| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/06/2005 05:10:43 PM · #51 |
one day science will prove what happened according to how the bible states things happened. THe bible was written/ordered to be written, by leaders who wanted to control their people (a cult perhapse). So some things in the bible were taught NOT to question them as they are how they are because god made it that way. hundreds of years or a thousand years of this type of teaching becomes "truth" to many because its how they were raised and taught.
This DOES NOT make it fact or true.
Let science prove what happened and then we will be done with this argument. But that may be 100, 500 or a thousand years from now.
James |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 05:16:29 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Let science prove what happened and then we will be done with this argument. But that may be 100, 500 or a thousand years from now.
James |
...of course you'll be dead by then and you'll find out whether science was right or wrong. I would pray to your science god that you are right, because if you're wrong... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 05:22:36 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by ltsimring:
Originally posted by kpriest:
My best advice to anyone - believers and non-believers - NEVER stop seeking the truth! :) |
the difference between believers and non-believers is that the former don't need to seek the truth - they believe they have it already :) |
Agreed to an extent. It just may be that your faith is stronger or more experienced than mine, but I still "test" my faith by always seeking facts, evidence, etc. One day I'll give up on that and just accept it. As I am stubborn to learn - it is not something that can be intellectually reasoned or debated into convincing - it is a faith of experience. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 06:04:34 PM · #54 |
| Can anybody shed some light on how the "guidebooks" of non-Christian religions address the issue of how things began? |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 06:20:45 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by aronya1:
Can anybody shed some light on how the "guidebooks" of non-Christian religions address the issue of how things began? |
Good question! I was raised as a Christian Scientist...so I guess I'm confused :)
Anyway...I gave Itsinring's entry a 9 cuz I liked it however the Universe was created. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 06:37:18 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by aronya1:
Can anybody shed some light on how the "guidebooks" of non-Christian religions address the issue of how things began? |
well, Judaism and Islam of course share the same views on the creation of Universe as Christianity (as both Christianity and Islam accept the Torah), and Buddhism, as far as I understand, is not concerned with the creation of the Universe at all. They actually believe (or so they claim) in natural laws through which Buddha enacts his will. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 06:59:21 PM · #57 |
I have forgotten the detail from the opening chapters of the book I referred to earlier ("Big Bang") but there were some pretty astonishingly inventive methods in that from various island cultures - usually involving various gods and animals. I think that Hinduism has various creation stories, though it, of course, is based on a cyclical rebirth belief and does not encompass an initial emptiness stage. Sikhism has a monotheistic creationist story. Of the major religions, of course Christianity and Islam are based on the Jewish Torah.
Older religions and beliefs are very different, more mythical than we are accustomed to. For example, Ovid wrote about creation in his "Metamorphoses". That had a period of elementa tension, followed by a god separating the sky sea and land, the construction of heavens (and the milky way - literally a sky in the road for the gods). Saturn's golden age (land of milk and honey) gave way to Jove's silver age (men having to plow the land) and then ages of bronze and iron when men became more warlike. The gods left the land. Giants created mountains and warred with the gods. Gods resolved to destroy the human race with a flood (so as to avoid destroying the heavens). Only two humans survived. They wandered around throwing rocks about that gestated in the earth and took human form. etc etc except very beutifully written (in the Latin - and several translations). Story is vaguely similar in some ways (eg the flood), but in many others very different (polydeistic, existence of giants, literal interpretation of heavens etc). Written in a very different in style from the Biblical creation story.
The Egyptians's story starts with water (not surprising for a nation dependent on the Nile) - the water flooded and receded as the Nile did, slowly leaving more and more land until a substantial tract of land remained.
The Babylonians believed that their major god, Bel, killed a greater god (cannot recall name), split up her huge body and parts of her body became the earth, sky, sea etc.
No reason why any of these is a lesser explanation than the biblical story: merely that history has eliminated Babylonian, Roman and Egyptian belief systems, supplanted by Judeo-Christian systems in the modern West.
There must be a thousand more beliefs from other civilisations. I imagine that the classical civilisations are the best known due to extensive writing ability and research.
Originally posted by aronya1:
Can anybody shed some light on how the "guidebooks" of non-Christian religions address the issue of how things began? |
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 07:03:34 PM · #58 |
I did a quick Google search on "Buddhism creationism" and found that what you said seems to be literally true: Buddhism is not concerned with the creation of the universe at all. They simply accept that it "is" and go from there.
It strikes me that this would be a tremendously difficult position for most people raised in a Western society to accept fully. Believers would have to let go of the idea of God as Creator, I suppose, while the scientists would have to give up the search for the cause of the Big Bang.
Anybody ever heard of a book titled "Up from Eden"? I think the author's name is Ken Wilbur. He uses teachings/research/theories from many different schools of thought/science to make a case for the existence of God as an entity. This is the only book I've ever read that makes a decent case for this argument.
Just rambling, I guess. Feel free to skip... |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 07:08:13 PM · #59 |
| legalbeagle, thanks for all that. You were writing while I was (apparently, you're much faster!). I'm constantly amazed at the breadth of knowledge presented by many of the people on this site. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 07:11:32 PM · #60 |
Wow, look what's happened to this thread in the last several hours. :-)
As Shannon has noted, the term "theory" takes some abuse in this debate because of the different ways that scientists use that term as opposed to how the lay public uses it. From the scientific viewpoint, to be a regarded as a genuine theory, a body of knowledge or area of study must satisfy three requirements:
1. It must be consistent with established knowledge;
2. It must illuminate new ways of combining and understanding what is already known; and
3. It must make testable predictions about what is yet unknown.
(there are variations on the above, but this is a pretty fair statement of what a scientific theory is, IMO)
In this regard, the "theory of evolution" is one of the most successful theories ever posited - on all counts, right up there with the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter, and others. In this, among scientists, there is no debate. There is no controversey or division. Scientists argue the details, as they always will, but on the above point, there will be near unaminity.
Creationism in all its flavors and incarnations, including the currently in-vogue Intelligent Design (though ID is not new at all, it's at least 200 years old, if not 2000), does not satisfy the above requirements. In this, there is uniform agreement too. Creationist or ID scientists do not posit their beliefs to explain the amazing diversity of life, nor do they ask questions or conduct research to investigate predictions that their theory would make. By and large, ID and creationism make no predictions, it suggests answers based on dogma or authority. It closes off the avenue to explore the questions because it asserts that the answers are already known.
What creationists and ID adherents do, is spend nearly all their time poking at the vast literature on evolutionary biology, looking for inconsistencies, taking quotes out of context, and misrepresenting the theory to those who do not have the background or patience to understand the scope, beauty, and unifying power of the theory. Since they do no research themselves, and thus don't contribute to the body of literature in any meaningful way, they take their battle to school boards directly, and appeal to the public directly. This is not science, nor is it scientific. It is propoganda and intellectually dishonest.
Lori, your off the cuff comment, "I plug my ears at the mention of evolution," was surely meant as your personal reaction of distaste to something you disagree with, and I mean no disrespect to you or any other member of this site in what I'm about to say. I'm afraid your statement is all too literally the truth when it comes to the evangelical/fundamentalist groups that are doing the most damage to science education in this country. They know very little about evolution, and they're not interested in learning anything about it, other than to read the latest book by Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, or my old favorite, Henry Morris.
I don't want to be drawn into a flame war, and I don't want to let this thread go too far, so having said my piece, I'm outta here!
 |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 07:13:47 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
...of course you'll be dead by then and you'll find out whether science was right or wrong. I would pray to your science god that you are right, because if you're wrong... ;-) |
"science god"? |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 07:17:01 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by aronya1:
It strikes me that this would be a tremendously difficult position for most people raised in a Western society to accept fully. Believers would have to let go of the idea of God as Creator, I suppose, while the scientists would have to give up the search for the cause of the Big Bang.
|
Actually, I don't think scientists would be unhappy if there was no "beginning" - in fact many physicists do not believe in the Big Bang theory - but not for religious reasons. Simply, Big Bang is only one of two diferent scenarious which follow from the general relativity theory (which is pretty well tested and universally accepted among physicists) depending on the average mass density of the Universe. And that is something which is hard to measure as you can imagine. So depending on whether dark matter really exists or not and how much of it is out there, the Universe may be either expanding from a singularity (Big Bang), or collapsing (Big Crunch), or perhaps even oscillating between the two. So until the mass of the universe is measured, Big Bang would be a matter of belief even among the scientists.
Message edited by author 2005-04-06 19:18:40. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 07:23:09 PM · #63 |
| Oh please don't suggest a Big Crunch! Southern California is crowded enough already. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:38:15 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by jab119:
Let science prove what happened and then we will be done with this argument. But that may be 100, 500 or a thousand years from now.
James |
...of course you'll be dead by then and you'll find out whether science was right or wrong. I would pray to your science god that you are right, because if you're wrong... ;-) |
either way does it really matter who is right and who is wrong?
I would just like more people to be open minded.
Im off to go watch Bill Nye
James |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:47:04 PM · #65 |
| strangeghost - your comment was very well written. America has been the subject of much international attention and concern on the teaching of Evolution/Intelligent Design (viewed by most commentators as a backwards step). It is far too easy to forget the diversity of opinion and intelligent debate operating within the US itself. Glad to be reminded by your bit. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:51:52 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by jab119:
Let science prove what happened and then we will be done with this argument. But that may be 100, 500 or a thousand years from now.
James |
...of course you'll be dead by then and you'll find out whether science was right or wrong. I would pray to your science god that you are right, because if you're wrong... ;-) |
either way does it really matter who is right and who is wrong?
I would just like more people to be open minded.
Im off to go watch Bill Nye
James |
Most definitely matters. I don't want to go into the whole burning in hell forever discussion, but there are those that believe if you do not believe certain things you will suffer in that way. Obviously you can choose not to believe that, but if they are right, it will happen regardless of what you chose to believe. So should you choose to believe in God or any paricular religion out of fear of eternal torment? No. All I am saying is that whatever you decide to believe in, you better be right.
I'm not saying what will happen or judging anyone or condemning anyone and I don't feel those that believe in hell and how you get there are doing the judging either (as most people assume and are offended by it) - I am simply saying people should keep seeking the truth - and when you think you've got it, ask yourself "What if I'm wrong?" ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 08:58:18 PM · #67 |
A couple of contributions from a famous physicist:
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962)
======================
Somebody once asked Niels Bohr why he had a horseshoe hanging above the front door of his house.
"Surely you, a world famous physicist, can't really believe that hanging a horseshoe above your door brings you luck?".
"Of course not," Bohr replied, "but I have been reliably informed that it will bring me luck whether I believe in it or not." |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:08:33 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A couple of contributions from a famous physicist:
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr (1885 - 1962)
======================
Somebody once asked Niels Bohr why he had a horseshoe hanging above the front door of his house.
"Surely you, a world famous physicist, can't really believe that hanging a horseshoe above your door brings you luck?".
"Of course not," Bohr replied, "but I have been reliably informed that it will bring me luck whether I believe in it or not." |
And wasn't Bohr trampled to death by a shoeless horse? ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:16:31 PM · #69 |
as both Christianity and Islam accept the Torahtext
I'm a Christian, and in no way do I believe the Torah....I don't think (and hope none) do! |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:19:40 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
as both Christianity and Islam accept the Torahtext
I'm a Christian, and in no way do I believe the Torah....I don't think (and hope none) do! |
The Torah is the name the Jews give to the first Five Books of the Old Testament.
If you don't believe in Genesis, you're on the wrong side of the argument. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:20:33 PM · #71 |
| You DO realize that Christ was a Jew ...? |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:29:44 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Most definitely matters. I don't want to go into the whole burning in hell forever discussion, but there are those that believe if you do not believe certain things you will suffer in that way. Obviously you can choose not to believe that, but if they are right, it will happen regardless of what you chose to believe. So should you choose to believe in God or any paricular religion out of fear of eternal torment? No. All I am saying is that whatever you decide to believe in, you better be right. |
One can't choose to believe in hell anymore than one can choose to believe in Santa Claus. Either you believe in Santa Claus or you don't. I have yet to meet one (sane) adult who, after losing their belief in Santa Claus in the literal sense as a child, was able to choose to believe in a literal Santa Claus as an adult. Just as I would need evidence for the existence of Santa Claus after losing my belief in his existence as a child for lack of evidence, I would also need evidence for the existence of hell. It's hard be threatened by things you don't believe exist. I'm willing to change my views on the presentation of empirical evidence. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:33:26 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Mulder:
as both Christianity and Islam accept the Torahtext
I'm a Christian, and in no way do I believe the Torah....I don't think (and hope none) do! |
GeneralE is correct, Mulder. The Torah consists of the Biblical books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, also called the Pentateuch. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:43:13 PM · #74 |
| You can download the complete text of the King James (and many other)versions of the bible from Project Gutenberg. |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 09:59:31 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
What creationists and ID adherents do, is spend nearly all their time poking at the vast literature on evolutionary biology, looking for inconsistencies, taking quotes out of context, and misrepresenting the theory to those who do not have the background or patience to understand the scope, beauty, and unifying power of the theory. Since they do no research themselves, and thus don't contribute to the body of literature in any meaningful way, they take their battle to school boards directly, and appeal to the public directly. This is not science, nor is it scientific. It is propoganda and intellectually dishonest.
|
Creationists don't need to look for inconsistancies. The inconsistancies already exist. |
|
