REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
this is part of the reason why i am against a "beginning"... i don't believe something can just "come from nothing"

I agree with you - I don't believe that something can just come from nothing. I should prob. not use the word "beginning" - that's a good point.

the logical alternative is something must have always been...

Exactly! Which is part of the definition of God - a being that has "always been".

... in my mind this something is matter and energy...

OK - as long as you don't object to putting God in the same list as "matter and energy" as being candidates for having 'always been', then I have no argument with you

things we can observe... and also things which are simple... not a supreme being

Here is where we differ, and there is no logical reason to assume either your candidate or mine. There are, however, things that definitely point to God as being the more logical choice - one of which is that given what we observe around us, it is by FAR the more logical guess that complexity comes from intelligence and intent. Why would you suggest that something simple is the better choice for the "always been" thing? esp. given that we both agree that the things we see now, including incredibly complex things, are a result of that "always been" thing? To me, God seems the more logical choice. I see no reason why a simple thing should be a more logical choice.

and since the timescale is infinite, any development of any complexity is possible... and in fact, all developments are probable... and may even all exist, as nurv has said to an extent... we, however, only can observe the one we exist in

Ah, infinity solves everything! *with fond memories of Carl Sagan*

Well, really, infinity requires a sense of time, and God is even independent of time, which is another point in His favor ...

And we don't know that the timescale is infinite - you're assuming something. In fact, acc'd to the Bible, it seems that time will have an end.

Why do you say that given infinite time that any development is possible, even probable? That is NOT a given for all situations. Time is not a magic bullet. For example, a bacterium will NEVER be able to design and construct a 100-story building, even given infinite time. And a created being will NEVER be able to create its own creator, even given infinite time. Be careful of the "infinity solves everything" mindset. It is NOT necessarily true, IMO, altho it sounds good at first listen.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Here is where we differ, and there is no logical reason to assume either your candidate or mine. There are, however, things that definitely point to God as being the more logical choice - one of which is that given what we observe around us, it is by FAR the more logical guess that complexity comes from intelligence and intent. Why would you suggest that something simple is the better choice for the "always been" thing? esp. given that we both agree that the things we see now, including incredibly complex things, are a result of that "always been" thing? To me, God seems the more logical choice. I see no reason why a simple thing should be a more logical choice.

but if a being as complex as god can just "be there" with no cause, there are really no rules at all... anything is possible at the drop of a hat

it seems a much shorter leap to say complexity can actually develop from something less complex

For example, a bacterium will NEVER be able to design and construct a 100-story building, even given infinite time. And a created being will NEVER be able to create its own creator, even given infinite time. Be careful of the "infinity solves everything" mindset. It is NOT necessarily true, IMO, altho it sounds good at first listen.

i think our ancestral bacterium would be quite impressed by what we can do these days... but that is another thread

[Nurvingiel]

Woah woah woah, back the pony up.

This thread moves way too fast some times. Anyway, I don't feel attacked in the slightest, thanks everyone for taking such an interest in my worldview!

A little background: I've only been thinking about this for a couple years, and more formally for about one year. But hey, I'm young. As far as I know, my worldview does not actually contain contradictory statements.

Some notes: I use "the Creator" and "God" interchangeably. I use the pronoun "She" arbitrarily to refer to both, just to remain consistent with proper sentence structure, not because I think God has a gender.

Sentience: We do lack a great deal of knowledge in this field. As far as I understand, sentience is the ability to make moral decisions - a level of higher thought. I use the word in this context, though I acknowledge there could be many more aspects to sentience than we currently understand. I also use "person" to refer to anyone with sentience.


Since I was giving the gist of it, there are a few points I didn't explain correctly. There are two important one's that occur to me at the moment.

1. Creating the Creator that Created you: I can see how you misunderstood this, but when I said something like "if you believe in God then she will exist in that certain way that you imagine her", I did not mean you were actually creating God.

To properly understand, we have to back up one step. All thoughts exist by either having existed already, or coming into physical existence by your having thought them. But where did all those thoughts originate in the first place? They come from God. Now this gets into a point that I still need to hash out:

Are there a finite amount of thoughts, all made by God, or did God give some beings sentience so they could make their own thoughts?

I also think that all beings are connected to the Creator. Therefore, God's thoughts can pass through us, causing us to "think" them. We also have our own sentience, causing us to have original thoughts, or we can expand on one of God's thoughts. (This part of the theory is relatively new, which is why I give an alternate theory earlier. I like the theory of original thoughts and sentience better.)

Therefore, if someone has their own image of the Creator, they did not actually create God. One of two things occurs:

A. Their particular manifestation of God already existed. Since the person is connected to God, as all beings are, this manifestation could occur to them in a way that they recognize and believe it. (The same manifestation could occur to everyone, but not everyone will necessarily recognize the thought for what it is, or identify with it.)

B. The manifestation of the Creator is actually original. However in this case, the person created a new manifestation of God, not God itself. God already existed, and now has another face (in addition to the many that already existed.) God is made richer and more diverse by the beings that she created.


2. Multiple Dimensions: This is what I consider to be the "fringe" aspect of my worldview. Since the Universe is infinite and all things are possible, it makes sense that they can exist in multiple dimensions. It also makes sense that there is only one dimension, and any new thought would be added somewhere else in the Universe. At the scale that we're talking about here - it doesn't matter if it's multiple dimensions or not.

Of course we can't prove multiple dimensions exist. But let's take it in context here. We don't even have the ability to physically leave our own solar system. Our knowledge of the Universe amounts to slightly less than jack squat. So while we can't prove that multiple dimensions exist, we also can't prove they do not exist.

Since there was a great deal of meaningful material added, I probably missed a few valid points that were worth addressing. If I did, restate them and I will respond. (Now I know what it's like to be RÃ*an. )

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
that sounds like me

i'm actually not even too keen on the big bang thing... stephen hawking had an interesting theory on a somewhat cyclical universe (though even he claimed it was more of a exercise in theory then something he really believed)

my belief is that there is no beginning or end... and that theories like the big bang or creationism are just reflections of mankind's inability to grasp the infinite

That sounds like the Big Bang is something that somebody sitting around just thought up as a possible explanation of the origin of the Universe, but that's not what happened at all, at all.

The Big Bang is, AFAIK, a unique cosmogony- no previous creation stories postulated a Universe that started from a single point and is still growing. Classical Newtonian physics assumed the Universe to be infinite and (with the occasional nod to Genesis) eternal.

(This led to a problem called Olber's paradox, which says if that is the case then the entire night sky should be a solid mass of starlight)

As hard as it may be to imagine now, as recently as 80 years ago we had no knowledge of other galaxies- their existence was first proven by Edwin Hubble (yep, the one the space telescope is named after) in 1924.

Hubble also noted that light from the galaxies was shifted towards the red, and the farther away the redder. This was due to the Doppler effect, and meant that all the galaxies were moving away from us - and from each other- with the farthest ones moving the fastest.

This led to the astonishing conclusion that the Universe was expanding (actually Einstein had already predicted that the Universe could not be static)

Two alternate theories were proposed to explain this- one, the Steady-State Theory, maintained that the Universe was infinite and eternal, and that the matter created between the galaxies formed into new galaxies, without any change in the appearance of the Cosmos.

The other, derisively nicknamed the"Big Bang" by one of its opponents (Sir Fred Hoyle, later in/famous for his panspermia theories), said that if you ran the expansion backward through time, you would come to a single original point.

This was confirmed in 1965 by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the leftover noise from the Big Bang. The two discoverers (Wilson and Penzias) at Bell Laboratories were not looking for this; in fact they spent months trying to get rid of what they thought was interference, including sending people up to the lab's roofs to scare away the pigeons roosting around their antennae.

So the Big Bang was not just a hypothesis thought up as a possible origin of the Universe- it was a theory developed to explain actual observations that had to accounted for.

And any alternate theory has to account for them just as well- so far, none has done so, though there are alternates around (I mean scientific theories, NOT creationism.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
So the Big Bang was not just a hypothesis thought up as a possible origin of the Universe- it was a theory developed to explain actual observations that had to accounted for.

And any alternate theory has to account for them just as well- so far, none has done so, though there are alternates around (I mean scientific theories, NOT creationism.)

i'm well-aware of big bang theory and didn't mean to imply that it had as little basis as creationism... that said, it is a theory none-the-less and may be turned completely upside down by future discoveries

there are some for instance who theorize that olber's paradox can be solved by the fact that nearby stars shield the radiation to a certain extent from the more distant stars

much like evolutionism (which i do consider the best theory to date), there is a tendency these days to say... there is so much supporting evidence for the big bang that it might as well be a fact... by doing this you make the same error creationists do by refusing to question your most basic premise

if you ask a creationist "is it possible god does not exist", i would bet that few if any would say yes

if you ask a scientist "is it possible the big bang theory is completely wrong", anyone worthy of their profession would say yes

as i'm sure you are aware... most ground-breaking theories are made by those who have the ability to throw out all past assumptions

[Rían]

GrayMouser, did you see my response to your "I weigh 400 pounds on a truck scale" post? Could you please respond - I'd like your opinion on my analysis- thanks

(you could prob. do a search with my name and "scale" if you don't want to search back)

[Rían]

if you ask an evolutionist "is it possible that macroevolution did not happen," I would bet that few if any would say yes.


I agree with your: "as i'm sure you are aware... most ground-breaking theories are made by those who have the ability to throw out all past assumptions", brownie. And I've seen an absolutely paralyzing inability to throw out macroevolution on the evolutionists' part.

[brownjenkins]

so do you agree that for creationism to be a true science one must be willing to question even the existance of god?

i admit that many scientists (or those that ascribe to the scientific viewpoint) have a hard time questioning long-held theories... that said, there are many who do (me included )... and most others would grudgingly accept a change if given enough evidence

i know of absolutely no creationists who would do that... i'd like to be proven wrong on this assumption

[Rían]

I don't think creationism is a science, Brownie. Neither is evolutionism. They are both theories developed by scientists. There are biological aspects to both theories, and aspects that relate to physics, and aspects that relate to chemistry, etc. A true science, IMO, is something like physics and biology and chemistry.




(note the similarities between the following 2 paragraphs):

If some scientists that think creationism is the best theory and want to hang onto that, then that's fine, as long as their scientific work has integrity, and makes clear what parts are testable and what parts are theoretical and non-testable.

If some scientists that think evolution is the best theory and want to hang onto that, then that's fine, as long as their scientific work has integrity, and makes clear what parts are testable and what parts are theoretical and non-testable.





(note the similarities between the following 2 paragraphs):

Creationists' non-testable basic assumption is that things came about fully formed and intentionally designed and in basically the same forms as they are today. They think this is true and use this idea to derive the various sub-theories that ARE testable. But not every idea is testable, because we're talking about things in the past.

Evolutionists' non-testable basic assumption is that things came about from non-life, then to simple, one-celled life, then up and up getting more complex via non-intentional, natural processes (macroevolution). They think this is true and use this idea to derive the various sub-theories that ARE testable. But not every idea is testable, because we're talking about things in the past.

[Rían]

whoops - I'm sorry, O-thread-starter-Ruinel, I forgot what thread I was on again I was just trying to answer questions that people asked me.



Nurvi - I'm still thinking about your post

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
but if a being as complex as god can just "be there" with no cause, there are really no rules at all... anything is possible at the drop of a hat

No, there are quite a few rules. Try dropping that hat and seeing what happens.

If your complaint is NOT about a non-caused thing existing, but rather about the complexity of the non-caused thing, what are you basing that objection on? Why do you say that non-caused matter and energy can exist, but then say it can't exist in the form of a complex being such as God? Complexity is a relative thing; is there some kind of scale of complexity and you set a limit somewhere and say "everything on THIS side of the line is permissible; everything on the OTHER side is NOT because it's too complex."? What do you base that objection on, and how do you justify having a limit set on complexity? I don't see any relationship between a complex God existing and there being NO rules, and simple matter and energy existing and there BEING rules.

Things that are logical contradictions are the things that break the rules. If there is not logical thinking, then we can't say anything about anything.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
GrayMouser, did you see my response to your "I weigh 400 pounds on a truck scale" post? Could you please respond - I'd like your opinion on my analysis- thanks

(you could prob. do a search with my name and "scale" if you don't want to search back)

I didn't see that post (and no time to search) but I would imagine that your incorrect weight of 400 pounds on a trucks scale would be due to the precision of the scale.

To weigh a 9 tonne truck with the desired degree of precision, +/- 400 pounds is fine. This isn't good enough to way a 140 (or whatever) pound person, which is why your bathroom scale is precice to within 1 or 2 pounds I would imagine.

The same thing applies to carbon dating (if that's what you were getting at in your original post). It's precise to within 200 years I believe. Fine when measuring 10 000 year old petrified wood, but obviously not good enough if it tells me I'm 220 years old. It's all relative.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't think creationism is a science, Brownie. Neither is evolutionism. They are both theories developed by scientists. There are biological aspects to both theories, and aspects that relate to physics, and aspects that relate to chemistry, etc. A true science, IMO, is something like physics and biology and chemistry.

I agree with this statement, except one minor quibble - Creationism, obviously, wasn't developped solely by scientists. This certainly doesn't make the theory any less valid, but it's worth noting.

I also notice, and agree with, the similarities between the two paragraphs between the two examples.

But why are you debating Creationism here? There's a very excellent thread for that relegated to the 3rd page. Give it a bump, it deserves is.

Take your time on my post RÃ*an, no worries.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't think creationism is a science, Brownie. Neither is evolutionism. They are both theories developed by scientists. There are biological aspects to both theories, and aspects that relate to physics, and aspects that relate to chemistry, etc. A true science, IMO, is something like physics and biology and chemistry.

i figured you wouldn't want to answer my last question

scientific theories must always be questioned to their very foundations, whether it be gravitational theory or evolutionary theory... we see this especially in the realm of "unified theories" where predictions are very accurate in many situations, but not in others

if you are not willing to question the framework, you are not a scientist... you're just a well-educated preacher

sorry for the evolution stuff nurv... somehow it went that way

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i figured you wouldn't want to answer my last question

I did answer it

What's the point of questioning if God exists in a scientific matter, anyway? The vast majority of scientists take macroevolution as THEIR unproven assumption; thank goodness a few brave scientists are willing to buck the trend and take another unproven assumption to base theories on. This is good for the field, IMO.

if you are not willing to question the framework, you are not a scientist... you're just a well-educated preacher

Keep preachin' macroevolution, evolution preachers!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What's the point of questioning if God exists in a scientific matter, anyway? The vast majority of scientists take macroevolution as THEIR unproven assumption; thank goodness a few brave scientists are willing to buck the trend and take another unproven assumption to base theories on. This is good for the field, IMO.

Go discuss Creationism in the Creationism thread. Keep it alive! *shoos RÃ*an and Brownie to the Creationism thread, while at the same time, keeping them here so we can talk about other aspects of religion*
There is a point of wondering whether or not God exists in a scientific way - it just depends on your thought process, and how you view the world.

Keep preachin' macroevolution, evolution preachers!

I hear ya sister!

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I did answer it

i meant it as a yes/no question... i didn't see anything close

i will repost here, and you can answer if you like

true science

[Rían]

I didn't answer it with a yes or a no because I didn't think it would have been properly answered with a yes/no, which I tried to explain... but apparently didn't do a good job at! I'll answer it over on the other thread

[Rían]

Nurvi, a coupla quick questions for you to hopefully get to this weekend. I usually can't post on weekends, so I thought I'd ask you some questions instead

About your posts on your beliefs -

1. Do you think those beliefs are true? I mean, if you could be sitting somewhere where you could see everything, would these things have actually happened?

2. Why do you think they're true, if you think they are? IOW, what would you tell someone if they asked why you think they're true?

3. If you don't think they're true, why did you bring them up? (I mean this in a nice way )

I'll try to check this weekend for your responses.

[Rían]

I'm bumping the thread up, in case Nurvi didn't see my post.

[Mercutio]

Does anyone here read the journals "Touchstone" or "First Things"?