Who really knows ?.
- Thread starter mike47
- Start date
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
F***ing theists and their linear line of thought. First of all, you can't grasp the concept of evolution, and the universe if you think in the lines of a beginning and an end. Time is a man-made concept. There is no beginning, there is no end. There is just expansion, contraction, and energy/matter shifts and transfers.
There are my thoughts.
Wow....is this some sort of an explosion or expulsion or both...?!.
Please prove it .
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
BTW This is an interesting site... http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
Who really knows?!
Reading through the thread I am finding that I am in agreement with most of the thinking that is conveyed. The disagreements are over what the past contains and what the future will tell. I can see how this thread has survived so long because these issues are some of the imponderables of life.
But anyone who invokes dogma is wasting their time when it comes to discussions of religion in a science forum. Religious dogma takes so many different forms that to pick one as your own makes you in the minority right away. My favorite approach is to say the there may or may not be a God, but in science everything that is recurring must be free of the hand of God, and everything that has happened must be explained without invoking the supernatural. Otherwise it is not science.
Taking that approach I go with the idea that the universe has always existed. If I say there may or may not be a God, that means I am saying that if there is a God then that God is the universe itself. But That is religious dogma; is that Pantheism? So it is not scientific.
Anyway, if the universe has not always existed, who is willing to say where the universe came from? I have seen in this thread the “something from nothing” concept several times. Isn’t that concept voiced by those who can’t grasp something having always existed, but who also want to avoid invoking the supernatural into science? If so they are left with “something from nothing”. Who believes that?
But if you don't believe that something has always existed or that something can come from nothing aren't you faced with a dilemma. That is why the subject is an "imponderable" IMHO.
Reading through the thread I am finding that I am in agreement with most of the thinking that is conveyed. The disagreements are over what the past contains and what the future will tell. I can see how this thread has survived so long because these issues are some of the imponderables of life.
But anyone who invokes dogma is wasting their time when it comes to discussions of religion in a science forum. Religious dogma takes so many different forms that to pick one as your own makes you in the minority right away. My favorite approach is to say the there may or may not be a God, but in science everything that is recurring must be free of the hand of God, and everything that has happened must be explained without invoking the supernatural. Otherwise it is not science.
Taking that approach I go with the idea that the universe has always existed. If I say there may or may not be a God, that means I am saying that if there is a God then that God is the universe itself. But That is religious dogma; is that Pantheism? So it is not scientific.
Anyway, if the universe has not always existed, who is willing to say where the universe came from? I have seen in this thread the “something from nothing” concept several times. Isn’t that concept voiced by those who can’t grasp something having always existed, but who also want to avoid invoking the supernatural into science? If so they are left with “something from nothing”. Who believes that?
But if you don't believe that something has always existed or that something can come from nothing aren't you faced with a dilemma. That is why the subject is an "imponderable" IMHO.
How can you have something that always existed ???!. I am mostly interested in point zero or as you it " something starting from nothing at all ". This dilemma proves at least two things : 1 : religions are man made without any merit at all . 2 : Life and this universe are too complex to be fully understood by humans .
I would agree with that except when you say without any merit you are saying that there is no God. That may or may not be.
How can you have something come from nothing? You and many others will rack your brains to find a way for something to come from nothing before you will take what I think is the easy course; the universe, or at least the energy that the universe is composed of has always existed. That just fits nicely with my view that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Do you mind telling me what have you got so far on that topic?
Originally Posted by mike47
[1] I was created and I am sure I did not create myself by myself .
[2] I do not believe in both the evolution theory and the big bang theory .
[3] I see it as impossible from something starting from nothing to create anything at all , let alone all this universe and beyond .
[4] There are as much or were as much as minus infinity to plus infinity the number of things in all the universe and beyond .
[5] How did life and this world start ?. Who first created whom ?.
Science and religions have no clue .
[6]Anyone who pretends to know is just kidding one's self and othres .
Give me your thoughts .
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to oblige.
[1] That you were created is an assertion implying several scenarios. [a] Special creation by a deity or some other supernatural agency Creation by the process of evolution. The fact that you stipulate [2] is immaterial.
You may assert and believe as you wish and to paraphrase Voltaire, "I will defend to the death your right to do so." If you deny and defy rationality, logic and reason as expressed by science that is your choice.
[2] That you believe in neither the theory of evolution nor the the theory of the Big Bang is a denial in the presence of overwhelming evidence for both. Once again, that is your choice. But your choice has no bearing on the degree of probability of both theories being correct.
[3] If you see it as impossible that something could come from nothing then you are pretty closely in agreement with science on this. Newton's second law of thermodynamics provides that everything is composed of either energy or matter and that neither can be destroyed, only converted from one to the other. This gives rise to the law of the conservation of energy which you can avail yourself of via Google. If you can conceive of an eternal deity then you'll have no problem conceiving of eternal matter/energy. If you want to call this GOD that is your right but calling it anything but matter/energy is quite unnecessary and violates the Principal of Parsimony known as Ockham's Razor.
[4] This is a statement of opinion in a way. Minus infinity and plus infinity are rather abstruse values not particularly relevant to your POV in this. But if the subject interests you, then you might check out Georg Cantor's work on infinity via Google
[5] If you would genuinely be interested in how life began I could suggest a Google of ABIOGENESIS. It is a very active field of scientific research. Science does have a clue but as yet has not solved the problem. Science is solving problems every day and historical precedent dictates that this one too will succumb to scientific research. That it hasn't yet is no certain indication that it never will.
Religions pontificate on the origins of life with a poverty of real authority and certainly against reason. But you are correct, religion really hasn't a clue.
[6] There are pretenders everywhere.........aren't you engaged in "pretending to know" yourself by stating opinion as fact? KNOWING something presupposes a dedication to reason, logic and rationality, and even then one can only KNOW something by how complete is the latest wisdom as revealed by science. New discoveries must be accommodated by current wisdom and may even change its complexion entirely. It may be that knowledge can never be complete, and certain philosophers of science claim that this is so.
It is obvious you have a long way to go in your search and much to learn. Religious faith is only vulnerable to science through ignorance in the individual believer. Accepting science's values beside that of faith strengthens one as an individual and accords respect for the observation of Martin Luther King jr. that........."Nothing in the world is more dangerous that sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
A genuine appreciation of learning in science is not a path to perdition. That devout christian Galileo Galilei observed in a letter to a friend during his confinement; "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
And Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the USA, expressed exactly the same sentiment when he wrote; "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."............though he was a little more eloquently verbose in his method of expression.
Good Luck
OriginalBiggles
[1] I was created and I am sure I did not create myself by myself .
[2] I do not believe in both the evolution theory and the big bang theory .
[3] I see it as impossible from something starting from nothing to create anything at all , let alone all this universe and beyond .
[4] There are as much or were as much as minus infinity to plus infinity the number of things in all the universe and beyond .
[5] How did life and this world start ?. Who first created whom ?.
Science and religions have no clue .
[6]Anyone who pretends to know is just kidding one's self and othres .
Give me your thoughts .
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to oblige.
[1] That you were created is an assertion implying several scenarios. [a] Special creation by a deity or some other supernatural agency Creation by the process of evolution. The fact that you stipulate [2] is immaterial.
You may assert and believe as you wish and to paraphrase Voltaire, "I will defend to the death your right to do so." If you deny and defy rationality, logic and reason as expressed by science that is your choice.
[2] That you believe in neither the theory of evolution nor the the theory of the Big Bang is a denial in the presence of overwhelming evidence for both. Once again, that is your choice. But your choice has no bearing on the degree of probability of both theories being correct.
[3] If you see it as impossible that something could come from nothing then you are pretty closely in agreement with science on this. Newton's second law of thermodynamics provides that everything is composed of either energy or matter and that neither can be destroyed, only converted from one to the other. This gives rise to the law of the conservation of energy which you can avail yourself of via Google. If you can conceive of an eternal deity then you'll have no problem conceiving of eternal matter/energy. If you want to call this GOD that is your right but calling it anything but matter/energy is quite unnecessary and violates the Principal of Parsimony known as Ockham's Razor.
[4] This is a statement of opinion in a way. Minus infinity and plus infinity are rather abstruse values not particularly relevant to your POV in this. But if the subject interests you, then you might check out Georg Cantor's work on infinity via Google
[5] If you would genuinely be interested in how life began I could suggest a Google of ABIOGENESIS. It is a very active field of scientific research. Science does have a clue but as yet has not solved the problem. Science is solving problems every day and historical precedent dictates that this one too will succumb to scientific research. That it hasn't yet is no certain indication that it never will.
Religions pontificate on the origins of life with a poverty of real authority and certainly against reason. But you are correct, religion really hasn't a clue.
[6] There are pretenders everywhere.........aren't you engaged in "pretending to know" yourself by stating opinion as fact? KNOWING something presupposes a dedication to reason, logic and rationality, and even then one can only KNOW something by how complete is the latest wisdom as revealed by science. New discoveries must be accommodated by current wisdom and may even change its complexion entirely. It may be that knowledge can never be complete, and certain philosophers of science claim that this is so.
It is obvious you have a long way to go in your search and much to learn. Religious faith is only vulnerable to science through ignorance in the individual believer. Accepting science's values beside that of faith strengthens one as an individual and accords respect for the observation of Martin Luther King jr. that........."Nothing in the world is more dangerous that sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
A genuine appreciation of learning in science is not a path to perdition. That devout christian Galileo Galilei observed in a letter to a friend during his confinement; "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
And Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the USA, expressed exactly the same sentiment when he wrote; "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."............though he was a little more eloquently verbose in his method of expression.
Good Luck
OriginalBiggles
The beginning of what?
Life and this universe are too complex to be fully understood by humans.
Are you human?
Last edited by a moderator:
A : The beginning of everything such as god or gods and humans for example .
B : Yes I am human and you can see that too .
.
mike,
I think your conclusion are too harsh.
Both science and religion have clues, and combined are the best/only way
to answer these questions.
Unfortunately for mankind, these two diciplines are at loggerheads, and have
become corrupted IMHO.
jan.
I think your conclusion are too harsh.
Both science and religion have clues, and combined are the best/only way
to answer these questions.
Unfortunately for mankind, these two diciplines are at loggerheads, and have
become corrupted IMHO.
jan.
Too harsh ?.
I think religions have NO clues at all .
As far as science it is still digging in the right direction and in vain too....
.