Log In | Register
51 Votes
681 Comments
How scientists really feel about God
News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Fri May 16, 2008 3:22 PM EDT
Article Source: msnbc.comadvertisement
In a new collection of short essays, 13 thinkers reveal their true feelings about the existence of a greater being. And their thoughts are contrary to the mind-numbing "culture wars" portrayed on television.
Msnbc.com would like to know what Newsviners think about this story. Can somebody truly believe in both religion and science? What are your personal beliefs and why? Is it challenging to befriend or get involved with someone who doesn't share your views on religion and science?
Published to:
- jasmin-aline-persch's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (681)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
63
16
4.0
{"commentId":1810854,"authorDomain":"thorlin"}
The question of how many people believe in god, or how many scientists believe in god is poorly framed. Believing in god can carry a lot of baggage, like a bible. It would be more helpful if surveyors would ask if people believe in an intervening god.
{"commentId":1810854,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"thorlin"}
- 1 vote
#51 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:13 PM EDT{"commentId":1811326,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
it's a bs question.. as the religious have to belvie in science... it is just some science they disagree with... otherwise where do they think the cars, lights,chemistry and all came from.. magic? god tricking scienctists?
nope a bs question that NO ONE every frames the other way arround.
{"commentId":1811326,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}
{"commentId":1811924,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
Actually, framing the question that way might get them off of talking about religious dogmas instead of talking about God. Religion is not God.
{"commentId":1811924,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2527316,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Exactly....an intervening god. Which is the premise put forth by the Judeo-Christian belief system. To this day the intervention or lack thereof is the question.
What can initiate the action.
Prayer...no study has ever proven the efficacy of this.
Miracles...yet to see any proof of this.
Aside from wishful thinking scientist have not seen much in regards to either of these.
{"commentId":2527316,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":1810857,"authorDomain":"margparg1"}
First, maybe one exist, but please give me an example of a WAR that was not created in the name of your god or his son you call Jesus, Alla Second, your books is critically flawed, yet holds some interesting stories and philosophical thought, but should be read like Tolstoy of Thoreau and never taken to seriously.
A final thought for you to ponder.. and a great end to avoid long conversations when a zealot knocks at your door.
Is your GOD all knowing?
Is your GOD all loving?
Then what in the f#@k does he need from me or you?
Good day, I SAID GOOD DAY!
{"commentId":1810857,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"margparg1"}
#52 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:14 PM EDT{"commentId":1810878,"authorDomain":"dslewis"}
The problem is that the discussion is intellectual. God, or Spirit, cannot be known intellectually, only through experience. Those who have experiences out of the body understand. There are those of us who, while not experiencing the totality of God, have crossed into the domain where one's connection to the All (perhaps a better term than God) is experienced in a way that transcends the brain and bodily awareness. When you experience this, you know. It happens through meditation, but also can happen naturally. It also happens in conversion experiences, and in near death experience. This is not now the laboratory of science, but that laboratory exists. One must go within, where the connection resides. Yoga has taught this intuitive science for thousands of years. Science won't even deal with ESP, or intuition, so it seems rather primitive to those who have grown beyond absolute materialism and discovered their deeper potential through transcendental experience . Physics, though, is arriving at this place, particularly the work of David Bohm, who describes the oneness of "God" as nonlocality, omnipresence. If you are truly interested in this subject, why aren't all of you seeking this as the meaning and purpose of your lives? Science means to know, from the Latin. That doesn't mean you must conform to its methods necessarily. But to truly know, to truly be a scientist (one who knows) one must earnestly seek.
{"commentId":1810878,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dslewis"}
- 3 votes
#53 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:18 PM EDT{"commentId":1811926,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
Amen! ;)
{"commentId":1811926,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1819215,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Aaaaaauuuuummmm!!! (which means "a great big yes"!!).
Intellect can only take us so far.
{"commentId":1819215,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2527367,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
I have to disagree that ESP has been studied and again falls short with regards to replication. Many studies have been done and as of yet it remains at best pseudo-science. Simply has not stood up to the rigors of serious inquiry. Sorry
{"commentId":2527367,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":1810890,"authorDomain":"edwin2trees"}
I am a Ph.D. neuroscientist and I not only think that one can be a scientist and believe in God, I believe that science actually verifies the existence of God. For example, many people debate evolution vs. creation, but I think evolution proves that there is a creative force behind the universe. Science tells us that if left alone, things go from greater to lesser complexity. Evolution reveals an ever increasing level of complexity and therefore requires directive input. Many scientists make assertions regarding God that are not based on evidence. Similarly, the idea that God is a big man in the sky who thinks and acts in petty ways like people do is ridiculous from a theological standpoint. If scientists and theologians are actually sensible, they find themselves very much compatible and complimentary.
{"commentId":1810890,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"edwin2trees"}
- 4 votes
#54 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:21 PM EDT{"commentId":1811720,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Science tells us that if left alone, things go from greater to lesser complexity. Evolution reveals an ever increasing level of complexity and therefore requires directive input.
Entropy only increases for closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system: the Sun is a wondrously huge source of energy, negating the "we can only have more chaos on Earth" argument.
{"commentId":1811720,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811757,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Entropy only increases for closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system: the Sun is a wondrously huge source of energy, negating the "we can only have more chaos on Earth" argument.
That, and the second law of thermodynamics assumes that self-gravity can be ignored. That may be true for an auto engine, but not for the cosmos.
{"commentId":1811757,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811929,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
Finally, a real thinking unbiased scientist! You go Edwin!
{"commentId":1811929,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1810913,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
How scientists really feel about God. Really? Because "scientists" are monolithic? Now that would stretch credulity....
{"commentId":1810913,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
#55 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:24 PM EDT{"commentId":1810995,"authorDomain":"klebrun"}
As an engineer, lawyer, computer programmer and Roman Catholic, I have a problem with the concept that the evolution of the species just happened.
From an evolutionary perspective, we are probably somewhere in the chicken and egg debate.
As man supposedly evolved from a single cell amoeba to the complex organism that he/she is today, we had to develop a complex brain to manage the process.
The first problem facing a self-developing species in its early stages would be the need to know that there is something out there to see, feel, hear, touch or taste.
The second problem is that a complex brain could not survive the incredibly complex development process without the 5 senses in operational mode.
And you can't get the senses in operational mode until you have developed a sophisticated brain with the ability to communicate and interact with the senses.
Therein lies our chicken and egg dilemma.
{"commentId":1810995,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"klebrun"}
#56 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:43 PM EDT{"commentId":1811029,"authorDomain":"LonoKemp"}
There is no need for the brain to "manage" the process. Evolution and natural selection operate independently of intelligence or lack thereof.
-what is a "self developing species"?
-the claim about the inability for a brain not being able to survive doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are many examples of less complex brains in nature, as well as examples of brains that function perfectly well in animals and humans with less than the five human senses.
- a lawyer should know better than to make such claims as a certainty while obviously failing to do any research.
{"commentId":1811029,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"LonoKemp"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811390,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Intelligence is no more a "goal" of evolution than is a hoof or a trunk. It is just another adaptive tool for survival. Indeed, it may prove to be maladaptive, which is why it's foolish to say anything - amoeba, roach - is "less" evolved than humans, or that we are "more". It just ain't so.
{"commentId":1811390,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1811002,"authorDomain":"bitsunny0621"}
Science has never been able to prove or disprove the existence of God and I doubt very much if it ever will as long humans exist. No matter how far science may go, there will never be a scientist who can prove the existence of God or a scientist who can disprove the existence of God. I don't think that science will ever be able to shake human belief in God, we still need God in so many ways and we need to believe in Him as well, I think it is what keeps us healthy, particularly mentally healthy. Besides, who says God wants His existence proven, anyway, have you ever thought about that, He might think that if we have to prove His existence scientifically, then we haven't got much faith in Him to begin with, right? Think about it for a while, your thoughts may surprise you!
{"commentId":1811002,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"bitsunny0621"}
- 1 vote
#57 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:46 PM EDT{"commentId":1811131,"authorDomain":"matrosovhero"}
Exactly. Science will never prove or disprove God because existence of God is not a scientific issue.
{"commentId":1811131,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"matrosovhero"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1811009,"authorDomain":"videocat23"}
As an engineer, I have come to design and troubleshoot things that are supposed to work a certain way. Circuits operate a certain way because they are designed to. It doesn't just happen, components are selected and chosen to do certain tasks. Ultimately, it comes down to what the designer wanted to accomplish. It is impossible to get a working circuit by simply making a "big bang" of components. Components and circuits alike don't evolve on their own. RCA didn't create a CRT, walk away for 60 years, and come back to see it evolve into a 60" LCD. They designed it, evolved it, and understand how it works down to every pixel.
What does this have to do with God? Look at a how a baby is created, formed, and brought into the world. All the little things that have to line up in order for conception to happen. After that, look at all of the little steps that occur even before the fetus begins to look like a baby! It's amazing! There is no possible way that those things just occur on their own. They designed in to do a task and that's what they do. I don't understand how someone can miss intelligent design in nature. It leads to a creator. Understanding that, leads to wanting to know the creator. Wanting to know the creator, leads a relationship with Him. It always has, it always does, and it always will.
{"commentId":1811009,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"videocat23"}
- 2 votes
#58 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:48 PM EDT{"commentId":1811038,"authorDomain":"LonoKemp"}
nonsensical. thats a poor analogy at best. -just because something amazes you doesn't mean that it can't be explained in a natural, rational way, and no " I can't figure it out so god musta dun it" is not a rational explanation.
{"commentId":1811038,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"LonoKemp"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811391,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
There is no possible way that those things just occur on their own.
Prove it.
{"commentId":1811391,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1811754,"authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
the belief in God has been the accepted norm We dont have to prove it you prove it!
Here we go again this is as bad as the abortion debate there is no end perhaps we should send this one to the federal government too!
{"commentId":1811754,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
{"commentId":1811945,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
Just because something cannot be proved does not mean it doesn't exist. Many scientific discoveries are relatively recent but they still existed prior to their discovery.
Doesn't being objective mean not making up your mind until you have evidence? While I agree that some of the beliefs of some religions can be disproved by science, such as the 6 days of creation are probably not the 24 hour days we measure today, this does not disprove the existence of a God. Until science can do that, science must be objective about the subject or not really be scientific, in which case it becomes a religion.
Likewise, religious zealots who believe in the literal accuracy of the symbolic stories in the Bible even when science proves them not to be literal are a minority and should not be given so much weight in the discussion.
The design, operation, and interconnectivity of the universe and life on this planet can be considered inconclusive evidence of a designer. To say otherwise would be biased and unscientific. I also disagree with Anatoly that the existance of a creator is not a scientific issue. However, I don't think we currently have the ability to prove it one way or another at this time.
I am disappointed that I have not heard any scientist-like person suggest any criteria or observations that they would expect to see if a creator existed that was in all dimensions at once and created the universe from a singularity. In my opinion this shows their lack of objectivity (so far).
{"commentId":1811945,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1812417,"authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
Who said I am objective? I am clearly Biased and intend on remaining so
{"commentId":1812417,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1812750,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Just because something cannot be proved does not mean it doesn't exist.
Of course, but the default hypothesis in science is always the null hypothesis.
I am disappointed that I have not heard any scientist-like person suggest any criteria or observations that they would expect to see if a creator existed that was in all dimensions at once and created the universe from a singularity. In my opinion this shows their lack of objectivity (so far).
"Scientist-like person"? How about you posit a set of criteria, before saying "if you don't do my work for me, you're not being objective."
{"commentId":1812750,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1813333,"authorDomain":"youssef51"}
Shack23:
My friend, I will tell this to you straight:
You say you are an engineer. If you design objects that exist in the real world and do so in the same way you reason about design and the living world I sure hope I never have to deal with anything you have designed.
Your reasoning equating the authorship of widescreen TVs and the "authorship" of human babies is really breathtaking. You aren't a software engineer by any chance, are you? I've had to deal with some software recently that may have been designed in this way . . .
{"commentId":1813333,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"youssef51"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1814425,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
I did not ask you to prove that God does or does not exist. I asked that the following be proven:
There is no possible way that those things just occur on their own.
Also, as an aside, it is "accepted norm" for children to believe in the tooth fairy, so that argument will get you precisely nowhere.
{"commentId":1814425,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2490103,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Again, you are making an assumption based on conjecture, not fact. Just because something is complex does not posit a designer. This is your assumption...again you employ god to fill in gaps of your current understanding. Remember, earth quakes used to be thought to come from god.
{"commentId":2490103,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":1811034,"authorDomain":"sontic2-sonny7"}
Science is good nothing wrong with knowing what is going on in the world. As to religion, I subscribe to no ORGANIZED religion. You won't find GOD under the microscope or in the formulae for nuclear energy or in a church, temple or mosque. HE is either in your heart or no. Just be happy HE believes in you or you would not be here!!
{"commentId":1811034,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sontic2-sonny7"}
#59 - Fri May 16, 2008 10:55 PM EDT{"commentId":1811758,"authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
Amen!
{"commentId":1811758,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
{"commentId":1811064,"authorDomain":"Al-283444"}
Well, I am absolutely certain that diseases are not caused by some talking and listening "evil spirits" living in human body, so at least Christianity is out.
{"commentId":1811064,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"Al-283444"}
#60 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:01 PM EDT{"commentId":1811088,"authorDomain":"pastorbruce"}
If you look at science, it is the study of what God created. Science and physics study and look at what they cannot create. How is it then that one can say they are separate? I marvel at what we have discovered about what physical forms we study, then claim there is no God. When science can create out of nothing, then I may change my mind. Lastly, the bible is not a science book, but a book about relationships: between us and God and between each other. After 40 years of practicing law and 3 years studying to be a pastor, several observations can be made:1) we can't create a flower or even a microbe; and 2) we still haven't learned how to live together any better than Cain and Abel Let's give God the respect he deserves.
{"commentId":1811088,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"pastorbruce"}
- 1 vote
#61 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:07 PM EDT{"commentId":1811257,"authorDomain":"fade-1"}
The more I learn from science the deeper my faith becomes. Science screams God! I don't understand how some scientists can be so deaf and blind. Science to me is finding God and in a big way. Science can only discover and rearrange what God has made they cant become god and create something from absolutely nothing. We will never stop killing each other till God intervenes and evil is destroyed.
{"commentId":1811257,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"fade-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1811266,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
We will never stop killing each other till God intervenes and evil is destroyed.
But God is the source of both good *and* evil. God is the source of everything.
{"commentId":1811266,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1811337,"authorDomain":"fade-1"}
I guess you could fault him for not just making the Angels and Humans robots. I guess he just couldn't be that unloving and cruel.
{"commentId":1811337,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"fade-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1811706,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
I thought I'd go and find the actual verse. It's from Isaiah 45:
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
There's a good article about this here:
Many sects of Christendom, along with many other religions, believe that there is a being or monster called the Devil or Satan who is the originator of the problems which are in the world and in our own lives, and who is responsible for the sin which we commit. The Bible clearly teaches that God is all-powerful. We have seen in Study 1.4 that the Angels cannot sin. If we truly believe these things, then it is impossible that there is any supernatural being at work in this universe that is opposed to Almighty God. If we believe that such a being does exist, then surely we are questioning the supremacy of God Almighty. This issue is so important that the correct understanding of the devil and satan must be considered a vital doctrine. We are told in Heb.2:14 that Jesus destroyed the devil by his death; therefore unless we have a correct understanding of the devil, we cannot understand the work or nature of Jesus.
Believing that the devil is anything but a servant or aspect of God is to deny God's supremacy.
{"commentId":1811706,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1815511,"authorDomain":"fade-1"}
God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of holiness. It is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). God is the author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy character (Exodus 20). God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience to God. This condition existed when God created an angel called Lucifer who was without sin yet, apparently, had free will. Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible. God has created the condition in the world where the ability to rebel against Him was possible. Yet, he is not responsible for that rebellion once it has been committed. Therefore, sin originated with Lucifer who was the first to rebel and entered the world through Adam who likewise chose disobedience.
{"commentId":1815511,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"fade-1"}
{"commentId":1815644,"authorDomain":"jcatom"}
God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature.
The idea behind Satan is that God created him...and it went wrong. It's as hard for me to understand as Hell is.
{"commentId":1815644,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jcatom"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1816393,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Lucifer chose to rebel against God and sin (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15). Likewise, Adam and Eve, having been made by God without sin, listened to the devil and chose to sin against God (Gen. 3). But God did not cause them to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of their wills, each decided to rebel against God and sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12). God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible. God has created the condition in the world where the ability to rebel against Him was possible.
By your own contention, God's allowance for sin to exist (and its subsequent existence) is fully within God's nature. There's no magical way for everything to be part of God's nature, yet absolve God of blame for win.
You can't have it both ways.
{"commentId":1816393,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1819232,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
You can't have it both ways.
That is so.
God is beyond relative conceptions of good and evil. God is the source of all, so, if God is good (in the absolute sense), then all must be good.
{"commentId":1819232,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2490139,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
How anyone can claim that the suffering of innocent children is somehow "good" is beyond comprehension.
{"commentId":2490139,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2492266,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
How anyone can claim that the suffering of innocent children is somehow "good" is beyond comprehension.
The implicit assumption here is that there is such thing as an innocent child. If we are immortal souls who reincarnate countless times, then none of us is truly innocent and we've almost all committed all manners of atrocities countless times.
{"commentId":2492266,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2495543,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
So now your advocating reincarnation, come on. Whats next. Face it what kind of god would allow so many to wallow in misery while the privaledged enjoy life at thier liesure. Fair?
{"commentId":2495543,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2504849,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Can you disprove reincarnation? If not, then it must be considered to be a possibility.
We wallow in the misery we create for ourselves, stubbornly ignoring God's entreaties to come back home.
Everything in life *is* absolutely "fair". It's simple action and reaction.
{"commentId":2504849,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2518807,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Ok, seemingly you hold a lot of beliefs. Good luck with that. I guess you want to make sure all your bases are covered. Sorry I dont believe in reincarnation either. And your right we cant prove it is not true, but that does not make it TRUE. Again, you prove my point however, religion makes people callous to the suffering of others. Its not based on supposed love but control of the mind. If a person is suffering then it must be their fault. How a person can blame an innocent child born with cancer that it is the child's fault, I need no further proof that religion of ALL types is evil.
{"commentId":2518807,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2534911,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Ok, seemingly you hold a lot of beliefs.
And you seem to be very sentimental for someone touting the wonders of science, logic and reason.
From whence springs your sentimentality? By cold logic, what is, is, and there's no reason to pity anybody for any reason.
What makes a child innocent and what makes him/her guilty?
{"commentId":2534911,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2542705,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
You have totally lost me with your line of thinking here. I am however familiar with the callousness which religion does seem to incubate and foster. Just another indicator...
{"commentId":2542705,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2545026,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
I'm sorry you're so lost. Good luck with finding yourself.
{"commentId":2545026,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1811155,"authorDomain":"kadybug1"}
I think that all people knows there is a God. I think that most people don't like to admit it. Science has many different ideas on how this world was made. I know if they take an atom and try to copy the explosion theory it can't be copied. Man can not be copied. I look at it like this. The bible talks about a heaven and a hell. Now I believe in God and that is my right. The bible talks about ever who does not believe in God will burn in Hell. It does not matter if I am right or wrong. If there is a God then I will go to heaven. If there is no God I will be out there who knows where. Now the person that doesn't believe in God better be right, because if that person is wrong then they will burn in Hell. I think right or wrong it is wise to cover the bases of the here after. The reason I think all people knows there is a God is when a person gets in a jam. Usually the first words that comes out is God help me. Know why would someone be asking someone for help that they don't beleive is around. They might not agree with the bible or think the bible is a fairytale, but everyone knows that God is around. I know my family was not once apes or fish or what ever else. You can take an animal organ and put it in another animal, and you can take a human organ and put it in another human. You can not take an animal organ and put it in a human or a human organ and put it in an animal and get it to work properly. If science was right about humans coming from animals then all parts could interchange. Like forest Gump said that is all I have to say about that.
{"commentId":1811155,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"kadybug1"}
#62 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:26 PM EDT{"commentId":1811313,"authorDomain":"fade-1"}
Cant completely agree with you here. Pig heart valves are put into human hearts. A pig liver can keep a person alive long enough for a human transplant although it will take many of them. Pig intestines are used for burns, regrowing large missing chunks of skin and nerves routinely. They have even managed to regrow a finger. They are also engineering and cloning sheep with human organs. Advances in human rejection is happening at a frantic pace. Genetic engineers and cloners are doing some really freaky things. But they still will never ever create something from nothing. They can only play god with Gods creations.
{"commentId":1811313,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"fade-1"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1811735,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Man can not be copied.
At this point, it seems that's only limited due to ethical issues. We've "copied" (cloned) sheep and dogs already.
I think that all people knows there is a God. I think that most people don't like to admit it.
Erm... no. You're pretty much dead wrong there. Sorry.
If there is a God then I will go to heaven.
No, if the real god happens to be the one you believe in, you'd get into heaven (assuming you're not being overly confident). There are thousands of religions out there, each with a different god.
{"commentId":1811735,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1811841,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
Uhh..What? Jon is right...pig hearts are very closely related to those of humans...you dissect pigs and their hearts to help study human hearts in biology, or in your free time if that's your thing, i dunno...as for the rest..what?? And you talk about the bible and God as an insurance policy...if there is a God you go to heaven, if not then whatever?? If you really believed in God, for one, you wouldn't consider the latter. And the only person that could potentially send someone to hell, if it exists, is God. The judgement doesn't lie on your hackneyed sunday-school lesson on fire and brimstone... come on. Write an outline or something. Saying God help me is a direct proof of God? So therefore any old statement immediately implies existence of whatever it is that one said? Like, holy talking geese! No, sorry. And you are absolutely correct, your family was not once apes or fish, or whatever. They were always humans. However, we evolved from certain species. Why does evolution discredit God though? And why the distinction between humans and animals?...We are very closely related by DNA to...dare I say it...chimpanzees.
{"commentId":1811841,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1819236,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Why does evolution discredit God though?
It doesn't, it just discredits an arrogant, closed-minded, literal interpretation of the Bible (and other scriptures).
{"commentId":1819236,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811208,"authorDomain":"joelpalmer"}
There is not a scintilla of evidence that there is a god. The belief in a deity is a lame excuse for people who rely on the crutch of religion.
When, in a century or so, religion is a discredited system, people will wonder why we ebver believed ina supreme being when all available evidence showed none.
There are no extra terrestrias and there is no god; get over it and get on with discovering the truth in all areas by evidence and a scientific method requiring proof
{"commentId":1811208,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"joelpalmer"}
#63 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:39 PM EDT{"commentId":1811948,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
What evidence would you expect to find if a consciousness existing in all dimensions created the universe from a singularity? If you have no answer (and no evidence) then your version of science is merely a godless subjective religion.
{"commentId":1811948,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1812431,"authorDomain":"youssef51"}
What evidence would you expect to find if a consciousness
What evidence would you expect to find if the universe was created by a giant anteater that immediately went to another "dimension" afterwards?
If you have no answer then your "point" is absurd.
Which it is, by the way.
{"commentId":1812431,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"youssef51"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1812624,"authorDomain":"blacktailceramic"}
To experience God, and prove His existence to yourself, you pretty much have to believe in and love Him and His Son, and strive to keep Jesus' commandments, The experiences will follow (John 14:21-23).
{"commentId":1812624,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"blacktailceramic"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1813342,"authorDomain":"youssef51"}
The experiences will follow
I'll pass, thank you.
I gave up drugs a long time ago.
{"commentId":1813342,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"youssef51"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1819241,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
I gave up drugs a long time ago.
Illegal *and* legal? Never take a Tylenol, do you? All your dentistry is without medication?
Impressive!!
{"commentId":1819241,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1811217,"authorDomain":"harris-2"}
In 1931, Kurt Godel proved that any system that can describe itself is either incomplete or inconsistent.
Human beings are part of the universe, and use science to describe the universe.
Therefore, the universe is a system that can describe itself.
Therefore, the universe is either incomplete or inconsistent.
Ironically, the fact that we do science proves that science will never have a complete and consistent explanation of the universe.
More poetically, the universe is either full of mystery or magic.
It's not unreasonable to take the mystery or the magic and say that it's an attribute of a G-d that will never be fully known by science.
{"commentId":1811217,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"harris-2"}
- 1 vote
#64 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:41 PM EDT{"commentId":1811481,"authorDomain":"brothert51"}
What does that even mean? If you want anyone to understand you little stint of circular reasoning you have to explain Godel's original argument.
{"commentId":1811481,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"brothert51"}
{"commentId":1811822,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
How did he prove that? Are you a philosophy major? Are you high?
{"commentId":1811822,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
{"commentId":1819247,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
How did he prove that? Are you a philosophy major? Are you high?
Maybe you're just not high enough.
;)
{"commentId":1819247,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1832769,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
You may be correct ;)
{"commentId":1832769,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
{"commentId":1811246,"authorDomain":"harris-2"}
In 1831, Kurt Godel proved that any system that was capable of describing itself was either incomplete or inconsistent.
Human beings are part of the universe and use science to describe the universe.
Therefore the universe is a system that is capable of describing itself.
Therefore the universe is either incomplete or inconsistent.
Ironically, the fact that we do science ensures that science will never find a complete and consistent description of the universe.
Poetically, the universe is either full of mystery or magic.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to take that mystery or magic and ascribe it to a g-d.
{"commentId":1811246,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"harris-2"}
#65 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:49 PM EDT{"commentId":1811247,"authorDomain":"horpeide"}
So, an extraterrestrial civilization that can create life would be like gods to us? Sounds uncomfortably like a high, purposive intelligence as something necessary for life to exist. And will we find a god particle? We shall indeed, and be too stupid to realize that we have been blundering along a maze, then bumped into something which is really a mere ridge of the divine fingerprint left on this cosmos.
{"commentId":1811247,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"horpeide"}
#66 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:49 PM EDT{"commentId":1811284,"authorDomain":"home-buyers"}
I have quite a few science text books. Some of the discuss the scientific method. I've always had respect for this method. I also have respect for mathematicians. I agree with Einstein that science is backed by mathematics. Look at real science examples and you see the suppositions are proved with observation and explained with mathematics.
Yet there is a propagated pseudoscience that seems to have the ear of all who would insist that the first cause is not a very intelligent with an energy greater than all the stars of all the clusters of galaxies. Einstein believed in God as a first cause. Why not? There was a time when a large number of the intellects of science argued that the atom could not be split apart. The easy rule of science is if something is said to be or not be it should be proved by observation and mathematics. But until the measurable observations are made by experiment or repeated opportunities one has only a supposition. Has there ever been fraudulent experiments the faking of results for the purpose of furthering ones career. Check back and you will see that it has happened a number of times even as recent as the past few decades.
Some would point out that creationists say the whole universe was made in 6 days. So many of the non-believers would point out how they have been beat over the head with the argument that Genesis of the bible says the earth and heavens were created in 6 days. But does it say really say that? Check it out and you'll find that is incorrect. It does not say the universe was created in 6 days. Check it out further and Genesis seems to be in complete agreement with science where it touches on things addressed by science. Science talks about the fabric of time. Well check the Bible and one finds that even time is addressed from different points of view. For example 24 hour days are not always reported in 24 hours units. Sometimes they represent large units of years. Seems too many just don't bother to investigate to see if the hear-say is correct.
Check further and it can be seen that the Bible agrees with real science in a number of areas when it happens to touch on things that science is concerned with. The bible stated long before man had a means of knowing that the earth hangs upon nothing. That it is round. The the rabbit chews the cud. That a person cannot touch a dead person and then without proper cleaning and garment change to deliver a new born baby without risk of killing the baby. A medical fact. The list is long.
SO why is there an argument about the existence of God being unscientific? Perhaps it's because so many religions have made it so? And so many agnostics and atheists would find it convenient if there were no higher power they might have to answer to or that they might be accused of excluding and offending? Some claim to not care but yet they react emotionally as if being hunted down by an armed camp.
But before the religionists start cheering in support of my arguments they might think about the fact that the history of religion on the earth has more often then not been about the persecution of anyone who disagreed with them. What if that is in itself an offence against a real living higher power? So before you who believe in God mount an major attack on the scientific community you might first revisit the past few centuries of history. It is one of bloodshed and inquisitions and crusades and witch hunts. Not a pretty history. No wonder that many who don't believe in God react with a bit of disgust when the hear the same old dogmatic arguments.
Still as regards the atheists and many scientists, it's does seem that for many of them the belief in God is a bit inconvenient. Not only inconvenient, but a bit unpopular in their circle of associates (the scientific community). For them since if they were even on the fence they might reason; why risk a scientific career by supporting the belief in a supreme intelligent being that to them seems pretty distant if he exists. So there could be a lot of things playing in the minds of many of the unconvinced.
However, there are some brave scientists who will admit they do see design in the universe. This mathematical order and perfect balance they see in creation, they attribute it to intelligence. An intelligence that may actually belong to a being that has so much energy at his disposal that he can control the very fabric of time itself.
These scientists are keenly aware of possibilities for after all science keeps finding evidence that can be at least equally placed on the side of an intelligent first cause. For example what about those particles of energy we can't see? Just because we can't see them does that mean they don't exist. What if they are emitted in a controlled way by a superior being? Science has found clues of the existence of such particles. And they have a mathematical equation that brings it all together with the other major laws of science. But some just won't believe what they can't see. Yes but what about the graviton. I personally have yet to have knowing seen a graviton. Yet I believe in gravity cause I see it's effects. Did scientist always believe in the existence of gravitons? NO. But it was a possibility some explored and are still studying and arguing about. Still I believe in gravity because I see it's effects. To me the graviton is not an impossibility. Surely a scientific mind can also reason the same way about the existence of God, even though he or she is at risk of being ridiculed by his or her peers.
Well the argument will continue for awhile yet, but one thing seems to be pretty certain. Major events on the world scene may soon bring the real answer to our attention in a way that can't be ignored. Why do I say that. It's because it's inevitable that mankind's inability direct his own way on the earth is leading mankind into catastrophic period of time where his very survival in in peril. In spite of science and technological advances things have become to complex and to far down the road toward the perfect world storm of events.
Look at the increasing complexity of the compounded troubles mankind is marching into today one might wonder: What if there is a higher intelligence that possesses enough energy to create the universe? What if that same higher intelligence has an interest on what is happening on this planet? What if our time of existence which is an ever so tiny fraction of the millions of years this planet existed has merely been the time to resolve an issue regarding man's ability to be independent of God? What if that period of time ends when mankind like a stubborn child has well proved he just can't do God's job?
If that were the case then one thing is for certain- the time is coming when we all get to find out the truth, for if those of us who believe in a creator that deserves the title of God are wrong then mankind is not going to be stopped from blindly completely destroying himself with is hatreds, greed, wars, famines, pestilences, as it all of his problems and negative results reaches critical mass.
IF on the other hand those who believe there is a God who cares are correct in that belief. Then perhaps a new era is near. Where God reveals he is is the one to direct matters and all must choose to comply or to be removed from the scene. For those sitting on the fence or too afraid to buck the popular opinion of their non-believing peers the risk of being on the wrong side of the fence might for them a high one. For those who would rather not be on this planet then to submit to a higher authority could this be the time the are helped to exit the stage? For those making a mistake will they end up hoping they that there human error in judgment is taking into consideration? Will a supreme being then set up a new society of mankind where all are expected to comply with laws of protection from the very things that are destroying mankind and ruining the earth now?
To those who will admit they even care, to dismiss a creator might be a bit risky since true science has not mathematically or by repeatable observations been able to prove with certainty that he doesn't exist. The biggest loss often is what a person never gains. What if gaining the approval of a superior being might be a requirement to be a part of a brand new era right here on this planet. Whooaaa- now that is a heavy thought.
{"commentId":1811284,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"home-buyers"}
- 4 votes
#67 - Sat May 17, 2008 12:01 AM EDT{"commentId":1811746,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Check it out further and Genesis seems to be in complete agreement with science where it touches on things addressed by science.
Science has found absolutely no evidence of a worldwide Flood.
However, there are some brave scientists who will admit they do see design in the universe.
Hahaha, to share the faith of the most of the planet is not bravery. There is no anti-religious hegemony permeating science. Many, many scientists are Christians, and able to compartmentalize their beliefs.
What if gaining the approval of a superior being might be a requirement to be a part of a brand new era right here on this planet. Whooaaa- now that is a heavy thought.
A fearmongering one, too. Approval of which particular superior being? Non-belief would be preferable to belief in that case, as many religions claim a supreme being which takes umbrage as false worship.
{"commentId":1811746,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1811951,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
Jack - religion and God are not the same and are not interchangeable. To be truly objective and scientific, you cannot discount the existence of a God without evidence. Otherwise, your version of science, at least on this topic, is a religion. And, finding fault with a particular religious belief may only disprove that belief, not the existence of a God.
{"commentId":1811951,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1812758,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Okay, and I was only talking about religion.
Without it, of course, "God" can mean absolutely anything, dodging and weaving in the gaps of human knowledge. To separate God from religion is folly, as the latter invented the former. Feel free to define "god" without a religious basis.
Once you decide on a single, specific definition, you can talk about objectivity and science.
{"commentId":1812758,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1812906,"authorDomain":"gholt"}
Jack - If you are a scientist and truly objective you cannot dismiss the existence of God without evidence. Some submit the organization, order, and mathematical basis of the universe as evidence, but you have not been able to show that order can be created from chaos to disprove this theory. That would be your "faith" talking.
{"commentId":1812906,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"gholt"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1813296,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
If you are a scientist and truly objective you cannot dismiss the existence of God without evidence.
GHolt - If you are truly interested in discussing this, specifically define God first. Is it sentient? Is it conscious? Is it simply a force? A set of laws? What's the definition of God you choose to use here?
So far, what you're saying is no more meaningful than "if you're objective, you have to entertain the possibility that Pookums exists."
Some submit the organization, order, and mathematical basis of the universe as evidence, but you have not been able to show that order can be created from chaos to disprove this theory.
Order cannot be created from chaos? You need to revisit your introductory thermodynamics lessons. It's high-energy to low-energy, and only in the total sum of a closed system is entropy always increasing.
{"commentId":1813296,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1813364,"authorDomain":"youssef51"}
If you are a scientist and truly objective you cannot dismiss the existence of God without evidence.
This line of "reasoning" hasn't gotten any better since B. Russel destroyed it about 70 years ago.
Neither Jack nor anyone else needs any evidence to "dismiss" or disprove anything. The burden of proof always lies with those defending a hypothesis and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Believers, by definition, have none.
I am under no pressure whatever to produce any such evidence. You are under no pressure to produce any evidence to dispute my claim - if I were to make it - that the universe was created by an cheese and onion omelet.
{"commentId":1813364,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"youssef51"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":2490307,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
exactly- they offer that you believe thier premise without offering any defensible argument. Other than, "because God/he says it is so, through me his interpreter/speaker. Again, way too convenient.
{"commentId":2490307,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":1811308,"authorDomain":"wdbry1937"}
{"commentId":1811341,"authorDomain":"cbshrink1"}
From one with graduate degrees in education, psychology and philosophy. 70, looking death, the ultimate motivator of religion, in the eyes. :: I have read lay-level quantum physics. It seems asinine to assume that only three dimensional matter is all that exists. Physicists assert the indestructibility of "information." We don't know what "mind" is, although it's understanding and perceptions can certainly be altered by material physiology. By nature, I am a "mystic." My personal experiences and those of many clients are the source of my "faith" in a power/intelligence that is operational in matter and the survival of my information ("self-awarenes") after the body dies. We have many problems. We are not equipped to think about any existence without causality. We strive for certitude and much of our certitude turns ugly and destructive. It is ultimately a "leap of faith." I prefer to live as if I am required by God to love and help my fellow humans. even at the expense of my own ego.
{"commentId":1811341,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"cbshrink1"}
#69 - Sat May 17, 2008 12:14 AM EDT{"commentId":1811398,"authorDomain":"melvyn-e-washington"}
I am convinced that science has made great strides in understanding our environment and the effects it has on all life. Because of science, we have medicines that have improved our well being. Science has proven that our behaviors affect our environment, which affects our well being. But, science is limited. Science does not know if life exists on other planets. For that matter science as not been able to explain how and why we exist. And even though science as found a way to "clone" various species of life, it must be careful that it doesn't fool itself into thinking that they understand life, thus God can't be real.
When I see how nature reproduces itself, when I see creatures large and small behave in "humanly" ways, when I see life born from death, when I see perfection embedded in inperfection, I see God. One day man will realize it was never his place to contradict what he was never meant to understand. If science put as much effort (with the talents gifted to them) and used that to heal the world rather that try to disprove God's existence simply because they can't "explain" it, then they may see God
{"commentId":1811398,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"melvyn-e-washington"}
- 1 vote
#70 - Sat May 17, 2008 12:30 AM EDT{"commentId":1811752,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
If science put as much effort (with the talents gifted to them) and used that to heal the world rather that try to disprove God's existence simply because they can't "explain" it, then they may see God
When does science ever try to disprove God's existence? Honestly.
{"commentId":1811752,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811444,"authorDomain":"grm"}
Imagine two fetuses in the womb of their mother. One fetus says to the other, "I don't believe there is any such thing as a mother! It is a figment of imagination! What proof do we have that a mother exists?" Of course, the fetus has such a limited scope of knowledge and it's perspective is subject to it's small environment, that it isn't aware of the evidence that surrounds it that it's mother exists. In fact, that it's very existence is dependent upon it's mother. It has no idea of the nature of it's mother, or what awaits it once it is born. It's perspective and judgement is relative to it environment and available knowledge.
I imagine life as womb two. Much as a fetus grows in the womb to prepare it for the world, we too grow in the world to prepare us for our final existence. This world is made up of rules, measurable rules, that we can depend on to mark our calenders, plant our crops and insure that our space probes will hit their targets. Our perspective is limited to what we know with the five senses given to us. For me, it is difficult to imagine that the wonder of an eye could of sprung from mindless chaos.
If we were on a deserted island and came across a car, we might logically assume that some other human had been there before us. We would not naturally jump to the conclusion that through millions of years molecules came together in endless random fashion to ultimately create a car. Yet, some claim that the human body and the delicate environment that it survives in came about randomly and by accident. Is it hubris to say that a car requires human intelligence to create it, but that a human is an accident?
The "proof" of God is all around us! We need only open our eyes to see it.
{"commentId":1811444,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"grm"}
- 4 votes
#71 - Sat May 17, 2008 12:44 AM EDT{"commentId":1811567,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Well-said, Gary!!
{"commentId":1811567,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1811762,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
For me, it is difficult to imagine that the wonder of an eye could of sprung from mindless chaos.
If God did craft our eye, He doesn't seem to like us very much. The eye of the squid makes much more sense than ours.
If we were on a deserted island and came across a car, we might logically assume that some other human had been there before us. We would not naturally jump to the conclusion that through millions of years molecules came together in endless random fashion to ultimately create a car.
A poor analogy. You have preexisting knowledge that a car is created by humans. You have no such concrete, preexisting metric for God.
Your argument is nothing more than "our understanding is limited, and mine is even more so, so let's 'explain' what we don't know by slapping a God tag on it." You're indeed right up MightyMait's alley.
{"commentId":1811762,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1811781,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Your argument is nothing more than "our understanding is limited, and mine is even more so, so let's 'explain' what we don't know by slapping a God tag on it." You're indeed right up MightyMait's alley.
Jack's in a fine mood this evening!!
{"commentId":1811781,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2490383,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Well said, but again you are taking what has occured through natural processes and claiming it the work of a god. You fail to apparently understand that these processes could/did happen without any supernatural assistance. Evolution whether you want to believe it or not can happen without a god.
{"commentId":2490383,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2492294,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Evolution whether you want to believe it or not can happen without a god.
As a Newsvine friend of mine (was it JCAtom) said in another discussion, Darwinian evolution replaces God and puts "chance in the gaps."
{"commentId":2492294,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2495756,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Chance as opposed to god should be in the gaps. Every day science is proving this true. The religious types are now beginning to employ a new strategy of "god, the initiator" Example evolution. Due to the preponderance of evidence some of them are now saying that yea, evolution might have occured but god initiated it. Talking about a flip-flop. Whats next? I cant wait to see how they will go from the earth being 6 thousand years to several billion years old. Can't wait for that one. Their gaps are disappearing.
{"commentId":2495756,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2504905,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
See my other comment about the age of the world. Not every religion takes the same simplistic view of cosmology as certain fundamentalist Christians.
As for chance, if one is a scientist, shouldn't one believe that there is ultimately no chance at all, but simply an order of a complexity that escapes us? If everything is happening according to various physical laws, then everything ought to be deterministic.
One can *say* that genetic mutation, for instance, is happening by chance, but that's not truly the case. There is a reason in each case why a gene mutates, whether it's cosmic radiation, some sort of chemical interference, etc. For the sake of convenience, we can *consider* those mutations to be random (since we can't reliably predict when these mutations will happen), but they aren't.
Hard-core materialists seem hell-bent on separating the realms of science and faith, whereas the humble and sincere faithful can whole-heartedly embrace science (with all its limitations).
{"commentId":2504905,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2542774,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Humble and sincere, your kidding right. Isn't it your type who claims to speak to "the almighty, the Alpha and the Omega, etc.". That doesn't seem humble at all. Hell, I cant get an audience with my local councilman.
{"commentId":2542774,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2545072,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Actually, we're taught that, by the grace of God one gets Guru, and by the grace of Guru one gets God.
However, unlike your local councilman, God resides in the heart of every living entity. Each of us can have a loving, personal relationship with God. There's nothing particularly special about the people who talk to God other than that they avail themselves of the opportunity which is presented to us all.
{"commentId":2545072,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":2575906,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
Yea, and we all know how many crazies also claim to be speaking with god as well. Ever heard of megalomania?
{"commentId":2575906,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":2583815,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Ever heard of megalomania?
Yes. Many materialists appear to be affected by it, whereas sincere spiritualists give all credit to God, taking none for themselves.
{"commentId":2583815,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1811471,"authorDomain":"brothert51"}
Notice that despite the ridiculous number and length of comments on this page, none of these comments have gotten the requisite 5 votes for a green star. It's not that the comments are bad, it's simply that no one has bothered to read them. Everyone is only interested about their own beliefs on the topic because all of us know that no well turned phrase or piece of evidence could ever change our views on God and religion.
In fact, probably no will will bother reading this either.
Oh well. Let us all just continue in our pseudotheological, pesudoscientific little circle jerk for the rest of the evening and see how far it gets us.
{"commentId":1811471,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"brothert51"}
- 5 votes
#72 - Sat May 17, 2008 12:54 AM EDT{"commentId":1811576,"authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
Well, *I* read your comment, though I must confess I've skimmed through the rest of the comments, reading only a few in full.
{"commentId":1811576,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"MightyMait"}
{"commentId":1811650,"authorDomain":"fade-1"}
After reading this I went back and voted for the ones I feel made a good comment. Including yours...
{"commentId":1811650,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"fade-1"}
{"commentId":1811480,"authorDomain":"smarti21"}
As a Buddhist, I see no evidence of "god". What I do see are living beings struggling to be happy. Happiness is the goal of all living beings. Life and death are eternal manifestations of the universe that continue without beginning and without end.
{"commentId":1811480,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"smarti21"}
#73 - Sat May 17, 2008 12:57 AM EDT{"commentId":1811578,"authorDomain":"spongy-spiker07"}
The big thing here is that God created science. It is improbable to say that God doesn't fit into science. I'm sick of people trying to put God in a scientific box. People say there is no evidence of God? Do they not look outside and see the complexity of everything natural? Can we honestly believe that our world and universe came through a big bang of elements and chemical reactions coming together? If so then where did those elements begin? We also rely so much on evolution, however, even Darwin himself on his death bed said the whole idea was ridiculous. People just want to find any excuse to empower themselves, because with believing in God comes submission and humility. When we believe in God we are saying that he is in control not ourselves.
{"commentId":1811578,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"spongy-spiker07"}
- 2 votes
#74 - Sat May 17, 2008 1:27 AM EDT{"commentId":1811670,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
Good point. I'll say that people created science, but God gave us the ability to perceive and extrapolate our knowledge to think about things that aren't obvious, to let our minds wander and expand, and to let us to see innate beauty in things, as to inspire us. If God didn't exist, things would be dreary and we wouldn't feel joy, or the need for it. We would just be.
{"commentId":1811670,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
{"commentId":1811768,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Do they not look outside and see the complexity of everything natural?
Complexity = God? It sounds like the excuse of someone proud of his own ignorance.
Can we honestly believe that our world and universe came through a big bang of elements and chemical reactions coming together?
Yes.
People just want to find any excuse to empower themselves, because with believing in God comes submission and humility.
Ah yes, because all christians are meek and humble. You keep believing that, young grasshopper.
We also rely so much on evolution, however, even Darwin himself on his death bed said the whole idea was ridiculous.
And Darwin isn't the end-all authority of all science, or even evolution. Modern evolution has, ahem, evolved, far beyond Darwin's theory.
If God didn't exist, things would be dreary and we wouldn't feel joy, or the need for it. We would just be.
What a perfectly meaningless statement.
{"commentId":1811768,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1811817,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
Fair enough..rather it is my opinion...
{"commentId":1811817,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
{"commentId":1812879,"authorDomain":"spongy-spiker07"}
Oh well Huang, I guess we will find out in the end.
{"commentId":1812879,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"spongy-spiker07"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1811638,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
First of all, as a scientist, an undergraduate studying physics, I can say that it IS possible to believe in God and science..yes, at the same time. What some people tend to believe is that a field that makes claims based on empirical and semi-empirical evidence must be able to explain EVERYTHING in those terms if it is to be true, that they should be able to 'prove or disprove God.' This is a fallacy that even the most naive should be quick to see. For instance, how do you explain your thoughts? No I don't mean the neurons firing as a result of action potentials, but how would you explain where your thoughts come from? And where the next one comes from? Simple causality, such as a reaction from an action? Given this line of argument I should be able to read anyone's mind, given just one of his or her thoughts. Now, I will agree that I don't believe in the traditional Christian concept of God. I prefer to call it more of a spirituality, a self-awareness that something of greater power is out there. Not necessarily the one that lets you win the lottery if you pray hard enough, but I have a deep conviction that we are not just a bunch of atoms thrown together and we get a job and do stuff and then die. How boring. But, I do not believe in God just because I need vindication for living and for not feeling useless. But I digress. It seems almost like people are offended by God...
{"commentId":1811638,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
- 4 votes
#75 - Sat May 17, 2008 1:49 AM EDT{"commentId":1811777,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
What some people tend to believe is that a field that makes claims based on empirical and semi-empirical evidence must be able to explain EVERYTHING in those terms if it is to be true, that they should be able to 'prove or disprove God.' This is a fallacy that even the most naive should be quick to see.
As a fellow physicist, I agree.
how would you explain where your thoughts come from? And where the next one comes from? Simple causality, such as a reaction from an action? Given this line of argument I should be able to read anyone's mind, given just one of his or her thoughts.
False analogy. If someone gave you a computer program (written in C++, for example), written according to logical rules inherent in programming, and told you that right now, it's displaying "18765," then you should be able to extrapolate the content of the entire program?
I think not.
Similarly, simply because there's no mystical voodoo in the human brain doesn't mean knowing one thought leads to understanding one's entire mind.
Heck, in physics, we have the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to deal with, which inserts unpredictability into the completely physical.
{"commentId":1811777,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1811809,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
Actually yes, if you knew the entire code and there were no errors, then yes you should be able to run through the code in its entirety, but then you'd be a computer, so there is some truth to the analogy, loosely. You might be told the reason it is displaying '18765,' i.e., the input which gave that output, and then you could go from there. But once again, we're not all Rain Man.
And yes, I was kind of implying the uncertainty principle. That is the beauty, and the eerie mystery of science. Not that the uncertainty principle implies God, but it implies that there are some things which we can't, at the moment, answer based on our empirical knowledge of science. Even though we can get information from quantum mechanics and stuff like that, we can't completely explain why...
{"commentId":1811809,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1812040,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
As a fellow physicist, I agree.
@Jack I found an interesting quote from one of your older co-workers that I thought only you could handle as this level of discusssion, you have way more practice the I:
Einstein letter dismissing God sells for $330,000 US
A letter written by Albert Einstein in which he dismissed belief in God as a "product of human weaknesses" was auctioned off Thursday for more than $330,000 US, destroying previous selling records of letters by the renowned physicist.
The letter, written in German in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind, was sold in London, England, by Bloomsbury Auctions to a private collector. It had initially been expected to fetch between $12,000 US and $16,000 US.
Now that is one letter I would love to read. I hope that they make the actual contents of the one available to see.
{"commentId":1812040,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1812660,"authorDomain":"brothert51"}
For instance, how do you explain your thoughts? No I don't mean the neurons firing as a result of action potentials, but how would you explain where your thoughts come from? And where the next one comes from?
Ignorance of the inner workings of thebrain does not necessitate a supernatural explanation. We used to think that the suns rays came from a chariot being pulled across the sky. That's only silly now because we used science to figure out the real reason. Why keep making the same mistakes over and over again?
{"commentId":1812660,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"brothert51"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1812773,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
if you knew the entire code and there were no errors
Sorry, but that's often not enough. You gave one thought, and no knowledge of inputs. Even if you knew the precise structure and operation of the brain, at the very least, Heisenberg uncertainty would make the program non-deterministic, which means you probably cannot extrapolate all thoughts from one.
You might be told the reason it is displaying '18765,' i.e., the input which gave that output, and then you could go from there.
Sure, that might be possible. But, in the specific example you gave, you didn't give us that particular piece of info. ;-)
Not that the uncertainty principle implies God, but it implies that there are some things which we can't, at the moment, answer based on our empirical knowledge of science. Even though we can get information from quantum mechanics and stuff like that, we can't completely explain why...
I agree. There is a whole lot science can still learn about the universe. We are far from explaining everything, but it's foolish to simply fill in the gaps with "so, like, God did that", pretending knowledge from ignorance.
Thanks, Tedd. I agree with Einstein. Religion serves the purpose of providing social control (Commandments), unsupported hope of cheating death (afterlife), and a belief that you can influence/control more than what reality tells you (Mayan human sacrifice, and Christian prayer, for example).
{"commentId":1812773,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1812887,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
Indeed..the uncertainty principle does introduce a whole new dynamic to the situation. I can see how my comments were misleading, what leaving out parts that were probably crucial to the argument. I guess in all I'm not saying that God is the answer I assert for the questions to which I can offer no evidence, I guess I just believe for some reason. And I just get irritated at people who think that they can prove or disprove God and think that science is a key to tell someone their BELIEFS are wrong.
I agree with you about religion. I always say that it seems suspiciously like a method to control people based on their fears. "Oh, you need to feel special? Join a church, you'll feel welcome, just give money, pray this way, dont do this or that or that or this. Don't listen to science, evolution, or that nagging feeling of common sense going on, because science has created evil and led people away from God, (not to mention medicine, that i-Pod you listen to during sermons, and even the nice expensive car that the pastor drove up in), so science is bad, mmmkay?" Now of course that is not always the case, but you get the point.
{"commentId":1812887,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1813075,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
Thanks, Tedd. I agree with Einstein
Me too, But your far better at debating that one then me, so thanks for the handoff, thought that one would be of interest iif you had not already seen it.
{"commentId":1813075,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1813308,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
I guess in all I'm not saying that God is the answer I assert for the questions to which I can offer no evidence, I guess I just believe for some reason.
Fair enough.
And I just get irritated at people who think that they can prove or disprove God and think that science is a key to tell someone their BELIEFS are wrong.
Hmmm, now you're treading in murky waters again. Science can definitely blow some beliefs out of the water, including religious ones. Young-Earth creationism, for one. The literal story of the Flood is another.
I agree, though, that once your concept of God reaches a certain level of abstraction, science cannot conclude either way.
{"commentId":1813308,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1814267,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
I mean beliefs in the sense that they are ones interpretation of something that cannot be touched by science, and there are plenty. I don't mean someones beliefs on a subject which can be tested and can receive results...that's not what faith is. And your point is valid, which is why I've repeatedly said that the religious train is not the one for which I would buy tickets, in a manner. I am talking about a person's faith, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, I tend to accredit borrowed beliefs to religious people. They haven't sat long and hard and thought about what God is to them....they listened to someone else. How lazy, to commit your life to something that everyone is practically falling off of the bandwagon for because it is so full.....And I reiterate, some religious people I do like, but some people don't really understand faith...sad
{"commentId":1814267,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1814304,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
I mean beliefs in the sense that they are ones interpretation of something that cannot be touched by science, and there are plenty.
That's what I thought you meant. :-)
I've simply seen too many people on Newsvine use "but it's my belief!" as a blanket defense for all sorts of bulls---, so I appreciate the clarification.
{"commentId":1814304,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1814313,"authorDomain":"jag-427"}
@ Jack
Well thank you. I think you're very intelligent and precise in your arguments. I guess I just have a lot to say and have a hard time formulating my thoughts into coherent arguments sometimes. I guess my science and my God meet for a crumpet and tea often, and maybe even party together. But first and foremost..I believe in both. Yes....I said it :-)
{"commentId":1814313,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"jag-427"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":2490490,"authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
I am not offended by a concept of god. I am offended by the supposition that I must be able to capriciously give up reason and logic to "Believe". Some of us are simply not able to due that on a whim or when another person supposedly speaking for god tells us to.
{"commentId":2490490,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"dark-energy363"}
{"commentId":1811848,"authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
good point Osho! As an after thought for all of you, the one thing God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit have instilled in me is PEACE and I hope you all find some whether it be through Christ (hopefully) or by other means. I have enjoyed the debate, glad I found this site! For those this wont offend, God Bless for those it does offend I say happy trails Ill be back tomorrow to stir the pot Good night all
{"commentId":1811848,"threadId":"265489","contentId":"1493241","authorDomain":"hugonaut1"}
#77 - Sat May 17, 2008 3:30 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"265489","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
