The Creation - Work of God or Work of Science?

[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 , I deliberately tried to make it so it wasn't that way ...

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

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.

[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.

[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! One more week to go!

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. [color=yellow]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. Sorry, they've gotten us focusing on the wording of sentences in my english class.

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. 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! 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. 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.