when religious ppl try to use science/logic to prove their points...

Faith does not mean we have no idea what we belive in. I have faith, not Blind faith. My faith is not based on ignorance, but proveing all things to myself. I can not prove anything to anyone else but when asked to respond to what i beleive, I back it up with my own understanding of the phisics and machinery of the universe. A person who blindly beleives in anything can be sweyed when confronted with hard rebuttels from the other point of veiw. But one who has substance in their faith can not be sweyed. And haveing faith does not mean that they are ignorent to scientific realities. I know what I beleive in becouse I have used all known science to substanciate the validity of my faith. Science is not the opposit of faith or religion, but to the wise it is the fullfilment of their faith.

Actually, there is nothing contradictory between religion and science. Nor is the domain of science universal, imagine if you will that we had a completed science a theory of everything, that could explain every phenomenon by reducing it to a fundamental principle. (There are very good reasons to believe that this is not ever possible but that is another discussion) Still there would be many questions unanswered. As an example of just once such question, "Why anything, why not nothing?" all the best urban

A long time ago, we seemed to be under the impression that the Sun and planets traveled around the Earth in epicycles, based on hundreds of years of observations. Our ideas of atomic structure are basic ideas that fit what we observe, yet may have no connection with reality. Magic numbers and islands of stability? You have faith in science, others have faith in religion. I have faith that people will argue about this until there are no more people. I always believe what suits me, just like everyone else.

Good point. But when you flip a light switch, you have faith that a light will come on, even though you can't see electricity. If I have a karma that empowers me to teach people a lesson in forgiveness the day after they wrong me, and if I intercede for people and it keeps on working, am I not justified in my faith? I can't see God, but I see His works all the time. "For the invisible things of Him from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" (Romans 1:20). Maybe I'm more of a "theist" or "spiritual" person than a religious person, because I don't take everything in the Bible literally. But since I do believe in the four gospels (which I cannot prove), I suppose you'd call that religion. All I have to go by on that one are the 2,000-year-old testimonies of four men I've never met. But I don't use science to try and prove it, either. Science I use to prove the Creator's existence, and you should know from our debates in the past that the Creator's existence is not an issue of blind faith to me. As far as hypocrisy goes, that's hardly an accusation to give me a bellyache. That's just plain human. How many people do you know who have NEVER ONCE preached something they weren't practicing? "You spot it, you got it," that's what they say. I don't make up evidence as I go along; I use the very evidence that convinced me to try and prove God's existence, just like you use yours to try and disprove it. When I do wrong, I try to learn from it. And when someone does me wrong, I try to forgive it. That's as close as I can get to perfection, and hopefully a perfect God is perfect enough to understand imperfection and pardon it. And if He is indeed capable of everything I'm capable of, then forgiveness is well within His capacity. Happy New Year! -santuccie P.S.: Laughing at dumb jokes is still good for your health!!!

Here's one thing I noticed. Even science has to make leaps here and there, otherwise called theories. And there are plenty of them out there. Sure there is evidence and other lesser degrees of it, but in plenty of scientific debate and study there is more theory and hypothesis than simple fact, some of which requires maybe a leap of faith or something remotely along those lines (number of stars in the universe, scientific history of Earth, history/conditions of Eras, specific composition points of the universe). You may disagree, but I do not mind if the religious use science to try and prove points or to justify their own beliefs. Why? Its their own beliefs, I don't give a damn one way or another.

There is a very small problem with your statement. A lot of scientists believe in G'd too and have strong religious beliefs. I have first hand knowledge that at least certain astronauts believe in G'd and have strong religious beliefs. The latest scientific theory states that there was one super hot pimordial atom that exploded and started the whole universe. Two elements were formed at the explosion~helium and hydrogen the 2 elements needed for all other elements to form. There was twice as much helium as hydrogen which would also be necessary for all formation to happen. Now this is not religious belief this is the up to the minute scientific theory. Of course it is theory because it cannot be proven without a doubt now can it? No one was there were they? But we believe in these theories until they are disproved because they are plausable and we have hmmm faith? in the scientists that they are right. My question is where did this single hot primordial atom come from? It was just sort of sitting out there in the middle of a vacuum all by its little old lonesome waiting around for just the right moment to explode and expand into a lovely little universe! No one has made the slightest attempt to explain where the little darlin came from. Talk about blind faith. Don't tell me not to mix faith and science. It is mixed, stirred, blended,and all shook up.lol

If you are debating a point you should be able to use whatever helps you cause.Have you seen the movie Inherit The Wind? Spencer Tracy used the Bible to prove the possibility of evolution.Anything goes.

The primary foundation of religion is faith, but let us not forget that that religion was born of rudimentary logic. "The wind blows, the earth shakes - something must be controlling them" would've been the logic behind it. Prior to our understanding of physics, this was actually a decently logical conclusion. Today we know when something moves, a force had to have been put upon it to do so. The same logic would've been applied then, but instead of stabilizing wind pressures and shifting tectonic plates causing the phenomena, it would've been something familiar to them, like a cognitive being that could be placated to control the world in mans favor. When people use science to try to prove their religious points it is because, in this day in age, science is revered far more than faith when in intellectual groups. Faith is still the basic foundation of the religion, but those using science are doing so to prove that their faith affects the physical world, or that evidence of their faith can be found using physical means. Besides, in most theistic arguments, it usually boils down to one person demanding objective evidence of another's views, or not accepting those views because they can't be objectively proven. Objective points have a better chance of being accepted in an argument than a faith-based one. So what choice do they have but to try and give the best objective argument they can?

Read the writings of Thomas Aquinas. He's an excellent debator. You might learn some advanced logic from him.