Debate Topic

[Trainer Ave]

It's amazing to me how people in this time period set up a false difference between science and religion. The role of science is to explain how things happen. The role of religion is to explain why things happen.

WHY
 Usages as an Adverb
For what purpose? For example, Why didn't he behave well?
Usages as Conjunctions
For what cause or purpose? For example, Nobody knows why she is going away.
 On which account? For example, The condition why he did not go is not known.
 Certain reasons for which, for example, That is the reason why she returned.


How
 Usage as an Adverb
By what manner? For example, How did it happen?
 To what degree? For example, How hurt is he?
 In what condition? For example, How is she?
 What is the meaning or effect? For example, How should he understand her actions?
 The way to use a name or title. For example, How should one address the queen?
 The price or the quantity. For example, How much are the apples? How do you sell bananas? (By numbers or by weight?)
Usages as Conjunctions
The manner in which, for example, She could not understand how to do it.



This therefore means that science does NOT contradict the existence of a god.

[Waddle Bro]

late but

I'm very curious how you came to that conclusion, given that it's extremely hard to speculate on things we know little about...

there's no odds on whether a metaphysical being exists or not, it's not based on any statistics

It's amazing to me how people in this time period set up a false difference between science and religion. The role of science is to explain how things happen. The role of religion is to explain why things happen.

Isn't science also trying to explain why things happen with the cause and effect and all that jazz? Science is based on empirical information but you still need faith to believe that the world actually is what you observe it as(see deus deceptor, dream argument).

[Trainer Ave]

cause and effect is a method in which things occur. Therefore it is a "how"

Science is based upon observable facts whereas religion focuses on the purpose.

[FireArrow]

~snip~

Except religon doesn't just stick to the "why." For example, Garden of Eden is a "how" and is contradicted by science. The earth being 6,000 years old is contradicted by science.

[Trainer Ave]

1) Explain to me just how garden of eden is a "how"
2) If you're following the Christian God then you must then take in all aspects of the Christian faith which therefore includes the fact that God is all-powerful. I see no reason why God could have not decided to make the Earth look however old he wanted it to. Also based on this there is no scientific evidence to disprove this. Also the Christian Bible states that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Great Flood which science has proven to be a real life event.

[mikey]

erm, I wasn't going to get into this, but the great flood actually has not yet been proven.  There have been a couple hoaxes involving petrified wood but that's about it
that is all

[Waddle Bro]

1) Explain to me just how garden of eden is a "how"
2) If you're following the Christian God then you must then take in all aspects of the Christian faith which therefore includes the fact that God is all-powerful. I see no reason why God could have not decided to make the Earth look however old he wanted it to. Also based on this there is no scientific evidence to disprove this. Also the Christian Bible states that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Great Flood which science has proven to be a real life event.

The genesis story tells you the Christian story on how the world was created.

[Trainer Ave]

um sort of. The Christian Bible tells you the tells you that God said some words and they became so. It does NOT however say what occurred as these events were coming to be so. The best example of something like this i can think of is in the Inheritance cycle when Eragon talks about creating fires using magic. He states that he could start the fire by using a lightning strike, creating intense friction, heating the air etc. This can also relate to the story of creation. The Bible only says that God spoke and what he spoke came to pass. It does not explain the exact processes in how these events came to pass. For all we know both the Christian Bible and the big bang theory can be simultaneously correct. God could have caused the big bang to create the universe.

[SlowPokemon]

No Christian worth his salt reads the Noah and the Ark story literally lol

[Trainer Ave]

Well I know Christians who have read the entire bible

[Dudeman]

No Christian worth his salt reads the Noah and the Ark story literally lol

I beg to differ, personally. But hey. It's me. Go figure.

Well I know Christians who have read the entire bible

That, um...doesn't really make any sense in context to what Slow said.

[Trainer Ave]

considering how that story is in the bible...yes it does

[Dudeman]

I don't follow. It seems you're equating reading the whole Bible with reading the story of Noah's ark literally. Literally, as opposed to metaphorically. Was that where the confusion was?

[Trainer Ave]

Possibly. I have a tendency to take things literally (especially if I can't hear the tone it was meant to be said with)

[Dudeman]

Ah. Slow was distinguishing between reading the story as about an old man who built a really really big boat and filled it with two of every animal on earth and rode out a very large flood, versus reading the story as an explanation for a possible very large flood.