i still enjoy it.

reply to post by melatonin


oh, how we think alike! i was just about to post that comic!
you get a shiny blue star for that.

seriously, this thread just shows either an ignorance to or a disdain for logic

Originally posted by spaceman16
Science is handicapped, because it has to follow certain laws and rules.

Im terribly sorry for those who didnt pick up on my sarcasm, was just trying to make a simple point, that arguing for science in Science Vs. Religion is wasting your breath. I love to argue science over religion, and i know its wastful efforts, but i still enjoy it.

OK, fair enough. If there was an element of sarcasm it went wooshing over my head, probably a carry-over from the other thread.

I don't really see it as a handicap, it is a benefit of science. Both science and religion attempt to provide a model of the real-world (but, as I said elsewhere, this is just one element of religion, so science != religion), but whilst religion just throws out any old BS to plug gaps and support itself, it looks silly. At least science is following the evidence. It wins by being honest to the real-world evidence.

In this regard, religion really is like the courtier explaining how the emperor decided that the finest frilly pink silk underpants were most suited to the occassion. Whilst the scientists in the audience are explaining why the emperor has got goosebumps.

Personally i dont think its science vs religion. Science can be combined with religion very easily. In the end in most religions its all a matter of interpetation. If you interpet something in certain ways then yes science can be against your religion but it can also confirm something in your religion if you have a different interpetation.

Originally posted by melatonin

probably a carry-over from the other thread.

It was =)

I didn't want to derail that thread anymore than i already had.