| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and uploads. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Science Vs. Religion; Self explanatory | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2008, 11:05 PM (287 Views) | |
| d0nk3y | May 17 2008, 03:38 AM Post #21 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
I'll keep it short, then. Most or all of organized religion is man-made, (they can't all be right). here were my thoughts reading through..
I'll let Hawkins and the rest take it from here because there hasn't been a consensus yet, but there are dozens of theories. But: god does not equal religion. Science is not defined in relation to god. If there was some force we could call god that was provable or falsifiable and significant it would be science, not really religion. This is where the separation occurs. Organized religion has given relatively little to humanity throughout our history. The question of whether a god created science pertains more to science than it does to religion (for good reason). To be clear, when I discuss religion I think about mono/polytheism, organized religion. Not a pantheistic sort of thing scientists often refer to. And you can say, quite easily, my god created all science. But I can say quite easily: my grandpa created all science. I'm not sure how he did it, or even where he came from, he's just always been around; he must have. short answer:
Yes, easily, but that doesn't mean it's relevant or necessary or useful or right. |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 17 2008, 04:00 AM Post #22 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
I'm sorry to be off-topic but I'd rather contribute to a topic than to bring up points I disagree with ![]() On the science of mathematics, math has been called the one true language because (given Peano's axioms) it is not really falsifiable. 1+1 must equal 2. Math is not man-made, like the Pythagorean theorem is not man-made, merely "discovered" by a man. It is universal but must be given some constraints for our understanding. Likewise, pi is not a man-made concept, which explains why it's called a transcendental number. It is the ratio of ALL circles' circumference to their respective diameters, and humans did not invent circles... Regarding Adam's latest post, which I forgot to mention, I guess it's more directed to Tim, (though I could formulate a reply if we want ;)). However, the point is useless for the topic at hand... Whether or not god created the very basic laws would have no serious repercussions other than perhaps re-defining god a little bit. The laws seem to exist and it's not exactly important as to why, right now.
|
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 19 2008, 08:04 PM Post #23 |
|
d0nk3y, I do not understand your reasoning. If nothing existed for all eternity, how did we arrive at something? I'm trying to assert that there was nothing and then there was something, or there was something eternal and then there was something. It seems to me that you want to trace everything back to nothing. If that's the case, then we would have nothing now. At any given point in time, it is impossible for nothing transform into something. Extrapolated over an infinite amount of time, it is still impossible. Since we are here, however, something must have always existed, and that something must have been able to directly or indirectly cause what we see around us. |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 31 2008, 05:29 PM Post #24 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
My reasoning was very clear above. I cannot say if anything existed for eternity, or how things began if it didn't. IF the universe began with the big bang, it is not important what happened before, because for practicality's sake, time 'begins' around 16 billion years ago. It very well may have been an infinite cycle. And then you say, where did the first universe come from. And I say where did the first God come from? And you say something like god created himself because he is logical. And I say something to that effect for the universe. Then I point out that in science, singularities occur... mechanical, gravitational, etc. Quantum mechanics REQUIRES "virtual particles" to constantly pop into and out of existence, nearly instantly, but they can react with other particles. I don't know if this had anything to do with the beginning of the universe. One small "error" in the universe may have sparked the chain reaction, the cosmological accident that you so adamantly do not exist in. |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | Jun 2 2008, 02:31 PM Post #25 |
|
It seems to me that you ignore anything before the big bang. Do you not think about it because it is irrelevant? Do you not consider it because you can't explain it? Of course I don't say that God created himself. That's ridiculous. I say he always existed. I say that he is eternal, the one thing that didn't need creating. And if you say that the universe created itself, then you are not an atheist. You are a pantheist, and the universe is your god. And then where do you reside in the religion vs. science topic? You cannot separate the two. I apologize for the personal tone, but I don't know how else to ask personal questions. Please know that I'm not agitated or upset, but mostly curious. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Philosophy & Debate · Next Topic » |








8:55 AM Jul 11