In terms of what the Bible says... -- LiveWire Teen Forums

Quote: from Prince o palities at 7:48 am on Oct. 8, 2008

It starts with a belief that there are things which are which science cannot quantify, things like a soul or intangible aspect which separates man from animal. If something can be real apart from testing in the physical world, then it is true even though science cannot give it to us.
Science is a wonderful thing. It the ingenuity of man put into practice that allows me to even talk to you right now. However, science deals only with what we think we can prove right now. Is the universe expanding or contracting? Is the smallest indivisible unit of matter an atom, an electron, or the newest smallest thing? How many stars are there? How vast is the universe? Is Pluto a planet? All things that now have a finite, factual answer from science that at one time had another finite, factual answer from science. There was a time when prevailing scientific theory asserted that the earth was the center of the universe, and no matter how many angry atheists tell you the church forced everyone to believe this, it was in fact backed up by astronomical observations and equations which, for a time, adequately explained the movement of the stars based on a geocentric model.

Yes, but while all this is correct, it does not mean that there is NO definite answer. It simply means that humans make mistakes, and that science is a process to achieving truth, whereas religion is a perceived definite truth. Just because history has shown that science is not always correct does NOT mean that the truth cannot be achieved through science.

Essentially, the exact same argument you are using to discredit science are similar to the argument that are often used againt religion, that being:
"No definite evidence exists to prove that science is correct", paralleled with "No definite evidence exists to prove the existence of a God."

The key difference however, is the source. Science is the result of thousands of years of testing, experimentation, theory and observation. It has been refined and made to be more precise and accurate. Religion has been and will always center around faith.

Science is a fluid human discipline. It changes as man changes, both in his advancement of knowledge and redefining of culture. Religion focuses not on what can be demonstrated for today but what can be declared for all time. There is one God; He has a divine will for man; He has, at various times, condescended to reveal more fully this will to us. Things like that will never change no matter what facts science unearths.

This may be true, but our interpretation of the Bible and God's will has changed throughout the years. With perhaps the exception of religious extremists, emphasis has been placed on certain teachings of the Bible, and less on others. Certain traditions and practices witnessed in the Bible have gone far out of date over the course of history.

What I am essentially asking here is that if reasonable proof were to exist that indicated that homosexuality was a product of biology; would those select passages declaring homosexuality as a sin still hold more weight than the idea that we can all go to heaven by accepting Jesus (so on and so forth, you know the rest..)

No matter what anyone says, science cannot disprove God. You cannot use a discipline the objective of which is to study what can be observed and quantified and use it to prove or disprove the existence of something which admits that it can neither be observed for quantified.

I at no point attempted to disprove God. I do not want to disprove God. I have no intentions of ever disproving God. I would be silly to think that it is even possible to disprove God.

I want to make that clear. I have a very "to each his own" view of religion. Who am I to tell anyone that they're wrong?

My intention/intitial argument was coming from a purely logical standpoint. I feel that one thing (evidence that homosexuality is a product of nature) cannot exist with another thing that directly contradicts it (sin being a byproduct of free will, not natural design). In a sense, the question was almost hypothetical, being as science is, as you said, impossible to definitively prove.

743 users online 222931 members 1071 active today Advertise Here