Kimi's Potty Mouth

[monza gorilla 1]

And your point is?

[goferrarigo 0]

Firstly i have not fully read all the pages after the dicussion on religionn vs science started so not sure if i repeat parts which ppl have anwered.

The point is that science hs answered a lot of things but not everythign, they keep saying that soon we willbe able to cure stuff bt they haven't. I think heard abt flying car being a reality in 96 or so and they said it would be widely available very soon, till now i can saftly say iit hasn't.

In physics, string theory was supposed to unravel the mysteries of the universe and become the unified theory of all theories. Lately critics have been saying

[Autumnpuma 0]

For God to have made the universe, and time, he would have to be outside of 'time' as a measurement. If you exist in a single moment, you exist for eternity. As to how He made the universe, that would be like explaining to your fish how you made a calculator. An understanding of the sleeping God, with Brahma sitting on a lotus flower, constantly opening and closing his eyes/mouth, and creating universes, each with physical laws 'run' by an Indra would possibly give you an explanation of sorts....or it would give you an amusing story at least

Hmm...I was typing while sober..always a mistake. My point here, if there is one, is to call up a tale from the Upinishads that mentions multiple universes. A concept that is just now being explored by science, yet, strangely enough, the Indians had centuries ago...

[Max Mosley 2]

"The thing I

[bajo39 0]

"The thing I

[Schumikonen 2]

Yes but I already accept we don't have all the answers. My point is that religion, or postulating a God, gets us precisely nowhere. How does God explain the scientific questions you ask any better than the Big Bang theory?

In Acts 1 I found this:6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

I know and understand that there are some things that only God knows and that just doesn't bother me at all I have something called Faith and I am using it and I have seen it working in my life and in a lot of people's life, I have seen a lot of miracle not by TV I've seen them in front of my eyes, I've seen a leg growing in my own face that was not tv effect or something was real miracle recieved by a lady in my church who is walking normally since then, that was God's power who made it grow, I have seen demons getting out the people in Jesus name's even those who say that they work for God, evil spirits are real and so is God but I can talk to you about this latter or in another thread.

"No because gravity works at all distances. We can see the effect our galaxy has on very distant ones!" but gravity is actually weaker the farer you are from the earth, and if Physic can be applied to everything in the universe is the same for galaxies and start right now like you said science have seen the effect of our galaxy all around the universe but how precise is this knowing that we can only see the light of the object that gets to the earth, the closest star to our Solar System is alfa centaury and is four lights year from here and some quasars are more than 15,000 lights years fron here wich means tht we are getting the data and light that came out of those objects 15,000 years ago, that means too that we don't know what is really happening right now out there, so we are still gessing on that.

The energy can be the same even when the matter is concentrated in one point. "Impenetrability" is not a genuine scientific concept. Listen matter just was never concentrated in one point, volume zero means no dimensions and that means nonexistent (talking about space) How can the scientists be sure that the are no more of those concentrated matters in the universe maybe black hole are those points really, how can science say that all the matter of the universe it was concentrated in that point?, maybe we can have another big bang in any moment. I'm sure that you as a science believer have mare question than me as a God believer

Nevertheless you are basically right that the origin of the universe is not well understood by scientists. All I say to you is how did God make the universe? And how did God make God? And at what time did God make time? And...?

Time doesn't really exist, is just a perception, there is no future and there is not past, the present how big or long is it? a nanosecond? if you take three nanoseconds the first will be past, the second is the present and the third will be future, but you can stiil divide a nanosecond billions and billions of times, so can you tell me how long the present is? and what is really the time?

[cavallino 2]

Far from it old boy. Was just dribbler's bad attempt at some sarcasm to remind us all where this thread started. With my level of intelligence, it's about the level of my contribution to your philosophical debate.

Yours, attempting to not be self righteous or arrogant......

Fair enough I misread that, my mistake

Semantics. The end result of both terms is 'lack of proof'. To call something 'unprovable' is to make a judgement based on opinion, instead of waiting for facts to present themselves. Every possibility starts as an hypothesis.

That's not true, a hypothesis stats by explaining existing facts. Which is where religion and science take different paths. Religious hypotheses make no effort to explain any existing facts, and add a lot of things completely unsubstantiated by any evidence, also violating Occam's razor by creating unnecessaryr entities.

Yes, religious ideas, as I've stated above, are currently hypothesis, waiting for proof, so they should be considered on those grounds.

No, most are simply contradicting known facts, some can claim to not have been contradicted yet - which only satisfies one of the requirements - a theory has to be substantiated by existing facts and not be contradicted by any of them. Religious hypotheses sometimes satisfy the latter, but never the former.

Really? Do you study history at all? A goodly part of it is someone else's guesswork.

Have you ever been on an archaeological dig? Have you seen the process that happens before information makes it's way into your textbook? It's guesswork.

No, what makes it to textbooks, at least good textbooks is marked as such. A good textbook would lay out the discovery and then say that this perhaps suggests that 'this civilisation had an irrigation system' for example. When we come to more recently history of course, many events are so well documented that it is hard to argue to the contrary.

Science describes the creation. Religion describes the creator.

Science tries to describe everything it can. Religion claims to describe what cannot be known.

Hmm...If persons cannot present religious texts to support their beliefs, then you cannot present opinions drawn from observations of 'scientists'. Only present the facts as we can physically measure them and see if the answer presents itself...

No, you can present theories based on facts. Fair enough, post religious texts, I shall treat them as scientific theories and lets see how far that goes.

Hmmm.

Of course. I was making a point about Cav not trusting guesswork.

So, when presented with two forms of guesswork, the non-religious one sways you? It's very hard to convince a person that one guess is better than another.

Depends on the person, some people have a head in the sand attitude, and society allows them to take advantage of the very discoveries they deny which means they can comfortably live in that obliviousness.

When you get there, the concept of 'God' becomes a bit more rational, I think.

More comforting for some perhaps, it is an easy thing to believe as long as you are prepared to forgoe the right to question

Indeed, my friend, indeed.

I believe it started a certain way, but I have no proof. I can describe the theory of an expanding universe, but that doesn't explain what happened at that moment before the 'expanding' happened.

Indeed, and science doesn't claim to describe it, yet.

Describing the process of universal creation does nothing to prove, or disprove, the existence of a 'creator'.

Depends on how you look at it - you can say that the creator lies in a realm beyond our comprehension, however in that case, you might as well pretend that he/she.it does not exist, since we are incapable of knowing anyway.

The Big Bang theory is valid. We know the universe is expanding and we know from where. We can describe the process of gravity and matter recombining. How does that explain away a 'creator'?

You could measure the length and breadth of a football field; analyse the dirt and grass; weigh it all and still not discover who built it. That doesn't disprove the creator of the field, it simply proves a lack of quantifiable information to answer that question.

It doesn't, and as I said above, perhaps never will. I prefer to disregard the possibility, since otherwise you are left with infinite possibilities, each as good or as bad as the other. Occam's razor, you are creating an unnecessary entity - one that you cannot comprehend, even if the entity affects your life, you cannot know how, if your actions will makes the entity affect your life differently, you will never know how. It is pointless to think of anything that exists beyond the laws of the world we exist in, because if we could know of its existence, those laws would be obsolete.

With this in mind, how does one explain things like Fatima? I'm not catholic, but I cannot explain some of the eyewitness accounts of that incident.

Again, as I said before, some equally convincing eyewitness accounts directly contradict each other, so they are not infallible, as such I prefer to believe things that have already passed under skeptical eyes with the caveat that they are still open to question.

A concept of 'god' would need something seen or experienced to give us the initial idea that a 'god' even existed.

I have a vague memory of replying to this

This makes perfect sense to me, Mike.

I think there is as much proof/evidence for either side if you choose to believe in it. Ultimately, both require a leap of faith.

Where exactly does science require a leap of faith?

The only thing I would say, for example, is that having all the maths, etc for an expanding universe is great....if the universe is expanding. However, if it's not expanding........All the theory, the maths, everything is based on a condition that might not be happening.

If the universe is not expanding, the very fundamental theories that we believe in, that have been endlessly applied and verified are false. Something that would be so mind bogglingly incredible, that it is a bit pointless to think about. There may be flying pigs somewhere, but it is reasonable to believe there aren't and proceed on that assumption.

Ah, these are all just my musings and not meant to convince anyone of anything.

Cav has said his specialty is physics, so perhaps he can be a bit clearer than me, but the theory goes that the matter has always existed. That matter is in a continual state of motion, from one 'end' (for lack of a better word) to the other 'end' of the universe. All matter is now racing towards one point and when all the current matter gets there, it compresses and compresses until it explodes again, heading in the opposite direction.

Not quite one end to another, it essentially says that the universe emerged from a very hot and dense state, and as we move further forward in time the evolution of the universe is quite well explained.

[pabloh20 1]

Where exactly does science require a leap of faith?

In this case, for example, it cannot actually be proven that the universe is expanding, but you believe the scientists have got it right - so roughly there, right there at that point there...no, back a bit, a little bit more forward....done !!

If the universe is not expanding, the very fundamental theories that we believe in, that have been endlessly applied and verified are false. Something that would be so mind bogglingly incredible, that it is a bit pointless to think about. There may be flying pigs somewhere, but it is reasonable to believe there aren't and proceed on that assumption.

The fundemental theories that are believed at the moment - yes I completely agree, or in your example with flying pigs, that's a reasonable assumption to make. However, that's not to say that in 1000 years time, for example, when we know so much more, that we may have a completely different set of theories, or they may have actual proof that the universe is expanding. Who knows?

By the way, you could put a pig on a plane and technically........ok, I'll get my coat!!

[cavallino 2]

How would the concept of God come about if there were no God to model that from? The whole concept of 'divine' would be unknown.

Well if you look at it in a detached manner, not all religions can be equally valid despite the secular principle of religious respect, many religions preclude others from existing. So if at least one of those gods doesn't exist, then what was that god modelled on. And if at least one god was modelled on nothing in particular, why not all of them?

"classical physics simply breaks down" maybe this means that we can not explain anything from that time and beyond because our actual science laws and properties are simply different now

Ah no quite to the contrary, the circumstances were different, we manage to recreate some of those circumstances in our labs, on which most of our understanding of that time is based. The laws are as valid today as they were then.

"Now feel how strong the force holding you to the ground is - thats gravity and the force is proportional to your mass."[/b] This is only partialy true in earth, you will need another formula in the moon and another one in Saturn,

No it is completely true everywhere.

speed also afect this formula

No it doesn't.

(impenetrability is the name given to that quality of matter whereby two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.)

Actually because of the uncertainty principle we cannot know the exact position anyway

The point is that science hs answered a lot of things but not everythign, they keep saying that soon we willbe able to cure stuff bt they haven't. I think heard abt flying car being a reality in 96 or so and they said it would be widely available very soon, till now i can saftly say iit hasn't.

As even science and religion both have doubts, and most doubts in science are filled with religion.

as said by scott.

And also he brings up a good wuestion about how sciences record for prediciting future. because most of times, i think, the predictions in science are very high and the reult very low

Science shouldn't need or have to makepredictions, that is the domain of false prophets. Predicitons are based on existing knowledge, you can simply choose what appears to be the best prospect to you, and proceed. That is not in aqny was an admonishment of science. It is the only thing that gives you answers and those advances, if you aren't getting what you expect, you are expecting too much. You have an alternative, use it. You are unhappy that there is no cure for cancer, and that science has erred, well find it through any alternatives you have. Until then, science is the best and only thing we have when it comes to getting flying cars or curing cancer, so you have neither the right to expect anything or complain.

Hmm...I was typing while sober..always a mistake. My point here, if there is one, is to call up a tale from the Upinishads that mentions multiple universes. A concept that is just now being explored by science, yet, strangely enough, the Indians had centuries ago...

Well you cannot take one concept that may be partially related to something that has been considered as a justification for religion, if you take a few pills and write down everything you can think of, something eventually is bound to come out that will have something to do with reality.

In Acts 1 I found this:6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

I know and understand that there are some things that only God knows and that just doesn't bother me at all I have something called Faith and I am using it and I have seen it working in my life and in a lot of people's life, I have seen a lot of miracle not by TV I've seen them in front of my eyes, I've seen a leg growing in my own face that was not tv effect or something was real miracle recieved by a lady in my church who is walking normally since then, that was God's power who made it grow, I have seen demons getting out the people in Jesus name's even those who say that they work for God, evil spirits are real and so is God but I can talk to you about this latter or in another thread.

Well prove it, let us find an arbitrary disabled person, take him to the church of your choice, cure him, and certify him as being cured.

but gravity is actually weaker the farer you are from the earth

The effect of the earth's gravity is less, which of course is entirely consistent with the theory.

The energy can be the same even when the matter is concentrated in one point. "Impenetrability" is not a genuine scientific concept. Listen matter just was never concentrated in one point, volume zero means no dimensions and that means nonexistent (talking about space) How can the scientists be sure that the are no more of those concentrated matters in the universe maybe black hole are those points really, how can science say that all the matter of the universe it was concentrated in that point?, maybe we can have another big bang in any moment.

Quite possibly, the cause of the big bang has not been established, not beyond the possibility of doubt at least.

[goferrarigo 0]

Science shouldn't need or have to makepredictions, that is the domain of false prophets. Predicitons are based on existing knowledge, you can simply choose what appears to be the best prospect to you, and proceed. That is not in aqny was an admonishment of science. It is the only thing that gives you answers and those advances, if you aren't getting what you expect, you are expecting too much. You have an alternative, use it. You are unhappy that there is no cure for cancer, and that science has erred, well find it through any alternatives you have. Until then, science is the best and only thing we have when it comes to getting flying cars or curing cancer, so you have neither the right to expect anything or complain.

I agree science is good and all, but predictions have to be made, your research question has to be set before you start an experiment. I do expect scients to discoer solutions to problems and expain the universe to us otherwise what is the use of scientists? I am not complainning that science is a waste, i mean i love my omputer and the interent, i cannot live without it, but i feel religoin and sience are linked. Do you believein fate/destiny cav?

[cavallino 2]

In science you investigate the question, in religion you give the answer, sometimes a few millenia later making a cursory attempt to reconcile/ twist a few facts to suit your agenda.

In answer to your question - no I am not remotely superstitious.

[Max Mosley 2]

In Acts 1 I found this:6So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

7He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

I know and understand that there are some things that only God knows and that just doesn't bother me at all

Point number one: I'm glad we agree religion does not explain these things. Saying "God did it, but I don't know how, when or why" is not an explanation. A scientist can just as easily say "the laws of Nature did it, but I don't know how, when or why".

I have something called Faith and I am using it and I have seen it working in my life and in a lot of people's life, I have seen a lot of miracle not by TV I've seen them in front of my eyes, I've seen a leg growing in my own face that was not tv effect or something was real miracle recieved by a lady in my church who is walking normally since then, that was God's power who made it grow, I have seen demons getting out the people in Jesus name's even those who say that they work for God, evil spirits are real and so is God but I can talk to you about this latter or in another thread.

Point number two: OK. We can debate evidence from miracles if you like but lets just be clear on point number one. Anyone who believes in religion because they think its a better explanation of how the universe exists is wrong. Now, on miracles, how come natural disasters mainly affect the most religious, rather than atheists like me? Eg the tsunami, Katrina (mainly poor, black, religious people suffered), draught in Africa etc.

"No because gravity works at all distances. We can see the effect our galaxy has on very distant ones!" but gravity is actually weaker the farer you are from the earth, and if Physic can be applied to everything in the universe is the same for galaxies and start right now like you said science have seen the effect of our galaxy all around the universe but how precise is this knowing that we can only see the light of the object that gets to the earth, the closest star to our Solar System is alfa centaury and is four lights year from here and some quasars are more than 15,000 lights years fron here wich means tht we are getting the data and light that came out of those objects 15,000 years ago, that means too that we don't know what is really happening right now out there, so we are still gessing on that.

The energy can be the same even when the matter is concentrated in one point. "Impenetrability" is not a genuine scientific concept. Listen matter just was never concentrated in one point, volume zero means no dimensions and that means nonexistent (talking about space) How can the scientists be sure that the are no more of those concentrated matters in the universe maybe black hole are those points really, how can science say that all the matter of the universe it was concentrated in that point?, maybe we can have another big bang in any moment. I'm sure that you as a science believer have mare question than me as a God believer

Point number one again: The science you ask about is irrelevant as I've said before. Scientists like me always say we don't understand everything (at least yet, and maybe we never will). So yes, you got me. I don't understand everything! The point is that religion doesn't answer any better. Saying God created the universe leaves you with the same unanswered questions.

Point number three: There are good scientific answers to most of your questions. Regarding the fact that we see light that only shows us how the universe was not how it is right now, what you say is true. However we are not simply guessing what is happening now, we are looking for the most rational beliefs about what they might be doing now. The fundamental point is that we do have evidence, not perfect proof but some evidence nevertheless, and we infer the most likely laws of nature from that evidence.

Can I ask do you believe in evolution Schumikonen?

Nevertheless you are basically right that the origin of the universe is not well understood by scientists. All I say to you is how did God make the universe? And how did God make God? And at what time did God make time? And...?

Time doesn't really exist, is just a perception, there is no future and there is not past, the present how big or long is it? a nanosecond? if you take three nanoseconds the first will be past, the second is the present and the third will be future, but you can stiil divide a nanosecond billions and billions of times, so can you tell me how long the present is? and what is really the time?

Good question. I would say perhaps the present has zero duration: it could be regarded as a point on a timeline. Btw your idea that time is an illusion is shared by many physicists in fact. It in no way contradicts science.

Finally what is it that you are trying to prove Schumikonen? I've already said scientists don't know everything. But that is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a reason to be religious. Because religion can't explain it any better.

The fundemental theories that are believed at the moment - yes I completely agree, or in your example with flying pigs, that's a reasonable assumption to make. However, that's not to say that in 1000 years time, for example, when we know so much more, that we may have a completely different set of theories, or they may have actual proof that the universe is expanding. Who knows?

By the way, you could put a pig on a plane and technically........ok, I'll get my coat!!

Yes but the rational thing to believe now, is that pigs don't fly. Anyone who disagrees with that needs their head checking.

In this case, for example, it cannot actually be proven that the universe is expanding, but you believe the scientists have got it right - so roughly there, right there at that point there...no, back a bit, a little bit more forward....done !!

No that is not the same as religious faith. When scientists say they believe something, they are working on the tentative basis that it is true because it is the most likely thing to be true, based on evidence. If religious people have evidence, then why do they need faith? They are simply being rational in that case. If they don't have evidence however then their faith is required and hence they are different to scientists.

[Player(1) 0]

*pokes head in* still talking about science vs. religion...

[Schumikonen 2]

Point number one: I'm glad we agree religion does not explain these things. Saying "God did it, but I don't know how, when or why" is not an explanation. A scientist can just as easily say "the laws of Nature did it, but I don't know how, when or why".

Actually they do, htey believe in unexpalined thing aas the big bang and evolution, they say I know that God didn't do it but then they can't explain how those thing came to be.

Point number two: OK. We can debate evidence from miracles if you like but lets just be clear on point number one. Anyone who believes in religion because they think its a better explanation of how the universe exists is wrong. Now, on miracles, how come natural disasters mainly affect the most religious, rather than atheists like me? Eg the tsunami, Katrina (mainly poor, black, religious people suffered), draught in Africa etc.

We don't need to debate this you can see them with your own eyes if you want, I know that some religions fake them to atract people and to sustain their believes but I have seen them in my family (My Doughter, My wife, My mother, an uncle twice, some friends, a niece) some of them just waiting for the time to die and they are still alive, I am not talking about miracle that poeple told me about it I am talking about miracles that I have seen happening in front of me so, no doubt about it.

[Max Mosley 2]

Actually they do, htey believe in unexpalined thing aas the big bang and evolution, they say I know that God didn't do it but then they can't explain how those thing came to be.

I think you are missing the point my friend. Religion and science are equally good at "explaining" the origin of the universe. Neither can do it! Note I'm a scientist (student anyway) and I am happy to admit that.

[Autumnpuma 0]

*pokes head in* still talking about science vs. religion...

Yup. This will go on for a bit. I just hope it stays civil

I've said my piece on the subject already, so I'll take my beer and saunter around our virtual pub a bit and leave you few to debate the topic. As Russ has said, it boils down to belief. Either you believe in something divine or you do not. Good points on both sides so far.

[Schumikonen 2]

Point number one again: The science you ask about is irrelevant as I've said before. Scientists like me always say we don't understand everything (at least yet, and maybe we never will). So yes, you got me. I don't understand everything! The point is that religion doesn't answer any better. Saying God created the universe leaves you with the same unanswered questions.

There are two reasons for this:

Bible doesn't try to demonstrate that God exist and that he made everything, bible just acept this as a fact, so you can not use for this.

The other reason for this is that God left some room for the faith, we know everything then we don't need the faith in the bible you can find this:

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.

3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This is the same that science is saying the whole universe came out of of a nonexistent point in the space, so what science is doing right now is finding God they are not demonstrating that God doesn't exist you know that is everytime more difficult to scientistcs to explain thing because they are just getting more and more question with every explanation so what is really happening is that answers are just getting farer and farer the more we know about something.

Why I say this because you said that religion let you with the same unanswered questions and the truth is that science have a lot more of unanswered question that religion beacuse wu just accept (in my case at least) what the bible says and that's it, I don't have to go farer thatn that because I know that everything I need to know right now a can get it in God, there are some thing that will never know as long as I am in the earth but I don't really need to know those thing because to be save they are just irrelevant.

About your question about the evolution I do believe in evolution but I know that evolution just can't be without an intelligence leading it, life can't just evolve by itself but I know that God had lead the evolution till now.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Well if you look at it in a detached manner, not all religions can be equally valid despite the secular principle of religious respect, many religions preclude others from existing. So if at least one of those gods doesn't exist, then what was that god modelled on. And if at least one god was modelled on nothing in particular, why not all of them?

Again I'll bring up Joseph Campbell. In his last interview for a program 'The Power or Myth' he compares religion to a computer. The computer being the 'God' or 'divine' and each religion being a bit of software. Each software works perfectly well with the computer, but maybe not so well with each other.

If you go back far enough, many of earth's religions have the same themes, hence the same origin. Cav, the current diverse religions we have are a result of many centuries of regional 'expanding'. I'm talking the very concept of 'god', not a particular religion's view of that 'god'.

Ah no quite to the contrary, the circumstances were different, we manage to recreate some of those circumstances in our labs, on which most of our understanding of that time is based. The laws are as valid today as they were then.

Being able to describe the creation does nothing to answer the question of a creator.

Quite possibly, the cause of the big bang has not been established, not beyond the possibility of doubt at least.

Until we establish the cause of the big bang, would it hurt anyone to give the idea of a 'god' the same respect as any other idea?

Well you cannot take one concept that may be partially related to something that has been considered as a justification for religion, if you take a few pills and write down everything you can think of, something eventually is bound to come out that will have something to do with reality.

That's a stretch. The Upinishads quite clearly deal with the concepts of multiple universes, and universal physical laws. My conclusion of this is that, as science now is exploring, there are indeed multiple universes and that truth was known by the Indians centuries ago, not because of science, but because of the 'divine' creator that, somehow, let those primitive peoples glimpse a truth of the creation.

I know I said I was done, but I wanted to reply to the few respones to my statements!

[Max Mosley 2]

There are two reasons for this:

Bible doesn't try to demonstrate that God exist and that he made everything, bible just acept this as a fact, so you can not use for this.

Agreed. I'm not trying to use the failure of religion to explain the origin of the universe as an argument against religion. All I want us to agree upon is that you also can not use the failure of science to explain the origin of the universe as an argument for religion. Do you agree with this?

The other reason for this is that God left some room for the faith, we know everything then we don't need the faith in the bible you can find this:

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.

3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Are you saying you are certain about things that you know you have no good reason to be certain about?

Yup. This will go on for a bit. I just hope it stays civil

Burn all Xians I say!

Until we establish the cause of the big bang, would it hurt anyone to give the idea of a 'god' the same respect as any other idea?

No. Thats a reasonable status for the hypothesis to have imho. Why some people jump to the conclusion that that is the only hypothesis that fits the facts I don't know. Whats worse, they then base their entire life around that faulty logic.

That's a stretch. The Upinishads quite clearly deal with the concepts of multiple universes, and universal physical laws. My conclusion of this is that, as science now is exploring, there are indeed multiple universes and that truth was known by the Indians centuries ago, not because of science, but because of the 'divine' creator that, somehow, let those primitive peoples glimpse a truth of the creation.

My view on that is that parallel universes are just an obvious idea really. Was it Freud who said there are few new ideas?

[Schumikonen 2]

I think you are missing the point my friend. Religion and science are equally good at "explaining" the origin of the universe. Neither can do it! Note I'm a scientist (student anyway) and I am happy to admit that.

Instead of missing your point, I am right with you in this, I believe in science and I believe in God, actually i believe that God made science and made nature too, he made everything, my whole point in this is that science can deny God existence and nobody who just believe in God can say that science is complete wrong about everything, they just go hand and hand, science is finding what the bible says and some people are using this info to deny God and this is not right, you are a scientist and that's good, nothing wrong with that I think that by now you had notice that I like science too and I don't have any doubt about God existence, my science and God matches perfectly and I hope that someday you can be talking like me in this aspect because I used to be an atheist too.

Anyway I like this kind of discussion and I am enjoining.

[pabloh20 1]

Yes but the rational thing to believe now, is that pigs don't fly. Anyone who disagrees with that needs their head checking.

I believe you just said exactly the same as I did and I originally agreed with Cav - so what was the point of this bit? The only point I am making and have ever made, with regards to this, is that it is what scientists believe now to the best of their considerable knowledge. However, in the future they may find that the phenomenon they observe now and attribute to the universe is expanding, may not actually be due to the universe expanding. Maybe somebody in the future will come up and actually be able to prove that it's not due to that at all - now are you saying this is beyond the realm of possibility or something? You must eliminate the impossible and what you are left with is the truth, however improbable. Now, as I said earlier, I don't know about you, but I cannot eliminate the possibility that some time in the future scientists may disprove this theory, or in fact prove it - can you? Surely everything you have been saying actually agrees with the fact that scientists will keep working and will some day discover the truth?

No that is not the same as religious faith. When scientists say they believe something, they are working on the tentative basis that it is true because it is the most likely thing to be true, based on evidence. If religious people have evidence, then why do they need faith? They are simply being rational in that case. If they don't have evidence however then their faith is required and hence they are different to scientists.

I never said it was the same as religious faith - I said ultimately both require a leap of faith, maybe I should have put it like 'leap of faith', but I was just coining a popular expression, maybe not a good idea in the current context. However, again my point is that scientists cannot actually prove the big bang theory, nor the universe expanding, yet you choose to believe in what they say, even though you know they cannot actually prove it to you - why? Because you choose to believe in what you perceive to be the most rational explanation. I am not saying that scientists not being able to prove the big bang theory, etc is reason for you to believe in God, I am just saying that ultimately you are putting your trust in science's best guess and that is why I said 'leap of faith'.

Is that clear as mud?

[monza gorilla 1]

You must eliminate the impossible and what you are left with is the truth, however improbable.

Thank you Sherlock!

[pabloh20 1]

Until we establish the cause of the big bang, would it hurt anyone to give the idea of a 'god' the same respect as any other idea?

Geez, I must be getting slow or you guys are typing quicker - about 3 posts appeared while I was typing my last response!!

This seems a very sensible idea to me, Mike. If nothing else, even if people don't want to give the idea some respect, don't be as dismissive of it.

Thank you Sherlock!

I was going to attribute it to Sherlock in the post, but I thought it would give some people ammunition with being a fictional character and all!!

[Schumikonen 2]

Agreed. I'm not trying to use the failure of religion to explain the origin of the universe as an argument against religion. All I want us to agree upon is that you also can not use the failure of science to explain the origin of the universe as an argument for religion. Do you agree with this?

Of course I do, I just answer this before.

[Player(1) 0]

Until we establish the cause of the big bang, would it hurt anyone to give the idea of a 'god' the same respect as any other idea?

I may side with science and not have a religious bone in my body but that is most likely the greatest sentance in atleast the off topic part of this thread. Fair, logical and diplomatic