yes but God sent them.

I'll respond with a line with some poem I can't remember

'What is man that he should claim to be able to understand God?'

Or something like that

Also God may love us but he is just. He punishes or disciplines but at the same time, he still loves us. Look at parents, they hurt their children as a form of discipline (smacking) because they love us

Now I'm off to bed

Nooo!
I love discussion with you though!
Anyway, I'll post my reply now anyway. What about all the children that die during childbirth? They did nothing wrong. And I'm sure people that were poor and moped about on the street and never intentionally harmed anything died from that plauge.

Unhealthy circumstances, evolution of a specific microorganism which led to a form of symbiosis with a parasite which parasited a very common mammal, due to the lack of hygienics. The fact that there were no man-made anti-biotics also furthered the advance of the Black Death.

Jews were often less affected by the bubonic plague. This is because their laws stresses cleanliness.



That is science abuse. That statement is simply false. Science only leads to certain abstractions called laws. These laws point to nothing but the subjects they entice, which is not God.



It would be unlikely in your eyes, but it would not be illogical (since that is an objective chaacteristic). However, I wonder whether it is that unlikely if you add the elements of metaphysical existence (thus undemonstrable) and human freedom and responsibility (meaning we have the responsibility to cope with the things we experience during our lives).

It is not as if God does not take responsibility in the Christian worldview: He sacrifices His Son, the Holy Spirit is still concerned with human faith and he gave the Bible to humans. Then he is also said to enact final judgment and raise the dead to the afterlife. I'd say that is taking responsibility, the afterlife is also mentioned to be in beatitude.



I do not think death is the most horrible thing to happen if there is an afterlife. I know you might not believe in it, but in a Christian worldview, it is consistent. I think that is ample

Then secondly, due to the deprave nature of humans, I do not think we deserve living on Earth in the first place (which is regarded a gift from God). That we do live is to be regarded as a bonus, not as to be taken for granted. In this view, I think it is legitimate for God to take lives, which is not evil because of (1) the (possible) afterlife and (2) us not deserving this at all.

I doubt this view is likable to you, though.

Comments are in bold.

I don't think it was sent as much as a lynx is sent to catch and kill a rabbit. It is just the freedom of other life-forms to develop, which I think also have some right to have existed, whether they are disadvantageous to us or not. Though I believe God has influenced the development of species, I do not think he always intervenes natural movement.



Actually, logics fail to demonstrate the truth of science. The Problem of Hume is related to this.



It is not, religion and science can be included into a metaphysical worldview where natural laws can fail when God intervenes directly.

Then there is the fact science has not been logically proven to be true.



This has to do with belief in souls. Many people nowadays do not believe in dualism of body and soul, but there has not been the slightest change of proof against them since at least Galen's days. Back then there was also an understood relation between physical well-being and mental functioning, but that relation does not argue against dualism at all.

It is not as much rational as being based on what we observe (which is sound) and excluding what we can't (which is not sounds and therefore not necessarily right).

Baring angeldemonica's contributions, I'll say this is a pretty interesting thread.

In the interest of further debate, instead of saying science is opposed to religion, think about science working with religion. Religions like Islam or Buddhism.

I would say that they are both different and similar in their goals. In general both try to explain phenomena and existential questions, but science generally is confined to the physical, while religion nowadays is mostly confined to the metaphysical (but used to explain many physical phenomena in ancient times). Because of that, it is hard for science to make claims about religion, while many religious people accept science to a degree (also fundamentalists). Science is basically concerned with processes, mechanistic phenomena, while religion is in essence teleological, looking for purpose. Therefore science is often not good for answering existential questions.

The relation is often more complex than just a conflict. Several fields of science have been much stimulated by religious authorities, both Muslim as Catholic as Protestant ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_religion

That article has some very interesting points to make.

I'd say that Science is the 'how' of the world - how does this work, how does the sky get get its colour? (In essence anyway), whereas religion answers the why questions: why do I exist, why do we fall in love, why is there bad stuff in the world? and so forth. They are different tools for understanding the world around us answering different questions)

Both of these are easily explained by science.

Can Science explain why you fall in love with one person and not another? Science can give some boundaries but not the full reasoning

What exactly do you consider to be "love"?

Sex hormones cause you to be attracted to other people. Why you are attracted to certain people more than others is just a personal preference.

Hell no it dosen't answer it.

"Some dude popped out of no where and made two people out of dirt, they then had kids, then the siblings had kids with eachother, ect." Dosen't go down as an answer in my book.

Okay, after reading through the pages I've missed, I wanted to reply to quite a few posts, but I'll start with a more recent one.

Dvdv: You exist because you were born, Love and "bad" are concepts.

I think that morals, from a religious point of view is more than a concept. A concept changes from your viewpoint but morals shouldn't (admittedly they do but they shouldn't). Within a religion there are many viewpoints but there should be one moral standing

By love I don't mean the physical attraction, I mean there are some people you just want to be friends with, no matter how close you get. Why is that?

Geno, you're mistaking the question 'why do we exist' for 'how do we exist': two very different things in which the difference is becoming increasingly unrecognized.

EDIT: This has become easily the most enjoyable topic to post in

A fair point about morals, but you asked about what science says about them.
I've ALWAYS thought love was very overthought-out (Which is now a word). I mean, it basically means that you think they're cool as a person and you think they're hot.