Who created everything? | |||
| GOD | 184 | 41.82% | |
| BIG BANG | 251 | 57.05% | |
| Total: | 435 | ||
| bazmeistergen said:
|
Interesting theory. What are it's predictions?
| padib said: There is no proof of God's existence, no proof of his non-existence, no proof of evolution, for all things there is only evidence and interpretation. Some based on true and some based on false assumptions. Here is what I believe, at my deepest core. I believe in God as my creator, yes, the God of the bible. I believe we misunderstand alot of his intent in many OT passages. I also believe we don't understand at what point we've enraged God in many of those situations and did actually deserve death in his eyes. And no, we're not justified for those. That kind of self-humbling attitude is very scarce in our time, everyone is just so full of themselves, myself included. That's the sin that leads to death, the hardening of the heart... The quiet truth is really simpler than you can imagine. "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." -Jeremiah 29:13 The mind and intelligence is secondary to the heart in understanding the greater questions of life. The mind gets lost in puzzles, but the heart understands deep truths the mind could never understand on its own. Things like regretting selfish deeds, repenting from evil deeds, admitting evil deeds, letting go of selfish ambitions, opening up selflessly to your neighbor, being broken and vulnerable to your neighbor. The mind can only go so far, but it's the heart that can fly. It's like trying to take a car from Montreal to Paris. You'll never make it. In the movie Expelled by Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins was asked, “What if you are wrong and you meet God when you die, what will you say to him?” See his answer in the thread below. Sadly for him, he is lost in the puzzles and will only make it with a change of heart. http://www.theanthropos.org/?p=10 Alot of atheists I've run into admit they are very sad to believe in what they believe, because it has absolutely no purpose. If it were at least true then I can understand. But the tragedy is that their sacrifice is vain. It is based on a lie, and they will pay bitterly, at the great grievance of God... A lot of you here go a way's length to assert that God doesn't exist. If you were honest, you would at least admit there was a chance you were wrong. Is it pride that stops you? Fear? People use God's name for evil, does it make God evil? Does a butterknife become a universally evil tool if used by someone to stab an innocent victim? I'm done calling out to the hearts of some of you. To get technical again... Little question: has genetic evolution been proven, in that you can add information to the genetic pool that adds complexity to the organism? Have any of you heard of information theory? http://creation.com/information-science-and-biology See section: "The five levels of information". To duplicate genetic code does not increase complexity. |
I don`t understand that technical part but that was really well said! Oh, don`t give up! ;)
I got more of your second post than of your first! :D
What you mean is that evolution is like a false perception? So, complexity is the same, but, for example, the pattern is what changes. Is this it?
That sounds to me like the relation between essence and existence: where essence informs the other and lives through the other despite the changes in existence. It`s just the realization of the first.
Hope i`m getting this right! :D
Edit: About the propaganda. Actually that`s pretty natural and obvious. As Kasz said in another topic about Thomas Kuhn work - i think - even scientists live science besides the facts.
You will always find that scientists have hope or "faith" in what may come of a theory or science in general. Even without knowing they tend more for one side than the other, and it`s not all because of the facts. Even Einstein made the mistake of being partial about it.
| Player1x3 said:I guess lots of scientific thoeries are also irrational because they are not proven right.Faith too plays a big role in science
Anyway, since this is a ''evidence'' debate, I am gonna say the same thing to you I say to every person when this kind of debate pops up. I dont ''believe'' or ''hope'' that God exists. I KNOW that God exist. How? Well, thats the tricky part. You (at least i) have to believe to see, not see to believe. And that differs from person to person. You choose the way. Thats why god gave us free will. God would NEVER allow humans to prove him or disprove him using reason scientific knowledge, its up to you and you alone weather you want to beleive in God or not. Thats why God gave us free will. He SPECIFICALLY created (or designed, if you will) man with free will and the ability to choose so that we could choose. |
lol, believe to see. If I tell myself all the time "smurf exist! smurf exist!", than I will "know" at some point that they exist. That's similar to how hypnosis works; if you let it happen, you may believe that you are Elvis...
And no, you don't choose to be anything. If somebody is raised as a muslim, did he choose to be a muslim? No! If somebody never heard of any god, did he choose to not believe in any god? No! A skeptical person like me has a bigger chance to be an atheist than a naive one. And I didn't choose to be a skeptical person, but I'm very happy that I am! It helps me to be open, moral and free!
This system of faith has so many mistakes, a perfect being wouldn't come up with it. Just like the bible, it was made by humans, many years ago...
| Player1x3 said: I beleive you have no evidence to say that they were closet atheists. They clearly believed in higher power or in some form of God. As for the rest of the post my only point was that a person can believe in God and follow science, and even be a great scientist himself. |
Well, I will drop this point because it would need some pretty lengthy (by internet debate standard) research into contradictions in their writing. Plus, you are talking about scientists while i was more broad and thinking about thinkers in general (including philosophers) where there is more work on religion to discern the difference between teir express belief (in their extended writing) and their stated beliefs (what they claim to believe).
Also, claiming to believe in a higher power in a world that puts unbelievers to death is hardly proof of such a belief. After all a lot of politicians claim to be anti-gay when they are gay themselves and we are not even threatening to kill them for it anymore either.
As for the rest of your post, I agree. I even cited Newton as such a one. However I do not believe that you can be a great scientist strictly because of religion. You can be a great scientist independently from your religious belief (like Newton with his work on optic, mathematic and gravity) when your research does not intersect with your belief and I could even imagine (but know no evidence of) a scientist being great despite his belief; i.e. finding through experimentation that at least one of his religious belief is false but espousing it despite his belief*; but I have a hard time imagining a scientist that becomes great beacuse of his religious belief. If that was the case, the proponents of intelligent design would be good scientists instead of the quacks that they are and devout muslim scientists would be leading in many fields of science as many muslims are fond to claim that the koran is a science book.
It might have happened centuries ago, when science knew much less so there was less risk of your theory contradicting your belief, but nowadays it seems highly unlikely.
* Copernicus would be an excellent candidate for that case as the prevailing religious belief concerning cosmology for that time was for geocentrism, so he probably believed it at some point in his life before finding evidence against it and changing his belief to heliocentrism.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
| Player1x3 said: I guess lots of scientific thoeries are also irrational because they are not proven right.Faith too plays a big role in science |
No, because theories are based on known facts. If a theory is not based on facts or ignores contradictory facts then it is not a sound scientific theory in the first place and belief in it would be irrational. Belief in a discredited scientific theory (like phlogistons) is also irrational as while it might have been rational to accept it at some point in time when it was the best explanation we had explaining the facts as we knew them then, further discoveries proving it to be wrong (like experimenting on heating metals finding out they gained mass, thus disproving the phlogiston theory) invalidate the theory and make further belief in it irrational.
Religious beliefs are beliefs that something is true in the absence of evidence (or possibly despite evidence agaisnt it) whereas scientific theories are more like the best explanation we can come up with to explain the facts as we know them. As our knowledge of the world expands, our understanding of it grow and our theories either grow more complex to explain that increase in knowledge or get rejected if they contradict the world as we know it.
To put it another way, no scientific theories are even proven right, they are merely the best and simplest way to explain the world that has not been proven wrong.
If somebody wants to challenge the big bang theory, he can, but his theory will have to explain all the things we know that led us to that set of theories and be simpler (Occam's razor). Theories calling themselves scientific and including a god or other higher power fail because they are more complicated due to including that big great ultra complicated thing.
| Player1x3 said: Anyway, since this is a ''evidence'' debate, I am gonna say the same thing to you I say to every person when this kind of debate pops up. I dont ''believe'' or ''hope'' that God exists. I KNOW that God exist. How? Well, thats the tricky part. You (at least i) have to believe to see, not see to believe. And that differs from person to person. You choose the way. Thats why god gave us free will. God would NEVER allow humans to prove him or disprove him using reason scientific knowledge, its up to you and you alone weather you want to beleive in God or not. Thats why God gave us free will. He SPECIFICALLY created (or designed, if you will) man with free will and the ability to choose so that we could choose. |
This paragraph is higly contradictory as you claim that you do not believe god exist but know it then you claim that it is up to each if the want to believe. Obviously you chose that you want to believe but choosing to believe is still a belief, not knowledge. If you had chosen to believe in unicorns you would still be beieving in them, you wouldn't know taht they exist.
Besides, I must confess: I do not believe in gravity, evolution or the big bang.
Why am are arguing for them then?
Because if I jump, I fall back to earth and what I believe is that Newton' s theory of gravity is the third best explanation of that phenomenum and that it was the best explanation when it was first proposed. Since then it was proven incomplete by Einstein who gave us a better explanation with special erlativity and another even better explanation with general relativity. Maybe another scientist in the future will give us yet another explanation that is even better but it doesn't change the fact that I have no need to believe in gravity itself, I can experience it myself and believe that the current prevailing theoreis about it are the most likely explanation.
Same with evolution and the big bang. I do not so much believe in them as believe that they are the best explanation we have come up with so far. I hope you understand the difference
Other people might believe in those theories like people believe in religious belief but then I would agree with you that this belief is irrational as while it is based on evidence they go further than that and take that leap of faith into irrationality.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
| Rath said: Well consider the possibility of infinite universes with essentially random properties - the vast majority of these universes are unable to ever support life - in many matter doesn't form, others collapse quickly under their own gravity back into a singularity. In one of these universes the laws of physics are just right for life to eventually form, evolve and become intelligent. That intelligent life then asks 'why do all of the universal constants seem perfect for life?'. |
Exactly. In any universe where there is no intelligent life, there is no life to ponder why they are (not) here.
In any universe where there is intelligent life, they wonder: "isn't it amazing that things are just right for life to happen".
Selection bias on a universal basis.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
Raido said:
lol, believe to see. If I tell myself all the time "smurf exist! smurf exist!", than I will "know" at some point that they exist. That's similar to how hypnosis works; if you let it happen, you may believe that you are Elvis... And no, you don't choose to be anything. If somebody is raised as a muslim, did he choose to be a muslim? No! If somebody never heard of any god, did he choose to not believe in any god? No! A skeptical person like me has a bigger chance to be an atheist than a naive one. And I didn't choose to be a skeptical person, but I'm very happy that I am! It helps me to be open, moral and free! This system of faith has so many mistakes, a perfect being wouldn't come up with it. Just like the bible, it was made by humans, many years ago... |
So basiclly your whole argument is ''Lol, thats stupid''? Get off your high arrogant atheist horse and actually read what I said. And im 100% sure that millions of people would agree with me on beleive to see. I also said that it differs from person to person. Again, go read what I said and stop being the coolest kid in the room. God wouldt allow humans to find evidence proving or disproving his existance, it all comes down to your choosing, if and how dou you want to beleive.
Sri Lumpa said:
I dont see how it was possible not to beleive in higher power back than when people knew very little about the world around them. Surely, a person could have disagreed with the specific God of a specific religion, but big chances are they still beleive in some form of prime mover and creator of universe. So while not everyone was a theist, i almost 100% sure all of them were deists. Also, claiming to believe in a higher power in a world that puts unbelievers to death is hardly proof of such a belief. After all a lot of politicians claim to be anti-gay when they are gay themselves and we are not even threatening to kill them for it anymore either. So thats your argument? No evidence or anything to back it up, just wishful thinking. And atheism was accepted by law for over 300 years by now, there would be no reason why one wouldnt come out as atheist in the age of enlightment As for the rest of your post, I agree. I even cited Newton as such a one. However I do not believe that you can be a great scientist strictly because of religion. You can be a great scientist independently from your religious belief (like Newton with his work on optic, mathematic and gravity) when your research does not intersect with your belief and I could even imagine (but know no evidence of) a scientist being great despite his belief; i.e. finding through experimentation that at least one of his religious belief is false but espousing it despite his belief*; but I have a hard time imagining a scientist that becomes great beacuse of his religious belief. If that was the case, the proponents of intelligent design would be good scientists instead of the quacks that they are and devout muslim scientists would be leading in many fields of science as many muslims are fond to claim that the koran is a science book. My point stands, science and religion do not in any way go against each other. Hell, for centuries catholic church was the only source of knowledge in western europe and It might have happened centuries ago, when science knew much less so there was less risk of your theory contradicting your belief, but nowadays it seems highly unlikely. * Copernicus would be an excellent candidate for that case as the prevailing religious belief concerning cosmology for that time was for geocentrism, so he probably believed it at some point in his life before finding evidence against it and changing his belief to heliocentrism. |
Sri Lumpa said:
N
This paragraph is higly contradictory as you claim that you do not believe god exist but know it then you claim that it is up to each if the want to believe. Obviously you chose that you want to believe but choosing to believe is still a belief, not knowledge. If you had chosen to believe in unicorns you would still be beieving in them, you wouldn't know taht they exist. You misunderstand or perhaps I explained it bad. Let me try again. I speak for myself personally when I say that i know that God existst. That was an answer for your ''faith is irrational'' replay. Believe to see leads me to seeing (or realizing God) and that leads me to knowing God exists. Those 3 things lead to another, they are all connected. Like I said, you dont have to accept this as some evidence that indicates existance of God. I am not even presenting it that way, I am just trying to explain why faith isnt irrational (at least my system of faith, for which i am sure millions of other people share) Like I said in my previous post, some people believe and than see, other choose to see than believe.In theism faith CAN LEAD TO KNOLEDGE(maybe ''awarness or ''enlightment'' are better words). I hope you realize that. Actually, no, you cant realize it, thats the problem. Only those of faith can. Besides, I must confess: I do not believe in gravity, evolution or the big bang. Why am are arguing for them then? Because if I jump, I fall back to earth and what I believe is that Newton' s theory of gravity is the third best explanation of that phenomenum and that it was the best explanation when it was first proposed. Since then it was proven incomplete by Einstein who gave us a better explanation with special erlativity and another even better explanation with general relativity. Maybe another scientist in the future will give us yet another explanation that is even better but it doesn't change the fact that I have no need to believe in gravity itself, I can experience it myself and believe that the current prevailing theoreis about it are the most likely explanation. Same with evolution and the big bang. I do not so much believe in them as believe that they are the best explanation we have come up with so far. I hope you understand the difference I do not reject either Big Bang nor evoulution, while i fully accepted evolution, Big Bang is still yet to be proven. Althoug I do beleive God has something to do with big Bang and creation of universe. I also believe that God, once finished with creating universe, didnt interact with nature or universe at all anymore. Other people might believe in those theories like people believe in religious belief but then I would agree with you that this belief is irrational as while it is based on evidence they go further than that and take that leap of faith into irrationality. |
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
