About the Science vs Religion Debate

[HOF44]

From your link. . .

That is what I was eluding to earlier. There is a remote probablility that a big bang will happen every 10^121 years spontaneously. In essence, this is something from nothing, and yes, quantum mechanics has some extremely strange charactoristics. Things popping in and out of existance for example.

That possibility is the probability of branes touching. Brane and M-string theory is really where most of the interesting stuff is happening now in cosmological theory.

[portisizzle]

Here you go give this a read. I copied a little snippet below.

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

PROBLEM! If nothing is something, it would seem to logically follow that there is NO nothing, there is only something!

Well, problem solved, the reason we can't get something from nothing is because there never was a nothing, there has always been only something!

But, what was the nature of the something that preceded our universe,

that we mistakenly thought was nothing?

Maybe we should do further research!

Not really answers but intersting none the less.

Sorry, I am headed out the door for dinner. I will get back to this later!!

[cakmoney61]

Here you go give this a read. I copied a little snippet below.

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

PROBLEM! If nothing is something, it would seem to logically follow that there is NO nothing, there is only something!

Well, problem solved, the reason we can't get something from nothing is because there never was a nothing, there has always been only something!

But, what was the nature of the something that preceded our universe,

that we mistakenly thought was nothing?

Maybe we should do further research!

Not really answers but intersting none the less.

You explained the existence of God quite well. To believe that God doesn't exist is like putting your finger in a pond and believing water isn't wet. I find finite and very mortal man who is here a minute and gone from the world the next merely a speck when compared to the infinite, immortal, and living God. It really is comical listening to people try to reason God into not existing. God is not a belief; He is a reality, and only the foolish would think otherwise.

[HOF44]

Is the spaghetti monster a figment of your imagination?

You are ignoring my basic agrument here chrome.

1) Science can explain

2) Science will never create.

4) Science can not explain what created the universe

5) a x 0 = 0 therefor something can not come from nothing

6) But the universe was created because a x 0 does equal something other than zero.

Make fun of me if you want, I am dead serious. And I really do not care if it offends you and you science community or not. Creationism is a legitimate theory.

The only question remaining is if you beleive that a spaghetti monster created the universe or if a creator did it....oh or a third option, some antimatter / turning into matter thingy

Chrome = spaghetti monster

Portisizzle = god

End of conversation, it is dinner time without the kids tonight.

I still don't understand why you don't think that something could have always been.

Instead of a x 0 = 0

Why not 1 x 1 = 1 ????

[HOF44]

You explained the existence of God quite well. To believe that God doesn't exist is like putting your finger in a pond and believing water isn't wet. I find finite and very mortal man who is here a minute and gone from the world the next merely a speck when compared to the infinite, immortal, and living God. It really is comical listening to people try to reason God into not existing. God is not a belief; He is a reality, and only the foolish would think otherwise.

Obviously you did not read the link.

Also god is your belief to state otherwise is arrogant on your part. I respect the right of others to believe as they see fit and don't find them foolish for doing so.

Unless of course your talking about Jim Jones followers or the people that were gonna catch that comet when it came by. Now they were all foolish.

[portisizzle]

I still don't understand why you don't think that something could have always been.

Instead of a x 0 = 0

Why not 1 x 1 = 1 ????

Because 1 implies something is there. What would that one be? I will read your link. Look life very interesting reading.

[HOF44]

Because 1 implies something is there. What would that one be? I will read your link. Look life very interesting reading.

Go eat dinner with your kids I'll be on after 9 tonight to see what you have posted.

[cakmoney61]

Obviously you did not read the link.

Also god is your belief to state otherwise is arrogant on your part. I respect the right of others to believe as they see fit and don't find them foolish for doing so.

Unless of course your talking about Jim Jones followers or the people that were gonna catch that comet when it came by. Now they were all foolish.

Actually what's arrogant and very foolish on your part is spelling God with a little "g." It's been interesting, but I can't take but so much persistent unbelief. Hopefully, one day you will come into the saving knowledge of the true and living God and laugh at what you use to think about Him. As it stands right now, this mindset isn't remotely funny.

Take care

[Chopper Dave]

Portisizzle, you have a point that something can't come from nothing. Who's to say that there was ever nothing? People say the universe is infinite, and that doesn't just apply to its size. It's a painfully difficult concept to grasp (impossible to grasp entirely, IMO), but maybe there was never nothing. I mean, even going by your theory that the universe wasn't there and God, in one form or another, created it, the question of who created God comes up. If God can be infinite and has always existed, who's to say that there was even a middle man (God) and that that doesn't apply to the universe rather than its creator?

[HOF44]

Actually what's arrogant and very foolish on your part is spelling God with a little "g." It's been interesting, but I can't take but so much persistent unbelief. Hopefully, one day you will come into the saving knowledge of the true and living God and laugh at what you use to think about Him. As it stands right now, this mindset isn't remotely funny.

Take care

This is not the conversation for you anyway. You are locked in your belief structure. To not have any type of inquiring or open mind is dangerous. Absolutes are what leads to religious fundamentalism. There were absolutes in Nazi germany, Jews are bad. There are absolutes in the middle east, non follwers of Islam are bad. I hope this country never ends up like that.

[Chopper Dave]

Actually what's arrogant and very foolish on your part is spelling God with a little "g." It's been interesting, but I can't take but so much persistent unbelief. Hopefully, one day you will come into the saving knowledge of the true and living God and laugh at what you use to think about Him. As it stands right now, this mindset isn't remotely funny.

Take care

I'm sure he's really sorry that he offended your Christian sensibilities. Come on. There are just as many people in this world that find Christianity as laughable as you do "unbelief".

[Predicto]

Interesting take considering the fact that I am arguing the point knowing in advance science can not answer the question.

I suppose we can talk about Chromes thoughts on creation of matter out of nothing. But he himself says that is just talk right now.

Predicto, I think once you come to the understanding that there was a beginning to all of this, you are left with a understanding that all of this was created.

If you want to take the path that says this creation was completed void of God, I will walk it with you. Just know that once you walk the path with me you will have left science behind and taken this leap of faith that we have been talking about.

Are you comfortable with a leap of faith?

Now I'm confused. Are you or are you not advocating the "Intelligent Design" theory that denies the scientific mechanism of evolution?

I have no problem with the idea of a creator, who created a universe and even its nacent life forms, forms which have evolved over eons of time into the species we see now, perhaps according to his divine plan. All that is wll and good.

If you are saying that the earth is 6000 years old and we did not evolve from apes, then I am going to have to continue disagreeing with you.

Please clarify your position.

[cakmoney61]

I'm sure he's really sorry that he offended your Christian sensibilities. Come on. There are just as many people in this world that find Christianity as laughable as you do "unbelief".

I'm not offended at all. We aren't suppose to connect. The God Who I call my Lord and Savior the unbeliever calls nonexistent. We are polar opposites spiritually. I desire to only build up and not to tear down. I feel like I'm the one who has been offensive, although I only said what the Bible says about people who have convinced themselves that there is no God.

An unbeliever's issue is not with me, but with the God they say doesn't exist. John the Baptist described himself as a voice crying in the wilderness. The people of his day beheaded him. The people crucified Christ for the things He said. So who in the world am I to catch some flak for believing in my God and His Christ? I consider it an honor as Christ teaches me to in the Bible.

This Bible I read and the God I "blindly" follow tell me to love all men, so I have no beef with anyone. As a matter of fact, me and those who reject the existence of God on this site do have something in common...we are both Redskins fans.

The bottom line is no one can change my mind and I can't change the minds of people who vehemently disagree. So we can agree to disagree. So believe me, I'm not offended, but I have been speaking on this subject for several hours and the discussion has run its course for me.

[Thinking Skins]

Chom, you spoke on two levels, so I want to approach them both.

Its interesting that these are teh questions that you ask because I can remember when I first started to ask these questions about the Bible and the origin of its words vs the translation of its words. I was especially upset over the different versions that I was seeing. It seemed like every year a new version of the Bible would come out and each one interpreted verses differently.

Plus as a kid growing up, I would read a passage in the Bible and get a different thought from it than the elders in the room. So I had a large problem with discussing religion because everybody thought their interpretation of the Bible was correct, and if I got a different meaning from it, then I am "questioning God's Word". So I stayed away from these discussions and kinda rebelled against religion in general.

When I went to college, I started to look for a new church home. But all the churches were filled with corruption and evil spirits. They were obviously there, judging each other's dress and making negative comments about each others children. This turned me away from church for that for year peroid. And I really forgot alot that I had earned about religion.

So I can understand some of your comments, especially your questions about Christianity in general.

The way I found a solution though, was not to turn away from the religious principles. But rather, I found salvation in those religious principles. For example, religious hypocrites would tell me things like, "you'll never be nothin cause you're black." Well, the salvation of God tells me that ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME. Nobody else's opinion matters. But you shouldn't let somebody else who calls themselves religious determine your paths.

And the fact about the Word is that no matter how many people try to explain it, none of us understand it, so whatever we preach to one another is either a quote of a verse or OUR interpretation of a verse.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

---(Matthew 7:15-20)

[Thinking Skins]

Chom, the other level I wanted to speak on the use of fear in the Bible.

Fear isn't the only reason presented in the Bible to believe in God.

One of the things that intrigues me is the characteristic of perfection. They refer to God as 'The Perfect Ruler,' and 'The Wisest of all Beings.' As a person who seeks wisdom on a daily struggle, I admire a God of Wisdom, and ask him for help understanding that wisdom.

I admire Jesus as a man because he came on earth and did what NO OTHER man was able to do, live a life free of sin. And in so doing, when I commit sins I turn to see how he handled commiting similar sins.

One of the ones I run into is similar to when Jesus was on the top of the Mountain and Satan told him to throw himself from the top of the mountain because God wouldn't let Jesus get hurt. And Jesus resoinded that we shouldn't tempt God.

I got caught speeding on Thanksgiving, and even though there wasn't a car around me, and I was confident nothing would happen to me, I still had the feeling like I committed the sin that Jesus didn't commit, and moreso I can better understand how not to sin since I have the example of perfection to live by.

When I understand the powers that God has, its unnatural for me not to have fear, but I don't believe because of some fiery place called hell. And I do not believe because I took Pascal's Wager. Perfection did it for me.

But there are many many reasons the Bible presents. Just because you should be afraid of God doesn't mean that God wants you to believe out of fear.

Heck Judas knew the power of God and got afraid and killed himself. Anybody can be afraid of God, but God just wants you to believe in him, whatever the reason.

[portisizzle]

Here you go give this a read. I copied a little snippet below.

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

PROBLEM! If nothing is something, it would seem to logically follow that there is NO nothing, there is only something!

Well, problem solved, the reason we can't get something from nothing is because there never was a nothing, there has always been only something!

But, what was the nature of the something that preceded our universe,

that we mistakenly thought was nothing?

Maybe we should do further research!

Not really answers but intersting none the less.

So nothing is something after all. :laugh:

After reading the progression of you link I wanted to copy out the ending that pretty much sums up where I am with this topic.

_______________________________________________________

As Nobel Physicist John Wheeler once put it

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics,

you do not understand it".

The same may be said for general relativity,

and also the concept of NOTHING,

if there ever was a NOTHING?

and how we get SOMETHING from NOTHING!

"As emphasized by Penrose many years ago, cosmology can only make sense if the world started in a state of exceptionally low entropy. The low entropy starting point is the ultimate reason that the universe has an arrow of time, without which the second law would not make sense. However, there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state. ...

Present cosmological evidence points to an inflationary beginning and an accelerated de Sitter end. Most cosmologists accept these assumptions, but there are still major unresolved debates concerning them. For example, there is no consensus about initial conditions. Neither string theory nor quantum gravity provide a consistent starting point for a discussion of the initial singularity or why the entropy of the initial state is so low. High scale inflation postulates an initial de Sitter starting point with Hubble constant roughly 10^-5 times the Planck mass. This implies an initial holographic entropy of about 10^10 which is extremely small by comparison with today's visible entropy. Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history."

"In an argument that would have gratified the ancient Greeks, physicists have claimed that the prevailing theoretical view of the Universe is logically flawed. Arranging the cosmos as we think it is arranged, say the team, would have required a miracle. The problem stems from the observation in 1998 that the Universe's expansion seems to be speeding up. The most popular explanation for this is that there is a cosmological constant - a repulsive force that opposes gravity. So either space is not accelerating for the reasons we think it is, or we have yet to discover some principle of physics, the researchers conclude. Like a guardian angel, this principle would pick out those few initial states that lead to a Universe like ours, and then guide cosmic evolution so that it really does unfold this way. The incomprehensibility of our situation even drives Susskind's team to ponder whether an "unknown agent intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own"

We repeat!

"Where do the laws of physics come from?" (Guth) pauses ...

"We are a long way from being able to answer that one."

[HOF44]

I guess the biggest difference between the points of view is one side believes through having an open mind, experimenting and observing the world around us eventually we will understand the mechanics of the universe.

The other side believes its is devine and beyond our comprehension.

Just looking back at history and everything that has been attributed to the devine for lack of understanding, I kind of feel thats where we are now with alot of questions. Do we understand now the original state of the universe? No. Will we one day in the future?? I believe so.

[chomerics]

That possibility is the probability of branes touching. Brane and M-string theory is really where most of the interesting stuff is happening now in cosmological theory.

Are you in the field?

[portisizzle]

Portisizzle, you have a point that something can't come from nothing. Who's to say that there was ever nothing? People say the universe is infinite, and that doesn't just apply to its size. It's a painfully difficult concept to grasp (impossible to grasp entirely, IMO), but maybe there was never nothing. I mean, even going by your theory that the universe wasn't there and God, in one form or another, created it, the question of who created God comes up. If God can be infinite and has always existed, who's to say that there was even a middle man (God) and that that doesn't apply to the universe rather than its creator?

"Painfully difficult concept to grasp"

Chopper, the only painful concept to grasp is the concept of infinity. Science can not begin to fathom the concepts of infinitesimally small and infinitesimally large, infinitesimally in the past and infinitesimally in the future. Carl Sagan I think created the word googleplex. If I remember this correctly this number would be a 1 followed by enough zeroes that if put in a string behind that one would wrap around the Earths equator 22,000 times. Or something like that. So to test how really hard this is to grasp, think about a point of time in the past one trillion, trillion goolgeplexes in the past. (That would be a point in time equal to 1 followed by zeros wrapped around the Earths equator 22,000 TIMES one trillion, trillion.) How impossible is that to consider? I would say pretty darn impossible.

So much so that this simple example would cause you and I enough fried brain cells in an attempt to understand it. And when we could put our mind around how far in the past this might be, then lets double that point in the past say........ one trillion, trillion googleplexes. Then try to consider how far in the past is..... AND if we can wrap ourselves around that then do it all over again. That is right double our time in the past another 1 trillion trillion googleplexes.

Sitting in my chair trying to comprehend this helps me understand that even if I could relate to that distance in the past, I would never reach the concept of infinity in my mind.

My argument then is how can you put a beginning on something that has not a beginning. How can you apply science to the impossible? God or not, big bang or not. The answer escapes sciences ability to understand. Thoroughly and totally.

[HOF44]

Are you in the field?

No, but in college I had to take 2 years of physics major classes for my degree and have been intrigued ever since. I try to read as much as I have time to about current theories pertaining to quantum mechanics and string theory.

I am enamored with the brane theory. It fascinates me. The level of math involved in these theories is incredible. I could never create it. Or a proof of it. I can, by going over it again and agian and reading alot get the jest of alot of what the are postulating.

I like to look at the math involved in string theory and try to conceptulize what it really means. Sometimes I think I get a glimpse of what they are talking about, other times I'm dumbfounded, and then again other times I think i really get it only to find out later my interpretation was way out in left filed.

Just a hobby for me but what excersize for the brain.

[portisizzle]

I guess the biggest difference between the points of view is one side believes through having an open mind, experimenting and observing the world around us eventually we will understand the mechanics of the universe.

The other side believes its is devine and beyond our comprehension.

Just looking back at history and everything that has been attributed to the devine for lack of understanding, I kind of feel thats where we are now with alot of questions. Do we understand now the original state of the universe? No. Will we one day in the future?? I believe so.

You link provides me enough evidence to suggest that we may be able to map out the mechanics of the universe. But when we do figure it out, won't we be revealing that which has been created?

This is no different then the discovery of DNA. Science discovered DNA, it did not create it. Even if / when science begins to manipulate DNA we will never be able to create new and different life. Clone, yes. But heck I could go clone something tonight if I wanted to...(That was sick I am sorry)

Your link to the subject HOF44

http://www.whyevolution.com/life.html

[HOF44]

You link provides me enough evidence to suggest that we may be able to map out the mechanics of the universe. But when we do figure it out, won't we be revealing that which has been created?

This is no different then the discovery of DNA. Science discovered DNA, it did not create it. Even if / when science begins to manipulate DNA we will never be able to create new and different life. Clone, yes. But heck I could go clone something tonight if I wanted to...(That was sick I am sorry)

Your link to the subject HOF44

http://www.whyevolution.com/life.html

I picked that source because the section on physics had some peer reviewed credible papers referenced.

The section on biology is a mix. There are some credible references along with some unsupported (by which I mean factual info and peer reviews).

The section on probabilities of life starting is based on math that is a guess. As we have both agreed on here the universe goes into the realm of the infinite. If we accept this then setting the odds of the chance of life starting in any particular place is not possible.

It is ironic that one of the better sources for a quick explanation of string and brane theory is in an anti evolution site.

[portisizzle]

Now I'm confused. Are you or are you not advocating the "Intelligent Design" theory that denies the scientific mechanism of evolution?

I have no problem with the idea of a creator, who created a universe and even its nacent life forms, forms which have evolved over eons of time into the species we see now, perhaps according to his divine plan. All that is wll and good.

If you are saying that the earth is 6000 years old and we did not evolve from apes, then I am going to have to continue disagreeing with you.

Please clarify your position.

I am OK with the theory of evolution. Notice I said theory. As far as our direct connection with apes? Show me evidence (not proof as there is no proof of a direct linkage) and I will respond in kind. I will suggest in advance that humans have a quality that does not exist in apes That is morality, and spirituality.

[chomerics]

Chom, you spoke on two levels, so I want to approach them both.

Its interesting that these are teh questions that you ask because I can remember when I first started to ask these questions about the Bible and the origin of its words vs the translation of its words. I was especially upset over the different versions that I was seeing. It seemed like every year a new version of the Bible would come out and each one interpreted verses differently.

Plus as a kid growing up, I would read a passage in the Bible and get a different thought from it than the elders in the room. So I had a large problem with discussing religion because everybody thought their interpretation of the Bible was correct, and if I got a different meaning from it, then I am "questioning God's Word". So I stayed away from these discussions and kinda rebelled against religion in general.

When I went to college, I started to look for a new church home. But all the churches were filled with corruption and evil spirits. They were obviously there, judging each other's dress and making negative comments about each others children. This turned me away from church for that for year peroid. And I really forgot alot that I had earned about religion.

So I can understand some of your comments, especially your questions about Christianity in general.

The way I found a solution though, was not to turn away from the religious principles. But rather, I found salvation in those religious principles. For example, religious hypocrites would tell me things like, "you'll never be nothin cause you're black." Well, the salvation of God tells me that ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE ME. Nobody else's opinion matters. But you shouldn't let somebody else who calls themselves religious determine your paths.

And the fact about the Word is that no matter how many people try to explain it, none of us understand it, so whatever we preach to one another is either a quote of a verse or OUR interpretation of a verse.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

---(Matthew 7:15-20)

I appreciate your well though out response, and it explained your position very clearly. I think I just chose a diffrerent path in life, and I decided that religon was something that was not needed in my life. I personally think spending a good portion of my life looking and worshiping something I can not touch, see, hear, understand, or even believe exists is a waste of time, but that is my own personal opinion and interpetation of religion. I hold nothing against people, like yourself, who decide to follow a different path to life. It completes your life for you, and I think that is an admirable thing, but I just believe in different things.

Where the disagreement comes is in the aspect of placing your belief system in public schools which are being paid for with taxpayer money. If you realize it or not, ID is teacing creationism, and it is circumventing a seperation of church and state. It is placing your beliefs above others, and I view that as wrong. I view it as saying that your god is better then another god. This is where we differ, and this is why I think ID should be taught in religous class, and not in a public school.

Personally, I try to live a christian life, even though I am not a christian. I try to treat others how I would like to be treated, and try to live by a certain moral compass. It isn't because of god's teaching, or because some religous diety says if I don't I will not enjoy the afterlife, but because I believe it is the right way to live. I think it is the correct way to live my life because it is how I perceive the world. I have seen to many different people in this world go to church and think because they give money to the church they will go to heaven. They are holier then thou for 1 hour a week, then when they leave the church, they do not practice what the church teaches them. They undermine, lie, cheat, steal, and do everything the bible says not to do, yet they never see problems with their behavior. They think they will be forgiven as long as they confess their sins. For me, I would rather live my life using the one rule I hold dear. . . do unto other as you would have them do to you. The one rule speaks volumes about charactor, and it is how I try to live my life.

[chomerics]

No, but in college I had to take 2 years of physics major classes for my degree and have been intrigued ever since. I try to read as much as I have time to about current theories pertaining to quantum mechanics and string theory.

I am enamored with the brane theory. It fascinates me. The level of math involved in these theories is incredible. I could never create it. Or a proof of it. I can, by going over it again and agian and reading alot get the jest of alot of what the are postulating.

I like to look at the math involved in string theory and try to conceptulize what it really means. Sometimes I think I get a glimpse of what they are talking about, other times I'm dumbfounded, and then again other times I think i really get it only to find out later my interpretation was way out in left filed.

Just a hobby for me but what excersize for the brain.

IggyJ, another poster here turned me onto a book which you might like. it is an introduction to string theory. It is a little bit over my head, and I am struggling to understand it on my own, but you may like it. Here is a link to the book . . .

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521831431/qid=1133581840/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6538801-5951950?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

You may want to check it out, it's a textbook, but it will give you the nuts and bolts about the theory.