Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    The point is, guys, that no matter how imperfect scientific theory may be, God does not automatically become logical. He cannot become a scapegoat for our ignorance of the universe. Debating scientific theory is useful scientifically but not philosophically. In order to conclude a creator did anything, you need evidence or a sound thought experiment. "We don't know, therefore there must be a creator/an omnipotent force behind it" is not logical.
    In the same way, you can't discount the idea of a creator before you can prove that there was no creator, or that the universe was made independent of any influences by other, 'higher', beings.

    (Original post by Revenged)
    Not true... notice how Genesis turned from being completely factual that god created the world in 6 days a few hundred years ago

    To now, where in order to account for the fact that dinosaurs exsisted and that the world was scientifically proven to be created in a few millions of years ago, it is now interpreted metaphorically as pd is saying. Thus religion is intrepreted differently as the one thing religious people won't do is to say... actually this is a pretty rubbish story that is the equivalent to a myth...
    god creates man, god knows man's capabilities and mental understanding is basic to say the least. if, two thousand years ago, someone had come along and started shouting off about how the world evolved in billions of years, slowly guided by a 'higher being', starting with a big explosion an followed by giant lizards ruling the world, and numerous other stages, before man came into being, do you think that it would have been taken seriously??? Hell, no! Is it so hard to conceive that a god who created man, would tell about that creation using simplistic metaphors that could be used to demonstrate the creation, and how life should be lived and everything else that he wanted to be taught to them? These metaphors being taught, knowing that man would evolve, and then be able to comprehend and understand that life and evolution is much more complex, and that as this understanding came the interpretation of the bible could be altered to show how this new knowledge fits in?

    is not the fact that the metaphors and stories within the bible CAN be adapted to modern life enough to at least conceive that there MAY be more to this than pure science?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revenged)
    Talking about fossils... Did you hear about all these different species of humans that existed on the planet millons of years ago?
    Firstly, it wasn't millions of years ago.
    Secondly, the fossils that were found are not of humans.
    Thirdly, they might not have been ancestors of humans either. Eg neandertals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    Its amazing how people can stand by religion when time after time science undermines it.

    Any religious folk like to comment on this page?
    don't you ever tire of arguing with religious people about this... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Firstly, it wasn't millions of years ago.
    Secondly, the fossils that were found are not of humans.
    Thirdly, they might not have been ancestors of humans either. Eg neandertals.
    your "secondly" and "thirdly" divide the scientifi community. It is wrong of you to suggest any degree of certainty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    your "secondly" and "thirdly" divide the scientifi community. It is wrong of you to suggest any degree of certainty.
    Since humans as we know them only came into existence around 70000 years ago (the human mind "awakened" around 40000), fossils from over a million years ago cannot be of humans. They *may* be those of ancestors of humans since they are humanoid. However, they could be of other humanoid creatures such as the neadertals which are now extinct. And scientists know what neandertals look like. They even know they buried their dead with flowers.

    It is not wrong to suggest a degree of certainty. There are some obvious links. If you're interested, check out the paleobiology section of the 1A geology notes, which will be on the net somewhere. (Parts 1B and 2 will probably be floating round as well).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    Since humans as we know them only came into existence around 70000 years ago (the human mind "awakened" around 40000), fossils from over a million years ago cannot be of humans.
    That is why I didn't debate your "firstly".

    They *may* be those of ancestors of humans since they are humanoid. However, they could be of other humanoid creatures such as the neadertals which are now extinct. And scientists know what neandertals look like. They even know they buried their dead with flowers.

    It is not wrong to suggest a degree of certainty. There are some obvious links. If you're interested, check out the paleobiology section of the 1A geology notes, which will be on the net somewhere. (Parts 1B and 2 will probably be floating round as well).
    Ive just realised I have no idea what Im arguing for.
    There is a degree of certainty however, agreed. But there is a lot of disagreement in the field...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Saying that the universe must have been created is all very well. However, you then assume that God has always existed, in order to create the universe in the first place. Is it not just as likely that the Universe could always have existed in some shape or form?

    Also, whilst the Theory of Evolution to some extent 'disproves' the literal interpretation of the Bible, it does not rule out the possibility of some higher being or creative force. The Big Bang itself could be seen as God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    In the same way, you can't discount the idea of a creator before you can prove that there was no creator, or that the universe was made independent of any influences by other, 'higher', beings.
    And you cant disprove that the world rests on a giant invisible snail.

    You need evidence to make an assertion.
    There is no good evidence for God.
    "innocent until proven guilty" has the same logic to it if you are looking for an analogy to clarify that point.

    god creates man, god knows man's capabilities and mental understanding is basic to say the least. if, two thousand years ago, someone had come along and started shouting off about how the world evolved in billions of years, slowly guided by a 'higher being', starting with a big explosion an followed by giant lizards ruling the world, and numerous other stages, before man came into being, do you think that it would have been taken seriously??? Hell, no! Is it so hard to conceive that a god who created man, would tell about that creation using simplistic metaphors that could be used to demonstrate the creation, and how life should be lived and everything else that he wanted to be taught to them? These metaphors being taught, knowing that man would evolve, and then be able to comprehend and understand that life and evolution is much more complex, and that as this understanding came the interpretation of the bible could be altered to show how this new knowledge fits in?

    is not the fact that the metaphors and stories within the bible CAN be adapted to modern life enough to at least conceive that there MAY be more to this than pure science?
    this all assumes God's existence.
    not good.

    To address that last paragaph...
    The bible (and religious books in general) is full of vague preaching or specifics, as I understand it. A nice mix.
    It is no surprise that the former can be applied to modern life, whilst the latter is dismissed by religious types as being taken out of context or taken to see Mr Campbell...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that evolution is the way animals diversify etc, i just believe that science is the way that god acts out his intentions.

    So i see no problem with religion and science. To me science is just the mechanism by which the world works, the big bang was the creation.

    In my mind the bible is simply a collection of stories, passed down and changed that seek to explain how god created the earth etc. Alot of the stories to me appear just to serve the purpose of instilling morals, the ten commandments to me is simply the way of explaining how they were arrived at.

    This may be a unique viewpoint, perhaps noone but me shares it. I don't know.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    Ive just realised I have no idea what Im arguing for.
    quality, devine quality

    BTW, i have nothing against the anti-religion rant, pd, but don't you agree that religion is a tool that helps people cope with things...

    if a dying child feels that he is going to a better place when he dies and gets comfort in the fact that he isn't going to just rot in the ground. thus religion has a role in this world, whether or not it's good or bad, but giving hope and removing the fear of death of things mean that me, despite what i think of relgion, i respect peoples beliefs to some extent...

    if people want to live in an illusion and believe what i believe to be rubbish i leave it, unless i can prove to some extend that it's wrong, i let them believe

    about this argument... NO ONE KNOWS, therefore the quote you said pd is the most intelligent thing you've prob ever said and i bet you never realised this...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revenged)
    BTW, i have nothing against the anti-religion rant, pd, but don't you agree that religion is a tool that helps people cope with things...

    if a dying child feels that he is going to a better place when he dies and gets comfort in the fact that he isn't going to just rot in the ground. thus religion has a role in this world, whether or not it's good or bad, but giving hope and removing the fear of death of things mean that me, despite what i think of relgion, i respect peoples beliefs to some extent...
    I agree that religion can be a good thing on a personal level - as you say, some people find it to be a comfort and to provide an explanation for things that seem inexplicable. I have often thought that believing in God and an afterlife would make things easier. For example, the death of a loved one would be more bearable if I truly believed that I was going to see them again some day. Unfortunately I don't.

    I do, however, think that organised religion, i.e. religion on a more global scale, has done more bad than good. It has always been (ab)used as a way to exercise power and exert control over others (whether in good faith or not - some religious leaders probably didn't believe in the God they were apparently serving, others probably did). I have no objection to people's private beliefs. I do, however, object when they start imposing those beliefs on others, as organised religion tries to do.

    Sorry, I realise this was rather off-topic...

    On a more relevant note, something has been bothering me lately. If God created the universe and everything in it, who or what created God? Did he just will himself into being? Clearly that is a logical impossibility since you can't will yourself into existing if you don't exist in the first place. Any thoughts, particularly from the believers?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If God created the universe and everything in it, who or what created God? Did he just will himself into being? Clearly that is a logical impossibility since you can't will yourself into existing if you don't exist in the first place. Any thoughts, particularly from the believers?
    The realms of absoluteness
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    The realms of absoluteness
    Do you mean that I am trying to explain God in terms of the physical, which is impossible because he is God?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manatee)
    Do you mean that I am trying to explain God in terms of the physical, which is impossible because he is God?
    Basically you are trying to limit the creator within the created which is logically impossible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Basically you are trying to limit the creator within the created which is logically impossible.
    That is exactly the answer I was expecting... :rolleyes:

    My point and reason for asking was this: one of the objections which adherents of creationism raise to the Big Bang theory is that "something cannot come from nothing". Alternatively, they ask "what was there before the Big Bang"? Scientists' inability to come up with satisfactory answers proves, in their eyes, that the Big Bang theory is flawed and, ergo, the universe must be the creation of an omnipotent being. They replace one mystery with another - except that at least there is some scientific proof for the Big Bang, whereas there is no such proof for God's existence. It seems rather strange to me to reject one theory because we don't have all the answers and to provide another, even more nebulous, explanation - and then reject any attempt to explain that solution (i.e. God) by claiming that it cannot be explained.

    I realise that religion is primarily a matter of faith. I could just about understand people rejecting the Big Bang and evolution because they believe in an alternative explanation which is inherently incompatible with them, but not because they attempt to raise scientific objections which they then ignore when it comes to their own explanation.

    I hope at least some of that made sense...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My point and reason for asking was this: one of the objections which adherents of creationism raise to the Big Bang theory is that "something cannot come from nothing". Alternatively, they ask "what was there before the Big Bang"? Scientists' inability to come up with satisfactory answers proves, in their eyes, that the Big Bang theory is flawed and, ergo, the universe must be the creation of an omnipotent being. They replace one mystery with another - except that at least there is some scientific proof for the Big Bang, whereas there is no such proof for God's existence. It seems rather strange to me to reject one theory because we don't have all the answers and to provide another, even more nebulous, explanation - and then reject any attempt to explain that solution (i.e. God) by claiming that it cannot be explained.
    As a thiest, I do not deny the big bang. In fact most people don't. Some thiests (like me) consider the big bang as the work of a creator.

    Science, by its own admission, is incomplete and continues to evolve. I don't think science and religion are mutually exclusive - but those of belief would naturally consider the word of God over the word of science, which is essentially the word of man.
 
 
 

963

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.