Religion

[smerny]

nrg, basically that is sort of like if we ever had the ability to create simulation within a computer that had AI's with near human reasoning capabilities... they would not be able to figure out how their world was created beyond whatever hints or messages we coded into their virtual world... whatever laws of physics or other 'scientific' laws they discovered would only mean that they are reading into and discovering the application which came from the mind of who created the code.

 

I guess there were many people who thought about it that way, including:

 

From a knowledge of His work, we shall know Him.

-Robert Boyle (Founder of modern chemistry)

 

It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed.

James Prescott Joules (kinetic theory of gases)

 

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.

-Louis Pasteur (Father of Microbiology)

 

I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.

-George Washing Carver (agricultural chemist, inventor of over 300 products)

 

Scientific concepts exist only in the minds of men. Behind these concepts lies the reality which is being revealed to us, but only by the grace of God.

-Wernher Von Braun (First Director of NASA)

 

Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.

-Albert Einstein

 

 

[Daniel0]

2) Evolution is not based on randomness, but on natural selection and sexual selection.

 

I respectfully disagree that they are mutually exclusive. Natural selection is a process whereby the 'creature' most able to cope with it's environment is the most likely to survive. Evolution is the introduction of genetic mutation into the natural selection process. Natural selection by itself cannot lead to true evolution without this genetic mutation, this genetic mutation must be at least partly random in nature (unless of course you subscribe to the belief that god wanted it to happen).

 

Right, but that doesn't mean that evolution is based on randomness. Whether a change in the genes is done by god, or by some random event does not change how natural selection and evolution works. Natural selection will still "filter" the bad mutations (or at least reduce them). It works as long as some kind of change happens. Thus it is not the evolution that is random even if the mutation is truly random (which it is not).

[448191]

I guess there were many people who thought about it that way, including:

 

So what does that prove? That even the great minds in history tried to explain their findings within the context of their time? Hardly news. When people believed the earth was flat they tried to explain ships not returning by saying they fell of the earth when it is more likely they perished in some storm or were shipwrecked. Nobody can prove or disprove god exists until we can reproduce these "miracles". Ironically, should that ever happen, by todays definition we would be God.

[proggR]

What it was meant to be by Jesus is irrelevant. You said yourself that it has become a religion, so anyone who identifies themselves as Christians are needlessly also identifying themselves as being religious. What an author of one book thinks cannot redefine that Christianity is universally considered a religion throughout the entire world.

I'm not saying I or this book are "redefining" Christianity. And how are the beliefs of the principal figure of Christianity irrelevant? That would be like saying the teachings of Guatama Buddha are irrelevant to Buddhism just because people didn't follow it the way it was meant to be followed. Jesus himself said that's not the way. Have you read the Bible or at least the New Testament or are your conjectures based solely on dictionary definitions which I can assure you don't always give the best definition.

[Daniel0]

Jesus never defined or said anything about what Christianity is (or is supposed to be). He was not Christian and Christianity did not exist at his time.

 

You cannot at the same time say that you are Christian and that you are not religious because Christianity is a religion.

[.josh]

Considering the sum of being a christian is believing that Jesus is the son of God who lived and died for us, I think you can say that they existed at his time...and actually, as you read further into the new testament, you find out that with all the prophesies about Jesus and how the righteous did in fact live under the same belief, christianity was around before Jesus.  Well, except that Jesus, being the son of God, being the Word, being there when Creation was made, I guess he still came first...

[Daniel0]

As far as I'm concerned, those people at that time were Jews, and they believed that a messiah would save them. They thought of him as a political/military kind of savior. The Christians then believe that Jesus was the savior, and he saved humanity from the original sin in the sense that he sacrificed himself, thus making it a spiritual savior instead. Because of this, I fail to see how Christianity could exist until after his sacrifice.

 

All of this being overly simplified of course.

[.josh]

Ah but that's not true.  Not all of the Jews thought that.  Some understood Jesus as a spiritual savior.  Even going back as recently as...the people who followed him during his life on earth. His disciplies, apostles.  They understood.  He was alive.  But even before then. Many people in the OT credited as righteous, understanding the message and prophecy for what it was.

[Zane]

Appropriate song for this thread.