evolution and religion

[Dexter Sinister]

As for science, it changes definitions as quickly as revelations changes sides.

I haven't the slightest idea what that could possibly mean. Care to elaborate a bit on it?

 

[feronia]

Sure. Look at Pluto. It was a planet until it was redefined. Science is constantly redefining what they call truth.

The revelations comment was uncalled for and probably undocumented. But the bible and science have one thing in common. Their perceptions on the facts are continuously changing.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Have to disagree with you, feronia. Science--good science--doesn't really define anything as truth in any absolute sense the way religions do. Science accepts things as provisionally true pending receipt of further evidence, precisely the opposite of what religions do. Religions aren't based on evidence at all, they're generally based on certain claims held to be absolutely true and unchanging.

 

[feronia]

Sure. Look at Pluto. It was a planet until it was redefined. Science is constantly redefining what they call truth.

The revelations comment was uncalled for and probably undocumented. But the bible and science have one thing in common. Their perceptions on the facts are continuously changing.

Please excuse my lack of command of the language. I ignorantly used truth and facts as synonyms. Exchange the word truth for facts. Truth is all in the perception.

In either case, truth or facts, there is only one constant: change. So if there is no one truth and the facts are contingent to new data what exactly make science and religion different? In my perception there is no difference.

 

[s_lone]

Please excuse my lack of command of the language. I ignorantly used truth and facts as synonyms. Exchange the word truth for facts. Truth is all in the perception.

In either case, truth or facts, there is only one constant: change. So if there is no one truth and the facts are contingent to new data what exactly make science and religion different? In my perception there is no difference.

So the question is:

Is there such a thing as an absolute truth?

Descartes: I think therefore I am.

Is that an absolute truth science and religion can agree on?

 

[feronia]

There is no such thing as truth only perception. Truth alludes to something concrete. There is nothing concrete unless it's a parking lot surface.

 

[s_lone]

There is no such thing as truth only perception.

Is that a truth?

 

[feronia]

No, it's a perception.

 

[s_lone]

No, it's a perception.

:scratch:

So you perceive that truth does not exist?

 

[tamarin]

Sounds like one for Virginia!

 

[feronia]

Yes in my perception truth does not exist.

 

[tamarin]

"Truth is Beauty and Beauty Truth."
Thanks, John!
And who can deny that Beauty exists?

 

[s_lone]

Yes in my perception truth does not exist.

So do you agree with Descartes?... You think therefore you are... Isn't that a truth?

 

[china]

The problem with this debate is that there is no clear description of what "God" is suppose to be. It's practically impossible to have a productive dialogue between believers and non-believers if the idea of "God" isn't clearly defined. The concept of "God" is largely subjective to everyone and there is no clear objective description.

From my point of view, God is everything, simply. God is all. With that description, it's kinda hard to say God does not exist. But with another description it can be TOTALLY differen

 

[china]

Vereya: Somehow, when we discuss God, we take it for granted that humans and their development is a matter of primary importance to him.
____________________________________________________ THERE GOES THE "Loving God Theory", and you Vereya will make a fine parent.

 

[china]

feronia : Yes in my perception truth does not exist

yeap, ain't that a truth!

 

[china]

s_lone:So do you agree with Descartes?... You think therefore you are... Isn't that a truth?
____________________________________________________
It ain't, In my books you have to" be" first in order to do anything which includes thinking....and that,s a truth.lol

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: evolution and religion

s_lone:So do you agree with Descartes?... You think therefore you are... Isn't that a truth?
____________________________________________________
It ain't, In my books you have to" be" first in order to do anything which includes thinking....and that,s a truth.lol

Umm... That's pretty much what Descartes's statement is about... Because I can think, obviously, I am... Thinking necessarily comes from being. From what I PERCEIVE about Descartes's statement, thinking comes first...

If I say:

I am.

Is that a truth?

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: evolution and religion

The problem with this debate is that there is no clear description of what "God" is suppose to be. It's practically impossible to have a productive dialogue between believers and non-believers if the idea of "God" isn't clearly defined. The concept of "God" is largely subjective to everyone and there is no clear objective description.

From my point of view, God is everything, simply. God is all. With that description, it's kinda hard to say God does not exist. But with another description it can be TOTALLY differen

You've quoted me without commenting... Mistake?

 

[Curiosity]

If there is a supreme and uber intelligence which created our world as we know it.....

.... we have also created that supreme and uber intelligence concept to explain our existence here.

The ancient writings of all religious beliefs since mankind stood on two legs are man-made.... not God-made.

The religions we follow are man-made not God-made - many out of fear.

Ergo:

Did God create man or did man create God?