Battle : Science vs. Religion

[the asinine cretin]

 

"The term "Hubble volume" is also frequently (but mistakenly) used as a synonym for the observable universe; the latter is larger than the Hubble volume."

A galaxy beyond the threshold of our Hubble volume does not defy observation.

Yeah, I'm using wikipedia... but I can also get the sources...

"The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth."

 

Anything in our observable universe, by principle, can be measured... regardless if we currently have the ability to do so.

But supposedly there is an unobservable portion, right? As our universe expands, things get further from each other and increase in speed. Anything going faster than the speed of light in unobservable (because light/other signals could never reach an observer on earth)

 

Anyway, if this is true, there are tons of unobservable things out there.... things we can never use science to explain.

 

 

Wouldn't this classify as supernatural (Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.) since it contradicts special relativity? (anything going faster than the speed of light) and also by the fact that we will NEVER be able to observe it?

Therefore, our argument of anything unobservable being supernatural is correct.

I realized the Hubble volume bit after posting and just didn't care to fix it. Congratulations, you get a cookie!

 

Evidently we aren't having a discussion here because I've explained various ways in which that definition of the supernatural fails, and I've offered a better understanding, and you've not engaged my posts at all. Boring. But anyway, if that's what you want to call the supernatural, knock yourself out. We can just talk past each other, I suppose.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V

[Appolinaria]

I realized the Hubble volume bit after posting and just didn't care to fix it. Congratulations, you get a cookie!

 

Evidently we aren't having a discussion here because I've explained various ways in which that definition of the supernatural fails, and I've offered a better understanding, and you've not engaged my posts at all. Boring. But anyway, if that's what you want to call the supernatural, knock yourself out. We can just talk past each other, I suppose.

 

 

If you're going to be picky with the way someone defines something, make sure your definitions are correct.

 

I'm just here for the cookies, thx.

 

 

 

supernatural; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

things traveling faster than the speed of light; ^ same as above ^ IMO

 

My opinion is that anything unobservable would be supernatural.

 

I don't see how justifying the counter argument is "boring" but you can go on your merry way.

 

Edited October 20, 2011 by Appolinaria

[toastywombel]

Here's the thing though: Even if someone provides evidence of a new understanding, you can still chose to believe an old theory. You have to believe that an explanation is correct, and you have to believe that the right equations are being developed to describe reality and the unseeable. That's it. There's only 99.999% probability it's correct if there's a lot of evidence but you have to believe that it's 100% accurate in order to base other understanding off of it. It's like an assumption, which is a belief.

 

You are driving down a road, and there is probably much less than a 99.999999% chance that you are going to get to your destination safely. Yet you assume you are going to get there in x amount of minutes because its x amount of miles away.

 

You don't understand that most of the time, the equations and theories are not just conjured up in the head of a mad scientist then tested for reliability. On the other hand such a technique is how many go about trying to prove religion. Religion predicts some thing and people go and try to find evidence of that. Science on the other hand is based off of observation. The equations and theories are hypothesized through observation then verified by further observation. And, if observation does not match the equations or theories, the equations and theories are changed to match what is observed. Its not a belief in the equations and theories, its tested principle. Not comparable to the way one believes in a God.

 

The equations and theories in a sense gain credibility through observation,

 

God's gain credibility through mandate much of the time.

 

Finally,

 

equation-a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal

 

assumption-a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof

 

belief-something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

 

theory-a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomen

 

Those are from Dictionary.com as you can see an equation that is part of a theory is not the same as an assumption nor is it like a belief.

Edited October 20, 2011 by toastywombel

[the asinine cretin]

If you're going to be picky with the way someone defines something, make sure your definitions are correct.

 

I'm just here for the cookies, thx.

 

 

 

supernatural; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

things traveling faster than the speed of light; ^ same as above ^ IMO

 

My opinion is that anything unobservable would be supernatural.

 

I don't see how justifying the counter argument is "boring" but you can go on your merry way.

 

I'm not being picky. I've pointed out specific ways in which that definition is inadequate and you don't seem to even be aware of what I've said on this thread. Repeating myself ad nauseum to someone who apparently doesn't read what I write is not my idea of a good time. I've already reflected upon the things you're bringing up and have suggested why an adequate understanding of the concept of the supernatural must go beyond that. I refuse to repeat myself. Read my previous posts if you are interested.

Edited October 20, 2011 by the asinine cretin

[mississippichem]

 

I even found a quote from a person who's Ph. D I'm not going to question saying that science is a religion

 

http://www.sciencefo...agic-chemistry/

 

..."the religion of science..."

 

That said shortly before he stated ranting about astrology and other nonsense...

[Phi for All]

Well what created the big bang?

The entire universe was extremely hot, dense and tiny. Expansion occurred and became everything we can now observe, including time. The further back we go with the evidence we can observe, the less clear exactly what happened is. At t=10⁻³⁷ seconds, the expansion grew exponentially. From what I've read, before that, the temperature and pressures were too great to be sure what was going on.

 

What created the first life and what made life start the process of evolution?

The Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce some amino acids from inorganic carbon by replicating conditions after Earth's formation. If they could do that in a lab in a relatively short amount of time, it seems probable that abiogenesis could do a lot more with billions of years.

 

Also "only an explanation"? That's exactly why I brought it up, because people use both science AND different religions to explain things.

Who would you buy diamonds from? The guy who has really spectacular, unbelievable looking diamonds but won't let you examine them, has unverifiable stories about where they came from and has no certificates of authenticity, or the guy who has normal everyday diamonds he invites you to look at through a loupe, points out all the inclusions, weights and clarities, and has all the papers showing where they were mined and who they were purchased from?

 

When your explaining things that can't be 100% determined, there's virtually infinite room to believe whatever you want. What if god wanted evolution to happen? In the Muslim religion, science is not an enemy of god, so they'd have no problem with that. Neither does Buddhism, nor Shinto, not Judaism, nor many other religions.

Both science and religion try to explain how we are here, and that's why people are so involved in it, either science or religion or both can explain their very existence at least to some extent.

When you're explaining "things" that can't be 100% determined, the explanation with the most evidence to support it should hold more weight with you. Since no scientific theory is 100% determined, "things" means every... single... thing.

 

I think many religions are smart enough to realize that they can trust a scientific explanation for the way things are. They can easily say their god intended it that way. And you're right, evolution as a mechanism doesn't explain how that mechanism came to be. You can feel free to have your supernatural god be responsible for it.

[Appolinaria]

I'm not being picky. I've pointed out specific ways in which that definition is inadequate and you don't seem to even be aware of what I've said on this thread. Repeating myself ad nauseum to someone who apparently doesn't read what I write is not my idea of a good time. I've already reflected upon the things you're bringing up and have suggested why an adequate understanding of the concept of the supernatural must go beyond that. I refuse to repeat myself. Read my previous posts if you are interested.

 

Once I saw the mention of "Trek people" I lost all interest.

[Brainteaserfan]

noow picture a world without religion.. we would already have a base on mars

 

I admit to not having read the entire thread. But that is a pretty big jump.

[questionposter]

You are driving down a road, and there is probably much less than a 99.999999% chance that you are going to get to your destination safely. Yet you assume you are going to get there in x amount of minutes because its x amount of miles away.

 

You don't understand that most of the time, the equations and theories are not just conjured up in the head of a mad scientist then tested for reliability. On the other hand such a technique is how many go about trying to prove religion. Religion predicts some thing and people go and try to find evidence of that. Science on the other hand is based off of observation. The equations and theories are hypothesized through observation then verified by further observation. And, if observation does not match the equations or theories, the equations and theories are changed to match what is observed. Its not a belief in the equations and theories, its tested principle. Not comparable to the way one believes in a God.

 

The equations and theories in a sense gain credibility through observation,

 

God's gain credibility through mandate much of the time.

 

Finally,

 

equation-a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal

 

assumption-a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof

 

belief-something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

 

theory-a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomen

 

Those are from Dictionary.com as you can see an equation that is part of a theory is not the same as an assumption nor is it like a belief.

 

I completely understand that the equations of based off of observation, but not only is math NOT the universe itself, everything thing that makes up any observation is created by the realm of the unseeable.

 

That said shortly before he stated ranting about astrology and other nonsense...

 

Meta-physics isn't nonsense, its' just sometimes pointless. Have you ever heard of someone disproving god using evolution? Well that's metaphysics. Metaphysics is essentially considering supernatural possibilities and using conventional science to determine their nature. Metaphysics is more of the philosophy of "always consider other possibilities". "Because animals are so hostile and there's so much violence and there's a possibility of God, the nature of God is likely not an omni-compassionate being." I mean it's a little more complex than that, but you get the general idea?

Also, just in case someone thinks I'm a religious nut, I'm not, I'm currently atheist. Why I am doing this is called "Devil's Advocate" (ironic huh?), the purpose of which is to exhaust the points of a topic until you are sure of a yes or no, or to filibuster something if your in congress.

Edited October 20, 2011 by questionposter

[PeterJ]

Hang on, Questionposter, that is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the world as a whole, generally by using dialectical logic to go where observation cannot.

 

It may be that the intellectual reconciliation of science and religion (ie. a reconciliation within our own intellect) would be impossible without a study of metaphysics, and that the reason they are not already reconciled is that meta[physics is so unpopular in both camps. Dogmatic views are impossible to maintain in metaphysics, and no doubt this puts many people off.

 

Anyway, if anyone wants to set up a polite and rigorous battle between science and religion I'm up for it, and metaphysics would be my chosen field of combat. I would argue that this distinction as it is usually made is an error.

 

One problem that seems to dog these discussions is that there is often an automatic assumption that religion entails the existence of God. It does not. It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and a staunch supporter of a religious doctrine. Only our typically Protestant or Roman Catholic upbringing prevents a better understanding of this in the west. The idea would be more public if making it public hadn't involved being persecuted by the European thought police for so many past centuries. Many Christians and Muslims have suffered horribly for suggesting that God is not a existent phenomenon but a placeholder for a much more subtle idea, and some have even been cruicified and worse.

 

The battle is not between science and religion, surely, but between dogma and knowledge. We just want to get at the truth one way or the other. Neither science nor religion can be blamed for those proponents who go in for poor thinking and dogmaticism.

[questionposter]

Hang on, Questionposter, that is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the world as a whole, generally by using dialectical logic to go where observation cannot.

 

 

Well, I don't know, my grandfather took metaphysics classes and he basically told me it was like mixing religion and logical deduction.

[imatfaal]

Hang on, Questionposter, that is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the world as a whole, generally by using dialectical logic to go where observation cannot.

 

It is notoriously difficult to define metaphysics - it is probably not only "the study of the world as a whole" ; the problem of materiality and parthood is normally thought of a meta-physical quandary and is by its nature not the study of the world as a whole.

 

One of my favourite definitions was that metaphysics is all philosophy that isn't something else; there's logic, ethics, epistemology etc but everything that doesn't fit into a nice compartment of its own is metaphysics.

 

stevie's definition of it probably comes from the simple derivation of the word meta (beyond, after) and physics which could well lead one to super (above beyond) natural - but the derivation of the word metaphysics is far more mundane than that - it's the set of books by Aristotle to read after you have read the set of books called physics.

[DrRocket]

Science and religion are tools, used for different purposes. One attempts to explain the natural world, the other the supernatural.

 

Right.

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

[Appolinaria]

I'm not being picky. I've pointed out specific ways in which that definition is inadequate and you don't seem to even be aware of what I've said on this thread. Repeating myself ad nauseum to someone who apparently doesn't read what I write is not my idea of a good time. I've already reflected upon the things you're bringing up and have suggested why an adequate understanding of the concept of the supernatural must go beyond that. I refuse to repeat myself. Read my previous posts if you are interested.

 

I did read your post. Simply, I was trying to get this point across;

 

 

 

I agree that those examples are wrong. I agree that the definition of the supernatural you gave is inadequate, but you still draw the conclusion you did in #1... and that is where I disagree with you. You should not come to the conclusion you did in #1 (1. I cannot accept your definition of the supernatural as that which defies observation.) based off of one person (or even a whole group of people's) erroneous interpretation of "supernatural"...

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Science and religion are tools, used for different purposes. One attempts to explain the natural world, the other the supernatural.

 

The book of Romans (new testament) says that "everything that can be known of God can be known through the things of the natural creation."

[DrRocket]

The book of Romans (new testament) says that "everything that can be known of God can be known through the things of the natural creation."

 

 

"You can observe a lot by watching" -- Yogi Berra

 

A verifiable source.

[Phi for All]

The book of Romans (new testament) says that "everything that can be known of God can be known through the things of the natural creation."

I'm usually uncritical of religion as long as it doesn't try to use science to justify itself. You can have your faith in an unobservable god and I'm just fine with that.

 

But it is an utter garbage argument to say that because God made everything, nature itself is proof of God's existence. Or because the Bible says it, it must be true. Seriously, if you can say that you have no business calling yourself a rational human being. The Bible was expurgated for political reasons by the Council of Nicea in the fourth century to please the Emperor Constantine. Whole books, even gospels written by apostles, were removed by church leaders at the time. It may be a nice story and a basis for your faith, but it is a contaminated source of natural explanations.

[PeterJ]

The NT quote does not say that 'because God made everything nature is a proof of God's existence.' It does not even say that God exists. It just says that what we can know of God we can know through the study of natural phenomena. Whether this is true is moot, of course, but it seems a fine endorsement of the natural sciences.

 

Metaphysics is not so hard to define. The problem of materiality and parthood that has been posted by questionposter as a counter-example is normally thought of a meta-physical quandary because it is one. It asks about the fundamental properties of things, first principles, absolute properties etc. Where philosophy deals with fundamentals it is metaphysics. Materiality and parthood are classical metaphysical problems because they ask about the world as a whole.

 

I reckon your grandfather is about right, Questionposter, it does require mixing logical deduction and religion, and mathematics, psychology and few other things.

Edited October 22, 2011 by PeterJ

[Aristarchus in Exile]

I'm usually uncritical of religion as long as it doesn't try to use science to justify itself. You can have your faith in an unobservable god and I'm just fine with that.

 

But it is an utter garbage argument to say that because God made everything, nature itself is proof of God's existence. Or because the Bible says it, it must be true. Seriously, if you can say that you have no business calling yourself a rational human being. The Bible was expurgated for political reasons by the Council of Nicea in the fourth century to please the Emperor Constantine. Whole books, even gospels written by apostles, were removed by church leaders at the time. It may be a nice story and a basis for your faith, but it is a contaminated source of natural explanations.

 

Your reply is typical of those who have not received faith that God can do anything, including preserving in perfect form one book. Would you doubt a PHD if he says he has translated a tablet found burried in the sand of Babylon? Probably not.

[Phi for All]

Your reply is typical of those who have not received faith that God can do anything, including preserving in perfect form one book.

But it's not just one book. The bishops at Constantine's council poured over many writings which had been considered holy, even first-person testaments of the words of Jesus. Some they threw out, some they kept. They even threw out books that some Christians decided should be put back, like the Book of Enoch, now canon with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church (let me guess, those Christians don't count, right?).

 

Would you doubt a PHD if he says he has translated a tablet found burried in the sand of Babylon? Probably not.

All of science should doubt any one man's translation.

 

It's funny you mention it this way. Some think the reason the Council of Nicea threw out the Gospel of Thomas was because they feared he had written into his text some kind of code which could be translated later and make the fledgling church look bad. It starts out, "And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."

 

It talked about trusting the teachings of Christ and not to listen to those who would grab leadership of the church to interpret it in their own way. One passage says, "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'"

 

James the Just was executed by the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus during a brief gap in the succession of Procurators, when the church was the only law available. It was considered murder by many of those involved, and later King Agrippa decided to remove ben Ananus from his position. It's obvious that the fledgling Catholic Church wouldn't want any reminders of that incident to make their way into the canon.

 

But what gave them the right to remove anything that Jesus said?

[John Cuthber]

"Would you doubt a PHD if he says he has translated a tablet found burried in the sand of Babylon? "

It would depend what he claimed it said.

If he said it was a record of some dull stuff about who had paid their taxes that year then I'd probably believe it.

But if he claimed it said "a big spaceship came down piloted by Elvis riding on Shergar" then I wouldn't trust the translation without a lot of other evidence.

[questionposter]

"Would you doubt a PHD if he says he has translated a tablet found burried in the sand of Babylon? "

It would depend what he claimed it said.

If he said it was a record of some dull stuff about who had paid their taxes that year then I'd probably believe it.

But if he claimed it said "a big spaceship came down piloted by Elvis riding on Shergar" then I wouldn't trust the translation without a lot of other evidence.

 

That is very ignorant because what if the people who wrote that tablet "thought" they say a space ship? That's essentially what's already happened with all religions. People wrote down or at least in some way recorded super-natural things they thought they say throughout the course of history. There's plenty of ancient scriptures that portray higher beings descending from the heavens.

Edited October 22, 2011 by questionposter

[Aristarchus in Exile]

But it's not just one book. The bishops at Constantine's council poured over many writings which had been considered holy, even first-person testaments of the words of Jesus. Some they threw out, some they kept. They even threw out books that some Christians decided should be put back, like the Book of Enoch, now canon with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and Eritrean Orthodox Church (let me guess, those Christians don't count, right?).

 

 

All of science should doubt any one man's translation.

 

It's funny you mention it this way. Some think the reason the Council of Nicea threw out the Gospel of Thomas was because they feared he had written into his text some kind of code which could be translated later and make the fledgling church look bad. It starts out, "And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all."

 

It talked about trusting the teachings of Christ and not to listen to those who would grab leadership of the church to interpret it in their own way. One passage says, "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, 'No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'"

 

James the Just was executed by the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus during a brief gap in the succession of Procurators, when the church was the only law available. It was considered murder by many of those involved, and later King Agrippa decided to remove ben Ananus from his position. It's obvious that the fledgling Catholic Church wouldn't want any reminders of that incident to make their way into the canon.

 

But what gave them the right to remove anything that Jesus said?

 

First of all the Roman Catholic 'church' was an organization preceeded by about 300 years by the true Christian church which began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, therefore anything the Roman Catholic organization did or does should not reflect on the Christian church or teachings. The Douay bible which the modern RCs use says that anyone who forbids to marry has departed from the faith, the RCs forbid their priests to marry so they are not Christian. All accurate translations include that same passage, I bellieve it is 1 Timothy 4, 1 2, 3. The Jesuits were and are the secret police of the RC organization. They are dedicated to destroying the true Church and true believers, which is why the true church is in hiding, not found in the telephone book or on the web. The 'Apostles Creed' repeated in most services of most or all denominations, especially during communion, says 'The Holy Catholic Church' because the spirit cannot confess Christ, or the words would be The Holy Christian Church or phrase identifying Jesus Christ. I have no doubt I could be killed for saying these things if my influence on many was feared, in the same way bible translators and bible copyers were burned at the stake, killed by the hundreds, etc. The quote "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just ..." is false because although James was Jesus' brother he also said false prophets would say, 'Go here, or go there .. but the kingdom of God is within you.' There is no need to go anywhere. Possibly the greatest miracle next to salvation through the blood of Jesus is that the bible is perfect, that it is available widely, that if it were followed all our earthly problems would be solved, that there would be no more war, that although there would still be poor people they would be cared for. "The poor you always have with you." I use the King James bible, but the Douay also seems perfect in every word. It is all we need. Will it survive the attack of the modern age for saying things like 'homosexuality is abomination to God' ? We will see what the future holds. The haters of truth might never see that those words are in the bible, God might blind them to them so the scripture will survive. By the way, Muslims hold that the old as well as the new testament are true.

 

That is very ignorant because what if the people who wrote that tablet "thought" they say a space ship? That's essentially what's already happened with all religions. People wrote down or at least in some way recorded super-natural things they thought they say throughout the course of history. There's plenty of ancient scriptures that portray higher beings descending from the heavens.

 

Yes, 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took them for wives.'

 

I don't have all the answers in my mind .. but I know they are in the book. Whatever the answers are, everything I learn of science confirms that God was an intelligent being who created all, and that we will find eternity a lovely place .. that is the comfort of believing the scriptures, above all else.

 

"Would you doubt a PHD if he says he has translated a tablet found burried in the sand of Babylon? "

It would depend what he claimed it said.

If he said it was a record of some dull stuff about who had paid their taxes that year then I'd probably believe it.

But if he claimed it said "a big spaceship came down piloted by Elvis riding on Shergar" then I wouldn't trust the translation without a lot of other evidence.

 

Here in Ottawa, Canada, exists an Elvis Sighting Society. I will ask them about Shergar.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[John Cuthber]

"Here in Ottawa, Canada, exists an Elvis Sighting Society. I will ask them about Shergar. "

That's only a little bit odd.

Here in the UK we have a group who believe that the world was made in 7 days about 6000 years ago by some invisible "sky fairy" who keeps an unnaturally close eye on what you do in bed (and with whom) but can't seem to stop millions of believers being killed by earthquakes, tidal waves and so on. Incidentally, they think he's everywhere, but invisible and, just to add to the fun, he carefully evades any test that you can come up with for testing his existence. In spite of thet they have an edict saying that you shouldn't try to test him anyway.

Even more frightening are some of the people who believe in him. They think their weird thoughts are a just basis for killing people, even though one of the clearest instructions attributed to the entity is that you shouldn't do that.

 

Nowt so queer as folk as they say round here.

 

And, Questionposter,

I didn't just say a spaceship did I?

No.

I said a ship with Elvis and shergar in it.

Do you see what you have done there?

What you have done is misrepresent what I said by something that's not valid, then use it to question the validity of what I said.

It's called straw-manning, and you shouldn't do it.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

"Here in Ottawa, Canada, exists an Elvis Sighting Society. I will ask them about Shergar. "

That's only a little bit odd.

Here in the UK we have a group who believe that the world was made in 7 days about 6000 years ago by some invisible "sky fairy" who keeps an unnaturally close eye on what you do in bed (and with whom) but can't seem to stop millions of believers being killed by earthquakes, tidal waves and so on. Incidentally, they think he's everywhere, but invisible and, just to add to the fun, he carefully evades any test that you can come up with for testing his existence. In spite of thet they have an edict saying that you shouldn't try to test him anyway.

Even more frightening are some of the people who believe in him. They think their weird thoughts are a just basis for killing people, even though one of the clearest instructions attributed to the entity is that you shouldn't do that.

 

Nowt so queer as folk as they say round here.

 

And, Questionposter,

I didn't just say a spaceship did I?

No.

I said a ship with Elvis and shergar in it.

Do you see what you have done there?

What you have done is misrepresent what I said by something that's not valid, then use it to question the validity of what I said.

It's called straw-manning, and you shouldn't do it.

 

Well John, you gave me a chuckle, and that's a compliment to you not an insult. Yes, the problem with those who say they are believers killing people for God is that very few of them are killing for God, most of them are killing people for crude oil, diamonds, etc., and are not believers in anything except lots of $$$$$$$$$$. I think a tiny fraction of Muslims may truly believe they are killing for God, and perhaps the same tiny fraction of those who are Christians, as the mind can become deranged, and the bible in the old testament does allow foir killing for God .. but the New Testament disallows killing by believers in Jesus Christ, and that's for sure. Muslims, by the way, are by their religion supposed to believe in the old, the new, and the koran qu'ran however it's spelled. As far as earthquakes etc go natural phenomena seems to be used by God to bring us to our senses, I understand Phucket (the name gives a clue)was a hotbed similar to Sodom and Gomorah, which should be publishing huge headlines saying "Aids Killls" but can't seem to see a connection despite the statistics. And then there was the Christian in the new testatment who would not stop having sex with his father's wife, that fellow being delivered to Satan for destruction of his flesh, and coming to repentance and being saved from that destructiion and welcomed back into the church. God is judge. Should evil not be punished if the evildoer does not repent? In the supposedly 'moral' and nominally Christian country of Canada where I live 1/3 of us die from cancer, 1/3 from heart failure .. does it have something to do with the fact that we killed hundreds of thousands of chiodren in ww2 europe, thousand in Afghanistan, probably hundreds in Libya? I think it is a direct result. The earth is set for judgement .. a little earthquake killing a few tens of thousands is a trifle in the coming judgement, soon to happen, very soon.