Yes, that's the point.

The original problem was that somebody posted what he thought was a clever question (about goodness and G-d) and didn't take into account that in monotheistic religions that particular problem has already been solved 4000 years ago.

The question was directed at monotheists and was meant to show problems with monotheistic religion. Finding an answer that works for monotheism demonstrates that the dilemma doesn't exist in monotheistic religions.

Arguing god exists or not is a moot point.

Religion says god does exist and science will ask for proof.

Protocept00, your post is very interesting but I do not belive that science = god.

Take a look at what is happening with computers,

Years ago processing and data storage was doubling at a rate of around every 3-6 months or so. Now that just doesnt happen.

You could argue that the internet as a whole is one massive computer with almost unlimited storage and computing, but it to has it's limitations.

We are slowly comming upon a wall of progress that could bring us to a halt on technology, medicine and science.

If science were god would that meen we would be omnipresent?

Or would we as god cease to exist since we currenty strive for more? 

As far as my view on religion?

Real or not religion was mankind's first attempt to understand the world.

You may argue all the evils of religion, (ie. war) but how do you come to know they are wrong?

When our civilization was in it's infancy religion helped form the groundwork for institutions that would become.

Law

School

Medicine

Charity

Was god speaking directly to man? Possibly.

Even if they are just stories many in the bible or any religious teachings you find many constant messages.

Killing is wrong,

Good samaritan,

Love thy neighbor,

Humanity as a whole is "programed" to live in groups but you can't really have more than a couple hundred. Thats predeterminded by our genes and our own brain capacity.

Given our own selfish nature to find teachings of charity or loving your neighbor (who would be competition for resources or a mate) could make you belive they came from a foreign source.

Was man speaking as god? That is most likely a given.

Take pork,

Centuries ago before parasites and bacteria was understood eating pork was like winning a lotery of diseases.

"Everyone is dying eating pork how do I make them stop?" 

"I know, God says don't eat pork."

Even if it was someone making up stories that person was preety damn smart for his or her time.  Unfourtanitly over time as with everything man's own greed infuences and changes to suit his or her own desires.

My view on science?

Science was created by religion, many may want to hang me by my toes but that is how I see it.

When religion was telling everyone how the world was made some starting asking why or how. When religion could not answer we started pursuing them.

Science was nor much better than religion at first with fantastic fields as alchemy or luminous ether.

But centuries of proof and disproof, facts and disputing facts and the adaptation of the scientific procces, we have come a long way.

We now have understanding in fields such as string theroy which sound as fantasic as luminous ether.

As with religion or anything made by man or infuenced by man I feel science to be flawed.

Religion is flawed, science is flawed and logic is flawed. Why? It is because man by default is flawed. Nothing ever built by man has lasted forever.

Even physics equations that would be considered elegant for thier time have since been disproven. Its been said before on the string theroy that the burden of proof is on yourself and you would have to go to fantastic meens to do so.

I look at it this way, it just takes time. 

The more we come to know the more we find out that we knew nothing.

Religion vs science?

Ehhh I don't know why religion and science don't just get over it and fuck allready.

You can't apply logic to a human mind since its been shown the human mind allready trancends logic.  

One thing to ask,

If we came to have knowladge absolute what would become of science?

No.

Some religions say that a god exists, some say several gods exist, some say that no god exists.

Science has nothing to do with it. Science will work in any environment, whether there is a god or not, and whether one believes in gods or not.

Insisting on the truth of atheism is just as unscientific as insisting on the truth of monotheism.

Again arguing that god(s) exist or not is moot.

Which discussion are you reading? This is not about whether gods exist or not, this is about the difference between science and religion.

Do you have something useful to say, or will you just "again" again and bring up a point nobody doubted?

Best line I've read in a religious zealots thread yet. Good job!

Just a suggestion foks...you're all wrong!

I still disagree on that last point.  God and science can only peacefully coexist for a very few definitions of God which have been purposely fine-tuned by linguistics-minded theological philosophers to wedge religion into the gaps created by the limitations of our language and logical syntax.  And the important thing about these few definitions is that they generally only exist in a few philosophical texts, and are VERY different than the mainstream versions of God.  For example, take the Midwest U.S.  Their version of God hinges on the idea that evolution is fake, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and that a whole bunch of biblical stories (Noah's Ark, Garden of Eden, etc) are LITERALLY true.  The deifnition of God in an argument MUST encompass these ideas in order for it to represent their personal version of God.  And science can not coexist with that definition, because all of those claims are verifiably false.  I think insisting that the literal Garden of Eden creationism story is false is much more scientific than insisting that it's true.

And as I stated a little earlier, I have a problem with most of those "weasel out of actually saying anything" definitions that do manage to avoid running into conflicts with science.  Saying things like that God exists outside existence, or that God is an unknowable object, or that he is "above" the need to have an actual definition...  These things only work because the poetic nature of mysticism leads some people to intuitively feel the statements make sense.  But if you actually examine statements like that logically and scientifically, you will see that they don't make any sense at all.  They're internally inconsistent statements.  The few that can be parsed into actually meaning something all translate to God being indistinguishable from "nothing", and in that case, I think the word "God" is useless, and it doesn't make any sense to claim to believe or not believe in it.

It seems that people making the argument that science and god can coexist always are monothiests and are of the "Abrahamic" (Jewish/Christian/Islamic) point of view.

But since you raised the point, Leauki...

Can you tell me that the gods of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were compatible with science? For example, we know how lightning forms. It has nothing to do with a bearded god waving lightning bolts about.

Greek scientists and Greek philosophers were not friends. The philosophers supported the gods, the scientists tried to figure out "scientific explanation" for every phenonom the gods were credited with.

And we can make the same argument about Christianity and so forth. "OH, but it all goes away if you silly people stop reading the Bible/(insert holy book here)* literally and start doing it like the rest of us, doing it figuratively."

So until science had a good explanation, the Bible was read literally. Science begins to challenge the Bible, and suddenly 'the Bible isn't literal, but a metaphor'? What happens when further scientific discoveries challenge holy writ? How long before we can take the entirety of the Bible/(insert holy book here)* as a metaphor and read it as an ancient novel? How long before even the existance of God is a metaphor?

You may think I'm mocking, but I'm not trying to do that. I'm being serious here. I agree with the point of the poster when he says that religion has constantly changed as science evolves. To adapt to it to ensure it's survival.

Now, that's not necessarily bad. But it raises a question for me: if you interpret the entirety of a book (that not so long ago was considered holy writ and if you challenged it you were in for some trouble) as a metaphor for human existance, is it worth believing in?

*To make the point that this argument works for any religion that has a God or pantheon of any form.

religion was an early attempt to under stand how things work so in a way its extremely primitive science... you know if you ignore everything that makes science sexy like peer review.  it wasnt a bad way to explain how the unexplained worked but now we have a much better way, its called science and if you want to make it big in science you dont find proof supporting existing ideas, you find proof that disproves them, religion works the opposite way, if you find a religion that gets lots of people you stand as far front as you can to get in on some of the money or power or whatever

I just told you that science has nothing to do with religion and you want me to tell you how they are compatible???

They are not compatible. The ancient Greek and Roman religions were nonsense. Science and religion are two different things.

And while science can demonstrate how lightning forms, science cannot disprove that this is how Greek gods do it when they want lightning to hit something.

It's an article of faith to reject that lightning is caused by angry Greek gods.

Yes, as I said, science and religion are two different things.

(And yes, it is easier for monotheists to let science and religion co-exist. I believe the advent of monotheism has a lot to do with the invention of the scientific method.)

What makes Hellenic religion nonsense? Or at least nonsense in a way that living religions are not?

I have never seen gods who throw lightning and mate with humans.

That's what makes it nonsense.

Er.... but have you seen gods that part seas and impregnate virgins?  I don't quite see how one is more ridiculous than the other.

That makes absolutely no sense.  We've SEEN the top of Mt. Olympus.  The Greek gods are not there.  We've observed lightning and thunderstorms, we've flown over the tops of clouds, and there are no giant men in togas standing atop them.  It's not "faith" to acknowledge that the Greek gods are not where they're specifically supposed to be.  The Greek gods were defined as physical beings who physically threw lightning from the top of a physical mountain.  They weren't relegated to "metaphors".  We have proved that they physically don't exist, therefore, they don't exist.  It's that simple.  If you change the definition to try and say "Well maybe they're like pseudo-existing metaphor-people who quasi-throw lightning from a point outside existence" then you're not talking about the Greek gods.  You're making up your own version of their beliefs that has nothing to do with what they actually were.

I haven't, and hence I don't believe that those gods are currently doing that.

As for the specific events you are referring to, I am not a Christian and don't believe in the virgin story and I don't believe in a literal parting of a sea either.

To be more specific, I take the Bible really literally.

The Jewish Bible story that predicts a "virgin birth" according to Christians really speaks about a "young woman" rather than a "virgin". The word in question is עלמה, transliterated 3alma, which means "young woman". It's the female form of עלם, transliterated 3elem, which means "young man". The "virgin" thing derives from a faulty Greek translation of the Hebrew word and I don't believe it.

The Christian Bible ("New Testament") then continues the story with a virgin birth. But this works only in Greek and has no meaning for me. In contrast to that I do believe that young women give birth. The prediction is totally sound.

Now, the story of Exodus refers to a parting of the Red Sea. "Red Sea" in Hebrew is ים סוף, transliterated "yam sof", which literally means "sea of reed" (the "reed" vs "red" thing in English is coincidence. The place that parted before Moses was most likely a swamp somewhere north of Suez. The "Red Sea" was named after the Biblical term, not vice versa; so it's pointless to argue that the Bible refers to the water. I assume the story was propped up a bit, but the basic story it describes is the passing through swampland.

And that makes indeed perfect sense to me since the Jews in Egypt lived in the far north in the Delta. If they migrated to Canaan via the Sinau peninsula I cannot imagine how they would end up in the Red Sea at all.

I don't know where gods are supposed to be and I don't care if they go away when you try to look for them.

So you object to my description of their religion as "nonsense" but you insist that it is simple to prove that their gods don't exist?

That's an interesting take, to say the least.

Personally, I don't care if they exist or not. I still think that religion is nonsense. But to each his own. I have nothing against Greek pagans.

Incidentally, I read Gustav Schwab's "Sagen des klassischen Altertums" (his collection of Greek legends) in Latin school and never was under the impression that the Greek gods were thought to be only corporeal and unable of being in a non-testable state.