Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Pope says Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Posted by Spacey Orange on Jul-26-2007 17:44:

this guy is such an idiot. religion and science have nothing to do with one another.

Posted by echosystm on Jul-27-2007 14:41:

I have taken the position of writing off hardcore religious fanatics as idiots by default. Conversely, I respect those at the scientific extreme, as their argument is supported by more than mere hearsay. However, they are not correct yet either.

The wise position in such a debate is to be a fence sitter. I believe in something; it may be a god or it may be science, but it sure as heck is not this senile old fuck. I am a supporter of atheism purely due to the effect most religions have had upon the world. Christians are the worst example of theists blatantly violating their own implicit values and I have lost respect for them entirely. I'm not educated enough to state my oppinions of other religions.

I dislike the religion vs. darwinism debate, because it implies that we are limited to mans predefined interpretations of a divine creator. That is not to say I disregard either of the possibilities, I just believe religion (christianity in particular) is a complete load of horse shit. I support the fundamental concept of religion (god) just as much as I support science.

Posted by Krypton on Jul-27-2007 15:41:

quote:
Originally posted by echosystm
I have taken the position of writing off hardcore religious fanatics as idiots by default. Conversely, I respect those at the scientific extreme, as their argument is supported by more than mere hearsay. However, they are not correct yet either.

The wise position in such a debate is to be a fence sitter. I believe in something; it may be a god or it may be science, but it sure as heck is not this senile old fuck. I am a supporter of atheism purely due to the effect most religions have had upon the world. Christians are the worst example of theists blatantly violating their own implicit values and I have lost respect for them entirely. I'm not educated enough to state my oppinions of other religions.

I dislike the religion vs. darwinism debate, because it implies that we are limited to mans predefined interpretations of a divine creator. That is not to say I disregard either of the possibilities, I just believe religion (christianity in particular) is a complete load of horse shit. I support the fundamental concept of religion (god) just as much as I support science.

I read something interesting recently about the basic assumptions we form our beliefs around and the impossiblity of a 'theory of everything'. Also, any diety identified as 'Creator' could not be proven so from within the system we live in. In other words, it's pointless to try to detect 'god' or prove its existance with naturalistic laws..

Evidence of Purpose, Chapter 2, Pg. 43, p. 3

quote:
Each mathematical structure is built on a set of axioms (assumptions). The rest of the structure consists of theorems that can be derived from those axioms. From within the structure one can verify how the theorems logically and inevitably follow from the axioms. However, one cannot jusity the original choice of axioms. Not only that, but in 1931, the mathematician Kurt G�del demonstrated that it was impossible to prove from within the methods open to many important areas of mathematics (including elementary arithmetic) that the axioms are consistent - meaning that conclusions drawn from them could never lead to contradictions. Even if it were possible to prove consistency for a particular mathematical system, that same system would not be complete. In other words, from within the system it was impossible to prove the truth of all the true statements contained in that system.

This inherent, unavoidable lack of completeness must reflect itself in whatever mathematical system models is the working of our universe. As creatures belonging to that physical world, we shall be included as part of that model. It follows that we shall never be able to justify the choice of axioms in the model - and consequently the physical laws to which those axioms correspond. Nor shall we be able to account for all the true statements that can be made about the universe. For these reasons the goal of a complete thery of everything is unattainble, and the claim to have disproved the need for a creating god is false."

I think the greatest axioms of the human race is that of, 'there is no Creator god', 'there is a Creator god'. Think about it, every belief-system stems from these two simple axioms. Within their system, they can't contradict, but when two systems holding each axiom respectively are placed side-by-side, we get evolution-creation debate, atheism-theism debate, etc.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]