What products?
Unless he's selling Qu'rans, there is no product.
The only muslim scientist is A.Q. Khan, and he set up Pakistan the bomb.
What a bunch of hoo ha... Religion and science do not mix. Except for science debunking religion.
Religion, the opiate for the masses.
science is fact so if the Religion fack so the will mix
see the web sait agen and think
I guess we should make our time. All our base are belong to them.
I laughed.
>>5
No, actually, science is not fact.
"Facts" are objective and verifiable observations. For instance, 'if I drop this apple then it falls to the ground' is a fact. 'If I drop this apple a force called gravity pulls it towards the center of the earth', even though widely accepted as true, is not objective and not intrinsically verifiable; thus it is a theory, not a fact.
By the same token, religion is not fact, but neither is it theory. One of the hallmarks of a theory is that it can be disproven. Most religious tenets can't, and those that are potentially refutable tend to be shored up with a generous amount of ad hoc explanations- decidedly non-scientific. If something is true then you don't need to defend it with bullshit.
More religion vs science eh? I look at it this way, there is only 1 truth. In other words there is only 1 true history of Ceasar, there is only 1 favorite ice cream flavor, there is only 1 largest truck, there is only 1 history of the formation of the Earth. Science and religion take different paths to find out that 1 truth and we do the best with what we can observe.
For me I accept science for the explanations it can give, I understand that science examines the geological history of the earth to learn about it's origins but I find no conflict in my religeous beliefs.
Personally I've felt the presence of God in my life and know others who have as well, often I may add. I've also seen real miracles on occasion so my knowledge of God is not based on faith (the dictionary definition which states that faith is belief in something that cannot be proven) since I have proven the existence of God through searching and prayer, and since I've seen miracles in my own life and in the life of others I no longer have faith, I have knowledge based on my own personal experiences.
So for statements like >>5 I can only say that science can never disprove the existence of God, partly because science cannot disprove of something that exists and partly because science lacks the ability to disprove, it can only prove.
This doesn't mean I'm some sort of religious whack job who disaggrees with science (well, I do disagree with this Dr Zhagoul whatever guy). We are all searching for answers to the same questions. Does this mean my belief in science is incomplete and I rely too much on God for answers? No. I look at science as providing the how.
The more we understand the creation of this world through such sciences as evolution, plate techtonics, astronomy, and other resources, the closer we come to understand how God organized the universe based upon scientific and mathematical laws.
God is the great scientist and mathmatician and I like to learn how it is he created what he did. I'll say again, I see no conflict between science and my religious beliefs.
>>9 sure lives in a simple world.
Amen.
In your world, apparently, proving something means just feeling very strongly about it. It must make things a lot simpler.
Also, you think you only ever be one single favourite icecream flavour.
>>13 No, if you read my post you'll notice I've also experienced real miracles. Something that neither you nor anyone else can simply explain away. I also know others who have as well.
As for simply feeling strongly about it I assume because you've never experienced such things you have no idea what you're saying. As it is however I'll leave you with something simple to answer you. This is of course not all there is to the matter but it's simple and easy to grasp. I feel good as I follow the laws of God and miserable as I disobey them.
This matter isn't for me alone, I can show you as well if you trust me.
As for the icecream flavor, either 1 flavor is more preferred then all others or it isn't. Simple.
>>14
Okay, so you've experienced miracles. How do you know they were the work of God?
> No, if you read my post you'll notice I've also experienced real miracles. Something that neither you nor anyone else can simply explain away.
It's convenient that you do not tell us exactly what these supposed miracles are, so that we indeed can not explain them away. Just going by basic experience, though, I've found that when people say "miracles" they either mean "coincidences" or "hallucinations". Just based on that, I usually ignore people when they talk about miracles.
> As for the icecream flavor, either 1 flavor is more preferred then all others or it isn't. Simple.
Like I said, it's a simple world you live in.
So, first you assume that I'm too simple minded, too stupid to know what I'm talking about. Now you assume I'm lying. I knew you'd answer this way before we began, I've heard your arguments before.
Your assumption is that there is no God. Based upon that assumption you refuse all evidence. You defend your assumptions by believing that nobody can possibly know what they're talking about or that they lie to you.
I don't give you my miracles for 1 simple reason, you would refuse it. If God caused the world to shake, or cause fires and floods to cover the Earth, you would not believe it. If God himself stood before you, you would believe it to be some sort of illusion. You cannot accept that your assumption is wrong.
I will say it again. I KNOW that there's a God through my own personal experiences. I'm not the only one that's had personal experiences and know for themselves that there's a God. There are many others like me.
If you would drop your assumption I can prove to you that there is a God but you'd need to trust me, that I know what I'm talking about and that I'm not lying. Then I can show you what many others know for themselves.
I dunno about the other folks in this thread, but I never said there is no God or that religion is bunk. I said that religion, by and large, is non-scientific. There's a difference.
Do you have evidence for your theory of God's existence based on independently verifiable observations? Can these observations not be adequately explained by simpler phenomena (Occam's Razor?) If so, present your case and I'd be delighted to consider it seriously.
> I KNOW that there's a God through my own personal experiences. I'm not the only one that's had personal experiences and know for themselves that there's a God. There are many others like me.
The problem here is that God apparently likes to reveal him/her/itself only to certain individuals, not to instruments or the world at large.
If you were to perceive something you believe to be God, how do you know you aren't suffering a condition? Or maybe it's an alien? Or maybe it's a just a spectacular but mindless phenomenon? Or...?
Religion is faith. Maybe there is a God, but so far God hasn't been detected in any measurable and repeatable manner. Claiming you've proven God exists based on a feeling is only possible if you broaden the definition of "proof".
> Now you assume I'm lying.
I do not. I simply believe you may very well be mistaken. Many people, including myself, are mistaken about many things. It is, you might say, part of the human condition.
> Your assumption is that there is no God. Based upon that assumption you refuse all evidence. You defend your assumptions by believing that nobody can possibly know what they're talking about or that they lie to you.
Once again, I do not. I simply have not seen any evidence of God, and thus I proceed on the assumption that he does not exist. As the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being is quite extraordinary, I require more some pretty concrete evidence before I will believe it.
The rational man is skeptical of all extraordinary claims. If such a claim can survive his doubt, then it is worthy of acceptance. If not, it was not a credible claim in the first place and should be discarded.
> I don't give you my miracles for 1 simple reason, you would refuse it. If God caused the world to shake, or cause fires and floods to cover the Earth, you would not believe it. If God himself stood before you, you would believe it to be some sort of illusion. You cannot accept that your assumption is wrong.
Incorrect, as I stated before. I would accept credible evidence. None has been presented so far.
> I will say it again. I KNOW that there's a God through my own personal experiences. I'm not the only one that's had personal experiences and know for themselves that there's a God. There are many others like me.
There are many other like you who have had personal experiences that cause them to believe just as strongly, or more so, in the existence of OTHER gods. They contradict what you say, and it would appear that at least one of you is, therefore, wrong. Why is it they who are wrong, and not you?
Being god I have to say.