jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (202 posts)

Is Faith Required to Believe in Science of Creation?

  1. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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")

    2. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    3. ChristopherJRex profile image94
      ChristopherJRexposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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-Magic

      1. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who made the marbles?

        1. ChristopherJRex profile image94
          ChristopherJRexposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Silverspeeder: 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.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They always seem to think there has to be a who instead of a what.

        2. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          wink

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    5. Credence2 profile image88
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What is it about an incalculable series of happy and precise coincidences with exponentially decreasing odds that makes you wary?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "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.

  2. aguasilver profile image88
    aguasilverposted 3 years ago

    ...and if God is the most 'likely answer'?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Without any supporting evidence, it is more probable to be the most unlikely answer.

      1. aguasilver profile image88
        aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Stacks of supporting evidence to anyone who is not spiritually blind, depleted or deceived.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. aguasilver profile image88
            aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            yada yada yada..... can't be bothered to continue with you on this, choose what you want to believe and go with it...

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I can understand why.  You have a good evening.  Or night, depending on where you might live.

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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!

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                smile

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

                  1. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

  3. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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.

  4. Zubair Ahmed profile image79
    Zubair Ahmedposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "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?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I suspect some don't have any idea or scope of the size of the universe as we know it.

  5. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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?

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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".

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

  6. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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?

  7. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Got any idea what that means?

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure you are chomping at the bit to tell me.

        Humour me smile

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You use the same words.
            What does that suggest about you?

        2. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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 faith

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I 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?

            1. JMcFarland profile image90
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Do you really want an answer?

                1. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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*

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    As usual



                    I wasn't going to go with the standard answer



                    Of course you do wink




                    That's not why nonbelievers are silly. But I still love you

              2. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                ...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.

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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"?

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I see He included you in this.

                    Seeing you don't se, and hearing, you don't hear.

                    He spoke truth, indeed.

                2. JMcFarland profile image90
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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. .

              1. ChristopherJRex profile image94
                ChristopherJRexposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Mind = blown!  Kudos!

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.

              2. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm curious about something. You say his is belief. I agree. Why is it that you don't see yours as belief also?

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

                3. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This I have to say is something I've never given thought too. You think Jesus remains in his body? Where?

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You claim to know so much, yet you know very little.

                    Shame you don't really want to learn.

    2. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

    3. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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).

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

  8. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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?

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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?

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The truth of what was in the cooler.  a.k.a. agreement of objective observers.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm betting that means something-but I'm at a loss to understand what it is.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                2. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                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?

            3. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My point being even though one has credentials that others are to respect could they not also be misleading, untruthful?

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why do you want others help for simple deduction?

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who said I wanted help?

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, of course. That's were critical thinking comes into play. Do I send the televangelist money because he asks for it?

                3. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

  9. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do we not criticize the Bible for being written by humans how then is this different?

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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.

  10. Disappearinghead profile image89
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    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.

  11. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    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 similar

    1. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good, 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?

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        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 things

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          In short, nonsense.

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Everything 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.

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "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?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          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. smile

          1. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                exactly    I was hoping you might see the point

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If that was not good enough,  try this too
                  www.merriam-webster.com

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                 

              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.com

              1. Jerami profile image77
                Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I 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.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Attempted being the key word in that sentence.

                  1. Jerami profile image77
                    Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sometimes I wish we could be 1/2 as smart as we think we are.

                       YEP  I'd be happy with half.

                2. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

            3. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.

 
working