| god or not god 20:42 - Jan 26 with 14165 views | Davillin |
Important prefatory notes: I do not accept the description of “God” in any religious writing in the nature of a “bible.” Nor do I accept the description of “heaven,” “hell,” “angels,” or any other tangentials in any religious writing. I do not disrespect the person or opinions of anyone who believes any formal religious tenets, nor anyone who does not.
In my view, all religions have been created by mankind in order to (1) explain the inexplicable, and (2) to provide a set of principles and rules for the conduct of life. I do not disrespect any religion for doing so.
This essay is not about religion, but rather about the source of everything in existence, and in particular about the source of “life.”
____________________
I have been studying religion and religion as philosophy almost all my life. I remember as a 6- or 7-year old boy in Religious Instruction classes being taught from a Catechism. [A catechism is a form of teaching and learning by rote from a logically-arranged series of questions and answers.]
I still remember the first questions in my catechism:
“Q: Who made thee?
“A: God made me.
“Q: Why did God make thee?
“A: God made me to love him and serve him in this life, and to be with him in the next.”
For something being taught to such a young person, with the expectation that it will be understood on his level, that’s actually not a bad start to explaining the inexplicable.
Later in life, however, as I expanded my study of religions of the world and philosophy, it became clearer and clearer to me that those who wrote and taught about religion were trying to explain what they thought they understood to people who did not have the intellect or education to understand it on a philosophical level, so the teachers brought it down to a level they could understand, and often resorted to stories as images of something theoretically more concrete. Importantly, however, the teachers did not tell the faithful that these were poetic stories [fables?] and not reality.
While accepting the concept of a creator and sustainer of life, they were unable to visualize that creator as anything but “a person-like being” with a human-like body, emotions, and thoughts, but with supernatural power, as a simpler description for something so far beyond our ability to conceive.
To complicate my learning process, my study of the sciences and the empirical evidence science provides, gave me an uncomfortable sense that while I could easily reject the fabulous in religious teaching, science kept increasing my conviction that there had to have been a creator and sustainer of life. The longer I lived and the more I learned, the more inescapable that conviction became, as did the other conviction that bible versions of creation were not viable.
I could write for an hour about the observations of Nature which make their origin from a creator beyond question for me. Let me give just a few.
We live in a universe which is literally beyond our comprehension. An untold number of planets are orbiting an untold number of stars in an untold number of galaxies extending across a universe whose immensity is incalculable and actually beyond our imagination. The last numbers I heard are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. We can’t even imagine the sense of “a billion” anything, let alone hundreds of billions, let alone hundreds of billions of galaxies.
The notion that all of that matter came from nothing is even more difficult to accept; as is the notion that it all came from a “uniformity” — a completely made-up word to name (but not to define, and without proof) what supposedly existed before the universe exploded into existence — and which came into existence all by itself without a creating force named or even defined.
At the same time, we live in a universe which is also small beyond our comprehension. One-celled creatures too small to be seen with the naked eye, yet have life. Bodies in all forms which come into existence from matter that starts with eggs or seeds or parts thereof, also so small as to be unseen with the naked eye, yet having life. Animal bodies which are formed according to a plan to be found in DNA in chromosomes too small to be seen with the naked eye and having distinct parts even smaller. Imagine a distinct life beginning with just two of these chromosomes which combine to begin a process of self-replication followed by self-modification and self-differentiation to make all of the highly-specialized cells in the body.
And those highly-specialized cells cause the most amazing behaviours! Some cells are specifically created to become parts of an eye with connections to other cells which are specifically created to become parts of a brain and allow the animal to “see” everything around it. Others become internal organs which take organic material and turn it into energy, others which burn energy, and others which turn it into waste material, and others which expel it. Others self-differentiate into organs that provide for self-reproduction into organisms exactly like themselves, or more amazingly, into organisms which are not exactly like either parent.
Every organ of the body has its own amazing life story, and all of the “decisions” for all of these characteristics are handed down from the parents within a set of sub-microscope genes within microscopic chromosomes.
And the resulting organisms can live for anywhere from 24 hours (certain insects are hatched, mate, and die within 24 hours) to others which can live for centuries.
[I have not yet scratched the surface of the amazing special characteristics of innumerable astonishingly different species. It would take a good-size library to contain all of the information about distinctive characteristics of different species of animals, plants, and other life forms, all from one lightning strike on some enzymes in a pool of primordial ooze?]
And so we know of things in existence that range in size from sub-atomic to incomprehensibly huge. And we see the outward manifestations of “life” without the faintest knowledge of what life is, where it is, where it came from, or where it goes.
I do know that my body has lived for more than 77 years and that it replaces its own cells in a complex schedule that we can sometimes calculate but can never explain. And it has co-operated in producing three new life forms directly and several others in the next generation, in a process which I can trace in my family back 300 years and which will — or has the capacity to — go on to an unknown moment in future time, and can be expected to continue forward as long as its history is behind.
Did you know that “Otzi,” the man whose frozen body was found in the Alps, who lived over 5,000 years ago, has living “relatives” today, as evidenced by elements of his DNA which have remained unchanged over that time? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24477038
Now. With even that brief statement of the size, complexity, and wonder of this tiny sliver of all creation that we know, how can I imagine that it came about — in all its magnificent complexity — from no cause, or as the result of an accidental lightning strike?
And so I am left with what is difficult for some to accept — a creator and sustainer of life with powers even more beyond our comprehension. [I must repeat here that I am not referring to any biblical “god.”] Some believe that, because we cannot conceive of such powers, and therefore of the nature of any such entity, they must not exist. Tragically, the people who survived the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki could not conceive of such power — or who could have “created” it — yet nevertheless they had empirical evidence that it did exist, and had to have been created by someone. The survivors, like you and me, still don’t know how it works.
I was alive at that time and remember vividly that no-one in my experience had ever heard of an “atomic bomb,” and had no idea what an atomic bomb was, or how it worked, or how much destruction it caused.
This creator/sustainer clearly must be omnipotent — with powers whose effect we can see [if we look with an open mind] but not comprehend — and omnipresent — meaning being everywhere, even within every living organism and thing — and omniscient — knowing all. As a result of having read a number of philosophers on the subject, I see that this creator/sustainer must also exist without reference to time, or is “omnitemporal” in the word I have coined to name it.
Inasmuch as creation continues, with the known creation of more planets, stars, and galaxies, and life itself, it is at least likely that the creator continues also, unless all of creation was set in motion and is simply continuing as designed.
Part of the bewilderment I see in some who do not accept the notion of a creator/sustainer comes from the fact that they cannot comprehend or even imagine such powers; and if they cannot understand the immensity and complexity of creation, they cannot understand a power commensurate with that immensity and complexity. The atomic bomb outcome.
I listen to any of the great pieces of classical music and in my amazed appreciation of what the composer did with nothing but sound, I cannot comprehend how he did it. Imagine Beethovan composing exquisite music while completely deaf, writing on paper the music that he heard only in his mind.
Inventors who were able to use their knowledge of science and their purely awe-inspiring imagination have invented things that we cannot believe can work. Who knew that there was a way to make “radio” waves carry sound across miles — now far out into space and back, demonstrably beyond the limits of our solar system? Who first imagined that radio waves even exist? Or how to harness them, send sound across them, receive them, and turn them back into sound again for our ears? I could go on identifying things man has “discovered” and turned into something useful.
Then explain to me that all of these discovered things — and more — came to be by accident, and how, and from what? Electricity, for example. It’s not a physical entity, but it exists and shocked same puddle of primordial ooze from which life itself emerged, from a random lightning strike?
I first learned from a philosopher whose name has escaped me that it is not the least bit difficult to know that a powerful creator/sustainer brought all of this into existence and sustains it. Just look around you, he suggested. There is nothing but endless empirical evidence that it had to have been created. I add that you have a couple of options — pure chance without impetus, a puddle of ooze, or an unknowable but obvious creator/sustainer.
Some of you will ask me where this creator/sustainer comes from. I don’t know. Neither does anyone who prefers some kind of “big bang” theory know where matter came [comes] from. That the answer, if known, would be astonishing beyond our puny understanding is not a reason to doubt it. The history of mankind is filled with answers beyond our ability to grasp at first, and which have been proven and accepted when known and understood, and those questions are far easier to answer than the source of the creator/sustainer.
Finally, this. Some of you will ask how I know this. I reply by asking how I know that it snowed overnight, inasmuch as it registered in none of my senses, and no-one reported it to me. Well, last night before I retired, the streets, sidewalks, and buildings were clean and dry. This morning everything was covered with snow. I didn’t see the snow fall, but I know it did. Empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. There is no other explanation.
Except perhaps the ever-available puddle of primordial ooze with enzymes struck by lightning — the puddle, the enzymes, and the lightning having come into existence all by themselves in the first place, apparently.
[Post edited 26 Jan 2014 20:54]
|  |
| |  |
| god or not god on 20:00 - Jan 27 with 1297 views | WarwickHunt |
| god or not god on 19:36 - Jan 27 by Davillin |
Do us all a favour and eat sh!t, you Knuckle-dragging Kneanderthal. Apologies to any ethnic Neanderthals around; you don't deserve the comparison.
There is no question mark at the end of an imperative sentence. |
Ah - so you were instructing me. I see. Unlike you Christians to hector.
Not sure about the gratuitous and incorrect use of the capital K. Perhaps a big boy did it then ran away (a bit like your creationist theory). |  | | |
| god or not god on 20:08 - Jan 27 with 1276 views | MrSwerve |
The 'theory' of evolution is not just a theory...it is a scientific fact based on plenty of evidence. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 20:11 - Jan 27 with 1267 views | yescomeon |
| god or not god on 20:08 - Jan 27 by MrSwerve |
The 'theory' of evolution is not just a theory...it is a scientific fact based on plenty of evidence. |
Likewise with the big bang 'theory'. |  |
| |
| god or not god on 20:14 - Jan 27 with 1265 views | WarwickHunt |
| god or not god on 20:08 - Jan 27 by MrSwerve |
The 'theory' of evolution is not just a theory...it is a scientific fact based on plenty of evidence. |
That's fightin' talk where hillbilly boy comes from. | | | |
| god or not god on 21:32 - Jan 27 with 1221 views | maes |
| god or not god on 20:11 - Jan 27 by yescomeon |
Likewise with the big bang 'theory'. |
The big bang theory is a theory, a widely believed theory but a theory none the less. Theories cannot be proven to complete certainty, they can only be disproven.
You could say there its also evidence that the big bang theory is incorrect. For example the fact that the big bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can never be created our destroyed. |  | | |
| god or not god on 22:18 - Jan 27 with 1186 views | jackb |
| god or not god on 21:32 - Jan 27 by maes |
The big bang theory is a theory, a widely believed theory but a theory none the less. Theories cannot be proven to complete certainty, they can only be disproven.
You could say there its also evidence that the big bang theory is incorrect. For example the fact that the big bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can never be created our destroyed. |
you do know the definition of scientific theory don't you, it's not the same as what sky fairy proponents will have you believe!
Look it up and educate yourself
And actually do some reading around the subject before you post - it doesn't violate the first law - pfft! |  | | |
| god or not god on 22:41 - Jan 27 with 1177 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| god or not god on 21:32 - Jan 27 by maes |
The big bang theory is a theory, a widely believed theory but a theory none the less. Theories cannot be proven to complete certainty, they can only be disproven.
You could say there its also evidence that the big bang theory is incorrect. For example the fact that the big bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can never be created our destroyed. |
The Big Bang theory is widely accepted by Christians of a far less scientific faith as opposed to some Protestant sects who deny the supernatural nature of the church sacraments but will insist that the creation of the universe happened in seven actual days. Quite a paradox that |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| god or not god on 00:31 - Jan 28 with 1143 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 20:08 - Jan 27 by MrSwerve |
The 'theory' of evolution is not just a theory...it is a scientific fact based on plenty of evidence. |
It's known as "the theory of evolution," and that's what I call it.
I have never denied that the theory of evolution is based on evidence, and I have never denied that it can explain how life forms change; but it cannot explain - and does not attempt to explain - how life forms were created. | |
| |
| god or not god on 00:35 - Jan 28 with 1141 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 20:11 - Jan 27 by yescomeon |
Likewise with the big bang 'theory'. |
It is known as "the big bang theory" and that's what I call it.
The big bang theory has never been scientifically proven. I have no doubt that it cannot be scientifically proven.
In fact, I believe that it's been made up out of the whole cloth, largely to avoid the biblical explanation of the origin of the universe.
I started the o.p. by saying that I do not believe any such explanation from any "bible" or other religious explanation. | |
| |
| god or not god on 00:40 - Jan 28 with 1133 views | Cottsy |
"The notion that all of that matter came from nothing is even more difficult to accept; as is the notion that it all came from a “uniformity” — a completely made-up word to name (but not to define, and without proof) what supposedly existed before the universe exploded into existence — and which came into existence all by itself without a creating force named or even defined."
"As you will have seen, in my original post I discuss briefly the elements of the non-creator theories which make no sense to me. As hard as the big bangers try, they are always stumped at the question of where the "uniformity" came from. Even as they disingenuously propose that the "uniformity" consisted of pure energy, they have no answer to where it came from and how, nor to how it turned somehow into matter. Tossing out an Einstein theoretical formula that does not have to do with energy transforming into matter, does not help."
The singularity isn't what existed before the big bang but what existed in the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang.
How do we know it existed? We know that the universe is constantly expanding and constantly cooling so immediately we know that the universe had to be denser and hotter in the past, logic innit.
General relativity mostly explains the hows, whats and whys up to the point of the singularity and into the future that I'm not going to even try to explain because GR is hard and confuses me but I do have 'How to teach Relativity to your dog' sat in my to read pile so hopefully my dog will be able to explain it to me.
Also see the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Planck Telescope for more evidence of the universe expanding from an incredibly hot dense state. |  |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| god or not god on 00:41 - Jan 28 with 1138 views | Davillin |
| god or not god on 21:32 - Jan 27 by maes |
The big bang theory is a theory, a widely believed theory but a theory none the less. Theories cannot be proven to complete certainty, they can only be disproven.
You could say there its also evidence that the big bang theory is incorrect. For example the fact that the big bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can never be created our destroyed. |
Thanks for that.
May I suggest one minor change. A theory, as a theory, has not been proven. If a theory is no longer considered a theory, it becomes a scientific fact or "law."
Perhaps I missed something, but I have never heard a scientist refer to either "the law of evolution" or "the big bang law." Not even Wikipedia does that. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 0:43]
| |
| |
| god or not god on 01:25 - Jan 28 with 1120 views | Cottsy |
| god or not god on 00:41 - Jan 28 by Davillin |
Thanks for that.
May I suggest one minor change. A theory, as a theory, has not been proven. If a theory is no longer considered a theory, it becomes a scientific fact or "law."
Perhaps I missed something, but I have never heard a scientist refer to either "the law of evolution" or "the big bang law." Not even Wikipedia does that. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 0:43]
|
Iesu Mawr mun how many times?
A scientific theory does not have the same meaning as theory in its everyday usage.
And scientific theories never become scientific laws. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| god or not god on 01:26 - Jan 28 with 1123 views | maes |
| god or not god on 22:18 - Jan 27 by jackb |
you do know the definition of scientific theory don't you, it's not the same as what sky fairy proponents will have you believe!
Look it up and educate yourself
And actually do some reading around the subject before you post - it doesn't violate the first law - pfft! |
"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. " quote from Stephen Hawking, he seemed to understand the scientific definition of a theory quite well. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 1:29]
| | | |
| god or not god on 08:48 - Jan 28 with 1086 views | Phaedrus |
More and more articles lately point towards multiple universes(???). I guess when they invented that word they didn't think they would have to worry about what the plural would be. Edit: Multiverse appears to be the chosen terminology.
This website is one I read daily and most weeks there are several articles that mention this particular idea that our universe came about due to two other universes colliding.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/did-our-universe-collide-with-another-when-it [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 8:50]
|  |
| And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? |
| |
| god or not god on 09:31 - Jan 28 with 1065 views | Lord_Bony |
Multiple universes is what I ve been saying all along.
A lot of evidence points towards this along with multiple dimensions.
Try getting your head around that lot for starters before we even discuss the OP!
My own view as I have said on many occasions is there may be intelligent design behind it all somewhere. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 9:32]
|  |
| |
| god or not god on 09:32 - Jan 28 with 1060 views | Phaedrus |
| god or not god on 09:31 - Jan 28 by Lord_Bony |
Multiple universes is what I ve been saying all along.
A lot of evidence points towards this along with multiple dimensions.
Try getting your head around that lot for starters before we even discuss the OP!
My own view as I have said on many occasions is there may be intelligent design behind it all somewhere. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 9:32]
|
But whats the design behind the intelligence? Who created the creator I guess?
Just because the universe has an orderly serendipitous nature ( in parts) this is not evidence for intelligence. This is just the nature of the universe. Chaos can produce order. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 9:36]
| |
| And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? |
| |
| god or not god on 09:35 - Jan 28 with 1055 views | Lord_Bony |
Now that is the question we d all like the answer to my friend. | |
| |
| god or not god on 09:37 - Jan 28 with 1052 views | Phaedrus |
Sorry , I snuck an edit in. | |
| And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? |
| |
| god or not god on 09:37 - Jan 28 with 1048 views | Cottsy |
| god or not god on 08:48 - Jan 28 by Phaedrus |
More and more articles lately point towards multiple universes(???). I guess when they invented that word they didn't think they would have to worry about what the plural would be. Edit: Multiverse appears to be the chosen terminology.
This website is one I read daily and most weeks there are several articles that mention this particular idea that our universe came about due to two other universes colliding.
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/did-our-universe-collide-with-another-when-it [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 8:50]
|
Do you ever read the Starts With A Bang blog? He has a great article on why the multi-verse is likely explaining the science in a pretty easy to understand way. Its worth a read as is the whole blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/28/why-we-think-theres-a-multive | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| god or not god on 09:40 - Jan 28 with 1046 views | Phaedrus |
Thanks for that. Some of my sons maternal family(grandma) are creationists( he lives with them), so I load his facebook page with as many science pages as possible to balance the madness. He shall be getting that . What he chooses to believe is up to him, but I don't want him just getting one side of the story. [Post edited 28 Jan 2014 9:59]
| |
| And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? |
| |
| god or not god on 09:47 - Jan 28 with 1041 views | Lord_Bony |
| god or not god on 09:37 - Jan 28 by Phaedrus |
Sorry , I snuck an edit in. |
Again it s down to the individual's belief.
It s where science and individual belief,logic come together at some point and you have to choose what's what.
The answer is of course....no one knows the answer.
All I know is the universe and the laws of physics are one weird place to be, we re only scratching the surface at the moment of it all.
Maybe we never know the truth until we die. | |
| |
| god or not god on 10:53 - Jan 28 with 1015 views | yescomeon |
| god or not god on 00:35 - Jan 28 by Davillin |
It is known as "the big bang theory" and that's what I call it.
The big bang theory has never been scientifically proven. I have no doubt that it cannot be scientifically proven.
In fact, I believe that it's been made up out of the whole cloth, largely to avoid the biblical explanation of the origin of the universe.
I started the o.p. by saying that I do not believe any such explanation from any "bible" or other religious explanation. |
Readshiftt and the cosmic microwave background are evidence that point towards the big bang, not absolute proof but a strong sugestion. | |
| |
| god or not god on 11:13 - Jan 28 with 1005 views | Oldjack |
For what it's worth ,there ain't no gods there ain't no heaven and there ain't no hell, all that's man made mumbo jumbo, We evolved, when, where, how ,lays beneath us or above us, we just ain't found it yet but we're getting warmer by each passing century ,you all have a nice day now |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| god or not god on 12:47 - Jan 28 with 975 views | maes |
I personally prefer to listen to people’s opinions and philosophies that challenge the general consensus because in that way we are more likely to discover the real nature of things. Has there ever been a period in human history where general consensus on any scientific topic has been correct? The answer is no. At every point in human history the widely held beliefs and theories have always proven to be incorrect or the theories have needed to be adapted. People who at the time held what was thought to be radical beliefs are the ones we hold today
We should always as individual question general consensus and "FACT" because history proves that, what the whole world believes to be true can turn out to be incorrect and it is arrogant to believe in the modern age that is not also happening now.
People once ridiculed others who suggested the world was not flat. Newton’s laws and theories have had to be revised and adapted over the years because the originals were disproven. Einstein spilt with main stream physics at the height of his career, he didn’t like quantum mechanics and claimed that it was flawed. There are many of examples of mainstream science from the past, ultimately being incorrect.
I’m not saying I agree with intelligent design or a god creator, just that we should consider all possibilities when trying to discover the creation of the universe. Not just the mainstream theories that the majority believe to be true and that includes the theory of intelligent design.
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul." Mark Twain | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
