Science and Faith

[uscitizen]

About 110 years ago we decided germs and such caused disease?
Less than 300 years ago we burned people as witches.
How many years ago did we think the earth was the center of the solar system/universe?
And who had to recant or die when he discovered that we were not the center of the universe?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep USC, even in my lifetime I have watched 'settled science' become unsettled and then move on to different theories and hypotheses. I expect I will see more of the same for the rest of my life. I'm hoping to have better insights in the next life. (All I've asked is that I get to take a long list of questions I've been compiling with me. )

 

[uscitizen]

I hope you get to ask them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

There is a third option we were created as an alien high school students science experiment that he got a C on.

Why would it have to be a single all powerful God that magically created us?
There may well be several groups in the universe with the knowledge and means to seed a planet with life.

And there may well be several other options that we are just to ignorant to even imagine.

Actually, your proposition just restates the second alternative in a way that is acceptable to you. That high school student either is part of this universe, and thus arose spontaneously, or is not, and is supernatural. If you have a problem with a single, all powerful, God, you should have no problem with the Bible, because that is not what it teaches.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact that energy can neither be created not destroyed has been proven by a repeatable experiment so it is not a "belief," it is a PROVEN FACT!!!

Those who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics have created a "personal" God in their image.

A repeatable experiment is infinitely more trustworthy than some imaginary non-thing created by primitive people a few thousand years ago.

What can you prove about your personal creator?

I bet you think you just won an argument. If you knew anything about quantum physics you would know that energy is created, and destroyed, all the time. Electrons routinely jump from one quantum state to another, and either create, or destroy, energy as a result.

For the more informed posters, I know this is an extremely simplistic explanation, but I cannot really explain it without delving into math that is technically beyond me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

About 110 years ago we decided germs and such caused disease?
Less than 300 years ago we burned people as witches.
How many years ago did we think the earth was the center of the solar system/universe?
And who had to recant or die when he discovered that we were not the center of the universe?

Copernicus had to recant? I didn't know that, when did it happen?

 

[Foxfyre]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

There is a third option we were created as an alien high school students science experiment that he got a C on.

Why would it have to be a single all powerful God that magically created us?
There may well be several groups in the universe with the knowledge and means to seed a planet with life.

And there may well be several other options that we are just to ignorant to even imagine.

Actually, your proposition just restates the second alternative in a way that is acceptable to you. That high school student either is part of this universe, and thus arose spontaneously, or is not, and is supernatural. If you have a problem with a single, all powerful, God, you should have no problem with the Bible, because that is not what it teaches.

Actually the Bible teaches little or nothing on the origins of the universe or its evolvement other than the deepfelt belief of the ancients that whatever was, is, or will be done, God did it. That is explained metaphorically and allegorically in the first two chapters of what we now call Genesis, and the two accounts of creation in those chapters contradict each other if taken literally. I don't believe those that wrote down the words ever intended that they be taken literally. The literal translations came many centuries later during a time that creative or independent thought was discouraged or disallowed.

But there is yet another concept out there: Spinoza's god. The one Einstein embraced.

Boiled down to its simplest explanation, the entire universe is one large intelligent organism or there is one universal intelligence guiding the whole. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein could accept that the varieties, intricities, implausibilities, symmetry, and beauty found within the universe from the greatest scope to the most minute particles could rationally have occurred purely by chance. It was for that reason that Einstein, who could not accept a personal God, also would not accept a label of Atheist.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I like what the Dalai Lama has to say about science and faith. He says that when science disproves a religious tenet of Buddhism, then Buddhism must change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually the Bible teaches little or nothing on the origins of the universe or its evolvement other than the deepfelt belief of the ancients that whatever was, is, or will be done, God did it. That is explained metaphorically and allegorically in the first two chapters of what we now call Genesis, and the two accounts of creation in those chapters contradict each other if taken literally. I don't believe those that wrote down the words ever intended that they be taken literally. The literal translations came many centuries later during a time that creative or independent thought was discouraged or disallowed.

But there is yet another concept out there: Spinoza's god. The one Einstein embraced.

Boiled down to its simplest explanation, the entire universe is one large intelligent organism or there is one universal intelligence guiding the whole. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein could accept that the varieties, intricities, implausibilities, symmetry, and beauty found within the universe from the greatest scope to the most minute particles could rationally have occurred purely by chance. It was for that reason that Einstein, who could not accept a personal God, also would not accept a label of Atheist.

Where did I try to claim the Bible talks about the origins of the universe? I, in fact, pointed out that the Bible does not teach about the God you reject.

As for Spinoza's god, I am always amazed that people who know nothing about his philosophy claim to believe what he taught. These same people often claim to know what Jesus taught, and reject his teachings with a certainty that boggles the mind.

Thou Art God is a much more equatable explanation of Spinoza's god than the tripe you are trying to make it out to be. If you look you will see that is actually my tag line, and has been for a long time. There is no conflict between the Bible and Spinoza, except in the minds of those who do not understand either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Got a cite for that "proof"? I would think, if it's worth its salt, you'd provide it. It's very telling that you didn't. You're playing with words. The spontaneous generation Pasteur talked about is totally different from that believed to have started life on earth.

Uh, genius, that's what all that non-bolded print was after the quote: The citation. What are you, 15 or so, that you don't recognize a citation that doesn't involve the Internet? Once upon a time, my child, back when dinosaurs walked the Earth, we used these paper items called "books". Open one.

Don't care what you have to say on any topic. If I'm fifteen, then you've got to be what, 11?!?!

"I know you are, but what am I?" is seriously going to be your response? Really?

Come back when you grow pubes and your voice changes, little boy. FLUSH!

 

[uscitizen]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

There is a third option we were created as an alien high school students science experiment that he got a C on.

Why would it have to be a single all powerful God that magically created us?
There may well be several groups in the universe with the knowledge and means to seed a planet with life.

And there may well be several other options that we are just to ignorant to even imagine.

Actually, your proposition just restates the second alternative in a way that is acceptable to you. That high school student either is part of this universe, and thus arose spontaneously, or is not, and is supernatural. If you have a problem with a single, all powerful, God, you should have no problem with the Bible, because that is not what it teaches.

so if I have a problem believing in fairies I should have no problem believing in Vulcans?

Just as logical as what you said.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually the Bible teaches little or nothing on the origins of the universe or its evolvement other than the deepfelt belief of the ancients that whatever was, is, or will be done, God did it. That is explained metaphorically and allegorically in the first two chapters of what we now call Genesis, and the two accounts of creation in those chapters contradict each other if taken literally. I don't believe those that wrote down the words ever intended that they be taken literally. The literal translations came many centuries later during a time that creative or independent thought was discouraged or disallowed.

But there is yet another concept out there: Spinoza's god. The one Einstein embraced.

Boiled down to its simplest explanation, the entire universe is one large intelligent organism or there is one universal intelligence guiding the whole. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein could accept that the varieties, intricities, implausibilities, symmetry, and beauty found within the universe from the greatest scope to the most minute particles could rationally have occurred purely by chance. It was for that reason that Einstein, who could not accept a personal God, also would not accept a label of Atheist.

Where did I try to claim the Bible talks about the origins of the universe? I, in fact, pointed out that the Bible does not teach about the God you reject.

As for Spinoza's god, I am always amazed that people who know nothing about his philosophy claim to believe what he taught. These same people often claim to know what Jesus taught, and reject his teachings with a certainty that boggles the mind.

Thou Art God is a much more equatable explanation of Spinoza's god than the tripe you are trying to make it out to be. If you look you will see that is actually my tag line, and has been for a long time. There is no conflict between the Bible and Spinoza, except in the minds of those who do not understand either.

I neither agreed nor disagreed with your view of the Bible and the origins of the universe. I stated what I think about the Bible re the origins of the universe.

Where did I state that I rejected God? I can't imagine I would have even hinted at that in any post that I have ever made.

I do feel I was on rather solid ground with Spinoza and Einstein having done considerable reading re both. I often use them as one plausible rationale for I.D. that does not involve an identifiable deity. Sorry you saw it as 'tripe'.

A little touchy today are we?

 

[AVG-JOE]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

I'm going to disagree. Religion is all about origins - not one exists that doesn't try to explain how we got here. For me, the evidence I see and the history I know to be true point to an evolutionary path for life. Survival of the most fit explains a LOT about humanity.

I'll also be the first to admit that the start of life on earth is not explained by the process of evolution. This is where you gotta have faith in either scenario.

I gave up on faith in The Bible when I realized via imagination the vastness of the human experience that occurred before The Bible and outside of those stories. It's still a pretty good read but if God IS, he's way bigger than those few pages can envelope.

 

[Foxfyre]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

I'm going to disagree. Religion is all about origins - not one exists that doesn't try to explain how we got here. For me, the evidence I see and the history I know to be true point to an evolutionary path for life. Survival of the most fit explains a LOT about humanity.

I'll also be the first to admit that the start of life on earth is not explained by the process of evolution. This is where you gotta have faith in either scenario.

I gave up on faith in The Bible when I realized via imagination the vastness of the human experience that occurred before The Bible and outside of those stories. It's still a pretty good read but if God IS, he's way bigger than those few pages can envelope.

Again, if your faith in the Bible is based on literal interpretation, I would agree. But if you accept the Bible as I believe it was intended to be read and understood--it is using the inadequate language of humankind to explain something that is far greater than humankind can even imagine--it makes perfectly good sense.

The first line of Genesis is: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void. . . ."

Now what is easier to understand? That? Or the complex scientific theories of the origins of the universe with no ability to fathom how the stuff of the universe got there in any form to begin with?

 

[rikules]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

There is a third option we were created as an alien high school students science experiment that he got a C on.

Why would it have to be a single all powerful God that magically created us?
There may well be several groups in the universe with the knowledge and means to seed a planet with life.

And there may well be several other options that we are just to ignorant to even imagine.

alien high school science project!

i had that same thought a long time ago....

though the C is a nice touch!

i'm honored and not surprised that we have similiar thought processes...

regards

 

[Flagwavrusa]

I'd be happier with the way you put it than the quote in the OP. That was more specific, spontaneous generation to evolution or god.

There's also the question of if the quote was supposed to be about any life, or life on Earth. If it is specific to Earth, then certainly alien intervention would be another possibility outside of god.

I didn't particularly like the OP either, but it is essentially correct. Even if we accept alien intervention as the reason life arose on Earth it still had to start somewhere and somehow.

Like I said, it was the specifics of the OP that bothered me, not so much when you broadened it to spontaneously or through intervention.

Just for the sake of argument (because I enjoy arguing!) a third option might be that life has always existed, but as it rises and falls it is spread throughout the universe (through comets, perhaps). Pretty thin, I realize, I was just trying to see if I could come up with another option Since the argument that an intelligence created life leads to the question of where the intelligence came from, this came to mind.

I pretty much agree with the possibilities you present. I just like to keep that tiny sliver of doubt in mind, that perhaps my ignorance of the universe, the things which make it up, the forces which move it, how it sprang into being, etc. prevent me from seeing a third option. Practically (if anything about a discussion of this nature can really be thought of as practical) spontaneously or driven by some intelligence are the only two options.

/incoherent ramble off

Perhaps the Godhead created this universe with a given set of laws but with no certainty that life would ever erupt. Maybe there was only a chance for the possibility for life. Then if circumstances by random chance combined, i.e. a planet close to a source of light and heat and the right chemistry combining water, oxygen etc. to form the first simple organisms, life generated without intelligent design. The universe was set into motion, and the conditions by which it unfolded were defined, but the actual creation of life was happenstance. Maybe in other universes that the Deity creates life never arises. If this is the case then spontaneity and supernatural intelligence would both be necessary conditions for life, but neither sufficient. It seems to me that could be considered a third a possibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a third option we were created as an alien high school students science experiment that he got a C on.

Why would it have to be a single all powerful God that magically created us?
There may well be several groups in the universe with the knowledge and means to seed a planet with life.

And there may well be several other options that we are just to ignorant to even imagine.

Actually, your proposition just restates the second alternative in a way that is acceptable to you. That high school student either is part of this universe, and thus arose spontaneously, or is not, and is supernatural. If you have a problem with a single, all powerful, God, you should have no problem with the Bible, because that is not what it teaches.

so if I have a problem believing in fairies I should have no problem believing in Vulcans?

Just as logical as what you said.

How do you think that is logical?

Your problem seems to be that you do not want to believe a single, all powerful being created the universe. If that is truly your only problem you have no gripe with anything the Bible says about God, or creation, you just think you do because you are misinformed. The logical response to that would be a desire to learn, yet you prefer to claim I am illogical to actually increasing your knowledge.

Nice to know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually the Bible teaches little or nothing on the origins of the universe or its evolvement other than the deepfelt belief of the ancients that whatever was, is, or will be done, God did it. That is explained metaphorically and allegorically in the first two chapters of what we now call Genesis, and the two accounts of creation in those chapters contradict each other if taken literally. I don't believe those that wrote down the words ever intended that they be taken literally. The literal translations came many centuries later during a time that creative or independent thought was discouraged or disallowed.

But there is yet another concept out there: Spinoza's god. The one Einstein embraced.

Boiled down to its simplest explanation, the entire universe is one large intelligent organism or there is one universal intelligence guiding the whole. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein could accept that the varieties, intricities, implausibilities, symmetry, and beauty found within the universe from the greatest scope to the most minute particles could rationally have occurred purely by chance. It was for that reason that Einstein, who could not accept a personal God, also would not accept a label of Atheist.

Where did I try to claim the Bible talks about the origins of the universe? I, in fact, pointed out that the Bible does not teach about the God you reject.

As for Spinoza's god, I am always amazed that people who know nothing about his philosophy claim to believe what he taught. These same people often claim to know what Jesus taught, and reject his teachings with a certainty that boggles the mind.

Thou Art God is a much more equatable explanation of Spinoza's god than the tripe you are trying to make it out to be. If you look you will see that is actually my tag line, and has been for a long time. There is no conflict between the Bible and Spinoza, except in the minds of those who do not understand either.

I neither agreed nor disagreed with your view of the Bible and the origins of the universe. I stated what I think about the Bible re the origins of the universe.

Where did I state that I rejected God? I can't imagine I would have even hinted at that in any post that I have ever made.

I do feel I was on rather solid ground with Spinoza and Einstein having done considerable reading re both. I often use them as one plausible rationale for I.D. that does not involve an identifiable deity. Sorry you saw it as 'tripe'.

A little touchy today are we?

I thought you were someone else, my mistake.

As for Spinoza, he did not believe what most people say he believed. You should read his writings, and not those of people who do not understand him, yet feel qualified to explain what he believed. Spinoza believed that god is multiple aspects, and that we are only capable of perceiving, at most, two of them, the physical, or nature, and the spiritual.

Spinoza believed in a living god in contrast to the mechanical god that Newton offered. This is where most people get confused. they believe Spinoza's god is nature, and nature is just a part of what Spinaza defined god as being.

In truth, Spinoza's god is more like Aristotle's than that of the modern Christian's version of god, even though the modern Christian gets most of their concept from Aristotle. Spinoza's god is not intelligent, or self aware, it simply exists, and everything flows from that god because of its nature.

 

[AVG-JOE]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

I'm going to disagree. Religion is all about origins - not one exists that doesn't try to explain how we got here. For me, the evidence I see and the history I know to be true point to an evolutionary path for life. Survival of the most fit explains a LOT about humanity.

I'll also be the first to admit that the start of life on earth is not explained by the process of evolution. This is where you gotta have faith in either scenario.

I gave up on faith in The Bible when I realized via imagination the vastness of the human experience that occurred before The Bible and outside of those stories. It's still a pretty good read but if God IS, he's way bigger than those few pages can envelope.

Again, if your faith in the Bible is based on literal interpretation, I would agree. But if you accept the Bible as I believe it was intended to be read and understood--it is using the inadequate language of humankind to explain something that is far greater than humankind can even imagine--it makes perfectly good sense.

The first line of Genesis is: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void. . . ."

Now what is easier to understand? That? Or the complex scientific theories of the origins of the universe with no ability to fathom how the stuff of the universe got there in any form to begin with?

I dig your passion. It's just that I easily see in my minds eye the branching of Evolution through the river of life as it ebbs and flows through time and I easily see 'religion' as one of the tools used by Evolution to carve a Sentient World from a random wet rock circling a common star.

That's the easy part for me. That's the story that excites my imagination and passion.

 

[edthecynic]

One could hold PhD's in every scientific discipline that exists as well as every theological discipline that exists and have each give his/her best shot at the paradox and you are still left with one indisputable conclusion: Nobody know how the stuff of the universe came to be there.

For those of us who do have a personal relationship with God by whatever name that God be called, it is easy to believe in a Creator that could call the universe and all that is in it into being. That same Creator would also be the author of science so there need be no quarrel between creation and science.

Those who deny the existence of a "Creator" believe that the stuff of the universe has always been here and what we know of the universe and all that is in it happened purely by chance or accident.

The Creator theory is much easier to wrap one's mind around I think.

The fact that energy can neither be created not destroyed has been proven by a repeatable experiment so it is not a "belief," it is a PROVEN FACT!!!

Those who deny the First Law of Thermodynamics have created a "personal" God in their image.

A repeatable experiment is infinitely more trustworthy than some imaginary non-thing created by primitive people a few thousand years ago.

What can you prove about your personal creator?

Ed, sweetie, I think few scientists would use the word 'proof'.

We only know how things seem to work on Planet Earth and, in a much more limited basis, on the moon. We only know what can be rationally discerned of what we can observe out in space.

You don't know that energy has always existed or that it cannot be created or destroyed by something any more than I do. We only know that nobody has been able to do it on Planet Earth. Yet. All we know is via the science that we now have which I believe is a tiny fraction of the science that is available to know and understand.

Any scientist worth his salt has an open mind and is fully cognizant that what we know to be 'fact' today may well be proved to be folly tomorrow. I posted on another thread the definition of science as guideposts installed with each discovery or new conclusion and guiding the scientists on from that point to where the next will be placed.

Again you show how being taught science by a Creationist has failed you. Any science teacher worth his salt would have taught you about the experiment that proved the FLoT!!!!

As I have already told you on another thread, the First LAW of Thermodynamics was PROVEN with a REPEATABLE experiment by James Prescott Joule. You can repeat the experiment yourself and CONFIRM it for yourself, no faith required. In many a university physics lab it is re-proven every academic year. If you are too lazy to repeat the experiment yourself, call your local university and ask to sit in on the lab class when they prove it again. For you to HONESTLY claim the FLoT is not proven, you must create an experiment that disproves Joule's experiment.
I'm waiting!!!