Did god create us or did we create God?

Nieldo:
"Science finds many awesome and weird things, which only adds to our list of questions, making it harder on themselves as opposed to the ones with faith."

Again, I agree with you. But that is because the truth is more complicated than people with faith would have us believe. Once again, if i have to choose between simplicity and truth, i will pick truth every time.
We may never have all the answers. But just because we dont have all the answers, that does not mean we have to make them up (i.e., god).

Greg
 
Again, I agree with you. But that is because the truth is more complicated than people with faith would have us believe. Once again, if i have to choose between simplicity and truth, i will pick truth every time. We may never have all the answers. But just because we dont have all the answers, that does not mean we have to make them up (i.e., god).
Click to expand...

We HAVE to make it up. "Making it up" is the main way of advancing towards the unknown. Surely you should understand that. That's how scientific discoveries are made! One has to think up ways of where to search to know where to go in the unknown. You can't just say "ho hum, they made it up, let's forget their idea". It's not as if those with faith come to their conclusion just because it's the simplest explanation. Saying the universe has always existed is just as simple an explanation as the others. God may be the simplest answer, yes, but not due to lack of trying or of wanting to know the truth. With all the evidence science has on their side, God is still as equal a possiblity as anything a scientist can think up.

Religion and God is philosophy. In scientific terms, it's theorhetical. Both try to use what little proof they have to answer questions of the unknown. Philosophy and theorhetical science has the exact same outcome, a guess; they just approach the question differently while both still "make it up". I guess everyone should just disregard theorhetical science then, eh? "Making it up" should not be an excuse to disregard one's theory, but that's what seems to be done.

While one approach may be more logical and have a longer step-by-step process than the other, it doesn't mean their guess is any more correct than the other. Just because someone's theory may be that a God started creation, it's no more wrong than a scientist theorizing that the universe has always existed, but because the word "God" is there, scientists automatically shun it which only makes themselves look that much worse. This is why I don't like using the word religion, I prefer using philosophy (that's what it is though). Because when something is religious, it's automatically disregarded and that's lame as can be. It makes the scientists look like they have some inflated ego and think they're better than everyone else when they themselves don't even know the answer to their own question. It's that cockiness and arrogance I have a problem with, not the simple fact of them disagreeing, and I guess that's the easiest way to sum of my main point, it's the lack of humility and humbleness that irks me.

A person's thoughts on God is as "made up" as a scientists trying to find out what that God really is. Everything is "made up" until the answer is found, regardless of the evidence. Evidence only gives us a probable answer, but not "the answer". And also you must realize that until one actually defines what God is (popular religion, one of the reasons I dislike it), they are absolutely 100% correct because God is used as a blank unknown term to the answer. This is why there are many scientists who do believe in God. If one says God created all, it could be the universe (or whatever the true answer is) until that person says who and what God actually is. This is why I have no definition of who or what God is because well, we'll never have any way of knowing, hence why I'm agnostic (which may also seem why my views may be wrong if thinking I'm saying this from a tradional Christian point of view).

- N
 
Nieldo:
"We HAVE to make it up. "Making it up" is the main way of advancing towards the unknown. Surely you should understand that."

Making it up is the main way of advancing?? I dont think so. And God is definately NOT an equal possibility as anything science can "think up". First of all, scienc doesnt make things up. Maybe you are not familiar with the scientific method. Science forms hypothesis based on observation, then tests these hypothesis in a controlled manner, and either rejects them, or accepts them to form theories. These theories are then continued to be tested, to see if they withstand the test of time.
Dont be mistaken...this is in NO WAY, "making things up"

Nieldo: Everything is "made up" until the answer is found, regardless of the evidence.

Not true. Only from a perspective of faith is this true. Scientists dont make anything up. They observe their surroundings and continue to experiment until they discover further truths.
Science is NOT about making things up based on faith...i'm not sure where you got this idea. I think many religious people have this same idea about science..its unfortunate.

Nieldo: "You can't just say "ho hum, they made it up, let's forget their idea".

Actually, I can. And do. Its perfectly reasonable to forget any idea that is "made up" without the backing of any evidence.
Provide some evidence for your ideas...only then will i not forget them.

Nieldo: "...I prefer using philosophy (that's what it is though). Because when something is religious, it's automatically disregarded and that's lame as can be."

Religious is and SHOULD be disregarded by science. Religion has no place in the scientific realm. It is not science, nor should it be regarded as so. Trying to pass off religious faith as equal in validity to scientific inquiry is "lame as can be".

I apologize, but as long as you wish to retain your feelings of faith in a God, you will have to concede that they are only that....faith. When you try to compare them to science and logic, you have no foundation. God is nothing more than faith.

Greg
 
skeptic said:
Nieldo:

Making it up is the main way of advancing?? I dont think so. And God is definately NOT an equal possibility as anything science can "think up". First of all, scienc doesnt make things up. Maybe you are not familiar with the scientific method. Science forms hypothesis based on observation, then tests these hypothesis in a controlled manner, and either rejects them, or accepts them to form theories. These theories are then continued to be tested, to see if they withstand the test of time.
Dont be mistaken...this is in NO WAY, "making things up"


Greg
Click to expand...
Greg, I read Nieldo's post and I thought he was saying (paraphased) constructing experiements and forming hypothsis but phrased it as making things up which may have not been best word choice.

Was that what you were saying Nieldo?

But Greg since you brought the scientific meathod up how do you propose we could apply it to conclude the presense or absense of divinity?

Is it a model that will work or is it one that will not because if divinity exits it could not be manuevered in a controled enviroment?
 
Dear Medicine Woman,
I tried to share my thoughts with you all but to no avail.
I feel this topic is very sensitive and I would preffer to speak privately about it.
If your intrested,
numberscripts@hotmial.com
Regard's,
Harry.
 
skeptic,


Actually this is misleading. It is not accurate to say that those who do not believe in God do so based on faith.
Click to expand...

You believe matter without life created life, you believe matter without mind created mind and so many other things for which there is no evidence.

Creationists and the religious love to use the angle that science and the disbelief in god need as much faith as religion. This is not true.
Click to expand...

"Science" and "disbelieve in God" are two separate positions, but atheists need more faith than the religious to hold on to the belief that life came from matter.

Jan Ardena.
 
Medicine Woman,

God is not the same for everybody; therefore, God is not known to everybody in the same way. God is whatever the individual needs God to be.
Click to expand...

That is a described characteristic of God. He is an individual and He interacts with individuals according to their exact personal situation.

Jan Ardena.
 
Greg, I read Nieldo's post and I thought he was saying (paraphased) constructing experiements and forming hypothsis but phrased it as making things up which may have not been best word choice.

Was that what you were saying Nieldo?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Take atoms for example. We had to "make up" the idea of them before actually discovering them. The same with dark matter in space and all that stuff. I only used "made up" because that was the phrase used to explain God to make it sound as if those with religious faith are less credable when both sides are doing the same thing so I kept with that phrase to show similitaries between the two.

Theorhetical science and religious philosophy is basically the same thing. With atoms and with God, both sides were defining (making up) the unknown based on the outcome of which they could actually see, and that's how most discoveries are made. One sees the outcome before understanding the inner workings of it. That's when science starts to prove and disprove those "theories".

Scientists and philosophers both have the same things in mind. They want to know how things are the way they are. It's just that with philosophical (religious) people, they take the question one step further. While a scientist may want to know how a tree is made, they know it's made from a seed and then the seed is made from other effects which go all the way down to molecular levels, but they end up stopping there. The philosopher then asks what made those molecular levels. The philosophers and religious faith people are the ones that push the boundies to help those scientists discover new things. Without those questions of the unknown, one would be limiting their knowledge of what they could know. Imagine where we'd be without someone thinking up some crazy idea about invisible atoms.

So yeah, while you say "making it up" as if it's a bad thing, I say it's not. It opens the floodgates of possibilities of unknown discoveries. Our imagination is the key towards advancement. This is why I made a post in another thread saying how I hope homo sapiens are not gone in the future when people hoped they would be due to their wild imaginations. Imagine (heh) where we'd be if science completely relied on only physical observation. They'd be left with so many questions unanswered because they didn't decide to fill in the blanks (since imagination is bad) to make their theory make a bit more sense to better help prove/disprove it. You gotta first have a destination to understand the unknown, even if that destination is made up.

- N
 
I see what Nieldo is saying, but I feel the point is being missed here. It is still a mistake to compare science (theoretical physcis) to religious philosophy. Scientists did not "make up" the atom in the sense that religion made up "god". Scientists used precise experiments to try to observe what goes on at microscopic levels and after countless observations came up with the hypothesis of atoms. Once a hypothesis is formed, predictions based on these observations are then made. If the predictions hold true in a very accurate way, the hypothesis is held and can become a theory. If not, it is rejected, and we keep searching. And by predictions, I mean precisely controlled observation about the microscopic universe that would likely only be explained by the hypothesis at hand. Also, the hypothesis/theory must have validity, which means that any unbiased scientists around the world will make the same obvservations, and get the same results.

Religion has none of these properties. It does "make stuff up", but not based on unbiased careful observation of the environment, but rather on wishful thinking, and the self fulfilling prophecy. Religion looks at the environment and asks "how can I explain what is going on here in a way that will back up the idea of a god??". It does not look at the environment and say "what is the best way to explain what is going here", as science does.

Secondly, religion, does not have a system set up to prove or disprove its "hypotheses" (using this term generously). In fact, by definition, religion is UNFALSIFYABLE!! There is no way to test them. Basically, religion is just "making up" its notions about God, and doing so in a way that CAN NOT be tested!! How convenient. Make no mistake, this is not science, nor is it good philosophy.

Science and religion are two very different realms. It is a grave mistake to compare them, or to see them as equally valid. They are not, and should not be seen this way. If science ran on the same principles as religion, we would still be curing mental diseases using exorcists and trepaning, the sun would still revolve around the earth, and we'd be smearing mustart on our chests to cure pneumonia!!

My point is, at nauseum i apologize, science and religion are not the same in any way. I am unsure as to why so many people want to see them as so. Maybe it is because they want to badly to see religion survive in the age of science. Faith is a very strong motivator. But i feel that if more people would just realize that fiath is just that: faith, and nothing more should be needed for their belief in God, then we would not have these arguments. Just my two cents.

Greg
 
Just an afterthought from I said immediately above:

When scientists were trying to explore the microscopic universe, if instead of looking closely at their observations and discovering the atom, they had just said "Well, the microscopic world is just too small to see. So, we think that there is some force down there that makes things run, and we will call that force God Jr. And we will worship God Jr. and form a religion around him. And boy does God Jr. work in mysterious ways because it gets fuzzy down there in the land of the microscopic!! Newtonian physics does not work down there, so God Jr. must be ever so powerful!!

And (here is the clencher!!), anyone who does not believe in God Jr. will just have to have FAITH that God Jr. does NOT exist!!

We can easily see why the belief that God Jr. does not exist is not faith....nor is the disbelief in the relgious God faith. Nor is the belief in him anything like science.

Greg
 
Neildo: We had to "make up" the idea of them before actually discovering them. That's when science starts to prove and disprove those "theories".
*************
M*W: Neildo, I intended to post this earlier, but I've been busy. I knew what you meant when you said "make up ideas." New ideas must be 'imagined' before they can become fulfilled. I've worked with scientists long enough to know how they must come up with the hypothesis (an idea) then test it to prove it valid or invalid. Thank the PTB (powers that be) for "making up ideas". Otherwise, the Earth would still be flat, and the Church would still rule, and we'd all be peasants not kings.
 
Throughout mankind, there has been some form of deity/ies. In all seriousness, who could actually believe that these deities existed? I'm not asking about the one God, but every single deity ever worshipped by mankind since we first left the forest to roam on two legs.

What always amuses me is that so many people don't realise that God's were created as a manner to control the populace. The fear of an all knowing and all conquering entity that would strike you down if you didn't obey worked wonders at establishing control. It ensured conformity in the people. No one dared disobey lest they be struck down.
 
Bells said:
What always amuses me is that so many people don't realise that God's were created as a manner to control the populace. The fear of an all knowing and all conquering entity that would strike you down if you didn't obey worked wonders at establishing control. It ensured conformity in the people. No one dared disobey lest they be struck down.
Click to expand...
That couldn't be further from the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top