The Creation - Work of God or Work of Science?

[Daniel]

I pose the question of Religion vs Science to you all, and once again, I only ask for your opinion, so no death threats please. :ayecapn:

Well, The Big Bang. HUGE explosion, and we're talking about an explosion that puts Hiroshima to shame. It created such heat that hydrogen and heluim atoms fused together to makes every single planet, comet, everything that out universe is made of. Yes, even those Burger Vans outside football matches.

But, the other side of the argument is this 'God' figure.

Everyone knows that God created the universe in 7 days (6 days if you really wanted to be picky) but this interpretataion of "7 days" is different among the different denominations of the religions.

So, what i want to ask is:

Do you believe 'Creation by God' or 'Creation by Explosion'?
Why do you believe that?
Also, if you believe in the Creation by God, in what way do you interpret the meaning of "7 days"?


Thank you :D

[Katse]

I stink at these kinds of discussion but...

If the Big Bang was what started the universe, how was that possible. There was supposedly nothing there, then BOOM a molecule splits and the universe is made. I thought energy could neither be created nor destroyed.:hmm:

[Juniper]

I personally don't see any contradiction between science and most religion. Religiously, I'm Christian (albeit liberal christian), and I consider Genesis to be more of a poetic book than anything; I've never thought the bible was made to be a textbook. I've always thought that, by definition, science is the study of nature and natural events, so therefore science could just be explaining how God did what he did. I try not to sweat things like that too much, I think a lot of supposedly "Opposing" issues can fit together just fine.

[Azerane]

I'm a christian and believe that God created the Universe, but I've never understood why people are always arguing over whether it was the Big Bang or God that created the universe. The reason being that in the Bible, it doesn't say how God created the Universe, all it says is that he created it. So it is possible that he created it using the Big Bang, and the time span of 7 days, refers to some long period of time.

So that's how I see it, so I'm on both sides really, hehe.

[TakaTiger]

Science > Religon..... nuff said

[Stormfury]

I don't have a problem with the framework of "The Big Bang Theory." But to answer question #one I'd have to say !yes to the BANG. I believe in it because I believe in cosmology, even if the date(s) are based on theoretical assumption. I do believe God (a god) created the universe and all its splendor. Though the time allotted is much more uncertain.

[Ashara]

Fully believe that God created the Earth. Everything in the Bible's true, and I don't question it. That's just me, though....

[Adrenaline]

Originally posted by Ashara
Fully believe that God created the Earth. Everything in the Bible's true, and I don't question it. That's just me, though....
Same here.

[nathalie]

I think even if I was religious I still wouldn't say that God created it all.

But since I'm not religious, I also still don't believe that God created it all.
Even though the Bible may say so. (but that, I think, is a total different subject/discussion).

Apart from that, I wouldn't really know what else could have made all this.

In school they have thought us 2 things:
* in "faith"-class: everything was made by God
* in history class: it all started with a big boom

I founded that rather confusing during my school days.
And I still find that confusing, also knowing that they still teach that in schools nowadays.
Because how can 1 or 2 teachers, give different explanations to the same class?

But that's just me ^_^

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Ashara
Fully believe that God created the Earth. Everything in the Bible's true, and I don't question it. That's just me, though....

So you believe it's wrong to wear clothes made of more than fabric, and you don't leave your house during your period? :confused:

And um, I'll have to go with 'neither' here. I think I'll make up my own wonderful little world to live it; it's so much easier that way.

[Kintaru]

I believe the story in the bible about Adam and Eve was more of a way to explain the creation of the universe to a group of people who couldn't possibly begin to understand the big bang theory. And at the same time it presented a story that tried to give people a reason for all the pain and suffering in the world they had to endure.

So, I don't think the creation story in the bible is wrong, it's just different. Designed for a certain audience. Kinda like if your two year old asked you how the carborator on a 1974 ford worked. :evilgrin:

[Neola]

Originally posted by ?nathalie?

In school they have thought us 2 things:
* in "faith"-class: everything was made by God
* in history class: it all started with a big boom
It's different here. In religion (the subject) they used to teach us that
the bible says everything was made by God, not that it's actually true. I think they're not allowed to make us believe anything even if we attend the class voluntarily.
Then, in biology (hmm, nope never had that in history...) they taught us evolutionism.

So you believe it's wrong to wear clothes made of more than fabric, and you don't leave your house during your period? :confused:
Haha, yeah, Neph's right. If you'd really stick close to the bible, believing every single word, you'd end up very confused (not saying that the bible "lies" in any respect). I believe we have to interpret and transfer some things and maybe leave a few out, like those Nephilim mentioned.

Then, to answer the question, I fully agree with Azerane here. God could have created the universe by evolution and 7 days could be...like 7 billion years or so. Would have to be a "both" for me.

[nathalie]

Originally posted by Neola
It's different here. In religion (the subject) they used to teach us that
the bible says everything was made by God, not that it's actually true. I think they're not allowed to make us believe anything even if we attend the class voluntarily.
Then, in biology (hmm, nope never had that in history...) they taught us evolutionism.


Yep, we got that in history classes, hehe.

Also, in religion class, they told us that Eve was born/made out of a rib from Adam?

How's that even possible *scratches head*


And after thinking about it again, Azerane's thought of it, I think that could be a possibility.

[Only-now]

It is very easy to interpret the bible as a set of guidelines, or stories used to allow us to better understand what the bible is trying to teach. Of course, then you have to look at whether there ever was any influence from a spiritual figure, or if it was just that. A set of guidlines and stories set up to explain to the rest of humanity why they should act a particular way that is then more beneficial to society in general.

Personally, I would have to agree with Pnt, in that I don't see how any theory of how the universe was created, and God having a hand in it all contradict each other. If I were to look at it from a religious standpoint, God created all that we see, as well as all the laws on how what we see works. So it isn't hard to imagine that God used a particular method to creat the universe. We still do not know what caused the big bang...so maybe when the Bible says that "Gos spoke and it was" is what initiated this whole chain of events.

~Kiva

[Neola]

Originally posted by ?nathalie?
Yep, we got that in history classes, hehe.

Also, in religion class, they told us that Eve was born/made out of a rib from Adam?

How's that even possible *scratches head*


And after thinking about it again, Azerane's thought of it, I think that could be a possibility.
Hmm...in history,they only taught us things they could actually proove, not theories...

Well the bible says that God took Adam's rib (he was sleeping btw) and made Eve out of it. Don't ask me how :S
But then again, if you interpreted it, it could make sense..I dunno :confused:

[Ashara]

Originally posted by Nephilim
So you believe it's wrong to wear clothes made of more than fabric, and you don't leave your house during your period? :confused:

And um, I'll have to go with 'neither' here. I think I'll make up my own wonderful little world to live it; it's so much easier that way.

Nope! I'm not that obssessive! :p I know a girl that doesn't leave her house when she's on her period because of that, though....Creepy.

[nathalie]

I don't leave the house eather normally when I have my period.
But that's just because I feel absolutely crappy for 5 days :s

(oookeeey, that was totally off-topic *lol*)

[Neola]

Originally posted by Ashara
Nope! I'm not that obssessive! :p I know a girl that doesn't leave her house when she's on her period because of that, though....Creepy.
Lol, is she going to school? :lol:

Originally posted by ?nathalie?
I don't leave the house eather normally when I have my period.
But that's just because I feel absolutely crappy for 5 days :s

(oookeeey, that was totally off-topic *lol*)
Yeeees, it was :p
Are you ever leaving your house, btw? :p (I mean apart from buying icecream ^^)

___________
Ok, sorry, I apologize for joining the offtopicness, I'm really really sorry, and I'm talking about REALLY REALLY sorry :(

[Titunen]

Hmm.. I do not believe in god. And I have to say I don't understand how the big bang could not be true.

Well think about it, it's said that the bang was some sort of a fission, meaning that a huge amount of very solid mass exploded into little pieces. And there's also fusion.
I'm not very good at explaining this, but doesn't it then mean that it's possible that before the big bang, there was something else, something similar to what we have now, and it got into this solid "lump" by fusion and then exploded into our world.

It still doesn't say how it all started, but I think it's a lot better answer than any gods.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Neola
Then, to answer the question, I fully agree with Azerane here. God could have created the universe by evolution and 7 days could be...like 7 billion years or so. Would have to be a "both" for me.

Hmm, interestingly, in the Qu'ran, the creation story says that the earth was created over seven periods of time, but tends to be translated as days. Which is unfortunately... but yeah, have to be careful with the Bible, because of so many years of mistranslations and interpretations taken as truth. Plus, the Bible was written by man so long ago, when we did not understand all we do now (i.e.--the Earth is not the centre of the universe) so the stories are very simple, passed down myths at the end of the day-- not kidding either, I can relate so many Bible stories to ancient Greek literature.

Oh, and the Adam and Eve idea? Just think of all the incest that brings up.

Ashara: "Nope! I'm not that obssessive!"

Well, then you hardly believe all the Bible says. Or at least, you don't put it all into practise, right?

:hmm:

[Neola]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Hmm, interestingly, in the Qu'ran, the creation story says that the earth was created over seven periods of time, but tends to be translated as days. Which is unfortunately... but yeah, have to be careful with the Bible, because of so many years of mistranslations and interpretations taken as truth. Plus, the Bible was written by man so long ago, when we did not understand all we do now (i.e.--the Earth is not the centre of the universe) so the stories are very simple, passed down myths at the end of the day-- not kidding either, I can relate so many Bible stories to ancient Greek literature.
That's what I mean, I believe the Bible is actually full of metaphors (day-period of time). And I also believe it was written by man...not by God, so there are loads of things we don't understand today (like what you said before)


Oh, and the Adam and Eve idea? Just think of all the incest that brings up.

The Bible does not say that God didn't create any other humans after Adam and Eve, does it?

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Neola
The Bible does not say that God didn't create any other humans after Adam and Eve, does it?

Well, it says that Adam was the first to be created in God's image, but after a while in the garden of Eden he became lonely, so Eve was created from his rib. All humans were also meant to live in Eden and Eden alone forever, but then the original sin was undergone, and so all were cast out... all two of them. So, it quite clearly puts the idea across that they were the only two- he also tells them to "be fruitful and multiply in number," or something that effect.

[Neola]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Well, it says that Adam was the first to be created in God's image, but after a while in the garden of Eden he became lonely, so Eve was created from his rib. All humans were also meant to live in Eden and Eden alone forever, but then the original sin was undergone, and so all were cast out... all two of them. So, it quite clearly puts the idea across that they were the only two- he also tells them to "be fruitful and multiply in number," or something that effect.
Well, after they got children, God just took another of Adam's ribs and, well...formed another woman and so on? I don't believe it was like that though :S
Or...my other theory...at that time incest was nothing abnormal - God just "invented" those physical damages after there were enough humans for everyone...

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Neola
Well, after they got children, God just took another of Adam's ribs and, well...formed another woman and so on? I don't believe it was like that though :S
Or...my other theory...at that time incest was nothing abnormal - God just "invented" those physical damages after there were enough humans for everyone...

Fair enough. Seeing as people did live ridiculously long in the first few books- about 900 years tops, right? Heh, I always figured if such incest were to occur, perhaps humans today are a lot more 'deformed' than they were at the time of ex nihilo creation. (Anyway, you can be related in up to five ways to anyone of the same culture and race as you, hehe.) So if the Bible's true, incest did not do us much harm for all we know. Despite the fact that it clearly forbids it later...

Out of question, are you a Christian yourself?

[Neola]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Fair enough. Seeing as people did live ridiculously long in the first few books- about 900 years tops, right? Heh, I always figured if such incest were to occur, perhaps humans today are a lot more 'deformed' than they were at the time of ex nihilo creation. (Anyway, you can be related in up to five ways to anyone of the same culture and race as you, hehe.) So if the Bible's true, incest did not do us much harm for all we know. Despite the fact that it clearly forbids it later...
Yes, and then God limited their age to 120 or something (which lasted until today, btw). Maybe he also made humans "weaker" in other respects, like incest, deseases and such.


Out of question, are you a Christian yourself?
Yes I am but not one of those strict ones. And also I think about things I hear/read before I believe them and if something doesn't make sense to me I always try to understand/explain them.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Nephilim
Plus, the Bible was written by man so long ago, when we did not understand all we do now (i.e.--the Earth is not the centre of the universe) so the stories are very simple, passed down myths at the end of the day-- not kidding either, I can relate so many Bible stories to ancient Greek literature.


From my understanding, some of those stories were also Pagan myths/stories. It's also interesting to note that the Christmas Tree is said to have it's origins from Pagan culture aswell.

[Sadiki]

I'm not really a religious person, I belong to chirch, but I don't really have a religion. as said there is many religions and it is impossible to tell what is right if any is. anyways this wasn't a thread about religion so I leave it there, but as you can guess I do believe only on the big bang theory, but as always others can believe what ever they want. it just make so much more sense then that some higher power had created whole universe.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by lion_roog
From my understanding, some of those stories were also Pagan myths/stories. It's also interesting to note that the Christmas Tree is said to have it's origins from Pagan culture aswell.

Right-o! Some Christian heritage came from Paganism. Example - Halloween (Samhain). Pagans (opposed to Neo-Pagans) didn't believe in cutting down evergreen trees, instead their concept was the decorating type. So... no need for Martha Stewart's Medieval Living.

:cheese:

[Krypto]

Let me just start this by saying that I had a hard time trying to get everyone quoted,:lol: so I just went back through and put peoples quotes in red. Also, just let me say that I'm not trying to be aggressive toward anyone. So, if it comes off that way, please, forgive my inability to express my true feelings with words. :cheese:

?The reason being that in the Bible, it doesn't say how God created the Universe, all it says is that he created it. So it is possible that he created it using the Big Bang, and the time span of 7 days, refers to some long period of time.? -Azerane [/red]

[color=yellow]That?s a good point! I never considered it that way!

Alot of this is based around the same type of argument that is placed on Darwin?s writings. People say that Darwin wrote what he did in order to disprove God. But Darwin actually believed in God, though it was one who was not omnipresent, and that that God created the original entitify from which all other life grew. He says that God was actually more of a genius because in doing this, he made sure that species would continue to exist on Earth, as they would be able to adapt. I agree with Azerane?s point that this stuff is actually more connected than people often believe. But it all connects back to there indeed being an entity which is God.

?I believe the story in the bible about Adam and Eve was more of a way to explain the creation of the universe to a group of people who couldn't possibly begin to understand the big bang theory. And at the same time it presented a story that tried to give people a reason for all the pain and suffering in the world they had to endure.

So, I don't think the creation story in the bible is wrong, it's just different. Designed for a certain audience. Kinda like if your two year old asked you how the carborator on a 1974 ford worked.? -Kintaru

That?s a really good point!

?Also, in religion class, they told us that Eve was born/made out of a rib from Adam?

How's that even possible *scratches head*? -Nathalie

That does seem curious, but it also says that Adam was made from mud. So, each is as curious as the other. Adam wasn?t made in a normal way and Eve in some far off, crazy way. :lol:

?Hmm...in history,they only taught us things they could actually proove, not theories...? -Neola

Then we had really different history classes. Did you all go over the theories about how J.F.K. was shot? Actually, just about all of the stuff that they talk about in history class is theoretical. They weren?t there and the people who wrote the primary sources often weren?t either. They just look at the overview and fill in lots and lots of pages with theories.

?So you believe it's wrong to wear clothes made of more than fabric, and you don't leave your house during your period?? -Nephilim Perhaps they throw in the menstruation bit because it?d be more comfortable for the individual? I mean, I?ve only been around a few people when that?s going on, and it doesn?t look like they?re having a good time. Perhaps being in private would be more comfortable for them? And I?m not sure about the fabric bit: does that mean that it shouldn?t have jewels attached?

?Hmm.. I do not believe in god. And I have to say I don't understand how the big bang could not be true.

Well think about it, it's said that the bang was some sort of a fission, meaning that a huge amount of very solid mass exploded into little pieces. And there's also fusion.
I'm not very good at explaining this, but doesn't it then mean that it's possible that before the big bang, there was something else, something similar to what we have now, and it got into this solid "lump" by fusion and then exploded into our world.

It still doesn't say how it all started, but I think it's a lot better answer than any gods.? -Titunen

But you?re left with the question of where that other world came from? Where did it?s material come from?

Oh, and the Adam and Eve idea? Just think of all the incest that brings up.?-Nephilim. Well, then you hardly believe all the Bible says. Or at least, you don't put it all into practise, right?

I?m not sure that that?s a valid point. What has that got to do with anything? And just think about it: before the last fifty or sixty years, incest was not frowned upon at all. You?re committing the same fallacy as the people whom you criticize from the earlier world: that they look at life from the perspective of only their time period. And that last bit is nothing more than a rather vicious personal attack and is highly inappropriate.

?All humans were also meant to live in Eden and Eden alone forever.?-Nephilim

I?m not sure where you got this from. I?ve actually read that part of the bible really recently, and I didn?t see anything about that.

he also tells them to "be fruitful and multiply in number," or something that effect.? -Nephilim


God doesn?t say anything like that to Adam and Eve. He says that to a man much later in the bible, because that man would create kings. So, no, that has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

?however the evidence against it is huge.?-SimbaTheLion No, it?s actually not. I just did a presentation on this and, no, the evidence really isn?t ?huge?. In fact, there?s just as little evidence to support it as there is to support faith.

?as said there is many religions and it is impossible to tell what is right if any is.? -SimbaTheMighty

You?re absolutely right. But there is one religion which is different. All of the religions except one are about followers who attempt to do enough stuff that is ?right? in order to get a reward. The only religion which has followers who have a god who has descended to Earth and is there for them is Christianity. This is neither here nor there and a bit off topic, but it?s just something of which I?ve recently become aware and I thought it?d be cool to fit it in here somewhere! :lol: :cheese:

[Nephilim]

I?m not sure where you got this from. I?ve actually read that part of the bible really recently, and I didn?t see anything about that.

Um, the Fall? Original Sin? Ring any bells? Being kicked out of Eden because of it-- they knew of good and evil, and so could not be allowed to eat from the tree of life. God did not create humans to sin, thus they were meant to be in Eden.



God doesn?t say anything like that to Adam and Eve. He says that to a man much later in the bible, because that man would create kings. So, no, that has nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

No wait, you're wrong.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." [...]

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning?the sixth day.

This clearly takes place during creation.

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by Krypto
But you're left with the question of where that other world came from? Where did it?s material come from?

Why are we left with that question? Why did it have to 'come' from anywhere? Far as we know, it could have been around forever.


Originally posted by Krypto
All of the religions except one are about followers who attempt to do enough stuff that is ?right? in order to get a reward.

Isn't trying to do the 'right' quite admirable, though? The christian doesn't have to bother with that, but can be as cantankerous and unpleasant as he/she likes, because it's not actions, but rather what you believe in that determines your worth?


Originally posted by Krypto
The only religion which has followers who have a god who has descended to Earth and is there for them is Christianity.

The Greeks have already been mentioned, so I thought I'd point that what little classical Greek literature I'm familiar with (pretty much limited to Homer's 'The Iliad', though, so I might be a bit biased) the Greek gods pretty much did nothing else but meddle in the affairs of mortals and 'descend to Earth' to cause trouble (or to fix some mess some other god had caused). And then there's the hinduist god Krishna that comes here every once in while to hang around with pretty ladies and whatnot.

But all that aside, every religion has something that makes it unique, for if it didn't, we wouldn't call it by a seperate name. Well, ok, I guess there's always the kind of people that try to reinvent 'truths' that been around for decades or hundreds of years by giving them a new name. Can't think of any at the top of my head, but anyone's welcome to chime in with whatever examples they can think of.

I'd also like to point out that there are other stories of creation than the christian '7 days'-version, and that I think human science probably had very little to do with creating the Universe. (Hey, that's what the original question seemed to suggest! To me, at least...) :p

But to answer the original question; I can't really say that it matters to me if the Universe is 13,7 billion years old or if it was created yesterday. The scientific explanation seems... well, 'better' and the ones with an opposing view usually seem pretty flaky (if not downright stupid). Since I have a typical leaning towards that whole 'intellectual' rot, the scientific version is what I usually go with when someone asks me about it. When I don't tell them that my views are undergoing a 'radical restructuring right now' anyway (which is usually even true).

Oh yeah. And:

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
There wasn't 'nothing', there was most likely a gravitational singularity present.Which means, not only was there not nothing there, but in fact, everything was there. Which doesn't really explain it to those that don't understand what a 'gravitational singularity' is, but I thought it was pretty funny way of looking at it at least.

Noone else agreed, huh? Oh well...

[Muruwa]

The universe, in my humble opinion, was created by God, though through natural means. The whole 7 days, I personally believe that time in heaven where God lives is different than earth time, so for all we know it could have been 7 days in Gods time but billions of years our time. I believe God works through natural laws as far as this is concerned, so I personally believe in evolution as well as a way of creating Adam and Eve (if this is my religions view on this I'm not sure). And in bringing up Adam and Eve, they didn't know good from evil in the garden of Eden, that's what happened when they ate the forbidden fruit (I'd find the scripture reference but I'm too lazy). They were in a pure state, knowing niether good or evil, happiness or sorrow because they hadn't experienced any of this. The fall, while viewed in a very negative way by many (yes it was bad that they sinned) was actually good for us because we wouldn't be here if Adam and Eve hadn't fallen from their perfect and pure state. Since many of you believe that the bible is metaphors and stories meant to teach, I would recommend reading Asimov's Guide to the Bible by Isaac Asimov; he puts things in historical context and does his best to explain many phenomena in the bible. I personally haven't gotten time to read the whole thing and found the beggining slow (because he's going through people's lineage and family lines) but what I read was pretty interesting.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Muruwa
The universe, in my humble opinion, was created by God, though through natural means. The whole 7 days, I personally believe that time in heaven where God lives is different than earth time, so for all we know it could have been 7 days in Gods time but billions of years our time.

That could be true. Supported by science even. According to Einstein, time is affected by the speed at which an object is travelling, if I remember right.

[Shadow]

i dont really belive in anything....i just think that where here end of story.....


i do want to note that i do not belive in god....

[Only-now]

I don't have time for a long posy, but StL, there is never going to be a way to "disprove" God's existence, etc. Especially not through science. No matter how deep you get into physics, you are really only reading what could be the laws that God wrote for the universe to "run" on. Figuring out how something works still does not prove that there is no God, etc. Maybe people who do not believe in a God or Gods believe that logic disproves it, but those who do believe have just the same strength in their beliefs.

I am not a Christian, but I would also like to say that just because there are some vague areas, or mistakes within the Bible, that doesn't prove or disprove anything. I find problems with the bible sure, and with the way it is "layed out" and yes these mistakes can in fact sway belief, etc. What is of real importance here is to remember that if you are studying these religions, to not focus on trying to prove or disprove, but to look at both sides. Otherwise, you are just another person who has joined a side, and will say the same things that have been said for years, and no one will get anywhere. Also, people have to try and stay away from hostility towards a religion or the beliefs of one. Whether a God exists or not, humanity has gained greatly from what many religions teach. I am not saying anyone here is being hostile, but that is something important to remember.

~Kiva

[Only-now]

That isn't what I am saying though. Proving how something in the universe works, or how it was created does not do anything whatsoever to prove that God did or didn't create it, or that there is or isn't a God. The further we get in solutions, the more questions will arise, and we will always be able to move the question back further and further. There is not physics or mathematical problem that can be solved with a numerical or theoretical answer that would then be able to say with complete certainty, that there is no God. God, his being, and our beliefs all stem from human thought, and human nature, not mathematics. There is no passage in the bible that says "If thou can solveth this equation, thou shall be anointed with thy answer thy seeketh"..lol.

Humans are very intelligent creatures, and I have NO doub that by the time I die we will understand a huge amount more about the world and the universe than we do now..but I would be willing to bet that we will never prove through mathematics, etc that God doesn't exist. Even though I am not Christian, if there is a God, I would have to say that he is probably laughing at our little conversation here. To prove something as this, it does not take what we call "complex mathematics" but a heightened spiritual level. What we create to explain and solve our problems, I am sure do not come close to what we have to understand to solve this puzzle. Also, I believe that there are very few people who are strong believers that try and use mathematics to prove God's existence. Even scientists who are Christian do not try, and I believe that is because they do not have to. They have something called faith, and it is stronger than scrutiny. It will always be non-believers that strive for "proof" and that is understandable. I feel the same way many a time because I have a hard time with the situation. I do not however believe that anyone can sit down, study what we may one day learn about the universe, and use a mathematical equation to disprove something such as this. There is nothing in the Bible mathematical to disprove. There is nothing in the Bible that forbids a certain law of physics we might one day discover. Therefore, I cannot understand how someone can say that those can be used to disprove the existence of God.

~Kiva

[Kovu The Lion]

if you want to get technical about it, God never existed as a physical being, but only through the body of Jesus Christ, as God is nothing but a spirit as he tells John when he asks to see him god replies

"NO man can ever see me"

Thats called the holy trinity , God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, The body, Mind, and Soul.

As for science going to prove the bible to be wrong, it will never happen, because everyday new questions are made, and new questions are answered, its an ongoing thing. just like humans dont know what happened in the fist 0.000000000000000001 seconds when the universe was first started, was it god or was it the big bang, or was it both, or was everything just here.

The problem with this being, "Energy can't be created nor destroyed" So the earth and universes most likely had to be here, or created by some superior being above all (God)

I don't really know what to say other than the bible is a lot contradictory, but the only reason it is is because more than one person wrote the bible, and everyone assumes different things in their own minds, from differnet problems, so its not really contradictory, Not the words of Jesus Christ anyways. But the words of the apostles and deciples maybe.

If you looked at it. The Universe could never be made by Science, at least not by my stand point, trying to say again, nothing can be created without something being their already, so there had to be SOMETHING in the Universe for the earth and galaxies + planets to appear, that being, God. If someone has something to prove me wrong please point it out, Been wondering this for a damn long time ;)

~KtL

EDIT:

not attacking you STL just want to state something =)



It's going to be rigorously proven one day though ^_~ ... Everything can be proven, simply we don't have the tools to prove some things yet.

The bible was pointed out to be true when christianity started :o

the bible also states how the earth came to be what it is today, so the bible, is a tool, that tells how man came of today, and how our earth and everyting was created.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I don't know how it can be explained any better than I tried to people who don't have very good knowledge of physics and the like. If anyone wants to have a go, feel free ^_~ ...

Aha, I have an idea.

Do we all agree that 0.9 recurring = 1?

We can never go back to the very start of everything, simply because that would be going back an infinite number of years. Infinity is a concept, not a number with any defined value.

Let's look at 0.9999999999999... No matter how many 9s we put onto this, it will never equal 1, although it will get infinitely close. That's the same as saying "Oh, yes, let's go 9999999999999999999..." years back to see what was happening then. No matter how far back we go, we can always go further back.

HOWEVER!

We see that the number 999... diverges to infinity. So, we will eventually be able to go as far back as ever could be possible. This will, in essence, be going back to the very start.

In fact, infinite density/heat was only realised in the gravitational singularity that was present before the Big Bang took place.

Darnit, I gave myself a headache now :p ...

What I gave was a completely comprehensible argument, yet you don't understand what I'm getting at... Hmm, kinda irritating :( ... I wish I could explain it more clearly to you...

Perhaps we should leave the maths/physics until I can get someone in here with a good bit more knowledge than me ^_~ ! If only I was doing my degree I could probably be a little more convincing for you x_x ...

That all seemed really... condescending if you ask me. We're not idiots ya know, and a good number of us have a decent understanding of math and physics. You're making the assumption that the "Beginning" of things was an infinite number of years ago, while there's absolutely no requirement that something exist. It is completely logical that there's a point where you just can't go any further back. What existed before that point? Error. Non-existance. Nothing. More so, now that we're dealing with singularities, I don't think it's possible to even make an educated guess at this point in time, as a singularity, if such a thing even exists, is a whole 'nother ballfield that can only be speculated about. Regardless, I've always considered an argument that can't be explained to the common man to almost always be invalid. Likewise, I've always considered "Well, you just have to be more learned in the subject" to be a great way of saying "Well, I don't really know, but take my word for it."

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I don't know how it can be explained any better than I tried to people who don't have very good knowledge of physics and the like. If anyone wants to have a go, feel free ^_~ ...

Aha, I have an idea.

Do we all agree that 0.9 recurring = 1?

We can never go back to the very start of everything, simply because that would be going back an infinite number of years. Infinity is a concept, not a number with any defined value.

Let's look at 0.9999999999999... No matter how many 9s we put onto this, it will never equal 1, although it will get infinitely close. That's the same as saying "Oh, yes, let's go 9999999999999999999..." years back to see what was happening then. No matter how far back we go, we can always go further back.

HOWEVER!

We see that the number 999... diverges to infinity. So, we will eventually be able to go as far back as ever could be possible. This will, in essence, be going back to the very start.

In fact, infinite density/heat was only realised in the gravitational singularity that was present before the Big Bang took place.

Darnit, I gave myself a headache now :p ...

What I gave was a completely comprehensible argument, yet you don't understand what I'm getting at... Hmm, kinda irritating :( ... I wish I could explain it more clearly to you...

Perhaps we should leave the maths/physics until I can get someone in here with a good bit more knowledge than me ^_~ ! If only I was doing my degree I could probably be a little more convincing for you x_x ...

Scientists don't need to go back 0.999999999 or whatever, From the internet and my science books and texts I've read, we know (From a scientific standpoint) what happened to the universe, except the first, non-existent time of nothingness they call .. something, but anywyas, what I was saying is Scientist, 'KNOW' what happened, but they don't know what created that and what made that happen (big bang, Nuclear clouds, God..Etc)

And I know what you are talking about Simba, try following the rules and don't throw people down like that just because they aren't at your level of math ;)

But what it really sounds like to me StL, is you just don't really care what anyone has to say about it in a Christian View Point :p

~KtL

EDIT: If we got into Quantum Physics, DAMN! Anythings possible then XD

[Only-now]

I agree, that did seem a bit condescending on the recieving end here. I don't think you need to explain anything else to me. You are trying to use the wrong tool to solve a problem here. Maybe this is because this is something that you have a large degree of knowledge in, and so you feel it is what you can use to solve the puzzle, but it isn't the case.

It's like trying to answer a "what's your opinion" question in English class using a velocity formula. I really have doubt that you would get that far, because that is using the wrong tool for the problem. I would LOVE for someone to explain to me/us, if we are that blind, how mathematics by either value or application that God doesn't exist. I think that is a very large bite to chew, especially with the wrong method. It is not out of the question to disprove a theory or statement on how something works, but the problem is that the Bible does not even care to speak of such things. So what exactly would math and physics be use dto disprove? Maybe you can disprove theories created by MAN that are supported by Christians, but that also does nothing.

The whole reason we are even having this talk is because we as man, decide to question this book. We as man have developed all these tools we use to solve the puzzles of the universe, and the problems we create. Using these tools, this "key to the code" so to speak, does nothing but help us decipher what might be God's work, not disprove it. That takes a much different type of tool, and thinking.

~Kiva

[Muruwa]

Sorry if this is off topic but I think there needs to be something said.

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
if you want to get technical about it, God never existed as a physical being, but only through the body of Jesus Christ, as God is nothing but a spirit as he tells John when he asks to see him god replies

"NO man can ever see me"

Thats called the holy trinity , God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, The body, Mind, and Soul.
This is a topic of much debate actually. If God doesn't have a physical body, how could he talk to Moses "face to face as a man speaketh to his friend" (that quote may be off) I believe that's in Exodus 33 somewhere. Or how could we have been created in his image if in reality, he has no physical body to mimick? In my opinion that scripture from John is one of those things in the bible that got distorted with time. How did I come to this conclusion? Well, as some of you may know I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (or mormon) and Joseph Smith got revelations from God about scriptures in the bible that were contradicting (I'd be happy to look up the exact history if someone wants me to). These revelations are commonly called the Joseph Smith translation (he did not re-make the bible by any means, simply corrected scriptures here and there). (Obviously if you don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet this will have no significance to you, but I thought it best to explain that so you know where I'm coming from.) That scripture was suppose to be something along the lines of "No sinful man can ever see God" which makes sense. I'll look more into the context of this scripture (and double check the translation) later if anyone would like me to (if you want to discuss this more with me leave me a private message). Anyway, if this post is too off topic please just delete it or whatever it is you do to off-topic posts.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Muruwa
Sorry if this is off topic but I think there needs to be something said.

This is a topic of much debate actually. If God doesn't have a physical body, how could he talk to Moses "face to face as a man speaketh to his friend"

Because he is god.

anywho for real now

Good thing to say I'll try to explain it.. Sorry if I'm wrong but this is what I think,

People say God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are all the same person,

So if Moses was talking to God, then he was talking to Jesus Christ, Who is the physical being of God, Which he himself is really actually God,

its really damn confusing but meh, lol short but simple explination?

~KtL

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Because he is god.

anywho for real now

Good thing to say I'll try to explain it.. Sorry if I'm wrong but this is what I think,

People say God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are all the same person,

So if Moses was talking to God, then he was talking to Jesus Christ, Who is the physical being of God, Which he himself is really actually God,

its really damn confusing but meh, lol short but simple explination?

~KtL

But if Moses was talking to Jesus waaaay back then on earth, then wouldn't the whole Jesus-Mary-Joseph thing technically be his second-coming? Hence the Bible would be fulfilled.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Muruwa
Sorry if this is off topic but I think there needs to be something said.

This is a topic of much debate actually. If God doesn't have a physical body, how could he talk to Moses "face to face as a man speaketh to his friend" (that quote may be off) I believe that's in Exodus 33 somewhere. Or how could we have been created in his image if in reality, he has no physical body to mimick?

Maybe that quote was referring not as much literally but more metaphorically. Plus parts of the bible that were translated to English tend to be pretty off from the original text, mainly due to difficulty translating the text. And maybe by "created in his image" it wasn't talking so much physically as maybe spiritually, mentally, etc?

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Lol :p , I deliberately tried to make it so it wasn't that way :lol: ...

Matter technically could come to be, but that would be due to a quantum effect. Quantum physics is amazing ^_^ ... Did you know that between me typing this word and the next, I could've been to Mars and back? Fascinating =) ...

Lol, I wasn't not following the rules, I don't need you to tell me that either. Yup, quantum physics could resolve the problem as I mentioned above ^_^ ...

Maths/physics can solve anything, if we give it time. I can tell that the powers of science and knowledge are greatly underestimated and unappreciated here...

It was proven that an atom can pass through two holes in a piece of paper at EXACTLY the same time. Again, there's quantum mechanics for you ^_^ ! Anything is possible for science. I hope when I get older I will be able to make some great conclusion of my own that will resolve some large problem. Perhaps it will be this very problem, who knows ^_^ ... Quite a thought-stirring thought, but I will do my best ^_~ !



If you can explain it any better in the same way, go ahead ^_~ ... In a few years I dare say I will be able to come back to this discussion with a much more conclusive answer for you all. I am confident in my mathematical ability, and I am learning new things each day ^_^ ... Like I said though, we could do with a research scientist or someone in here to back me up ^_^ !

If math and science can solve anything, then I suppose it can solve the meaning of life? I guess it can tell people their purpose in the world? I assume it defines the intrinsic worth of a human being, or along those lines, the human spirit? It can tell what lies beyond the realm of life? Howabout why there's evil and suffering in the world? Those are some issues I've been wrestling with lately, I'd sure love to hear the answer. That brings forth another question that I'm sure science can answer: Why do I care about those issues? Math and science have their limitations; they can only answer how something can happen, they can not answer why. They define the mechanism, not the entity (if any), behind it. So two atoms can pass through eachother, who's to say an outside entity didn't decide for it to be that way? Science is, by definition, the study of nature. God(s), by most concepts, is(are) supernatural; "Above" nature; outside, not bound by. How is it possible for science to disprove something that is not within its jurisdiction? Using the very logic inherent to science, it is not possible. I'd call the trust that science and math are the sole knowledge, able to solve anything, the rape of intelligence, and a surrender to ignorance.

As for what you were saying, in all honesty, I can't explain it better because I don't know what the hell you were trying to get across. That doesn't mean I'm gonna take your word for it because you used big scientific words. A true understanding of a topic can be indicated by the ability to put the concept into your own words, and less technical terms, so as to convey your point to others.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Simply put, it is within the bounds of maths and science, as is everything. Supernatural things, well, I dare say given time scientists will be able to prove the existance or non-existance of things like ghosts, and the like. Same with religious entities.

Why should I have to put my explanation into less complicated words because people don't fully understand it? That's not my fault... Ok, let's see, what's a less intimidating synonym for "quantum mechanics"... Hmm... It's not going to happen.

All I can get from what you're saying is that you have faith in science in the same way that people have faith in religion.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I not only have faith in science, I have faith that science will be able to prove conclusively a resolution to this problem.


And what I'm saying is, how is it possible for science to disprove something it does not deal with? That's like art disproving science, it doesn't even make sense, two completely different things.

[Sombolia]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
The bible was pointed out to be true when christianity started :o

the bible also states how the earth came to be what it is today, so the bible, is a tool, that tells how man came of today, and how our earth and everyting was created.

First point- eh?

Second point- if you believe in it. I'm not saying the bible is true, or false- we can't know. You can't use the bible as a valid argument because we don't know if it really happened, many people just believe that it really happened.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Why should I have to put my explanation into less complicated words because people don't fully understand it?

M'yes, why should you? "Express yourself!" Don't let deaf ears limit your prowess.

:cheese:

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion


Why should I have to put my explanation into less complicated words because people don't fully understand it?

Because words only you understand serve no meaning; the english language is made for communication, not to make STL look smart, which is what I think you were going for. Using PhD level words on a forum of mostly highschool students means absolutely nothing; your words are worthless if not understood. Same with how so some people on this forum use language that they know many just won't understand; what's the point of saying something if the thing you say won't be understood? You made a very wild claim, and tried to back it up with information that a vast majority would have a problem understanding (and the whole time acted condescending and rude) and expect me to buy it. I see no other point, except to use big words to either get people to respect you (which just doesn't work), or to get people to blindly trust what you're saying. Both fail.

[Stormfury]

|| I believe you might fail the understanding Pnt. Some people express themselves quite differently than others. STL uses a technique that better helps resolve himself. Some could say lengthy methodical posting is quite the transferral; but no matter the method; it can easily be figured out. If someone don't understand a word they can readily figure out, a common lexicon will help them on their way.

It's called "self-education" ...

[Juniper]

Originally posted by S0nique
|| I believe you might fail the understanding Pnt. Some people express themselves quite differently than others. STL uses a technique that better helps resolve himself. Some could say lengthy methodical posting is quite the transferral; but no matter the method; it can easily be figured out. If someone don't understand a word they can readily figure out, a common lexicon will help them on their way.

It's called "self-education" ...


And my point is how hard is it to use "Dictionary" instead of "Lexicon", another word instead of "Transferral" (Which I believe was used incorrectly), etc...? How many people here have a good knowledge of what a singularity is? How many people here know what the hell an "axiom" is? For the sake of understanding, is it so hard to use words like "Principle" and to at least define what he means as singularity, as there's three different definitions that cover mathematics, physics, and science. Then he adds in his little rude and condescending quips, and I really think a moderator should be behaving himself better.

Now look, I've played this game before, I know how it goes; we're gonna go back and forth for, oh, three pages? I don't think that's really necessary though, as it draws away from the thread. I've said what I needed to say; say what you have to say, if anything, and we can be done with it, because I'm not leading this thread off track any further.

[Only-now]

Well, first I just want to say that Pnt said exactly what I was trying to, but maybe in a more elegant way, hehe. Really, I just don't think you (StL) are going to be able to agree, or understand our point of view, and that is fine because it works both ways. As Pnt said, you believe you can use something that has certain limits, to solve something outside of them. Oh, and about the whole language choice bit, I agree on that to an extent too. Sometimes it is necessary to fit your speech to who you are talking with....that is, if you are actually planning on having a debate and not just hearing your own voice. What I mean, is that I think we are here to try and get our points across to one another, and using speech which you do not explain, or examples you find interesting that other don't understand only serve to make you seem like you are saying something important, so we should all agree. Anyways, I guess it is just safe to say that I have a lot of faith in science, physics, and math, but only with what they are able to solve and define. I do not look to something that is so tangible (what it deals with) for something that is for the most part, completely intangible.

Now, about the whole "God talking with Moses". I think that many of these passages can be interpreted many different ways. In the beginning it says that God walked with Adam in the Garden...that would imply that he had some physical form. That doesn't mean however that he has a permanent physical form. He talked in the form of a burning bush, and besides, to speak to someone as a friend doesn't mean you have to be next to him. You can speak with just a voice, and that work just as well. The quote that we are created in his image can be taken many ways as well. God either made us in his physical image, or God made us in his mental image, as we were originally holy (but screwed that up). We were intended to have the same mental "jist" as him. As in, values, morals, intelligence, etc. Not to say that we were created equally to him. Also, about that Mormon prophet interpreting the Bible to say that no sinner shall see God...that IS already in the Bible so that seems a bit repetitive.

Anyways, sorry if I said anything too harsh. Have a nice day everyone!

~Kiva

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
I not only have faith in science, I have faith that science will be able to prove conclusively a resolution to this problem.

At the end of the day there will always be the nihilists, so no, science will not ever be able to prove everything to everyone; merely it is what you want to believe in personally. For example, I could deny science right here and now, so your logic falls through. And there's no saying I'm wrong, either. So... science is true to you.

Well, we'll only find out when we die, I suppose. =P It's pointless to argue; you'll have faith in science, they'll have faith in religion, and I'll have nothing in nothing...

[Only-now]

I don't mind using complex words if that is how you choose to speak naturally...but personally, and I will try not to insult you, I think you do it for the sake of using them. I don't want to turn this into an attack on you or anything, but often it seems that you enjoy flaunting your intelligence, and letting everyone else know that "you know". I think that is even more evident when myself and Pnt both saw you as acting a bit condescending towards us during that little scuffle. It seems very much like you enjoy being sarcastic, and then putting it off like you are happy, while at the same time making sure you let everyone know just how intelligent you are. Plus, you threw in a bit of modesty with that "my speech isn't THAT sophisticated". Anyways, sorry if I am breaking the rules, not trying to insult you, but more so trying to explain why I at least thought it was a bit "wrong" to use those words. I agree that you shouldn't always have to "descend" to someone else's level because they don't understand, and yes people should look up words (and I do) but using them when they aren't necessary (such as here compared to an exam etc) just created problems. Do you understand what I mean? I have no problem with saying a word in context when it is the best choice, but you have to consider your audience here. Both "sides" of this "argument" have merit, and this is off topic, so it's another area to agree to disagree..hehe.

~Kiva

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Nephilim: If you have "nothing in nothing", you don't believe in science but you don't believe in religion, then what do you believe happened ^_^ ? It sure would be quite interesting to hear an alternative! Surely you must have some thoughts on the subject.

I have no idea. No idea whatsoever, so I won't make assumptions based on ancient stories or any thing else. Maybe science will figure it out one day- probably will, I hope.*shrugs* I mean, I won't even say that we are here for sure. Perhaps this is all some crazy dream I'm having.

:evilgrin:

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by pntbll248
And my point is how hard is it to use "Dictionary" instead of "Lexicon", another word instead of "Transferral" (Which I believe was used incorrectly), etc...? How many people here have a good knowledge of what a singularity is? How many people here know what the hell an "axiom" is? For the sake of understanding, is it so hard to use words like "Principle" and to at least define what he means as singularity, as there's three different definitions that cover mathematics, physics, and science. Then he adds in his little rude and condescending quips, and I really think a moderator should be behaving himself better.

Now look, I've played this game before, I know how it goes; we're gonna go back and forth for, oh, three pages? I don't think that's really necessary though, as it draws away from the thread. I've said what I needed to say; say what you have to say, if anything, and we can be done with it, because I'm not leading this thread off track any further.

"Transferral." Not incorrect. Just misinterpreted. Don't assume the obvious. Games? Please elaborate. If you wish we can discuss this on a totally new topic; I think it'd be for the better.

[Krypto]

I'm having some trouble with the colors on this post, but there's one color for something that someone else said and then there's my response in another color. Also, I apologize for it taking me so long to reply to this. It's almost finals week here and things have gotten to be a bit crazy! :lol: :cheese: One more week to go! :cheese:

Nephilim: Um, the Fall? Original Sin? Ring any bells? Being kicked out of Eden because of it-- they knew of good and evil, and so could not be allowed to eat from the tree of life. God did not create humans to sin, thus they were meant to be in Eden. Yes, they were in Eden, but when God was telling them what to do and what not to do, he didn?t say anything about leaving Eden. That?s why I say that God never intended for them to only be in Eden. But I see what you?re saying about them being kicked out. But they were also locked out. Perhaps when they had multiplied several times, there would be a need to expand to the area outside of Eden, though the area would still remain unlocked. So, I see what you?re saying, though it seems to me that there?s nothing in the bible which says that they were only to inhabit Eden.

No wait, you're wrong.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." [...]
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning?the sixth day.
This clearly takes place during creation. You?re absolutely correct. I focused too much on the wording. He actually did say ?be fruitful and multiply? to a man later in the bible under the circumstances which I?ve already stated. But you?re right, he did say something to that effect to Adam and Eve. :cheese: Sorry, they've gotten us focusing on the wording of sentences in my english class. :cheese:

[color=red]Ghamu: Why are we left with that question? Why did it have to 'come' from anywhere? Far as we know, it could have been around forever. Because no scientific mind would settle with ?well, it just happens?. That?s the foundation of science: figuring out why stuff happens.There?s no such thing as ?forever?. There had to be a starting point. If we can?t agree on that, then we can?t discuss any of this. There had to be a beginning. That?s just basic. And we know that nothing just happens on it?s own. So, I don?t have any answers. But it had to start at some point. And even if there was simply a ?big bang,? something made that happen and the material had to come from somewhere. So, you?re left with just as many questions as you had before. But this can all the thrown in the face of the faithful. Even if God did create the material and made stuff happen, where did God come from? Who created him? We?re still left with questions which we cannot answer. But we are still left with those questions.

Isn't trying to do the 'right' quite admirable, though? The christian doesn't have to bother with that, but can be as cantankerous and unpleasant as he/she likes, because it's not actions, but rather what you believe in that determines your worth? Ofcourse it's admirable. :cheese: And ofcourse the Christian does have to bother with that. Like Christians can just do whatever and have it be okay? Yes, forgiveness is part of the thing. And everybody is guilty. There is nobody who is free from it. I think know exactly what you?re talking about and I think I know exactly the type of people that you?re talking about, believe me! :lol: But I?m not really talking about those people when I talk about Christians. I?m talking about the right kind-and there are not too many of ?em around.

The Greeks have already been mentioned, so I thought I'd point that what little classical Greek literature I'm familiar with (pretty much limited to Homer's 'The Iliad', though, so I might be a bit biased) the Greek gods pretty much did nothing else but meddle in the affairs of mortals and 'descend to Earth' to cause trouble (or to fix some mess some other god had caused). And then there's the hinduist god Krishna that comes here every once in while to hang around with pretty ladies and whatnot.

But all that aside, every religion has something that makes it unique, for if it didn't, we wouldn't call it by a seperate name. Well, ok, I guess there's always the kind of people that try to reinvent 'truths' that been around for decades or hundreds of years by giving them a new name. Can't think of any at the top of my head, but anyone's welcome to chime in with whatever examples they can think of.

I'd also like to point out that there are other stories of creation than the christian '7 days'-version, and that I think human science probably had very little to do with creating the Universe. (Hey, that's what the original question seemed to suggest! To me, at least...) I?ve also studied the Greeks. All in all, you?re left with interesting story lines, but it doesn?t seem to me to be the same sort of thing as Christianity. God reveals himself through Jesus. There is proof that Jesus existed and that people saw what people believe he has done first hand. I haven?t seen anything from the Greeks which suggested that any of what they believed, they actually saw happen. That leads me to believe that they were more along the lines of stories that do seem reasonable to simple minds.

SimbaTheLion: Um, yes it is lol, just you have to be very good at physics to understand most of the reasons why ... I didn?t realize that physics had anything to do with what we are presently talking about. But I?m all ears. Care to fill me in? I?ve taken some physics courses. And there?s actually not many things which can?t be explained to general audiences if you dumb the language down. So, care to do that for me? I?m not trying to be a smart aleck-I just havent heard anything along those lines and am curious. :cheese: But other than that, I?ve actually recently worked with the scientific material involving this topic and there is actually not any scientific proof that there does not exist God. Evolution doesn?t disprove God. Nothing in science disproves God. But faith does have proof of God. We have a person who ran around the Earth performing miracles, walking on water, coming back from the dead and (for all intents and purposes) screaming to everyone that he has come from God, that he knows God and that God is the way. I mean, what more proof do you need than that? People cannot do that. People saw him do this firsthand. I just don?t see why people act like it is much more reasonable for people to believe in science than faith. Science has nothing to offer as to why it couldn?t happen, faith has someone who?s run around doing things that are not possible, telling them that it is because of God. For me, it seems much more reasonable to believe Jesus than to stand with a test tube claiming ?one of these days...I?ll find a way to disprove it?.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Take some courses in quantum gravitation and similar fields


One doesn't need to take a course in "Quantum gravitation" or similar fields to have an opinion about their spiritual being. So what if there's no hard factual evidence? Isn't that what faith is? Isn't that what being human is, not always knowing, but hoping nonetheless? I see no reason to not believe in a god, such a thought doesn't contradict intelligence or science in any way I've ever seen addressed, as long as one doesn't refuse to question the things around him/her. I really don't think he was telling you to believe in some guy who died thousands of years ago, no more than you're telling him not to believe that, at least.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Wow, that reminded me of Of Mice and Men. "The best laid schemes of mice and Men, gang aft agley." (sp?) Great line from a poem by Robert Burns - it basically means that no matter how hard we hope/try for something, it can often go astray. If you've not read it, it's quite a touching book about two itinerant workers in Depression America. Make sure to check it out sometime ^_^ ! We're studying it for our GCSE English literature book; I enjoyed reading and analysing it a lot.

I actually wrote an essay on this very topic for homework on Wednesday night I think it was. Basically the topic of the essay was to discuss how futile hopes and dreams are educed in Of Mice and Men, and to comment upon how they influence the lives of the workers. Basically I concluded that they give the workers something to keep striving for, yet still don't provide a long-lasting exit to their pitiful and widely meaningless existance.


I've read it.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Krypto

[color=red][color=yellow]Yes, they were in Eden, but when God was telling them what to do and what not to do, he didn?t say anything about leaving Eden. That?s why I say that God never intended for them to only be in Eden. But I see what you?re saying about them being kicked out. But they were also locked out. Perhaps when they had multiplied several times, there would be a need to expand to the area outside of Eden, though the area would still remain unlocked. So, I see what you?re saying, though it seems to me that there?s nothing in the bible which says that they were only to inhabit Eden.

There would be no need to leave Eden; without sin sexual reprodution would exist, but lust and desire would not, so it would be very much under control.

As for you point on mortals going in and out of Eden, try reading Genesis 3:14-19. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing a loving God would have planned for his creation.

And "to that effect." Exact words, more like.

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by Krypto
Why are we left with that question? Why did it have to 'come' from anywhere? Far as we know, it could have been around forever.

Because no scientific mind would settle with "well, it just happens". That's the foundation of science: figuring out why stuff happens.There's no such thing as "forever".

Uh? I didn't quite follow that. If everything has been around forever, how exactly does it follow that one should settle with a "well, it just happens"? And how do you know that forever does not exist?

If we accept that everything has always been around, we are not left with any questions as to where everything came from, are we? If it's always been around, that means that it didn't come from anywhere else. Some say that God created everything, to which the follow-up question is usually: "Well, where did God come from?" 'Nowhere, He was always around' is more often than not the answer.


There had to be a starting point. If we can't agree on that, then we can't discuss any of this. There had to be a beginning. That's just basic.

I reckon that that's how we think of it, because that's how we percieve things. Begin > Wax > Wane > End.


And we know that nothing just happens on it's own. So, I don't have any answers. But it had to start at some point. And even if there was simply a 'big bang,' something made that happen and the material had to come from somewhere.

Well, as the theory goes, everything in the universe was gathered into a single point, the result of a 'Big Crunch'. So everything was there already, it didn't just appear out of nowhere. Heh, but yes, something made it happen, that seems very reasonable to assume.


Ofcourse it's admirable. :cheese: And ofcourse the Christian does have to bother with that. Like Christians can just do whatever and have it be okay? Yes, forgiveness is part of the thing. And [b]everybody is guilty. There is nobody who is free from it. I think know exactly what you're talking about and I think I know exactly the type of people that you?re talking about, believe me! :lol: But I?m not really talking about those people when I talk about Christians. I'm talking about the right kind-and there are not too many of 'em around.

If it is so admirable, then why get hung up on it in the first place? As for the True Christian(tm) argument? I've heard it before. Everyone that calls himself christian believes he is one of those. Everyone that calls himself christian is accepted as one. And not accepted too, because not even christians themselves can agree on what a christian is.


*snip* That leads me to believe that they were more along the lines of stories that do seem reasonable to simple minds.

Simple minds is it? Oh well, I imagine that what you said about the Greeks is what some are saying about christians, too.


I just don't see why people act like it is much more reasonable for people to believe in science than faith. Science has nothing to offer as to why it couldn't happen, faith has someone who's run around doing things that are not possible, telling them that it is because of God.

You don't find it reasonable to accept things that you can prove to be true? That is science for you: if it can be proven; rely on it, but test it every once in a while just to be sure. If it can't be proven; remain sceptical until it can. If it's been proven to be false, don't trust it.

If someone of a different religion than yours told you that the central figure in his religion could float on air, heal the sick, get wild animals to come and eat from her hand, talk to birds and whatnot, and that it says so in a book that was written 1500 years ago, would you believe him?

[Only-now]

Well, you cannot compare faith and science like one is already proven and the "dissenters" are just being difficult. Neither science, nor faith has proven the existence and nonexistence of God. There is no proof that Jesus existed, and that he performed the miracles he did. That is what the defintion of faith is. That though there is a lack of evidence of something to be true or false, one continues to have hope and believe that it is true or false. Faith is not fact, and is not proof...it is what someone feels is true in their heart, but not factually. I don't think that physics or science, or math will ever disprove God, because there will ALWAYS be more questions no matter how far we get. There is an infinite amount of possibilities as to what happened, and how it happened. No one here should be saying that God's exisitence has or hasn't been proven, otherwise, this topic wouldn't be 5 pages long.

~Kiva

[Krypto]

SimbaTheLion. I have read all of your posts as well as all of everyone elses on this thread.

I?m not at all satisfied by your last response. Not for a second am I going to let you out of this by saying that you can?t create your own argument because you?d have to support it with ?evidence off (of your) own back. Nobody has asked for you to do that. We?re all just saying things which we?ve heard elsewhere which make sense to us. And that?s okay. What?s not okay is saying that what you believe is right for all of these reasons which you cannot say because you haven?t taken enough classes. Like I said, we?re all saying other peoples stuff. So, I?m not willing to simply let you claim to have plenty of proof and then not state any of it. That?s a cop out and you know it. If you?re doing that, then I?ll just say that I have proof of God and that I could show you it, but you wouldn?t understand it because you haven?t taken enough courses. So, we?re all ears and eyes. And if you need to, please, dumb it down for us as much as you need to. But don?t leave us hanging. Because if you?re right, then we deserve to see the proof.

Nephilim:[There would be no need to leave Eden; without sin sexual reprodution would exist, but lust and desire would not, so it would be very much under control. But after a few generations, they?d need more space and would thusly have to leave.

As for you point on mortals going in and out of Eden, try reading Genesis 3:14-19. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing a loving God would have planned for his creation. Well, whether or not we?re dealing with a ?loving god? has nothing to do with what we?re discussing here. And I actually just read through all of that part of the bible and it has nothing to do with what we?re discussing here. What becomes of the Earth is because of what they did. It becomes that because of what they did. It wasn?t always like that. It becomes a place where they wouldn?t be happy because of what they did. It?s a punishment.

And "to that effect." Exact words, more like. ?Exact words? is a pointless concept to consider because the bible is worded in so many different ways. I?m apparently just not using the version that you are. So, that?s all that that is. It?s no big deal. :cheese:

Ghamu. And how do you know that forever does not exist? That?s a good one. That?s interesting. I have no way of answering that, ofcourse. But both sides of the false-dichotomy which we?ve created would have us believe that there was a beginning; both science and religion. Getting away from the false-dichotomy, I think that?s a very interesting idea.

'Nowhere, He was always around' is more often than not the answer. More often than not, people are parroting wha they?ve heard others say. I think this is an interesting concept-one which I?ve been considering in another way for a while now. But where God came from is not what we?re talking about when we discuss where the Earth came from. Because God might have been in existence forever, but if we?re to believe that, then there?s the belief that God created the Earth. But we?ve possibly set up another false-dichotomy. Like, it seems that the two go hand-in-hand, but perhaps they don?t have to.

I reckon that that's how we think of it, because that's how we percieve things. Begin > Wax > Wane > End. Well, the ?end? part gets different for individuals, but that?s another thought altogether. But I definitely see what you?re saying. But with the end part aside, that does seem to be what happens with absolutely everything on Earth. But this is interesting. You?re absolutely right. I was operating under the impression of a false-dichotomy.

Well, as the theory goes, everything in the universe was gathered into a single point, the result of a 'Big Crunch'. So everything was there already, it didn't just appear out of nowhere. Heh, but yes, something made it happen, that seems very reasonable to assume. I suppose this is back to my false dichotomy which I had been operating under. If there was no beginning, then there?d be no big bang: the world would have already formed. But if we don?t assume that and take it all the way back to this, saying simply that the material was already here and that it later formed the universe in which we inhabit, then we?re perhaps to say that it could all happen again. If that did happen, then it?d probably happen again. I mean, what only happens once and then never again? I?m not familiar with anything like that. And it there were other universes being created, perhaps it?d be more noticeable from here. (?) Would it effect our universe? But perhaps not. Perhaps we can?t see it happening with our telescopes and stuff. This is interesting. I really like discussing this with you! :cheese:

If it is so admirable, then why get hung up on it in the first place? As for the True Christian(tm) argument? I've heard it before. Everyone that calls himself christian believes he is one of those. Everyone that calls himself christian is accepted as one. And not accepted too, because not even christians themselves can agree on what a christian is. Why is it important? Because of the ramifications of actions after this life is finished. I mean, people have done some really stupid things with good things in mind. But that?s admirable, right? I?m not making some stereotypical ?True Christian? argument. I simply said the ?right kind?. And I do believe that there is a right kind-though I don?t know which kind that is. :lol: But let?s go with the ?true christian? thing. I don?t think that everyone who calls himself or herself Christian believes that they are a ?true christian?. Everyone doubts themself. If they don?t, then they have a mental disease. Actually, I learned a while back that serial killers doubt themselves very little. So, if you don?t, then that?s scary because you?re believing that you?re right about everything and that?s obviously scary, right? You?re absolutely right about Christians not being able to decide what a Christian is and that?s actually recently become a very big consideration of mine. So, I don?t have anything to say about that other than that I know exactly what you mean and that I?m considering that, too.

Simple minds is it? Oh well, I imagine that what you said about the Greeks is what some are saying about christians, too. They did have simpler minds in the way that they considered things and worked with things. I mean, if they were as advanced as we are, they?d have built all of the thing which we?ve built because they?d have been able to figure it out. Remember, going along with what you?ve said, all of the material was here when they were, too, right? So, if they weren?t simpler, then we?d have Egyptian skyscrapers-not pyramids. For the second part: it?s become extremely fashionable to think that those who don?t agree with you are brainwashed. I saw this and I?m sure you did, too, with the 2004 election. So, it?s not something shocking for individuals to say that Christians are brainwashed and operating under stupid pretenses as were and did the Greeks.

You don't find it reasonable to accept things that you can prove to be true? That is science for you: if it can be proven; rely on it, but test it every once in a while just to be sure. If it can't be proven; remain sceptical until it can. If it's been proven to be false, don't trust it.

If someone of a different religion than yours told you that the central figure in his religion could float on air, heal the sick, get wild animals to come and eat from her hand, talk to birds and whatnot, and that it says so in a book that was written 1500 years ago, would you believe him? Ofcourse, but nobody has disproven the existence God.

If there was scientific proof that that individual existed and many many accounts that he or she had done what was claimed, then yes. But we don't have that with religions. And in fact, involving Christianity, we still have proof coming in: with millions of individual testaments as to how God has worked and is working in their lives.


But we all keep getting away from the point that all of this is not just material which is part of an intellectual debate: this is stuff that you can feel. I guarantee that if you will close your eyes and honestly pray that God come into your life and show you that he is real, then he will. If you do it with skepticism, you won?t feel anything, because you?ve already decided that you aren?t going to open yourself to it. It?s very much in your hands. If you honestly open yourself to it, you can feel it. I?m not making this up and I?m not crazy. That being said, this is not my cop out statement. :lol: This is just my saying that if you would do this, we wouldn?t even be having this discussion. But since we are, it?s fine and I?m enjoying this. :cheese:

[Krypto]

Sorry 'bout the double post: I was trying to fix my last one's colors and Kiva posted. So, to simply things, I'm just replying to his on another. :cheese:

Kiva: Well, you cannot compare faith and science like one is already proven and the "dissenters" are just being difficult. Neither science, nor faith has proven the existence and nonexistence of God. There is no proof that Jesus existed, and that he performed the miracles he did. That is what the defintion of faith is. That though there is a lack of evidence of something to be true or false, one continues to have hope and believe that it is true or false. Faith is not fact, and is not proof...it is what someone feels is true in their heart, but not factually. I don't think that physics or science, or math will ever disprove God, because there will ALWAYS be more questions no matter how far we get. There is an infinite amount of possibilities as to what happened, and how it happened. No one here should be saying that God's exisitence has or hasn't been proven, otherwise, this topic wouldn't be 5 pages long.

There?s more proof that Jesus existed than there is that Shakespeare existed. And most people don?t question whether or not Shakespeare existed, right? All that in mind, the true proof of the existence of God is felt. I know it sounds nuts, but you can actually feel if you'll just honestly open yourself to it and pray for him to make himself known. You can feel it if you are willing to. And when you do, there is no question.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Krypto

There?s more proof that Jesus existed than there is that Shakespeare existed.

I've often wondered where that blip of wisdom originated, considering how I've also heard the following:

"There is more proof that Jesus existed than..."

Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan
Shakespeare
Christopher Columbus
George Washington


Come to think of it, I don't think there's any actual physically conclusive evidence that Jesus existed, unless you want to attempt to count the shroud of Turin.
:confused:

Anyway, the creation isn't something that I've ever really thought about, nor have I ever really thought of it as being important.
Could have been God. Could have been some kind of cosmic coincidence. Either way, we're here now. I'm off to ponder other great mysteries...like why was Betty not added to Flintstones Vitamins until 1996?
:p

[lion_roog]

Well, I know that several Bible stories (couldn't tell you which ones off hand) have been proven as actual events by archeologists...

[Only-now]

Well, I know that I have heard that Jesus is not mentioned in Roman records, and they are the ones after all that persecuted him and his followers. I don't see why they would feel the need not to include that bit of history. My point is that faith and scientific evidence both do not have enough power to proove or disprove God's existence at the current time. Faith will never PROOVE it, but I believe that science will have a hard time proving or disproving it as well.

~Kiva

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion

Let y = 2*e.
y^(2pi.i) = 2^(2pi.i)*e^(2pi.i)

Euler's formula tells us that e^(2pi.i) = 1.

=> y^(2pi.i) = 2^(2pi.i)
=> y = 2
=> 2 = 2*e
=> e = 1


How does that prove your point?



As for what we're saying, we know that there may have been a big bang, we know that there may have been evolution (both of which I believe), we know that there may be whatever; what we don't know is whether some higher entity made it that way. Maybe some god made e=1 to begin with, and that's just proving that such a god did just that. Maybe some higher entity is outside of infinity, beyond it, or just not bound by it; who knows? One can go on for days about the math and science behind the universe, but that doesn't mean that some entity didn't make it to be like that. Doesn't mean an entity did make it to be like that, either.

[Only-now]

I agree with you Pnt..hehe. I think that is what we have been trying to say this entire time..and I believe maybe instead of StL dumbing down his speech so we can understand, we need to dumb down ours so he can. Don't mean that as an insult, but that is a very easy concept to grasp. You are trying to prove to us, something we already know and agree with. You are taking the "way" something works or happened, and using it for the "how" it got that way or why it happened. That just doesn't work. We may know why the sun rises, but we can't use the math behind that to decide who or what made it that way. I believe that requires something we have no knowledge of yet.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

I don't see how physics goes against faith in God...there are plenty of physics professors, scientists, etc who also are religious...especially in quantum physics...:cheese:

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
It's really quite scary how you people are readily spitting in the face of rigorous proof and science though o_o;;; ...

Who here is spitting in the face of science? From what I see, that would be you, as you're demanding something of science that is just not within its scope, and I doubt you'd accept any "Rigorous proof" that science somehow showed that God exists (which again, I see as a logical failure). Science is the study of natural phenomena. God(s), to most religions, is supernatural. Supernatural in this sense means outside of nature or above nature, hence the super. Since science is bound to natural phenomena, it cannot explain something that is above or outside natural phenomena. Explain this to me, how is science able to prove or disprove something that is not within its realm of study? God(s) falls within the realm of philosophy, not science, because no matter how much evidence is shown for something, one can reasonably claim that a god(s) made it like that.

[Muruwa]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If science proved that there was a God, I would accept it, in fact in some ways I'd rather it did prove that, since well, gives me something to believe in that isn't so... hmm... not sure how to put it without it possibly being interpreted as being offensive. But, sadly, it seems as though science points in the opposite direction.
But science doesn't point in that direction. You can simplify the Big Bang theory all anyone wants, it won't prove that there is no God for it simply states how something happened, not that something didn't make it so it happened. Just think of it as in cause and affect. Cause: All matter was compressed into a single point (that's right isn't it?) Effect: The Big Bang and the creation of earth. However, you could easily say Cause: God(s) compressed all matter into a single point. Effect: The Big Bang and the creation of earth. No matter how thoroughly you discover how something happened someone can always say that God(s) made it so it would be, thus with our intelligence right now you can't prove that a higher entity doesn't exist. It's just like Pnt said, science doesn't deal with God(s) and so it can't prove or disprove the existence of a God(s). Perhaps in the future we will discover a way to prove or disprove people's religious beliefs, I somehow doubt it though...

[Only-now]

Alright, so when we prove that a quantum effect created it..and state "A quantum effect created the gravitational singularity that then resulted in the Big Bang", all you have to do to once again raise the question of "is there a God" is add "God created..." before that previous sentence. It really seems to me that you don't have any common sense StL. The logic we are using is VERY simple to understand...and if you can understand the theories you are stating, then I would guess that you are just unwilling to accept it. Once we find that a quantum effect caused that, we can ask: "Who or what caused the quantum effect?" or " Who created the laws which resulted in the quantum effect and the results of it?". Undoubtedly, some people will answer that with "God", so where exactly is the proof in that?

~Kiva

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
not by a god/several gods.


Okay, so now you're saying that science has proven that the universe did not come to be through a god or several gods. You have hard, irrefutable evidence that disproves God. Not that offers an alternative, but has actually said "This is evidence that God does not exist, we did this experiment and the conclusion gives this". Not "There's a Quantum Effect" that created this Universe, as God could have made that quantum effect. If that's what you claim, then I assume you won't have a hard time citing your reliable sources that have proven through scientific method that God doesn't exist.

[Juniper]

Says who? Maybe God made it to not be 'made'. Maybe God defined what it is. You're completely ignoring the main point, bud.

[Only-now]

I think you have a hard time accepting when you are wrong about something...at least it appears so. It doesn't matter how it works, or how it is created...a God would be above all of what we comprehend. So, arguing how something works, or how something was created doesn't do anything but put another piece of the puzzle in...and we are a LONG ways away from completing it. (if ever)

~Kiva

[Stormfury]

God is a scientist... =0?

[Only-now]

I know I sound really religious in this thread, which isn't the case...but I find that the scientific side is being used a bit to the extreme here.

If there is a God, he created what the sciences are based on. So, really he is the ultimate scientist...or, the father of science. This is of course, only if he actually exists.

[Stormfury]

|| Of course God is the "ultimate scientist." And who do you think his lab rats are? ... Is the universe a maze? -- Is in fact our lives nothing more than a test? Is there a piece of cheese at the end of the maze? Is there a next level ? ....

[Only-now]

I don't think I am the person to be asking..lol..nor anyone else on Earth...unless you belong to a religious order, then you can ask the priest, or whatever. Of course, we may not be the only planet that has life on it..he may have created more than one planet with intelligent life.

~Kiva

[Only-now]

*sighs* It is just impossible for you to comprehend the other viewpoint, and see how it is possible that you are WRONG.

~Kiva

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
As they say, "Can't argue with science!" :cheese: ! I don't understand why people disagree with proven facts and science in general ^_^ ...

Now you're just coming off as immature. We weren't disagreeing with proven facts, we were disagreeing that science is not the only form of knowledge, nor is it more valid than any other form of knowledge. And, as a "Scientist", you should know that proven facts don't exist, as anything can be possible, and knowledge can change daily.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If something has been rigorously proven, it is true and its validity cannot be destroyed.

Bud, you call yourself a scientist but that sentence probably made Einstein roll over in his grave. That's not what science is.

[Simba_2004]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
As they say, "Can't argue with science!" :cheese: ! I don't understand why people disagree with proven facts and science in general ^_^ ...

because most scientific facts are just man's ideas. It was "scientifically proven" that the world was flat, that is true today correct? It was "scientifically proven" that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that was correct again right? It was "scientifically proven" that making someone bleed would cure them of a disease and make them healthy, you should already know how many people died because of that and the fact that 0 were saved, it was "scientifically proven" that drilling a hole in your head would make a headache go away, of course George Washington was saved because of that, right? Must I go on?

Science, a hobby for man who knows "everything." A lot of "scientifically proven" things that proved the Bible were false were, well...proven to not be false and in the end only showed that the Bible was even more genuine than before man tried to make it a work of science fiction. The only facts that I believe in are in the Bible. No scientist can make me think differently. Like the one thread saying that the world is going to end on 6-6-06, I laugh at that, since after all it was "scientifically proven" by the "Bible code." I am quite sure that the Lord's second coming will either be before that date or right after but not on that day. Everyone will probably be panicking like on the whole millenium thing, but not me, I will be living life like every other day...that is if that day even comes. Take one day at a time and live it like it is your last, because it could very well be your last.

[Only-now]

I facts here are that the bible has not been verified or condemned as false. People who do not believe will try and use science to their advantage, while people who do believe will try and use faith. Both are not accepted by the other, and neither will prove or disprove anything.

Although I am not a Christian, and I don't necessarily agree with Simba 04's point of view..it makes a lot more sense than the immature statement that science can prove anything...especially when the concept is SO simple. Christians confide in the Bible..something they believe to be true..and they apply it to the proper areas of their lives...just as science should be applied to proper areas. A Christian would not say that God is deciding the outcome of a football game..and that if you believe in the Lord your team will win. That has NOTHING to do with that. Faith can only be taken so far...and it applies to the soul, not physical things. You cannot make an engine run with faith...that DOES take science, etc. You cannot however, use science to disprove something that deals with the soul...nor is science completely concrete. StL, you definitely take your level of confidence to a new level, one that makes you sound immature and very naive.

~Kiva

[Only-now]

First I want to say: PLEASE stop saying the word "rigorous"!

I think I am pretty much done with this convo because it is extremely hard for you to understand our point of view. I will go ahead and ask my physics teacher what she thinks about the situation and get back to you on it. Hopefully in the future you will find out that you are wrong before you commit too much of your life to a dead end, (well, that is only if you let yourself be consumed with this issue).

Your idea of "proof" is only valid if other areas we have studied at also "proven". So, if suddenly we discovered that the world, the universe and everything we knew was false...how would your rigorous proof hold up then? There are SO many possibilities to the world and the universe...but you tend to think in a very confined space. Things have been proven based on what we know and what we found out in the past. They are based on our perceptions and what we observe...but all that can change. Science is a great tool..one that is safe to use in proving things in the context we all know...but if that changes..then you are left with nothing. In fact, I believe there is a hint of that already, in that many of the laws of physics that work on certain scales, or certain areas of the universe, do not work in other situations and circumstances. This can happen on a larger scale..but I don't believe you can look that "deeply" into the subject.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
\
Pnt: I'm afraid science/mathematics at high levels is ENTIRELY based around proving things, or even educing new concepts and ideas, and proving them.

Everyday new things are found out about the earth that replace old things that we used to know,

it was proven that the world was flat, because when people walked no one seemed to be turning upside down, until we hit space did we realize the earth is round,

earth was thought as the center of the universe because everything revolved around it like the suns and the planets, but later did we realize we revolve around the sun and not the other way around

we one also thought it was a proven fact that no man could go into space or could never go out of the atmosphere, and it was proven wrong.

There is no such thing really in my opinion, as a "fact" because though they may be true right now, they will probably be replaced by a new "Fact" that over writes that,

so thus, I see you wrong, again StL :E

as you say you like to debate with people, I wouldn't call it a debate, i'm sure everyone will agree with me, from reading this, It's like talking to a brick wall.

in a debate its an argument between two sides about a current event or past event possibly future, or thing, During the debate each side gives a case, and the point of that debate is 100% equal for each side to hear others stories, and not tell each other how stupid, nor wrong the other side may sound, its to debate(argue) the fact of their case, and hear the others out, and possibly changing your entire views based upon what others do

I've been told this time and time again in Speech and Debate, so don't tell me its not true =/

Science may be/seem right, but in reality its just what man thinks is right, It may not technically be right though ;)

~KtL

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion

it was proven that the world was flat, because when people walked no one seemed to be turning upside down, until we hit space did we realize the earth is round,

earth was thought as the center of the universe because everything revolved around it like the suns and the planets, but later did we realize we revolve around the sun and not the other way around

I remember reading about Galileo(sp*), I believe, who came up with the theories that the Earth was round and it evolved around the sun...He had to be careful, because his theories led many to label him a heretic...or something...:cheese:

[Only-now]

I suggest we leave this topic alone...as in..with StL..because that isn't going anywhere...and to be honest, if I see another one of his smart a** replies, I am going to snap..heh. That little bit added on his last post: "It sure is fun debating about these sorts of things though haha ^_~ !" Well, I'm either crazy or anyone here will tell me that wasn't a sincere statement at all..the arrogant attitude shines right through. So, to stop anymore of that, I believe that we should just leave StL alone.

~Kiva

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Kovu, those things were never rigorously proven... something that has been rigorously proven can never possibly then be wrong somehow. I feel the same as you with the brick wall analogy :( ...

Ok, well, I'm not going to change the way I think about this topic, and it seems futile to carry on trying to make you see how I am thinking. Hence, I don't see much point in carrying on this debate.

Kovu: Feel free to talk to me on MSN about this if you like ^_^ , you're lots of fun to debate with hehe =) :hugs: ...

ah ! again with the rigorously XD *pokes your nose 5000000000 times*

perhaps we should just sit down and play chess instead :E

okay well, heres something I can agree upon, I can think to your standards and to your approaches, and I've thought about them, but I'd just rather believe things happen in a bibliographical(sp? or i dont even know lmao) matter than in science, because really both sides are kinda, boom there

if everything was created by the big bang, and nothing was here, what caused the reaction for the big bang to happen, if god was here, and nothing was here, how could he possible create something out of nothing,

though the god thing is sorta answered in 1st corinthians, saying "The almight and powerful god" how humans will never be able to comphrehend the majisty and power of God himself, so I'd guess the bible parts true on that, but in a science way I really don't see it happening :E

[Zephyr Nexus]

Originally posted by lion_roog
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Albert Einstein

I absolutely agree with you roog, well, Einstein, and I think it is dangerous to say with certainty that creation is science or religion, purely.

Religion should pay attention to advances in the scientific world, and one of these discoveries has been the idea of creation, well, at least of the Big Bang theory and what happens right after the start of time.

I remember reading in a National Geographic special on this topic that a scientist has said that mathematical formulae and equations break down at the closest possible instant after the bang. I think that this illustrates the point perfectly. As our scientific knowledge expands exponentially, it keeps getting closer and closer to solving questions that are perhaps just beyond its reach, on the metaphysical plane instead of the physical one. The beginning is where the physical and the metaphysical come in contact, where physical substance crosses paths with emotional intent. It is up to the onlooker to see if proper explanation can be rendered with a religious explanation, a scientific one, or a blending of the two.

I would tend to choose the last. Because I think the instant of creation is still mixed in with spirituality and I think that all points following have been purely scientific - including the creation of life, I choose to blend the two viewpoints.

However, I do believe, without reasonable doubt, that Earth and the life on it have risen naturally, our civilization being only one of many in the galaxy and the wider universe.

:moon:

[Sombolia]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
Lions with big teeth and sharp claws aren't very nice to be around when they're angry/hungry ;) !

Good thing we don't have any lions here in that case :secret:

[Neola]

Sorry to go off-topic, but could you PLEASE stop making random (and double btw) posts, Timon Wifey? This is not the Elephant Graveyard, y'know?

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Neola
Sorry to go off-topic, but could you PLEASE stop making random (and double btw) posts, Timon Wifey? This is not the Elephant Graveyard, y'know?

I've sorted it now.

[SpiritWolf77]

First of all, the debate is not "God vs. Big Bang." The Big Bang is far from being the only scientific theory on creation. And the scientific community has most certainly not decided unquestionably on that as the answer. Many scientists outright dismiss the Big Bang theory. The current scientific stance on how the universe was created is "We don't know."

Heck, we're not even entirely sure how our own moon was created yet.

That's the answer I side with as well. I think it's a bit absurd to assume that we could actually know and understand how everything was first created. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold and some people think we can know for a fact how existence sprang into being? We simply don't have the scientific knowledge...or knowledge in general...to know something like that right now. We may never know. In fact we'll probably never know. The universe is an extremely complex place. The human mind cannot conceive of the simple concept of infinity or absolute nothing so how can we visualize how nothing became something infinite?

I don't personally believe in God, but with the limited knowledge we have of the universe, I think "Everything was created by God" is just as plausible a theory as anything else at this point.

I cannot, however, believe in the literal description of creation in Genesis. For one thing, there are two versions of creation, right after one another, in which things occur in different orders. Obviously they both can't be true. That's not even a scientific impossibility...it's a simple logical impossibility. I hear so may people say that they feel everything in the Bible is literal and true...if that's the case, do you also believe creation happened twice...in different orders...at the same time? That passage alone suggests that a literal interpretation may not be the best one. I feel there are more important elements of the Bible and Christianity in general than whether or not Genesis is literal and true. It being a mythological story to convey a general idea does not in any way devalue the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

Plus there are quite a number of things discussed in Genesis and Creation that have been outright scientifically disproven. Any archaeologist, geologist, or paleontologist can tell you that.
And...men don't have fewer ribs than women, so....

And a few specific points I want to address:

Evolution does not describe how life/the universe was created. It only describes how life changed once it was already there. So it is perfectly possible to believe God created life and in evolution.


Originally posted by Krypto
You?re absolutely right. But there is one religion which is different. All of the religions except one are about followers who attempt to do enough stuff that is ?right? in order to get a reward. The only religion which has followers who have a god who has descended to Earth and is there for them is Christianity.
Not even close to true. There are a lot of other religions out there so this is a pretty bold claim to make. Islam, for example, is extremely similar to Christianity. Both it and Judaism contain instances of prophets through which God speaks to his people. Greek religion was already mentioned. Norse religion is another example. Do a little research into other world religions of both past and present and you will found countless references of God or Gods coming into contact with their/his/her people/guiding them/etc.

Obviously it seems more true to you than other religions because it's your own religion. But other people view Christianity the same way you view Greek mythology. I personally view all religions as mythology so looking at this from an objective point of view, you really can't factually state that your religion must be the correct one because a dozen other people with different views and just as much proof are going to say the same thing about their own religions.


Originally posted by Krypto
They did have simpler minds in the way that they considered things and worked with things. I mean, if they were as advanced as we are, they?d have built all of the thing which we?ve built because they?d have been able to figure it out. Remember, going along with what you?ve said, all of the material was here when they were, too, right? So, if they weren?t simpler, then we?d have Egyptian skyscrapers-not pyramids.
Their minds were no less "advanced" than ours. Having inferior technology does not make a culture "simple-minded." It simply means the technology hasn't been discovered/invented yet. The reason we are able to make as many of the discoveries as we do in modern times is because we are building on the knowledge of past generations. Scientific progress spans generations. Many of the concepts of modern medicine (i.e. our current understanding of the circulatory system) were original proposed by Greek scientists and doctors.
And Egyptian skyscrapers? They're called pyraminds. The design of the pyramind was extremely advanced and ingenoius for its time. The Egyptians are not an ancient culture I would call "simple-minded." Most archaeologists say the opposite.
Several hundred years from now, there will probably be a few people like you who look back at this time period and think, "Wow, they were so simple-minded!"
Also, last I checked, Christianity originated around your labelled "simple-minded" time period. If we're to operate under your theory that all ancient cultures=simple-minded, then the people who started your religion fall into that category as well.


Originally posted by lion_roog
Well, I know that several Bible stories (couldn't tell you which ones off hand) have been proven as actual events by archeologists...
Not the way most Christians interpret them though. The Flood for example: Geological evidence shows that sea levels rose dramatically around the time period this story is believed to have originated. The "birthplace of civilization" (i.e. the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) would have been flooded during these sea level changes. To any civilization living in that area, it would indeed seem like the entire world had flooded.

By the way, SimbaTheLion, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is not possible to prove that God does not exist with science or math. Many scientists and mathematicians are atheists because their findings and studies have caused them to question religious faith, but as a fellow atheist and someone who keeps up-to-date on scientific knowledge I can garuntee you the scientific community has not found a way to disprove the existence of God.

No offense, but you have a very flawed understanding of science.


Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
If something has been rigorously proven, it is true and its validity cannot be destroyed.
That, for example. Scientific and mathematical theories that were once considered "proven" have been disproven in the past. I agree with Pnt, Einstein would shudder at the sound of that statement. You are essentially treating science like a religion and when you start doing that, you become a hypocrite. Science is not about unquestionable faith. It is about discovery, experimentation, trial and error, etc. It is about finding the best way to explain things based on the available evidence. Evidence changes. New things are discovered. Therefore scientific theory must also change.
Any scientist who approaches life under the assumption that all his or her beliefs are irrefutable is a pretty poor scientist.

You say you've not had any university education yet. I have. And before that I went to a college prep private high school with an extremely good math and science program. I was raised in a family very interested in science with a brother who is a genius at math. I grew up reading science news and trying to learn everything I possibly could about the universe. And I have never come across any irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Believe me, as an atheist, I would love it if such a thing existed because I would have some solid validity for my beliefs. But it doesn't. Sorry.


Originally posted by Simba_2004
Like the one thread saying that the world is going to end on 6-6-06, I laugh at that, since after all it was "scientifically proven" by the "Bible code."
Aaaand, this is also a very flawed understanding of science. You're saying science proved that the world was supposed to end that day? By the Bible code? You're confusing science and paranoia now. Just because something disagrees with the Bible, does not make it "science." And last I checked, the idea of 666 being an evil number was supposed to be a religious idea, not a scientific one. Time is a human construct, and I garuntee you all scientists know this.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77

Not the way most Christians interpret them though. The Flood for example: Geological evidence shows that sea levels rose dramatically around the time period this story is believed to have originated. The "birthplace of civilization" (i.e. the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers) would have been flooded during these sea level changes. To any civilization living in that area, it would indeed seem like the entire world had flooded.

I can see your point. I wasn't even aware of that example. I was thinking back to an article I read where archeologists found evidence that some trek from Babylon to Isreal took place along the same course and time mentioned in the bible or something to that effect. Don't quote me on that, I need to find that article again someday...:D

[SpiritWolf77]

Yes, anyone who feels the Bible is -entirely- erroneous and contains not a sliver of fact is just plain naive. Even if I consider the Bible a mythology...all mythologies are ultimately rooted in some fact. I'll definitely agree with you there.

[nathalie]

Ok, so I am plain naive, because I don't believe in any sort of religion.

You can't force people to believe, so I don't think you can call everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible naive.

It's people's own choice if they believe or not.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Yes, anyone who feels the Bible is -entirely- erroneous and contains not a sliver of fact is just plain naive. Even if I consider the Bible a mythology...all mythologies are ultimately rooted in some fact. I'll definitely agree with you there.

I agree. I think what tends to be the problem with some people and religion is that people get caught up in trying to prove their religion right that they miss what the religion is really about. I doubt religion is really meant to hold the secrets to what the universe is as much as it's meant to hold the secrets to one's own enlightenment. That's why I lean towards the view of it's not what religion you practice that matters, but, rather, what's in your heart.

I think Gandhi had a good quote on the issue: ?I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.? That quote helps me keep things in perspective....and sorry if I went off on a tangent...it's 4am...:D

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by ?nathalie?
Ok, so I am plain naive, because I don't believe in any sort of religion.

You can't force people to believe, so I don't think you can call everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible naive.

It's people's own choice if they believe or not.
Um, did you read my previous post? The really long one? I am not a Christian, not a member of any other religion either. I'm an atheist. You completely misinterpreted what I was saying methinks.

I was replying to Roog's comments about archaeological evidence for some of the stories in the Bible. I'm simply saying that obviously any story, from a Greek myth to the last movie you saw has some basis in reality. Especially myths. Most people would agree that Poseidon did not send a sea monster to eat Laocoon when he warned the Trojans not to accept the Trojan Horse, but most people would also agree that the Trojan war probably did happen.

I was simply saying that even if I don't believe in the Bible as literal fact, I assume plenty of the events described were based on real events and real people: i.e. I do think Jesus was a real living man who was crucified, I don't doubt that early coastal civilizations were affected by a "great flood" when sea levels rose, and I'm pretty sure the Jewish people lived in Egypt at one point in time.

[Kapasa]

I believe in God not because I was told to or because I fear a world to live in without God.

I believe in God cos of the beauty of nature, the world, and everything. I find this in detail like in a petal, or a drangon fly's wing or even solving a complicated puzzle or maths problem.

I belive that God designed everything through the big bang, evolution etc. not how its explained in the bible.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Kapasa
I believe in God cos of the beauty of nature, [...]

Weak argument, really. It's easily countered by examples of things less pleasant—from things such as disease, disfigurement, death, corpses, to simple things like creatures, plants and landscapes of a less aesthetically pleasing nature. Not to mock your belief (by all means, this is not an attack; please, follow what you will) but what you've said seems a little too idealistic for the real world.

"What a strange illusion it is, to suppose that beauty is goodness."

[Kapasa]

well the less perfect things in the world like you said about diease etc. are there so that good can exist. Otherwise there would be no good or evil if either good/evil did'nt exist. well thats just my opinion and i don't agree, i find that the world is far too complicated, diverse for a God not to exist.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Kapasa
well the less perfect things in the world like you said about diease etc. are there so that good can exist. Otherwise there would be no good or evil if either good/evil did'nt exist. well thats just my opinion and i don't agree, i find that the world is far too complicated, diverse for a God not to exist.

The beauty and ugliness of the world...much thought and meditation has been done on such things, and enlightenment is always plentiful. Perfection is subjective and, by some opinions, considered to be nonexistant. I believe in God, but not in the direct way of traditional Christianity (as I am a confirmed Roman Catholic). I choose to look at finding God, Peace, the Light, etc not necessarily through the books and rituals of religion, but rather through the goodness and love we can accomplish as an individual. To me, true goodness is one and the same, no matter what religion you practice or if you practice religion at all.

When I have meditated on the idea of heaven I have often wondered, since being human is being imperfect and involving a varying degree of evil...is heaven even possible? When we die, we are judged on our hearts and conscience, but does that mean we can still sin in heaven, or is perfection a condition inherited in heaven?

It is also 4am...We must keep that in mind, too...:D

[Lamby]

Hmmmmm this is all very interesting. Personally Im not too good on 'proving' anything but to get back to the start of the world, quite frankly I'd rather believe that a divine being created me and the world I live in, rather than us all being some freak of nature.

For those of you who do seek to prove this either way - God Bless. I could be mistaken but I dont think you can scientifically prove the existence of God, its something you 'feel' or just know within yourself. But of course to feel this etc. you have to have an open mind.

Anyways I dont mean to preach.

Cheers