Science?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pope declares evolution & Big Bang are right & God isn't a magician with a magic wand
- Thread starter statham
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Science?
Are you seriously asking me that question really what made you think I was talking about science or are you not interested in reading.Science?
Are you seriously asking me that question really what made you think I was talking about science or are you not interested in reading.
You said as there is no evidence.
There is. It's called science
Lord Thrappleper The 49th
Member
You said as there is no evidence.
There is. It's called science
Prove Science exists.
Lovely send me link to a journal that has the results to the experiment that proves/disproves the existence of God. I hope everyone else understands what I meant as you don't.You said as there is no evidence.
There is. It's called science
Those are the rules of the universe. God's love is not human love, we can't judge him in human terms as he's not human, we should fight for a better world the most we can and Jesus told us that in the name of god (it's hard to argue with Jesus principles, even without being a christian at all) he also told us to respect and love other people because we can and to be near God that's the choice we must choose, however we're not above his plans (with plans meaning, well, something, the order of the universe, something far beyond our comprension) nor above nature, nor above consequences of our acts themselves. Life itself is a gift, something most matter in the universe won't experience. Thta's god gift for us, and tht includes darkness, evil, suffering, that's life, and while we, as caring humans, should fight for a better world, we must understand that those aspects exist for a reason, whatever it is. And we'll never understand it, after all, we're just a bunch of atoms. Good is what we can do ourselves, and that brings us near him. That's faith.A being of love wouldnt have such a failure rate with life itself. A being of love wouldnt have earthquakes. He wouldnt have plagues. These things only make sense in a natural uncaring universe. A loving god wouldnt create that
Yes, we sent him to bring the Catholic church down from the inside. The plan was put in pla...Atheist pope in sheep's clothing
I've said too much already.
dapperbandit
Banned
You said as there is no evidence.
There is. It's called science
Disclaimer; this post is heavily paraphrasing conversations I have had in philosophy classes and with those same people years later. I'm summarizing memorable talking points within a conversation not books I've read.
Okay so;
Science, as yet, does not provide a coherent and complete understanding of how the universe began.
Of course, there's the big bang, but generally in science there is a cause for a reaction, and a cause for that, and so on. But what caused the big bang? According to relativity, matter is strictly relative to time. If there was no matter before there was a big bang, there was no time either. So definitely no universe before a big a bang. Then we are still left asking ourselves why there was a big bang, why and how did the universe come into being in the first place? This is where a theist who isn't a creationist caricature would argue that God is actually the logical explanation.
Disclaimer; this post is heavily paraphrasing conversations I have had in philosophy classes and with those same people years later. I'm summarizing memorable talking points within a conversation not books I've read.
Okay so;
Science, as yet, does not provide a coherent and complete understanding of how the universe began.
Of course, there's the big bang, but generally in science there is a cause for a reaction, and a cause for that, and so on. But what caused the big bang? According to relativity, matter is strictly relative to time. If there was no matter before there was a big bang, there was no time either. So definitely no universe before a big a bang. Then we are still left asking ourselves why there was a big bang, why and how did the universe come into being in the first place? This is where a theist who isn't a creationist caricature would argue that God is actually the logical explanation.
If you believe everything has a cause, then you have to logically ask yourself what was the cause for God. You can't just apply that to the universe but then exempt God from the same logical standard.
dapperbandit
Banned
If you believe everything has a cause, then you have to logically ask yourself what was the cause for God. You can't just apply that to the universe but then exempt God from the same logical standard.
And that's where I run into a brick wall with that argument. Supposedly we know the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. To say this suggests that there was a time when the universe was far less than that, say, a couple of weeks old. The whole, there was nothing before time thing starts to melt my brain here, and then it gets worse when you chuck in the theist argument. Like, if God created the universe, why did he not do it 23.7 billion years ago, or 33.7 billion years ago if he has always existed? The whole thing just turns my mind to mush.
Son of Sam
Banned
ok, a step in the right direction.
And that's where I run into a brick wall with that argument. Supposedly we know the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. To say this suggests that there was a time when the universe was far less than that, say, a couple of weeks old. The whole, there was nothing before time thing starts to melt my brain here, and then it gets worse when you chuck in the theist argument. Like, if God created the universe, why did he not do it 23.7 billion years ago, or 33.7 billion years ago if he has always existed? The whole thing just turns my mind to mush.
It becomes even more complex with the realization that time may not have even existed prior to the appearance of the universe.
Son of Sam
Banned
Do you guys think we'll be any closer to answering these questions before humans go extinct?
What questions?
Disclaimer; this post is heavily paraphrasing conversations I have had in philosophy classes and with those same people years later. I'm summarizing memorable talking points within a conversation not books I've read.
Okay so;
Science, as yet, does not provide a coherent and complete understanding of how the universe began.
Of course, there's the big bang, but generally in science there is a cause for a reaction, and a cause for that, and so on. But what caused the big bang? According to relativity, matter is strictly relative to time. If there was no matter before there was a big bang, there was no time either. So definitely no universe before a big a bang. Then we are still left asking ourselves why there was a big bang, why and how did the universe come into being in the first place? This is where a theist who isn't a creationist caricature would argue that God is actually the logical explanation.
Yes, god of the gapes. Just because there isn't a solid provable explanation does not mean a creator was responsible. The religious have been trying to fit in "well that means god did it" every chance they get but then the proof comes out and they move on to something else.
As for the prior to big bang question, lawrence krauss argues that it came from nothing. Yes, space came from nothing because nothing isn't really nothing and quantum fluctuations dictate that something can pop out of... nothing. I know confusing. Read his book. http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451624468/?tag=neogaf0e-20
What questions?
The ones people are asking on this page about the true origins of the universe.
CadetMahoney
Member
It's amazing watching religion actively evolve in order to try and stay relevant.
If by Evolve you mean change the goalposts and thereabouts, then yea, it s fascinating.
Soon everything will be an allegory to allow things to "coexist", the Old Testament has been relegated to poetry and metaphor status. Which is a shame really.
If you believe everything has a cause, then you have to logically ask yourself what was the cause for God. You can't just apply that to the universe but then exempt God from the same logical standard.
Correct. Also, even if you were to ignore this and pretend that God is a logical answer, you have to determine which god. How do we know it's the loving Christian god and not one that wishes us to act in a manner completely opposite to what a Christian one would like of us.
Science, as yet, does not provide a coherent and complete understanding of how the universe began.
Gaps in scientific knowledge is not evidence for God, It's simply a gap in knowledge. This is basically a 'god of the gaps' argument, which is highly dubious.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
If you believe everything has a cause, then you have to logically ask yourself what was the cause for God. You can't just apply that to the universe but then exempt God from the same logical standard.
The philosophical argument goes -
Premise 1. All things that are contingent require a cause or "reason to be the way they are, rather than some other way"
Premise 2. The universe is contingent
C: The universe requires a cause
Then the trick is showing that god is necessary, not contingent. There are extensive writings arguing about this. There is also discussion on why the universe is contingent, not necessary. And although there obviously isn't total agreement between all philosophers, it is at least a topic that has been tackled, and the writings are there for you to read about them.
Here are some open resources from Stanford on this and related topics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.1
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
Lovely send me link to a journal that has the results to the experiment that proves/disproves the existence of God. I hope everyone else understands what I meant as you don't.
Why does science have to prove or disprove God?
Part of science job is to provide evidence for claims it makes. And there is zero scientific evidence that supports your claim. Zero
You are the one who choose to ignore the evidence , because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of God.
Remove the preconceived notion of God and there is evidence everywhere.
Why does science have to prove or disprove God?
Part of science job is to provide evidence for claims it makes. And there is zero scientific evidence that supports your claim. Zero
You are the one who choose to ignore the evidence , because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of God.
Remove the preconceived notion of God and there is evidence everywhere.
Science can't prove or disprove god. This has been argue extensively for centuries.
Those are the rules of the universe. God's love is not human love, we can't judge him in human terms as he's not human, we should fight for a better world the most we can and Jesus told us that in the name of god (it's hard to argue with Jesus principles, even without being a christian at all) he also told us to respect and love other people because we can and to be near God that's the choice we must choose, however we're not above his plans (with plans meaning, well, something, the order of the universe, something far beyond our comprension) nor above nature, nor above consequences of our acts themselves. Life itself is a gift, something most matter in the universe won't experience. Thta's god gift for us, and tht includes darkness, evil, suffering, that's life, and while we, as caring humans, should fight for a better world, we must understand that those aspects exist for a reason, whatever it is. And we'll never understand it, after all, we're just a bunch of atoms. Good is what we can do ourselves, and that brings us near him. That's faith.
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures
Your answer is also wrong. God was human according to Catholics. He was Jesus. He experienced humanity. Yet, the Catholic church has only recently decided that good non Christians can get into heaven. Something I dont think Jesus intended. He came to bring the sword, turn family against each other, and for his followers to abandon their families and possessions in the higher service, of following him.
Just think of the terrible moral lesson that this is attempting to instil in humanity:
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
We were not created in friendship. We were created, according to all Abrhamic faiths, to worship and submit to god. (As represented by humans on earth who have no interest in power at all pinky swear)
Again, the Catholic church wants to have its cake and eat it too. The idea behind the god of the big bang and evolution, is distinctly different to the god of the bible, the torah and the quran. God went from often and liberally interferring into the lives of humanity. Why did he stop? We started wising up, and having demands for evidence. So that god is diminished, disregarded, and evacuated to a safe distance away from scientific scrutiny.
Now, religion wants to claim it is the 'why' not the how? Convenient. But science is just as interested in why things happen, as to how they happen. Theyre connected. And religion attempting to redraw the line continuously makes it clear that it is nothing but faith, that for years tried to masquerade as fact.
God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world"
A cold scared primate trying to understand death. God didnt bring it. God is good. The Devil brought death. Even here, science teaches us that death is just a natural final part of life. Something all species and all life eventually fades to.
All this crap is taken from the Catechism.
The Catholic church believes in this god. Yet attempts to reconcile him with the god of 'nature' that seems to not exist. A god that loves us, yet shows us no signs of his existence. A god that created all life, but did so in a manner that needs no god at all.
Occams razor. The simplest answer is usually the right one. Looking at the evidence, its clear that the simplest answer is that there is no god, least of all in the Abrahamic sense. No eternal force. No loving creator. No master planner. No father figure.
Because eventually science will find out what caused life to begin on this planet, and the origin of the big bang. Where will god hide then? Is there anything left for him after that? This god also falls completely outside of his own laws, these 'grand events' he set in motion. As it relys on the phallacy that all creation needs a creator. That something cannot emerge from nothing. While neatly absolving god of that particular necessity.
Disclaimer; this post is heavily paraphrasing conversations I have had in philosophy classes and with those same people years later. I'm summarizing memorable talking points within a conversation not books I've read.
Okay so;
Science, as yet, does not provide a coherent and complete understanding of how the universe began.
Of course, there's the big bang, but generally in science there is a cause for a reaction, and a cause for that, and so on. But what caused the big bang? According to relativity, matter is strictly relative to time. If there was no matter before there was a big bang, there was no time either. So definitely no universe before a big a bang. Then we are still left asking ourselves why there was a big bang, why and how did the universe come into being in the first place? This is where a theist who isn't a creationist caricature would argue that God is actually the logical explanation.
Cool post man .
I just saw Stephen Hawking in Netflix that tackles almost the same Q. Let me see if I can dig it out
Science can't prove or disprove god. This has been argue extensively for centuries.
And it's not its job because it's not making the claim .
I think hes still in the 'Created in Gods Image' camp.He added: He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.
And it's not its job because it's not making the claim .
And the church claims that is a matter of faith. And you said there is evidence in science.
And the church claims that is a matter of faith.
Yes. Because they have made god undisprovable.
Now, religion wants to claim it is the 'why' not the how? Convenient. But science is just as interested in why things happen, as to how they happen..
Science is not interested in the human quest for purpose. This is not a scientific endeavor.
Son of Sam
Banned
And the church claims that is a matter of faith. And you said there is evidence in science.
Faith-one of the worst words in language.
Science is not interested in the human quest for purpose. This is not a scientific endeavor.
First of all, it can be if it wants to.
Second of all, thats not my point. Why is the main thing science is about. Why is there lightning? Why is there life? Why is the universe the way it is? Science begins with these questions then seeks the how to explain them.
Faith-one of the worst fucking words in language.
I don't think it is. You need faith to do science. You may not like religious faith, but belief in one's own efforts beyond what is currently possible is what drives human beings.
Yes, we sent him to bring the Catholic church down from the inside. The plan was put in pla...
I've said too much already.
Well you might have blown it now!
Son of Sam
Banned
I don't think it is. You need faith to do science. You may not like religious faith, but belief in one's own efforts beyond what is currently possible is what drives human beings.
No. I would use confidence or belief in those instances. The word FAITH, is my most disliked word in language.
First of all, it can be if it wants to.
Second of all, thats not my point. Why is the main thing science is about. Why is there lightning? Why is there life? Why is the universe the way it is? Science begins with these questions then seeks the how to explain them.
No, it can't. Science cannot create fulfillment in a person's life. It can prolong it. It can fascinate. However, it doesn't come with a set of guidelines for becoming happy.
Your point was that science answers many "why" questions, but when a person says "Why are we here?", he is not looking for an answer that involves a biological process.
First of all, it can be if it wants to.
Second of all, thats not my point. Why is the main thing science is about. Why is there lightning? Why is there life? Why is the universe the way it is? Science begins with these questions then seeks the how to explain them.
Huh? it has its rules and it's inherent limits. If you do "what you want" you stop doing science.
No. I would use confidence or belief in those instances. The word FAITH, is my most disliked word in language.
John 20:29 - Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Son of Sam
Banned
No, it can't. Science cannot create fulfillment in a person's life. It can prolong it. It can fascinate. However, it doesn't come with a set of guidelines for becoming happy.
Your point was that science answers many "why" questions, but when a person says "Why are we here?", he is not looking for an answer that involves a biological process.
And your alternative is to have some guy TELL you why you're here with no proof? Hmm.. i'll stick to making my own purpose in life. Thanks science.
And the church claims that is a matter of faith.
Church : (faith) we came from Adam and Eve
Science: (evidence)no we didn't , we evolve from
Why do I need faith. When there is evidence to believe otherwise .
Some religion had "faith" rain dance caused rain. Some still have faith in that ritual because they choose to ignore the evidence.
And your alternative is to have some guy TELL you why you're here with no proof? Hmm.. i'll stick to making my own purpose in life. Thanks science.
You're certainly welcome to do that, but you can't call it science.
No, it can't. Science cannot create fulfillment in a person's life. It can prolong it. It can fascinate. However, it doesn't come with a set of guidelines for becoming happy.
Your point was that science answers many "why" questions, but when a person says "Why are we here?", he is not looking for an answer that involves a biological process.
And yet the biological process answers that question. It can create fufillment. It can make people happy.
Faith is inherently a matter of choice, yes.Church : (faith) we came from Adam and Eve
Science: (evidence)no we didn't , we evolve from
Why do I need faith. When there is evidence to believe otherwise .
Some religion had "faith" rain dance caused rain. Some still have faith in that ritual because they choose to ignore the evidence.
And yet the biological process answers that question. It can create fufillment. It can make people happy.
What does it answers?
What does it answers?
It answers where we came from and why we are here. Two pretty big questions with quite simple answers.
And yet the biological process answers that question. It can create fufillment. It can make people happy.
No, it does not.
Science is there so people can find out new things about the world and beyond through tireless research and testing.
This has nothing to do with someone's emotional, spiritual, or any other kind of fulfillment.
Once science claims it has all the answers for everyone to be happy, it's just another religion. Luckily, it hasn't done that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.