|
eyesopened -> RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism (12/1/2009 4:31:54 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
The evidence for god that we are offered is always, it seems, based upon authority, faith, or personal revelation. Authority and faith are based upon some "holy" book or a lineage of priests, wise men, shamans, healers, what have you.
What I fail to understand is why believers feel such a fervent need to defend their god. Surely, he is a big boy and can defend himself. What is it that agitates the believers so?
And to kdsub what makes you so certain we wish to explain "the creation of all from nothing?" A basic law of nature is that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This may seem mad to you if it is a new thought but perhaps mass/energy were never created but always existed. Just as good a hypothesis as a supernatural creator. Even better because we can experience and measure mass/energy and do not feel compelled to erect temples to it.
vincent
There is also the need for humans to feel a sense of belonging. So it is human to try to fit personal experiences into a larger body of similar experiences and out of such comes religion. In itself, harmless. I don't defend God, yes, I agree, It doesn't require defending. I do however take some offense at being told that my personal experiences ARE delusions just because some non-believing zealot says so.
The shear volume of what we do know about the universe in which we live is a speck of dust compared to what we do not know. If Super-natural simply means above nature, then it can only be compared to nature as we currently know it. So if nothing is Super-natural, just nature undisovered, it would make more sense to keep an open and curious mind. Again, I refer to those earliest scientists who, thinking they could change lead into gold, provided us with detailed properties of the elements. Does it really matter the motive for discovery as long as we continue to seeks answers?
Sorry you took offense at my comment. It was not aimed at you. I had in mind such preachers as Jim Jones and David Koresh and others who placed themselves in the line of authority through personal revelation. I would appreciate your courtesy to point out where i made any reference to your personal experiences and to their being delusional. I have never spoken to you or in reference to anything you said with other than respect.
vincent
*smiles* I was both commenting on your comment and addressing a larger audience at the same time. Sorry. I don't think you would consider yourself a non-believing zealot.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Brain
I may be wrong when I assert there is no such thing as God but it is extremely unlikely. I took a course in statistics and I got 89% final mark so I know something about probability. I am 99.99999999% sure God does not exist except in people's delusional minds. But I am willing to admit there is a .00000001% chance I'm wrong.
But clearly some, without meeting me, knowing me, or having any idea what my personal experiences may be, can declare as fact that I am delusional. To that I do take offense.
Again, if the zealots on both sides could open their minds just a smidge, there is plenty of room for agreement. If God exists, It exists naturally, not super-naturally. I am really excited about quantum physics because there may be some real breakthoughs there. We humans have created God to be large. So large that It encompasses all of the universe and beyond. A better way may be to see God as tiny. So tiny that It encompasses all of the universe and beyond.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/particle-interactive.html
|
|
|
|
