Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    Is it though? The creation needs a creator, so the only logical explanation is for some superficial power to have created the universe
    What do you mean by "creation"... what factors differentiates between "creation" and "natural"... If any case if everything needs to "created" by a higher power, sure this line of logic follows that the "superficial power" need to be "created". Who created the creator?
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    😂😂😂
    Where did everything come from then? How was the world created?
    Creation is the least likely explanation for the origin of mankind and the universe becasue there is absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. However the Big Bang theory is the most plausible as it is supported with scientific evidence. So is the theory of evolution.
    For now creationism is just baseless pseudoscience that should be kept within the confines of religious buildings and no where near the scientific/academic community until substantial evidence for its legitimacy is discovered.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Do you think the religion of science, so to speak, is almost as bad as religion itself?

    Like imagine if you'd call religion one extreme, than the other extreme is giving authority to science. Do you think or not think that is bad?
    It's hardly extreme to give authority to science. An important distinction must be made here: science is the practice of formulating ideas based on what we already know and what we can observe and then testing them extensively to falsify them, so that new predictions can be made and tested. This is the only way to achieve progress. Religion and philosophy are ideologies or collections of ideologies and therefore cannot be falsified, tested, proven or disproven. Ideologies provide no predictive capability so they do the exact opposite of science - they halt progress. This is especially damaging when an ideology attempts to explain everything in existence. Because it cannot be proven or disproven those who lack critical thinking skills tend to accept it as fact even though it isn't and can't ever be fact - by it's own definition. The ideology gets even worse if it contains within it a hatred of science, because then it not only prevents progress in the present, but also has the potential to do this forever if nothing stops it.

    This is finely demonstrated by the dark ages of religion, the thousands of years when religion was given absolute authority. In those thousands of years our species achieved virtually nothing. Up until about 300 years ago the majority of people still believed in a flat earth, witches and alchemy (the practice of trying to turn things like iron into gold). The time about 300 years ago when science was born is known as the enlightenment. This is because it was the first time in our species' entire history that progress became possible.

    The importance and effect of this event can be seen all around you. Everything we have exists because of that event. You even exist because of it! Without science most of us would've died as infants. But it goes so much further than that. In a mere 300 years we have been to the moon, sent probes and rovers to mars, sent probes outside our solar system, and raised the average lifespan from 25 years to 75 years. But all of this pales in comparison to some of the other things we've done. We can make nanoscale fibers which not only construct themselves, but which get stronger as they are compressed. At 70% compression they are 50 times harder than diamond.

    Even that is nothing in comparison to our invention of the standard model. Though only 90% complete, it can already sum up 90% of what happens in the universe in a single equation covering a single A4 page. The fundamental particles give rise to nucleons, then atoms, then chemistry and so on. So in that one equation 90% of what occurs in the universe is recorded. That's an unfathomable leap for humanity in just 300 years.

    With that in mind, I can only wonder why some people oppose science and actively try to hinder it. Clearly science is the future, not religion.
    Offline

    3
    Would you say empiricism is faith based?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    No, there may be a cause and effect argument, which is different, and certainly does not imply the cause as God. Now we are getting into the non verifiable, metaphysical, not worth spending to much time over.
    There have been many religious and spiritual people who have verified experiencing God.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    x
    My point was that people think science gives their life purpose, or that science has supreme authority over them.

    Like there are people who think we have a "duty to try understand things." Since when? That's just bloody creepy. (And it goes against scientific concepts like evolution which is ironic.)

    Or that people doesn't consider it a (more logical) explanation to things, but as cold, hard fact.

    Maybe it's just my personal distaste, but I find it really unsettling when people think like that. It's like people have transferred their source of purpose from a couple of holy books to the current thing, instead of keeping independence. And then they have the audacity to include me in that "we". They're right in saying that religion doesn't (shouldn't) have authority over our lives, but then they go try dictate my life and other people's lives instead of allowing them to find their own path. I know I've only said this one example, but I'm encountering that view (or views with a similar sentiment) more and more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    You mean the universe? Before the Big Bang? There are some hypothesis ... which are more rational and helpful than "God did it". Why does anything need to be "created"... what do you even mean by "created"?
    (Original post by chemting)
    What do you mean by "creation"... what factors differentiates between "creation" and "natural"... If any case if everything needs to "created" by a higher power, sure this line of logic follows that the "superficial power" need to be "created". Who created the creator?
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Creation is the least likely explanation for the origin of mankind and the universe becasue there is absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. However the Big Bang theory is the most plausible as it is supported with scientific evidence. So is the theory of evolution.
    For now creationism is just baseless pseudoscience that should be kept within the confines of religious buildings and no where near the scientific/academic community until substantial evidence for its legitimacy is discovered.
    I am no doubt denying the theory of the Big Bang, I fully beleive it as scientifically it seems correct. I'm a man of logic, and I think logically, so logically something must have cause the Big Bang, what actually was the Big Bang? It was a sound, from that one sound, all was created.

    Calling God the creator is extremely simplified, God is no physical thing. God is the force, and by einsteins theory, force can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So God s force is in the creations, and when we die, the force will return back to God.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    There have been many religious and spiritual people who have verified experiencing God.
    I don't think you understand the meaning of verifiable...there have been people who believe they have experienced God. They have yet to verify these claims.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I don't think you understand the meaning of verifiable...there have been people who believe they have experienced God. They have yet to verify these claims.
    Tbf the principle to verify something can't be verified itself - not that I agree that the testament of religious people having experienced something should be used as evidence...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    My point was that people think science gives their life purpose, or that science has supreme authority over them.

    Like there are people who think we have a "duty to try understand things." Since when? That's just bloody creepy. (And it goes against scientific concepts like evolution which is ironic.)

    Or that people doesn't consider it a (more logical) explanation to things, but as cold, hard fact.

    Maybe it's just my personal distaste, but I find it really unsettling when people think like that. It's like people have transferred their source of purpose from a couple of holy books to the current thing, instead of keeping independence. And then they have the audacity to include me in that "we". They're right in saying that religion doesn't (shouldn't) have authority over our lives, but then they go try dictate my life and other people's lives instead of allowing them to find their own path. I know I've only said this one example, but I'm encountering that view (or views with a similar sentiment) more and more.
    Can you give examples of science and it's proponents dictating how we should live our lives? I'm not sure what you mean.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    Don't you think people can make these decisions for themselves?
    Perhaps some people can make that decision themselves, others will need to be shown that there are other view points they can consider.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    If your never saw your parents, would you say that they don't exist?
    No but there are exceptionally good scientific and logical arguements for good with little to argue against them.

    For god it's a bit different given there are arguments for and against. Along with the confusion of specific gods, most arguments for God are general.

    To build on your comparison, they say I have a parent but they don't reveal who that parent is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawbringer)
    How are you so sure there is no god? Surely being agnostic is the best approach to this situation?
    If you are agnostic you implicitly support the injustices caused by religion. If you are atheist you explicitly reject these.

    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Do you think the religion of science, so to speak, is almost as bad as religion itself?

    Like imagine if you'd call religion one extreme, than the other extreme is giving authority to science. Do you think or not think that is bad?
    Science is based on evidence, or at least the best evidence we can find. Scientists are also no afraid to be wrong, if better evidence comes along. Both religion and science are searching for answers, but that's where the similarity ends.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    Tbf the principle to verify something can't be verified itself - not that I agree that the testament of religious people having experienced something should be used as evidence...
    I somewhat see what you are saying, that it is more truthful that probabilities are assigned to statements rather than saying something is an absolute fact. Richard Fenyman described that which had been proven as being very very probable. This feeds the scientists curiosity to discover more.Though talking about verifying the principle of verifying something sounds like a linguistic slippery slope. Still, as I said in an earlier post, we can look to Bayesian Inference to suggest that there is likely no God based on likelihood of the factualness of scientific theory.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    😂😂😂
    Where did everything come from then? How was the world created?
    If you mean "where did everything come from" ultimately, ie how was matter created in the first place?, then I think the answer is that we don't know. Although I think you'll have the same problem explaining god - how did it initially come into being, where is its creator/parent?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    I am no doubt denying the theory of the Big Bang, I fully beleive it as scientifically it seems correct. I'm a man of logic, and I think logically, so logically something must have cause the Big Bang, what actually was the Big Bang? It was a sound, from that one sound, all was created.

    Calling God the creator is extremely simplified, God is no physical thing. God is the force, and by einsteins theory, force can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So God s force is in the creations, and when we die, the force will return back to God.
    This is completely inaccurate from a Physics perspective I'm afraid. For example, Einstein did not say that force cannot be destroyed, you are getting force confused with energy and mass energy equivalence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    When the **** did Einstein say the force cannot be created or destroyed? Shaking my damn head
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)

    Calling something supernatural a creator when it can not be observed is the very opposite of simplified.
    I'd call it a cop-out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    Would you say empiricism is faith based?
    No, would you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If God is simply a permeating force of the universe than it is not a God, surely?

    With that logic one could say that the big bang itself was god. Or if you're deifying forces, why not call gravity a god as well?

    If you say gods don't need to be praised and have no 'human-qualities' than one could just say that science is god. If you're going to twist the meanings of words then it is meaningless, if a god is just an unknowable force that we can't communicate with, why should we bother ourselves with it?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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