Quote Originally Posted by _Christian_
NASA's satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, observed the radiation emitted from the universe over a year. It revealed that 73% of the universe is dark energy which not only expands, but accelerates in expansion. This shows that the expansion of the universe has not slowed, become static, or begun retracting.
This is actually my point. The expansion will lead to the death of the universe. Planets will die out as starts darken because everything separates. Its much like the aftermath of a big explosion. The explosion is over when the dust settles and everything has run its coarse.

Science isn't the answer to everything, but I think natural selection holds it's weight better than anything else for the development of mankind.
I'm not arguing human development. Origins and development are not the same thing.

The human brain is still mysterious in many regards. I don't think because something intangible can't be measured, it suggests a greater being. I feel that the aforementioned were necessary in our ancestors at some point for survival.
The non ability to measure it means that it will NOT fall into the realm of scientific study. So are we to ignore it because we cannot get numbers on it. Because that is what some do with regards to UFO's. We can't test what they are, we cant touch or feel them and we can't take eyewitness testimony from tens of thousands of people, so we just have to say nothing is happening and the people are imagining things or...it was a weather balloon. That is fine for the scientist to say its untestable, but it should end there. If it is untestable then theories should not be created. And also as I said in a previous post...even Dawkins says that he can't explain that which is in us that makes us believe...but he believes its there, he just doesn't believe that it matters towards WHAT we believe in.

Yes they are all chemical reactions in the brain but are different chemical reactions within the brain, even through the scope of biology. Feelings and emotions are better left for the social sciences though.


Why are scientific findings nothing anymore? I think philosophy and psychology are subjective enough to point in either direction depending on the person. History can be argued either way too.
If its brain chemistry then it is not real. Those things we associate to brain chemistry are typically considered to be those things of which our human mind propagates for us to function. If logic and reasoning are chemical reaction and nothing more then all things that we have used in the past as logic and reasoning are invalid because we do not base science on emotion or that which is changing.

And just as we cannot measure emotions we could not measure logic, therefore ALL of our science would have to be understood in emotional-type constraints to be universally valid.

For instance, if you cried during a movie, and I didn't who did the right thing? There is no basis to call evidence conclusive and there is no base to give credit to anything because what controls our learning and our survival is chemical reactions. What says that your chemical reactions are better than mine? What is the standard?

You see there is a HUGE problem is logic and reasoning do not exist outside of us.


1. Lack of evidence. Scale of the cosmos. Lack of evidence. Probability. God himself would have to be more complex than his creations, right? Using him to explain unknowns only creates questions of greater complexity. Doing such will only result in infinite regress.

2. Again, evidence and probability. It's hard for them to coexist because you have to pick and choose beliefs from each since they are so contradictory.
1. Science explains things and creates greater complexity. For every solution or observation we get more questions of why than the one we started with. Knowledge for us is no going from the outside in, its going from the inside out. To do that we should expect that our questions increase as our understanding of things increases. ex. We would have never asked about cellular reproduction had we never seen the cell, we would have never gained questions about DNA, had we not studied genetics and evolution. all answers are leading to more questions. and my world view has an answer for this. Knowledge is eternal. The answers are already there, we just have to discover them.

2. It is only hard for science and faith to exist when you want to deny God. Apart from that denial they fit fine. You do not have to pick one or the other. In fact, they are two separate fields of study for the most part. Science is the how, and faith is the reason. Evolution could easily be a process used by God, the Bible does NOT say that it didn't happen so we cannot assume that they are in disagreement. It is only the agenda based christian or atheist who trys to draw an incompatible conclusion. That is false.





Religion is not the source of morals!!! You pick and choose morals from religion. If not, you would be out killing those who don't observe the sabbath.
I never said religion was. Religion is manmade and controlled and you are right that we pick and choose our morals from religions, but our foundation of morals that religion uses come from somewhere else. Which is why just about every religion shares some of the same morals. Because they are more based in men than they are in our outside world. This is why an atheist can be moralstic and understand right and wrong, but have no religion. Because you are a product of God and he created us all the same and those things in which he placed in our DNA are all things that make us alike and we can deny them yet they are still there.

Even before men had our religious faiths, we had an understanding of not killing, not stealing etc etc. Even before we observed and understood (not completely still) the laws of gravity, it has been in existence.

The entire cosmos has demonstrated a functional law that we have to assume has always been. This law is related to us in that if it were not so, we don't believe that we nor our planet could have existed. The moral law supersedes us in some way. IF we did not have it we would have already erraticated ourselves for the preservation of self. And when men came down from the hilltops to form societies they did not have to ask one another if killing each other was wrong. They already knew.

Now atheism plays a really tough role here. There is an attempt to maintain the moral principles that can only have validity outside of our own understanding (or our own chemical processes), while denying that they could have come from an intelligent eternal source. This argument never sits well with me because without that source which is justice, or law, then our morals are make believe. There is no such thing as obligation, rights or anything because there is not law and no justice.

So no I do NOT say that morals come from religion, I do say that our morals supercede us and that they are founded in something we do now understand that has to demonstrate consistency, justice, and then grace (less we be erraticated for our failure to maintain the moral standard)