Quote:
But its not a matter of the God aspect of Chirst being added later because Paul in his letters to these communities are addressing issues regarding Jesus's Divinity. This means that Jesus is seen as Divine Before the Gospels themselves and the New Testament was written. Also there have been archaeological finds of prayers from the earliest moments of the Church in which Jesus is Acknowledged as Divine. From what I recall these particular finds of prayers were dated to about ten years before the writing of the Gospels.
It's not the first time that the leader of a cult (or possibly he wasn't even and the cult started somewhere else) was described as a holy, special person. Hubbard of Scientology also claims to know some universal truths only he knew before he spreaded it. Mohammed said he had contact to God, but Christians don't believe in the Koran nonetheless. Other religions exist as well and most have their divines.
Quote:
I'm not saying there are signs of these things in the brain and the body, but what I see here is a flipping of the coin. We are obviously human, and we obviously have bodies and brains which allow us to function period. BUT just because there is a system in which we experience these things, doesn't mean its is only because of that system that these things exist. Love is not simply a neural processing, but I would argue that because we are human that is how we experience it because its the only way it can be manifested.
Of course it's explainable in other ways as well, but this was only about the point you mentioned that science was unable to answer the question. I only wanted to make sure to write why science is absolutely able to answer it.
Quote:
Also everything you stated are still theories and attempts by scientists to try and explain everything and yet they have still done that. In your claim that religion is man made, then I could also flip the argument that science is a man made method in order to try and prove everything so since your saying religion is man made and unreliable then I would say that Science is man made and also not fully reliable.
(But I'm not crazy so I don't hold that to be the case). My point is that the universe isn't static and everything can't be proven through science because science is conducted by humans and we are too limited to know everything. THE MAJORITY of science and what science holds to be true is still an act of faith because the majority of things are Theories which we see some evidence for and as a result we trust in it. Evolution is a theory that has evidence to suggest its the case yet no one can actually say they KNOW evolution. You still need to have faith in evolution because you can't possibly go back and say this is exactly how it happened. Heck even gravity is something we have faith in. All we witness in our experience is the effects of Gravity, but one cannot KNOW gravity. You can't have a face to face encounter with the force of Gravity in itself and truly know it.
Ok, this is fun because it's a major internal dissent.
You claim that mens' knowledge is too limited to explain anything scientifically.
And the same time, religion claims to explain
everything.
This does not fit together.
Now, the difference is: Religion is static. Someone says something, and this statement is treated as a static universal truth.
Science does accept that we do know everything. It tries to ask a question, and then try to find an answer. This answer either just remains a
theory -which means it's officially "no official truth", or it's beeing
proven by the amount of logic we can use. Once it's
proven wrong, the potential answer has to be scrapped or at least changed, so it can be tested again.
Gravity can be measured by different means. Then the measurements can be concluded into a mathematical system to describe gravity. This system then will either be proven universally right, or it will remain "just another theory", or it will be proven wrong and scrapped.
Since it's rarely possible to find final evidence, it often just remains a theory: It's beeing used to predict something, than this prediction will be compared to reality; and when they meet each other, then the theory worked for the specific case. Once there is a case in which this does not happen, the theory has been proven wrong and will be scrapped.
Of course this means that it takes a long, long, long, long time to eventually find a truth. But the good thing about that, is that it will actually change after it's been proven wrong.
How can something like the Bible be compared with that? It cannot. It just claims "this is universal truth" and makes a bunch of claims which cannot be proven wrong - however, it does not mark them as "just a theory", but claims them to be universally true. It's stupid.
Quote:
But like I said I'm not crazy and I see it reasonable to accept the thing science has dones. BUT that doesn't mean science necessarily PROVES everything, because if you think you as a human can PROVE anything? Then I'd say your crazy. Life itself is a leap of faith because we are surrounded by so much uncertainty.
The same dissent. We cannot prove anything, but religion contains universal truths - these concepts don't fit together. If we cannot prove anything, but only could use proven facts, then in what way would religion be better than science? Simple answer: It is not.
Science tries to prove facts as far as we can with our human senses and intellectual capacities. And, other than religion, it obviously showed quite some success! We can build diverse high tech machines. We can build computers. We can build a rocket. We can produce, measure and predict electricity. If science was all wrong, how could this possibly work? Do you believe in such an amazing coincidence, that all of this scientifical stuff just works out randomly although our science was unrelated to the real world?
On the other hand, what is the success of religion, any kind of event which would be a hint that religion was right? Some miracle healings, some old stories. Unrelated to our lifes. It looks kinda scarce compared to the accomplishments of science.
. Well what I would say to this is that this was the first major split of Christianity. A few issues arose between the East and the West and these influenced the split. One was the change made to the Nicene Creed in which a phrase was reworded in order to better clarify a doctrine regarding the trinity, but the east was absent at this decision so they personally felt it was forced upon then (although they actually believe the exact same thing 
). The others were the primacy of the pope over other bishops that was disputed. Also there were cultural changes such as the East being Greek oriented while the West was more Roman and Latin based. These were the basis for the split.
Reply With Quote
2 Member(s) thanked this post
.
| 
