God and Science (Specifically Evolution and Big Bang) are Mutually Exclusive

>> ""Oh, we were wrong before, that's how [insert phenomena here] works!". By the same argument, I could argue that when will science finally get their act together?" There's a difference between attributing a phenomenon to God and to Science. The difference is that science has done the research on these phenomena and come up with a valid explanation. Consider things like astronomical phenomena. For centuries, the Church was the authority on the model of the universe. They put Galileo on trial and ruined him at age 70 because he didn't agree with their model. Centuries later, we have a fairly significant "Holy Oops" and the Church now recognizes a Heliocentric model. The point is that science does the work and provides results and data - scientists don't put people on trial because they disagree with data - primarily because there aren't many scientists that DO disagree with data. Religion provides no data. It's not that religion is claiming that now they know how phenomena works, it's that they're changing their opinion on how god did something. When science and religion disagreed over evolution, suddenly Creationism and the Book of Genesis were metaphors, and science was simply more revelation from god... >> "Further, you imply that religion must be a set of static beliefs that cannot change with further research, meditation, reasoning, and learning." That is not what I intend to imply - I mean that religion has consistently meditated, researched, learned, etc... to help itself agree with science. Not because they believe there's a fundamental need for change or that the previous methods were wrong. I would imagine you'll try to introduce Vatican II here, but I'll head that off by saying it's a response to changes in social science and political climate... >> "I meant to say that they can turn to god should they so choose. Further, you assume that all physicists are atheists. In your argument you are assuming that your position is correct." Yes, a physicist could turn to god if he or she should choose. I do not assume all physicists are atheists - I actually have a physics professor who is not atheist. What I assume is that, like all other scientists, physicists are going to go back to their instruments, and even if they can't find what's really going on, they will admit we don't have the appropriate scientific instruments to investigate the phenomenon before even THINKING about attributing science to god. >> "This assumption itself is very flawed. No god must necessarily be by any means OB. The Jewish/Christian/Islamic god of the old testament is by no means in any way benevolent- destroying whole cities, even in essence the entire earth through the legend of Noah's Ark. He is vindictive, cruel, and at times petty." Doesn't the New Testament say the same god is loving, good, kind, gentle, etc...? Seems to me that indicates that this god IS indeed omnibenevolent, or he was after Jesus' time. I thought the lord was "kind and merciful, slow to anger, rich in kindness." The appeal to us discussing further gods is kind of pointless in my opinion. The OP/OS/OB god is nondenominational. We can sacrifice some of the characteristics, like OB, as you suggest, but then what makes that deity deserving of worship? Why should we respect a god who's not fundamentally GOOD? For that matter, if you sacrifice a good intent, we may as well worship Satan. >> "There is no reason to assume that god used evolution because that's the only way he could do it, he could have other intentions- the most obvious would be planting evidence to test his worshiper's faith." There are actually a couple implications if we consider evolution the way god created the world. First, this seems to indicate a lack of distinct plan on god's part. If he had a plan, he would have just created everything according to his original plan... Second, using evolution and planting evidence to test his followers indicates that god isn't very intelligent. If he is undetectable by science, dubious at best to reason, and doesn't show up in verifiable test results, why on earth would he not have given concrete evidence of his existence and try to lead us astray? Furthermore, that's indication of intent to deceive, and I refuse to worship a deity who seeks to deceive me. >> "Although it is not necessarily *correct* to simply add god to whatever scientific findings may come up, it does provide a way for science and religion to coexist" How convenient and uncompelling. >> "You are holding religion to answer for a question that science cannot answer its version of either. Is this not similar to me saying that everything you have ever said is wrong because you do not know the place of birth of your great great great great grandmother, even though I do not know the same thing for me?" Ah... an interesting analogy, but I believe it is incorrect. I hold that religion cannot answer the same question as science, namely, "What was the First Cause?" There is a distinct and truthful answer to this question. However, since there is no ACCESS to that truth, neither side has any business making claims about the First Cause. However, science provides me with data, results, and predictions, whereas religion does not. Therefore, I think the analogy is closer to me saying your account of your genealogy back 10 generations is inferior to mine, when I have papers, photos, birth certificates, etc... going back on my side, and you have none. >> "You make the assumption here that the only way to view religion is absolutely literally. Is religion not allowed to make use of parables and exaggerate stories somewhat to make a point? Considering that one of the main purposes of religion is to tell people how to live as a good person, this is acceptable." I believe my lack of argument concerning literal creationism indicates I believe nothing of this sort. I ask which parts of the bible are literal and which are metaphorical? Is resurrection from the dead a metaphor? What about the multiplication of the fish and loaves? What about "This is my body..." ?? Basic morality, which has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with social contract and biology (which have been around a lot longer than religion...), will teach you how to be a good person without taking 1/10 of your money. Your debate topic is a tautology, and therefore logically flawed. However, I will look past that and assume you mean as you said that belief in religion and science is incompatible. A Priori, this is technically correct. A posteriori, this cannot be. When science has put a verified solution before us for something, it is illogical to attribute the cause to a deity, when the much more logical solution is natural. >> "I have proven that all of your arguments, which are excellent, are based on flawed assumptions and are hence invalid. I eagerly await your reply." You have not in fact proven all my arguments are based on flawed assumptions. I made no LOGICAL assumptions - only the same qualitative assumptions you are making in support of your side of the argument. Qualitative assumptions MUST be made to actually form an argument. Where I see us disagreeing on a common ground in qualitative assumption, you are attacking mine as flawed without inspecting your own. I find it interesting that you had nothing to say about my Scrinny. I think I'll worship him. Or the FSM, may you be touched by his noodly appendage ;) I eagerly await your reply.