Science and God (One and the same?) » Forum Post by Gh0st

Sorry, misread what you said. But it's the same for all religions, that's part of what makes them a religion, belief in the unseen or unexplained. If it was seen and explained then it's fact, not religion.

Religion is a set of practices. It is not the opposite of facts.

If G-d appeared before my eyes and proved to me every single aspect of Judaism, my religion would still remain a religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Okay, you misread what I said. Facts are facts, they can be proven they can show evidence for them, they are always true. Religions are based off of beliefs, beliefs are not founded on facts they are based off of what cannot be proven, if it is proven it is therefore a fact. Disbelief is when you do not believe in either another belief or a fact.

If G-d appeared before my eyes and proved to me every single aspect of Judaism, my religion would still remain a religion.

It would remain a religion because you cannot prove it to anyone else. Religion and beliefs are very personal and change from person to person.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Okay, you misread what I said. Facts are facts, they can be proven they can show evidence for them, they are always true. Religions are based off of beliefs, beliefs are not founded on facts they are based off of what cannot be proven, if it is proven it is therefore a fact. Disbelief is when you do not believe in either another belief or a fact.

No, I didn't misread what you said. I merely corrected you.

Religions are rituals which might or might not be based on beliefs.

You keep talking about the difference between belief and fact, even though that difference has nothing to do with what I said.

It would remain a religion because you cannot prove it to anyone else. Religion and beliefs are very personal and change from person to person.

It would remain a religion even if G-d personally told everyone on earth that it was all fact.

It would remain a religion forever because it is a set of rituals.

Beliefs are very personal, religions are not at all personal.

I believe (or do not believe) in G-d (or pink unicorns).

But I observe (or do not observe) the Jewish religion (or some other ritual).

It is perfectly possibly to believe in absolutely nothing and yet strictly follow certain religions. I myself know Jews who follow the Jewish religion (or parts of it) but who don't believe in G-d. (This is independent from people who are Jewish but neither believe in G-d nor follow the Jewish religion.)

Many people in the west are completely honest atheists yet celebrate Christmas and often Easter too. They observe (parts of) the Christian religion but do not share the Christian faith. The Christian religion exists independent of Christian beliefs. You can celebrate Christmas without believing in G-d and Jesus.

I think the most common such religious observances are the celebration of Halloween (by people who do not actually believe in evil spirits and witches) and the celebration of New Year's Day (which is done by almost everyone in the world despite the fact that the majority do not believe that year 1 was special in any way).

The Hebrew word for "religion" is "dath". It also means "rule" and "law". It originally referred to Jewish law as defined in the Torah ("instruction"). Jewish law is Jewish law, independent of a belief in G-d. It's a historic fact that some guy wrote down the code of law called "Torah". There's your fact.

Following Jewish law can be done by anyone, regardless of their beliefs. The religion and the associated beliefs are independent.

I myself do believe in G-d but certainly don't follow all aspects of the Jewish religion. How's that for religion and belief being the same thing?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 25

Lol...
Only kids use this "you cant give evidence AGAINST it nither" thing...
2+2 is 4 right? why?
and and if its 2 cars + 2 house, then how can it be 4? no its just remain 2 cars and 2 houses
or you can say that 2+2 is 22...
yet, we all know that 2+2=4!!!!

So, if i cant see it, cant hear it, cant smell it, cant taste it, cant feal it, then it DOSNT excist!
now i bet will come the smartass that will say "can you see atoms?! no? so they dont excist?"
well... yes you can... you only have to find a powerfull electro microscope
cant say the same about god...

Using that logic humanity would have been eaten by tigers hundreds of thousands of years ago when children decided that believing their parents was stupid and that one's attitude towards tigers should only be developed once the tiger is visible.

You see that is the excact sort of ignorance im talking about
Lets take your excample, if kids dont listen to thair parents then they are beein eaten by tigers...
due to long evolutionary process, humans developed a natural fear of all that is unknown
when a child see a tiger, his sub consiosnes forces him to retreat, if you want to tell me otherwise
then try to explain the natural fear people have to rats, spiders, and so on...
rats are disiese carriers, while those who didnt had the protection mechanism died of desieses
thos who had it survivde, and here we have the natural selection.
some developed fear, others immunity to desies, both surivide while the third died.
you dont need your parents to tell you that tigers are dengerouse to avoid tigers...
just take a 5 year old and leave him in a wild forest, after 3 days you will find him in a cave or on a tree
not because he know its safer but because he feel that it is safer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Fuzzy Logic

Join Date 05/2002

+493

If I were some all powerful creator, I would, after reading all this tosh, wipe the Earth clean and start again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You see that is the excact sort of ignorance im talking about
Lets take your excample, if kids dont listen to thair parents then they are beein eaten by tigers...

Actually, it is you who is ignorant. You didn't even get that my example was a summary.

The point is that it is a good strategy to believe what your parents tell you even if you don't have evidence for it (and cannot see it). Evolution is not the only mechanism by which we learn. If you think that it is, you are an idiot.

For example pandas are taught by their mothers not to eat certain leaves. Evolution did not teach them not to eat the best-looking leaves. They learn it from their parents. And they better believe their mothers, even if they cannot see that those leaves are bad for them. (If they see it, it's too late.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

You seem to be under the impression that religion is ritual. Actually, it isn't.

re⋅li⋅gion
/rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.     a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.     a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.     the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.     the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.     the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.     something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.     religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.     Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.     get religion, Informal.
a.     to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.     to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

"usually involving" not always. Atheism is a religion, however they do not have a set of rituals pertaining to that religion.

rit⋅u⋅al
/ˈrɪtʃuəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rich-oo-uhl] Show IPA
–noun
1.     an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite.
2.     a system or collection of religious or other rites.
3.     observance of set forms in public worship.
4.     a book of rites or ceremonies.
5.     a book containing the offices to be used by priests in administering the sacraments and for visitation of the sick, burial of the dead, etc.
6.     a prescribed or established rite, ceremony, proceeding, or service: the ritual of the dead.
7.     prescribed, established, or ceremonial acts or features collectively, as in religious services.
8.     any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner.
9.     a prescribed code of behavior regulating social conduct, as that exemplified by the raising of one's hat or the shaking of hands in greeting.
10.     Psychiatry. a specific act, as hand-washing, performed repetitively to a pathological degree, occurring as a common symptom of obsessive-compulsive neurosis.
–adjective
11.     of the nature of or practiced as a rite or ritual: a ritual dance.
12.     of or pertaining to rites or ritual: ritual laws.

Brushing your teeth in the morning is a ritual, but that doesn't mean it is a religion. Rituals can be connected to a religion, but aren't always part of a religion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You seem to be under the impression that religion is ritual. Actually, it isn't.

Actually, is is.

The definition of religion as a set of beliefs is rather new and completely useless as it is, as I said, possible to follow a religion without believing the associated beliefs.

"usually involving" not always. Atheism is a religion, however they do not have a set of rituals pertaining to that religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is simply the belief that no gods exist. There are atheist religions, but atheism isn't one.

Brushing your teeth in the morning is a ritual, but that doesn't mean it is a religion. Rituals can be connected to a religion, but aren't always part of a religion.

If you brush your teeth religiously, the ritual becomes a religion.

Can you name a "religion" without rituals?

Successfully updated karma reason!

For it to be as you say, there would have to be proof of Aaronic lineage. It would be possible if there were distinctive tribes in existance such as the tribes of Judah and Levi and houses therein of David and Aaron as existed in pre-Christian Isrealite times. Without proof of lineage no Jew can claim that he belongs to any one of these tribes or distinctive houses.

Y-chromosomal Aaron is the name given to the hypothesised most recent common ancestor of many of the patrilineal Jewish priestly caste known as Kohanim (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or Kohane). In the Hebrew Bible this ancestor is identified as Aaron, the brother of Moses. Research published in 1997 and thereafter has indicated that some contemporary Jewish Kohanim share Y-chromosomal Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) with a set of genetic markers, known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which may well derive from a single common ancestor. Later, in 2007, the same team announced that they found another common set of genetic marker related to present-day traditional Kohanim families in Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA).

...

The Cohen hypothesis was first tested by Prof. Karl Skorecki and collaborators from Haifa, Israel, in 1997. In their study, "Y chromosomes of Jewish priests," published in the journal Nature, they found that the Kohanim appeared to share a different probability distribution compared to the rest of the Jewish population for the two Y-chromosome markers they tested (YAP and DYS 19). They also found that the probabilities appeared to be shared by both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Cohens, pointing to a common Cohen population origin before the Jewish diaspora under the Roman empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

I am assuming that you want to argue that this is the purest of coincidences?

Ha, for starters I'll quote from unkn0wnx....

Unkn0wnx posts #121

Lol. So in other words, your evidence is limited to wikipedia????

I am sure wikipedia is credible. Hahaha.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ha, for starters I'll quote from unkn0wnx....

Have you followed the sources Wikipedia gave?

The Y-chromosomal Aaron is widely known. It's been on the news years ago.

Here's science supporting a story from the Bible. What a pity that it's a story you don't believe in.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 8

Can you name a "religion" without rituals?

Actually, I did, but then you refuse to see it as a religion. *shrug*

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually, I did, but then you refuse to see it as a religion. *shrug*

Atheism isn't a religion. It's merely ONE belief.

There are several atheist religions, including Confucianism and some forms of Buddhism. To say that atheism is a "religion" is tantamount to saying that all atheist religions are the same. They are not. They are as different as Judaism and Islam, which are both theistic (and also monotheistic) religions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ParaTed2k,

reply 6

Makeshiftwings:
My own opinion:
"God is man trying to ignore how science does it."

If you replace the word "God" with the word "Religion" I'd have to agree with you, at least to some extent. I've talked to religious people who seem to bend over backwards trying to deny anything science has to teach us. One guy said that science can't possibly accurately measure distances in space. When I asked him why NASA engineers could accurately "guess" where Mars would be when the Rover was supposed to enter it's atmosphere... he had no answer... but he was still insistent that science can't possibly measure distances in space.

I understand people choosing science or spiritual, but I can't find anywhere in any scripture that tells me that I'm supposed to ignore the things of the physical simply because I accept the spiritual. For that matter, while there are many who tell me that the physical proves that can't be a spiritual, I haven't seen any proof of that either.

But I did get a laugh from your paraphrase. ;~D

I guess a lot of it depends on what you consider to be a religion. If you go with Leauki's definition, and consider religion to be just the rituals associated with the religion, then there's no conflict. I don't think his definition really captures what the word means though. Religion, to me, entails a belief in something supernatural and unprovable, almost always with some sort of unseen authority figure dictating moral absolutes. That's a pretty important part of religion to me - it forms a moral framework, and the moral framework is enforced by the idea that there is a god of some sort who created the morals and thus those particular morals are "true".

For most religions to work, though, you need to believe that the authority figure, or God, is actually "real" somehow. That's where science starts to get in the way. In my experience, religious people fall into two broad categories: science-denial types, who willfully believe things that clearly contradict science because they're supposed to: creationism vs evolution, creationism vs astronomy, faith vs logic, etc. Then there are the science-reconciler types, who are the ones driving new redefinitions of the word "God" and their particular religions to adapt to science's inexorable march disproving the supernatural. This is where we get the strange philosophical and linguistic riddles that modern theologists use to explain God: that he's nothing and everything, that he is everywhere yet nowhere, that he transcends logic, and other things that sound very mystical but which tend to not really make any sense if you try to apply them to real-world concepts.

As has been pointed out a few times in this thread, too, it's impossible to disprove the existence of something that is defined to appear nonexistent in all ways. If I claimed there was an invisible pink unicorn that was impossible to detect in any way standing next to you, there is no way to "disprove" it. What most philosophical atheists would say, however, is that "an invisible pink unicorn which is impossible to detect in any way" is the same thing as "nothing". What's the concrete difference between "nothing" and "something that is exactly like nothing"? There isn't really one. For the word God to have meaning to me, it would need to have some sort of actual definition; some sort of observable property that makes it different than "nothing". There's a branch of philosophy called ignosticism (with an i, not an a) that deals with this problem of the definition of the word "God", and how most debate is actually pointless because no one debating can even explain what the word means.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 6

You see that is the excact sort of ignorance im talking about
Lets take your excample, if kids dont listen to thair parents then they are beein eaten by tigers...

Actually, it is you who is ignorant. You didn't even get that my example was a summary.

The point is that it is a good strategy to believe what your parents tell you even if you don't have evidence for it (and cannot see it). Evolution is not the only mechanism by which we learn. If you think that it is, you are an idiot.

For example pandas are taught by their mothers not to eat certain leaves. Evolution did not teach them not to eat the best-looking leaves. They learn it from their parents. And they better believe their mothers, even if they cannot see that those leaves are bad for them. (If they see it, it's too late.)

Sure there are things we must learn, but it dosnt mean that we must get it all from our parents right?
you said you bealieve in god because your parents told you...
well take a trip to india and ask all the millions of people in there what they think about your god
so now its your parents Vs millions of people who say that your parents are wrong
who will you beliave? your parents? just because they are your parents?
how about to make your OWN reserch and to put your faith on your findings

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sure there are things we must learn, but it dosnt mean that we must get it all from our parents right?

No, but it shows that there is no reason not to believe them just for the sake of not believing them.

you said you bealieve in god because your parents told you...

Yes,

well take a trip to india and ask all the millions of people in there what they think about your god
so now its your parents Vs millions of people who say that your parents are wrong
who will you beliave? your parents? just because they are your parents?

I live with two Hindus. Have you ever talked to Hindus?

Hinduism is a complicated system and it is not entirely clear whether the Hindu gods are really several gods or just dozens of aspects of the same god. Either way, it doesn't matter.

The Jewish Bible speaks of other gods, it just prohibits Jews to pray to them or pay any attention to them. They don't matter. For all I care a Hindu can believe whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't insist that I cannot believe what I want.

What exactly is your point? Hinduism does not say that Judaism is wrong, Hinduism just says that Judaism is not Indian. For all Hinduism cares Judaism might well be what the creator god has revealed to the Jewish people while revealing something else to the Indian people. Who says everybody must have the same religion?

As I mentioned before I also believe that Zoroastrianism is a true religion. I don't really have an opinion on Hinduism, but I can tell you that what G-d told or didn't tell the Indians has no impact on my beliefs at all.

how about to make your OWN reserch and to put your faith on your findings

Blog entry about my trip to northern Iraq and a visit to a local museum to see Zoroastrian and Islamic art:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Blog/Entries/2008/11/2_Sulaimaniya_-_Part_1.html

Blog entry about the relevant words in Arabic and Aramaic/Hebrew regarding Zoroastrianism's angels:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Not_A_Linguist/Not_A_Linguist_Blog/Entries/2008/11/2_Angels_and_Kings.html

My blog about Judaism and Israel:

http://web.mac.com/ajbrehm/Home/Shabbos_Blog/Shabbos_Blog.html

Blog entry of mine about the power of Christian prayer:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/337894/The_Power_of_Prayer

Word-for-word translation and analysis of the key statements in the Biblical story of Noah:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/320746/Noahs_Flood_the_Beginning_and_the_End

A little essay on Abraham and the foundation of Judaism and Islam:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/319137/Abraham

I assure you that I don't blog about everything I research. I am currently busy with understanding a book about the Aramaic loan words used in the Quran (it takes me a long time to read the book because of too many examples in Arabic and Aramaic that I find difficult to translate) and a book about ancient Akkadian grammar (which will hopefully do a lot for my understanding of the Akkadian substrate in Biblical Hebrew, like "anoki" instead of "ani" for "I").

And to all this you can add my discussions with my flat mates about Hinduism, a religion and culture I find most fascinating and am trying to learn more about. But in contrast to what you were implying learning about other religions does not have a negative impact on my beliefs, it only adds to my understanding of the world my G-d created.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 12

Atheism isn't a religion. It's merely ONE belief.

There are several atheist religions, including Confucianism and some forms of Buddhism. To say that atheism is a "religion" is tantamount to saying that all atheist religions are the same. They are not. They are as different as Judaism and Islam, which are both theistic (and also monotheistic) religions.

I stand corrected. My appologies I used the wrong word. What I grew up hearing to be "Atheism" is actually Humanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

You learn something new everyday.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I stand corrected. My appologies I used the wrong word. What I grew up hearing to be "Atheism" is actually Humanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

You learn something new everyday.

Very true.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Meh i think religion is ignorance, no offance!
Its just wierd to me that 2000 years ago people said that our sun and moon are gods
and if you said its not true then they added "but you cant proove that it is not true!"
and then they burned you for not accepting the sun and the mood as the 2 true gods

todays religion is no much differance..

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is no God, no Super Natural Being, No magical Unicorns, no Lepocrons at the end of the Rainbow, and Yes, No Santa Clause ( sorry to be one to beak the bad news about Santa to you). It is all MAN MADE, Every God has been Man Made, Every Religious Belief and Rituals that go with them is Man made, all of it. Ask yourself what is the point of Science or Religion.

To Understand and Explain our Surroundings. Nothing More.....

Science and Religion say the same thing btw.......We came from Nothing. One says there was a Ceator who did it and the other says there was a Big Bang

Anyway back on topic.........All Man Made. Early man wan not stupid, we could see patterns to Natue, we could see cause and effect and wondered why. Early man learned that sunlight helped the plants grow, melt the snow, made the weather warmer. Then Ealy man asked the question Who, What, When, Where, and How. in relation to the sun. So Then what did early man do? Created Rituals, Set up shrines, Praised, Woshipped the sun Because it would be bad if there was no Sun anymore. And through their Rituals and Beliefs they could now understand and explain what that big yellow circle in the sky was. (I'm not explaining that I Really want to so some might not get it, but Basicly learn the Histoy of relgion, the how and why of it)

Then at one point Humans stopped being Nomadic and started to make settlements. What is needed now? Rules and stucture. Need to keep the peace of the community. Enter Religion, Don't disobey the Sun's god Rules or you will bring about his Wrath. Around this time Morals, Values and Ethics stared to come into play with Humanity so In my opiniion Religin was needed fo the advancement of Humanity but not anymore.

Fo the first time in Known Human History the Common man has the Worlds knowledge at thier fingers(internet). Up until now only the select few had this knowledge. It is Called the Dark Ages for a Reason. Common Man couldn't even Read. One day there will be no Religion. Might be 5000 years from now but it will happen. It's not a accident that the more Intellegent a person is the less Likely they Believe in the Super Natural and less Intellegent a person is the more likely they are to believe in the Super Natural. Things are Changing and at One point in the Futue there will be no religon, Humanity will no longer need it to explain the Unknown.

Anyway this typing thing sucks, I would love have this Converstation in person for it is these types of Topics (Religon and Society/Government) that truley Spark my Mind. I could go on forever about this topic and in much needed detail but alas I won't, seeing how I feel I'm not quite geting out what I want. So just "Believe" me when I say, I just know I'm right. You will not agree with me now, but when you die you will see I was right and you were wrong.

Successfully updated karma reason!

EviliroN

Join Date 04/2008

+20

f I were some all powerful creator, I would, after reading all this tosh, wipe the Earth clean and start again.

even if i am not an/the all powerful creator, depending on what you believe, i still want to do this

and the fact that this thread is still creeping is crazy, you must not have read my short little post a billion pages ago

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Leauki,

reply 15

What exactly is your point? Hinduism does not say that Judaism is wrong, Hinduism just says that Judaism is not Indian. For all Hinduism cares Judaism might well be what the creator god has revealed to the Jewish people while revealing something else to the Indian people. Who says everybody must have the same religion?

As I mentioned before I also believe that Zoroastrianism is a true religion. I don't really have an opinion on Hinduism, but I can tell you that what G-d told or didn't tell the Indians has no impact on my beliefs at all.

From what I know of the two, I would say that both religions do say that the other is wrong. Some people within that religion will try to incorporate the other's gods into their own (as you seem to imply that the Hindu's creator god is just your god "in disguise", some Hindu people would do the same in reverse for your god). However Judeo-christian religions are fairly clear in that their particular creator god favors their people more than others. The Bible does mention other gods, but the god of the jews is also supposed to be the same god that created the world, as well as more powerful than all the Egyptian and similar gods. New Testament takes this further and outright says that the other gods are all fakes and that the Christian god is the only god.

The Hindu religion, on the other hand, is pretty confusing as you say . They have several versions of the creation story, but one thing that is certain is that none of those stories end up with Vishnu or Brahma or anyone creating the tribes of Israel or becoming the patron god of the Jews. So I don't think one could easily claim that Vishnu is the same thing as Yahweh. Both gods are fairly particular about showing favoritism towards their own culture of worshippers.

Even if one were to say that both gods exist, you couldn't say that both gods created the world. Only one can have done that, if the associated stories are to be taken as true. And I don't think either can claim that the other's creator god is the same person as theirs without running into a bunch of contradictions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quote: 'So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is?'

I think that the answer to that question is simple. The limits of our comprehension will stop us ever finding the true and complete answer.

For argument's sake assume that there is a god. Now, try to imagine the true size of the cosmos and the infinite possibilities and combinations of possibilities held within. How could we ever hope to be able to comprehend the intentions of a being that created something of infinite size and complexity? Put simply, we just couldn't, nor will we ever be able to. The collective thoughts of a million great races from a million different star systems wouldn't even come close, let alone one miniscule race on a tiny planet/system/galaxy in the arse end of the milky way.

I do believe that we will make some progress towards an answer or theory, but simply can't see how we'll ever be able to comprehend the 'plan' as it were.

I don't know. If life and death are just different states of matter and being, maybe when we die......ahhhh......I don't know! lol That's my point.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lets start with basic principles.

Science is based on Facts. Facts are true until proven false, then they are forever false. This tells us that things which have been considered facts for a long time are likely to be true. Facts which have been 'proven' recently are less robust.

Faith is based on truth. Truth has NOTHING to do with facts. Everyone has their own truth. In order for a religion to survive over time in needs to do two things. One, it must have a God which answers your prayers, explains the nature of the universe, gives you a sense of belonging, and MOST IMPORTANT promise everlasting glory/happiness if you live your life faithfully. Two, it must convince you that everyone else is wrong.

You can see the how these are not compatable. In science, NOTHING is taken as gospel. In fact, the longer a fact has been 'true' the more glory you can achieve disproving it. In religion, EVERYTHING is taken as gospel, and you are NOT welcome to disprove anything.

OK, now lets get to GOD. Let us assume God exists. The first thing to be done is to define him/her/it. Here is the problem. God, by EVERY relieon's definition is all knowing and all powerful.... How does this work with more than 100 significant religions in the world?? Did he tell the 'truth' to one and 'lie' to all the others? Are there other "god-like' beings out there pretending to be God? One possibility is that God is too big to understand and that all religions reached him but with limited understanding got only a piece of the truth....There is a long road to follow here, too long for this discussion.

Lets use Logic to make things worse. God is perfect by definition. He knows all that will happen and has all power. Therefore, when he made the world, he did this perfectly without flaw or lack of a plan. What is a miracle? By definition, it is a break in the natural order created by God....How can this be? If he is perfect, and his creation is perfect, than he was able to forsee all possibilities and would NEVER need to break any of his own laws...therefore there have been no miracles, only exaggerations. This can be indirectly proven be the fact that there have been no real miracles since the camcorder was invented. I don't think the letters GOD burned into sausage patties count here.

So, using science, we can say even if there is a God, he does not interfere...His world has been created perfectly and that is that. Anything else would make him imperfect, or at best a royal bas..... (you get the point).

Religion is about power and control of the masses. It was used to explain the unexplainable, and give meaning to life on this planet. As the worshipers became more sophisticated, so did the explainations. Originally things started with shamanistic beliefs. Many spirits in all aspects of life. It evolved to polythesism (Greek and Egyptian being the most known examples of this). Then it evolved into monothesism (Pick one of many). Then next step is obvious, though frightening.

We all have a very limited time alive. It would be wonderful if there was something more afterwards. Logical thought tends to deny it unfortunately. There is no way a god would create a religion for a small group of people and damn all the others. If God created everyone and gave everyone free will this makes no sense at all. I suppose there are hundreds of aspects of God and all are right and true, but then what is the answer to how to get in?? You can find religeons with completely opposed views on 'proper' behavior to succeed. This again makes no sense. If you use the word 'fair' to define your God, there is no way any one of these Gods would apply. This is a big problem when looking at the whole human condition. The only answer which makes sense is God is a fabrication by man to explain what cannot yet be explained and to control others. Sad but true.

Successfully updated karma reason!

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #284

Science doesn't say that the universe came from a primordial goop, nor from a blob. ... First, there was nothing -...Just nothing.

Then, the big bang happened, and we had space, time, matter, energy, and all that great stuff. (side note: I hesitate to even use the word "Then", because there actually wasn't any time before the big bang - the clock didn't start until the universe started.)

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 21

The Big Bang theory is pure imaginative bunk....it violates physical laws and common sense.

And yet, we've seen that ... a majority of scientists today have accepted that nothing packed together tightly, condensed somehow into a single tiny spot and then it decided to explode producing neutrons, protons and electrons that somehow hurled themselves ourward at incredible speed and formed themselves into atomic structures of hydrogen and helium atoms.

makeshiftwings posts: 299

No, the Big Bang is scientific fact. We can see the echoes of it still in the universe; we can measure when it happened; we can observe the effects of it in the expanding space around us. No one in physics today denies the Big Bang, so saying it violates physical law is a little ridiculous. Whose physical laws are you referring to?

The only matter of contention is how and why it happened. No one thinks that it DIDN'T happen. If you want to find a place to stick God into the mix, then the only place it really makes sense is as mommie4life said, that God made the Big Bang happen.

I agree with KFC who said on another thread, " The only way I believe in the Big Bang is.........God said it, and Bang it happened!"

What happened when God spoke "in the beginning"? Out of nothing, God created light on the first Day. This is God's absolute truth in Genesis and He was the only reliable eye-witness and so how could I possibly favor modern humans who were not? Since Almighty God is truly omnipotent, He can create anything anyway that so pleases Him. And He told us that He desired to create the universe in 6 days (of 24 hours each?) topped with the highest achievement of Creation...human beings. Day, months and years can all be derived from consideration of astronomy, but never weeks....the concept of a 7-day week comes only from Genesis.

It seems to me the common sense question is why attempt accomodations that of nothing = the Big Bang and eons of time to allow it to develop into the universe when this is apparently in such stark contrast to Genesis?

PHAEYDME POSTS # 300

I don't think any argument can be made or supported claiming that any particular scientific theory violates common sense

makeshiftwings said: First, there was nothing ...Just nothing. Then, the big bang happened, and ...the Big Bang is scientific fact.

Well, with all due respect, then please enlighten me as to how nothing can produce something. I know the BB theory, but just can't get pass scientists saying "it's scientific FACT" that nothing blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. No way, Jose!

----------------------------

makeshiftwings posts: 299

No one in physics today denies the Big Bang, so saying it violates physical law is a little ridiculous. Whose physical laws are you referring to?

I don't know...you tell me as you are the one who states that the BB is scientific fact.

What physical law says that nothing can produce something?

What physical law says that nothingness can pack together and explode?

What physical law allows nothing to expand?

What physical law states that nothing can produce heat?

Successfully updated karma reason!

MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #363

I guess a lot of it depends on what you consider to be a religion. If you go with Leauki's definition, and consider religion to be just the rituals associated with the religion, then there's no conflict. I don't think his definition really captures what the word means though. Religion, to me, entails a belief in something supernatural and unprovable, almost always with some sort of unseen authority figure dictating moral absolutes. That's a pretty important part of religion to me - it forms a moral framework, and the moral framework is enforced by the idea that there is a god of some sort who created the morals and thus those particular morals are "true".

I tend to agree, except I think God is provable.

In short, since mankind is endowed with a material body and a spiritual, immortal soul, religion really matters.

Religion comes from the Latin word, religare---meaning to bind. Religion in the widest sense is the union or relationship between God and man. It is a real and existential, personal and inter-subjective, conscious and free, dynamic, necessary and perfecting relationship of the human being.

Religion is true when its doctrines and precepts are either dictated by right reason or revealed by God. If the former, it's called natural religion, if the latter, it's called supernatural religion. Supernatural religion implies the recognition of a Divine Personality, behind and producing the forces of the world, the Lord and Ruler of the world, God. That God has control over our lives and desinies...that we can bring oursleves into a friendly communion with God..that we must perform certains acts of faith, hope and love as God is the source of our perfection and happiness on this earth and eternally in the next.

St.Thomas Aquinas said religion is the virtue which prompts man to render to god the worship and reverence that is His by right. Objectively, relligion is the voluntary acknowledgment of man's dependence on God through acts of homage.

First natural religion, it's simply the religion a person would be obliged to practice even if he never received a revelation from God. Man could know by reason alone that God exists and be obedient to the natural moral law as manifested by conscience. even where natural religion is concerned the lack of abillity and of time for study amongst the masses and the differences of opinion and errors even of philosophers, would argue the need of some help by Revelation. Today, this natural religion is not sufficient in the present condition of the human race. God has given mankind a supernatural destiny higher than any merely natural destiny, a destiny dependent entirely upon the good pleasure of Almighty God, our Maker, and this requires the Revelation of a knowledge higher than that which can be attained by the merely natural reason.

We simply have to accept the fact that God has revealed supernatural truths beyond natural religion. God has revealed very defiinite doctrines and moral obligations. It is for us to freely accept and fulfill them if we are to have any idea of pleasing God and saving our soul.

We attain truth, that is authentic religion by our intelligence, not our feelings. Test religion with evidence but know that you cannot prove all things that God has revealed as some are true mysteries (like the Blessed Trinity but that's another blog discussion). Facts prove that reason is limited in capacity and that many truths, even natural truths baffle it. "I don't understand therefore I don't believe it" is an argument which no reasonable person would utter, right? "I can disprove it, therefore I do not believe it" is lawful argument.

The reason for practicing religion must simply be the will to be just. Practicing religion fills the fundamental need and duty to God is more important than duty to man, God's creature, but duty to God implies duty to man.

More often than not, the reasons alleged with irreligious and unbelievers for not wanting to practice religion is becasue true religion would come into conflict with their passions, and vices. If religion is true, they are going to have to change their ways and many are unwilling to do that. Today, we prefer duty to ourselves, our family, and friends above duty to God...He is ignored even among those who claim to be religious.

Anyway, religion really matters...it should be the most important thing in life, and actually in the life of every nation as well..but again, that's subject for another blog!

Successfully updated karma reason!