Do you believe in aliens, extra-terrestrials, life on other planets, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

Show me your evidence of God and I will show you mine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, moron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

Please answer the question. How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

I already know that you can't (dis)prove a negative and I do not claim to know there is no god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Two different frameworks, rules, mindsets. Two buckets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

Well, one problem is you should be able to support any claims you make with evidence.

That's why most atheists are also agnostics in that they do not claim to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, moron

So God exists then. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, moron

So God exists then. Case closed.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me you believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

Again. I don’t have to. Neither my faith in God nor my understanding of science require it.

This seems very important to you, however. I recommend reading The Language of God by Francis Collins. (I recommend putting cynicism aside for an honest read.)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6581949-the-language-of-god

I hope you're not suggesting that if pp puts their "cynicism aside for an honest read" that they will understand your reasoning. Some people believe in God and some don't. You do; pp does not. It is not a matter of cynicism or honesty.

I agree, but PP certainly seems convinced that God and science contradict. Walking into the book with a rigid and closed mindset makes the whole endeavor useless.

I believe in God. PP does not, and that’s completely okay. PP is demanding somebody show how science can prove God exists. No explanation I can give on DCUM is going to be good enough. That book, written by the former director of the Human Genome Project and then NIH, does a better job that I can do on my phone. If PP sincerely wants an explanation (and not just a chance to argue), then I say give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, moron

So God exists then. Case closed.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me you believe that.

You believe something that is unprovable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know I sincerely want to understand why believers are believers but I have to say you folks are not doing a good job convincing me or explain your reasoning

There are many reasons that believers are believers. I haven't seen you ask that question yet here until now, nor did I think anyone was supposed to be convincing you to believe anything. Where did you ask either of those things before this post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

There is no God. That’s how.

You don’t know if there is no God.

God is not subject to scientific laws, measurements, tests, rules, etc.

How is that different than it would be if there were no god?

You can’t say God doesn’t exist. You can say you don’t believe a God or gods exist.

And why not? Religious people say God exist. What's wrong with say there is no God? I don't follow you.

How do you know God doesn’t exist? What is your evidence?

You can't prove the non-existence of something, moron

So God exists then. Case closed.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me you believe that.

You believe something that is unprovable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

God requires faith, not science.

Disconnect is religious people say they are consistent - faith and science. Others believe they are not and want explanation how religious people came to that conclusion. The answers given here are not very convincing.

DP - In what ways are God and science supposed to be separate such that I would need to divide them in my brain into different compartments/buckets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your question assumes that faith and science are diametrically opposed. But most people of faith also believe in science and evolution and the Big Bang Theory. So for most religious people, I think there's no conflict between their conception of God and the idea that life may have evolved on other planets.

Good response. I don’t know why my faith would change if we found our life exists on other planets.

I’m often surprised by the assumption that my faith means I don’t believe in science.

It's definitely unfair to assume that of you before you are asked. 100%. But I am sure you understand why people make that assumption, don't you?

As for OP's question, like everything else it is best to look for evidence before making a conclusion. The most compelling type of argument I have seen is the Drake Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation which relies on the incredible vastness of the universe, and since we know life exists in one spot, states it is likely to exist in another.

I don't really buy into that myself, even though it is an interesting thought experiment.

I’m the PP. No, I don’t understand why people may assume I don’t believe in science. There are people of faith throughout the scientific community. The Big Bang was theorized by a Catholic priest. NIH Director Collins wrote a book reconciling faith and science called The Language of God. A good friend has a PhD in Chemistry and is one of the most religious people I know.

Here on DCUM, I’ve been told I CAN’T believe in science if I believe in God.

I don’t see how today’s hearing would have any impact on my faith.

Yup. Scientists can “believe” in both if they compartmentalize.

Why the need to compartmentalize? I have no problem seeing how God can have a guiding hand in science. A PP did a good job already demonstrating that.

If you don’t believe in God, that’s fine. I just don’t see why you get to comment on others’ beliefs.

And if you flip that around? How do you use science to explain God?

Why do I have to?

You don’t - because you compartmentalize.

And yet I don’t. My beliefs easily coexist.

I’m not sure why this threatens you to the point at which you need to declare what and how I believe.

So how does science explain god?

Again… why does it have to? God can set science in motion. Science does not need to prove God. Those two ideas aren’t antithetical to each other.

You say I compartmentalize, but I’m assuming you don’t understand faith well enough to see how they coexist.

That’s okay. You do you, and I’ll do me. Look at that. We can also coexist.

They coexist in two different buckets in your brain. God does god stuff. Science does science stuff.

Nope. Sorry. That’s now how it works, and at least two posters have said that by now. How the heck would compartmentalization even work? God sets the Big Bang. God’s hand is at work during the biological process of growing a fetus. It works together very easily.

You don’t get to decide how my brain comprehends ideas. Perhaps YOU aren’t capable of this thought, but others are. It’s time to move on.

Then you should easily be able to explain god using science.

Again. I don’t have to. Neither my faith in God nor my understanding of science require it.

This seems very important to you, however. I recommend reading The Language of God by Francis Collins. (I recommend putting cynicism aside for an honest read.)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6581949-the-language-of-god

I hope you're not suggesting that if pp puts their "cynicism aside for an honest read" that they will understand your reasoning. Some people believe in God and some don't. You do; pp does not. It is not a matter of cynicism or honesty.

I agree, but PP certainly seems convinced that God and science contradict. Walking into the book with a rigid and closed mindset makes the whole endeavor useless.

I believe in God. PP does not, and that’s completely okay. PP is demanding somebody show how science can prove God exists. No explanation I can give on DCUM is going to be good enough. That book, written by the former director of the Human Genome Project and then NIH, does a better job that I can do on my phone. If PP sincerely wants an explanation (and not just a chance to argue), then I say give it a try.

Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”

We have discussed him (and Barbour) before.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/180/1124491.page#24786836

And I don't think they contradict.

Some people use science to explain the objective, physical world based on measurable, repeatable data.

Some people use religion to explain the unknown. “The unknown” changes over time as we have more scientific discoveries.