The Creation - Work of God or Work of Science?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Krypto
[color=yellow]
[color=red]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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Krypto
[B]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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

*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.

Quote:

---

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?

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

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

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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

Quote:

---

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.

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

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

God is a scientist... =0?

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.

|| 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 ? ....