2010-05-13, 12:17 | Link #2401 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 35
|
That's not my point. I assume that you are capable of those things. Rather, some scientists would say that the creation of the universe is still within the bounds of their field, even if we do not understand every facet of the subject. So in their eyes religion and science can't coexist, since religion presumes to know the answer without using the scientific method.
|
2010-05-13, 13:20 | Link #2402 | |
Yuri µ'serator
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: FL, USA
Age: 36
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-05-13, 13:21 | Link #2403 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
So yes, religion presumes to know an answer. But that doesn't mean that science is trying to answer the same question. |
|
2010-05-13, 14:25 | Link #2406 |
Stüldt Hĺjt!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: On the corner
Age: 34
|
I'm an atheist. Better yet, you could say I'm an anti-theist.
That's not a religion, though. Atheism is not a religion, either. On some days I do believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. |
2010-05-13, 14:51 | Link #2407 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 35
|
Sure, but that's an analogy. It is a tool for illustrating understanding. It doesn't mean anything, factually. In the case of the universe's creation, I would say the criteria of relevance is quite a bit different from baking a cake...
|
2010-05-13, 15:16 | Link #2408 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Okay, how about going directly into the matter: I say God created the universe. You say the universe came to be when a big explosion scattered matter and energy into space which formed stars, planets, etc. (Substitute as necessary with whatever the current scientific theory is right now.) Do you see how the second statement is irrelevant to the first statement? The second statement neither confirms nor denies nor has anything to do with the first statement. Just like describing how a cake was made has nothing to do with the statement that someone prepared the cake. |
|
2010-05-13, 15:23 | Link #2410 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
That depends. By Christian definition, God is not a creation, so no one and nothing created him.
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-13, 15:40 | Link #2411 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 67
|
hmmmm, I'm going to recommend some study of philosophy or logic as that's a recursive dead end: "its elephants all the way down" in another form. Basically, you're asserting God as an axiom (unproven assertion) to this belief system, the lattice on which you build other ideas on. Problem is, unlike geometric axioms which can be tested for self-consistency and usually have implicit assumptions under them (like the space you're working in is flat) - there's no test for this axiom. It is taken on "faith" in the true meaning of the word.
As for the Big Bang Theory, the "Here be Dragons" line keeps getting pushed back every year with new data or better models.
__________________
|
2010-05-13, 15:43 | Link #2412 |
Banned
|
That is a paradox here, if everything is caused by something and that something is caused by something else, then indeed it appears that even God making the cosmos for a reason (out of love for example) is not enough of an explanation. Why did he made the cosmos at a specific time (the beginning of time)? He didn't love it before that? Being outside of time is not an excuse either. If the world is supposed to end one day then will the cosmos disappear? Is the chain of reaction going to stop there? So what, the devil is the reason there is cause and causality when all God wanted was to perform an action without reaction?
All the above seem to contradict anything you may think and it all comes down to perceiving time as a linear portion. That is a line with a beginning and an end. But as I stated on another topic, (http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=89061) if time is not perceived as linear but as a dot (zero dimensions) then everything makes sense. Just think about it. The answers will pop up by themselves. |
2010-05-13, 15:49 | Link #2413 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Indeed.
Quote:
|
|
2010-05-13, 21:15 | Link #2419 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Gaijinland
|
Sometime ago I thought about this problem about causality, and came to the conclusion there are only two possible explanations:
1) The universe came to existence by itself, without a creator (which I think is kinda strange, because we don't see newer Big-bangs. I mean, if there was the first one, there should be others as well). 2) The universe had a creator, who came to existence by himself. |
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
Thread Tools | |
|
|