| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gc wrote: | | Craig wrote: | For the third time!!!
I contend that science and religion are equal on this because they BOTH can't explain creation. |
And for the third time I'll ask you this question which you keep ignoring:
"But which is more plausible, that unintelligent, relatively simple particles could pop into existence (which to some extent has been seen before, albeit not on the scale of the big bang) or that a super-intelligent being could simply pop into existence? " |
Actually, I find both to be equally preposterous. From something to spring from nothing seems silly to me, and that goes for both god and the universe. Then again, I am only moderately trained in both religion and science. |
|
|
|
 |
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
  
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bleatmop wrote: | | Actually, I find both to be equally preposterous. From something to spring from nothing seems silly to me, and that goes for both god and the universe. Then again, I am only moderately trained in both religion and science. |
It's very hard for me to believe too. In fact, it's probably one of the most difficult questions for me to answer how something could have come from nothing.
And yet, here we are. And since I don't believe that the Universe or God (which is actually redundant since God would be part of the Universe) could have always existed, the only possibility I can think of is that the Universe did come from nothing... |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | Bleatmop wrote: | | Actually, I find both to be equally preposterous. From something to spring from nothing seems silly to me, and that goes for both god and the universe. Then again, I am only moderately trained in both religion and science. |
It's very hard for me to believe too. In fact, it's probably one of the most difficult questions for me to answer how something could have come from nothing.
And yet, here we are. And since I don't believe that the Universe or God (which is actually redundant since God would be part of the Universe) could have always existed, the only possibility I can think of is that the Universe did come from nothing... |
My belief is that either the universe have always existed or that it came from something that we can't conceive of yet. Of course, that sounds just like Mike McB saying "But maybe as human we do not have the intellect or cognitive ability to be able to understand it".
Either way, I do agree with craig on this one, that neither religion nor science can adequately explain creation. There is a lot of faith required on both sides. |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bleatmop wrote: | | My belief is that either the universe have always existed or that it came from something that we can't conceive of yet. Of course, that sounds just like Mike McB saying "But maybe as human we do not have the intellect or cognitive ability to be able to understand it". |
I don't believe that the Universe has always existed because of reasons I explained earlier, as well as other paradoxes (for example, a variation of Obler's paradox).
I tend to think that it might be possible to create something from nothing as long as the "anti" to it is formed at the same time. For example, matter and anti-matter could be created from nothing, because together they are nothing. Apparently this happens all the time in the Universe, and it can certainly happen in the lab. Only problem is, if I remember correctly, it takes a huge amount of energy to do this. So where did the energy come from? Maybe there is anti-energy out there...except I can't even conceive what that might be like.
| Quote: | | Either way, I do agree with craig on this one, that neither religion nor science can adequately explain creation. There is a lot of faith required on both sides. |
I agree that neither have adequately explained creation...I just think science is a lot closer to explaining it than religion is. |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | I agree that neither have adequately explained creation...I just think science is a lot closer to explaining it than religion is. |
I disagree.
Science offers a theory which they believe describes what brought about the natural phenomenon of our universe. They admit they cannot say empirically that their theory is exact but they believe it to be so.
Religion offers a theory which they believe describes what brought about the natural phenomenon of our universe. They admit they cannot say empirically that their theory is exact but they believe it to be so.
I would say they're pretty much equal.
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | And since I don't believe that the Universe or God (which is actually redundant since God would be part of the Universe) |
How do you know that God is not greater than the universe or that, in fact, the universe isn't part of God.
You seem to have a very humanistic view of God. |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | How do you know that God is not greater than the universe or that, in fact, the universe isn't part of God.
You seem to have a very humanistic view of God. |
Because by definition the Universe means EVERYTHING. |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mac wrote: | I disagree.
Science offers a theory which they believe describes what brought about the natural phenomenon of our universe. They admit they cannot say empirically that their theory is exact but they believe it to be so.
Religion offers a theory which they believe describes what brought about the natural phenomenon of our universe. They admit they cannot say empirically that their theory is exact but they believe it to be so.
I would say they're pretty much equal.
-Mac |
Just because something can't be explained perfectly, doesn't mean one explanation isn't better than another...
Science can offer a theory for why winter occurs - because the earth is tilted away from the sun. And science probably has theories why plants can't grow as well in the cold, but it probably can't explain exactly why, so it's not perfect.
Greek mythology explains winter using the story of the pomegranate seeds.
Which do you think is closer to the truth? |
|
|
|
|
Mac
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: | | Just because something can't be explained perfectly, doesn't mean one explanation isn't better than another... |
You would be right if we were talking about individual pieces of the puzzle but we're not... we're talking about a time before the puzzle existed. Science does not offer a better explanation for what or who created the puzzle. Both science and religion require trust, a leap of faith, an element of belief.
-Mac |
|
|
|
|
Mike McB
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 78
votes: 2
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gc wrote: |
Exactly. Everything, including the Universe and God, must have had a beginning.
Also, see this post for one reason why nothing can have existed forever. |
Why because that is your belief? Do you disagree that there are many unexplained phenomenon that science just does not have any answers for? |
|
|
|
|
gc
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike McB wrote: | | Why because that is your belief? Do you disagree that there are many unexplained phenomenon that science just does not have any answers for? |
1. Not just because it is my belief, but because it can be "proven" using a number of paradoxes.
2. Yes, I do agree with that. |
|
|
|
|
mrsocko
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2453
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | To me neither answer is satisfactory. Why does God exist? Is seems illogical to me that something doesn't have a start. |
It's the chicken egg argument again. It's kind of mind numbing to think that something has always been here. But we are here so something had to start it. I believe it was God. GC beleives iot was nothing.
Who ya gonna believe? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Athists belive in evolution right?, there is a missising link though right? but athists oh lets say, take a leap of FAITH that the missing link will be found. Sounds like a sort of religon to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Science has given us some insite into the evolution of man. Neanderthal and modern man existed side by side for thousands of years. Previously scientists thought that Neanderthall men were a precursor to modern man. It has been said that a Neanderthall would not attract undue attention on a New York subway had he been dressed in modern clothes.
There are a few things that were different, Neanderthall had much better cave art than modern man plus his brain was larger than modern man. However they have now found that there is NO Neanderthall DNA in modern man!
The Neanderthall were a dead end. If that is the case where did we come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plus..... if the Neandethall died off what kiled them? Disease or genocide? |
|
|
|
|
|
