wddycus Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 Moderation note: The posts in this thread originally appeared in the thread 14276 They were moved to the Theology forum because they are less about the original thread’s topic than the subject of God I do not know where to start. In the Beginning their was a big bang can we all agree with this. So who or what causes it. You can go either way with this depending on your belief so for me I think I will go with the big Guy started it all so if I am right then I have the Big Guy on my side. If not then what the Hell I still not that far off I still believe in the Big Bang and that is where everything started. It is hard for me not to believe their is something started this off. Their is a lot in this Universe that we can not explain but their are a lot of religion that takes the Bible to literally that is where most people get turn off to Religion and I can not blame them it really make them look so stupid but we just need to pray for them OK I have said enough.Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 I do not know where to start. In the Beginning their was a big bang can we all agree with this. So who or what causes it. You can go either way with this depending on your belief so for me I think I will go with the big Guy started it all so if I am right then I have the Big Guy on my side. If not then what the Hell I still not that far off I still believe in the Big Bang and that is where everything started. It is hard for me not to believe their is something started this off. Their is a lot in this Universe that we can not explain but their are a lot of religion that takes the Bible to literally that is where most people get turn off to Religion and I can not blame them it really make them look so stupid but we just need to pray for them OK I have said enough.Dan Personally I think the BB is BS but lets assume it to be true and then you assume God made it happen but that only leaves the question of who created god, then who created that god and so on to infinity. God cannot be brought into a scientific theory. God exists on belief, the BB theory is based on evidence, more evidence might show the BB to a misinterpretation of the evidence but God cannot be tested or in in any way found to be true or false on any evidence. So god is outside of science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wddycus Posted May 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 Michael you ask who make God? I think God has all ways been it just asking what was it before the Big Bang nobody knows. So it is just as easy to believe in God he cause the Big Bang somebody had to strike the match.Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 10, 2008 Report Share Posted May 10, 2008 Michael you ask who make God? I think God has all ways been it just asking what was it before the Big Bang nobody knows. So it is just as easy to believe in God he cause the Big Bang somebody had to strike the match.Dan You don't understand what I am saying, if you insist on putting god into science then you have to ask the question, where did god come from. Simply saying god made the BB isn't enough. God is not part of science, religion is not part of science. Belief is not part of science, this is a good thing. God doesn't tell us how to create technology, science doesn't tell us how to behave. Every time religion has tried to define science religion has taken a hit and had to retreat. When science tries to define religion it ceases to be science. I see no purpose in trying to define science with religion, any more than I see any reason to define religion with science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 11, 2008 Report Share Posted May 11, 2008 The whole purpose of Science is to discover (as best we can) a NATURAL explanation for all the phenomena we observe. Not just some explanation or any explanation, but a NATURAL explanation, that is fully compatible with other known and trusted explanations. God is not a natural phenomenon. Yeah, that's going to provoke some ire, but it's true. God is by definition (it says here in the scripture) "above" natural laws, "apart from" natural laws, not subject to natural laws. So, God cannot be called upon as a NATURAL explanation for anything. As soon as you try, it isn't Science -- it's just religion. Rather than assume that God has been around forever, why not assume the Cosmos has been around forever? It's easier and simpler, makes more sense, and is no more far fetched. The Cosmos (which may have contained countless universes like ours) doesn't have to be all-knowing, all-seeing, or even alive in any sense of the word. So, it requires fewer assumptions. Chacmool 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wddycus Posted May 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 Why is it hard to believe God and Science is one of the same. God has giving you the knowledge and know how to make your decision about Science. It is not that hard to believe in a higher being or spirit who started it all. If you can believe we came from a one cell or what ever and now we are going into outer space and beyond It is not hard to believe we came from a higher being. What have you got to lose in believing in God if you are wrong you really have not lost a thing but if I am right you have gain eternity.:tongue: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 You're right. It's not hard. It's completely irrational and illogical. Adding some ethereal purple unicorn adds NOTHING to our knowledge, in fact, it stands directly in the face of further pursuit. "Yep, that's enough for me. God did it. Now, let's go tell some homos that they're going to hell." Positing some supernatural creator literally brings NOTHING to the table of understanding, and also suffers from the very problem we are seeking to resolve. When answering "where did it come from," god is not satisfactory since you must then ask "where did god come from" and then "where did THAT come from" until you get into this reductio ad absurdem. Also, Pascal's wager is not enough, because it's very clear what we lose as a society when people start arguing over who has the better imaginary friend. You can believe that a purple unicorn shat everything into existence if you're so inclined, but please don't try to tell me that this doesn't fly directly in the face of the scientific method and the critically thinking mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 Why is it hard to believe God and Science is one of the same. God has giving you the knowledge and know how to make your decision about Science. It is not that hard to believe in a higher being or spirit who started it all. If you can believe we came from a one cell or what ever and now we are going into outer space and beyond It is not hard to believe we came from a higher being. What have you got to lose in believing in God if you are wrong you really have not lost a thing but if I am right you have gain eternity.:tongue: First, belief has nothing to do with real science but it has everything to do with religion. Science and religion do not necessarily keep a person from from being a part of both. But religion doesn't not define or tell us anything about science. Nor does science define or tell us anything about religion. You have nothing to lose with either or both as long as you don't try to explain one with the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 What have you got to lose in believing in God if you are wrong you really have not lost a thing but if I am right you have gain eternity. What kind of God is it that can't detect the disingenuousness and selfishness of belief simply for the sake of eternal preservation? What kind of God of love punishes his children with eternal misery simply for lacking faith, particularly in a world where the perveyors of the faith are so often revealed as hypocritical shysters? What does believing evolution based on the preponderence of evidence supporting it have to do with God? Because it contradicts the Bible? :tongue: Any inquisitive analysis of the shear magnitude and majesty of the universe as revealed through scientific research should lead to an understanding that religious scriptures are simplistic by comparison, inadequate in detail, vague and subjective, and unworthy of any true God.... ....if there is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wddycus Posted May 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 This is my final note on this for a while the way most people believe is God or Science but I believe in both. Take God and the Bible I do not take the bible literally man wrote it with a Little help from God. Man has wrote our Science book with no help from God or maybe a little help. these hard nose Science people is like the holly rollers they can only see their side.No I do not believe god controls people he just let it happen most of the time because of free wheel. He know people would have to have a explanation in how thing started because we all have ask the questions Where,When,and Why? God knows we will try an find the answer to these questions but that is where Faith come in.If you have no Faith their is no way you can believe God because this is what it is all about. All I have to say is I Will Pray For You All.:tongue: God Bless YouDan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 You arrogant child. You posit that you will pray for me because I don't believe that a purple unicorn loves humans as special? I advise that pray for yourself to wake up and become part of a mature society, moving beyond this stone age set of fairy tales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutronjon Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 The whole purpose of Science is to discover (as best we can) a NATURAL explanation for all the phenomena we observe. Not just some explanation or any explanation, but a NATURAL explanation, that is fully compatible with other known and trusted explanations. God is not a natural phenomenon. Yeah, that's going to provoke some ire, but it's true. God is by definition (it says here in the scripture) "above" natural laws, "apart from" natural laws, not subject to natural laws. So, God cannot be called upon as a NATURAL explanation for anything. As soon as you try, it isn't Science -- it's just religion. Rather than assume that God has been around forever, why not assume the Cosmos has been around forever? It's easier and simpler, makes more sense, and is no more far fetched. The Cosmos (which may have contained countless universes like ours) doesn't have to be all-knowing, all-seeing, or even alive in any sense of the word. So, it requires fewer assumptions. Says whose scripture and what makes this scripture the authority on God? I am asking that we stop limiting discussions of God to the God of Abraham, unless we clarify by God we mean the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is one of many concepts of God. Let us assume for a moment that, there is a God, and then attempt to know something of this God through science. This is abstract thinking. It means theoretical thinking. In theory if there were a God what would be the properties of this God? As best as we can answer this today, the properties of this God would be atomic particles, ordered by forces we can know of through scientific study. As Cicero said, we study what we can study (nature) and what we learn through a study of nature, infer something about this unknown God. Infer is to conclude by reasoning something known or assumed. Where we get into trouble is when we are not prepared for abstract thinking, and therefore understanding everything concretely. That is very materialistic; thinking everything has a material existence. We speak of atomic parts as though there were things made of matter that move around, although we can not see them. We do experiements and observe something, and then infer from that observation that these things, we can not see, exist. This is as practical as assume the Greek Gods and Goddess actually exist. Understand, people could explain things with these Gods, as we now explain them with atomic particles, and we should not be too sure of these explanations of gods and atomic particle particles. The gods and atomic particles give us a language and frame work for our thinking, but all are abstract thinking not tangible reality that we direct experience. So, abstractly, let us assume there is a God, and then see what can learn about this theoretical explanation of creation and our existence. Than we can advance to more productive arguments that actually do end ignorance and superstition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 You arrogant child. You posit that you will pray for me because I don't believe that a purple unicorn loves humans as special? I advise that pray for yourself to wake up and become part of a mature society, moving beyond this stone age set of fairy tales. The realm of religion, which can be translated as “linking back to a source of all” is a very vast in scope. Simply dismissing all religions as “purple unicorns” is very narrow view. Buddhism for instance is more of a pure disciple of the mind. At the core of most religion it is a discipline of the mind. Myth that your alluding to as just a nonsensical stories are occasionally rooted deeply in the psyche of a culture giving the people a collective story to draw purpose and meaning. Remember these types of stories predate history and science and still influence us in more ways than you can imagine. You have to ask yourself what is your purpose ? What resides at the center of your life that gets you out of bed in the morning ? Family ? Career ? helping some one else that depends on you? Deeply religious people are not all idiots, anymore than scientist or all the devils handmaidens. I study all religions, the myths, and have discovered a gold mine of the collective conscious, understanding them is just like deciphering a dream, it gives clues to the source of creation that in many times are more telling than science, you just need to read between the lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 "gives clues to the source of creation that in many times are more telling than science, you just need to read between the lines." Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called Rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as: 'What is mind and matter? Of them, which is of greater importance? Is the universe moving towards a goal? What is man's position? Is there living that is noble?' It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latter's instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind. As early as the 1940’s, the pioneering physicist Niels Bohr sensed this congruence between modern science and what he called “Eastern mysticism.” As he investigated atomic physics and searched for a unified field of reality, he often used the Buddha and Lao Tzu in his discussions on physics in his classes. He made up his own coat of arms with the yin/yang symbol on it. The American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer also saw in Buddhism a scientific parallel to the puzzling riddles of modern physics; his cutting-edge discoveries seemed to echo the enigmatic wisdom of the ancient sage. Wrote Oppeheimer: If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron's position changes with time, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no;' if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no.' The Buddha has given such answers when interrogated as to the conditions of man's self after his death; but they are not familiar answers for the tradition of seventeenth and eighteenth-century science. In the 1970s, in The Tao Of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, Fritjof Capra expanded on some of Bohr’s and Oppenheimer's tentative impressions. He argued that modern science and Eastern mysticism offer parallel insights into the ultimate nature of reality. But, beyond this, Capra suggested that the profound harmony between these concepts as expressed in systems language and the corresponding ideas of Eastern mysticism was impressive evidence for a remarkable claim: That mystical philosophy offers the most consistent background to our modern scientific theories. http://http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VerhoevenBuddhismScience.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 Nutronjon - You are still approaching this assuming that your imaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend. That's just silly. Thunderbird - I appreciate that there are inherent differences in religions of various types, but they are still all social manipulation. I'm arguing for critical thinking and the release of fairy tales written before we understood that the earth was spherical. Either way, this thread is about god, whatever you choose to call it, not religion itself. No between line reading required. "Well, if you squint, and turn your head 90 degrees, you can kind of see a boob." There's a plain difference between the numinous and the mystical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutronjon Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 Nutronjon - You are still approaching this assuming that your imaginary friend is better than someone else's imaginary friend. That's just silly. Thunderbird - I appreciate that there are inherent differences in religions of various types, but they are still all social manipulation. I'm arguing for critical thinking and the release of fairy tales written before we understood that the earth was spherical. Either way, this thread is about god, whatever you choose to call it, not religion itself. No between line reading required. "Well, if you squint, and turn your head 90 degrees, you can kind of see a boob." There's a plain difference between the numinous and the mystical. My gosh, I find the lack of thinking your replies astounding. I thought you were a good thinker, and am concluding you don't actual think, but just have knee jerk reactions. You still don't get the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking. This is pathetic, because evidently you are incapable of thinking outside of the box, in which your mind is trapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 13, 2008 Report Share Posted May 13, 2008 My gosh, I find the lack of thinking your replies astounding. I thought you were a good thinker, and am concluding you don't actual think, but just have knee jerk reactions. You still don't get the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking. This is pathetic, because evidently you are incapable of thinking outside of the box, in which your mind is trapped. How about instead of attacking me personally with ad homs you attempt to show where my logic is flawed? I welcome a challenge to my position, and I'm confident I will be able to successful defend it. Bring it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.