Bridging the Atheist - Believer gap

But, they did find the GOD particle :)

Excellent thought!

Well, science is now pondering an infinite number of parallel universes. What if our creator is so great that he created himself!

Excellent point. If they discover that there are parallel universes, could one big bang create them all? That seems hard to believe.

I think rather it might be the creationists who interpret the bible as saying things which it doesn't specifically say. Do you have examples (other than miracles, by definition) which have been proven or disproven by science? Historically scientists make many false assumptions.

Sure-- the most obvious, Earth is not 6,000 years old. The difference between science and blind belief of Bible literalists is scientists search for evidence, and go where that evidence points, whether it backs up their assumptions or not. The literalists start at the end result and ignore evidence that shows the end result they want as false.

I think you would be very surprised. I have a degree in science & I have not found anything in the Bible which contradicts science. Some people do make assumptions & interpret Genesis by pseudo-science & hold it as dogma--which makes Christians seem like idiots. So why would people want to read what the bible actually says, when they've heard that stuff? And some people take offense at what they don't want to hear anyway--which the bible says also. And evolution to a great extent is obviously true-the bible doesn't contradict that. How did God make man in his own image?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314725/As-researchers-prove-Red-Sea-really-parted--How-science-backs-Bibles-best-stories.html.

I may be wrong in this, but I believe that the great flood was found to be true.

True. Both sides would need to compromise to make this work. Not sure both sides could though.

Interestingy, 0 and God have a lot in common.
I'm not joking.

It comes down to the issue of faith. Creationists have faith that the stories passed on by ancestors is completely true. The evolutionists have faith that scientists who have disproved theories are absolutely true. Both have deep and heart felt beliefs. Neither is totally wrong, but neither may not be totally correct.

The scientists have evidence when they make claims, the literalists have stories.
Faith in evidence shown that one can inspect is not the same definition as faith in a story that one believes just because one wants to believe it. That's why there are so many religions-- that definition of faith requires no evidence.

Ok. But how can you or I inspect things like the big bang theory? One has to believe that the scientists were correct in their interpretations the same as one has to believe the teachings of the bible. For there are as many scientists preaching their truths as there are priests, rabbis.... preaching their truth. Yes you can go to college and learn the science that those forefathers taught. I can go to seminary school and learn the faith of those forefathers. We both believe in what we believe in. Neither has to be wrong or right.

the big bang theory has much evidence, you do not have to inspect/see the moment something happens to have evidence of it happening. and again-- the scientists present evidence for their calims, which sometimes are shown to be false by other evidence, the priests and rabbis and imams and gurus present no evidence, they just insist you believe by "faith".

Learning science involves learning evidence and proof and how that evidence grows and narrows down hypotheses into more provable knowledge all the time, learning religion involves accepting stories with no evidence, just "faith".. thus is why we have so many religions

I'll just end it by saying we agree to disagree and end itnl at that. Thank you.

Well, we don't really disagree on anything other than you applying the word "faith" to science with the same meaning that is used for religion. Other than that we agree-- religion requires faith (definition 2 below).

faith

NOUN
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism ·

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion · church · sect · denomination ·

It's faith, but not in the absence of evidence. Christians are SUPPOSED to search & check things out. I do. That's not a blind faith. Lots of people have blind faith in science, do they not? And in scientists? Still, show me where the bible contradicts science with evidence. Truth is truth.

See the post I mad above with the definitions. By definition religions are "blind" faith without evidence-- there is no evidence, otherwise there would be consensus around one religion rather than new ones arising all the time. Science is the pretty much the opposite of that-- as evidence builds for something, the alternative hypotheses dwindle. Evidence, thus not "blind".

As stated, if you interpret the Bible literally it is shown as false in innumerable places-- 6000 year-old Earth, flood covering the planet, etc. But the real thing is science does not need to disprove the Bible, the Bible needs evidence to prove that within to be claimed as fact and not religion. Thus, since there is no evidence for the stories within, faith(definition 2) is required for belief.

The term "blind faith" is loaded & implies stupidity on the part of the believer. Some people do have that sort of "faith," but I don't want to be bogged down with semantics. I repeat...the bible does NOT say 6000 years ago!! That is something some guy came up with in 1650. Again, show me where science clearly contradicts the bible. Faith is SEEING the world first, checking things out by experience and evidence, and then consciously deciding to believe (whatever of whatever sort). And there is evidence in archaeology, etc & in intentional design (but that often gets discounted by SOME scientists who by faith choose not to believe it). You do have faith; it's not in God. We are all limited in our knowledge, is it not so? Pretty good conversation here, I think.

The term "blind" just means no evidence in that case. That is why they are called religions, it is pretty much the definition of them-- there is no historical or scientific evidence of the Bible-specific events of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, just as there is none for the religion specific stories of Ra, Buddha, Zeus, Vishnu, Xenu, etc.
People who want a religion chose the one of the hundreds/thousands of religions that they want to believe in by faith, definition 2 above.

It is not scientists' or historians' jobs to disprove religions, it is adherents' job to prove their religion, if they feel they need to. Most just write it off to faith and mistranslations or misinterpretations when something in their religion does not fit the scientific or historical evidence (e.g. 6000 Year-old Earth with an Earth-wide flood in that period), which is fine. Literalists dig in and become denialists like the wackadoo Ken Ham.

There actually is much evidence to substantiate the bible, but I think someone told you otherwise

Yeah...Ken Ham. I think he does a lot of damage, even if he is sincere.

Yeah, I gave up arguing. I always relate back to this quote:

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't believe, no explanation is possible."

-- St. Thomas Aquinas

Yep. Makes me sad, though.