The extreme God/science divide.

**Gary88** · May 28, 2007, 12:19 PM

sometimes it seems like everyone on TWC is either a ferverent Creationist or whole heartedly mocks creationists because of their belief in evolution. its odd that everyone on here does show such extremes and it is rare you hear anything a bit more centred. im just wondering because even though i am an atheist i guess it is more accurate that i am agnostic because i believe i can never be 100% certain so i like to stay open minded (as far as i can before i start getting all moody and hypocritical, then i just stop listening which is wrong i know) i wondered if anyone had views that fall more in the middle? maybe some people who believe in God and evolution could share their views. is it possible to believe ID and evolution? i dont know but i would like to hear if anyone does.

**Who** · May 28, 2007, 12:21 PM

Extremes are more interesting to listen to, rather than "well, i guess you could be right, but that guy could also be right." I'd rather read "Hey ****er! I'm right cuz of this and you're wrong!"

**Gary88** · May 28, 2007, 12:24 PM

yeah but someone could still heatedly argue for a point that is less extreme and why is it any less interesting.

**Chaigidel** · May 28, 2007, 12:27 PM

well I think the deists were right--- a basic way to view it is that god made all the laws we have and have not seen, we merely discover the laws it layed down when it first spoke the universe into existence--- after setting this place in motion with laws and rules and baselines --- it ceased all interaction with the natural process and returned to contemplate its infinite duties-- or perhaps moved on to set another watch into ticking---- so evolution the big bang all the laws of science easily fit into this theistic characterization of why science does what it does.

some jewish traditions believe our universe is edged with sacred first numbers/letters 22 even this fabric of thought--- made of the complexes between the 22 sacred numeric letters--- the void of the universe pressed through this fabric because the fabric created a new kind of void within its bounds--- so there are 3 kinds of void on the outside and one kind of void on the inside of this fabric of thought----the inner most void around the fabric of thought pressed itself through the fabric bringing the 2 other voids behind it in a tunnel of sorts--- this void was first enshrined in a mirror of the 22 sacred numbers but it was too great to hold-- and the vessel shattered so the voids became light and spilled through the vessels of the tree--- the tree was the path of the sacred connections between the edges of the universe and the source of all being and thought- the next two vessels though like the original mirror and throne of the voids shattered as well but the first three lights were mirrors of the unspeakable 3 voids reflected in a 4th void --- produced by the collision of two 11 dimensional voids of thought(since the collision occurs within the original mirror and 4th void(the pocket made by the letters)-- because the mirror of everything could not occur without awareness--- since everything is formless void or 3 formless voids

---- so you see clearly this is why god is the throne of the void --- holding the 3 original mirrors of the 3 voids -- but BEING the 4th void itself (time and the universal moment)

this all occurs and is more like a metaphysical precursor to what we know now and in no way conflicts with any science or any logic :O

oh and the original fabric of thought percipitated out of the 3 voids for it was the essence of the foundation of all things--- so the mirror is existence to the void-- rather than the void to existence if that makes sense--- Im spitting hot fire for you here man.

**Who** · May 28, 2007, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Chaigidel

well I think the deists were right--- a basic way to view it is that god made all the laws we have and have not seen, we merely discover the laws it layed down when it first spoke the universe into existence--- after setting this place in motion with laws and rules and baselines --- it ceased all interaction with the natural process and returned to contemplate its infinite duties-- or perhaps moved on to set another watch into ticking---- so evolution the big bang all the laws of science easily fit into this theistic characterization of why science does what it does.

It's also in the way someone interprets a statement. This could either be saying that science and religion can co-exist, or it could be saying that the only thing science does is prove God's existence and finds out more about what He's done for us.

**Who** · May 28, 2007, 12:29 PM

It's the same reason why when you write a research paper, the thesis should be proving a definite point rather than showing both sides of an issue, and why in those papers it's generally accepted that it's better to write in active voice rather than passive. Because people just like reading things better when someone's got something bold to say.

**Gary88** · May 28, 2007, 12:31 PM

@ Chiagidel
i accept that could be true, i always hate people who think god creating things disproves evolution as both could have happened. since i dont believe in god i wonder what it is that makes you believe that?

**Gwendylyn** · May 28, 2007, 12:36 PM

Golden Mean Fallacy. Just cause you take the middle ground doesn't mean your argument is superior. There's nothing wrong with taking a side if that side is correct.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who believe in God and accept evolution. I'd be surprised if that was a minority. A real minority would probably be atheists who don't accept evolution.

**TheKwas** · May 28, 2007, 12:40 PM

In the case of evolution versus creationism, one side can just simply be wrong. When you have countless evidence indicating a billion-year earth and universe, and when you have a book saying both are 6000 years old, you should able to realize that only one side of the debate is extreme, and other side is just interpretting the evidence.

**steelbound** · May 28, 2007, 01:56 PM

The way I look at the whole God/science thing is that science is for the study of the physical universe. God is not a physical being (except when Jesus was walking around) so science cannot be used to disprove or prove His existence.

To me people who don't want to believe in God use evolution as a cop-out. Why couldn't God use evolution to help bring about the many species on the earth? As a weekly Mass attending Catholic the way I think of it is God created humans and gave them souls, how He did it is unimportant.

On the other hand I dislike christians who fear science. To me they are very weak in their faith and unjustly fear something that is part of His creation. I for one have no problem thinking that the universe is ~13.7 billion years old and also believing that God created the universe and us. On one hand science is not infallibe but when everything points to +10 billion old universe then it's more than likely that it's that old.

I think both extremes (Science is right/God cannot exist and the other God exists and that His existence disproves rigorous scientifical observations) are wrong and do a diservice to both science and religion.

**S.L.I.G** · May 28, 2007, 03:43 PM

I think its illogical to assume not only that you are correct, but that their is enough evidence- and that you are qualified to interpret it- to actually answer this question wholeheartedly. Nevertheless I will express my opinion, obviously I am prepared to acknowledge that I might be wrong. However as it is impossible to actually prove this one way or the other, we will all just have to wait and see.

I favour towards the belief of God, but I hardly deny Scientific Fact either. I don't think that our limited understanding of Science proves anything about a God existing. Simply, it explains things that might of happened, of course with advances in Science the data therefore could be taken differently...but thats not the point. Science does not even begin to attempt to explain the old God VS No God debate. It simply says "With this data we can conclusively state that this ____ happened this ____ many years ago". How exactly does that prove God doesn't exist? Not only can Gods existence be easily meshed with the current theories of Science, but we will never actually be so advanced in Science to disprove an Entity.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is, its impossible to know either way, Religion in and of itself doesn't prove the existence of God, but Science doesn't disprove it either. Really an open minded individual would of course formulate their own opinion on the subject, as thats what people do, but would be willing to accept that they could be wrong, and that they cant actually win any debate outright. Really any Debate on religion that pops up on this site or any other has nothing to do with expressing your opinion on the subject, but rather to scream at other people whos belief is the antithesis of yours. This close-mindedness and outright hostility towards people who don't agree with you, well, this is the very thing that has troubled mankind since our inception.

**Chaigidel** · May 28, 2007, 12:43 PM

well people accept things on their own time --- fact or not , the world is flat right? took a long time for everyone to get that idea, but the evidence will eventually be totally undeniable-- people with a real faith can take the biblical accounts of some history especially prehistory as parable and meant to describe an essence of the "god" they are trying to get in touch with and it does this very well if you seek it as such.

**Curtana** · May 28, 2007, 01:23 PM

I think the problem is with debating things on the internet. If we were talking face to face we would not end up seeming quite so aggressive and heated. Its analogous to how angry some people get in their cars.
The nature of the medium forces people to the polar opposites just to express their arguments.
The thing to do is to listen to the arguments, not take it personally, and see this as a gallery of arguments you would not normally be exposed to.
Here I'm some kind of militant atheist. In the real world I'm one of the nicest so-and-sos around! I simply don't feel that strongly about my atheism outside of this forum.