Jump to content

happy easter! does god exist?


krow

  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. THOU SHALL VOTE

    • no
      9
    • yes
      9
    • baptized in the light of the seven (game of thrones. what?? can you believe last week? crazy, right?)
      1


Recommended Posts

Some Atheist believe that we view God as a physical being, for modern Catholics that's not true. God is only put into the 'father' form because of the time period and historical context of the early Jews, not to mention it's a whole lot easier to portray God as a 'father' rather than a conciseness. The Catholic Church also fully accepts the Big Bang, Evolution, and nearly everything Modern Science has shown to be true. As Catholics we search for truth which can be evident through religion and science.

When you delve into it Science and Faith go hand in hand, it's only recent history that they have begun to split; mainly because of crazy fundamentalist who refuse to believe "We came from Monkey's" (that sentence alone shows how stupid they are, as we did not come from monkeys.) But you can not have the truths religion without the truths of science by themselves they go together.


Also Tony, just because someone believes in the Big Bang, does not mean they can not believe in God. The Big Bang is an obvious event and one can believe set off by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

When it comes to religion and science, it is a couple physical theories that are more concerning to the foundations of religion than the modern synthesis.

I'm a Jew, Jews like their sciences. So G-d exists, the nature of G-d is unknowable but it is through scientific discovery that we can both understand and be in awe of the Lord's creation.

Mind you, the modern synthesis specifically challenges two of the principle tenets of faith, that humans are superior to all other creations and that human's are the end product of a process while the theory says that humans are just another animal and that in time (slowly now considering we don't let the 'weak' die off anymore) humans will progress or go extinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to religion and science, it is a couple physical theories that are more concerning to the foundations of religion than the modern synthesis.

I'm a Jew, Jews like their sciences. So G-d exists, the nature of G-d is unknowable but it is through scientific discovery that we can both understand and be in awe of the Lord's creation.

Mind you, the modern synthesis specifically challenges two of the principle tenets of faith, that humans are superior to all other creations and that human's are the end product of a process while the theory says that humans are just another animal and that in time (slowly now considering we don't let the 'weak' die off anymore) humans will progress or go extinct.

I'm not aware of any animal that rivals the capabilities of humans. Yes, there are very smart chimps and dolphins, but they're not inventors, civic planners, psychologists, artists, historians, etc. I think it's pretty safe to say that humans are very unique in that regard and much more complex than members of the animal kingdom. I also don't see how the continued growth and development of the human race creates any conflicts.

On a big steamy pile of self-righteous delusions?

Wow. I fail to see how Harner's post deserved that. Talk about narrow-minded stereotypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any animal that rivals the capabilities of humans. Yes, there are very smart chimps and dolphins, but they're not inventors, civic planners, psychologists, artists, historians, etc. I think it's pretty safe to say that humans are very unique in that regard and much more complex than members of the animal kingdom. I also don't see how the continued growth and development of the human race creates any conflicts.

Wow. I fail to see how Harner's post deserved that. Talk about narrow-minded stereotypes.

Your view is anthropocentric. Something I do not prescribe to, nor does science. We are just another sign-post on the long journey of evolution. Evolution is non-directional, non-linear and does not climax. The ecological concept of stability and disturbance explains humans domination, 10,000 years of relative stability has allowed for a strong species to become a dominate species. But one disaster, one meteor, one highly virulent disease will reset the status quo and a new process of stabilization will occur based on on what's left over.

We are but another cog in the gears of the world, unfortunately we are spinning out of control and taking everything down with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your view is anthropocentric. Something I do not prescribe to, nor does science. We are just another sign-post on the long journey of evolution. Evolution is non-directional, non-linear and does not climax. The ecological concept of stability and disturbance explains humans domination, 10,000 years of relative stability has allowed for a strong species to become a dominate species. But one disaster, one meteor, one highly virulent disease will reset the status quo and a new process of stabilization will occur based on on what's left over.

We are but another cog in the gears of the world, unfortunately we are spinning out of control and taking everything down with it.

There is no disputing the fragility of human beings or their vulnerability to external phenomena (climate change, meteors, etc.). But nor is there any known species that rivals the incredible complexity of humanity -- complexity that some faiths teach mirrors the image of God -- a claim I find quite compelling. What species does science claim is or ever has been or ever will be more intelligent, more socially organized, more linguistically sophisticated or even more scientifically aware than human beings? Not all these statements you are making are incontrovertible (some are). Most importantly all these theories have been articulated and advanced by human beings which would further seem to underscore the extraordinary nature of our species.

The world will change. The human race will not always dominate (and indeed has not always dominated) the planet the way it does now. But all of that is consistent with a spiritual and specifically biblical worldview -- not antithetical to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. Just because the world has evolved and developed doesn't mean it did so all by itself. There can still be a Prime Mover who not only set it all in motion, but who maintains active, if unseen, involvement in the ongoing development.

For me it takes a whole lot more faith to believe that the extraordinary natural world is an accident that initiated itself than it does for me to believe it was thoughtfully, intentionally designed.

But you presumably believe God sprang from nothing (or else has always existed), and a God who created the universe would, by necessity, be far more complex than the early cosmos itself (how much more complex is the human brain than anything we've created). Why do you believe an extraordinary mind that could concieve and create an infinte universe came from nothing, but struggle with the universe itself not having a creator? By introducing a necessarily complex God into the equation you're just adding to the complexity and suggesting no creator for the creator. I just don't understand that position, and probably never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are humans that complex and unique even? Of course, mankind has produced things no other living creature (that we know of) has been able to achieve, but after all it's pretty much proven that we're just an extremely highly developped primate species.

An ant colony for example is also extremely complex in its organisation and requires skills that came out of a long (and ongoing) evolutionary process.

Or virusses and bacteria - tiny as they are, are smart enough to adapt with incredible speed to changing conditions, and they may well be superior to humans, after all.

The problem with mankind is that we always try to find an answer to the question where we and the whole universe came from. But since so far, science is incapable of providing concrete answers to why the Big Bang happened, we look for supernatural explanations instead of accepting that there are things which are too complex even for us to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an apologist. My goal is not to persuade.

Rob, it sounds like the concept of God is inconceivable for you. My belief is that God is outside of time, uncreated and infinite in complexity, power, creativity, knowledge and personality.

Stefan, you are so much more extraordinary than an ant or a strain of bacteria. Your inability to recognize that deeply saddens to me. This is a position I will probably never be able to understand. I cannot see how anyone could imagine that an ant is anywhere close to the complexity and depth of a human being.

For me, the natural world and especially humanity are totally persuasive in convincing me that our world was designed by a Mind/Heart that is far, far beyond all that exists. There are too many layers, too much thought and emotion and nuance for me to believe any other explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an apologist. My goal is not to persuade.

Rob, it sounds like the concept of God is inconceivable for you. My belief is that God is outside of time, uncreated and infinite in complexity, power, creativity, knowledge and personality.

Ah, magic, why didn't you say so?! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, you did say you're not here to persuade. :)

But we were in a discussion about creation and when you come up with a sentient being completely outside of space and time it doesn't leave the person on the other side of the discussion with anywhere to go. Read my last post as a lighthearted white flag, not a dig at you personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record: The individual ant is probably far less complex than the individual human being. I do recognise that,

But I refuse to accept that mankind is really that special as a whole - other species also manage quite well to maintain their place in the big picture.

I guess we all have to accept that faith and religious beliefs are very individual concepts gor each one of us. The only problem I have with (any) religion is when it's used as pretext for political agendas, discrimination and/or violence, both physical and non-physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, you did say you're not here to persuade. :)

But we were in a discussion about creation and when you come up with a sentient being completely outside of space and time it doesn't leave the person on the other side of the discussion with anywhere to go. Read my last post as a lighthearted white flag, not a dig at you personally.

I'm not here to persuade. Nor have I tried to do so. I do think that equating God with "magic" and a happy face qualifies as ridicule.

I'm not sure why you think I came up with this. "A sentient being completely outside space and time" is orthodox theology that's been around for millennia. And the title of the thread asks "does God exist?" It's not as if I've gone far afield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I refuse to accept that mankind is really that special as a whole - other species also manage quite well to maintain their place in the big picture.

I just have to ask:

What about schools? Museums? Concerts? Orphanages? Elections? Construction crews (cathedrals, pyramids, skyscrapers)? Think tanks? Apple? Hospitals? NASA? Mass transportation (airlines, trains, ships)? Relief missions? Libraries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to ask:

What about schools? Museums? Concerts? Orphanages? Elections? Construction crews (cathedrals, pyramids, skyscrapers)? Think tanks? Apple? Hospitals? NASA? Mass transportation (airlines, trains, ships)? Relief missions? Libraries?

You said before you don't want to persuade anyone, surely by asking me, you are trying to, regardless.

Schools (adults teaching children) are by no means a human exclusivity, widespread...as are orphanages (or their equivalents) AFAIK and you sure shouldn't bring construction crews into the equation while I'm using ants as examples. The other things you mentioned may be examples of what human minds are capable of, but much of it is from an evolutionary point of view unnecessary.

You can believe in what you want, but you won't make me change my views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an apologist. My goal is not to persuade.

Rob, it sounds like the concept of God is inconceivable for you. My belief is that God is outside of time, uncreated and infinite in complexity, power, creativity, knowledge and personality.

Stefan, you are so much more extraordinary than an ant or a strain of bacteria. Your inability to recognize that deeply saddens to me. This is a position I will probably never be able to understand. I cannot see how anyone could imagine that an ant is anywhere close to the complexity and depth of a human being.

For me, the natural world and especially humanity are totally persuasive in convincing me that our world was designed by a Mind/Heart that is far, far beyond all that exists. There are too many layers, too much thought and emotion and nuance for me to believe any other explanation.

In my opinion, as I am an Atheist, I believe everything has to come from somewhere and nothing is infinite. Maybe one day, Humans may be infinite and live forever, but only because of increased research in medication, curing diseases/illnesses and creating medication that can stop aging. Technology is powerful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said before you don't want to persuade anyone, surely by asking me, you are trying to, regardless.

Schools (adults teaching children) are by no means a human exclusivity, widespread...as are orphanages (or their equivalents) AFAIK and you sure shouldn't bring construction crews into the equation while I'm using ants as examples. The other things you mentioned may be examples of what human minds are capable of, but much of it is from an evolutionary point of view unnecessary.

You can believe in what you want, but you won't make me change my views.

I'm not trying to persuade you or change your views. I'm trying to understand better (and failing).

As I understand it, you're equating human education with animals teaching their young, animal surrogates with human orphanages/adoption agencies and ants networks of burrows with human engineering and construction. Correct?

Personally, I see faint parallels in the animal kingdom for a few of the human social constructs I listed, but nothing approaching equal sophistication or complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an alien came down and observed how the planet worked it'd pick us out amongst the rest of life quite easily (if it was looking at things on our macroscopic scale). In that sense we stand out and are special. We know this intuitively.

But we're not special biologically or evolutionary. We couid be, if we manage to become the first species to make evolution an irrelevence to our ongoing survival as a species and as individuals, but until we do that we're just a long way ahead of the pack - not seperate from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, as I am an Atheist, I believe everything has to come from somewhere and nothing is infinite. Maybe one day, Humans may be infinite and live forever, but only because of increased research in medication, curing diseases/illnesses and creating medication that can stop aging. Technology is powerful!

Human life is finite. Strains of DNA are capped off by something called telomeres. They are nonsense repeating sequences of genetic code that cap each chromatid. Over time through repeated transcription and translation the length of the telomere is lost. If under the right conditions a person would be able to age until the lose was widespread throughout their body there would be a complete failure of most body systems and you'd die. When I was in university the range of estimates of when this would happen ranged from 135 to 175 years. Or well below what the bible claimed to be the ages of many early humans.

Athensfan, the imperfections of living things, an example I just highlighted (cancer being another manifestation of imperfection) clearly highlight that the universe as we know it could have come to being without a creator. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being could have seen the flaws in their design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...