Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: FeLiXe on May 29, 2006, 02:06:07 PM
-
I don't understand what all the fighting is about
it seems more like a strength test to me
I could perfectly believe in God creating the world 6000 years ago and making it look like it was created through evolution
then evolution would still be the appropriate scientific theory. God apparently did not choose to be proven by science
personally I don't think Gen 1, 2 are to be taken seriously though
-
I could perfectly believe in God creating the world 6000 years ago and making it look like it was created through evolution
then evolution would still be the appropriate scientific theory
Its not only evolution, but fossil fuels and 14C dating and other dating methods (amongst many other arguments) which make the world being 6000 years old very hard to believe.
I think these people are perfectly entitled to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago by God but I also believe that I am entitled to believe they're completely wrong, but I don't want to take sides too much because it is quite a sensitive issue for some people.
-
what I am saying is that it would be no problem for God to create fossil fuels, tree fossils with only little amounts of 14C and so on. if He chose that science could not prove or disprove Him scientists won't be able to.
on the other hand I don't think religion should intervene with science. they are just two totally different things.
-
I could perfectly believe in God creating the world 6000 years ago and making it look like it was created through evolution
then evolution would still be the appropriate scientific theory.
Timescale of evolution >> 6000 yrs!
-
Sorry for this somewhat obscure reference, but has anyone read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown? The plot is somewhat an intertwining of science and religion. If anyone needs a summer book, you may like the one I mentioned.
-
Timescale of evolution >> 6000 yrs!
Let's say someone copied our world today and created a new world just like it. Then the people in the new world would think they had been around for a while because everything is the same as in our world. But in fact that world was just created. They people couldn't tell.
In fact we can't tell if our world was just created yesterday and made to look like it has been around for longer. To use Poppers words: The theory that the world was just created at any specific date cannot be falsified by any scientific meanst. Therefore it's not a scientific theory. So why do scientists bother argueing?
I am just thinking that the religious and scientific approaches to those questions are totally different and shouldn't be mixed up.
-
In fact we can't tell if our world was just created yesterday and made to look like it has been around for longer.
I have always loved this philosophy.
Could be like the Matrix..
I think I remember Douglas Adams saying something similar....
-
Since this is my introducing myself thread, I feel like I have a right to ask stupid questions here. Is there a way to set this forum to display new posts? I can't find it if there is one, could you please direct me to it?
-
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?action=recent
-
Thank you Borek.
-
Let's say someone copied our world today and created a new world just like it. Then the people in the new world would think they had been around for a while because everything is the same as in our world. But in fact that world was just created. They people couldn't tell.
You are assuming there is a Creator.
Religious-wise, people assume there is a Creator, and therefore explains their daily observation with reference to the Creator. Scientifically, the way to seek God is to infer if there is a pattern in our daily observations and natural phenomena, then conclude if there is a Creator.
ID is essentially Creatism repackaged because it fundementally assumes there is a Creator, then using the Creator to explain the experiment, and then conclude there must be a Creator. It is the the age-old cyclic arguments used by Christians to justify their beliefs.
I used to be a Christian. I gave up on it because it cannot reconcile with Science.
-
Let's say someone copied our world today and created a new world just like it. Then the people in the new world would think they had been around for a while because everything is the same as in our world. But in fact that world was just created. They people couldn't tell.
I believe there is a Pratchett book (Strata?) that starts with this idea - someone works in the planet bulding company (no, it is not Douglas Adams book ;) ) and he lies sediment layers with fossils (occasionally adding - just for fun - thing like Presley poster or something). No idea what is the title nor what the book is about, I have only scanned several pages in the bookstore several years ago.
-
I believe there is a Pratchett book (Strata?) that starts with this idea - someone works in the planet bulding company (no, it is not Douglas Adams book ;) ) and he lies sediment layers with fossils (occasionally adding - just for fun - thing like Presley poster or something). No idea what is the title nor what the book is about, I have only scanned several pages in the bookstore several years ago.
Has anyone catched the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy? In the final part of the movie, after Earth was destroyed, it was recreated by a Planet-Building Company. And they get this guy (Billy Mack) to dress in white to act as the director of the company. LOL. The point to take note was these guys can rebuild a planet, but they don't have the means to reconstruct the universe from scratch. They can rebuild Earth and make it seem it is supposed to be of a particular age, but they cannot change that of the universe.
-
I saw the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I kind of want to read the book. That would be a scary thing if mice had commisioned our planet. Maybe that's where the author got the idea for the book (which eventually got turned into a movie). ;)
-
Of course I believe in Big Bang:
(https://www.chemicalforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oelen.net%2Fbigbang.jpg&hash=e56585ee2f755d9647c266785cb186baf8b616e0)
Many years after the big bang, Darwin's party started. Let's see whether Darwin was right or not. I'm sure we will figure out in a few million years.
-
Silkworm, what stand do you take in defending the sciences?
-
I basically agree with the logic presented by Felixe. Science is just a job. It is used to predict events using simple models of nature. It is neither contradictory or supportive of the "how" the universe was created. I was always amazed at the arrogance and brashness of university professors telling impressionable 18-21 year old kids in the sciences their opinions about the non-existence of a god. I am more or less non-religious, however, one should look closely at the shear odds of the conditions on planet Earth that are necessary to sustain life before dismissing "god".
Geodome- In response to your question about right wing Christians in the US. Yes. They are here. They are running (and wrecking) the country. It would be nice to see a true separation of church and state one day.
-
I basically agree with the logic presented by Felixe. Science is just a job. It is used to predict events using simple models of nature. It is neither contradictory or supportive of the "how" the universe was created.
I would argue otherwise, but I'll leave that to someone else if they want to pick up on how science is suppotive of a theory in how the universe was created :P.
one should look closely at the shear odds of the conditions on planet Earth that are necessary to sustain life before dismissing "god".
Surely the fact that there are odds is proof that there need'nt be a god for life to exist? Someone should make up the odds for a god existing... ;)
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the odds of a god creating life are better than those of life creating itself through a series of 'lucky' chemical reactions (apparently), but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons. I would say religion isn't about odds- it would be like people of a certain religion saying that there is a 40% chance that there religion is completely wrong ;D (or something along those lines...)! I went to a catholic school for 7 years and they were hard on religious education so I believe I've heard their side of the story, but if anyone knows better please correct me :).
If extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?
-
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the odds of a god creating life are better than those of life creating itself through a series of 'lucky' chemical reactions (apparently), but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons. I would say religion isn't about odds- it would be like people of a certain religion saying that there is a 40% chance that there religion is completely wrong ;D (or something along those lines...)! I went to a catholic school for 7 years and they were hard on religious education so I believe I've heard their side of the story, but if anyone knows better please correct me :).
If extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?
I'd say hope is definitely one of them. It's not easy to leave the hope of miracles or a pleasant afterlife behind, especially during hard times.
As for the discovery of extraterrestrial life affecting religious views, I don't think it would have that much impact. Religious leaders could just argue that their god(s) didn't need to mention aliens to lay down the law, that the scriptures only had what we needed to know.
Personally, I think there are extraterrestrial lifeforms out there. There's just so many solar systems out there to overcomer the high odds of life forming.
-
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the odds of a god creating life are better than those of life creating itself through a series of 'lucky' chemical reactions (apparently), but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons...
If extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?
I'd say hope is definitely one of them. It's not easy to leave the hope of miracles or a pleasant afterlife behind, especially during hard times.
Yeah, I agree with you on that one- I remember about 5/6 years ago making a pretty poster of about 20 reasons why poeple believe in god (and christianity) and I've forgotten nearly all of them :(.
As for the discovery of extraterrestrial life affecting religious views, I don't think it would have that much impact. Religious leaders could just argue that their god(s) didn't need to mention aliens to lay down the law, that the scriptures only had what we needed to know.
Personally, I think there are extraterrestrial lifeforms out there. There's just so many solar systems out there to counter those odds of life forming.
Thats an interesting point of view- I can see religious leaders using that argument; they're very imaginative!
Although I would say that proof/discovery of extraterrestrial life would significantly damage most religions' credibility.
-
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the (...) but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons.
I have a gut feeling that most people prefer (for selfish reasons ;) ) to believe they were created and not evolved. Somehow they feel better this way.
At the same time I have a friend who believes very strong in God - but it doesn't stop him from supporting evolution. He once told me that using creationism to explain irreducible complexity is simply taking the easy way out instead of doing the hard work to understand the phenomena.
Thinkng hurts.
-
If extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?
I am a christian and I do not think it has much impact (at least not on my belief). The bible does not need to mention it. For us it is not important whether there is aextraterrestrial life or not, at least not from a religious point of view.
Personally I'm inclined to believe that there is extraterrestrial life. There are so many stars and planets. I think that somewhere out there, there will be life, maybe even intelligent life. On the other hand, I also believe that we will NEVER find and meet any such life forms, because they are so far away. Maybe we find some primitive life forms in our own solar system and that would be very interesting, but for me it would not be a problem for my belief. If God can create life on earth, then He also can create life on other planets/moons. I do not believe that earth is central in the universe, although it is central for mankind.
-
Silkworm, what stand do you take in defending the sciences?
Hey geodome, sorry for the late reply.
Well, my overall stance is complex, but right now the biggest issue is the creationism/ID movement. I've been to a few meetings and looked at a lot of creationism/ID media and it appears as though these creation scientists either misrepresent textbook science when they talk about it or they outright lie about it so their silly, nonscientific arguments won't sound as silly to its target audience of nonscientists, who don't have a frame of reference on which to criticize the material in which they are being presented.
I'm all for disproving any scientific theory, that's what science is all about, but you must do so with science, not with no data and poor methodology up against a strawman, and I find it insulting that anyone would go and lie to well meaning people in order to use them as pawns, especially since there is absolutely no conflict between science and religion unless the interpreter chooses to create one by misapplying both.
I'm really short on time here, and I hope that was a decent enough explanation. I have explanations on my blog, and to show the type of people creation scientists are read my latest blog about the Return of Lucas.
-
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line. Too many scientists enjoy science fiction as being true. Look at how many scientists believe in life on mars or little green men. One highschool physics teacher told students he believed in time travel. These are the same guys who won't accept the truth of God and try to force young kids to give up their religion.
God has been proven to exist, his son walked the earth. People saw his miracles. It has been believed for over 2000 years. Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.
The Bible is not a history of the world, with every detail. It is only the most important events and parables.
-
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line. Too many scientists enjoy science fiction as being true. Look at how many scientists believe in life on mars or little green men. One highschool physics teacher told students he believed in time travel. These are the same guys who won't accept the truth of God and try to force young kids to give up their religion.
To believe in something regardless if it is absolutely true is a human character. It gives us hope, comfort, and strength to perserve. Believing in time travel does not make time travel possible. Every scientist knows that deep in his heart. This is not brain-washing. This is just manifestation of the human spirit.
However, the difference between science and religion is regardless of your beliefs, science is true, unlike religion. Science is true absolutely. It is the systematic and objective description and analysis of day-to-day phenomena. In comparision, the extent of in truth of one's religions depends on the individual. Religious truth is perceptive and not absolute.
God has been proven to exist, his son walked the earth. People saw his miracles. It has been believed for over 2000 years. Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.
Isn't this the classic Chrstian cyclic arguement. First assume there is a God, then assume God sent his son to Earth, then pick an ancient person from historical records and say that person is the Son of God, so there must be a God. WOW. I am impressed by your arguement!
The Bible is not a history of the world, with every detail. It is only the most important events and parables.
At least someone agrees the biblical age of universe is not accurate. LOL.
-
God has been proven to exist, his son walked the earth. People saw his miracles. It has been believed for over 2000 years. Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.
Isn't this the classic Chrstian cyclic arguement. First assume there is a God, then assume God sent his son to Earth, then pick an ancient person from historical records and say that person is the Son of God, so there must be a God. WOW. I am impressed by your arguement!
The universe didn't come from nowhere. The only one with the power to make the universe is God. There is too much beauty in nature for it to be random. When I look into the night sky, and see the stars, it is like a painting.
The proof of God is Jesus. He walked the earth. He is not just "some guy from history". Too many people witnessed his acts, his miracles. He cured people who were sick. He rose from the dead. And even today, there are miracles by people like Mother Teresa. There are miracles that science can not expalin.
-
The universe didn't come from nowhere. The only one with the power to make the universe is God.
I am interested in the real beginning - so assuming God created the Universe, my question gets shifted back in time - where did the God came from?
-
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line.
the difference between science and religion is regardless of your beliefs, science is true
Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.
The objectivity of science allows you to modify it, change it. Over time, science refines itself through the method that it is established. This is not because of there is no absolute truth in science, but because science seeks the absolute truth inherently and continuously. Scientists continuously question and challenge established theories and principles with new data to refine the theories already put forth to produce a more accurate description of our universe. Religion does not do that. Religion assumes there is a God responsible for everything around us, and it stops there. What sort of logical route is that?
-
I am interested in the real beginning - so assuming God created the Universe, my question gets shifted back in time - where did the God came from?
Baseball_fan: which come first - the chicken or the egg?
-
The universe didn't come from nowhere. The only one with the power to make the universe is God.
I am interested in the real beginning - so assuming God created the Universe, my question gets shifted back in time - where did the God came from?
One day, he might tell us. Only he knows the answer to that question!
-
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line.
the difference between science and religion is regardless of your beliefs, science is true
Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.
The objectivity of science allows you to modify it, change it. Over time, science refines itself through the method that it is established. This is not because of there is no absolute truth in science, but because science seeks the absolute truth inherently and continuously. Scientists continuously question and challenge established theories and principles with new data to refine the theories already put forth to produce a more accurate description of our universe. Religion does not do that. Religion assumes there is a God responsible for everything around us, and it stops there. What sort of logical route is that?
It is very logical. God does not do things because we demand it. God does things in his own logic, which is superior to our own. We are limited to our perceptions, He is not. I'll give you an example out of scientific research, the superstring theory. Those scientists believe we live in more dimensions than we can perceive. Why should humans be so narcissistic to demand that we're capable of being all knowing? There are many things we will never know; at least not while we're mortal beings on earth.
I would rather take the absolute truth in God and hold it dear, than to take the relative truth of science. That is not to say I don't believe science can be usefull, I just undertsand the limitations of science.
You can have both. You can believe the absolute truth in God, while using the senses that God gave us to make life as good as possible while we're on earth.
-
These are things I try to avoid thinking about. I'll go as far as thinking what our world is made of, and how our planet and us were formed.
I avoid thinking about where everything came from. Things like String Theory, Big Bang, God, etc., I just avoid it, because it only leads to more and more questions. I just accept that something major happened a long time ago that caused all of the things on the standard model to come into existence, and that's that. I just accept the standard model.
I do think about how everything interacts though and how we evolved, things like that, but that is a real brain twister because there is so much.
O and by standard model, I'm talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model
-
We are limited to our perceptions, He is not. I'll give you an example out of scientific research, the superstring theory. Those scientists believe we live in more dimensions than we can perceive. Why should humans be so narcissistic to demand that we're capable of being all knowing? There are many things we will never know; at least not while we're mortal beings on earth.
I would rather take the absolute truth in God and hold it dear, than to take the relative truth of science. That is not to say I don't believe science can be usefull, I just undertsand the limitations of science.
You can have both. You can believe the absolute truth in God, while using the senses that God gave us to make life as good as possible while we're on earth.
I think you need to look at superstring theory more carefully; those 'extra' dimensions are only on the scale of the actual supersymmetric strings themselves, and to put it simply, they just vibrate in more dimensions than those we see. I don't see how this prooves that we are limited to perceptions. Do you want us to have supersymmetric string-level microscope eyes that can see/perceive these (pointless in the macro-world) dimensions? Is 'God's' supposed design of the human not good enough for you?
I don't know any human that thinks they can be all-knowing, but it doesn't stop humans from knowing most things. To be quite honest, I would say christians are the ones who think they know it all because they are so adamant that 'God' exists, with very poor 'proof' (if you can call it that) of a god exisiting. This:
There is too much beauty in nature for it to be random. When I look into the night sky, and see the stars, it is like a painting.
The proof of God is Jesus. He walked the earth. He is not just "some guy from history". Too many people witnessed his acts, his miracles. He cured people who were sick. He rose from the dead. And even today, there are miracles by people like Mother Teresa. There are miracles that science can not expalin.
is not proof. Proofs aren't undocumented miracles which haven't been explained yet.
I don't see why you have to believe in 'God' to make life as good as possible while we're on earth. Just think of all the resources wasted on churches, and the time wasted by people who go to church could've been better used. You don't need christianity or 'God' to be spiritual or good-doing.
-
I have a question for everyone to think about.
If there really is a God, how do we know we are perceiveing what he/she/it really is or wants us to see?
Think about it, there are many different versions of "god". In some religions there are gods. Religions of have changed continuosly and have evolved. A lot of them show striking similarities. Catholicism shows some similarities the the "pagan" religions. There are so many stories about him/her/it with the Quran (sorry if I didn't spell it right), the Old Testament, the New Testament, and whatever stories/prophecies from other religions.
Also is there anyone here capable of explaining to me how religion came about? I have my own views on it, but I want to see what others think. What if God were being explained in science?
And to think, I was going to try to stay out of this discussion.
-
I have a question for everyone to think about.
If there really is a God, how do we know we are perceiveing what he/she/it really is or wants us to see?
There is a proof that Rene Descartes gives which answers your question. Most know him for his contributations to mathematics, but he was an excellent philosopher. I won't do him justice, but here is a snapshot of his proof of God. I'm paraphrasing him, if you want to read his proof get a copy of his Meditations. He starts with the question "How do I know what I am seeing is really true, and that I'm not deceived by an evil devil?". From this first question, he answers that in order to be deceived, he first must exist which proves his existence. He then continues to ask "how do I know my perceptions are not deceiving me". His answer is that in dreams he can see things which are not true in reality, so perhaps he can not be 100% certain of his senses. He gives an example of wax, that he sees it in one form, but when melted it is in another form. But the thinking man still knows it is wax, even though it is in two different forms. So he can be certain of is his thinking, that his thoughts are his own and not deceived. He then continues that he is an imperfect being, as all humans are imperfect, but he has a perfect thought of God, and since he is imperfect it is impossible for him to have created the thought of a perfect God. He concludes that God must have placed the knowledge of God deep inside Descartes.
Like I wrote earlier, I'm not doing him justice and am probably writing it wrong. But the way Descartes writes it, his conclusion is convincing. It is worth reading.
-
Baseball_fan, I am a christian as well, and I agree with many things you write. I also believe Jesus is very special, yes, that he is the son of God.
But I also want to point out something:
1) The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
2) The non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
God is beyond science. There of course are many other things which provide evidence for the existence of God, and you mentioned some of them (e.g. how beautiful creation is, look at the sky as you mentioned), but these are not scientific proofs of the existence of God. If there really were a scientific proof, then belief would not be belief anymore, then belief would be knowing.
Belief in God, however, can affect how science is practiced. With most sciences it doesn't (e.g. chemistry), but with some it sure does (e.g. evolutionary biology).
-
Funny, I don't think my minister thinks that way. He made, what I believe was a snipe at me last month when he said that scientists are trying to surpass God with our work. Of course, I don't think this is true. So I think a lot of religions do scoff at much of science for that reason. My minister, for example was all for me becoming a teacher but once I switched from teaching to research, all of a sudden he makes anti-science comments in his sermons. Oh well. :-\
I am a Christian and I do believe quite strongly in God and Jesus. However I am a "believer" (if that what it is called) in evolution, the possibility of life on other planets, and many other things that other Christians do not. I mean you really cannot argue with proof and evidence, which there is a lot of in evolution. I think the problem is not God but people who claim to be "for God" who use religion to push their beliefs on others or to control what others believe. It is a widely known fact that people have always used God to achieve their own very wrong ends.
-
See the thing with some religions today is that they are rigid and still operate by beliefs that are 100s of years old. We know A LOT more than we knew way back when The Bible was published. Some of those stories may be scientifically explainable, and depending on your views the science explanation may reinforce god or it may not.
A lot of things have changed in culture. Back in 17th and 18th centuries there were those witch burnings. Back then people believed in witches. In this modern world it generally is accepted that witches are nothing but fairytales. Basically what I'm trying to say is that culture and our knowledge of the world has changed dramatically, so come of the stories, prophecies, etc. are in a sense out dated. We know now that microorganisms and viruses cause disease. It isn't the wrath of god because you did something bad (although I guess that can be disputed my some).
Imagine if The Bible was written (or really voted upon) in the 21st century. I'm 100% sure the stories would be completely different, and there would be science in it.
As far as evolution goes, "How do we know evolution isn't Gods work?"
I feel that this kind of debate will never ever end. It will go on as long as man is a free thinking species. Some people will have God(s) and all the things that come along with him/her/it, and they will hold onto it and defend it furiously. Others will defend science furiously. While still others will take the middle road and believe in a mix of God and science. The worlds current view of God almost seams to be straight out of the 2nd century. Sure the practices of the Catholic Church and other religions has been moving progressively to a liberal environment, but even then that is a relatively new thing.
The world works in funny ways, and everyone has a different view on these things.
By the way, thanks geo for making a new topic.
-
I feel that this kind of debate will never ever end. It will go on as long as man is a free thinking species. Some people will have God(s) and all the things that come along with him/her/it, and they will hold onto it and defend it furiously. Others will defend science furiously. While still others will take the middle road and believe in a mix of God and science. The worlds current view of God almost seams to be straight out of the 2nd century. Sure the practices of the Catholic Church and other religions has been moving progressively to a liberal environment, but even then that is a relatively new thing.
This is a VERY good point. All these discussions seem to be futile. A creationist remains a creationist, someone, who accepts evolution still will accept evolution and finally these discussions just tend to become bashing each other.
I myself indeed are somewhat in the middle. I believe that earth is old (billions of years), but I have serious questions about evolution. I, however, just want to say that this makes me humble. I have no answers, and I will not claim anything. I wish I had answers on some of these questions, which I think are quite interesting, but I doubt I will ever obtain them. It be so... My belief in Jesus, and God, however, is not affected by these questions, and it does not depend on how precisely life developed and how old the universe is.
-
Imagine if The Bible was written (or really voted upon) in the 21st century. I'm 100% sure the stories would be completely different, and there would be science in it.
The bible was not written to be voted on, it was written as the word of God. As the word of God, it is the absolute truth. I can't pick what parts of it I want to accept, and throw out the rest. I must accept it all, and I happily do.
At the same time, I do realize that many parts of the Bible were written as parables, and not as a history. If God wanted a complete history of the world, and how we came to be, I bet it would be too long to finish reading in one lifetime.
When you look at the themes in the Bible, they are just as good today as when it was first written. Don't be greedy, don't steal, don't lust, don't envy, don't do perverted acts. All the negative emotions the Bible warns about have made people suffer.
Pope John Paul II wrote in one of his books that a grave sin people make is to believe they are smarter than God. We're not. John Paul II gave the example of Adam and Eve, and how they were given rules by God, and how they were happy. But they ate from the tree of knowledge, and because of that one act, they were given the new power to Judge. When humans try to rationalize acts against the rules God has given, it leads to more suffering. If Adam and Eve never would have committed that first sin, we would all be in heaven right now. We're paying for their sin.
-
By voted on I was referring to The Council of Trent. I was taught that the modern day bible was a result of a voting during the 16th century by some ecclesiastics.
I do like the themes of the bible. Although I admittedly don't always live them out. ::)
-
There of course are many other things which provide evidence for the existence of God, and you mentioned some of them (e.g. how beautiful creation is, look at the sky as you mentioned), but these are not scientific proofs of the existence of God. If there really were a scientific proof, then belief would not be belief anymore, then belief would be knowing.
This is one of the fundemental differences between religion and science. Both approaches towards the existence of God are fundementally different. Science may validate religion, but religion definitely cannot validate science since religion is based on beliefs.
Baseball_fan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5098608.stm
So he can be certain of is his thinking, that his thoughts are his own and not deceived. He then continues that he is an imperfect being, as all humans are imperfect, but he has a perfect thought of God, and since he is imperfect it is impossible for him to have created the thought of a perfect God. He concludes that God must have placed the knowledge of God deep inside Descartes.
Unless Decartes already assumed there is a perfect God, how did he conclude he has a perfect thought of something and since that thought is perfect, it must come frm a perfect God?
Pope John Paul II wrote in one of his books that a grave sin people make is to believe they are smarter than God. We're not. John Paul II gave the example of Adam and Eve, and how they were given rules by God, and how they were happy. But they ate from the tree of knowledge, and because of that one act, they were given the new power to Judge.
But I also want to point out something:
1) The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
2) The non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
Where does the Pope's example come from? It comes from a source that cannot be verified, unless belief is knowing.
-
Unless Decartes already assumed there is a perfect God, how did he conclude he has a perfect thought of something and since that thought is perfect, it must come frm a perfect God?
There is only one Descartes, and I'm not him. I could not do his book justice in a paragraph. I suggest reading his original words in meditations. He provides more than one proof of God. I offered just one simplified example. If you read his work, you don't need a premise of a God to come to the conclusion of God, which is what you are suggesting.
-
This is one of the fundemental differences between religion and science. Both approaches towards the existence of God are fundementally different. Science may validate religion, but religion definitely cannot validate science since religion is based on beliefs.
God sent his son to walk on the earth, there were witnesses. The acts Jesus did are proof that God exists. Just because you want God to continue to prove himself, does not require God to prove anything. He proved it once. I believe that proof.
If you don't believe Jesus walked the earth, than you can not accept any history as true because you were not personally there to witness it. Does that mean that Napoleon never walked the earth and did everything history claims? What about Caesar, did he do everything history says he did?
-
Who disputed that Jesus ever walked the Earth? I personally didn't see anyone dispute it. I think it's fairly well accepted Jesus walked the Earth, but it's what he did that people dispute.
-
Who disputed that Jesus ever walked the Earth? I personally didn't see anyone dispute it. I think it's fairly well accepted Jesus walked the Earth, but it's what he did that people dispute.
There were too many witnesses to what Jesus did for me to dispute it as fact. For example, it is fact that he was crucified and died. But he was alive after being tortured, nailed to a cross, and considered dead by everyone who was there. How is that possible?
There were many other events, such as when Jesus went to a town where there was not enough food to feed everyone. Jesus broke a loaf of bread, and then his apostles broke the loaf of bread, and that loaf was able to feed 5,000 people. I would assume it would be next to impossible to fool 5,000 people.
If we were in a court, and you were on the Jury, how many first hand witnesses would you require before deciding something is fact?
-
Two eight year old children are playing on a playground. Child B throws a rock and inadvertently hits Child A. The following dialogue takes place:
Child A (directed towards Child B): You are a jerk.
Child B (directed towards Child A): I know you are, but what am I.
Child A: A jerk.
Child B: I know you are, but what am I.
and so on, until infinity or one of them rips one.
This is the adult equivalent to the agnostic-Christian debate. Child A has no proof other than an inadvertent act by Child B. Child B has no proof other than the irritation generated from hearing Child A. Until one can devise an experiment to prove the existence or non-existence of god, it demeans scientists as frivolous agitators to debate this. My whole undergraduate college experience was crap like this. Professor A argues that a fossil is 20,000 years old based upon carbon dating. Thus, man must have been created before Christ and the bible is nonsense. And then the ubiquitous counterargument from religous student B.
Proof that the Earth was spherical came from elegant geometrical calculations involving planetary observations by Copernicus. Proof that germs are caused by microbes was an elegant study by Pasteur. Heat as atomic vibrations instead of ether, quantum theory.. All of these are provable to some extent but not necessarily comprehensible by all. One should devise the experiment or series of experiments before arguing the result. Better yet, spend time trying to resolve some of the many problems on Earth before moving beyond.
-
Dude, I love your analogy. Thank you so much for it.
Hey that sounds funny. That's what I tried to state earlier, but it didn't catch on fully I guess. This debate if going to be impossible to end. I bet you that even if scientific experiments were done that could be repeated yielding similar results that either proved or disproved the existence of God some people would still refute the results. I think it's a never ending debate no matter what.
I hate these kinds of debates, because it's practically impossible to convince some people to be either pro- or anti-God. Then again scientific results can be skewed, twisted, and taken out of context to support someones views, even if the results disproved their view. I've seen an anti-evolution website that twisted a fruit fly experiment that clearly showed evolution. Also they tend to suck you in.
I now remember that when I took biology, my teacher had us write a paper on evolution for extra credit. He gave us no guidelines or anything. Some kids were unbelievably pro-evolution, while others were unbelievably procreationism, while still others like me took the middle road and provided both sides of the argument and alternatives to both evolution and creationism.
-
Two eight year old children are playing on a playground. Child B throws a rock and inadvertently hits Child A. The following dialogue takes place:
Child A (directed towards Child B): You are a jerk.
Child B (directed towards Child A): I know you are, but what am I.
Child A: A jerk.
Child B: I know you are, but what am I.
and so on, until infinity or one of them rips one.
This is the adult equivalent to the agnostic-Christian debate. Child A has no proof other than an inadvertent act by Child B. Child B has no proof other than the irritation generated from hearing Child A. Until one can devise an experiment to prove the existence or non-existence of god, it demeans scientists as frivolous agitators to debate this. My whole undergraduate college experience was crap like this. Professor A argues that a fossil is 20,000 years old based upon carbon dating. Thus, man must have been created before Christ and the bible is nonsense. And then the ubiquitous counterargument from religous student B.
Proof that the Earth was spherical came from elegant geometrical calculations involving planetary observations by Copernicus. Proof that germs are caused by microbes was an elegant study by Pasteur. Heat as atomic vibrations instead of ether, quantum theory.. All of these are provable to some extent but not necessarily comprehensible by all. One should devise the experiment or series of experiments before arguing the result. Better yet, spend time trying to resolve some of the many problems on Earth before moving beyond.
You're missing the point. If 5,000 people were all there and witnessed child B throw the rock, the truth would be accepted by all. When Jesus walked the earth, his acts were witnessed. Jesus did not do his acts in private, he did it for everyone to see.
The argument you seem to have is because you can not recreate what God does, then you don't believe God can do it. Don't believe that you're smarter than God.
-
You're missing the point. If 5,000 people were all there and witnessed child B throw the rock, the truth would be accepted by all. When Jesus walked the earth, his acts were witnessed. Jesus did not do his acts in private, he did it for everyone to see.
The argument you seem to have is because you can not recreate what God does, then you don't believe God can do it. Don't believe that you're smarter than God.
I can't believe you can't even quote the Bible right- it says 5000 men, not including women and children!
Why did Jesus waste time by spliting everyone into lines of 50, or lines of 50 and 100?
How did the barley loaves multiply? Did Jesus just give everyone a crumb, or did he give a someone a slice then use his wand to make anothe slice grow back?
Reading the stories made me cringe, all the gospels say different things, they are written in such a childish vague way as if its fictional, and they were all written about 50 years after Jesus' death (old people normally don't remember things that well)! I really think its completely made up, how would anyone remember if it was 5000 men? Why did they only count the men up?
Reading passages from the Bible, Jesus sounds ruder and less forgiving than me! eg. Luke 9.59-62 and 10.10-12
And finally, that argument is perfectly OK, and I'll believe whatever I want to. If I want to believe that I'm smarter than 'God' I will believe that.
There were many other events, such as when Jesus went to a town where there was not enough food to feed everyone. Jesus broke a loaf of bread, and then his apostles broke the loaf of bread, and that loaf was able to feed 5,000 people. I would assume it would be next to impossible to fool 5,000 people.
If we were in a court, and you were on the Jury, how many first hand witnesses would you require before deciding something is fact?
About 10000000 honest, clever, first hand witnesses. Or other evidence such as a photopgraphic evidence, DNA proof, X-ray crystallography etc.
And yes, it would have been relatively hard (not impossible, thousands have already been fooled as they believe the world is 6000 years old) to fool 5000 people, but not to bribe them.
Also I apologise to the Christians who have normal more open views on 'God', for my rigid opinions; this guy has made me slightly anti-religious at the moment :(.
-
Ok the thing with The Bible is some seam more like analogies, localized events, or things taken out of context. By the way I'm a confirmed Catholic, but I've gotten into fights with ecclesiastics before over things. Usually it's the older people or the people that take the bible literally.
I take any stories from The Bible as analogies, localized events, or things taken out of context. I was told by a priest to take the Adam and Eve story with a grain of salt. He told me that it is more of an analogy than a historical account.
Also, what about Noah's Ark. How is it possible that he got all of those animals on an ark, yet alone build an ark as big as he needed it to hold the animals and the food. It's impossible by any means. To me it sounds like a recount of a great flood when a guy had a "vision" or realized that it was going to rain hard, then gathered up some of his animals and put them on a boat of some kind.
Remember also that none of those stories were written in actively spoken languages. They were written in old hebrew and aramaic I believe. These were then translated continuously over and over again. Even the translations were translated. Things could very well have been skewed, mixed up, or flat out changed. Also remember in that people back then used to use Pb quite a bit. How do we know that some of these guys that wrote the stories just weren't crazy?
I keep getting sucked into this debate..
-
I take any stories from The Bible as analogies, localized events, or things taken out of context. I was told by a priest to take the Adam and Eve story with a grain of salt. He told me that it is more of an analogy than a historical account.
Taking it literally leads nowhere: Genesis 4:17 (or 4:16) - where did the Kain's wife came from, if there were only three people on the Earth?
-
constant thinker: I did read Angels and Demons, partly because you suggested it. It was a cool book. What I am wondering though is, if the column in CERN is really ionic or if it is just polar covalent ... (I am sorry I have a stupid sense of humor)
-
History has a tendency to repeat itself. Look at the wars, WWI, then WWII, then with the pompous white man stealing oil from the poor and stealing money from the rich. I’m getting a little carried away here. My point is that religion and entire civilizations can become a step farther than obsolete and are completely utterly destroyed. Like Ancient Egyptians, Greece, Rome along with their cultures and followings. So think twice before you see Christianity or any other religions are going to followed “Forever.” They will be talked about for years to come but will be seen as Greek and Roman mythology are seen. Jesus will be a myth.
These following examples will go to show that religion can and will be seen as a fallacy to some people.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.
Now what this basically proves is the fallacy of Jesus Christ on the cross. The cross with Jesus nailed on it is a graven image and is an idol that is worshipped by present day church goers of the catholic religion. They bow to it and serve it.
“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six Yes, the number of the beast. Now you ask, what does this have to do with present day followings? Well the Pope himself. Stick with me here. You might read that and say “Blasphemy” and send me hate mail but hear me out. The pope goes by the Latin title of “Vicarious Filii Dei” Which literally means in place of the son of god. There is more meaning to the name than that. In roman numerals, each of the letters adds up to a number. “Vicarious” equals to 112, “Filii” equals to 53, and Dei equals to 501.
112+53+501=666.
..I will say no more
As mentioned-the bible was written thousands of years ago, morals were different. no real form of media was around, and people were just plain stupid! They didn’t have microscopes back then, not aware of any germs nothing. Everything that they could not explain by knowledge is explained by a fictitious story. Views on sex were also different. Sex was evil and unholy, thus probably why priests had to devote their life to celibacy (Notice now that priests are taking out their sexual tension on little boys? Much worse than being with a woman). Now, everywhere you turn sex is everywhere, on the TV, in video games, hell sexual innuendo on billboards while you drive down the highway. You see my point here? Blindly following the text from different times can lead to chaotic things.
In short, the bible is a set of standards of morals woven into fables which is taken too serious to this day. Others see the bible as a power trip, Its rather easy to get people to follow you, first confuse them, then convince them you know the way out of their confused state--lets face it, to this day in age religions still hold a lot of power.
-
In fact we can't tell if our world was just created yesterday and made to look like it has been around for longer. To use Poppers words: The theory that the world was just created at any specific date cannot be falsified by any scientific meanst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
-
well I am an atheist, not believing in anything in the least.
This is my view point:
If god has put us here, on this earth, with the great undefined power he posses... why? it is an aged question that can neither be religiously answer ( can it?) or scientifically. If after this "life" we have two destinations, Heaven or Hell; our time hear is in a sense absolutely irrelevant to out immortal futures with "him" or the Devil? Why would he have placed us here, to test us? Why test us? Why not save some time and create us all in his image.
I have read, but now take it on as my own. If he loves us all, then why would he send us to hell for simply not believing in his existance?
Gods motives and logic confuses me.
-
two answers would be:
1. A human brain is not able to understand what God is actually doing. And so religion has to be faith without logic because our logic doesn't apply. (but it's not an answer I like. a mathematician would say it's a non-constructive answer)
2. (kind of similar to 1 maybe) The truth is only approximated by religions. They have some things right and some things wrong. You can't take everything literally but there can still be a spiritual truth even though most religions have some contradictions.
-
actually, in my belif, the earth WAS created 15 gigayears ago, in the big bang, or something similar, but god(or mabye the devil, not so sure which) made it to look that way so that the anti christians and anti christ and atheists would have something valid to belive in to disprove christians, so that they wouldnt OPENLY be worshiping something or someone that will make them burn eternily, exept psychos, or else everyone with common sense would be christians, if the devil is as smart and clever as the bible says he is, thats EXACTLY how he would do it.
so they are both true, but still sorry if i bursted anyones bubble that is muslim, buddist, hindu, tribal religon, etc etc.
is my conclusion good? bad? totaly sucky? or einstine?