What was the real relation between Science and the Church?

[Mickiel]

I'm all for it as long as people start tithing to whatever national science institute their country runs. Remember people, giving to science is like giving to the church!

I don't tithe and I don't attend or give to any church, nor do I give anything to science; but I think science is the child of the church, a birth that history keeps them from hiding. And they are ashamed of that parent and have tried to disown them. There would have been no " Scientific Revolution" unless the church and science were bedfellows in their history; and the church used to control science. As all parents once controlled their children.

This is one reason why some science still hates religion, and why some religion still hates science; its a " Family thing!"

 

[Laine]

I think of people like Galileo, one of the founding fathers of "modern science" and "modern physics". Many of his contributions to science lead to new discoveries like for instance the Earth Revolving around the sun contradictory of what the Church at that time said. His discoveries were declared false by the Roman Inquisition of 1615 but he continued to publish his findings in banned astronomy books and was ultimately ordered by the Pope to be put under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Of course now we know the Galileo had it right...

The thing is once science had caught up to and looked past what the Church deemed as "how it works" is where the problem began, splitting the 2 literally worlds apart. I believe many scholars of science since then have taken it upon themselves to take it steps farther trying to actually disprove the very existence of God which a valid point can be made in this argument, but also there is no definitive proof of a God or that there isn't a God. It simply can be proved one way or the other.

Anyway, I have my own version of belief, it includes portions of the Bible and science combined to how I can best relate and accept things as they are.

 

[Mickiel]

I think of people like Galileo, one of the founding fathers of "modern science" and "modern physics". Many of his contributions to science lead to new discoveries like for instance the Earth Revolving around the sun contradictory of what the Church at that time said. His discoveries were declared false by the Roman Inquisition of 1615 but he continued to publish his findings in banned astronomy books and was ultimately ordered by the Pope to be put under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Of course now we know the Galileo had it right...

The thing is once science had caught up to and looked past what the Church deemed as "how it works" is where the problem began, splitting the 2 literally worlds apart. I believe many scholars of science since then have taken it upon themselves to take it steps farther trying to actually disprove the very existence of God which a valid point can be made in this argument, but also there is no definitive proof of a God or that there isn't a God. It simply can be proved one way or the other.

Anyway, I have my own version of belief, it includes portions of the Bible and science combined to how I can best relate and accept things as they are.

Well I agree with most of your post, I disagree that God cannot be proven, he most certainly can, and by mostly using scientific discoveries in that process; but that is my view. I have my own version of belief as well. Science cannot disprove God, and their work will eventually lead them to know that God is real, its just academic; truth can only lead to truth.

But the problem between the church and science did begin as you have noted, I agree with that. But notice that science was " In the church", not outside of it. It was an integral part of the church; there was a definite relationship!

 

[Laine]

Well I agree with most of your post, I disagree that God cannot be proven, he most certainly can, and by mostly using scientific discoveries in that process; but that is my view. I have my own version of belief as well. Science cannot disprove God, and their work will eventually lead them to know that God is real, its just academic; truth can only lead to truth.

But the problem between the church and science did begin as you have noted, I agree with that. But notice that science was " In the church", not outside of it. It was an integral part of the church; there was a definite relationship!

I am not one who likes to cause conflict, but what you say above? You can prove God exist? I do not claim God does not exist or exist as there is no way I know to prove or disprove his existence. But I must see this proof you claim.

 

[Mickiel]

I am not one who likes to cause conflict, but what you say above? You can prove God exist? I do not claim God does not exist or exist as there is no way I know to prove or disprove his existence. But I must see this proof you claim.

Rather than list it here, because I think this site has grown tired of my threads getting long, ( because the proof is quite extensive), you can go to any of the archives at these sites, City-data.com, Spiritualforums.com, or Forumgarden.com; of course go to the religion sections and search for the 100 proofs of God, or at Forumgarden.com you can look under The current Thread " Is God Real?", in that thread, which has lasted over 3 years and over 100,000 views, I give all kinds of proofs, and I am still giving them, its not finished. Many Atheist there have grown tired of it, but the site at least lets it continue. City-data banned me from listing any more proofs. The same thing would happen here if I started the list, ( because its over 3,000 pages at other sites), so I am not trying to avoid answering, just not here at this site. You have to respect who controls sites and the sense that they give you.

 

[JesseCuster]

Oh, I see the type of proofs you use: easily all usable for any religion and silly at the same time.

Here's #101: Pringles. Pringles are crunchy and salty and delicious. Everyone knows that crunchy, salty, delicious things come from other crunch, salty, delicious things but physicists have shown that the beginning of the Universe, no salt existed - so there must be a God!

I can see why your style of posts get you banned though - you're talking to nobody and they hardly make sense. In fact, the emotional content of the first responses, to your thread, you get here is just befuddlement.

 

[Mickiel]

Oh, I see the type of proofs you use: easily all usable for any religion and silly at the same time.

Here's #101: Pringles. Pringles are crunchy and salty and delicious. Everyone knows that crunchy, salty, delicious things come from other crunch, salty, delicious things but physicists have shown that the beginning of the Universe, no salt existed - so there must be a God!

I can see why your style of posts get you banned though - you're talking to nobody and they hardly make sense. In fact, the emotional content of the first responses, to your thread, you get here is just befuddlement.

I think Salt is a proof of God, because its a " Natural Mineral", formed in the earth millions of years ago. Just more stunning proof that the earth was " Designed to suit man", a mind designed it to be FOR man, even to the detail of providing salt for us to preserve things and food, and even flavor the food! Obvious intellect behind even Salt.

And I totally disagree with your opinion that " I am talking to nobody", prove that by showing me any thread I started that nobody read. Most threads I start always get read by many many people who are interested; and the proof of that is on any site I listed. Including this site.
------

I am not one who likes to cause conflict, but what you say above? You can prove God exist? I do not claim God does not exist or exist as there is no way I know to prove or disprove his existence. But I must see this proof you claim.

I can also refer you to the thread, " Can Science reveal God", at Spiritualforums.com, and I get into differing proofs of God in that one.

Because science has a truck load of proofs for God being real.

 

[Laine]

I think Salt is a proof of God, because its a " Natural Mineral", formed in the earth millions of years ago. Just more stunning proof that the earth was " Designed to suit man", a mind designed it to be FOR man, even to the detail of providing salt for us to preserve things and food, and even flavor the food! Obvious intellect behind even Salt.

And I totally disagree with your opinion that " I am talking to nobody", prove that by showing me any thread I started that nobody read. Most threads I start always get read by many many people who are interested; and the proof of that is on any site I listed. Including this site.
------



I can also refer you to the thread, " Can Science reveal God", at Spiritualforums.com, and I get into differing proofs of God in that one.

Because science has a truck load of proofs for God being real.

I think our views of God differ. I believe God was in fact a man, just a human being like you and I. I believe he was the teacher of teachers. I think for instance, the Bible says God created man in his image. This I think most take literal when I believe it means God (the man) taught man to be like him in a time when man was just developing and at the end of evolution. God created the Earth the moon, the sun. Again he explained these things and put them into terms people could understand.

I also believe God was proceeded by another "God", and so on for centuries possibility, until man or the current God was satisfied that man could learn on his own. I think this also is why Science began with Church. I think the division of science and church is due to the interpretations of religious scriptures and the committees who decide how to interpret it.

I know this is not a typical view and I have no proof except my own personal interpretation of religious scripture. So I do not boast my believe because to me faith is not something to be pushed or even preached, faith is meant to be personal.

 

[Mickiel]

I think our views of God differ. I believe God was in fact a man, just a human being like you and I. I believe he was the teacher of teachers. I think for instance, the Bible says God created man in his image. This I think most take literal when I believe it means God (the man) taught man to be like him in a time when man was just developing and at the end of evolution. God created the Earth the moon, the sun. Again he explained these things and put them into terms people could understand.

I also believe God was proceeded by another "God", and so on for centuries possibility, until man or the current God was satisfied that man could learn on his own. I think this also is why Science began with Church. I think the division of science and church is due to the interpretations of religious scriptures and the committees who decide how to interpret it.

I know this is not a typical view and I have no proof except my own personal interpretation of religious scripture. So I do not boast my believe because to me faith is not something to be pushed or even preached, faith is meant to be personal.

Yes our views do differ, and I have no faith myself, I only believe in the facts as I understand them, and my understanding of them is not perfect and grows. I believe the image of God means " Consciousness"; so man being created in God's image means we are conscious as God is conscious; or that consciousness comes from God, and not from self created magical millinial growing chemicals. I think the division of Science and church began with the temperments of men as they faced disagreements. Because both church men and scientist were " Men." But their temperments grew apart, I think it was " Ego", both wanted to be the represenitives of truth. Both wanted the position of " Revealer", teacher and the annointed.

I think that was the heart of it.

 

[Mickiel]

The church and science were destined to grow together for awhile; and needed each other for that time. Science only can reveal what is already there; like a magnifying glass, it can help us see and understand better what God had done;

but then science decided that God did not do it, it just did it on its own. Then the church rebelled against science.