Social Religion, Politics and absolutely nothing to do with footy

Remove this Banner Ad

Baby Duck said:
I'm not being condescending, but judging by that statement I don't think you have grasped eternity, or existence outside the restrictions of time and space.
I'm more of the persuasion that the days represent periods of time btw.
Click to expand...
I haven't grasped religion's concept of eternity? Yeah, I suppose I never will until I'm a believer, right? When you refer to existence outside of time and space, that's the very crux of the issue. Explain to me why I should believe in the existence of something/someone that contradicts physical law?
 
Strangled Cat said:
I haven't grasped religion's concept of eternity? Yeah, I suppose I never will until I'm a believer, right? When you refer to existence outside of time and space, that's the very crux of the issue. Explain to me why I should believe in the existence of something/someone that contradicts physical law?
Click to expand...
Well you said that God existed for eternity, but one day decided to begin creating. That's contradictory.
I believe that whatever the first cause of the universe was, it had to exist outside of space and time by necessity, otherwise the universe and all matter would be eternal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Baby Duck said:
Well you said that God existed for eternity, but one day decided to begin creating. That's contradictory.
I believe that whatever the first cause of the universe was, it had to exist outside of space and time by necessity, otherwise the universe and all matter would be eternal.
Click to expand...
And whatever it was that caused the universe to be created, if of course the universe isn't in itself eternal, why and how can you be so sure that the god you worship should be credited for its creation?
 
Baby Duck said:
Simply stated, I see perfect order and obvious intelligence in nature. Believing that the phenomenal world arose completely by random, chaotic chance is totally irrationally to me, and just plain intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

It would be if it were that way. But two key things need to be addressed:

1. Nature is anything but perfect. There is imperfection everywhere, and Homo sapiens has more than its fair share (eyes, back, and knees for starters).

2. it depends which 'world' you're talking about. If you're talking biological evolution, it is the absolute opposite of chance. It is the most brutal, unforgiving, and most importantly, indifferent, filter you can think of.

On you start doing there merest amount of study into these areas, the need for a supernatural sky being just melts away.
 
Strangled Cat said:
I'm well aware of Stephen Fry's work, and I am a big fan! :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
I love the show QI. Whilst a very intelligent man he does have a sense of humour too. One of the few people I can honestly say that when I hear him speak, I listen.

His speech about the Roman Catholic church is very good too.
 
Partridge said:
It would be if it were that way. But two key things need to be addressed:

1. Nature is anything but perfect. There is imperfection everywhere, and Homo sapiens has more than its fair share (eyes, back, and knees for starters).

2. it depends which 'world' you're talking about. If you're talking biological evolution, it is the absolute opposite of chance. It is the most brutal, unforgiving, and most importantly, indifferent, filter you can think of.

On you start doing there merest amount of study into these areas, the need for a supernatural sky being just melts away.
Click to expand...

I have studied it. I'm sorry, but I'm far from convinced.
 
Baby Duck said:
I have studied it. I'm sorry, but I'm far from convinced.
Click to expand...

To each their own. No problem.

But the recurrent laryngeal nerve (present in all mammals) is incredibly inefficient. So is the prostate gland. And anyone who subscribes to the idea of a kind, benevolent deity has to explain the Ichneumonoidea - wasps whose larvae devour paralysed prey from the inside out while still alive.
 
I find the arguments and opinions put forward by creationists vs evolutionists don't really amount to much as both camps are very set in their beliefs.
What I tend to believe is that time, space and matter have always existed. And along the way there must have been some type of catalyst - for want of a better word - that caused something/everything to change. Over time all this change might be termed as evolution. But who or what caused this "evolution", no one really knows.
 
Strangled Cat said:
And whatever it was that caused the universe to be created, if of course the universe isn't in itself eternal, why and how can you be so sure that the god you worship should be credited for its creation?
Click to expand...

Any religion that gives credit to the creator is correct in doing so I think. But I have respect for all religions and appreciate their value. If God did all this, I see no logical reason NOT to worship.
 
Partridge said:
To each their own. No problem.

But the recurrent laryngeal nerve (present in all mammals) is incredibly inefficient. So is the prostate gland. And anyone who subscribes to the idea of a kind, benevolent deity has to explain the Ichneumonoidea - wasps whose larvae devour paralysed prey from the inside out while still alive.
Click to expand...

Inefficient in that it extends much further around the body than what would be necessary? I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I couldn't tell you honestly what that is. Arguing that examples of poor and inefficient design is pretty poor evidence for biological evolution I think.
 
Baby Duck said:
Any religion that gives credit to the creator is correct in doing so I think. But I have respect for all religions and appreciate their value. If God did all this, I see no logical reason NOT to worship.
Click to expand...
Which God are we referring to? There are hundreds of religions throughout the world all of whom worship their version of God. Why do you think your God is the supreme being?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Baby Duck said:
Any religion that gives credit to the creator is correct in doing so I think. But I have respect for all religions and appreciate their value. If God did all this, I see no logical reason NOT to worship.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question. If god did all this... how can you be sure that your religion, that being Christianity or a branch thereof, indeed contains everything that the god almighty, creator of the universe, wants humans to believe/carry out?
 
Partridge said:
To each their own. No problem.

But the recurrent laryngeal nerve (present in all mammals) is incredibly inefficient. So is the prostate gland. And anyone who subscribes to the idea of a kind, benevolent deity has to explain the Ichneumonoidea - wasps whose larvae devour paralysed prey from the inside out while still alive.
Click to expand...

Depends on your conception of God really. Does "God" give rise to existence only (perhaps not even exiting itself as we understand it)? or sits their everyday tinkering? And the more I learn about quantum theory the less I become convinced about the "scientific method" and empirical evidence...

I'm not defending theism but the other side isn't as knockdown as it likes to think it is.
 
manboob said:
I'm not defending theism but the other side isn't as knockdown as it likes to think it is.
Click to expand...

To me that's the greatest misconception about science; this notion of certainty. Science is full of uncertainty. Doubt leads to questions, and questions lead to discoveries. It's not science that says "God did it" whenever it hits a fact it isn't ready for.
 
Strangled Cat said:
You didn't answer my question. If god did all this... how can you be sure that your religion, that being Christianity or a branch thereof, indeed contains everything that the god almighty, creator of the universe, wants humans to believe/carry out?
Click to expand...

I'm going to once again rely on Sagan's genius to explain this better than I could ever hope to:

'We seem to crave privilege, merited not by our works but by our birth, by the mere fact that, say, we are humans and born on Earth. We might call it the anthropocentric - the 'human-centered' - conceit. This conceit is brought close to culmination in the notion that we are created in God's image: The Creator and Ruler of the entire Universe looks just like me. My, what a coincidence! How convenient and satisfying!' - Pale Blue Dot
 
I think you'll find that Feuerbach said it first and better. But not disagreeing.
 
Partridge said:
To me that's the greatest misconception about science; this notion of certainty. Science is full of uncertainty. Doubt leads to questions, and questions lead to discoveries. It's not science that says "God did it" whenever it hits a fact it isn't ready for.
Click to expand...
Science is full of a lot theories and a lot of scientists tend to disagree on these theories. Which as you have said creates uncertanty. This is particularly applicable to cosmology, astrophysics etc.
 
evolutionbaby said:
Science is full of a lot theories and a lot of scientists tend to disagree on these theories. Which as you have said creates uncertanty. This is particularly applicable to cosmology, astrophysics etc.
Click to expand...

It does. Importantly too, a 'theory' in science carries far more weight than in typical parlance. To overthrow existing paradigms you need an awfully large amount of evidence. Or results that can be replicated. Or both.
 
manboob said:
Depends on your conception of God really. Does "God" give rise to existence only (perhaps not even exiting itself as we understand it)? or sits their everyday tinkering? And the more I learn about quantum theory the less I become convinced about the "scientific method" and empirical evidence...

I'm not defending theism but the other side isn't as knockdown as it likes to think it is.
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to the beliefs of the major religions but depending on one's definition, "God" and science are not completely incompatible. We could go with something like "an intelligence or consciousness capable of creating a universe, and being able to operate instantly across that universe".

Frank Tipler is a Professor of Mathematical Physics who has written about the "Omega-point theory". It's about a class of cosmological models in which the universe is evolving towards increasing computational power, complexity and consciousness. In the distant future that process might create entities that possess what we would consider Godlike powers. It's not a God in the religious sense, existing outside space and time. It's a scientific phenomenon.

These guys reckon they have proven "spooky action at a distance". The implications of quantum entanglement are quite profound. Information anywhere in the universe can be instantaneously transmitted to anywhere else in the universe.

So we have the possibility of infinite intelligence operating at infinite speed across the universe. Which of course means this could have happened already.
 
I read about the spooky action last week :) As you say, there are some interesting doors about to be opened!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top