The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Even with all our understanding of what we think we know about the universe, science, and evolution, there are still an infinite number of unanswered questions that our science, which in terms of the cosmic scale of cosmic time frames, is still just infant, will not be able to understand or explain with current theory.

There are some things I believe science will never be able to explain regardless of how well we try to say otherwise.

Science only answers all the questions we know science can answer the questions to. Faith only bring assurance to the rest that science can not answer, explain, or even begin to formulate a theory against, without answering them because of lack of understanding, comprehension, and the finite mind that reaches it's limit of possibilities.

Trying to comprehend the universe is like an amoeba trying to comprehend a galaxy.

The "universe" we can't. But, religion (seeable) infinitely changes and evolves so why can't s↻me see this within our brief history?

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs You could be right. But, you could be wrong, too. Let me please set "matters of religion" completely aside(!) here, for a moment, and suggest that you (anyone ...) might wish to "seriously and actually read" the following three things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...phy_of_biology ... and the surrounding article. Darwin's Origin of Species. Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle. Don't simply accept "what your preacher told you." Read them. The most-important thing that you'll come away with is the realization that Mr. Darwin never stated, nor intended to state, "certainty." Indeed, he took for granted that his audience would implicitly(!) understand that he could not possibly be stating "certainty," because: "in things such as this, 'certainty' cannot be stated, which is why Darwin was doing what he was doing." Let me repeat that: "... which is why Darwin was doing what he was doing." Darwin was engaged in the exercise called "scientific philosophy," which might be stated as: "thinking, about thinking (itself), about science." "Sure, we love 'the scientific method™'," but the simple fact of the matter is that this 'method' is useful only when we can actually construct 'an experiment.' What are we supposed to do, then, about "the other 99.9% of situations about which we wish To Know™?" Biology... Quantum Physics... Big Bangs... Q: "Where were you when the foundations of the world were laid, and the angels jumped for joy?" A: Uhhh, nowhere ... Q': ... but I still want to know!! A'': Okay, I get it. I wasn't there. I can't "know." A''': ... but I still want to know!! Q'''': So, what can I do, to make the most of my present situation? A''''': "Scientific Philosophy." First of all, Darwin was able to confirm that "evolution exists." Yes, it does. There is, without a doubt, a "self-adapting mechanism" present in biology. This is where Darwin's "knowledge" ended ... and he took for granted that his Gentle Reader would know that, as any well-educated scholar of his day would. Now, Darwin stepped forward into the unknown and the unknowable, using well-understood and well-accepted rules of engagement. Namely: he took what was known, and speculatively moved forward, looking for "apparent contradictions." He went a very long way without finding any. And "this, but not one whit farther," is where 'his case rests.' Was he "right?" Was he "wrong?" He didn't draw either conclusion, because he knew that he couldn't. To do so would be absurd, and both he and his intended audience knew that. And this is what I would very-gently suggest: that nothing "conclusively states" anything of the sort! You see, "to state that 'it is possible to carry thus-and-so line of reasoning this-far without encountering any apparent-to-me contradictions'" is not the same as (in the "B.C." comic-strips) "TRVTH." We weren't "there," and so we're just trying to make the best of it. "Yeah, it sux not to 'know.'" But we don't, and so, here we are.

Darwin formulated his theories 150 years ago. He didn't know of genetics, paleontology was still in its infancy. Don't make the mistake and reduce Evolution to Darwin's theory, we have come much further than that. I can still only repeat that Evolution is the most tested scientific theory ever and in the 150 years of its existence not one scientist could overthrow it. Is it possible that it is wrong? Of course, but as it looks now that is very unlikely. It is valid to say "Evolution is a fact", in the same way that we see gravity as a fact.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs {...}First of all, Darwin was able to confirm that "evolution exists." Yes, it does. There is, without a doubt, a "self-adapting mechanism" present in biology.{...}

Confirming evolution doesn't proove or disproove Aliens or God because they could set evolution in motion aswell(!). This is what i was talking about but noone listens. I'm not saying evolution is illusion but i was just saying - care more & dig deeper!

Originally Posted by Arcane I'm not saying evolution is illusion

Actually, yes, you are saying exactly that:

Originally Posted by Arcane Man did not evolve from monkeys, no matter how much the scientists are trying to prove this(using fake evidence and deception). Man has the image of God.

You are not only saying that evolution isn't true, you are also blaming scientists to use fake evidence and deception, without coming up with any proof for that.

Not to mention creating an image of god.

Originally Posted by Zyblin I refuse to get involved in a debate/discussion like this. I do find the poll very interesting though. I am glad to see I am not the only one here at LQ that believes in the same thing I believe in.

I would try to guess atheist but that's only from the poll.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e I would try to guess atheist but that's only from the poll.

Actually me beliefs are very confusing to most people. In a way I can actually relate to each category, however there is one that interests me the most and I see myself believing in it strongly lately. But I debate with myself the same issues that are being debated in this thread. My mind couldn't handle another debate, other than the one in my head, lol. So I just read and learn what others think and believe. It is the best way to find out what the truth of things are, for myself and only for myself. As far as the rest goes, to each their own.

I think if more people studied each first the poll would be slightly different; I don't think I personal knew what agnostic was when blindly hit atheist, learned about it in this thread but can't go back and re-vote as it seems more scientific...

Originally Posted by jamison20000e I think if more people studied each first the poll would be slightly different; I don't think I personal knew what agnostic was when blindly hit atheist, learned about it in this thread but can't go back and re-vote as it seems more scientific...

I agree. Sometimes what we think is the right definition turns out to be slightly different or very different. Theism, Deism and Agnosticism can be misleading at first glance if one is not familiar with them. And even then each one is just a rough outline. For example Deism doesn't have just one set of beliefs. It is up to each person to decide for themselves. Theism is the belief in one or more gods (ex. monotheists, polytheists, etc.) but what god(s) would that be. Agnostic's are very critical. Believing or not believing and wanting proof either way. Each Agnostic could also have varing beliefs. And in some case the lines between two or more of those three may cross. It can get confusing and at times hard to understand.

"The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live." -Nisargadatta Maharaj
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-11-27/

I am as blind as a bat yet the moon begins to rise.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e "The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live." -Nisargadatta Maharaj

It can also cause some insanity and some really bad headaches at times.

Also, Love the Dilbert comic.

Check a few Dilberts back lol...

What happens if your standing on the Moon?
"Those who believe bats are blind just can't see the truth themselves." -:http://kids.discovery.com/tell-me/ha...s-really-blind

Edit\add: Has anyone heard of the Botfly? Yikes.

Botflies deposit eggs on a host, or sometimes use an intermediate vector such as the common housefly, mosquitoes, and even a species of tick (Dermatobia hominis). The smaller fly is firmly held by the botfly female and rotated to a position where the botfly attaches some 30 eggs to the body under the wings. Larvae from these eggs, stimulated by the warmth and proximity of a large mammal host, drop onto its skin and burrow underneath.[6] Intermediate vectors are often used since a number of animal hosts recognise the approach of a botfly and flee.[7]

Evolution takes and makes all kinds... not that "thought" can prove everyanything even rationally!

10 reasons why our lives could be Matrix(russian material - use gogle translate if need to view) aka why God could be programmer.

I personally see little difference between seeds, "gods" and "big bangs." Of course then, I'd have to say "programmers" and AI (if like I believe mother nature creates intelligence then it is all artificial) "but instead of the gray-bearded elder strict what are usually the Author of this world , it can be a programmer , bent over a keyboard", "scientists" or robo "god?"

The comments on religious pages, over all, seem to equate reason and then trolling ↻r anger by believes...

Infinity, luckily we may ask (or even just assume!)

Attachment 14170
Arrogance, it's a gift but not from "god."