I couldn't find a shot of the dudes in helmets standing on a cloud.
Where's your Jesus now?
- Thread starter RUFUS
- Start date
Holy crap. I'm elite as fvck. I should be way richer.
Hey joker, how do you be an asshole with a popped collar and shlt?
Lazy nothin! Have you seen them dance!!??
Oh that is sexy as fvck. It may be illegal to talk on the phone while driving but I dint read nuthin bout lickin jesus' nipples.on the dash...where else.
I'm looking forward to meeting these people.
You'll find that more with Christians of the Evangelical slant (Baptist's included) vs. say Methodists, Lutheran, etc.........
Since they're (most likely) not Jewish it doesn't work that way.......so they'd be misunderstood if they held that belief.
Sure, there's some small parts of the Bible that are tolerant-Jesus says some nice things, if you can get over the "Only way to not be tortured by my dad for eternity is to suck my dick" message that everything he says needs to be filtered through.
Ah Silver........bless your heart........
See I would point out that you have that view of the Scriptures because whatever tradition / people you were exposed to emphasized that. The Scriptures really don't address eternity much. Jesus only mentions hell as an eternal destination once in all the Gospels (the balance of the 13-14 other times He mentions it, hell is a present reality). The instance in which He mentions it the individual in question is in hell because of an implied specific action not their lack of faith in Him or His dad.
Evangelicals and such love to dwell on hell and one's eternal destination, but the fact of the matter is, that topic was not discussed much in 1st century Judaism. The Jewish mindset was more focused on the here and now, and that focusing on eternity after one dies was pretty useless.
You have to filter my religious postings through the lens of John Calvin, remember?
I mean, there's BS like Santa Claus, and then there is the BS of telling little kids that they are going to get tortured for eternity if God didn't pick them. They are both lies, of course, but the second lie is abhorrent.
Anyways, getting back to the REST of the Bible is your problem. The OT is full of genocide and other sundry affairs, and then you get the marvelous misogyny of Paul. I wonder how the world would have been different if that asshole could have gotten laid...
I mean, there's BS like Santa Claus, and then there is the BS of telling little kids that they are going to get tortured for eternity if God didn't pick them. They are both lies, of course, but the second lie is abhorrent.
Anyways, getting back to the REST of the Bible is your problem. The OT is full of genocide and other sundry affairs, and then you get the marvelous misogyny of Paul. I wonder how the world would have been different if that asshole could have gotten laid...
Last edited:
So as a religious person you can basically choose what you want fron said religion to suit your needs?
Like only the stuff that Jesus actually said is valid?
Isnt Jesus part of a trinity with the father and the holy ghost?
Isnt the pretending to be monotheist religion of Chistianity actually a form of polytheism?
And Im not even counting the virgin Mary here.
Point is, the whole bible argument has been rendered invalid for a while now and arguments of so called religious scientists have in fact worked worked against them in recent discussions.
Andy, if you will...
Why do you think there must be a god and what about this world for you cannot be explained by science and therefore requires a god of any kind?
Like only the stuff that Jesus actually said is valid?
Isnt Jesus part of a trinity with the father and the holy ghost?
Isnt the pretending to be monotheist religion of Chistianity actually a form of polytheism?
And Im not even counting the virgin Mary here.
Point is, the whole bible argument has been rendered invalid for a while now and arguments of so called religious scientists have in fact worked worked against them in recent discussions.
Andy, if you will...
Why do you think there must be a god and what about this world for you cannot be explained by science and therefore requires a god of any kind?
Wow Kevin let me see if I can summarize that in a sentence or two.......
Obviously there's a component of faith there that in and of itself is difficult to quanity. Second, I'm not looking for explainations and I'm comfortable with science. The concept of either/or (God or science), or our Greek thinking of trying to explain/define/meausre everything is obviuosly something that would have been foreign to a 1st century Jew such as Jesus and the authors of what we call the Bible. I say that, because at the root of it (for me) Western Christanity has spent too much time trying to "prove" God, something that isn't even addressed in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Eastern Hebrew mind is very comfortable holding two seemingly contradictory concepts to be true simultaneously (sp).....I'm cool with that. A few years ago (as some can atest to on here) I began to dig into the Jewish context of the whole Jesus thing and it really opened my eyes, esspecially considering the religious system I was in at the time, which was an "either or" type of system.
For me and my faith journey the heart of it is being a disciple, or a follower of Jesus and His teachings in the 1st century Jewish context in which they were written.
So to your questions, I'm comfortable with science and a concept of God. Instead of wrestling with the "why's" and "explainations" and "proof's", I prefer to live a life following my Rabbi (which is what a disciple is) and do as much as I can to bring things like love, hope, grace and peace to a reality where I'm at right now (yeah, yeah, yeah I know that sounds all flowery and hippy talk).
Was that long winded enough??
Last edited:
tl:dr
Short version:
Age 0-7: Santa Claus provides for you
Age 8-22: Jesus provides for you
Age 23-65: The government provides for you
Age 66-75: Social Security provides for you (not a government program, of course!!!)
Age 76-100: Jesus provides for you
Age 100+: You are Santa Claus
Short version:
Age 0-7: Santa Claus provides for you
Age 8-22: Jesus provides for you
Age 23-65: The government provides for you
Age 66-75: Social Security provides for you (not a government program, of course!!!)
Age 76-100: Jesus provides for you
Age 100+: You are Santa Claus
It comes naturally, but I haven't popped a collar in years. And even then, it was only while trying to take down hot former sorority girls (for some bizarre reason they like that isht). But nice try with the insults. One of these days you'll find something that isn't public and already funny to rail on.
Long winded enough for me! Cheers1
Ok, Ill try and be gentle here.
Faith is a non argument ofcourse.
You only have faith because someone told you to have it, it has been indoctrinated into your very being. Wether this has come out later rather then sooner is a different question all together, but whatever way you put it, its something that doesnt come from within you. It comes from the outside world.
Our Greek thinking, correct me if Im wrong, comes from mans collective urge to gather information about the environment we inhabit.
If I get this right, the Jewish belief is fine with science explaining everything about the world around us, but also believes in a higher power that created it?
If so, who created this higher power? Surely he is a massive complex being that has to have come from somewhere?
And if you acknowledge scientific reasoning, doesnt that make a theistic view obsolete?
Or is yours more of a pantheistic way? In which God is just all what is without being a personal god? I dont recall any Abrahymic religion to think like that?
If you believe in a god hypothesis like theory then more power to you.
Im all for love and piece but I dont need a god hypothesis to live righteously.
The biggest problem (among others) that I have with religion that children all over the world are being raised in a religious doctrine and I think it should stop.
We should teach our children to be nice to eachother not out of fear for some surpreme malicious being that is compeletely contradictory to himself, and also made completely obsolete by science and the good people do not from religion but from the heart.
Violence over the world has declined with the rise of secularisme, and I think this is definitly the way for mankind to go.
Must spread rep...
Covered.
Here's some easy ones:
1.) The universe was created in the Big Bang. What existed before the big bang? Was there nothing? If so, how can matter be created from nothing? Was there something? If so where did this pre-bang stuff come from?
2.) What inspires matter, when combined in the correct sequences, to take on life of it's own?
PS. Not religious just someone who sees the limitations of science.
2 is dead simple. Mr. Darwin took care of that one.
1 is trickier. There are some cosmological theories that may seem to fit, and if you can't come up with something, you can always say "string theory" or "multiverse" or "quantum" if you don't want to say you're not sure. The one certain thing is that God doesn't solve question 1. Who made God? Or is turtles all the way down?
Number 2 is not as Silver just anwsered, solved by Darwinisme.
Number 1 is solved by Darwinisme.
Ill try and ellaborate starting with number 2, which is the easy one according to Silver...
The thing that inspired matter to go from an inanimate to an animate state is chemistry.
We know that the circumstances on earth were quite different way back when life originated.
The combination of certain inanimate substances mixed with i.e. electricity and the earths atmosphere have very, very probably formed the first amino acids, who in their turn form proteins and after that RNA and DNA..
We dont know the exact details of this yet, but it is thought that theres a good chance that we are allready close.
After this, like Silver said, Darwinisme allowed for something that is very very basic, say an amino acid, to evolve into more complex lifeforms.
Ofcourse this didnt happen over night. Through matutions in genes and natural selection over gelogical time this has eventually led to us and the fact that we evolved brains and became intelligent beings.
Emotions and intelligence have evolved simply because they helped us survive when our ancestors with lesser evolved emotions had less chance of survival. They are a by product of our intelligence.
In order to grasp this u must first know the deeper meaning of natural selection but I wont go in to that here because its kind of a long story.
Before the Big Bang there indeed had to have been something.
Scientists talk about a moment of singularity. A point in "time and space" our big bang started.
Were probably not the first big bang that ever happend, and we might not be the last. This might be an ongoing process in eternity. A hard concept to grasp for any rational human being, but it has allready been proven that the way we observe time is probably nothing like the way time behaves in the world of quantum science.
If you want the even deeper explanation scientist have today, you will have to read about M Theory. Or what was formerly know as string theory, or even multiple string theorys to be exact.
M Theory explains that there might be multiple universes, and that our big bang might have been caused by a collision between 2 membranes, floating next to eachother in the multiverse.
I would love to tak more about this but its easier if you just go to a bookstore and by a dozen books on the subject.
After this point of singularity a heavily compressed mass/energy might have expanded into what we now know as our still expanding universe.
This is where the conservation of energy and mass comes in.
Ill explain if you want but again,its easier if you just read about a dozen books about it.
From there cosmological Darwinisme comes into play.
You start with something very basic (a point of singularity) and from there it will evolve into something more complex (our universe with all its laws and matter).
So I still hear you thinking, it had to have come from somewhere.
But as we allready established, this has all started as something relatively simpel, definitly in comparison to a surpreme being such as an omniscient, omnipotent god.
For if god thought the universe up, and finetuned all its laws he must be even more complex then the universe he created. And still, he had to have come from somewhere.
This was all of the top of my head btw, so forgive me if i made a small mistake somewhere.
Feel free to correct me if im wrong
Feel free to correct me if im wrong
and now to lighten things up a bit some mojo nixon ft. jello biafraon the dash...where else.
tl;dfcNumber 2 is not as Silver just anwsered, solved by Darwinisme.
Number 1 is solved by Darwinisme.
Ill try and ellaborate starting with number 2, which is the easy one according to Silver...
The thing that inspired matter to go from an inanimate to an animate state is chemistry.
We know that the circumstances on earth were quite different way back when life originated.
The combination of certain inanimate substances mixed with i.e. electricity and the earths atmosphere have very, very probably formed the first amino acids, who in their turn form proteins and after that RNA and DNA..
We dont know the exact details of this yet, but it is thought that theres a good chance that we are allready close.
After this, like Silver said, Darwinisme allowed for something that is very very basic, say an amino acid, to evolve into more complex lifeforms.
Ofcourse this didnt happen over night. Through matutions in genes and natural selection over gelogical time this has eventually led to us and the fact that we evolved brains and became intelligent beings.
Emotions and intelligence have evolved simply because they helped us survive when our ancestors with lesser evolved emotions had less chance of survival. They are a by product of our intelligence.
In order to grasp this u must first know the deeper meaning of natural selection but I wont go in to that here because its kind of a long story.
Before the Big Bang there indeed had to have been something.
Scientists talk about a moment of singularity. A point in "time and space" our big bang started.
Were probably not the first big bang that ever happend, and we might not be the last. This might be an ongoing process in eternity. A hard concept to grasp for any rational human being, but it has allready been proven that the way we observe time is probably nothing like the way time behaves in the world of quantum science.
If you want the even deeper explanation scientist have today, you will have to read about M Theory. Or what was formerly know as string theory, or even multiple string theorys to be exact.
M Theory explains that there might be multiple universes, and that our big bang might have been caused by a collision between 2 membranes, floating next to eachother in the multiverse.
I would love to tak more about this but its easier if you just go to a bookstore and by a dozen books on the subject.
After this point of singularity a heavily compressed mass/energy might have expanded into what we now know as our still expanding universe.
This is where the conservation of energy and mass comes in.
Ill explain if you want but again,its easier if you just read about a dozen books about it.
From there cosmological Darwinisme comes into play.
You start with something very basic (a point of singularity) and from there it will evolve into something more complex (our universe with all its laws and matter).
So I still hear you thinking, it had to have come from somewhere.
But as we allready established, this has all started as something relatively simpel, definitly in comparison to a surpreme being such as an omniscient, omnipotent god.
For if god thought the universe up, and finetuned all its laws he must be even more complex then the universe he created. And still, he had to have come from somewhere.
This is the very very very VERY, short version.
And I wasnt talking to you anyways. Just anwsering some "simple" questions directed at me...
Fixed!number 2 is not as silver just anwsered, solved by darwinisme.
Number 1 is solved by darwinisme.
ill try and ellaborate starting with number 2, which is the easy one according to silver...
It's PFM.
PFM may refer to:
Personal Financial Management, a class of online tools and services for money tracking, budgeting, and advice
Premiata Forneria Marconi, an Italian progressive rock band
Pen For Men, an iconic pen made by the Sheaffer Pen Corporation in the 1960s.
Photonic Force Microscopy, an optical tweezer based method to measure forces in the range of several piconewtons
Piezoresponse Force Microscopy, a technique typically used to investigate and manipulate ferroelectric domains on nanoscale dimensions
(Enterprise) IT Portfolio Management
Pitchfork Media, an online music magazine
Pontefract Monkhill railway station, England; National Rail station code PFM
Porcelain Fused to Metal, the most common type of dental crown
Printer Font Metrics, part of a Type 1 font description used by the Microsoft Windows operating system
Prison Fellowship Ministries
Public Financial Management, a Philadelphia-based financial advisory firm
Pulse Frequency Modulation
Pacific Fast Mail,a Seattle based model railroad company founded by William M.Ryan.
In other words, I have no id what you mean by PFM.
Personal Financial Management, a class of online tools and services for money tracking, budgeting, and advice
Premiata Forneria Marconi, an Italian progressive rock band
Pen For Men, an iconic pen made by the Sheaffer Pen Corporation in the 1960s.
Photonic Force Microscopy, an optical tweezer based method to measure forces in the range of several piconewtons
Piezoresponse Force Microscopy, a technique typically used to investigate and manipulate ferroelectric domains on nanoscale dimensions
(Enterprise) IT Portfolio Management
Pitchfork Media, an online music magazine
Pontefract Monkhill railway station, England; National Rail station code PFM
Porcelain Fused to Metal, the most common type of dental crown
Printer Font Metrics, part of a Type 1 font description used by the Microsoft Windows operating system
Prison Fellowship Ministries
Public Financial Management, a Philadelphia-based financial advisory firm
Pulse Frequency Modulation
Pacific Fast Mail,a Seattle based model railroad company founded by William M.Ryan.
In other words, I have no id what you mean by PFM.
You are wrong.This was all of the top of my head btw, so forgive me if i made a small mistake somewhere.
Feel free to correct me if im wrong
You asked what can't be explained by science and now you tell me that close is good enough.
Also that is a pretty high school biology answer. So one day an inanimate amino acid was hanging out and got struck by lightning and all of a sudden it decided to become alive and start consuming other matter to make copies of itself? Color me dubious.
Thanks buddy, but I don't think anyone here needs natural selection explained to them.After this, like Silver said, Darwinisme allowed for something that is very very basic, say an amino acid, to evolve into more complex lifeforms.
Ofcourse this didnt happen over night. Through matutions in genes and natural selection over gelogical time this has eventually led to us and the fact that we evolved brains and became intelligent beings.
Emotions and intelligence have evolved simply because they helped us survive when our ancestors with lesser evolved emotions had less chance of survival. They are a by product of our intelligence.
In order to grasp this u must first know the deeper meaning of natural selection but I wont go in to that here because its kind of a long story.
Once again your science dosn't seem too sure of itself. Do you have proof of any of this or should I take it on my faith in Astrophysics?
Now this I can wrap my head around, thanks to The Flash!
If the laws of our universe evolved from something simpler are they still changing?
So believing that God has existed forever or was created from nothing is crazier than thinking that the universe has existed forever or was created from nothing.
From where I sit believing in a plethora of universes which can interact with each other and evolve (all with zero hard evidence) sounds as crazy as believing in God.
Only a fool thinks he has all the answers.
Last edited:
Yeah sure, what i wrote in there is a summary of what modern physicists and biologists have found in their research.
They dont say that this is ABSOLUTE truth. But it sure as hell is a lot more probable then a god.
But surely you know a lot better then them.
Looking at your anwsers you either fail to understand what Im saying or youre just plain old fool.
Try again.
They dont say that this is ABSOLUTE truth. But it sure as hell is a lot more probable then a god.
But surely you know a lot better then them.
Looking at your anwsers you either fail to understand what Im saying or youre just plain old fool.
Try again.
Last edited:
Yes.
If you're arguing that complexity is the problem, an Abrahamic God (meaning not God in an undefined new age universal force sense) is by nature more complex than the universe.
You see the problem there?
Rockofullr
Before you continue this conversation you might want to get somewhat educated on the subject. I suggest you read at least some of these books so you know what youre talking about in the future.
*Charles Seife*
Alpha and Omega
Decoding the Universe
*David Deutsch*
Fabric of reality
*Brain Greene*
The fabric of the cosmos
The elegant universe
*Richard Dawkins*
The blind watchmaker
The greatest show on earth
The god delusion
Have fun, and dont be afraid to ask me if you need help with any of it
Before you continue this conversation you might want to get somewhat educated on the subject. I suggest you read at least some of these books so you know what youre talking about in the future.
*Charles Seife*
Alpha and Omega
Decoding the Universe
*David Deutsch*
Fabric of reality
*Brain Greene*
The fabric of the cosmos
The elegant universe
*Richard Dawkins*
The blind watchmaker
The greatest show on earth
The god delusion
Have fun, and dont be afraid to ask me if you need help with any of it
Thought I’d do my due diligence here……..I’m enjoying the discussion though, don’t let me interrupt.
There are A LOT of systems in modern Western Christianity tied up in apologetics in “proving” God/Jesus/Bible, etc. That’s a product of Greek thinking. A 1st century Jew would have never spent the energy trying to “prove” such concepts, their focus was on making the world better here and now. Which, bringing this thought full circle, and is where I choose to reside.
Theological example: with the concept of God in the Bible, He is both omniscient and allows humans the freedom to choose their own path. Well if God knows all, and sees and has seen all then do humans really have a choice, or has it all be “predestined” (breaking out in hives yet Silver?). This is a gross over simplification but you get the drift.
The vast majority of Western Christians get all wrapped around the axle about these two concepts. They argue that either humans have “free will” or they are “predestined” and have no choice as to whether they will have faith in the God of the Bible, because it’s predestined.
When I discussed this with my Jewish friends and teachers they laughed. For them, it’s a “both and” not and “either or” concept. When I pressed them about how those two ideas contradict each other, I got the “it’s the mystery of YHVH (God)”.
Now some more critical folks here on RM might jump up and down that the whole “mystery of God” thing is a cop out, that I’m not really addressing the question / problem. Well you’re right. Here’s the deal. Each of us only has a finite amount of time and energy to devote while we’re here. So I have two choices (so to speak), I can 1) devote all kinds of time and energy into polishing my apologetic skills and “proving” God/Jesus/Bible....which when it comes down to it does little practical hands on "good" in the world or 2) live out what Jesus teaches and make the world a better place, be a better husband, father, etc. I choose 2.
There in lies my biggest beef with modern Western (mostly evangelical) Christianity. So much time and effort is devoted to trying to “prove” God vs. really making the world a better place (see my post on Manimal’s thread about CA being removed from the Union).
A pastor I admire once spoke at a conference for pastors. He got up and said right off the bat “10,000 children died in Africa last night of starvation, and most of you (pastors) don’t give a sh!t” He goes on to say “the problem is you’re more offended and upset that I said shi!t rather than being upset at all the deaths due to starvation (a preventable cause).”
That summarizes nicely where I am in the whole “prove God” deal and have been for quite a while.
No worries, in my tenure at RM I’ve been through quite a bit……..Long winded enough for me! Cheers1
Ok, Ill try and be gentle here.
We all have “faith” in something, science as it’s been bandied about in the last several posts, doesn’t have all the “hard” answers. I don’t belittle people who put their faith in science, but it does seem a bit hypocritical when they belittle those who put their faith in some religious system/understanding. (assuming those who do put their faith in some sort of religion aren't they themselves belittling folks...if that's the case then it's fair game)
Correct. Let me clarify, there’s nothing wrong with “Greek thinking”, that wasn’t my point. However, when we as 21st century Greek educated Westerners understand, for example, the Bible through our 21st century Greek educated Western mind we aren’t understanding it from the point of view of the people that authored it.
There are A LOT of systems in modern Western Christianity tied up in apologetics in “proving” God/Jesus/Bible, etc. That’s a product of Greek thinking. A 1st century Jew would have never spent the energy trying to “prove” such concepts, their focus was on making the world better here and now. Which, bringing this thought full circle, and is where I choose to reside.
Again, that is the Judaic concept of the mystery of God, they don’t try to explain it, they just embrace it.
If one insists on holding a Greek Western understanding of the world/creation, then yeah I guess so. But as I stated earlier, the Eastern Hebrew mind is comfortable holding two seemingly contradictory concepts to be simultaneous true.
Theological example: with the concept of God in the Bible, He is both omniscient and allows humans the freedom to choose their own path. Well if God knows all, and sees and has seen all then do humans really have a choice, or has it all be “predestined” (breaking out in hives yet Silver?). This is a gross over simplification but you get the drift.
The vast majority of Western Christians get all wrapped around the axle about these two concepts. They argue that either humans have “free will” or they are “predestined” and have no choice as to whether they will have faith in the God of the Bible, because it’s predestined.
When I discussed this with my Jewish friends and teachers they laughed. For them, it’s a “both and” not and “either or” concept. When I pressed them about how those two ideas contradict each other, I got the “it’s the mystery of YHVH (God)”.
Now some more critical folks here on RM might jump up and down that the whole “mystery of God” thing is a cop out, that I’m not really addressing the question / problem. Well you’re right. Here’s the deal. Each of us only has a finite amount of time and energy to devote while we’re here. So I have two choices (so to speak), I can 1) devote all kinds of time and energy into polishing my apologetic skills and “proving” God/Jesus/Bible....which when it comes down to it does little practical hands on "good" in the world or 2) live out what Jesus teaches and make the world a better place, be a better husband, father, etc. I choose 2.
There in lies my biggest beef with modern Western (mostly evangelical) Christianity. So much time and effort is devoted to trying to “prove” God vs. really making the world a better place (see my post on Manimal’s thread about CA being removed from the Union).
A pastor I admire once spoke at a conference for pastors. He got up and said right off the bat “10,000 children died in Africa last night of starvation, and most of you (pastors) don’t give a sh!t” He goes on to say “the problem is you’re more offended and upset that I said shi!t rather than being upset at all the deaths due to starvation (a preventable cause).”
That summarizes nicely where I am in the whole “prove God” deal and have been for quite a while.
I would agree completely.
Ok
Again, I would put forward that being obedient to, for example in this discussion, the God of the Bible, out of fear is not an understanding that those who authored said Text held. Obedience, doing those “good deeds” was out of a love for God vs. fear of becoming “extra crispy”.
Really? I’d be interested in some numbers on that. I’m inclined to think that religion tends to be a convenient “reason” to kill people, but throughout human history, if that wasn’t handy folks weren’t bashful about finding other “reasons” to kill each other.
Last edited:
You are missing the point. Here's your post.
So I gave you some examples of questions which have not been satisfactorily answered by science. In response you regurgitated some of the more popular theories on the subjects in question.
This proves my point. Everything you came up with is merely a theory. Next year a new theory may come to prominence which completely changes your answers to my questions.
Andy spelled it out for you pretty well.
tldr to the max.
Even if you read all those books twice, you still don't have the answers to the hard questions.
Yeah, you're cheating here.
You use one word, but it has two different meanings.
"Faith" that a 737 won't fall out of the sky is different from "faith" that says that a statue of Mary weeps tears.
The first is something that is based on observation and statistics, the second is based on a belief in miracles.
The meaning of faith which is applicable here is: belief which is not based on proof.
Therefore I don't have to have "faith" that the laws of physics work and 737 can fly. I know empirically through observation and experimentation that 737's do fly.
What we are discussing here are ideas such as M-theory which, as Kevin mentioned, states that the universe exists in concert with other universes which can at times interact. This kind of theory can not be proved or disproved with the information we have. Therefore to believe in it you have to have faith just as a religious person does.
Last edited:
Well then, if that's true-then Andy's premise is false.
I don't know where the universe came from. I don't have "faith" in science, I have a void with a question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer as of now. There are people, smarter than me in that field, that have some ideas, but none of them are arrogant enough to say, "This is definitely the way it happened."
Pastors rarely labor under the same modesty, you'll note.
I don't know where the universe came from. I don't have "faith" in science, I have a void with a question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer as of now. There are people, smarter than me in that field, that have some ideas, but none of them are arrogant enough to say, "This is definitely the way it happened."
Pastors rarely labor under the same modesty, you'll note.
science=what/how, faith=why
Not entirely, for sure, but to put it really roughly and generalized-like. I find the division uselessly artificial for anything but the most superficial discussion, but hey, it's the Internet.
And for once in a super-long time, Silver's right on the money.
Humans are incapable of truly comprehending infinite concepts, whether religious or scientific. We can try, and we can talk about them symbolically or theoretically, but we can't experience or perceive them directly.
Not entirely, for sure, but to put it really roughly and generalized-like. I find the division uselessly artificial for anything but the most superficial discussion, but hey, it's the Internet.
And for once in a super-long time, Silver's right on the money.
Humans are incapable of truly comprehending infinite concepts, whether religious or scientific. We can try, and we can talk about them symbolically or theoretically, but we can't experience or perceive them directly.
Last edited: