Is Faith Required to Believe in Science of Creation?
Isn't it interesting that we don't know all the species on the earth that become extinct certainly by man's encroaching upon their environment but according to some so-called experts they know every single thing that took place during the so-called Big Bang.
In the void between planets, star systems and galaxies, the temperature in space is generally considered to be 2.725 Kelvin which is -454.72°F (-270.4°C). This is only a very small amount above absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature at which the movement of all matter ceases at -459.67°F
still very cold, but nowhere near as cold as somewhere in deep space, far from any sunlight
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-tem … -space.htm
Question: according to the above data with the absence of light the temperature drops to a point where matter ceases to move if this be true what sparked the explosion people called the Big Bang since matter isn't moving?
Some people would imply that science has all the answers if that be so how is it that science cannot tell us the moment life began and how that moment came about?Only an idiot would imply that science has all the answers.
It takes no faith to look at evidence and pick the most likely answer. Only if one declares that it is true without absolute proof (seldom found in the real world) is faith necessary.We have frequently declared things to be true without absolute proof for example we have reconstructed dinosaurs and placed them in the museums and told the public a dinosaur looks like this as well as putting that information into textbooks only to find years later the dinosaur in the museum had the wrong head on once they found a fully fossilized dinosaur with the correct head on it.
Absolutely we have. Science has made errors and scientists has committed fraud. Almost every "theory" in existence undergoes constant improvement and small changes.
All of which is why we "pick the most likely answer". We almost never have the final, complete answer. We just do the best we can with the data available, and forego making outright guesses without any observations or data at all.
(Actually we do make guesses, call them "hypothesis" and attempt to disprove the evidence that brought them into being. When we can't, and we CAN provide evidence they are likely true, they often become "theory")
Investigating the Big Bang is...pretty much exactly like investigating a bomb explosion here on Earth, only you look at radio waves and travel speeds of distant galaxies instead of shockwave damage and debris. And in both cases, the more evidence you have, the more you can turn back the clock to the time of the explosion.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it can't be understood.Wilderness was kind enough to address most of the misconceptions regarding general science, so I will not cover those again.
With regard to the particulars of Abiogenesis (the start of life) or the Big Bang (the start of the universe), please keep in mind that we have some great theories for each that are constantly adapting/evolving to information from new discoveries. Science never claims to “know” exactly what occurred, but it tends to come up with explanations that are pretty darned close.
Think of Abiogenesis this way: if you had five red marbles randomly distributed in a jar with 95 black marbles and shook the jar enough, could you ever get the five red marbles to all touch at the same time? The answer is, of course, yes! This is the premise behind how life began: given enough time, the right materials, in the right place, coming together at the right time, will form life (since it only takes five nucleotides coming together to form “simple” life)! Unfortunately, we are still not sure what those first “lifeforms” consisted of (whether they were first proteins or RNA), but we do know that all modern life descended from that single living being (since we can use DNA to prove who your parents were, and who their parents were, and so on).
Admittedly, the Big Bang requires a fair bit of knowledge regarding quantum mechanics and is often difficult to understand. So, I will attempt to summarize a little here. Do you happen to recall the particle/wave duality of photons (light “particles”) and electrons? Like how shadows don’t have sharp edges (indicating that some photons “wrap” around objects to illuminate behind them) or how electrons can be thought of as occupying a “shell” around the nucleus of an atom? Both of these concepts describe how/why photons/electrons can behave both as particles (having a definite position) and waves (being in many places at once). This is just one of the very strange things that become a regular occurrence at the quantum (sub-atomic) level. Taking this one step further brings us to the phenomenon of quantum fluctuations. This describes how anywhere/everywhere (even in “empty” space), a particle-antiparticle pair of energetic particles can randomly come into existence. More often than not, these quantum particles quickly collide with one another, once again forming nothing. Sometimes, however, they form near the event horizon of a black hole, such that one particle (the anti-particle) is sucked inside of the black hole (reducing its mass) while the other particle escapes and is emitted as Hawking radiation.
Since a black hole is a great example of everything condensing into a singularity, all we have to do is reverse this process to understand how everything could explode from a singularity. If a quantum fluctuation was to occur and undergo inflation (a random process with a >0% chance of occurring) to become a super-dense singularity, it could result in the Big Bang and create the known universe. Once again, we are not necessarily claiming that this is exactly how it happened, but it is one possibility supported by a significant portion of all available evidence.
If you desire more detailed information on either of these topics, please visit my hubs on them: http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-Magic http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-MagicSilverspeeder: why bother asking if you didn’t even take the time to read the articles I referenced? We have found evidence of amino acids (compounds very similar to nucleotides) in a number of different places in the universe including comets, planets, and even patches in outer space. Therefore, it doesn’t take much to imagine how nucleotides could also be produced in nature at random given the right circumstances. If I mis-interpreted you and you are attempting to infer that a “god” is needed to produce the elements that are used to form amino acids, then you may want to learn about star formation and death.
It was not long ago that humans thought that the earth was the centre of the universe and everything orbited the earth, until someone found moons on other planets and was put under house arrest by religious leaders.
It was also not long ago that we found other galaxies and realized the universe was expanding, which gave us a reference point. This expansion appears to be accelerating with no end in site. Imagine if you will, in the very distant future when we as humans are no longer here nor is our sun, but intelligent life appears on some planet in some galaxy, but when these beings look into space no galaxies will be seen as they will be traveling away from themselves faster than the speed of light.
They will have no reference as to an expanding universe or the big bang.
We can only use the evidence we have to put the pieces of the puzzle together.Man is by his very nature arrogant and cannot conceive that there may well be someone, or if you like, something that is greater than he.
Science is erroneous in thnking that the limitless favorable conditions that support our existence, life on this planet and the very structure of the universe of which we can hardly conceive are just a series of coincidences
I, for one, don't buy it.What is it about an incalculable series of happy and precise coincidences with exponentially decreasing odds that makes you wary?
"Happy" and "precise" hardly characterizes it. Ask the extinct species if they're "happy" about those coincidences. Or ask the woman blinded with macular degeneration how "precise" the coincidences actually were.
Either way, though, the thought presupposes that the intent was to create man - nothing could be further from the truth. When the end result is both unknown and unremarkable, when it doesn't matter in the slightest, to discuss the odds doesn't make much sense.
It would be like rolling snake eyes 100 times in a row; without a reward for the millions of tries it will take no one but nature would ever do it, and then only because nature doesn't care what the results are.
Without any supporting evidence, it is more probable to be the most unlikely answer.
Stacks of supporting evidence to anyone who is not spiritually blind, depleted or deceived.
Perhaps. Observable by anyone? Testable? Can be proved wrong?
The imaginations of the supernaturally oriented are not typically the field of science, except in those rare cases where someone submits to an investigation. An investigation and test which has, to date, always proven the fraud behind the claim.yada yada yada..... can't be bothered to continue with you on this, choose what you want to believe and go with it...
I can understand why. You have a good evening. Or night, depending on where you might live.
That's just it, you cannot understand the reason why!
2 Corinthians 4
4 Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.
It's early afternoon where I am!I see you have summarily dismissed riddle666 and wilderness. It is a pity that you can't see that, by this post, and your interpretation of the NT you are the one being contentious.
Basically, if no one agrees with you, God himself blinded them from the ability to think for themselves and come to reasonable conclusions. And,, since God blinded them, they are going to perish. It is a very sad philosophy Aqua.It's actually the word of God, I did not write it, I merely reported it to explain why unbelievers cannot understand.
I have kept clear of the forums for ages now, too much of a waste of time.
I shall excuse myself again now, too little time to waste.
As Spurgeon said "All you need to do to find Christ is look at Him, and stop looking at yourself" - if folk would do that, they would not need to try and be contentious in the forums.
I made on simple comment, and received two assailants looking to be contentious, sorry, not interested.If I am included in the assailant count, more's the pity. I do believe many are blinded. But, not the same ones you think and not in the way you imagine
Contentious? Not at all. The thread is about science requiring faith, not about truth of the bible or religion in general. I also take the OP as an effort to change the requirements of science into those of religion and the supernatural.
Science and religion have very different standards of proof - what one accepts readily the other totally rejects. You quote the bible as proof of something, but it isn't proof to the scientist of anything except that somebody, somewhere, wrote a book. Nothing there is observable, nothing is testable and ONLY a few sections that seem to be an historical account have shown any independent verification at all. Not a single miracle is verified from any other source, they cannot be reproduced and many are known to be false in the extreme (Noahs flood, for instance).
The bible depends on faith of the reader to be accepted as true; science depends on an entirely different set of requirements. Which is what the OP asked. If you find that statement contentious, then you need to read up on the scientific method and understand better the basic tenets of science study today. Not what is found, but the methodology used to study.How the Christians lie!!
It is NOT the word of god. It is the words written in a book by ancient HUMANS and you were taught that it is the word of god and you believed. Are you so gullible?And Darwins "Origin of the species" who was that written by?
Did anybody say it is the word of god?
Only christians and similar con men need to lie.No because it was obvioulsy in objection to a belief in god.
Some man came up with his own explination of "how" and the reader/student take it as read even though the theory is contradictory, illogical and will never be proven.Belief in priests, not god. Unless you have hallucinations you can never hear from "god" and hence cannot 'believe in' god.
An explanation is not "proof", it is only an explanation. Unlike the theory of "god" which is a contradictory nonsense, evolution is a rational explanation which can be deemed 'proved' because the later findings also falls in the purview of the explanation unlike "god theory" where people have to conveniently forget and re-interpret (in addition that the 'dog theory' need real lack of intelligence not to see the inherent contradiction in that theory - hence not a theory but wishful thinking).I agree those who believe in priests will never get the whole information they require to make a reasoned conclusion. Regions serve their own purpose.
Scientist also serve their own purpose, if they proclaim they have all the answers they wouldn't get anymore funding to continue the self perpetuating finacial wheel.And it is the priests who wrote the bible and if you believe the bible you are believing the priests, only the form is different (written and speech)
Who claimed they have all the answers?
There is only two explanations for the presence of life - creation and evolution. Creation is inherently contradictory(hence nonsense) hence we are left with the only option left - evolution. Scientists[there are charlatans like the ones who 'invented' piltdown man, but most are honest man(I do not say all priests are charlatans, they are misguided men who trusted 'the authority" wholeheartedly, a human character)] are only trying to "recreate" the exact steps (the life forms that occurred in the past) through which the present life forms evolved. There they can make mistakes as nobody has seen it but can only reconstruct through the fossil evidence available.Fossile evidence is both incomplete and contradictory hence nonsense. If it wasn't there would be no need to re-examin everthing thousandas of times and then change their opinions on what happened or should i say what they "think" happened.
Fossils are not evidence or contradictory, a fossil is just a fossil. As more and more fossils are available we get to know more and more about the steps. So only the "reconstruction" of the exact steps that can be contradictory... but so far we have a "non-contradictory" story though there are a few missing intermediaries.
There is contention only about the intermediaries that reached upto human, not contention between evolution and creation.
Eg:1) 2+3+2+4 = 11
2)1+4+3+3 = 11
We know the answer is 11 we also know there are multiple steps and there is a 3 involved(evolution[11] and fossil[3]), but what we do not is whether 1 or 2 is the exact step or is there more numbers involved.Any of the steps in between could be wrong therefor giving the wrong conclusion to the known answer (11) this shows only that the science of evolution is contradictory and unfounded. Fossils are use as evidence, something I will not contest is the exsistance of these animals as I also know they existed.
Evolution is an explanation. Can you suggest any rational explanation?
"Any of the steps in between could be wrong therefor giving the wrong conclusion"
The difference here is what we are trying to find out is the steps, the conclusion we already know(just by logical analysis).
"Fossils are use as evidence, "
No, evolution is an explanation that can take into consideration the fossils, and as most fossils are found out only after the theory, we take the fossils as "evidence" for the theory.What is the conclusion? With evolution the conclusion is ever rolling surely, or are you suggesting that evolution has stopped.
I must agree though that fossils are only evidence that they existed. Scientist have pit the timeline in place, to prove their theory.Evolution stopped?? I said we have only two answers for the presence of life, creation and evolution and as creation fails in its inception the only one left is evolution. So our "conclusion" for question of "presence of life" is evolution, not that the present life is the "conclusion of evolution"
Theory means explanation - a rational explanation. That is the failure of creation, it is not rational, means the "theory" is self-contradictory.
Yup! Accept what I say or go to hell[I am the authority on whatever I say, especially evolution, creation...though I have no idea about any of it].......
And they ask others to show the opposite cheek!!!
Well now I understand what "spiritual" means, being an idiot and blindly believing the priests without ever questioning anything that fall from their mouths, thanks, I will remain spiritually blind.Not sure where you got those opinions from as "choose what you want to believe and go with it..." would seem to leave anyone open to believe whatever they liked, no references to hell, nothing claiming any authority whatsoever, just a statement from someone who knows what they believe and cannot be bothered to discuss it with opinionated people who have an agenda which is of no interest to me.
yada yada yada..... can't be bothered to continue with you on this, choose what you want to believe and go with it...
Opinionated people? So you don't want anybody to have a opinion but you?
If people don't give a different opinion there is no discussion. You also say you don't want to discuss. So what are you doing in a discussion forum?I replied to the topic, after that I have been dealing with people who want to be contentious, now I will let you be contentious on your own.
I have stated my opinion, I have no interest in your opinion about God, nor in aiding you in your contention.
Have a nice life.
Just yesterday we were talking about comments made in the forum that would appear to amount to be an assault I'm quite sure Emile was there. For supposedly intellectual beings how can ideas be conveyed if people feel like they cannot converse intellectually?
In debating an issue, exploring an issue one does not have to like the other persons point of view nor do they need to accept it they can both walk away agreeing to disagree.
Having been raised in America I am guilty of being combative. It has been my experience that as an American if one draws a line in the sand an American will cross it. Just maybe we can cut down on the number of lines we draw in the sand.I don't think faith is required to believe in Science of Creation or any science for that matter. God tells us in the Quran study the world around you to find the truth. So when we open our minds and study the world and measure it in Science it leads those willing to accept it to one conclusion - the whole of existence has a purpose the moment that becomes apparent that is the time you will realise - Something more power than mere men, nature, chemical reaction has to exist otherwise this complexity which we refer as life will not exist.
A simple thing like the clothes peg for example - was created for a purpose. So is that difficult to accept that all this complexity we see around us, just appeared for no reason at all."So is it difficult to accept that all this complexity we see around us, just appeared for no reason at all." No it's not at all difficult to accept. Humans have been here for a blink of the eye compared to the 13.77 billion years since our universe began and we will be gone just as fast, but the universe will continue one. It seems arrogant to think it's all for us. Billions of stars in our own galaxy that we can never even get close to and the billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and billions of planets. What need would we have for them?
It is arrogant to think it's all for us. Humanity is an arrogant species; probably a survival trait produced by evolution, and starting shortly after the first life appeared on this tiny, minuscule, insignificant ball of dirt.
Let us consider the workings of life. If life is merely random which is to say there's no rhyme or reasoning for life it just merely exist randomly. How then do we explain how a planet with no guidance, no direction and no help from any what we would call intelligent life form, but can not only survive it can flourish.
Without any help from humans the leaves on the trees during autumn are removed by the constant flow of the wind. Areas on the planet such as vegetation that needs to be removed suddenly and unexpectedly a lightning strike creates a fire the vegetation is burned away but wait because of this action the soil is rich are and ready to start new growth.
Now we can say this is simply the process of science the question remains Why? It serves no purpose if life is simply random.No one suggests that these things are random. They occur by highly structured physical and natural processes. The only disagreement is whether these processes arose spontaneously or were created. Spontaneity does not equate to randomness.
Let's take gravity for instance. Gravity does a number of things and one thing that gravity does is protect this planet from an overabundance of heat waves. The question again becomes Why? There is no intelligence involved according to some people so why would an innate object bother to protect a planet from destruction?
You assume gravity exists so their can be life. Rather than because there was gravity, life occurred. Spontaneously. In the absence of any other data both are equally plausible as far as I can see. Gravity is just something big revolving rocks in space do.
There are millions of planets out there that show the occurrence of conditions supporting life are very uncommon, so far probably unique (depending on where you stand on the fossilized bacteria from Mars debate). It seems odd to me that an omnipotent God would create all of those for no apparent reason.Well said. It is common to put the cart before the horse, so to speak, and assume that gravity exists in order that humans can. In truth, the cause and effect are reversed; humans exists (in part) because gravity exists and is at the level it is. Were gravity different we would either be different or not here at all.
Without gravity, we might, for instance, be a 2,000 mile wide cloud of plasma, swimming gently through space and marveling how lucky we were that there was no gravity to clamp us to the surface of one of those ugly jails called "planets".
Earth just happens to be in the sweet spot as is mars (even more so). There are billions of earth like planets in the sweet spot in our galaxy alone. Are they all for us as well?
I've heard that question a number of times before about the universe being so large and why would a God create such vastness seemingly for no apparent reason.
Consider this how is it that especially super rich humans create these large palatial mansions and many have more than one.
Consider those who are rich who don't have one car or 2 cars but they have a fleet of cars.
Generally when other people see such wealth and the magnitude of that wealth they can better get a perspective of the kind of person that they are dealing with. Why are people especially Americans talking like mediocre is good enough. If someone in America built them all that had 3 stores in it I seriously doubt Americans would hop a plane and travel to that mall on the other hand if someone created a mall with 32 to 100 stores there would be people traveling to and from that mall quite frequently.
I believe someone said "
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it can't be understood."
I take it meaning like understanding that an omnipotent God can exist?I haven't see ONE reply that answers the OP.
No matter what position you hold, because you ere "not there", you can ONLY accept the hypotheses put forth asa best possible explanation by FAITH.
I can't see how beating around the bush can ever make it anything BUT.
Some scientist, somewhere, some time had to come up with his (or her) explanation of "how", and you, the listener/student, take it by faith.I'm sure you are chomping at the bit to tell me.
Humour meDeleted
This
AKA-DJ WROTE:
"My fundamental objection is that scientific observation, including ALL we know, we emphatically cannot observe life arising from non-life.
In EVERY instance, life gives rise to life! Period.
(a) God, (a LIVING God) is more than capable of creating life."
Accepting and stating as true self contradictory statements [saying life can arise only from life and then saying life (god's) didn't arise from life] just because it is written in an ancient book or said by your parents or local priests,
is faithI guess the meaning of ETERNAL is foreign to you.
Just in case you missed it, God is eternal, without beginning and without end.
Why do you ascribe human limitations on Him?That's special pleading, saying everything has to adhere to this rule...except for this. Its a logical fallacy.
according to the Bible, god is loving, jealous, wrathful, vengeful, forgiving, compassionate, etc. were these not human attributes? Why did the Bible writers use them - especially if they were taking dictation from god himself?no, I know the standard answer. I was being more ironic than literal.
"the writers of the bible gave god human attributes because that's all that people would understand, yadda yadda yadda, bs, bs"
I got it covered :-)
The bottom line is that believers get to define god with human qualities - but if nonbelievers do, they're just SILLY. I mean, come on, it's GOD. *rolls eyes*As usual
I wasn't going to go with the standard answer
Of course you do
That's not why nonbelievers are silly. But I still love youSo what answer were you going to go with? Now I'm curious.
Now why are nonbelievers silly?
...umm...perhaps...these ...attributes are given us, as a way to fathom His qualities.
Take human love for instance, His love is far greater than our human love.
Jesus used parables to try and convey spiritual things, because there was no other way to get it across.
Imagine a physics pHd trying to explain their knowledge to a 5 year old.
Similar comparison, I think.It is NOT god, but You who is explaining. Or are you god to be exempt from all logical fallacies?
Parables can convey only meaning, not things. Jesus made parables for people to understand the concepts he was conveying, but what has got to do with logical fallacies?
Was jesus really conveying, for he said that he speak in parables because he didn't want to convey? "This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." Matthew 13:13'
Does not appear so, which parent will allow his son to suffer or give death penalty because he acted "childish"?I see He included you in this.
Seeing you don't se, and hearing, you don't hear.
He spoke truth, indeed.
and this would be the standard Christian attitude.
In the Bible, god describes HIMSELF using these human qualities, so it's not just humans projecting on him. So...you're telling me that god ISN'T jealous or wrathful or loving or merciful. We just can't understand him. Is that it?
I guess the meaning of CONTRADICTION is foreign to you.
Your first premise was a "living" thing cannot be eternal, that is life has to arise from life.
So is god a living thing or not?
The limitation is yours not mine.
Only matter is eternal, for if god exists he has to be made of matter. .Who says matter is eternal?
It's only a belief.
God is Spirit, not matter.
Although, Jesus has a body, which will never die again.You. If god is eternal he needs a body. Also as life 'cannot arise without life' things cannot sprang up from nothing.
No, deduction. You need not trust anybody to reach the conclusion.
Whatever exist is called matter, so by that and by definition of spirit, spirit is a concept and if god is spirit then god doesn't exist.
Now, that's only a belief. But if jesus and god are one and the same, he should be spirit, shouldn't he?I'm curious about something. You say his is belief. I agree. Why is it that you don't see yours as belief also?
I do!
I have never denied it.
it's the atheist who denies faith, in ANYTING.
The word, it's meaning and it's use should be wiped from the atheists vocabulary.It's not faith as defined as (complete trust or confidence in someone or something) Atheists have a problem with, but faith as defined as (strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof) we have a problem with.
I don't think you're allowed to decide what words others are able to use.As an atheist I have faith in the support of my family, I have faith in the good will of my employer and that my work for them will be rewarded, and I have faith in the peacefulness of my community. I have faith in the rule of law so that I walk the streets calmly and unarmed. I have faith that if I am good to my neighbors they will be good to me. I have faith that secrets told to my friends will be kept, as I keep confidences for them. I have faith in my homeland that it will always take me back, and in America that accepts me as an immigrant and grants me many opportunities. I have faith in many things and as such I put myself at their mercy and expect the outcome to be good.
I do not have faith in God, Zeus, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna or any other deity or prophet. Which merely means I have faith in one less deity and prophet than the average American. And I have faith that in America, I am free to express my world view without experiencing any disadvantage or discrimination as a result. And so far this faith has been rewarded.Atheist?? The term is regarding a "god"(Without faith in "currency" no economy can work. If I chose not to have faith in the currency that won't make me an atheist.), and atheist has no faith in priests but himself, his intellectual faculties, his ability to analyse and logically conclude.. Just because you have faith in a priest and just because you do not want to logically analyse, but want to 'believe your priest blindly'(faith), why should you accuse the athiest of having the same? You want to delegate your thinking to another doesn't mean others ought to do that or do that.
What do you actually mean by "faith"?
This I have to say is something I've never given thought too. You think Jesus remains in his body? Where?
You claim to know so much, yet you know very little.
Shame you don't really want to learn.I asked an honest question. And where did I claim to know so much? I'm not interested in what the bible says, I'm interested in your interpretation. Do you think he descended into heaven and remains that way in the physical form? I have honestly never thought about that before.
Ascended. (not, descended)
Well, now you have heard of it.
Maybe you ought to read the Bible with an open, rather than a biased mind.Opps, descended means down. Typed faster than I was thinking.
But why not answer the question? Do you think Jesus remains in his body? I've been asking an honest question in a respectful inquisitive manner. I've always assumed he left his body when he left earth. Am I alone in that thinking?I think Catholic belief is that Jesus and Mary both ascended bodily into heaven. But I may be wrong.
I don't remember that about Mary. But my question is do they think he remain in his body? I've heard the story thousands of times, but I never gave any thought as to wether he remained in his body. Do some think a physical body can make it's way into heaven, wherever it is?
I suppose he might have transubstantiated into spirit? There must be a doctrine about that somewhere.
It's good to see you THINKING about it, rather than just dismissing.
Are you surprised that other people do what you don't?
That was an uncalled for comment.
I haven't just mindlessly arrived where I am today.Nor have I, you you fail to answer my question and call me dismissive, while you dismiss everything I say or ask.
If I'm dismissive, it's because I'm over all the contention, disrespect and derision from atheists.
You ask a genuine question, without sarcasm or ridicule, I will answer.
If those conditions are unacceptable to you, don't ask.
Rad Man answered before me. You admitted you "believe", once there is belief confirmation bias will do the rest. And this is the same way by which other religious people, astrologers, homeopaths and other pseudoscientists get followers.
You can either deduct from the facts available [without contradicting(a word whose meaning elude you)] or you can believe what others said and follow them, then don't be surprised like this "It's good to see you THINKING about it", as if others too believe, instead of thinking for themselves. If it's some other god than yours, or if it is a comment that does not concern god, won't you logically analyse before accepting or refuting? We people are doing the same concerning the claim regarding your god and rejecting it because it fails reason.I have to interject on this one.
I'm afraid this is how anyone either gets followers, or gets through life; on the level we are talking in a religion / philosophy forum.
Everyone involved (for the most part) is deducting from the facts available. Unfortunately, there are not enough known facts to come to the conclusions anyone comes to. Everyone believes. Everyone has faith. If you say different, you are deluding yourself. Now, you may see a contradiction in something someone says. This does not imply that there is, indeed, a contradiction any more than it implies that you misunderstood something or the other party has not sufficiently shared their thought.
You are, basically, saying that he doesn't think for himself. This is not in defense of the statement made. But, pointing out that this behavior is going both ways. Until you can see that it is, you will probably continue to participate in it.
Just as people reject the belief that the universe has no beginning and no end. Just as people reject the belief that there is no god. Rejecting belief has nothing to do with the fact that the belief fails reason across the board. Belief is rejected because it fails reason for the individual rejecting it. To claim that everyone can view the universe, the data we have, and all reach the same conclusion, is unrealistic therefore fails reason.You do not need any more data other than that is available even to a child, that there are "things" that exist and "nothing" surround the things, to separate it.
As "things" exist now, it has to be either always there or came into existence sometime in the past.
Came into existence, if not tenable then the only option is 'always there'.
Came into existence can be
1) Another thing(god) created it, but already our contention was everything has to be created and if god has to create he need to be a "thing"(which contradict the limitation we put - that "thing" has to be created), if he is nothing we goes to 2
2) Spontaneously arose from nothing. There is some problem, one is nobody has seen or able to explain how something can arise from nothing second what we call time is change of the location of things, that is, time is our concept. So if you have any special ability to be apart from existence all you will be seeing is all things moving here and there with no beginning nor end.
3) Self creation - an inherent contradiction.
It is only a matter "honest" communication, being clear and precise and unambiguous in what one say, at least what one think, instead of being vague and philosophical to reach any conclusion one want.
If we are unencumbered by biases and hopes and if we are ready to be clear and precise in what we talk, we can all reach the same conclusion. But if we are afraid, if we have "interests" to preserve, if we have hopes to fulfill, in short if we are biased then it is reasonable to say that we cannot reach a conclusion.
Your own desire to avoid a "definition" that you can always being imprecise in what you say, is the reason why you don't reach a logical conclusion. If we can rationally reach a conclusion, you won't be able to say that we cannot know, and can no longer be an agnost. So think Emile why you shy away from definition which do you no harm but can make you understood clearly.I agree. The data available to a child implies that all within their observable universe came into existence at some point. As they grow, the data increases; however, the same fact holds. Everything they can see once came into existence. Now, we can come to conclusions about what this available data ultimately means. Some will grow to eventually say God. Some will counter that conclusion with the universe is eternal. Some will grow to believe the Big Bang got the ball rolling. Some will simply shrug and say bring us something concrete. We need more data to draw ultimate conclusions.
You accuse me of bias which allows me to see that no conclusion can yet be drawn. This confuses me, since you have offered nothing of value with which to see that you have sufficient data to draw a conclusion. I don't view it as bias. I see it as accepting an obvious fact. I suppose, we both want the other to simply accept the conclusions we have come to. The difference is, my conclusions are derived from the facts. Yours contain assumptions and belief. Why should I buy into your belief?How does a child know that everything has a beginning? Are humans so important that when they die, one can conclude that universe also dies? I, never in my life, saw things coming out of nothing or becoming nothing. What I have seen is organisations arising and disintegrating.
If you are not biased as you claim, I would like to hear objective definitions of time and exist. I would also like to know how you came to the conclusion that how "the observable universe" "came into existence"? Have you ever seen things popping out of nothing?Pray tell me what that facts are? Is it about "time expanding or similar" in a topic you posted?
What is that "assumption" I made?
What do you mean by belief and what belief do I have?The topic on time expanding was idle speculation. Which, honestly, is what all of this is. We simply take it too seriously.
The assumption you make is that the universe is eternal. You can't know this. You assume it.Are you saying this to make me laugh? I do not assume "universe is eternal", it is a conclusion from the facts available and the facts are only this, "Things exist" and "time is a concept"..
See, that response makes me laugh in response. That can't be seen as a conclusion. It is an assumption. A theory, at best.
Do you know what a "theory", "assumption" and "conclusion" mean?
Premise 1: things exist(Fact)
Premise 2: All things together we call universe(definition)
Premise 3: time is a concept(Fact)
Conclusion: Therefore Universe is timeless (eternal).
The conclusion can also be reached by exclusion as I explained earlier which somehow you couldn't understand, by making it as an assumption and forming a theory based on it. (The former is logic and latter ration).I missed this one. I have no idea how you think it is possible to leap from the statement, 'time is a concept' into a conclusion that the universe is eternal. But, it you think it makes sense I accept that it makes sense to you.
Time is a concept, conceived by human beings based on the motion of sun around the earth(or earth's rotation and revolution).
Time is "our" thinking, not universe's. As there is nothing called time, universe has no time, but just motion.
What is timeless [It is by our conception(that time exist only in the brain) of time, that we get the concept of "beginning"or "duration"] is called eternal.
So universe is eternal. [or in simple terms, if we had a camera(that motion of the tape is called time) that recorded the universe and we reversed the cassette, we will find that all things moving with respect to each other(called time - a name given by humans) not disappearing into nothing]
Or else what do "you" mean by 'eternal' and concept?
[e·ter·nal:Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time
: valid or existing at all times : timeless ]
The same conclusion can be reached by ration also (by making an assumption[hypothesis])
A1: Universe is always there
A2: Universe is not always there.
As the assumptions are contradictory only one can be true, and as the second assumption is inherent ly contradictory(irrational)[no theory can be formed] and hence false the conclusion is A1 is true.I don't agree at this point. We all know time is a human concept, but you can't simply take time out of the equation and say that means the universe is eternal. By that thinking a snail is eternal. It doesn't have a concept of time. And, of course you couldn't take a video and see things disappear. I'm not certain what that statement is supposed to prove.
I don't have a problem with the definition of eternal. I have a problem with you saying the universe is eternal, because of the definition. There simply isn't enough information available to support that as a conclusion.
And, your A1 and A2 are simply idle speculation. Again, we lack the information necessary to attempt to definitively comment on the origin, or lack of origin, where the universe is concerned. Unless, you have information you haven't shared with the world, at large. If so, shame on you.Certainly I can't make you understand what you do not what to understand, but I will try once more. A snail(a being), whether it has a concept of time or not, what it has not is a "thing" called time. There is "nothing" called "time" in this universe, what is "timeless" is eternal[say you(or the snail) are the universe, does the years of change that happened inside you,childhood, adult and old age -due to the motion of many molecules inside your body(time), made you, not you?]. A concept is conceived by a "being" that can keep the motion in memory, that is, in the universe there is motion, not time and owing to our memory of that motion, we(or any organism but can anyone say the concept of time is the same for you and a snail?) "conceive" time.
A snail is an organism, that is it has an organisation [universe is not an organisation but all the things and space together without any reference to an organisation]. Things(atoms/molecules) get into it or goes out of it, but the things themselves are not changed[we keep the progression of molecules into it(growth) and its destruction(death) in mind to conceive time]. Or a building(organisation) is formed of bricks, a tornado might destroy the building, but the bricks remain like that. The formation of the organisation and its sustenance and destruction, the progression of events(the change of location of the bricks -from a collection to building to again a collection), is called "time". The bricks(things) themselves are unchanged. The collection of all the bricks are called "universe", not the organisation(building) or in your example of the snail, all the molecules of the snail is called universe while the motion of the molecules (to be the snail, in to the snail and out of it) where it holds the shape of a snail, which we can remember is time. It is not the snail but the atoms that make up the snail that is eternal. You are confusing the organisation with the thing. The events(formation of organisation) is time[grand scale the formation of planets and galaxies], the things has no time (imagine a hydrogen molecule[proton](the basic building block for every other atom) and substitute it for the snail, you might understand better).
Contradictory means means if one is false the other has to be true. We can, without any more information say that the assumption 2(which has three different scenarios all of which are self contradictory{means cannot happen}) is false(which I had described earlier). So if A2 is false, then A1 must be true. It is not information but the willingness to process it, that is wanting.Look. Insulting me doesn't help. It isn't that I don't want to process information. It is simply that your conclusion is, imo, faulty. You are attempting to oversimplify in order to make a statement.
Nothing you've explained allows you to draw the conclusion you draw from it. Since the universe, itself, changes over time it is presumptuous to insist it has always been since, as you pointed out, the universe doesn't recognize the concept of time.
If I remember correctly you don't believe there is a possibility of multiple universes ? What happens when /if we gather enough information to determine they exist? Does your idea of the universe expand to include this? In order to assume that is what you mean by the universe is eternal? What if, we find out new universes are being created through natural processes? Do we then assume this one is eternal while others aren't, or do we expand our definition of universe to encompass everything outside of what is currently considered the universe? If so then we simply haven't agreed on the full scope of what the word universe implies.What is "universe"?
What is "exist"?
What is "time"?
If universe encompasses all the things that exist, how are you going to find "multiverse"?
Every day a lot many changes occur inside your body, does that change you? How does the universe change?[mind you, you have a shape to change, while the universe do not][various shapes occurred on your computer screen, does that mean your screen changed?]. Similarly there are things that move around, how does that affect the universe? What is the shape of the universe? If it has no shape, how can anything be 'outside' universe?
[just suppose there are only two things in the entire universe, the sun and the earth, just because the earth revolve around the sun, does that mean the universe changed? It only means the earth location with respect to the sun changed{because now the universe only means the sun and earth, not their respective locations}, and that change is "time". Now imagine that the universe consist only of a single hydrogen atom and space, where is time? How do you calculate time?]
It is neither an attempt to oversimplify nor an attempt to insult but an attempt to see things as is. People don't define because once they define the other will understand what is said then they cannot get away with nonsense. If you agree that time is a concept, then it is clear that time cannot expand, so is with every thing and concept and it is the simple reason why I ask you to define and why people don't want to define.
(Definition by the way is a set of criteria the given thing/concept should fulfil to place in that class. Say, it must fulfil some criteria to place the given organism in the group of peacock, is it not?)
Lastly, what is creation? Creation implies that there are two objects or at least one object with two components to "exist", so how is that you do not see the obvious contradiction?
Creation ex materia or deo or nihilo are the only three components of "universe was not always present"and all are inherently contradictory as something has to exist to create.
You are still seeing time as a driving force of the change we see around us(as a thing), instead of seeing time as a measurement of change we see all around us(as a concept).
PS: Universe - a concept we defined to encompass all the things that exist and the space. It has no reference to organisation or location. It has nothing to do with time nor with what we see. It has no shape or edge. For multiverse, universe has to have an edge and shape. Multiverse is like saying there are many oceans while in reality there is only one. The divisions of the ocean is arbitrary, a simple division in relation to the land, an artificial one.I wouldn't necessarily say that the universe encompasses everything that exists. It encompasses everything that exists in this space time continuum. Sorry, I realize this all boils down to creation in your mind. It doesn't in mine. This is not either of us getting away with nonsense. We disagree on a definition. I still say you are drawing conclusions too early, however if you insist that the universe would be all things known, all things unknown and anything outside of this space time continuum, I can see how you insist on saying the universe is eternal. I don't accept your definition, so I cannot agree.
Space time continuum? You do understand what you are talking, don't you? Is there any love-anger continuum?
Do you want a honest discussion or not?
You have not defined time(or any of what I asked you) though agreed that time is a concept. So how can time form a continuum with nothing(space)?
What is the shape of this space time continuum? What is its borders made of? What is "outside" of it? If it has no shape, how did you made out that things exist "outside" it? Space is 'nothing', the static distance between two things, so can that interact with the 'memory of motion(time)' to produce a continuum? And even a continuum [A continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct] has to have a border but you used it as if it has no borders.
You cannot agree because you do not want to agree, you already have a conclusion and want to accept only that. Is that ego? Or is it the simple relutace to admit being wrong?
"What if, we find out new universes are being created through natural processes
This one I missed. Things(say molasses and yeast) interact(process)[without human intervention - natural] to produce another thing(wine). So what was that interacted here? Did "nothing" interacted with "nothing" to create the multiverse?
Or was there "things"?
If it was the former you understand that it is nonsense, if it is the later that means things already are in existence.
Why that happened, because there is an implied unspecified premise in that sentence that included "natural process" a vague term. We humans(I agree with you that majority of the population won't find fault with that sentence even in context, I too "missed" it.) understand it depending on the part of the claim that was made instead of understanding it as it is. So instead of analyzing the claim as I did just now, we somehow overlook the contradiction in it.I suppose we could call off all research in all scientific endeavors which are actively pursuing a better understanding of the reality we exist in and labor under the misguided belief that, well gee, it simply is. What we see has always been. What we don't know has also. But, let's not wonder about it. Because it involves a bit of ambiguity in the process. It would also involve open mindedness while we search. Can't have that now, can we? Not when it is simpler to say let's just say it simply is.
Sarcasm. Yes. But why? I accept that a bit of ego is involved. Ego is always involved when a person opens their mouth to speak. I wouldn't mind agreeing with you if you had, what I considered to be, a point other than the desire to be validated. The world is full of contradictions simply because we haven't defined reality. But, you don't get to define it. The universe is what it is. Let me put it this way. I can stand on earth and stare at the stars. I can get a telescope and look further. I could invent a spaceship and head out in any direction. Let's say, for simplicity sake, that an infinite number of roads lead from earth to anywhere that telescope was pointed toward. When I get to any of those points, I can do the same. See the same, from a different and distant position. If I find a single road that would lead me to another dimension where I could do all of that in another place, where that observable universe was not the same as this one, then that would be another universe. Which would broaden the scope of the questions. It wouldn't imply any particular thing was eternal.
I know this is difficult for you to swallow. It, to you, implies belief in creation. I'm afraid this is something you have to accept as your problem. There may be a moment where we arrive at an understanding of how things became. We may understand that ex nihilo is possible. At the moment, we don't have any observations to support that as a conclusion.Yea ex nihilo(nothing will act on nothing to produce a thing) is possible. In mathematics we can prove 1=2!
What is dimension?
But I completed my presentation. You can believe that concepts join or you can reach your own conclusion, but whatever you do is not my business.
PS: Ambiguity is the best weapon for .......
Firstly, God has not created humans to discover Him with the faculty of reason, or scientific research.
As for defying reason, that is your claim, based on your own biases (as you ascribe to me).
To me, or any Christian, the "existence, or reality" of God is TOTALLY logical and reasonable.
Evidence is all around us. The difference is, we have not dismissed Him like yourself, out of hand.
We all have the same evidence in front of us. The difference is the interpretation we place on the evidence.
Hence, life being created by (a) supernatural God, is not only reasonable, but infinitely more likely than any theory you may hold, that relies an any (impossible) random accident or chance.
This very issue is what makes you (an atheists) and me (us) believers the same. Faith based humans who have CHOSEN what camp we will believe.This is a claim made by you which you CANNOT RATIONALLY or LOGICALLY explain, so why should I "believe" you?
Just because you "believed" your priest when he said that, why should I do the same?
Because you cannot use the faculty of reason(as you say), why do you assume I can't?
First of all, mine was not a claim. You indeed contradicted yourself by saying that life has to arise from life and then contradicted that by saying that your god who has life is eternal(such inherent contradictions are called "irrational"). If your first premise was right then if your god is living then his life has to arise from a another life.
You believed a priest when he said "god exists", then rationalized the evidence to fit your conviction, that is neither reason nor logic. If you have logic, then state the premises and show the conclusions that follow from that premises, if not yours will be an empty claim. Feeling reasonable is not ration.
If you first assume everything is created by god, then all things are evidence for creation, if you assume things are not created, then it is not. It is the assumption that is under question, not the "evidence" which can be either way based on the assumption. The assumption cannot be explained rationally nor it logically stand because of the inherent contradiction, so whatever follows from that assumption is also false.
You missed what I said, I didn't ask for evidence. What evidence are you going to provide that you believed some priests? What use is it for me? You can believe anyone you choose, that is your right in a free country. What I asked you is to logically explain yourself, that is either rationally or logically explain the claim "god exists". You do not believe the sun exist, but you believe god exists, why? Is their any proof for the sun other than that you see it everyday? So explain to be what you mean by "god" and "exist" without contradicting yourself.
For me god = creator. God has to exist if he is to create, and if he exist(material/physical presence or being an object and not a concept or being a thing rather than nothing), then it contradict that everything is created by god. In the absence of creation, there is no other explanation for the presence of universe other than that it was always here. It is also confirmed by the simple reason that what we call time is a measurement of change, that however back we go in time, we will only see things changing position(called time) not disappearing.
Life created by god is a claim, the premise is all life is to be created, and you contradict it by special pleading. It is like saying "Yes, I do think that all drunk drivers should go to prison, but your honor, he is my son! He is a good boy who just made a mistake![All drunk drivers should be punished excpet my son] or "Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is written in the Bible, then it is reasonable faith.[All beliefs are superstition except mine]
[Similarly : : All life is created except god's]
I have not believed in any camp like you, I followed my own conclusion based on logic and reason. I do not contradict myself unlike you, neither I use the authority of any priest/book/parent/nation.Who, exactly is this priest that you refer to?
Do you know something I don't?
Of course, you do.How do I know, it is you who said you "believe" and its stand to reason that only priests gain by making others fools.
That is upto you to decide. A fool is a person who believes another without examining the rationality and logic of the other.
The Bible also defines a fool.
I won't bother quoting it here.I know where you are going with this statement, but it raises an interesting question. Given the biblical definition I am assuming that you are referring to of a fool, you do realize that this does not apply to all atheists, right?
Secondly,
you have not said anything I didn't already expect from a good atheist.
I note that you lack total understanding of "eternal".
God is not subject to physical laws or properties.
If He were, He would cease to be God.
(A concept that, clearly, eludes you.)
You are indeed correct that assumptions are necessary, for views to be held, and conclusions to be reached.
For that reason, my assumptions, and conclusions are equally valid to yours.
Because neither one can "prove" their case, it stands by faith in both assumption, and subsequent conclusion.
This is the fundamental difference between atheists and christians.
I respect your right to hold that view.
But I also have the right to claim that you are wrong.
Don't you even know what claim you make? God cannot be eternal because you put a limitation, the limitation that all living things has to be created, cannot be eternal. That was your claim man not mine. If god is not living, I agree, he is eternal, according to your claim but then according to your claim he cannot give rise to life.
I have another doubt too, is prions and viruses living?Let me re-state it, since you missed it the first time.
"I note that you lack total understanding of "eternal".
God is not subject to physical laws or properties.
If He were, He would cease to be God."
Please give me another word to use instead of "exists".
Since everyone loves to tell me that only PHYSICAL things exist.
God is not physical, as such, but, none the less lives.
Do, heat, electricity, love, x-rays etc exist?
In your definition, NO, yet, our lives are definitely affected (in the PHYSICAL) by all of them.Non physical exist in our mind, so is god also only inside our minds?
So god is like heat? Heat is a sensation we "feel" when we touch things whose molecules are in vibration in a frequency higher than our body molecules. That is, what you call heat has a physical basis (same with all the examples you gave). Without anything to vibrate or without anything (EM) to carry that, there is no heat. So what is the physical thing that give rise to your concept god?You are getting close.
Non physical does not exist, remember.
God is SPIRIT.
God IS love.
Does love exist?
God gives rise to physical concept.Spirits do not exist. They are a childish fantasy that is told to those who don't yet understand how the brain works, specifically neuroscience.
Love, however, does. Love is a function of evolution, encouraging members of a species to stay with one another to ensure not only their survival, but the survival of their offspring and of their kin. It's a mental compulsion to protect your genes, whether they come from you or your family.
Love is most common in primates and mammals, but some reptiles and birds have exhibited signs also.That is not an answer to his comment. No we are not just chemical reactions, but chemicals organised in a certain pattern. A diamond is not just carbon, but carbon molecules organised in a specific pattern. So are humans, chemicals organised into cells, cells organised into organs and organs organised into organism.
Accident? It is not an accident that an eternal "non living" concept god conveniently present[in the mind of some unknown entity like human] and lived just enough, who is known only to priests, to create humans? But it is accidental that when water vapour forms enough concentration. rain occur? When rain water flows through the crevices of rocks form stalactites and stalagmites? It is accidental that a chemical, prion, can self replicate?
Now I understood that you are really tired that you have no idea what you are saying and are just rambling. So sleep, and when you get up, get a dictionary and find the meaning and the difference between belief/faith and conclusion and deduction. Or have you decided that you will never think but only "believe" whatever your priests told you?
Better still, tell me what you mean by "exist", the definition(a proper description of the meaning of the word not synonyms or examples).
That's what they say about Santa, too.
You mean reality has not convinced you that only physical things exist?
Up is down, left is right. The Bizarro world.
Yes.
Have you no understanding about what you state?
When you believe what is there to conclude, you believe irrespective of whether it stands to reason or not, irrespective of it being nonsense or not?
Conclusion has to be valid and sound but you have no idea what that means, have you? And conclusions are not belief but conclusions, or do you not understand that either?The biggest issue here, aka, is that if we are going to make a judgment claim regarding the opinion of another person, we have to be able to provide mutually agreed upon evidence to prove that claim within the parameters of a discussion. We cannot rightfully claim a victory or proof that someone is wrong if we attempt to introduce supernatural evidence into a natural conversation. This is one of the biggest conflicts between Christian and atheist. One side attempts to introduce evidence into a specific conversation that is opposite in nature to the conversation (such as trying to inject religious evidence into a scientific debate and vice versa). It is equally dishonest on both sides when we attempt to do this.
Well THANK YOU for admitting the truth.
If I cannot use supernatural concepts to frame my arguments concerning scientific conclusions,
then neither should you use unsubstantiated claims of "science" to refute metaphysical (spiritual) concepts.I agree with you.. By the way, I'm Christian in case you didn't know.. I was answering objectively. I did state that this goes both ways
I'm sorry.
It's late, I'm tired, and I completely missed who wrote the comment.
I "assumed" I was answering riddle666.That explains why you can't understand what you yourself wrote.
Oh, I fully understand what I write.
It's the reader who cannot interpret the concepts I am trying to convey.You didn't tell me what you mean by exist yet!!
God is spirit? Great. A spirit is a concept, a "thought" in the minds of humans, So god is only in the mind of humans?
God is "love"? Again great. Love is an "emotion" exhibited by humans and other higher animals, which again is mediated by chemicals and neurons in the brain, again a concept inside the mind of humans. So again god is a human thought!
Concept is conceived, a thought. Concept is non physical. You said god is like heat, a concept(a feeling of emotion or a mere imaginary being like harry potter conceived by Rowland). So my question is what was the being/thing that gave rise to the concept/emotion/sensation/feeling of god, if not human?
Then why do you contradict yourself too much? You first said yours is a belief, then said it is a conclusion, then said it not understandable.....
So do you believe bible or the ancient priests without examining the logic and rationality of your claim? Bible also ask you to stone your disobedient child and so are you doing that?It tells me to do just two things.
Stoning a child is not one of them.
Perhaps you should read the context of that "command".
Do you even know where it is?
Oh, yes, of course. Google can help there.
Yes, yes inconvenient commands are all contextual, like genocide and slavery. Actually if you see the contexts the best love is killing, and I am glad that most christians stopped following bible some 200 years before.
But that is a good argument, a red herring, to detract from the fact that you have nothing to say but a hope that everybody will stop thinking and follow the priests who taught you all these nonsense and believe them as you do.. It also helps to prevent people from noticing that not only you contradict yourself, you have no idea what you say.[god is like heat for example]
If that evidence, which you claim is all around us, doesn't have a trademark or stamp saying, "Made by God", then there isn't anything to dismiss out of hand other than your claim.
Yes, believers place interpretation on the evidence, their own personal interpretation.
And yet, the evidence states emphatically none of those explanations. Why would anyone choose any of that foolish nonsense when the evidence is clear?
I answered your question.
It's written in the Bible, that He rose from the dead, and ascended to God (the Father), in bodily form.But do you think he stayed in a bodily form? I'm not judging, I know the same was said about Mary. I just want to know what you think.
I did a little research and it seems that at least in Catholic doctrine Jesus is in Heaven in bodily form, but his body is "glorified" and there is some debate as to what that actually means. But basically, yes he is deemed to still be in his body.
Some priest, somewhere, some time had to come up with his (or her) explanation of "how", and you, the listener/student, take it by faith though the explanation is self contradictory,illogical and explains nothing.
In fact, the original post (and your comment here) both betray the same misunderstanding of science. A scientific explanation makes no claim to be true and does not seek belief. Instead it is a challenge. It effectively says "This might be true, unless you can prove that it is false". And that's how it stays until someone manages to falsify it.
No belief and therefore no faith necessary.
(How are you doing by the way? Long time no see).Neither can be proven NOR falsified, hence faith required. For faith to not be required would only be in the case where one (person) has absolute no opinion, or acceptance of ANY view.
Very well indeed.
haven't been around much. I miss the "good old days", when all the original hubbers were here in abundance. I guess they lost interest, much like me.
Hope you are doing well.
Regards
DJ.
The claims that have been made in reference to a superior being has been at least from my point of view refuted (I said refuted I did not say it was true) by scientists Carl Sagan, scientists Stephen Hawkins.
The only thing I can think of is that Hawkins is on record as stating that there is no need for a god (an intelligence) causing the creation of the universe. There is not necessarily a cause at all.
Did you have something else in mind?Hello Wilderness,
Actually I did -facts for one thing. Simply surmising that one's research has led them to believe there is no God does not in fact disproves there is no God.As far as I know, neither man has said there is no god. I can't believe either one of those gentlemen would be so stupid as to make that claim.
Have you found quotations or statements I've missed?Nothing can prove there is no God, nothing can prove there is no Easter Bunny or Big Foot for that matter. But it certainly could lead us to learn that no God is required and or there is no evidence for a God.
Rad Man,
Since you mentioned Bigfoot it's only been a few months back (When the program aired) and I forget which state (I'm thinking somewhere like Wisconsin) where some hunters claimed they had either killed or found dead Bigfoot and they It In a cooler and a well-respected Hunter verified it was Bigfoot. Unexpectedly scientists elected to travel to that location and examine this creature for themselves. Having done so they opened the cooler and began examining Bigfoot only to find that it deflated which meant it was a fraud.
If people are willing to conjure up a lie regarding issues which require the truth whom exactly should we believe?The truth of what was in the cooler. a.k.a. agreement of objective observers.
I'm betting that means something-but I'm at a loss to understand what it is.
It is one of the main qualities of science. Something is deemed proven when you can show proof to objective people. a.k.a. agreement of observers. Not anecdote. Thus bigfoot = still not proven.
You take your best shot, whether it be the people compiling and interpreting scripture (people very much concerned about maintaining their power base) or the top physicists of the world, with an understanding far greater than you or I will ever have.
In the case of the physicists, no one yet has seen fit to challenge the statement that no god was needed to produce the big bang. In the case of scripture we KNOW that many areas are false, but continue to believe the core claims while "interpreting" the areas that are known to be false to fit with the facts.
You take your best shot.Wilderness,
Much of what you say is true and having read your comments addressing both scientific and religious it seems clear at the bottom line has been and still is human interpretation.Of course it is. Interpretation of observed facts, though, and how they relate to reality. Not simply interpretation of the words written thousands of years ago, where the interpreted meaning is clearly far from what was meant by the writer.
It is, at the root, using the term "interpreted" in two different senses.And science suggest we use the collectively agreed interpretation of fully informed objective individuals.
Thus the rejection of the fake big foot was exactly what should have happened.
I saw an interesting show last night which showed some of the leading physicists speculating about what humans could do in billions of years to survive the death of our universe. They have a plan, believe it or not on how to make a new universe and get to it. If humans were able to make a universe would that make us... dare I say it... Gods?
You lost me with this one. I have no idea what your argument is? Yes, the hunters fabricated a lie and were busted under scrutiny. Thanks, that helps my case.
My point being even though one has credentials that others are to respect could they not also be misleading, untruthful?
Why do you want others help for simple deduction?
Oh, of course. That's were critical thinking comes into play. Do I send the televangelist money because he asks for it?
Science has nothing to do with argument from authority. When it does, something has gone wrong.
You don't consider any anecdote, from anyone, ever, to be sufficient proof--you seek evidence and corroboration.
Rad Man,
A person or persons can be misled by their own research.
psycheskinner
"You don't consider any anecdote, from anyone"
Than maybe a nice idea but hardly practical. For every fossil discovery found around the world are millions of people going to hop a flight to see every one of them?That is why we have the peer-review process. The "peers" are proxies for the informed public and the review is done according to transparent guidelines and then the findings are published in the aptly named "peer reviewed journals".
It works pretty good if you get your science news from peer-reviewed journals rather than News of the World or Twitter.Do we not criticize the Bible for being written by humans how then is this different?
I am not sure what point you are making. The Bible is not a work of science, it is a work of anecdote. People who choose to believe in it do not make that choice based on its adherence to the scientific method (as there is none).
People believe in stuff for all sorts of reasons but I was speaking of using the scientific method--not however religions works. I don't have any religious beliefs so someone else would have to speak on that point.
I consider it a work of human authorship, and wildly inaccurate in places. But fascinating. I guess you could certainly call that criticism if you consider it the inspired word of God.
What exactly is the evidence of God all around us? Evolution explains much of what we see and even if the current model cannot explain the intricacies of DNA or the workings of an individual cell, that is not ergo proof of God. It just means we have holes in our understanding in the same way that 500 years ago there was about electricity. I do believe in God but that's via a philosophical thought process, but I see no hard material testable evidence.
riddle666 wrote:
What is "universe"?
As Emil said ... everything that exists in this space time continuum.
OR Everything within this physical existence known and unknown.
What is "exist"?
What is "IS"
What is "time"?
Our understanding of time only exists as something which is passing by. If we were traveling at the speed of light along with it, ... Time would not even be a concept in this reality.
One example ...I don't think we can have a true concept of what a star, light years away, is. We only speculate what it WAS in a different space time continiuum, and make an educated guess as to if it still exist thousands if not millions of light years away; ...
SOoo in essence ... are we not looking across space , seeing a hint of a different dimension of reality than we are in or on. Or something similarGood, then what is mutiverse?
Not understanding, but definition is what is in question or the criteria by which you say that what you describe is time.
Can you show any"thing" other than the hands of a clock?If I am not mistaken ?? "THE" definition of a thing is dependant upon our understanding of it.
Before we can define multiverse we would have to agree what a universe is. one mighty say I am a universe in and of myself when we consider how complex this old body is. "EVERYTHING' within the boundaries of my skin is my inner universe. Everything outside of my skin is the outer universe which you and I share.
A molecule in my toe can not understand or define anything which is out side of its own universe nor can it see that which is within "your" universe.
This is the best that I can do in attempting to understand or explain how a multiverse system would work.
In the grand scheme of things, our outer universe might be compared to that molecule in my toe ??
We have no idea where we are in the grand scheme of thingsEverything that you do not agree with OR understand is nonsence to you.
If you can not make sence out of it ... it IS nonsence to you as it is with us all."universe":
"Everything within this physical existence known and unknown."
"one mighty say I am a universe in and of myself when we consider how complex this old body is. "
"A molecule in my toe can not understand or define anything which is out side of its own universe nor can it see that which is within "your" universe."
A definition is only a description that clarify the meaning of "term". So what were you saying? Does your little toe contain "Everything within this physical existence known and unknown"?
"Time would not even be a concept in this reality."
So what would time become? Does it suddenly becomes a man?
The difference is that the universe is boundless, unlike the difference between your outer and inner body parts separated by your skin, which is a physical boundary that can be observed and measured.
Because the universe is boundless, it must, by definition, contain every physical thing that exists. In other words, if it doesn't exist, it isn't part of the universe. That is why the concept of something that is outside of the universe is meaningless.The universe is boundless though restricted by the energy contained within itself the same way a wild deer is not bound, it is restricted by its own abilities to cross the river too wide to swim and the heights it is unable to jump. Our universe is restricted within the plane of existence of which it finds itself. It is not restricted to remain within our definition of it.
Q. So what would time become? Does it suddenly becomes a man?
A You tell me ! cause I don't know ! If you can't tell me what it is ? how do you expect me to tell you what it might become?Deleted
If you want an answer, ask a question? Simply putting words together(cacophony) won't convey meaning.
"If we were traveling at the speed of light along with it, ... Time would not even be a concept in this reality."
Since you are not travelling at the speed of light, I hope your brain is not muddled to feel a concept as anything but concept.
So this might help,
www.dictionary.comI didn't ask a question. You did. SOoo; ,, that last S.A. comment of yours would be more applicable to yourself.
You didn't say anything about the content of my post. You just attempted to put a twist on it such that you could appear to be smart.Attempted being the key word in that sentence.
Sometimes I wish we could be 1/2 as smart as we think we are.
YEP I'd be happy with half.I'm pretty sure I'm as dumb as wood, so I'd like to think I'm twice as smart as I think I am.
You didn't say anything but nonsense. In the department of nonsense only kess will excel you and that way even without attempting you are smart.
Use the links I sent you and find out the meaning of the words you used, probably that will make sense to you.
Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.
Related Discussions
- 119
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing wit
by Bill Akers 10 years ago
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God? There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator...
- 24
Do you believe in the 6 day Creation as described In the Bible or Evolution and
by Elisabeth Van Valkenburgh 2 years ago
Do you believe in the 6 day Creation as described In the Bible or Evolution and the big bang theory?I have exciting news for those who answer this question regardless of the position you take. Streaming live on the web from the Creation Museum is the great debate between Bill Nye, aka the science...
- 75
The interaction of faith and imagination in christianity
by College politico 13 years ago
Recently I wrote a hub on faith and imagination. Since I was interested in hearing others opinions on how we should use faith in our imagination I started a thread on this forum. Unfortunately it was high-jacked and the topic at hand was not able to be discussed. So this is basically my second...
- 21
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still beli
by Gaizy 11 years ago
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still believe otherwise.Once you have got your head around the theory of evolution, it's pretty obvious that it's close to how it must work. After all, animal breeders do the same thing when they selectively breed their stock....
- 103
If you do not believe in God, then what is your perception on this?
by Retrohawaii 12 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
- 97
Is there a difference between true faith and blind faith?
by Cathy I 6 years ago
Is there a difference between true faith and blind faith?I think true faith comes from prayer and reflection and meditation, while blind faith is believing in an individual rather than in the Word...eg: The May 21, end of the world forecast.