A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[This_person]

My point is that the existence of the "why" for natural events is a question for science because it involves the physical universe. A being behind the "why" would be like any other natural object or natural phenomenon, and thus subject to scientific inquiry.

Then we ARE saying the same thing - it's fair to presume that if God is behind all that has happened, science will root that out. Science will continue to figure out how God did what He did.

Not quite. A possibility is conjecture unless there is evidence, which turns the possibility into a probability. Proof would turn the probability into a fact.

How is that different from what I said?

Because any claim about "why" inevitably leads to the question of the intelligence's motive. This is where religion enters the whole distatesful realm of natural events being punishments from angry entities. That goes against the idea of looking at the natural world empirically and skeptically. It implies that humans should not be curious about how the universe works.

How God made things happen is important to know. Why He made them happen is equally important to know. Humans probably should be curious as to the hows - perhaps we can make our lives that much better. Humans should probably also know the whys - perhaps we can make our lives that much better!

I'm not sure of your point. Based on our current knowledge of our planet and of the universe, it is probable that life exists somewhere. While this is not proven or disproven, it simply means that the evidence favors the existence.

Statistically, you're right - it's likely. That, of course, is based upon the assumption that life can be created from the proper mix of chemicals and atmospheric conditions. If it can't (and, so far, we have not a single clue of a workable idea how that could happen), then the statistical probability drops drastically. My point - it's so likely, yet we can't see nor prove it, therefore it's pure conjecture, and there's nothing but FAITH to say it's likely.

How is it innate when many religions do not believe in single gods?

What people believe to be true is immaterial to what is actually true. The people in those religions, and the people without religion, still statistically are likely to have certain moral codes - regardless of belief system. Seems built into us.

It's possible that we evolved that way, as Dean Hamer as hypothesized.

Yes, it is. It's equally possible we were designed that way.

I wasn't talking about Christianity specifically. I was talking about the entire realm of mystical explanations for natural events.

Okay, for this portion of the discussion, I'm talking Christianity specifically.

Pointing out that a suggested possibility is an assumption doesn't dismiss the possibility.

Just not one for serious contemplation?

And Jesus' ideas about the human experience can be evaluated for value for one's own life experience.

I agree!

 

[This_person]

Tonio and TP, I'd like to buy both of you the beverage of your choice some lazy afternoon and just it back and BS with you two..

This has been one of the better threads in the religion forum.

 

[This_person]

Yeah me too, I'd love to set, listen, learn and then offer up my 2 cents worth of reality.

The more the merrier!

 

[This_person]

I understand. I don't contest the fact that you had the experience itself. My point is about the cause of such experiences and how people use them. Claims that such experiences have supernatural causes do not stand up under the scientific principles of repeatability and falsifiability.

But the issue is not with the experiences themselves. The issue is that many religions use such experiences as a basis for insisting that none of their claims can be challenged because they allegedly come from transcendent authorities that can never be challenged. Scientific hypotheses are always open to challenge based on available evidence, and it's not unusual for fields such as abiogenesis to have several hypotheses. Supernaturalistic religions do not allow for that type of disagreement - to disagree with the religion is to disagree with God.

This is one point I disagree with "the church". Determining the hows of things I think is okay, important, and not in any way sacreligious. I don't think God gave us curiousity and intelligence and then didn't want us to use those abilities.

The experiences (and, no, it wasn't voices in my head or something like that) proved to me that life is NOT just happenstance - there's a plan, a reason, a motive behind how things flow. That doesn't stop me from wanting to know how that's done, or how things work.

Any hypothesis about the physical universe must rest on more than a personal conviction one has heard the voice of a supernatural being and must impose that being's sanction upon the rest of the world. I'm not assuming that you seek to impose such a sanction, but that is the thread that runs through the creationist literature I've seen.

If I read you correctly, you're saying that we have to do our research as to how things happened without giving serious consideration to why things happened. Because, if we give serious consideration as to why things happened, we might have to subordinate ourselves to a supreme being's will.

I, personally, think that's a dangerous way to approach things. I think it dismisses a possibility. It relieves science of any moral foundation. That's scary to me.

 

[PsyOps]

No, I was saying that the catalyst is a natural force. The concept is known as causal determinism.

No you said these are questions of science not philosophy.

But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy.

Causal determinism is a philosophical theory not a scientific theory.

I'm taking about the claim that purpose and reason were consciously created by a supernatural entity. Again, there is no evidence for that claim. You would have a point if you are referring to purpose or reason as the same as a natural cause.

But you’ve admitted you don’t know yet you argue against it. You seem to want things both ways. The evidence in this claim is history. There is plenty of archeological proof as well as written accounts. I don’t need scientific proof to know that the Fall of Rome happened or that the Xia Dynasty existed, but we have history to tell us so. We have thousands of years and billions of people as believers in this God as historical proof.

When I acknowledge the possibility of gods, I emphasize that the gods may have any sort of natures, and that some people's beliefs about the gods may be wrong. Some people believe in a single god and others believe in many. What evidence would show that one group is wrong and the other one right?

Why can’t God be part of the very nature He created? Here is the problem with wanting to prove God through science… What if God doesn’t want to be? But right or wrong (as I pointed out with Hawking and global warming, etc…) it comes down to having faith…

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen… Hebrews 11:1.

No, science's answers can be tested in some cases and analyzed in others to see if they continue to match data from observations. Scientists don't simply accept their colleagues' conclusions without question.

What I meant by “you’re relying on science to answer everything” is that you seem to want a scientific explanation for God in order to believe. I think simple observations of our surroundings answers that.

That implies that science simply replaces one set of knowledge with another. It's more accurate to say that science adds to its storehouse of knowledge with new discoveries. While there have sometimes been wrong turns, the overall collection of knowledge continues to grow.

No, it replaces one answer with another. When Hawking admitted he was wrong that bit of “knowledge” became dead. It added to nothing. But don’t interpret what I’m saying as we shouldn’t seek out this knowledge. Absolutely not! I believe God gave us brains with the capacity to do this sort of thinking. I believe He encourages it. I believe He wants to ask questions. Not in the context of doubt, but in the same context that scientists seek out answers. They seek it out with the belief of the possibility not with doubt. They don’t research to prove something doesn’t exist, they seek to prove it does.

That wasn't a case where Pluto was never a planet and we simply didn't discover this until recently. It was a case where the discovery of small planets beyond Pluto caused a firestorm of controversy among astronomers as to how they should define a planet. (That's why the first one discovered was named Eris, for the goddess of discord.) So Pluto, Eris, Ceres and others were put into the new classification of "dwarf planet." The issue was about humans revising their own classifications for observable objects, based on new tools for making observations. I sometimes joke that Pluto was demoted.

Has anyone thought about the Plutonians in this demotion? What about their rights? What about their feelings

You mean sort of like eggs are bad for us, no they are good for us, no they are bad for us, no now they are good for us again. Can we expect astronomers to come back on a later date and tell us they were wrong that Pluto is indeed a planet? So now, us lay-people do what? Believe whatever they tell us.

Scientific hypotheses are not "truth" and they are not branded as such by science. They are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Obviously some hypotheses cannot be conclusively proven because we don't have the ability to make certain observations. But that caveat is inherent in the concept of the scientific hypothesis.

Which gets to my central point… these things will never be proven except through theory; unless deep space travel becomes a reality. You simply believe it or not. Just as with God these things come with faith.

 

[PsyOps]

Would you explain the basis for your beliefs?

Not a short answer.

I’m not one of those that had this blinding moment in my life that transformed me. I can remember since I was very young looking around and wondering how all this life got here. My dad is avid about science and has no interest in a belief in God. So we spent a lot of time in my house reading and talking about people like Newton, Weinberg, Sagan, Einstein and Hawking. Here’s something you may find hard to believe, but the Nobel winner in physics in 2006 (John Mather) was our neighbor back in the late 70s early 80s. He would come over to our house and discuss what he was doing at NASA and his study of the Big Bang. Very interesting person and very interesting subjects. My dad was in… errrr… heaven. Strange bit of trivia about Mather and Hawking and the rest of that scientific community… many of them got involved in (what became a bit of a cult) a practice called EST (Erhard Seminar Training). Read about it. Strange stuff.

Anyway, I got to ask Mather some basic questions about the Big Bang… “What came before it?” “How did it all get there?” “Can matter have appeared out of nothing?” Of course he admitted science can only go so far then the rest is left to some sort of belief. He said even Einstein had a certain belief in a God. I already felt there was a higher being that created everything.

I had a couple of pivotal moments in my life. I was praying to God to help me get my spiritual life in order before I joined the military. I wasn’t completely sure about who God was, or which it was. I was working at a clothing store and this customer came in to buy a suit and we started talking about playing the guitar (I play). Then he asked me if I knew who Phil Keaggy (a Christian guitar player) was. Through my brother I knew who he was and thought “could this be how God answers prayers?” Anyway I got involved in their church up until I joined the AF. Then I prayed again that once I got stationed somewhere (after all my training was over) that God would help me find a Christian organization called The Navigators. When I got to my first base I moved into the dorms on base and after about 3 or 4 days I ran into this guy, while doing laundry, and we started talking about playing guitar. And, you guessed it, he asked me if I knew Phil Keaggy. All I could think was how God answers prayers in ways you never expect and He has a sense of humor. Then I asked this guy if he knew of any Navigator groups in the area and he told me he was a member. So I didn’t have to go looking for it, God handed it to me.

I know these sound pretty incredible and typical for Christians to talk about such “miracles” and such. These are absolutely true. And they changed my whole outlook on who God is. So the basis for my belief is 1) After all my studies in science, he explains that unanswered question about how everything got here. Answers that even the greatest scientific minds know they can’t answer and 2) This God does answer prayers. They may not always be the answer you’re looking for; sometime the answer is “no”, but He does answer. This is what God means to me more than the mysterious questions we have about our universe. God (despite what Einstein believed) IS a personal God that wants good for us. But this comes in a spiritual sense and not always in a physical sense. Things that cannot be explained through science. God defies science. All things that we know through science came from him, including the science He blessed our brains to strive to understand.

Sorry for such a long explanation.

 

[TimAllen]

Not a short answer.

I’m not one of those that had this blinding moment in my life that transformed me. I can remember since I was very young looking around and wondering how all this life got here. My dad is avid about science and has no interest in a belief in God. So we spent a lot of time in my house reading and talking about people like Newton, Weinberg, Sagan, Einstein and Hawking. Here’s something you may find hard to believe, but the Nobel winner in physics in 2006 (John Mather) was our neighbor back in the late 70s early 80s. He would come over to our house and discuss what he was doing at NASA and his study of the Big Bang. Very interesting person and very interesting subjects. My dad was in… errrr… heaven. Strange bit of trivia about Mather and Hawking and the rest of that scientific community… many of them got involved in (what became a bit of a cult) a practice called EST (Erhard Seminar Training). Read about it. Strange stuff.

Anyway, I got to ask Mather some basic questions about the Big Bang… “What came before it?” “How did it all get there?” “Can matter have appeared out of nothing?” Of course he admitted science can only go so far then the rest is left to some sort of belief. He said even Einstein had a certain belief in a God. I already felt there was a higher being that created everything.

I had a couple of pivotal moments in my life. I was praying to God to help me get my spiritual life in order before I joined the military. I wasn’t completely sure about who God was, or which it was. I was working at a clothing store and this customer came in to buy a suit and we started talking about playing the guitar (I play). Then he asked me if I knew who Phil Keaggy (a Christian guitar player) was. Through my brother I knew who he was and thought “could this be how God answers prayers?” Anyway I got involved in their church up until I joined the AF. Then I prayed again that once I got stationed somewhere (after all my training was over) that God would help me find a Christian organization called The Navigators. When I got to my first base I moved into the dorms on base and after about 3 or 4 days I ran into this guy, while doing laundry, and we started talking about playing guitar. And, you guessed it, he asked me if I knew Phil Keaggy. All I could think was how God answers prayers in ways you never expect and He has a sense of humor. Then I asked this guy if he knew of any Navigator groups in the area and he told me he was a member. So I didn’t have to go looking for it, God handed it to me.

I know these sound pretty incredible and typical for Christians to talk about such “miracles” and such. These are absolutely true. And they changed my whole outlook on who God is. So the basis for my belief is 1) After all my studies in science, he explains that unanswered question about how everything got here. Answers that even the greatest scientific minds know they can’t answer and 2) This God does answer prayers. They may not always be the answer you’re looking for; sometime the answer is “no”, but He does answer. This is what God means to me more than the mysterious questions we have about our universe. God (despite what Einstein believed) IS a personal God that wants good for us. But this comes in a spiritual sense and not always in a physical sense. Things that cannot be explained through science. God defies science. All things that we know through science came from him, including the science He blessed our brains to strive to understand.

Sorry for such a long explanation.

hmmm I must say you are the first person on here, myself inlcuded that could actually explain why they believe in God and I can only assume that you are a born again christian?

I know why I beleive in Him, and it is because God answered my prayer when I was maybe 3 or 4 years old. I knew He could heal me, I had Perthe's Disease, it is a disease that cause loss of bone in the ball of the hip, flattens to the size of a silver dollar. I couldnt walk and didnt walk for many many months my Parents carried me everywhere, Childrens Hospital said I needed total hip replacements but first i would need to be in a body cast to see if that would fix it. Well I never made it to the body cast part. Was in church with my parents and the Pastor asked if anyone wanted to get prayed for I said and I remember everything word for word "Mommy Jesus can heal me" Not thinking anything of it she carried me up to get prayed for, after being prayed for I told my Mom it was ok to put me down that Jesus had healed me. She hesitated then put me down, and off I went running around the church, and of course everyone followed me. Went back to Childrens Hospital and next visit and they did x-rays, I told them (only cuz I hated just being there in my underwear) I didnt need x-rays I was fine, they did them anyway what does a 3 yo know? They came back and told us that the ball of my hip had grown back, no explanation juswt grew back..I told them Jesus did it...they wrote on my file MIRACLE and filed it away. I still to this day have before and after x-rays of that. I know I am not perfect and yes I do things that are not right in God's eyes but I also ask for forgiveness, I try to live the way I should, because I know that God is there all the time always watching and always taking care of me and my Family...

 

[TimAllen]

The Big Bang is a Christian theory for creation of the Universe. When Christians, in the current argument, use “Can matter have appeared out of nothing?” they fail to understand the point they are arguing against, is one of their own ideas generated to "Scientifically" generate an answer about how what was explain in Genesis could have occurred.

The antithesis to this, is the thought that the universe/cosmos/space "always was", there is no "beginning" to it.

Hmmm, according to the Bible God created the Heavens and the Earth
Before that there was Nothing, Zero, Zilch, no Big Bang theory.....
Only the God created everything Theory

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 

[This_person]

The Big Bang is a Christian theory for creation of the Universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.​

Doesn't sound like a religious concept.

 

[TimAllen]

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.​

Doesn't sound like a religious concept.

 

[This_person]

However, it's another case of science proving the claims of religion:

Space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose These are clearly big anti-science Christians always lying! turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.​

 

[Tonio]

Then we ARE saying the same thing - it's fair to presume that if God is behind all that has happened, science will root that out.

I agree in part. My point has to do with the "if." The definitions of gods offered by religions not only do not allow for detection, but also do not allow for the possibility of detection.

How is that different from what I said?

Your post seemed to imply that there was no middle ground between possibility and fact, or that all possibilities were of equal probability. Was that not the case?

How God made things happen is important to know. Why He made them happen is equally important to know. Humans probably should be curious as to the hows - perhaps we can make our lives that much better. Humans should probably also know the whys - perhaps we can make our lives that much better!

That may be reasonable according to the interior logic of religions. The problem is that the typical religion claims to have the only way for humans to make their lives better, and further claims that this way cannot be challenged or because it allegedly comes from a god or gods.

That, of course, is based upon the assumption that life can be created from the proper mix of chemicals and atmospheric conditions.

That is not an assumption. It is simply one possibility derived from our accumulated knowledge about molecular biology.

My point - it's so likely, yet we can't see nor prove it, therefore it's pure conjecture, and there's nothing but FAITH to say it's likely.

No, conjecture would be an idea

What people believe to be true is immaterial to what is actually true. The people in those religions, and the people without religion, still statistically are likely to have certain moral codes - regardless of belief system. Seems built into us.

Rudimentary moral behavior has been observed in animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that morality is an evolutionary adaptation. We cannot assume that morality was created by an outside agency.

Yes, it is. It's equally possible we were designed that way.

No, because the design possibility includes host of assumptions about the designer. Any explanation of a natural phenomenon should involve as few assumptions as possible, and the number of assumptions decreases the probability.

 

[This_person]

Edwin Hubble

Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre

Lemaitre's theory was introduced back in the 1930's, he "discovered" it in the 20's but didnt publish until the 30's.

The Big Bang theory was a theory espoused by a Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre and the theory was agreed/approved upon by the Catholic Church

So, catholiceducation.org holds more water in your eyes than then University of MI for objectivity?

Either way, how does that compare with the rest of the theory and how it's been refined, by noted relgious scholars like Steven Hawking?

Perhaps the first person to state the theory was a Catholic priest as well as a mathemetician. Did he espouse it as Catholic and/or Christian theory, or scientific theory? Did the many scientist after him who refined it to scientific theory do so for religious or scientific reason?

 

[This_person]

And that pertains to the Big Bang being a Christian concept how?

The Bible says there was a point where there was nothing - no time, no space, nothing. Then, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

And, that's what this theory states as well.

That's how this scientific theory helps establish as scientific the claims of my particular religion (and, admittedly, many others).

 

[TimAllen]

Edwin Hubble

Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre

Lemaitre's theory was introduced back in the 1930's, he "discovered" it in the 20's but didnt publish until the 30's.

The Big Bang theory was a theory espoused by a Catholic Priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre and the theory was agreed/approved upon by the Catholic Church

A THEORY.


And you left this part out, He (Lemaitre) is saying in all of his research that an original event took place to form the Heavens and the Earth, thereby justifying what he believed.

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre’s view in 1933: “‘There is no conflict between religion and science,’ Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both.”

One event caused it all....
He is right One God caused it all... Kinda powerful huh?

 

[This_person]

I agree in part. My point has to do with the "if." The definitions of gods offered by religions not only do not allow for detection, but also do not allow for the possibility of detection.

God walked on earth. God spoke directly with people. God is detectable both in the abstract, and (if He so chooses) in the physical.

Your post seemed to imply that there was no middle ground between possibility and fact, or that all possibilities were of equal probability. Was that not the case?

Of course there is a difference between possibility and fact - provability. As was asked in the movie "Contact", though, how can you prove you love your mother/wife/father/son/daughter/whatever? It's as true as you can possibly imagine, but prove it scientifically. Not all possibilities have equal probability. However, probability has to make assumptions to become quantitative. If you presume the supernatural doesn't exist, that certainly makes the probability of God much less! But, if you allow equally for the possibility of the supernatural, the probability of an intelligent design guiding all that exists becomes much more likely.

That may be reasonable according to the interior logic of religions. The problem is that the typical religion claims to have the only way for humans to make their lives better, and further claims that this way cannot be challenged or because it allegedly comes from a god or gods.

Well, certainly the technical aspects of research/science can make our lives better, and few religions (not zero, but few) have a problem with this. The typical religion, in terms of making people's lives better, discusses actions and heartfelt emotions, and controlling one's motives, etc. As far as researching the technical matters of how things happen - I think most religions welcome being able to prove to the doubter with evidence that satisfies the doubter. However, as PsyOps talked about above, faith does mean that there may be a point of inability to prove, and belief must take over. Now, mostly, that's still talking about how one acts and what they feel, but could be extended to physical proof of how a Creator performs His miracles.

That is not an assumption. It is simply one possibility derived from our accumulated knowledge about molecular biology.

But, to say that life could occur on other plantets with just the right conditions, then calculate what percentage of planets might meet those conditions, one must assume what conditions there were which caused life. Calculate life on other planets presuming that it could not spontaneously occur without an intelligent designer, and now you've got a whole new equation with a far different probability.

No, conjecture would be an idea

And, without any form of proof, that's all this is, an idea. A thought. A possibility. Like, for example, creation

Rudimentary moral behavior has been observed in animal species such as chimpanzees. It has been hypothesized that morality is an evolutionary adaptation. We cannot assume that morality was created by an outside agency.

No, we can't just assume it. Any more than we can assume that it's an evolutionary adaptation. They're both equally likely, and both deserve exploration equally.

No, because the design possibility includes host of assumptions about the designer. Any explanation of a natural phenomenon should involve as few assumptions as possible, and the number of assumptions decreases the probability.

Maybe, but the assumptions do not preclude the possibility. The shere complexity of life makes happenstance that much less likely, don't you think?

 

[Tonio]

The experiences (and, no, it wasn't voices in my head or something like that) proved to me that life is NOT just happenstance - there's a plan, a reason, a motive behind how things flow.

No offense, but such experiences are not sufficient proof.

That doesn't stop me from wanting to know how that's done, or how things work.

I admire that sentiment.

If I read you correctly, you're saying that we have to do our research as to how things happened without giving serious consideration to why things happened.

Not quite. I'm saying that your "why" would really be a "how." In strict scientific terms, the idea of a designer behind a natural event would be like the idea of a natural cause for a natural event. The former is less probable because it rests on the assumption of a designer and because there is no evidence for the designer.

Because, if we give serious consideration as to why things happened, we might have to subordinate ourselves to a supreme being's will.

No, to the will of people who claim to act on behalf of such beings. That is a huge difference, and one of the chief objections to supernaturalistic religion. Plus, my point would also apply to deism, even though deism doesn't define its god as a moral authority.

I, personally, think that's a dangerous way to approach things. I think it dismisses a possibility. It relieves science of any moral foundation. That's scary to me.

No question that a disregard for morality in science can be dangerous. But that is not the fault of science, which is a tool for knowing the physical universe.

My idea for a naturalistic religion is that true morality is not about submission to authority, whether it's an earthly authority or an alleged heavenly authority. That is simply doing what one is told. (To be clear, I'm talking about submission and not simple respect for authority, because with the latter we retain our will. True morality involves valuing others, considering the consequences of our actions on others.

 

[TimAllen]

So you agree, he was a Catholic Priest (i do believe thats Christian) came up with a Theory that was approved by the Catholic Church (... wait their Christian too).

thanks buddy!

You are good and taking a single part of a quote and trying to make it fit your theory..His research showed that there was a single event that caused everything, as in God creating the Heavens and the Earth...that would be a large single event correct?

I never said he was not a priest....No where does it quote nor does it say that the Catholic Church approved of "The Big Bang Theory" Lemaitre did not coin the phrase either.... Read this again....

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre’s view in 1933: “‘There is no conflict between religion and science,’ Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both.”



I think it says that what he figured out is good because he one event did occur to make everything and God did it...

 

[This_person]

No CatholicEducation.org was an example, there was also a Google link to his name, here it is again Georges-Henri Lemaitre (or you can ignore it like you did before)

I didn't ignore it, there were more links than I noticed.

Minimize it all you want, neverless the Theory of "Something out of Nothing" (Big Bang), the one you have problems grasping or believing, is one created by a Christian Priest and approved of by the largest Christian Organization.

Since the concept escapes you, Hubble further refined Lemaitres theory, he didnt create it.

Before you decide to use someone to support your stance (kinda like Mitochondrial Eve) make sure you have a clear understandinng of what their actual beliefs are.


Hmm Space/Cosmos/Universe has no beginning... who made that claim a few posts ago?


Space/Cosmos/Universe wasnt created (cant be destroyed) it just was... gee that sounds familiar


Space/Cosmos/Universe has no need for a creator, since there is no beginning nor end... where have i heard that before?

The concept of something not having a begining or creation is odd, because its not a concept thats easily grasped.

I think perhaps we're both saying the universe came from nothing, and that is both a scientific and religious concept. Where is your argument?

As far as the universe goes, the Christian religion does not make the claim that there is no beginning nor end - we really believe there is both a beginning and an end. I'm not sure where you're disagreement is.

 

[This_person]

The Bible makes lots of claims, one being that Cain married some mythical woman, but you cant use your "Proof" to prove your "Proof"

Actually, sorry, you have it backwards, Religion (Lemaitre) is trying to use Science (Concept of Big Bang) to prove itself (Genesis).

So, he offered the Big Bang up as a religious theory in his role as priest, or a scientific on in his role as methematician. Did he offer it up for scientific review? Has it been researched and expounded upon in a scientific way, or a religious one?