Righteousness in Christ

Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

It's a question about the nature of reality.

That is what science studies.

Science can only study what it can see and measure, it may talk about
other things but study them without being able to handle how can they?

They cannot talk to God for they cannot measure Him, they cannot talk to
souls for the same reason. They may talk about humans or some part
of human reaction, but they cannot test to see if someone loves they
can only look at the way a human behaves to make assumptions that
the actions they see are due to love or some other reason.

Originally posted by OdBod
Neither can religion, it always comes down to "faith". At least Science is expanding our knowledge, as far as I can see religious thinking has not advanced at all, except of course when a new scientific discovery has forced it to.

Faith is an answer, just not one that can proven, if it could it wouldn't be
faith.

Originally posted by OdBod
Religion has invented a creation deity to explain creation. Your position on this god of yours is fixed. Science never presumes it is absolutely correct, hardly a god/ servant relationship , is it? Science is an expansive philosophy, religion is stuck with dogma and a fixed information base. Your time is limited.

Just because the answer is fixed does not mean its wrong, if that were
true you could throw math out the window.

Originally posted by OdBod
Religion has invented a creation deity to explain creation. Your position on this god of yours is fixed. Science never presumes it is absolutely correct, hardly a god/ servant relationship , is it? Science is an expansive philosophy, religion is stuck with dogma and a fixed information base. Your time is limited.

of course Science doesn't presume what's fixed, that's what I have said, its concerned not with what's true, but with what's plausible. Religion is not stuck with dogma, religious belief changes all the time or should change as new understanding comes to light. Clearly you don't understand religious principles nor how they are applied. Religion is a living entity, at work within the heart and mind of the adherent.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Prove we have souls, without citing the Vedas.

science (especially physics) wont be able to get any "solid" proof for a "soul", because , by it's nature [immaterial], it cannot be measured.
Things like weight and size, or any other physical attributes simply do not apply to immaterial phenomena .

Originally posted by KellyJay
Faith is an answer, just not one that can proven, if it could it wouldn't be
faith.

I agree, and if it works for you fine. But I think the historical trend is in favor of probability when validating suppositions (it certainly is for me). This requires evidence, scientific data increases all the time, religious information does not.

Originally posted by OdBod
I agree, and if it works for you fine. But I think the historical trend is in favor of probability when validating suppositions (it certainly is for me). This requires evidence, scientific data increases all the time, religious information does not.

On the contrary the Bible gives the definition that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for the evident demonstration of realities not yet beheld. It too calls for evidence, although this entire appeal to reason has been bastardised to the extent that's its unrecognisable in the worship of snake dancing southern baptists and freaky born again Christians who roll about the church floor.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
of course Science doesn't presume what's fixed, that's what I have said, its concerned not with what's true, but with what's plausible. Religion is not stuck with dogma, religious belief changes all the time or should change as new understanding comes to light. Clearly you don't understand religious principles nor how they are applied. Religion is a living entity, at work within the heart and mind of the adherent.

That is the point , it science that provides "new understanding" not religion. If anything religion seems to promote more division and lack of understanding as time goes on. It comes down to "interpretation" of fixed religious text relying on feelings and faith, bound to cause conflict.

Originally posted by OdBod
That is the point , it science that provides "new understanding" not religion. If anything religion seems to promote more division and lack of understanding as time goes on. It comes down to "interpretation" of fixed religious text relying on feelings and faith, bound to cause conflict.

scientific data is also open to interpretation and scientists also do not all agree, soooo we can dismiss with science then.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary the Bible gives the definition that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for the [b]evident demonstration of realities not yet beheld. It too calls for evidence, although this entire appeal to reason has been bastardised to the extent that's its unrecognisable in the worship of snake dancing southern baptists and freaky born again Christians who roll about the church floor.[/b]

Any way you look at it RC, all you have is a book written and edited by men and men told you it was inspired by god. Science provides demonstrable evidence.

Originally posted by OdBod
Any way you look at it RC, all you have is a book written and edited by men and men told you it was inspired by god. Science provides demonstrable evidence.

science cannot even answer why.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
science cannot even answer why.

I agree, but much better to try and find out rather than giving up and putting it down to a god. In the end that is a dead end sweetened by religion with the prospect of afterlife. You have to admit, a great way of controlling people.

Originally posted by OdBod
I agree, but much better to try and find out rather than giving up and putting it down to a god. In the end that is a dead end sweetened by religion with the prospect of afterlife. You have to admit, a great way of controlling people.

call it what you like, the Bible states that God is not a a God of the dead but a God of the living, hard to reconcile that to your gloomy aspersions about control and an afterlife.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary the Bible gives the definition that faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for the [b]evident demonstration of realities not yet beheld. It too calls for evidence, although this entire appeal to reason has been bastardised to the extent that's its unrecognisable in the worship of snake dancing southern baptists and freaky born again Christians who roll about the church floor.[/b]

Wouldn't you say that adults letting their children die for want of medical treatment in order to please/not displease their God figure is an example of faith that is just as "bastardised" as what southern baptists might believe or do?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
call it what you like, the Bible states that God is not a a God of the dead but a God of the living, hard to reconcile that to your gloomy aspersions about control and an afterlife.

But He is also the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The bodies of those three died at some point in time, right? So their souls must still be alive, right?