Naturalism v. Theism

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
We should remember that there is no Science...when people say Science gives us answers, it is ofcourse untrue.

Scientists give us answers, but not all scientists agree...so the idea that there is a religion vs. science doesnt make sense, and this is where this is going.

The thread is titled "theism" vs "naturalism" and you thought it was going where?

The question is, is it ever possible to know anythting completely...is there Truth?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why not?

It would depend on the definition of the word god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They were ignorant and biased.

No, not really. Those are the 2 most common ideas regarding existance.

A) God was behind it.

B) Everything is one big accident.

It wasn't biased at all.

Originally posted by Alliance
The thread is titled "theism" vs "naturalism" and you thought it was going where?

My point, is that there is no religion vs. science, there are no clear cut lines. Besides this debate strikes me as being more Philosophy of Religion than Religion and Science.

Originally posted by Alliance
The question is, is it ever possible to know anythting completely...is there Truth?

Thats what religion and science are here for right?

And whats with the aggression here? We're all friends right?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, not really. Those are the 2 most common ideas regarding existance.

A) God was behind it.

B) Everything is one big accident.

It wasn't biased at all.

Then you are biased.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It would depend on the definition of the word god.

I had a good week long argument about that...omnipotence in particular.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats what religion and science are here for right?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
And whats with the aggression here? We're all friends right?

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not an answer.

Originally posted by Alliance
There's no agression. You can't hear my voice or see my face. You read agression because you want to.

I don't want to read aggression, but even this response indicates a degree of anger...if there wasn't any I'd expect a reply like, "dont worry, im not trying to seem angry 😛"

😂

Originally posted by Alliance
😆

Im pathetic I know! 😂

I lean towards Naturalism but with a different slant...An intelligent process.

I would say that I am a bit of an in-between. I find them both rather simplistic when considered alone.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Go on...

The scientific method>God of the gaps.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are biased.

Why am I biased? Please point it out to me.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Everything is one big accident.

more like every condition was just right, which made the big bang. apparently if something was off by a lil bit, nothing would have happened.

Originally posted by Mark Question
The scientific method>God of the gaps.

Powerful argument.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I lean towards Naturalism but with a different slant...An intelligent process.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why am I biased? Please point it out to me.

Because all you know it the "Christian point of view". If you knew say Buddhism, you would be able to see the bias in the original post.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, there's a video for people like you.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Really?? 😂