You make a good but, if I may say so, an optimistic point. Do you seriously believe anyone can say anything that will make him change his outlook. If he were genuinely seeking information, your approach would be right and my attitude to him would be different. He has already said something to the effect that if Genesis were not true his faith would collapse. Do you honestly believe that answering his questions will cause him to doubt the bible ?
Evolution--->(perfection?)----->CONFUSED?!?!
- Thread starter Warrior61
- Start date
You make a good but, if I may say so, an optimistic point. Do you seriously believe anyone can say anything that will make him change his outlook. If he were genuinely seeking information, your approach would be right and my attitude to him would be different. He has already said something to the effect that if Genesis were not true his faith would collapse. Do you honestly believe that answering his questions will cause him to doubt the bible ?
The answer is that the jury is still out. We do not know.Why does anyone have a problem admitting that ?
Last edited:
Sure why not? There have been other theistic members whom were influenced by reality. As long as a person has a reasonable criteria for rejecting supersition in favor of truth, there is a motivation for that person to value truth above an psychological / emotional satiation provided by supersitious belief.
As I said, one may explain the how the universe works and what it contains......but not its origins. I believe God is real, and that the did create the Universe (13.7 billion years ago in our time) with its own set of laws. But I do believe that, even while Nature may play the effect now, God did create the Universe.
And what "truth"?
Here is a scenario: assuming God is real, what if He specifically created these illusions of science in order to tell who is faithful and who is not?
Norsefire:
In physics, there are many very deep understandings of why certain laws exist. Some of them are quite surprising. For example, the law of conservation of energy turns out to be required by time invariance - the fact that if you perform the same scientific experiment at two different times, the mere fact that you did it at two different times shouldn't alter the outcome.
What you're asking here is the age-old question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
You think the reason is God, but you have no scientific evidence for that. There are alternative explanations, and the question is still open. Instead of keeping an open mind, you've obviously decided you already know the answer, by some irrational process of "faith".
No. It's just the only explanation you know something about. You probably don't understand the scientific explanation of the big bang, so you prefer to fall back on an ancient myth that you can understand.
I don't know. And neither do you.
No. It proves the universe came into existence somehow. That's all. The rest is just your extrapolation.
In physics, there are many very deep understandings of why certain laws exist. Some of them are quite surprising. For example, the law of conservation of energy turns out to be required by time invariance - the fact that if you perform the same scientific experiment at two different times, the mere fact that you did it at two different times shouldn't alter the outcome.
What you're asking here is the age-old question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
You think the reason is God, but you have no scientific evidence for that. There are alternative explanations, and the question is still open. Instead of keeping an open mind, you've obviously decided you already know the answer, by some irrational process of "faith".
No. It's just the only explanation you know something about. You probably don't understand the scientific explanation of the big bang, so you prefer to fall back on an ancient myth that you can understand.
I don't know. And neither do you.
No. It proves the universe came into existence somehow. That's all. The rest is just your extrapolation.
Well, I cannot say you are wrong but in all my years I have never come across a case of a person of faith being swayed by evidence contrary to what he believes.
Check out SouthStar, he was a bible thumper until he came to this site.
Last edited:
You mean before our universe inflated? While we don't know the answer now, science is making progress on that topic. Science is also modeling what may be outside of our universe and all information strongly suggests a reality which always exists.
If you learn about Anthropomoprhism, you will understand why you believe this and will understand that an gap of knowledge or identity being filled with 'God' is an irrational substitution.
Conformity between concept in the mind to actual reality.
The notion isn't coherent. Assuming an omnipotent life form exists, there is no rational reason it would use reality to deceive humans in an effort to understand who accepts its existence as true without supportive evidence and with contradictory evidence.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I hear what you say but cannot help wondering how commited he was to his earlier beliefs, Nonetheless, you have made your point. It's nice to be proved wrong in this instance.
Now , if only you could get Adstar to changes his ways, I woulde buy you a year's supply of whisky, or whatever your tipple is.
Interesting, how do you suppose we learn more about this creator?
Science can certainly make progress, but I think there is no doubt the universe was somehow created: either via a natural force (of which then would be impossible, because natural forces would need to be created), or more likely because of that a God.
It isn't. I believe as I do because of the mere fact that I exist........when existence cannot be defined or measured, how can I exist? But I do, therefore I was created.
There is plenty reason. He could wish to see who is faithful and who is not.
Secondly, while I myself am not very religious, I do believe Faith is an extremely important aspect of society as it gives identity, morality, it gives anticipation and goals, and it gives you something to live for. For all we know, God is very real.
And lastly, again, how did existence come into existence when even nothing did not exist?
Again, you are missing the point. That law defines something which is already present, but does not explain its origin or how it exists.
Where is energy? How did energy be created and how was it then measured as existing? What is energy (not in the sense of what it is in our universe, but as a universal force, how does it exist?), Why is there energy? Existence?
The scientist may explain how that around him works, but not how or why it exists. He may tell you interesting facts, but he cannot tell you their origin or how they are.
For me there is no doubt there is a Creator. And "faith" is only good.
Sure I do. Time and space were squeezed together or whatever and they formed our universe, which expanded from there and hydrogen atoms were the first and all that rubbish
However, keep in mind my question, even for that explanation, is: where did space and time originate and how did they exist? Hydrgen atoms?
The concept of hydrogen existing when it could not even be defined nor could it have originated from a former suggests two things 1) hydrogen originated from absolute nothing, which is ridiculous or 2) A Creator created our universe
Furthermore, to have hydrogen where there is no such thing is like looking for a lost ruin when you have no senses.
The only plausible explanation (where stuff does not simply "pop up") is a Creator
Again, the Creator would not have been on our realm of existence, and therefore would not be bound by our laws. However, if we are to think like that, it would make existence an impossibility, and raises more questions: what is existence? Why do we exist? How do we exist? Where do we exist and how are we measuring that?
Would there be existence without conciousness?
If there is more than one "realm of existence", it should be considered part of our own, unless there is no intersection whatsoever, which there is. It's basically a way to avoid the issue. You invent a non-intersecting space, and say the laws don't apply there, so you can't ask how THAT got there.
Science can describe the universe to within a microsecond of it's formation. If it can't describe what went before that, perhaps that is because no evidence remains. That makes it more difficult for you to show a reason why any kind of complex being existed before that.
Science can describe the universe to within a microsecond of it's formation. If it can't describe what went before that, perhaps that is because no evidence remains. That makes it more difficult for you to show a reason why any kind of complex being existed before that.