Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lao Tze is reputed to have said this:
"The Tao is the essence of One
From one came Two,
From two came Three,
From Three came forth all life."

To me, this is a much more profound exlaination of God, as I feel it compares more closely to what I understand of the perpendicularity of electromagnetism(2 dimensions), and its Radiation into 3 dimensions, and so forth.
I think we are all looking at the same thing, yet understand it in different ways. Some may however just take on board other peoples understandings as their own, negating the need to think about it for themselves.

I agree, I think that all religions are about the same.

I take that Tze saying and replace it with: God made a thing and that thing became more things while god just chilled and watched.

Meh. Religion as a moral guideline isn't a bad concept. But, as a way to live your life and explain existence? Not for me ta.

I just feel Christian and Judaic faiths have too many cop outs when asked certain questions. Best example?

Why? Why did God create stuff? Their answer would typically be along the lines of 'God's mind is not for us to know'

Thats not an answer. Thats a cop out. I'd have a lot more respect for the person if they just admitted they don't know, rather than try and mystify their answer.

And another example. A Priest and his entire Parish are squished when the Church randomly caves in. When asked why did God allow this to happen, the answer would typically be along the lines of 'God works in mysterious ways' when what they really want to say 'I haven't a clue, and can't find a reason in the Bible'

This prevents me taking it seriously. You may well feel differently of course!

In my opinion Doc, thats the best part about being human..... we are all identically unique.
And youre right about one thing, it's best not to take anything too seriously, to me it's all about enjoying life.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh. Religion as a moral guideline isn't a bad concept. But, as a way to live your life and explain existence? Not for me ta.

I just feel Christian and Judaic faiths have too many cop outs when asked certain questions. Best example?

Why? Why did God create stuff? Their answer would typically be along the lines of 'God's mind is not for us to know'

Thats not an answer. Thats a cop out. I'd have a lot more respect for the person if they just admitted they don't know, rather than try and mystify their answer.

And another example. A Priest and his entire Parish are squished when the Church randomly caves in. When asked why did God allow this to happen, the answer would typically be along the lines of 'God works in mysterious ways' when what they really want to say 'I haven't a clue, and can't find a reason in the Bible'

This prevents me taking it seriously. You may well feel differently of course!

It's not always a cop out. When you were a child, like 4 or 5, you were old enough to understand cause and effect but you still didn't really understand why your parents did things. Do you think dogs understand why we do the things we do to them? If there is a judeo-christian god, then why would we understand his thought process? Sure, he could explain it to us, but that would really eliminate the whole aspect of faith in the material world, wouldn't it?

As for the church caving in, God didn't allow that to happen. It happened. God isn't fairy princess, granting wishes and protecting his faithful. If the church collapses, it collapses. Instead of asking "why did he allow it", I'd ask "why would he stop it?"

As for why God created us, I have my theory. I think God was lonely, and wanted something to do and someone to talk to. He created mankind and put him in a weird sort of pressure cooker: he left hints about His existence, but also gave mankind absolute free will. therefore, those that wanted to seek out God do, and those that don't ignore him. In addition, God get's to watch human drama free from knowing all the details, because of our wacky free will. The reason he doesn't simply announce his presence publicly is that it'll simply attract the wrong kind of attention. Why wouldn't you ask God for a favor if you knew he was real? This way, he doesn't have to interfere with every single little aspect of humanity.

There are very good reasons for not believing in god, the foremost simply being that as rational beings we should not believe in the supernatural, and as beings of free will we should not willingly replace our judgment with that of another being. This is just nitpicking.

Just to add a liitle, I think doubts can sometimes be as unfounded as beliefs(if that is correct english), after all, didn't Mad Doc also doubt my stated age(amongst other things), for which I could verify given the opportunity. It seems that some are as inclined to doubt things, as some are inclined to believe things. alas, I cannot discern which is more useful.

Polonius wrote:
It has not. It has turned into a thread in which you are arguing against multiple people, alternating between claiming it's just your opinion and then presenting arguments on it's behalf. You have repeatedly ignored counter-arguments and continue to make claims that have been repeatedly shot down (see below). Not all defenses of the faith are noble acts. Sometimes you really are wrong.

I don't believe I have made any "claims" that have been "shot down" as you put it. Also I am trying to very hard to keep this from becoming an argument. :-)

Polonius wrote: I think there comes a point where ignoring what a person says while still trying to maintain a dialogue is at least partially disrespectful. I point it out because you don't actually respond to my arguments, you tend to dance around them.

We are dealing with the internet here, as I explained to you before I'm not entirely comfortable discussing highly complex issues like we have been attempting, and am not always able to break it down into small handy little snippets. So sometimes I choose to just not reply.

Polonius wrote: Again, "you take this stuff too personally" is a tactic used to minimize a person points and positions. Much like your repeated use of "it's just opinion," it's a way of lowering stakes. It's a rhetorical trick. And I'm sorry, i consider the search for truth and the nature of god to be pretty important, so it's something I do take personally.

I'm not using tactics. I'm just talking.

Polonius wrote:
Well, no, but we have explained multiple times the different kinds of faith, and how they're not all the same thing, and that faith in god is different from faith in a friend or faith in gravity.

I think you have misunderstood where I am coming from. And that is my fault. (again explaining things on the internet isn't my forte.) What I have been trying to point out is that Science for many people appears to have taken the place of Theistic faith with a sort of psuedo faith. They (a generalisation I know) believe in what they have been told and taught, and could be afraid to question the status quo in fear of losing their jobs, being ridiculed, etc. They accept uniformitariansm on faith, because there is nothing that they can obviously see to counter it, or maybe they are so zealous in their belief that they don't even want to take the time to pursue new ideas that could counter there preconceived notions.

Polonius wrote:
Do you think that the Bible says macro evolution and big bang cosmology are wrong? How do you respond to the idea that the story of creation simply left out the mechanics of creation (like the big bang and speciation) or that god left those things there simply to hide his fingerprints? The problem is that you seem to be challenging the science head on, rather than simply ignoring it. There was a mechanism for the creation of energy and matter, and there is a system behind all of taxonomy. I guess I just don't see how even a literal reading of the bible invalidates anything in science as science. It's one thing to say "macro-evolution might explain how species will continue to evolve, but since all species were creating 6500 years ago, it really doesn't matter" and be at least logically consistent. One thing a literal reading of the bible allows, don't forget, is a certain flexiblity with time. God is above and beyond time, and so can do a lot more in a day than mortals think.

The Bible doesn't say anything about macro evolution or big bang cosmology, as te Bible was written thousands of years before these ideas were presented. I am fully aware of the "old earth" creationsists view point that the genesis creation account is to be taken as poetry/myth and that they believe God used that format to convey truth. I however believe in a young earth. Your point about God being above time, is a very good one and is a very important in this discussion of young earth vs old earth. If God is real and All powerfull then of course He could create the universe/world/life in literally 6 days, or even 1 second for that matter.

Polonius wrote:
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?

generalgrog wrote:
I have never said that you couldn't be a Christian and believe in science(specifically Macro evolution). I did however state that I believed that you would be in error.

Polonius wrote:
Why? And what does that error mean for me? Is it sinful? Just a mistake? I'm genuinely curious.

Why?
First Off I believe the Bible and the literal 6 day creation.

And what does that error mean for me?
Well only you can answer that.

Is it sinful?
I really don't know. If you were truly ignorant, than possibly not. But let me qualify that with saying that I believe it is dangerous for me to suggest to someone else something is sinful, that is not obviously mentioned as being sinfull. James 4:17 says Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Polonius wrote:

First off, do you believe in young earth creationism? If so, what does it matter what aspects of nature can change over millions of years if there never has been millions of year?

Life is the single most interesting thing on this planet. The creation of self replicating DNA that can change and adapt is quite simply miraculous. It's either the single most astounding thing to ever develop in a godless universe, or it's a beautifully elegant design by the creator. Why wouldn't reverence be paid? We're reverent about the Grand Canyon and the depths of space, why not life itself?

But to get back to my question, which you sort of answered, you simply think that all of science is simply wrong with regards to evolution and big bang cosmology. That they've all made mistakes, covered them up, and nobody has really blown the whistle on it?

Or do you simply think that they believe this stuff in good faith but that there were enough mistakes to get the wrong result. If the former, I think it's a tough row to hoe as there are lots of scientists trying to earn their bones, and somebody would blow the whistle. If the latter, than where is the better theory? Macro evolution has been a dominant theory in science for ~130 years, and it's only gotten tighter and better supported. I hesitate to use this term, but to think that there "could be" a massive system of errors behind it is really a jump of blind faith. Of course there could be mistakes, but what are they? Where are they most likely to exist? What is the replacement theory? As I've stated multiple times, scientific theories work on a "King of the hill" model: one only gets down when another pushes it down. You could invalidate 99% of the evidence and work towards macro evolution, and it will remain the dominant theory until something replaces it.

I guess I just don't understand. The Bible allows for mechanisms to god's works. He didn't just magic up water, he used storms to flood the earth. He didn't materialize Adam, he formed him from clay. The Bible simply says what happened, it doesn't include everything.

Do you think it would be a good idea to start another thread about creationism vs evolutionism. This way we can spend time just on that subject, instead of usurping the religion thread? There was allready a thread locked about the issue.

I personnally wouldn't mind having a deep in depth discussion on the subject, but I feel that it is so enormous and deep that it should have it's own thread. There are a lot of scientific issues that I haven't even tried to bring up because I know it would take over the thread. But I don't think that the DAKKA people would appreciate turning the off topic forum into a religious issues forum.

Frazz do you care?
GG

generalgrog wrote:
I don't believe I have made any "claims" that have been "shot down" as you put it. Also I am trying to very hard to keep this from becoming an argument. :-)

It's easy to not argue when you never actually respond to the other person's posts, so, I can see why you think you're not arguing.

We are dealing with the internet here, as I explained to you before I'm not entirely comfortable discussing highly complex issues like we have been attempting, and am not always able to break it down into small handy little snippets. So sometimes I choose to just not reply.

So, when things get tough, you just ignore complex issues. That's got to be handy. I wonder how high the correlation is between "complex issues" and "points made by others that are detrimental to your position." I'm not a betting man, but my gut says it's probably pretty high.

Polonius wrote: Again, "you take this stuff too personally" is a tactic used to minimize a person points and positions. Much like your repeated use of "it's just opinion," it's a way of lowering stakes. It's a rhetorical trick. And I'm sorry, i consider the search for truth and the nature of god to be pretty important, so it's something I do take personally.

I'm not using tactics. I'm just talking.

I'm becoming aware that you are simply just talking. I made the mistake of thinking you were arguing/debating/discussing this issue in good faith, when in reality you are just talking. That was my mistake.

Polonius wrote:
Well, no, but we have explained multiple times the different kinds of faith, and how they're not all the same thing, and that faith in god is different from faith in a friend or faith in gravity.

I think you have misunderstood where I am coming from. And that is my fault. (again explaining things on the internet isn't my forte.) What I have been trying to point out is that Science for many people appears to have taken the place of Theistic faith with a sort of psuedo faith. They (a generalisation I know) believe in what they have been told and taught, and could be afraid to question the status quo in fear of losing their jobs, being ridiculed, etc. They accept uniformitariansm on faith, because there is nothing that they can obviously see to counter it, or maybe they are so zealous in their belief that they don't even want to take the time to pursue new ideas that could counter there preconceived notions.

And I think you've missed the 15 times myself and others have discussed that. And then pointed out that the single greatest path to scientific renown is to topple a long standing theory or idea, which means that you're essentially banking on no scientist ever wanting to be famous. You also keep ignoring the fact that scientific faith is rooted, at some level, on empirical evidence. Of course, you wouldn't notice that, because you're just talking and don't like to actually discuss complex issues on the internet.

The Bible doesn't say anything about macro evolution or big bang cosmology, as te Bible was written thousands of years before these ideas were presented. I am fully aware of the "old earth" creationsists view point that the genesis creation account is to be taken as poetry/myth and that they believe God used that format to convey truth. I however believe in a young earth. Your point about God being above time, is a very good one and is a very important in this discussion of young earth vs old earth. If God is real and All powerfull then of course He could create the universe/world/life in literally 6 days, or even 1 second for that matter.

So, you're saying there is really no biblical reason to be skeptical of scientific theories like macro evolution and big bang cosmology?

Why?
First Off I believe the Bible and the literal 6 day creation.

And what does that error mean for me?
Well only you can answer that.

Is it sinful?
I really don't know. If you were truly ignorant, than possibly not. But let me qualify that with saying that I believe it is dangerous for me to suggest to someone else something is sinful, that is not obviously mentioned as being sinfull. James 4:17 says Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Well, thanks for the answer. I guess I'd ask why you believe in a literal 6 day creation, and why that precludes macro evolution or a big bang,

Do you think it would be a good idea to start another thread about creationism vs evolutionism. This way we can spend time just on that subject, instead of usurping the religion thread? There was allready a thread locked about the issue.

Honestly, and I'm really not just being chippy, no, I don't think it will be useful.

I think we've reached a point of no return on this line of discussion. I'm going home for the weekend, so I won't be on much anyway, but it's clear that there isn't much point in continuing to discuss this.

Agreed.

I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why? Why did God create stuff? Their answer would typically be along the lines of 'God's mind is not for us to know'

Thats not an answer. Thats a cop out. I'd have a lot more respect for the person if they just admitted they don't know, rather than try and mystify their answer.

Why? They're making essentially the same statement, but the guy that mystifies the answer has given you a reason to stop looking for one. Which is a good thing, because as any logical positivist will tell you: why is a nonsensical question.

generalgrog wrote:I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

The problem is that the thread will be incredibly predictable. Evolution proponents will cite the volumes of biological, anthropological, archaeological, chemical, and historical evidence supporting evolution. Creation proponents will cite the Bible, and talk about faith. You might get some people who argue for ID, but they tend to be few in number because their position is fundamentally indistinguishable from evolution itself.

generalgrog wrote:
What I have been trying to point out is that Science for many people appears to have taken the place of Theistic faith with a sort of psuedo faith.

Its also worth pointing out that the people who take science on faith are also quite likely to do the same with religion. No scientist I know, and I know quite few, would ever take science on faith. However, many of the most religious people I know are the ones who respond unwaveringly to every single 'science says' story on the news.

I was actually wanting to discuss some of the science or lack there of. But oh well.


GG

you can discuss it with me if you like?!

generalgrog wrote:I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

I'm still here. I'm still waiting on that evidence of God's existence you promised a few pages back.

generalgrog wrote:I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

You're right. You won... sure showed us!

Or we realized that arguing with you would be futile. How do we know this? Cause we've been doing it for the last umpteen pages! You ignore our points, dodge our questions, and still spout the same nonsense even when proved wrong (faith in science vs faith in religion).

Like I said, a brick wall...

I think that with creationist and evolutionist beliefs, they need each other. Evolution has tons of evidence for it so I believe in evolution. However, I believe that god set paths for the evolutionary process. If apes had the same amount time to evolve as humans, then why don't apes have the same capabilities as we do? Why don't certain animals have opposable thumbs for example. The big bang theory is dandy, but science teaches that matter cannot be created/destroyed, it can only be converted. Well, the big bang theory is similar to saying that something came from nothing or that something exploded to create other things. With the inclusion of religion you can say that god created the original super-dense mass and then the big bang occured.

BTW humanity has been fighting the process of evolution for a while.

halonachos wrote: The big bang theory is dandy, but science teaches that matter cannot be created/destroyed, it can only be converted.

Actually the law of Energy Conservation states that ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed, and according to the Time Energy Uncertainty principle, there can be exception to the law of'Energy Conservation', providing that the 'time interval' times by the 'Energy deficit' is less than the 'Plank constant' Divided by four pi (this is equal to about 3.3 x 10 to the -16 eVs). So particles of Energy are continually popping in and out of existance all the time. Obviously I can't personally prove this theory, but it has led to the discovery of 'transient electron/positron pairs', which in turn explained coulombs law concerning electromagnetism, and Max plank incorporated this finding into the theory of QED(quantum electro dynamics) for whichwas won a nobel prize.
( I think thats about right, I admit I am only in my first year of a physics degree, and may have a few minor details wrong it may have been Heisenburg, Planck, Einstein, Bohr ,shrodinger or Pauli, but a nobel prize was definatley one for this work))

matter itself can be destroyed, we do it all the time, it converts into energy. perhaps the most interesting occurence of this is matter-antimatter anihilation. The name speaks for itself, matter and antimatter anihilate each other and they produce energy(EM radiation, Light).
the best part about this is it's reciprocal. You have enough Electromagnetic radiation it creates matter, always created as a matter-antimatter pair, this process is known as 'Pair Creation'.
I guess you probably knew that already.

So IF Jesus said I AM the way the truth and the LIGHT, what did he really mean?, Does light somehow carry a cosmic consciousness? Light gives birth to matter, and sustains life, it is the Energy of the universe. Only a fraction of it is visible, and it is everywhere, in everything.
Interesting? I think so.
I thought you wanted to talk about science?

halonachos wrote: If apes had the same amount time to evolve as humans, then why don't apes have the same capabilities as we do? .

Apes and humans are both descended from the same root species, and one of those- us-- has become dominant.

Evolution isn't about some steady march towards being able to talk and manufacture chewing gum and plastic baneblades. Part of the whole point of the process is that certain creatures will effectively run into evolutionary dead ends and not progress any further.

Like Pandas.

no.

nothing like pandas

pandaganda

halonachos wrote:Well, the big bang theory is similar to saying that something came from nothing or that something exploded to create other things.

That depends on which cosmological system you subscribe to. Leonard Suskind talks about a 'cosmological landscape' made up of various divergent universes that are created through quantum tunneling as seen in Hawking Radiation. It isn't so much that something was created from nothing as there has simply always been something, and when we say there was nothing we really only mean nothing like our observable universe.

generalgrog wrote:I was actually wanting to discuss some of the science or lack there of. But oh well.
GG

If you think the science behind evolution is lacking you seriously need to redress your understanding of science. That said, I would be interested to hear exactly what makes you doubt the theory. Aside from your faith, of course.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I was actually wanting to discuss some of the science or lack there of. But oh well.
GG

If you think the science behind evolution is lacking you seriously need to redress your understanding of science. That said, I would be interested to hear exactly what makes you doubt the theory. Aside from your faith, of course.

My statement was inclusive. I.E. the science and lack of science from both viewpoints. In other words I will try to keep an open mind and I hope other people would as well. I will go ahead and start another thread later.

GG

whilst still talking about creation, and trying to get back on topic, I've created something........

reds8n wrote:

halonachos wrote: If apes had the same amount time to evolve as humans, then why don't apes have the same capabilities as we do? .

Apes and humans are both descended from the same root species, and one of those- us-- has become dominant.

Evolution isn't about some steady march towards being able to talk and manufacture chewing gum and plastic baneblades. Part of the whole point of the process is that certain creatures will effectively run into evolutionary dead ends and not progress any further.

So are you saying that evolution causes creatures to evolve until evolution stops? Evolution is caused by the success of mutations or lack of success of said mutations. Mutations occur randomly and cause the creature to either thrive or die, so it is possible for chimps to have a mutation that makes them look, walk, and talk like humans. If this trait is positive, then the mutant chimp will mate and create more chimps in that image. It hasn't happened yet, so there must be something stopping the evolution from occuring. This something is what I call god. I believe that god set up paths in which creatures would evolve and once man reached a certain point, he let go of the bike nd let us go on our own. Look at the differences between people; tribal people in america, africa, australia, etc never really developed firearms of their own. This would've helped hunting but they didn't, there are resources around the tribes that they didn't tap into like the european/asian people did. So why was there a difference between the peoples of the 15th and 16th centuries in terms of breakthroughs and scientific advancement?

No.

I'm saying precisely what I said.

The current "chimp form" is quite sufficient for its ecological niche and thusly ( to a point) it continues and the current form maintains its dominance and they don't evolve any further as they don't need to. Minor changes will continue to occur-- say... finger length, eyesight, hearing, digestive tracts etc etc-- but as they generally provide no extra benefit for the species survival they don't take over.


If there comes a time when these traits become more useful, the will, possibly because not every species succeeds, become more dominant.

Chimps etc don't talk and build things like guns ... no, they don't. You'll notice this would make them a direct threat to the dominant species on the planet and would be wiped out by that most savage of beasts.

We didn't develop firearms to hunt.

I would strongly suggest that the varying conditions between the continents is a wide factor in why societies developed differently.


Actual size of the continents/hunting grounds quite key too I would guess.

halonachos wrote:
So are you saying that evolution causes creatures to evolve until evolution stops? Evolution is caused by the success of mutations or lack of success of said mutations. Mutations occur randomly and cause the creature to either thrive or die, so it is possible for chimps to have a mutation that makes them look, walk, and talk like humans. If this trait is positive, then the mutant chimp will mate and create more chimps in that image. It hasn't happened yet, so there must be something stopping the evolution from occuring.

But not all the chimps will mutate, and the non-mutant chimps will not necessarily die off. There is nothing stopping non-mutant chimps from becoming mutant chimps beyond the fact that non-mutant chimps are moderately successful within their limited habitat. Though this has been slowly changing.

halonachos wrote:
This something is what I call god. I believe that god set up paths in which creatures would evolve and once man reached a certain point, he let go of the bike nd let us go on our own. Look at the differences between people; tribal people in america, africa, australia, etc never really developed firearms of their own.

They never had easy access to the mineral components of gun powder, so that isn't surprising. Also, the conditions in which tribal cultures tend to flourish are not favorable to civilization as we know it; primarily due to a lack of arable land.

It is also worth pointing our that the Islamic empire was essentially based on a unified tribal culture, and they dominated the world for several hundred years. The same can be said of the Mongol Khans. Both were pioneers in the use of firearms in warfare.

halonachos wrote:
This would've helped hunting but they didn't, there are resources around the tribes that they didn't tap into like the european/asian people did. So why was there a difference between the peoples of the 15th and 16th centuries in terms of breakthroughs and scientific advancement?

Geological dispersion, natural resource availability, luck.