Astronomers date star's birth back to nearly the dawn of time


Recommended Posts

MGS4-SS
There has been nothing made by humans that is infallible, why would God be?

You think people thousands of years ago could concieve an unbreakable idea such as a supreme deity?

Yes there have been human creations that are infallible.

And yes, since back in the time there was a necessity to explain everything, but knowledge was starting to grow. The creation of a God was necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jackwanders
Well, without any proof backing it up, I'll leave that as pure opinion.

Actually, nothing is ever "assumed" to exist. The natural state of all things is that it doesn't exist, unless evidence, or "proof", says otherwise.

You can't have "proof" that God's existence is improbable, only proof that it's probable.

There has been nothing made by humans that is infallible, why would God be?

You think people thousands of years ago could concieve an unbreakable idea such as a supreme deity?

Is your contention that because God is such a "supreme" concept, ancient peoples couldn't have just made him up if he didn't actually exist?

Because, I'm sorry to say, deities and religion existed long before the earliest thoughts of a monotheistic 'God'. Religion goes as far back as 100,000 years, and many, many cultures had well established gods long before the Abrahamic religions came around.

But those gods are just silly notions created by ancient people, right?

PS - Did you just insinuate that God is fallible?

Link to post
Share on other sites
acies
Well, to someone who thinks he's there, he IS definitely there. Its only could/couldnt for people who dont know, and non-existent to non-believers.

I don't think there is zero proof for the existence, and why do you think that the God we envisage is not the one? That's what the specific religious texts are for.

Yes, but here you are assuming there is only one god that you either believe in or don't believe in. The amount of beliefs and gods that have been believed in is overwhelming, and all of them rely on simple faith to make them appear real. If through some complex circumstance a god/s it would be pretty incredible if that god was actually from anyone of the faiths created since the dawn of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

I think this post might prove helpful and informative to a lot of people here.

It's a bit long, but if you stick with it, it probably answers a lot of the questions that people here have asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite
PS - Did you just insinuate that God is fallible?

No, just that humans cant concieve anything so great out of their own minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

I posted that explanation I pointed to pretty much just for you ZAnwar (and others), since at least if nothing else you do seem genuinely curious. I think it might be quite helpful to you if you read it. (Don't forget to read the original thread topic too though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

Ok, thanks.

I'll definitely try to read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jackwanders
No, just that humans cant concieve anything so great out of their own minds.

And I already pointed out that equally "great" things have been conceived by even earlier humans than those who first thought about 'God'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

I think it's clear that human beings can conceive of incredibly great things - things that truly are much more profound and much more amazing than the simple ability to say that because we might not understand how something works, it must be a God that made them happen. Humans have already made a great deal of progress in this regard - and the explanations (and the evidence we have to support them) for the way things are are already fantastically detailed, complex and elegant - far more so indeed than the really very simple idea of some kind of God, or supernatural being wiggling his finger and making things appear and happen out of nowhere.

In many ways God really is the simplest explanation of all. It is often the explanation that a lot of non scientists and (unfortunately) poorly educated people resort to to explain all of the things that they see and that they don't understand. Clearly not everyone in the world can be a scientist, but almost everyone in the world does wonder in some way or other about the same things; such as how we and everything we see came to be? Scientists spend their lives and their careers trying to answer these questions and trying to study the things they see and come up with evidence and explanations for the observations that they make.

Many ordinary people however just do not have the time, or the opportunity to do this, since they all have jobs and families and other day to day concerns to worry about first. But nonetheless it often seems that they feel the need for an explanation for everything just as much as scientists do. Saying that God did everything is just much easier as it doesn't really require as much effort, or as much time and thought as engaging in a life long and very hard and passionate study of the sciences does. It is a very quick and easy (and often seemingly satisfying) explanation that almost anyone, regardless of their level of education can grasp So in this way religion is like 'science lite' - it gives people quick and easily accessible answers without requiring anyone to think too hard about what these answers mean. This is also why religion tends to be so popular in countries with very poor, or very low levels of education - since no matter how poor people are, or how uneducated they are as I said, most people worry and think about the same things. So for a poor person who has no real access to good scientific texts, or a person who doesn't have time or a good aptitude for a study of the sciences, religion is like a 'Big Mac and fries' version of science. It fills in enough gaps in these people's minds for them to feel that it can answer most of the questions they have, without them having to go to too much effort, or spend too much time searching for answers somewhere else.

That doesn't mean religion is true simply because many (or most) people don't have the time, or the ability, or the opportunity to study the sciences. What it does mean however is that most people probably just find religion an easier answer for them to understand. Just because a very, very large number of people don't have time, or the ability to study science and so accept religion as the next best answer they can have, doesn't mean that because the number of people who are in this situation is very big, that this by definition makes something true. Thousands of years ago the Egyptians and the Greeks also believed in all kinds of different Gods and supernatural beings - and many thousands and thousands of them believed this to be true too. But clearly (as in the example of the Egyptians and Greeks and others) just because an idea is popular and easy to understand, this does not always by any means make it true.

Edited by jebus197
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite
And I already pointed out that equally "great" things have been conceived by even earlier humans than those who first thought about 'God'.

And how do you know that these werent concieved notions but God did actually reveal himself?

I think it's clear that human beings can conceive of incredibly great things - things that truly are much more profound and much more amazing than the simple ability to say that because we might not understand how something works, it must be a God that made them happen. Humans have already made a great deal of progress in this regard - and the explanations (and the evidence we have to support them) for the way things are are already fantastically detailed, complex and elegant - far more so indeed than the really very simple idea of some kind of God, or supernatural being wiggling his finger and making things appear and happen out of nowhere.

In many ways God really is the simplest explanation of all. It is often the explanation that a lot of non scientists and (unfortunately) poorly educated people resort to to explain all of the things that they see and that they don't understand. Clearly not everyone in the world can be a scientist, but almost everyone in the world does wonder in some way or other about the same things; such as how we and everything we see came to be? Scientists spend their lives and their careers trying to answer these questions and trying to study the things they see and come up with evidence and explanations for the observations that they make.

Many ordinary people however just do not have the time, or the opportunity to do this, since they all have jobs and families and other day to day concerns to worry about first. But nonetheless it often seems that they feel the need for an explanation for everything just as much as scientists do. Saying that God did everything is just much easier as it doesn't really require as much effort, or as much time and thought as engaging in a life long and very hard and passionate study of the sciences does. It is a very quick and easy (and often seemingly satisfying) explanation that almost anyone, regardless of their level of education can grasp So in this way religion is like 'science lite' - it gives people quick and easily accessible answers without requiring anyone to think too hard about what these answers mean. This is also why religion tends to be so popular in countries with very poor, or very low levels of education - since no matter how poor people are, or how uneducated they are as I said, most people worry and think about the same things. So for a poor person who has no real access to good scientific texts, or a person who doesn't have time or a good aptitude for a study of the sciences, religion is like a 'Big Mac and fries' version of science. It fills in enough gaps in these people's minds for them to feel that it can answer most of the questions they have, without them having to go to too much effort, or spend too much time searching for answers somewhere else.

That doesn't mean religion is true simply because many (or most) people don't have the time, or the ability, or the opportunity to study the sciences. What it does mean however is that most people probably just find religion an easier answer for them to understand. Just because a very, very large number of people don't have time, or the ability to study science and so accept religion as the next best answer they can have, doesn't mean that because the number of people who are in this situation is very big, that this by definition makes something true. Thousands of years ago the Egyptians and the Greeks also believed in all kinds of different Gods and supernatural beings - and many thousands and thousands of them believed this to be true too. But clearly (as in the example of the Egyptians and Greeks and others) just because an idea is popular and easy to understand, this does not always by any means make it true.

From what you're saying, my former physics teacher with a PhD, my Chem teacher and many other "learned" people in the field of science I know, really knew nothing because they believed in a Creator?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197
From what you're saying, my former physics teacher with a PhD, my Chem teacher and many other "learned" people in the field of science I know, really knew nothing because they believed in a Creator?

No I think they are just human and that as humans they are vulnerable to making the same mistakes as other humans - insomuch that while most scientists by far and away the vast majority) are content with the idea that they don't know everything yet, some people (including even some scientists) are not always very happy or satisfied with this and so try to fill in the gaps in their understanding in the most easy and accessible way open to them - which unfortunately often seems to be via religion.

There are indeed PhD professors and chemistry teachers and even biologists and poor people and rich people and all kinds of people of all types and descriptions, who do ascribe to some form of religion or other. Not just because they want quick and easy answers and they want them now, but also because the human mind is often in my experience very unable to cope and very unhappy with the idea that there might indeed be no deeper meaning, or no inherent underlying purpose in life. People are almost genetically programmed to see reasons and connections and patterns in things. So it is very hard sometimes to look at something as unusual and as out of the ordinary as life and human consciousness and to think that it might have no deeper purpose or meaning.

So in order to cope with this people will often make themselves feel more important by reasoning that they must have some kind of connection to something that has a much greater meaning than themselves. If you can have 'a personal relationship with God' and with the creator of the Universe, well perhaps you really are unique and special and important and if the creator has a plan for your life, then maybe your life isn't so meaningless after all? This appears to give people a good coping mechanism that lets them deal with things that they might otherwise find very hard to deal with.

There are certainly some scientists and some educated people who do feel this way too - and who do take comfort and meaning in religion and who do look to religion to fill in the gaps in their knowledge because they are unhappy with the idea that not all of the answers to all of their questions can be answered right now.

But speaking from a scientific perspective, that still isn't what science is about. Science (unlike religion) accepts that it is impossible to have all of the answers to everything available to us right now. In science what we do is just look. That's it. That's really all we do. We look at things and then try to describe them and how they work - and if we can't work out right away how they work we might form hypotheses to try to fit what it is we see. But we don't stop just there, as once we have formed a hypothesis we need to find evidence to support it. So we devise tests and experiments and then we look and see if the results of those experiments match up with our expectations. If they do not then we make a new hypothesis and devise newer and better tests to see if these fit better with our observations.

So basically what this means is that from a purely scientific standpoint, scientists don't really just make assumptions, they make hypothesis and then test them and look for evidence to support them and if the evidence does support them they then promote these hypotheses to the status of theories. (Theories in science are what a lot of people think they are, they aren't just things that scientists 'think' might happen, they are much more substantial than that and a hypothesis never really becomes an accepted theory until there is a great deal of evidence to support it). So in this sense, even though some scientists might well ascribe to religion, it does not mean that religion is in some way scientific, or that it is factual in the same way that science considers itself to be factual. Religion requires that you simply make an assumption - which is that God exists, while science requires that you look and provide supporting evidence for the things that you see and the things that you say.

So in this sense just because some scientists may well believe in religion - this does not provide any evidence that religion is real - because they have just done as others have done, which is to make an assumption without providing any real evidence for it. Just because a scientists, or a plumber, or a maths teacher, or a peasant on the back streets of an Indian village might all say that they believe in God, this does not mean that this is also evidence that God exists.

You seem to think that just because someone is important, or because lots of people believe in something that this must make it true. Well many years ago people believed all sorts of things were true - one of these being that the world was flat and that we lived at the center of the Universe and all of the stars in the sky were fixed and unmoving. There was a time when almost everyone believed this without question - even some of the most important and most intelligent people alive at that time.

However just because so many people believed these things to be true, did this really make them any truer? If just a lot of people believing in something makes it true, then are we in fact living on a flat Earth at the center of the Universe with all of the stars fixed and unmoving in the night sky as was assumed at that time? When scientists came along even though they were relatively few in number and proved that this was not the case, just because they were the minority, does that mean that they must have been wrong?

Religious people often make arguments such as '4 Billion people can't be wrong'. However clearly almost as many people have been wrong in the past. Scientists have always made up a tiny, tiny percentage of the population and have always been a very small minority. When Galileo first made his observation that the Earth orbited the Sun and that it wasn't the other way around, he was probably the only one in the entire world to believe this and to have seen it. He tried to convince the religious authorities at the time of the correctness of his view, but they refused to believe him and labeled him a heretic. Nonetheless over time virtually everyone who disagreed with him has been proved wrong. So clearly a large number of people believing something to be true, no matter how important or educated they are, has very little relevance as to whether it is actually true or not. (At least not in the absence of any supporting evidence it isn't)

In any case I would argue that by far and away the largest number of scientists that I have known didn't ascribe to religion of any kind - and those few that did were at least honest enough to know that just because they were scientists, this didn't mean that this gave their beliefs any additional credibility, nor did it provide any evidence on whether or not God or religion was real - because nothing in science has ever been able to provide any evidence for these.

Religion isn't about proof or evidence, whereas science is.

Which is a bit odd in my view since if you were a juror in a court case for someone accused of doing something seriously wrong, if the prosecution stood up and told you that there was no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused but you must believe them anyway, if you were a reasonable person you would instantly throw the case out. But when someone tells you you must believe in God - even though there is no real evidence for this - you simply choose to accept it.

Edited by jebus197
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

It is true that the amount of people believing in something doesnt make it so, and it is a very weak argument.

You say that science brings answers with time and accepts (unlike religion) that not all answers are available at this point in time. But the whole point of this is that religion is complete, unlike science, which may not even answer all of man's questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197
And how do you know that these weren't conceived notions but God did actually reveal himself?

I think he is referring to past ideas of previous religions. (At least he was in his previous post). If you look back through the history of humanity many religions (and many Gods) have come and gone.

There is no reason to assume that this will not be the case with the current crop of gods and religions either.

If we were to follow your logic and 'God had revealed himself' to these people too, then that would mean that all of the past Gods and past religions would also have to be considered accurate. You would probably need a country as big as America to fit all of the Gods and deities that people have believed in in the past on to it - so it seems a very random choice (again in the absence of any supporting evidence either way) to select one religion out of all of these and say that you know this religion to be the real, only and correct one.

It's bit like buying a lottery ticket and hoping for a win. There may well be a very small statistical chance that you have picked the winning ticket, but the odds really are very, very long indeed.

Edited by jebus197
Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197
You say that science brings answers with time and accepts (unlike religion) that not all answers are available at this point in time. But the whole point of this is that religion is complete, unlike science, which may not even answer all of man's questions.

I cannot say that I understand this point at all? Religion is complete? How much math's does the Bible contain, where does it discuss the inner workings of stars, what does it say about the nature of consciousness, of biology, or of chemistry?

It seems to me that religion is in fact very incomplete and does not provide very many answers at all - and in fact on balance science has provided far more answers to the biggest questions that confront us than religion ever has.

In any case just because you want to have a full and complete answer now, doesn't mean that (as you say) such an answer exists, whether you might look for that answer in religion, or in science, or wherever.

Scientists simply accept this - because our job is never to make assumptions - our job is simply to observe and to try to find explanations (and evidence to support those explanations) for the things that we see.

From what you have said, it seems that you would prefer to simply have any answer, regarless of whether that answer was accurate, or could be proved, or be tested in any way at all.

A far as I can tell, religious people often like to assume they have all of the answers - but it really isn't so hard to demonstrate that this isn't true at all. If it were, there would be no need for science to begin with - and we could all give up and go home and never do any more science or ask any more questions ever again.

Edited by jebus197
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

Well actually, maybe I typed it wrong or you misunderstood, what I meant about answers in religion was that all "philosophical" answers and the necessary natural answers (eg, start of universe (how it happened), creation of species and human biology) had been answered. And don't take the Bible as reference, its not very good. For these answers you need the later religious texts.

Here, they are complete. But in science, as you're trying to go deeper, there are chances that previous theories may need to be revised or abolished altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

Well as I said previously, just because you think religion provides you with a 'full and complete' answer, there is no guarantee that this is the correct answer either.

You speak about religion as though it offers an unchanging and immutable truth - but clearly this is not the case, as religion has been subject to many revisions in the past (through many, many different kinds of religions, with people who believed in them and ascribed to them every bit as much as you do your present religion). In this sense it is impossible to say that religion provides a complete and unchanging truth as there are almost as many versions of this 'truth' as there are people who believe it. You claim that religion provides the fundamental answers about the creation of the Universe, about biology, about species and about the origins of human existence?

But if was such a fixed and unchanging and complete answer, why have there been so many different versions of this answer in the past? Take a look here for example for a small selection of the great many creation legends and myths that have existed in the past from all of the world and life being born from a lotus flower that sprung from the navel of a God (which is interesting possibly only insofar as the poetic imagery it contains) to man being created, from the tear of a Sun God, to Adam being made from clay and Eve from one of his ribs - virtually nothing in religion has remained fixed or unchanged for very long. Almost everyone at some point or other has believed just as passionately as you do that their version of the truth was the correct and infallible and only possible one and that their beliefs and the various texts and practices within their religion had been divinely inspired by God. Often it seems purely a an accident of geographic location and Birth, which version of religious 'truth' you are most likely to ascribe to.

Take a child at birth from an Indian village where the prevailing faith is Sikhism and place him with a family in the heart of the American Mid West Bible belt and raise him entirely within that environment and statistically the likelihood is that he will become a fervent evangelical Christian. Take an American child from the same part of this country and place him with a devoutly religious Muslim family in Yemen in the Middle East - and the chances are that he will grow up to be a devout follower of the Muslim religion, take a Muslim child from this environment and place him with a Buddhist family in Tibet and it is likely that he will grow up to be a devout Buddhist. So it seems that whatever version of religion you ascribe to, it really is very random - and it is not something that is unchanging, or whole and complete - or that never has changed in the past, or that will never change again in the future. Religion has always changed and the assertions it has made have always changed also and there is no reason to assume (given past evidence) that they won't continue to change in the future too.

Which rather begs the question in that if God is infallible why are there now - and why have there been so many versions of the truth (or of his truth) in the past and why has this version of the truth so clearly changed throughout the course of human history? Also if God wishes his followers to follow a single and complete path, if he really is all powerful, why doesn't he make it much clearer to everyone exactly which version of the truth is the correct one? After all a Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Jew, or someone who subscribes to the Hindu religion are all as equally convinced as you are, as to the correctness of their views and about the divine origin of their texts and their beliefs. What guarantee (beyond the same guarantee that they have) do you have that you are correct and they are wrong? Their texts also almost undoubtedly tell them that their faith really is the 'true faith.' So again the choice seems very arbitrary.

At least if nothing else it is a demonstration that religion does not provide a full and complete answer about anything very much - and that often these versions of the 'truth' are so wildly different that it would be impossible for most rational people to decide which was the correct one (if any).

More than that you say that religion provides 'the big answers' to the 'big questions' of biology, the creation of the Universe and the origin of species etc. - whereas clearly many of these assertion that religion has made have often at the very best been shown to be either incomplete, or entirely inaccurate.

In most creation stories, in most cases the underlying assertion is that God simply willed the Universe and life into existence - but it gives no discernable mechanism for this at all. A teardrop gave birth to man, a lotus flower gave to the Earth, the rib of a man was used to create woman - none of these give discernable mechanisms for how such things could come to be.

But science takes a different approach. We start from a point of knowing nothing and an acceptance that we know nothing and then we simply observe and when we have observed for a while, we try to describe what it is we have seen. By doing so it seems we have had a much better success rate in understanding the underlying causes of the origins of the Universe and of life and of the fundamental processes that govern everything that we see than religion has. From understanding subatomic particles, to gravity, to the way the stars and planets work, to the biology and origins of life, to the origins of the Universe itself (through the Big Bang) the success rate for science in addressing these fundamental questions has been nothing short of stellar when compared to the success rate of religion when addressing the same questions.

If God really was all seeing and all knowing, why is there such a lack of physics, or mathematics, or chemistry, or biology or anything like that in many of these religious texts?

When finally we understand all there is to know about the workings of the human mind, of how life works and how to create life for ourselves in the laboratory - when science has a full and complete understanding of physics to such a degree that all of the underlying mechanisms of the Universe are known to us (even though this may take a very long time to achieve this) will it still be reasonable then to say that man was created from a handful of clay, or that the Universe was created by some unseen superbeing by simply wiggling their finger or twitching their nose?

Scientist on the whole are patient people. Rather than treating life and the Universe as something that must be explained right away, they treat it rather like a vast jigsaw puzzle, by carefully examining the many millions upon millions of small parts and then carefully placing them together to form a much larger picture and much more complete picture.

So religion is neither as unchanging as you might think, nor does it provide the complete answer that you might think - and it also appears to be a completely arbitrary and random choice (in the absence of any conclusive evidence concerning which version is correct) as to which religion you ascribe to. Clearly these kind of random choices, without any really conclusive evidence to support them aren't really a good basis on which to found your own personal values and your own individual view of the world - since there is no guarantee at all that this view is correct.

But what religion does still do however is allow you to feel important and significant and to feel that your life might have some kind of purpose. You may well find this comforting, but again just because something is comforting it is no measure at all as to whether or not it is accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197

Damn I need an editor. Sorry I ran out of editing time. I have corrected some mistakes and cleaned up the grammar a little - so hopefully this repost will be a bit easier to read.

Well as I said previously, just because you think religion provides you with a 'full and complete' answer, there is no guarantee that this is the correct answer either.

You speak about religion as though it offers an unchanging and immutable truth - but clearly this is not the case, as religion has been subject to many revisions in the past (through many, many different kinds of religions, with people who believed in them and ascribed to them every bit as much as you do your present religion). In this sense it is impossible to say that religion provides a complete and unchanging truth as there are almost as many versions of this 'truth' as there are people who believe it.

You claim that religion provides the fundamental answers about the creation of the Universe, about biology, about species and about the origins of human existence? But if religion was such a fixed and unchanging and complete answer, why have there been so many different versions of this answer in the past? Take a look here for example for a small selection of the great many creation legends and myths that have existed peviously, from all of the world, from life being born out of a lotus flower that sprung from the navel of a God (which is interesting possibly only insofar as the poetic imagery it contains) to man being created from the tear of a Sun God, to Adam being made from clay and Eve from one of his ribs - virtually nothing in religion has remained fixed or unchanged for very long. Almost everyone at some point or other has believed just as passionately as you do that their version of the truth was the correct and infallible and only possible one and that their beliefs and the various texts and practices within their religion had been divinely inspired and given to them by God.

Often it seems purely a an accident of geographic location and Birth, which version of religious 'truth' you are most likely to ascribe to. Take a child at birth from an Indian village where the prevailing faith is Sikhism and place him with a family in the heart of the American Mid West Bible belt and raise him entirely within that environment and statistically the likelihood is that he will become a fervent evangelical Christian. Take an American child from the same part of this country and place him with a devoutly religious Muslim family in Yemen in the Middle East - and the chances are that he will grow up to be a devout follower of the Muslim religion, take a Muslim child from this environment and place him with a Buddhist family in Tibet and it is likely that he will grow up to be a devout Buddhist. So it seems that whatever version of religion you ascribe to, it really is very random - and it is not something that is unchanging, or whole and complete, or that never has changed in the past, or that will never change again in the future. Religion has always changed and the assertions it has made have always changed also - and there is no reason to assume (given past evidence) that they won't continue to change in the future too.

Which rather begs the question, in that if God is infallible why are there now - and why have there been so many versions of the truth (or of his truth) in the past and why has this version of the truth so clearly changed throughout the course of human history? Also if God wishes his followers to follow a single and complete path, if he really is all powerful, why doesn't he make it much clearer to everyone exactly which version of the truth is the correct one? After all a Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Jew, or someone who subscribes to the Hindu religion are all as equally convinced as you are, as to the correctness of their views and about the divine origin of their texts and their beliefs. What guarantee (beyond the same guarantee that they have) do you have that you are correct and they are wrong? Their texts also almost undoubtedly tell them that their faith really is the 'true faith.' So again the choice seems very arbitrary.

At least if nothing else it is a demonstration that religion does not provide a full and complete answer about anything very much - and that often these versions of the 'truth' are so wildly different that it would be impossible for most rational people to decide which was the correct one (if any).

More than that, you say that religion provides 'the big answers' to the 'big questions' of biology, the creation of the Universe and the origin of species etc. - whereas clearly many of these assertions that religion has made have often at the very best been shown to be either incomplete, or entirely inaccurate.

In most creation stories, in most cases the underlying assertion is that God simply willed the Universe and life into existence - but it gives no discernable mechanism for this at all. A teardrop gave birth to man, a lotus flower gave birth to the Earth, the rib of a man was used to create woman - none of these give a real mechanisms for how such things could come to be.

But science takes a different approach. We start from a point of knowing nothing and with an acceptance that as we know nothing we must simply observe and when we have observed for a while, we try to describe what it is we have seen. By doing so it seems we have had a much better success rate in understanding the underlying causes of the origins of the Universe and of life and of the fundamental processes that govern everything that we see than religion has. From understanding subatomic particles, to gravity, to the way the stars and planets work, to the biology and origins of life, to the origins of the Universe itself (through the Big Bang), the success rate for science in addressing these fundamental questions has been nothing short of stellar when compared to the success rate of religion when addressing the same questions.

If God really was all seeing and all knowing, why really is there such a lack of physics, or mathematics, or chemistry, or biology or anything like that in many of these religious texts?

When finally we understand all there is to know about the workings of the human mind, of how life works and how to create life for ourselves in the laboratory and when science has a full and complete understanding of physics to such a degree that all of the underlying mechanisms of the Universe are known to us (even though this may take a very long time to achieve this), will it still be reasonable then to say that man was created from a handful of clay, or that the Universe was created by some unseen superbeing by simply wiggling their finger, or twitching their nose?

Scientist on the whole are patient people. Rather than treating life and the Universe as something that must be explained right away, they treat it rather like a vast jigsaw puzzle - by carefully examining the many millions upon millions of small parts and then carefully placing them together to form a much larger and much more complete picture.

So religion is neither as unchanging as you might think, nor does it provide the complete answer that you might think - and it also appears to be a completely arbitrary and random choice (in the absence of any conclusive evidence concerning which version is correct) as to which religion you ascribe to. Clearly these kind of random choices, without any really conclusive evidence to support them aren't really a good basis on which to found your own personal values and your own individual view of the world - since there is no guarantee at all that this view is correct.

What religion does still do however is allow you to feel important and significant and to feel that your life might have some kind of purpose. You may well find this comforting, but again just because something is comforting it is no measure at all as to whether or not it is in any way accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite

Ok, I understand what you're saying but I think it's my incapability to express my view entirely here that makes it look like I don't want to put my view across.

And rather than writing long essays, I prefer to leave long debates oral. But I have to say, you are quite patient if you had the time to write up all of the above.

I feel that by me ending this (never-ending) discussion, you may not understand my point fully. But arguing on the internet about creation/God/science is a tiresome feat. I hope to meet you one day in person to talk about these, but even then, my lack of knowledge in these areas may hinder my argument.

Thanks though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jebus197
OK, I understand what you're saying but I think it's my incapability to express my view entirely here that makes it look like I don't want to put my view across....

but even then, my lack of knowledge in these areas may hinder my argument.

Then my advice would be to fill in those gaps in your knowledge so that you can find a basis for the things you say you believe.

It is certainly not a good start to simply say that you 'believe something' but you cannot explain why you believe it, nor can you provide any actual evidence to support your beliefs.

So I would advise you to study science (and mathematics) as much as you can, to read as extensively and widely as you can about scientific topics and if you have the will or the ability, spend as much time as you can thinking and contemplating scientific subjects.

There is another excellent forum title in this section today that read:

Science that isn't overly complicated but detailed.

Well I would argue that it is both complicated and detailed. (Which is why it isn't always possible to discuss scientific topics in only one or two lines as many people might hope). The problem is that science takes a great deal of time and mental energy to study in order to understand it fully and properly - and really that to gain any genuine insight, it might take an entire lifetime of work and effort before you can make even a very little amount of progress.

But people don't always like to do this. They often seem to want quick and easily digestible answers.

So again my advice would be do not allow this to be said of you. Do not allow it to be said that you have simply taken the easiest and most convenient of all possible answers.

If you can be absolutely sure in your heart and be completely honest with yourself that you have looked hard at all of the possible answers and that you have thought about them and weighed them up and considered all of the evidence for and against them and all of the possible alternatives - and then at the end of this you still feel able to draw the same conclusions, then so be it. At least then your conclusions may be more meaningful than they would be if you had based them on a foundation of very little thought, or effort, or on virtually no work at all.

All real knowledge is often very hard won (at least the kind of knowledge that is most valuable to us), so in order to say you know something it is clear that you might have to work really very, very hard before you are able to say this with any certainty, or with any confidence at all.

Edited by jebus197
Link to post
Share on other sites
jackwanders
And how do you know that these werent concieved notions but God did actually reveal himself?

Are you suggesting that the God of Abraham revealed himself to the ancient egyptians as Atum-Ra or Amun? To the Romans as Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Pluto and Minerva? To the Babylonians as Ea, Anu and Anatu? To the hindu as Brahma?

If this is the case, why would God deceive these societies? And if he deceived them, what assurance do you have that he's not deceiving you?

If these societies simply misunderstood God, how can you know that you're not also misunderstanding him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
IrfanL

This thread have turned into a big debate over whether there is a God or not...

All I have to say is that there is still allot to be discovered & comprehended in this world. With every new discovery our understanding develops. May be with time and more knowledge we will be able to answer this question more accurately.

There have been many instances where science have helped furthering the understanding of a certain religion. And similarly, religion have given clues to science to establish facts...

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheElite
Are you suggesting that the God of Abraham revealed himself to the ancient egyptians as Atum-Ra or Amun? To the Romans as Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Pluto and Minerva? To the Babylonians as Ea, Anu and Anatu? To the hindu as Brahma?

If this is the case, why would God deceive these societies? And if he deceived them, what assurance do you have that he's not deceiving you?

If these societies simply misunderstood God, how can you know that you're not also misunderstanding him?

Do we know that the God('s) of the Egyptians, Romans, Babyloninans and Hindus were physical beings, and not just spiritual?

For instance, in the Muslim faith, Jesus is a prophet who is kept in high regard. It is believed that he was given powers by God, such as healing, bring back from dead (with God's permission) aswell as other numerous feats.

Now, no ordinary man in that time possessed these powers. He told the people to worship the one divine God, and instead, the Christians started worshipping him. They did this because they could not comprehend a man to perform these miracles so they thought Jesus himself, to be God.

How do we know that God did not send down prophets to the Egyptians, Romans, Babyloninans and Hindus and their ignorance led them to blasphemy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.