Science cannot explain origins

Hans? Where did science ever prove or demonstrate life comes from matter? Yes life is carried by matter - you would be a ghost of you didn't have a material body (whether ghosts are real or alive is a story for another day). You don't even know why you are conscious, not to mention alive.

By the way - how does one prove or even measure creativity scientifically? Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does it perhaps fall outside the realm of science?
Click to expand...

Science has not proved that. Only demonstrated that it is a possibility. So I choose to believe it is. The fact that science hasnt mapped the terrain (yet) doesn't mean it is not there.

IMO I wouldnt even be a ghost without my physical body, but I concede that consciousness (and all its traits, like creativity and imagination) is still an enigma, so I must reserve the possibility of a "soul".

As I've said: The fact that something hasnt been proved (mapped) by science doesnt mean that it may not exist - and this certainly includes God.

But I choose to believe that what HAS been mapped by science DOES exist (with the neccessary allowance for human error, scientists are human). The map is neither complete nor entirely correct, but I think its the best we have.

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans


As I've said: The fact that something hasnt been proved (mapped) by science doesnt mean that it may not exist - and this certainly includes God.

But I choose to believe that what HAS been mapped by science DOES exist (with the neccessary allowance for human error, scientists are human). The map is neither complete nor entirely correct, but I think its the best we have.

Hans
Click to expand...



Why are atheist hanging on to "Chance"? Because it is their only hope of being an atheist, even though it is CLEARLY proven a lie. Let's just say the universe have always existed and the energies along with it, but the bottom line is that life being formed by “Chance” is proven a lie, I do not hope for proofs in the future which may never be nor support the psychic hotline, the argument is current and the scientific proof needs to be current, period.

If we argue in the future, then hope for future evidence, But if we argue now, present the evidence now, and if you dont have it, then be quite, you loose, because my evidence of intelligence is clear, visible, current, accessible. PERIOD, what part of those FACTS dont you understand? One way or the other intelligence is always there, got it?
 
you say you only choose to believe in what has been mapped by science? if your telling the truth, then why are u an atheist? You should then believe in an intelligent cause for science is pure intelligence. We both know by admittance atheist have no proof but psychic phenomenon, the famous word "chance" or "possible", well in that case it is also possible i will become 1 million miles tall, like yours, there is no evidence to support this claim. Hey while your at it believing claims without proof, might as well believe in toothfairy, Zeus, or unicorn, like yours those claims have no proof. I certainly dont believe in them, and I certainly dont believe God is a flesh and creates things by snapping His 30 inch wide finger (the mental image of Xelios, funny isnt he :)). I believe in God because He is proven, and I dont believe in giant purple squid monkey, as some children here might ask me. :), they reserve to that level in order to make a fool of whats proven a FACT.
 
Muscleman:
Why are atheist hanging on to "Chance"? Because it is their only hope of being an atheist, even though it is CLEARLY proven a lie. Let's just say the universe have always existed and the energies along with it, but the bottom line is that life being formed by “Chance” is proven a lie,
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not an atheist, strictly speaking, but never mind: By chance you mean the notion that life came into existence randomly. Thats not the right way to put it; the way the laws of physics are, life more or less has to happen if the right conditions are present.

You keep claiming that chance has been disproven and intelligent creation has been proved. Where or how did that happen?

you say you only choose to believe in what has been mapped by science? if your telling the truth, then why are u an atheist? You should then believe in an intelligent cause for science is pure intelligence.
Click to expand...

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I believe in the terrain science is mapping, even if the map is not complete. Like if there is a river on my map, I assume it has a source even if that part of the map is still white.

Science is not pure intelligence, science is mostly observation. The intelligence comes into the picture for interpreting the observations. There is an overwhelming amount of observations that point to evolution, including life coming into existence by natural processes. What observations exist pointing to creation by intelligence?

Hans
 
Just to point out: evolution doesn't have any bearing on religion. Things evolve, people evolve. Whatever science finds and proves, that's the way it is. The problem is a little philosophy called evolotionism. That white space on your map - you might just find that the river just goes on like the present prediction implies, or that the source is actually there. That still doesn't tell you why the source is there, or why the river is there, you need a philosophy to try that.

Science itself is dead. As a scientist, you study, you test and you verify. Then you pack your suitcase and you go home to your wife and kids. Where is science then? Back at work. On the map. Ever tried looking at a map while driving? Have you studied the statistics that you will make an accident? Now apply it. That's life.
 
Re: Thanks Raithere

Originally posted by Jenyar
I think your post is a good example of science and religion going parallel without having to eat each other.

Yes, I believe that, for the most part, they can and should. The main problem I see is with religious fundamentalists and fanatics. The people who deliberately try to foist demonstrably false opinion onto public life and react violently to dissent. I also have concerns regarding institutionalized religion and the indoctrination of children into religion. Religion is a fundamentally personal and subjective experience which is an anathema to the structure and function of hierarchical institutions. Likewise, I find indoctrination of religion to be akin to teaching trust and loyalty to a dog by beating the shit out of it.

Science and religion are two ways of describing the same thing: reality.

The main goal of science and religion is the same: To explain the world around us. Religion attempts this explanation in an emotive and subjective manner. Science has a logical and empirical methodology.

Even though God created the universe, science might find out how.

I can find no problem with this and am usually confused by those who do. Of course, I find God to be purely assumptive but that is irrelevant to the point.

Just one thing: don't you think the slaves might have prayed for their release? Why are African-American churches some of the most alive and active churches in the world?

I know they did. And religion did have a part to play in changing people's opinion of slavery. Of course, there were also religions that promoted slavery. My point was, however, that the change required empathy and action. Prayer solved nothing. Even if you believe in prayer the change was accomplished through the efforts of people... people with free choice. It was their decision and action that created the change towards good.

~Raithere
 
The difference is those who prayed gave credit of their release to God, not to democracy. Credit should go where credit is due.
 
Muscleman, your problem lies in how you approach the question of origins. You think "Well the only reason this universe is here is for us, and since the chance of everything being right for our survival is so tiny it must have been God who created it" right? What if you approached it from the mindset of "We are not special in this universe, the universe was not made for us, we are simply a byproduct of it's evolution"? Then the chance suddenly becomes irrelevant. The universe just happened to form in such a way that we could exist, there's nothing special about it. If the laws of physics were different then it is conceivable that different forms of life may have evolved.

The universe doesn't care about us, we are byproducts, much like steam when boiling water. Lets say you boil water to cook noodles. The purpose of making the water boil is not to create steam, but to cook the noodles, the steam just happens to be created too. Now, imagine we are the steam and the water is the universe. We just happened to be created, but we are NOT the reason the universe exists.

If you approach it like this, is God necessary? No.

I'm probably wasting my time here. If you've proven one thing these past couple weeks it's that you're incredibly closed minded, but I thought I'd give it a shot anyway, for the sake of our sanities.
 
The universe doesn't care about us, we are byproducts, much like steam when boiling water. Lets say you boil water to cook noodles. The purpose of making the water boil is not to create steam, but to cook the noodles, the steam just happens to be created too. Now, imagine we are the steam and the water is the universe. We just happened to be created, but we are NOT the reason the universe exists.
Click to expand...
3When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?

Why would you rather believe that we are insignificant byproducts of a mysterious universe (the fact that we can love, if nothing else, should make you wonder), than in a God who created you along with it?

5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Why would you rather believe that we are insignificant byproducts of a mysterious universe (the fact that we can love, if nothing else, should make you wonder), than in a God who created you along with it?

Because the notion that the entire Universe exists for us and us alone is an incredibly egocentric and implausible concept without any supporting evidence.

I fail to see the relevance of love in considering the question... perhaps you can point it out.

~Raithere
 
Perhaps that is the weakness of your argument: that you fail to see the relevance of love. You did say "The universe doesn't care about us." That is consistent with your boiling water metaphor, and consistent with nature in general. I have said before: Nobody has ever been thanked by a tree for not cutting it down, or by an ant for saving it from drowning in the bath? We don't expect nature to be thankful - it stupid.

But some people have taken that to assume humans are no more than animals, and as such can't be expected to be thankful either. That could only be true if God did not give us a special place in His creation, so that we might thank Him by considering each other. In this way He gave meaning to life, and He expects people to do the same. Without God, there is no meaning to our lives, and without us also giving meaning, there is no meaning to the universe. Yet you deny God, and therefore you have to look at the universe for meaning.

It makes more sense that we are supposed to love others and love ourselves, by being responsible and protecting each other (and by ecological implication, also nature). It is logical and reasonable: consistent with the nature of nature - to be mutually beneficial - and to act of love, not selfishness. Why else do you think humanity stands out like a sore thumb in the ecosystem?

Love is intrinsic to life, it is the fulfillment of meaning between one person and another. What higher meaning and significance can you attribute to another person? If life has no intrinsic meaning, then why should love be such a highly prized property, and make so much sense?

And no, I never said or implied that we are alone and that the universe exists solely for us. If you really want my opinion, it exists for the glory of God, and as a natural extension of God's love - for what greater purpose can love have than giving it, sharing it with somebody other than yourself?
 
Last edited:
Jenyar

Without God, there is no meaning to our lives, and without us also giving meaning, there is no meaning to the universe.

Why does our presence on Earth require meaning ? For that matter, why does the universe require meaning ? It simply exists, and so do we. Isn't that enough ?

In other words, it's meaningless to ask the question, "Why are we here?"
 
You can't extend the subjective meaninglesness of your own life to other people.

The fact that my life has meaning, and has had meaning to a few other people, proves you wrong.
 
The fact that my life has meaning, and has had meaning to a few other people, proves you wrong.

Our lives obviously have meaning to other people, but that is not what you were talking about. Your statement was in the context of God and the universe. My life has meaning to other people, yet God has nothing to do with my life or the lives of many others. How does that prove me wrong ?

You may have proved yourself wrong by admitting that your life had meaning to other people. God, nor the universe, had anything to do with that. Therefore, your life has no meaning except that which gives meaning to other people.

That's why it is meaningless to ask the question, "Why are we here?"
 
"Why would you rather believe that we are insignificant byproducts of a mysterious universe (the fact that we can love, if nothing else, should make you wonder), than in a God who created you along with it? "

Because I care more about the truth than pretty ideas meant to make us feel important. Look back on history, every time we have tried to make ourselves look important we have found that we aren't. First we thought the sun revolved around the Earth, turns out we're just another planet. Then we thought we were the center of the universe. Now we know we're just an inconspicuous speck near the edge of our galaxy. We thought we were so much better than the animals on this planet, turns out dolphins are increadibly intelligent and we only differ from chimps by less than 2%.

History has taught us time and time again that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, why cling to pretty stories about how we're so great? If you do, you're only deceiving yourself.

(Q) spoke for me regarding everything else.

I was beginning to think I'm the only one who sees it this way. Doesn't it make more sense to think we are simply here than to try and figure out some almighty purpose for our lives?
 
There is no absolute meaning to life only relative meanings in which everyone has their own perspective. Everyone can agree on that.

As for the title of this thread...science is excellent at explaining origins. That is what it does, explain the origins of natural phenomena. Do you think there is a better alternative that can explain the origin of life, the universe, etc?

Oh and hi to everybody...its been a long time since I last posted...
 
"As for the title of this thread...science is excellent at explaining origins. That is what it does, explain the origins of natural phenomena. Do you think there is a better alternative that can explain the origin of life, the universe, etc? "

True, but one thing it cannot explain is how the Big Bang happened, ie. what the universe was like before the Planck Time (1x10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang moment). So it's useless to ask what made the Big Bang happen, or where the energy for the Big Bang came from because science will never be able to probe that area (at least not in the forseeable future). We simply don't know. You have two choices now, accept that we as a race simply don't know or make up stories such as God to fool yourself into thinking we do. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but the real truth is that we have no idea who or what initiated the Big Bang. God may be real, or he may not, we don't know, that's the whole point of this thread. Like I said, you can admit it, or you can lie to yourself, pick one.
 
God may be real, or he may not, we don't know, that's the whole point of this thread.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, yes I agree. And anyone who doesn't is feeding their inate need to avoid the unknown. I was at this point where all I said was 'no one knows' a couple years ago to these big questions.
However, if you want to move forward, at some point you have to start assigned probabilities and making judgements based on those. There is no absolute truth, but that doesn't mean that certain perspectives are not more informed and valuable than others.
In my perspective, there is a higher probability that a god does not exist (unless you use the term god in its most extremely liberal sense). I have a pantheistic view of the universe. All of its energy is worthy awe and inspiration in and of itself.
 
Listen, God is not an excuse for not being able to explain the origins of the universe. You're looking in the wrong direction. For me, saying that there is a God is the same as saying the universe had no origin. What if science actually finds the origin, say B resulted from B in this way. It would identify a fixed point in space-time history, and therefore indicate that there might be a fixed point in space-time future. Which precludes the idea of eternity, because eternity by nature can have no beginning. Since we cannot even comprehend the end of the universe (it must be the end of time, because there certainly can't be an end to space), pinpointing an origin would immediately make the universe finite, and present science another religious conundrum.

An eternal God, could have created the universe with a nice humble beginning (the one science is looking for, that lies before Planck time of wherever, and might or might not find).

Why would infite space be contained in finite time? Doesn't that mean that the universe came out of void, like Genesis suggests?
 
Just to point out: evolution doesn't have any bearing on religion. Things evolve, people evolve. Whatever science finds and proves, that's the way it is. The problem is a little philosophy called evolotionism. That white space on your map - you might just find that the river just goes on like the present prediction implies, or that the source is actually there. That still doesn't tell you why the source is there, or why the river is there, you need a philosophy to try that.
Click to expand...

This is part of the origin of religion. Unfortunately unlike other philosophies it is stagnant and doesn't evolve. Christianity traps itself with the notion of a God and an afterlife. Once you declare that is the truth you can't go back without bringing into question other perhaps more beneficial aspects of the Christian teachings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top