Is there a god/Allah/Supreme being?
Discussion
Jinx said:
But the basic laws of physics don't always apply even within our limited scope of experiences - the rules do not fit at the extremes. We can already predict when the laws of causality break-down. There are points where time, space and energy are the same thing.
Isn't it naive to beleive there isn't a greater being that looks upon us as we watch the stimulus response of micro-organisms?
The basic laws of physics always apply, 100% of the time. No exceptions. We just don't know quite what they are yet
The 'laws of causality' don't break down because there is no such thing. As you imply, cause-and-effect has no real meaning in a quantum universe, but that doesn't mean that we need to fit a higher power into our set of rules. How can it be naive to believe that their *isn't* a greater being, when there is not a shred of evidence for it? Surely the mature, considered, non-naive response is to examine the gaps in our knowledge and attempt to fill them, rather than equate the mysterious to the mystical? hornet said:
If you were a supreme being, why would you stick your prize creation on a small planet...
What makes you think we are the prize exhibit? That's very arrogant.
I don't believe in any great creator but I do subscribe to Carl Sagan's view that the universe is such a huge place there will be other lifeforms but they will be too remote for us to ever have any contact.
"Space is big, really big. You might think it's a long way down to the corner to the chemist's but that's peanuts to space."
>> Edited by simonrockman on Wednesday 7th July 18:16
mrwomble said:
The basic laws of physics always apply, 100% of the time. No exceptions. We just don't know quite what they are yet
I haven't suggested fitting a supreme being into our set of rules, I was putting forward a theory that beyond our "rules" a being may exist.
Acceptance of scientific evidence is a belief in itself (Descartes anyone) and what is evidence to one is faith to another (Speed kills??).
simonrockman said:
If you were a supreme being, why would you stick your prize creation on a small planet...
What makes you think we are the prize exhibit? That's very arrogant.
God created man in his own image, didn't he? Sent his son to earth to sort things out? Sounds like he's got a lot of time for us, in any case.
Or would have, if he existed. Which he doesn't, which was sort of the point of the original post...
AlexH said:
As far as I'm aware, science has not yet predicted what was going on before the big bang, and if someone wishes to say that was the hand of God, then fair play to them.
My biggest problem with science is that they are simply catching up - the world is several hundred million years ahead of it (science) and therefore the arrogance displayed by some scientists some of the time is frustrating and depressing.
Invariably a scientist will discount something exists or happens if they can't prove it. Doesn't matter that it is actually going on, but if they can't prove it they don't believe it.
That seems very closed circuit to me. The whole scientific world we currently know is only as good as the theories we have at the moment and some of the thing that happen simply don't fit into those equations/theories.
Does that mean they don't happen? Of course not.
I don't know if i believe in a god, but i believe there is alot in this world that goes on we don't understand. Some people ignore it altogether, others call it divine intervention.
Same act, different name. All i say is be open to the possibility that something can happen in this world tht you haven't the faintest idea how/why it did.
If you have to name it, thats your perogative!
>> Edited by Buffalo on Wednesday 7th July 18:33
Buffalo said:
As far as I'm aware, science has not yet predicted what was going on before the big bang, and if someone wishes to say that was the hand of God, then fair play to them.
My biggest problem with science is that they are simply catching up - the world is several hundred million years ahead of it (science) and therefore the arrogance displayed by some scientists some of the time is frustrating and depressing.
Invariably a scientist will discount something exists or happens if they can't prove it. Doesn't matter that it is actually going on, but if they can't prove it they don't believe it.
That seems very closed circuit to me. The whole scientific world we currently know is only as good as the theories we have at the moment and some of the thing that happen simply don't fit into those equations/theories.
Does that mean they don't happen? Of course not.
I don't know if i believe in a god, but i believe there is alot in this world that goes on we don't understand. Some people ignore it altogether, others call it divine intervention.
Same act, different name. All i say is be open to the possibility that something can happen in this world tht you haven't the faintest idea how/why it did.
If you have to name it, thats your perogative!
>> Edited by Buffalo on Wednesday 7th July 18:33
What goes on that we don't understand? Do you really feel you must put it down to a supreme being? remember that no-one really understood electricity, or gravity, but that does not mean that it was god creating these forces. Exactly which bits that we don't understand do you attribute to the intervention of the supreme being?
Buffalo said:
Invariably a scientist will discount something exists or happens if they can't prove it. Doesn't matter that it is actually going on, but if they can't prove it they don't believe it.
But that's not now science works. It's very, very, very hard (see: impossible) to prove anything. The way any real scientist will work is to start off with a theory and try to disprove it. If they can't, and nobody else can, and this carries on for a long time, then it becomes part of established scientific 'fact'. If anyone, ever, disproved it in a scientifically rigorous manner, then science would discard it and move on.
What scientists don't believe in is things that don't aren't necessary. We can quite happily explain the vast majority of our universe, our existence and strawberry ice cream within our current scientific belief system. We have no reason to believe that the bits which are still a bit iffy will never be explainable. There quite simply is no need to stoop to the level of 'I don't understand it, therefore it can't be understood and I'll call it God'.
andy mac said:
What goes on that we don't understand? Do you really feel you must put it down to a supreme being? remember that no-one really understood electricity, or gravity, but that does not mean that it was god creating these forces. Exactly which bits that we don't understand do you attribute to the intervention of the supreme being?
I didn't say *I* had to put it down to a supreme being at all. There's lots in the world that scientists don't actually have concrete proof for why it is there, what it does, how it does it etc....
I didn't know what agonistic meant till you mentioned it, but i guess it describes me. I merely was trying to say, that i don't feel the need to have to explain *everything* by one crappy equation that some people i have met do have to. Yet at the same time i don't need to have ajustification that everything happens is because of a *god*.
I am comfortable with the fact that i ain't gonna know everything that goes on in my life!
Personally i think the biggest thing that controls your life is yourself... Now i do keep popping into this discussion, but i am actually staying late writing a scientific report!
mrwomble said:
How can it be naive to believe that their *isn't* a greater being, when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
Apart from several hundred different religious texts, countless drawings of gods and beings throughout thousands of years and hundreds of civilisations, blah blah blah....
Might just be stories, more likely embellished slightly from actual events, made more wild throughout years of story telling until someone first wrote them down and that is how they stuck to become religious texts.
subjective evidence maybe, but you can't fully discount it.
Buffalo said:
How can it be naive to believe that their *isn't* a greater being, when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
Apart from several hundred different religious texts, countless drawings of gods and beings throughout thousands of years and hundreds of civilisations, blah blah blah....
Might just be stories, more likely embellished slightly from actual events, made more wild throughout years of story telling until someone first wrote them down and that is how they stuck to become religious texts.
subjective evidence maybe, but you can't fully discount it.
The bible is a group of moral stories, not intended to be taken as 'gospel' truth. The last testament was written not by the people that were there, but by people who had heard the story, and we all know how these things can change over time. The bible is NOT a historical document... The contradictions between the gospels are enough to tell us this!
andy mac said:
The bible is a group of moral stories, not intended to be taken as 'gospel' truth. The last testament was written not by the people that were there, but by people who had heard the story, and we all know how these things can change over time. The bible is NOT a historical document... The contradictions between the gospels are enough to tell us this!
er isn't that what i said..?
>> Edited by Buffalo on Wednesday 7th July 19:55
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff