Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Why God?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 KSAC

KSAC

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:38 PM

Posted 21 October 2005 - 06:57 PM

Here's Anthroptist view for the "universe is too balanced for there to be no God" person. If the universe wasn't balanced the way it is we would be here to wonder if God did it or not. If we could exist in an unbalanced universe then we would wonder why God created an unbalanced universe. You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Normal or balanced is relative. it doesn't mean it had to have a creator. The universe is the way it is because that is how we percieve it. Some quantum thoeries say that there is an infinite amount of universes, all taking a different path, relying on different "rules"

God can never be proved or disproved. I could say that the universe is filled a massless undectable substances that causes everything to be the way it is. It's not science and never will be.

We use God to answer the question that can't be answered. A lot of those unanswerable questions have been replaced with scientifice answers that can be reproduced time and time again. Mankind will likely never know all the answers so there will always been room for God.

A large number of Christians will not accept the theory of evolution (which has a ton of evidence backing it) because they feel it threatens thier religion. It shouldn't. Religion has always molded itself to fit new science. This fight against evolution is hurting this counrty (USA). It's affecting the school system. Parents want Intelligent Design (Creationism version 2.0) to be taught in science class to contend with evolution. Mostly to keep thier kids from question thier faith. This can be very confusing for a kid or teenager. You enter a theory that is not scientific into a scientific learning environment. How can kids perform the basic steps to testing and proving theories on Intelligent Design (ID)? Scientific thoeries are supposed to be questioned and tested. That is what they should do with evolution. But do it in a scienific manner, not a religious one. It slows down the scienific prosses. Chruch is were they should go to learn about religion. Thats what its for. Science class is to teach science. Thats what its for.

America became great because our technological achievements. Its what fueled the economy the most. China's economy is doubling every 10 years since the 1970s. Ours has doubled once since. Other countries are catching up with us in technology. We are still one of the top leaders in technology. But we can never become greater if our kids are growing confused about science.

Why are we here? How did we get here? Why do things happen? What is after death? Religion has its own answers and science has its own answers. What is wrong with that?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 blackrider

blackrider

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:38 PM

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:39 PM

looking back I can't imagine being torned between learning about the evolution theory in science class and God creating man in religion class.

#3 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:03:38 PM

Posted 25 October 2005 - 11:48 PM

Two simple statement:

If you want your kid to learn about evolution, and all the theories/facts/information/experiments/observations that back it up, send them to public school, where knowledge is power.

If you want your kid to learn about ID, send them to church or a private, christian school, where they are free to teach what they like and believe....

And in response to the "We use God to answer the question that can't be answered. A lot of those unanswerable questions have been replaced with scientifice answers that can be reproduced time and time again. Mankind will likely never know all the answers so there will always been room for God." statement, there's a lot of logic lacking there. Basically, it's the "if it's not _____, it's _____" showing it's ugly head again. There's no sense in automatically crediting a deity for a (currently) unexplained phenomenon...

#4 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 07:58 AM

I've always had trouble when it comes to religion and science. Here is what I believe:
I believe God created the universe. However I believe he created it long before the bible says he created it. I do believe in the bible, but some of it doesn't seem right, because the entire thing is not the word of God its actually the events and interpretations of the disciples.

So yes you can say I believe in God, and I do believe we have evolved. I just don't think that either one of them need to be forced apon people (i.e: school).

#5 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:01:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:13 PM

So yes you can say I believe in God, and I do believe we have evolved. I just don't think that either one of them need to be forced apon people (i.e: school).


Of all the subject the kids could benifit from why can't they make this an elective and let it go. Good point yano
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#6 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:11 PM

I wasn't aware that science was a pick and choose proposition, or I would have completely avoided chemistry and the periodic table of elements. I suppose, by the same token, we should not force history (or at least Parts That We Don't Like) on students, either.

My point is that the sciences, besides sharing a common project and common criteria for what is "true," also have a tendency to hang together in a mutually dependent manner and thus provide a comprehensive picture of the natural world (subject to continual verification).

Now if we contrast what most consider to be science, as such, with the arguments for intelligent design, we find just the opposite. There is no form of experimentation that would allow its assertions to be verified; since verification is the hallmark of science, then intelligent design cannot be scientific. In Aristotle's famous words, "you cannot have a science of non-being."

Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#7 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:03:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:18 PM

I wasn't aware that science was a pick and choose proposition, or I would have completely avoided chemistry and the periodic table of elements. I suppose, by the same token, we should not force history (or at least Parts That We Don't Like) on students, either.

My point is that the sciences, besides sharing a common project and common criteria for what is "true," also have a tendency to hang together in a mutually dependent manner and thus provide a comprehensive picture of the natural world (subject to continual verification).

Now if we contrast what most consider to be science, as such, with the arguments for intelligent design, we find just the opposite. There is no form of experimentation that would allow its assertions to be verified; since verification is the hallmark of science, then intelligent design cannot be scientific. In Aristotle's famous words, "you cannot have a science of non-being."

Regards,
John

.....i gotta save this entire post and keep it in my records....

That was very well said, and very well thought out jgweed. I must use that elsewhere and give credit to you :thumbsup:

Edited by Heretic Monkey, 26 October 2005 - 03:19 PM.


#8 cowsgonemadd3

cowsgonemadd3

    Feed me some spyware!


  • Banned
  • 4,557 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:16 PM

We never evolved from anything! There has been no record of any monkey turning into a human in thousands of years..Infact never has there been any record...

Proof evolution is wrong. Take a look at some sites on google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evolu...G=Google+Search


However I believe he created it long before the bible says he created it.

The Bible is accurate. It was God inspired. How can you believe it was created before he said it was? When he said it was created is when it was created. Really there isnt a date saying when it was created but the Bible does have dates for times not far from when he made the earth.

There is so much proof the Bible is accurate.
Please read here:
http://www.harpazo.net/101/List.html

All those prophesies have been in the Bible and unchanges every since it was written. There coming true!

#9 BanditFlyer

BanditFlyer

  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:38 AM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:38 PM

Proof evolution is wrong. Take a look at some sites on google:
...
There is so much proof the Bible is accurate.


Proof is a peculiar concept in science, in that you can't prove anything, yoiu can only disprove something, and in so doing, lend supporting evidence to the opposite hypothesis.

Scientific PROOF is an oxymoron.

And since religion is based on faith, anybody looking for proof in either of these fields is barking up the wrong tree.

Glad I could be of service ;)

Edited by BanditFlyer, 26 October 2005 - 09:40 PM.


#10 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:03:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:52 PM

We never evolved from anything! There has been no record of any monkey turning into a human in thousands of years..Infact never has there been any record...

Proof evolution is wrong. Take a look at some sites on google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=evolu...G=Google+Search


However I believe he created it long before the bible says he created it.

The Bible is accurate. It was God inspired. How can you believe it was created before he said it was? When he said it was created is when it was created. Really there isnt a date saying when it was created but the Bible does have dates for times not far from when he made the earth.

There is so much proof the Bible is accurate.
Please read here:
http://www.harpazo.net/101/List.html

All those prophesies have been in the Bible and unchanges every since it was written. There coming true!

Here we go again....

We didn't evolve from monkeys...... If we did, then monkey's wouldn't exist anymore. Monkeys and humans share a similar ancestor, hence the 98% similarity in DNA, similar body structure, similar bone structure, ability to learn, etc. There's a bunch of fossils that point directly towards that....

PLEASE cgm, LEARN what you're criticizing before you criticize it. You don't even understand evolution, so how can you fight tooth-and-nail to say it never happened?

In order to say the bible is "god inspired" and completely accurate, then you must assume that god exists. To assume that god exists, you must use the bible for support. It's like using The Cat in the Hat to prove Thing 1 and Thing 2 exist.

The bible also says god created plants before he created the sun (photosynthesis, anyone?), he created light before there were sources to provide light, he created "2 great lights: one to rule the day and one to rule the night", refering to the Sun and Moon, however, the moon is not a light, and is not even visible over 1/8th of the time during the night. But god says it's accurate!!

Proof is a peculiar concept in science, in that you can't prove anything, yoiu can only disprove something, and in so doing, lend supporting evidence to the opposite hypothesis.

2+2 = 4 ...... that was easy to prove....
People need oxygen to breathe..... people that don't have oxygen, can't breathe...... proven
Hydrogen combined with Oxygen creates water...... Take 2 hydrogen molecules and add an oxygen.... ta-da, proven

The only things that can't be proven in science are phenomenon that can't be repeated under controllable circumstances.

Edited by Heretic Monkey, 27 October 2005 - 12:48 AM.


#11 DemonicTurtles

DemonicTurtles

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Earth
  • Local time:02:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 10:27 PM

Here's what I think about religion and science...

They were both created by humans to explain things that occur in this world. Religion was probably created by humans when they realized that they could not comprehend some phenomenon at the time. While science is just a more logic-based type of reasoning. Well, that's what I think. Currently, I view religion as false hope but false hope is a good thing for humans.

2+2 = 4 ...... that was easy to prove....



2+2 only equals four in the mathematics that most people believe as true. For example, when humans encountered the problem of the square root of a negative number, they invented imaginary numbers. Although in reality all numbers are imaginary because they were all created by humans. Essentially, mathematics is something created by humans to help explain the phenomenon that occur. Humans are currently incapable of comprehending the "truth". What people view as "true" is what is commonly accepted by the masses.

Based on what I can conclude, humans are always curious and refuse to not know something. This curiosity is what drives us forward to technological advancements and such.

Well, that's my opinion.
Now, I could be wrong about some things considering that I am only 14 years old and still have a lot to learn.
Posted Image
Nobody is perfect. I am a nobody. Therefore I am perfect.

"My mouth needs to stop laughing before I can talk."

--Someone from school


#12 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:03:38 PM

Posted 26 October 2005 - 10:37 PM

2+2 = 4 ...... that was easy to prove....



2+2 only equals four in the mathematics that most people believe as true. For example, when humans encountered the problem of the square root of a negative number, they invented imaginary numbers. Although in reality all numbers are imaginary because they were all created by humans. Essentially, mathematics is something created by humans to help explain the phenomenon that occur. Humans are currently incapable of comprehending the "truth". What people view as "true" is what is commonly accepted by the masses.

True, but isn't that basically just assigning a name to the process of adding 2 objects/values together? It's pretty much like taking 2 apples and putting 2 more with them, to have a total of 4 apples. The equation is simply the mathematical language (which was created by humans) to express the action of joining 2 quantities.

Technically, math is simply labels applied to anything that can be done to a number, so the math is easy to prove..... but the language with which it's proven was created by humans..... so i guess....... we're both right....?

Well, that's my opinion.
Now, I could be wrong about some things considering that I am only 14 years old and still have a lot to learn.

You're never too young to start thinking for yourself. The sooner you start analyzing and trying to understand why things are the way they are, the sooner you will acquire knowledge to help you throughout your life. I'm a relative youngster on this board too (18), and i'm still learning. Just remember to learn all that you can, then make your own conclusions :thumbsup:


EDIT
Oh, and BTW: Check out the results on CGM's google search of "proof" against evolution.... almost everyone of them comes from a religious site..... let's hear it for selective bias.....

Edited by Heretic Monkey, 27 October 2005 - 12:45 AM.


#13 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:38 PM

Posted 27 October 2005 - 01:17 AM

It seems to me that proving the existence of God is doomed to failure, especially if it involves using the Bible as a warrant; such a choice obviously involves one in a circular argument from which there is no escape. God exists because he told us so in the Bible He wrote, and he would never, ever tell us a falsehood. If one decides to employ arguments, then one is, I want to say, committed to subjecting these "proofs" to the standards of logic and the rules of correct reasoning. The only other stance is (to translate the Latin) to say "I believe because it is absurd."

Taking the Bible to be the Word of God seems to put one in some very difficult positions in the long run, and one ends up accepting propositions that do not withstand the scrutiny of logic.

1. The history of the Bible tends to indicate that versions and the various extant fragments were chosen for all-too-human reasons. Are these, and these only, the revealed word of God? Did God inspire each and every choice about which fragment was the correct one? Did he inspire one scribe to make a spelling mistake, and not the other?
2. Why are apocryphal books NOT the word of God? How does internal and external criticism enter into this discussion? Or did God actively intervene when men choose which books were "true?"
3. How does one reconcile the revisionist stance of Jesus towards the accepted teachings of the Old Testament? Both being the revealed word of God, then the contradictions between the two testaments seem to indicate that God has had some second thoughts. Certainly the acceptance of slavery and the relative subjection of women, not to mention the dietary provisions of the OT, put one in an strained position of accepting tenets that seem mutually exclusive.
4. Every schoolboy knows that the original compilations of what we call the Bible were written in languages which must be translated, and that translations from one language to another are never exact or perfect; this must surely apply even more so to translating "dead" languages which reflected an entirely different view of the world, into modern languages. The question, whether each of the many translations--- from the Vulgate to Luther to the KJV to all the contempory variations--- are also divinely inspired paints one into corners. If so, then God must have been very busy. Each translation, moreover, seems to vary from one another on what are seen as key points; to the extent they vary either in wording or emphasis, then one is put into the position of holding that each is the absolute word of God, but that God allows contradictions in his revealed Word and the individual must decide which is the REAL word of God (hopefully the person is divinely inspired).
5. A literal acceptance of the Bible must mean that Noah took two of every living creatures into the ark, from mosquitos to koala bears to toads only found in one very small area of the Amazon. How he secured all these species indigenous to areas on the other side of the globe and returned them to their current habitat is, of course, not explained. Nor can one explain why Noah preserved species from the inundation, only to have them disappear from the face of the earth (unless one argues that fossils of now extinct giant reptiles found in rocks were placed by God for a purpose known only to Him). On the face of it, if the Sun stands still, it moves; does this mean one must hold that it revolves around the Earth?
Does one have to maintain it is possible to exist in the belly of whale, or that lobsters should never be consumed? The only way out of holding such beliefs while being serious about it, is to argue that these are parables meant for an earlier time but illustrate something important,or are figurative in nature and purpose; but then this means one gets to pick and choose what is to be taken literally or not and this choice becomes a matter of deciding on the matter using non-Biblical criteria.

Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#14 BanditFlyer

BanditFlyer

  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:38 AM

Posted 28 October 2005 - 12:42 PM

Proof is a peculiar concept in science, in that you can't prove anything, yoiu can only disprove something, and in so doing, lend supporting evidence to the opposite hypothesis.

2+2 = 4 ...... that was easy to prove....

almost... Math proves, science disproves. Bone up on your Descarte. Notice he uses Math, not science. By the way, saying that 2+2=4 doesn't prove it, but I'm sure you're smart enough to reply with a mathematical proof that 2+2 does in fact = 4

People need oxygen to breathe..... people that don't have oxygen, can't breathe...... proven

Not evven close, Sorry try again. You're a smart person, you can do better than that. :thumbsup:

Hydrogen combined with Oxygen creates water...... Take 2 hydrogen molecules and add an oxygen.... ta-da, proven

so close and yet so far - you've described an observation, not a proof

The only things that can't be proven in science are phenomenon that can't be repeated under controllable circumstances.

Not a science major are you? The last sentence would be correct if you replace the word "proven" with "disproven"

#15 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:38 PM

Posted 28 October 2005 - 01:15 PM

Science is usually broken into inductiive and deductive branches. The latter which includes mathematics (and for some, deductive logic) allows of proof, as Descartes understood, simply because it is deduced from fundamentals.
The former works differently, in that observations are collected that support a working theory (the theory indicates the kind of data that is useful); this theory, in turn, is tested against additional data, which will either support it or not.
Strickly speaking, everyone would be better off and less confused by confining "proof" to deductive arguments and "supported" or "unsupported" when refering to the theories of inductive sciences.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users