Religion vs Science

Rxke · 2004-08-28 14:31:10

I once found a strange web site that said God created the universe because He needs love, like we need food.

Hey! I really like that one...

.... Initially... But after some thought, it reeks of New Age...

...And LL Cool J (I Need Love!)

Oh- not saying LL reeks, to be clear...

Palomar · 2004-08-28 14:49:33

I once found a strange web site that said God created the universe because He needs love, like we need food.
Hey! I really like that one...

.... Initially... But after some thought, it reeks of New Age...

*My parents' fundamentalist Christian church preached and believed God created humans out of loneliness and the need for companionship (love). Many other fundamentalist denominations believe this as well.

And they'd be rolling down the church aisle with indignation at your ascribing that sentiment to the New Age (which they consider "satanic"). But that's another story.

:laugh:

--Cindy

Stargrail · 2004-08-29 02:36:32

I once found a strange web site that said God created the universe because He needs love, like we need food.
.... Initially... But after some thought, it reeks of New Age...
...with indignation at your ascribing that sentiment to the New Age (which they consider "satanic"). But that's another story.

In the early 90's, I used to frequently visit and sometimes stay at new age commune, near Glastonbury UK. They had themselves a comfortable setup living in benders, with their own water supply.

It appeared to me that the family, my late partner and I stayed with, believed their Universe is in a continuous battle between Love and Lush, pronounced Loosch.

The way it was explained, to me it boiled down to:

Love is creative positive energy.
Lush is destructive negative energy.

Both are generated and harvested.

dicktice · 2004-08-29 11:30:03

I think God is out there as soul energy and surrounded by more soul (angels, other souls) energy. I think of a giant ball of light that would look like a star but emit different radiation than normal stars. And it should be located at the very center of the universe.
Hawking questioned (or was it Einstein?) whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe. Maybe God had to create it this way so that He could be a part of it? Or maybe this is the only way for intelligent life to form? Maybe there are other gods with different physical properties that create universes with physics to suit themselves?
If you could step out of the universe and into another dimension, a neutral dimension that supports all the universes, then you could just walk down a few steps and re-enter it trillions of light years from where you started. You wouldn't be travelling faster than light.
Most people think souls join the human body somewhere just before childbirth but I think it happens at about 3 or 4 years of age because this is as far back as we can remember. Before that we are driven completely by instinct and curiousity. Like an intelligent animal.

Please don't stop, Dook, because I think you are hilarious as well as imaginative. But your avoidance of defining what a "soul" is, and introducing "another dimension" is a bit much to expect your readers to swallow without at least some scientific method of hypothesis, wouldn't you say?

C M Edwards · 2004-08-29 13:42:20

Drawing a distinction between a “true god” and a “Q a la Star Trek” appears to be an exercise in set theory. Anything originating within our universe originates in Creation, and therefore cannot be God. Anything originating outside the universe (pre-dating the universe does count) could be a “true god”, but the set of “true gods” may only be a subset of things originating outside Creation.

I’m not sure that being able to draw that distinction would allow the possibility of equalling the capabilities of God.

Humanity has been changing its relationship to God since the beginning of our species. If we’re dependent on God though, we may be fundamentally unable to end that dependence no matter how much evolving we do.

In biology, there are all sorts of dependent relationships between species. In some of the more intimate dependencies (parasitism, symbiosis, etc.), one or both of the two species cannot survive without the other. If one species in the pair evolves through sufficient change to alter that relationship, the dependent one must also evolve or die out. Evolutionary changes in one are reflected by evolutionary changes in the other. Effectively, the dependent species follows the other through phase space. We could have a similar relationship with God, particularly if He dictates our evolution. It’s hard to imagine how we could get out of such a relationship, since changing enough to do so would kill us. (Of course, if God really does need humanity, the relationship could be truly symbiotic, in which case God would be following _us_ through phase space, too.)

Or perhaps our relationship is more analogous to inventor and invention. This is consistent with the doctrine of millenialism (which I do not subscribe to, BTW). I love my own inventions as much as I can love any inanimate thing, but that doesn’t stop me from tweaking them or testing them to destruction every now and then. If God needed humanity for some function, and humanity got out of line, then if he’s like me he would be equally likely to let it run (to observe to new behavior out of curiosity/sheer joy) or adjust it back into proper function. However, he would not allow it to stop functioning, and evidence of repeated adjustments might be detectable. We could easily be part of Creation version 2.3. Unless we escaped that cycle, there would be no advancement within it.

Dook · 2004-08-29 20:46:55

Most people think souls join the human body somewhere just before childbirth but I think it happens at about 3 or 4 years of age because this is as far back as we can remember. Before that we are driven completely by instinct and curiousity. Like an intelligent animal.
Please don't stop, Dook, because I think you are hilarious as well as imaginative. But your avoidance of defining what a "soul" is, and introducing "another dimension" is a bit much to expect your readers to swallow without at least some scientific method of hypothesis, wouldn't you say?

Thank you for your comments. I'll add you to my long list of admirers.

I didn't avoid defining what a soul is, I certainly wish I knew. If I had to guess I would say some kind of intelligent energy but that is not really much of a definition. What do you think it is?

I think 11 dimensions is what the physicists are claiming there to be now.

Maybe you could enlighten us with the truth about God and souls and the balance between religion and science.

Stargrail · 2004-08-30 01:11:01

I think 11 dimensions is what the physicists are claiming there to be now.

If the 11th Dimention is what Science is on now, why is the universe imagined as a doughnut?

A minimum doughnut is an 8 shape!!!

Gennaro · 2004-08-30 02:04:15

Most people think souls join the human body somewhere just before childbirth but I think it happens at about 3 or 4 years of age because this is as far back as we can remember. Before that we are driven completely by instinct and curiousity. Like an intelligent animal.

Sorry, I have to trash your theory but I actually remember things since I was 1½ years old. I remember my third birthday very well. I got an inflatable Indian canoe.
The hot chocolate could have used a little more sugar but the cake was so much the better. We had a picnic in the beautiful garden outside the Museum of Natural history.
Ah, in many ways my childhood was a very happy one.

dicktice · 2004-08-30 08:36:50

I'm happy with thinking of the "mind" as software (say) for the brain, and that the "soul" concept was a pre-scientific religious construct which has outlived its usefulness--having become redundent because of the concept of "mind." One or the other--but not both--is my conclusion.
A Universal God which/who transcends lightspeed through extra-dimensional means, reeks of science fiction. rather than religion. Give us humans more credit for potentially become "God-like" on our own, given time and intelligent augmentation of our senses. No more religious cop-outs, in other words--please.

Dook · 2004-08-30 10:05:46

So you don't believe in God? A Creator of the universe?

Extra-dimensions comes from physicists as well as science fiction.

Palomar · 2004-08-30 12:03:42

*I'd like to ask a sincere question:

Why does it seem important to most people whether or not others believe in God?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-30 12:24:24

Why does it seem important to most people whether or not others believe in God?

Hmm, good question.

Personally, I don't really care what people believe either way, but here's my thoughts.

My impression of the theist side of the argument is like this: To deny the existence of God is to A) condemn yourself to eternal damnation and B) remove the check on behavior that the threat of damnation provides. For some, it's just about making people more compliant, but I suspcet for most it's a genuine desire not to see people writhing in Hell's fires.

On the atheist side, there's also dual reasons it seems. For some it's about a weird insecurity, I don't really understand it but I've seen it. But for most it's about not wanting to see people duped.

So you've got atheists trying to convince believers to be rational and stop buying into a ridiculous story that controls their behavior and in some cases siphons off money to the church, while the believers feel a duty to convince the atheists of the truth in order to save their souls. It can be entertaining to watch the two try and convince each other when the schism is completely intractable.

In any case, I see more pressing problems to attend to than whether my fellow citizens believe in the invisible man in the sky.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-30 14:15:17

Hello Cobra and Cindy.

As a theist, I do have a desire not to see you writhing in the fires of Hell. And I do have an excuse in that I have a mandate from my religion to proselytize. However, I have to admit that my usual reason for talking about my religious convictions is more selfish.

I enjoy it. Any opportunity to re-examine (and sometimes revise) my spiritual opinions is a pleasure for me. Atheists usually don't chase me around with Bibles afterward or pray for God to "get me" if I happen to say something about the similarities between Man's relationship with God and the biological evolution of parasites, so I usually try the really weird stuff out on them first. However, they're not the only victims of my constant quest to refine my spirituality. I go after the other theists, too.

IMHO, you should always be a little wary of people who talk at you rather than to you about spiritual matters. They tend to prefer working with your spirituality instead of their own. I don't trust that.

dicktice · 2004-08-31 12:57:58

Where the hell, incidently, is Hell, anyway?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-31 13:02:34

Where the hell, incidently, is Hell, anyway?

By Detroit.
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo. … ndex=55275

Palomar · 2004-08-31 14:05:20

Where the hell, incidently, is Hell, anyway?

*I think its other name is "Earth" (as a good portion of the human population goes, and apart from the natural world -- which is Heaven).

--Cindy :laugh:

Earthfirst · 2004-08-31 21:27:00

In the end their is only the hope that god exist, science can't save you from death. Only god and Jesse can provide you an after life. Science does not know what happens after death, as far as they know its the end and are bodys decay, are childern forget about use, only are genes living in are childern are inmortal, so have lots of childern with as many woman as you can if you are a smart man! It fun too.
Only God know if he exists, so man is doomed for ever to wander the earth with the hope that worlds exist beyond his senses, and that death is not the end. But all loving beings will let us live in their realm.
It is foolish not to belive in god, other wise why bother? Just end your worthless existence, and let the true belivers who you think are silly live on. If all means to be human is that we worry about these things, as we deathacate, reproduce, eat, die and get consumed by nature. Thin we are but animals cursed with self awarness, with the knowlage that we are animals and that when we die it the end. Then there must be a god, to play such a cruel joke on us. Only do the heavens here his everlasting laughter at his little creations on earth going about dazed and confused!
All your science cant save you, but hope in god will.
Hope is a good thing, it frees you from the bounds of this world for place that you can only dream about.

Palomar · 2004-09-01 06:08:26

*Wondering how religious folks here might view this idea:

A few years ago I read an article written by a (self-described) Christian mystic (long deceased) named Violet Firth. She asserted that God tolerates the Devil because the Devil's role is ultimately that of cosmic scavenger: "Its function is to clear up behind the advancing tide of evolution, removing that which has become effete so that it may not choke and clog evolving life."

Also, she gives an illustration: "Let us try to make this clear by an illustration. Every action gives rise to reaction. The forward drive of the bullet is equated by the recoil of the gun. Everything which moves has to have the equivalent of a thrust-block from which to push -- something firm under its feet from which to take off. It is difficult to walk on a slippery surface because it offers no resistance." She asserts that the Devil provides this resistance and is the cosmic thrust-block.

Thoughts? Comments?

Again -- the lady who wrote this material defined herself as a Christian. And I'm an agnostic (not a believer).

--Cindy

C M Edwards · 2004-09-01 10:02:47

The devil, you say...

According to the biblical and traditional accounts, Lucifer/Satan existed as a servant of God before his fall from Heaven. His appearance in the book of Job, for example (which archaeology tells us is possibly the oldest book of the Bible, predating the oldest known copies of Genesis), is as a foil to God but not as God's enemy. That means that God created Satan and was keeping him around for some function. Actual animosity between the two came later, and was mostly on Satan's part.

As for the location of Hell, I believe that there is no location you could hang a gate on. Hell is a state of existence, not a locale, and all the denisons of Hell are simply those who chose to exist in that state. Thus, Earth isn't that much worse than Heaven if God is with you in both places.

BTW, is there a scientific basis for the concept of sin?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-01 13:32:37

BTW, is there a scientific basis for the concept of sin?

Ooh, imagine the horrors we could unleash if we found that one.

???

"This test scientifically proves you to be a sinner! To the stake with ye!"

C M Edwards · 2004-09-01 13:57:40

"This test scientifically proves you to be a sinner! To the stake with ye!"

How is that different from the system of legal trials we have now? :;):

PS: The christian doctrine of "We're all sinners" could have legal ramifications!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-01 14:13:24

How is that different from the system of legal trials we have now?

Have you ever seen how they screen jury members? ???
Not exactly confidence inspiring.

A "sin test" yes, that's the ticket. You take blood or urinate on it or something.

Then the guys with the hoods come.

PS: The christian doctrine of "We're all sinners" could have legal ramifications!

:laugh: The question is could you just accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior and gain exemption from prosecution. :;):

C M Edwards · 2004-09-02 10:45:50

Actually, I had meant to ask something broader than, "Can we test for it?" While that is an excellent place to start looking for a scientific basis, not everything that exists in the universe shows up on a urine test strip. :;):

From a purely scientific stance, does sin exist at all? Even as a catch-all category?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-02 10:54:23

From a purely scientific stance, does sin exist at all? Even as a catch-all category?

I'm inclined to say no. The concept of sin, at least to my understanding requires a moral judgment. A scientific basis would require that the universe itself pass that moral judgment consistently, which would seem to imply the existence of some higher force capable of such determination, not necessarily God but some mechanism that responds to "sin" and manifests in some physically detectable way.

smurf975 · 2004-09-02 11:22:08

If you've ever seen a picture of the earth from space I think you'll know that this is not just an accident of physics.

I disagree with this view. As its all about perception. Someone color blind will see the images totally different as would perhaps an insectoid alien species with compisite eyes (fly like). And then a true AI (with human like intelligence) will again see it differently.

And then it also the thing of emotions. What another plant in the galaxy hosts some species like reptiles that are intelligent in mathimatical and physics sence but like reptiles are not capable of higher emotions?

When you see clouds passing above you in all sorts of shapes and in a color range from white to grey. Do you think of a higher being? The way the objects in space look is at the end as wonderfull as the the clouds above your head.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-08-28 14:31:10

Re: Religion vs Science

#52 2004-08-28 14:49:33

Re: Religion vs Science

#53 2004-08-29 02:36:32

Re: Religion vs Science

#54 2004-08-29 11:30:03

Re: Religion vs Science

#55 2004-08-29 13:42:20

Re: Religion vs Science

#56 2004-08-29 20:46:55

Re: Religion vs Science

#57 2004-08-30 01:11:01

Re: Religion vs Science

#58 2004-08-30 02:04:15

Re: Religion vs Science

#59 2004-08-30 08:36:50

Re: Religion vs Science

#60 2004-08-30 10:05:46

Re: Religion vs Science

#61 2004-08-30 12:03:42

Re: Religion vs Science

#62 2004-08-30 12:24:24

Re: Religion vs Science

#63 2004-08-30 14:15:17

Re: Religion vs Science

#64 2004-08-31 12:57:58

Re: Religion vs Science

#65 2004-08-31 13:02:34

Re: Religion vs Science

#66 2004-08-31 14:05:20

Re: Religion vs Science

#67 2004-08-31 21:27:00

Re: Religion vs Science

#68 2004-09-01 06:08:26

Re: Religion vs Science

#69 2004-09-01 10:02:47

Re: Religion vs Science

#70 2004-09-01 13:32:37

Re: Religion vs Science

#71 2004-09-01 13:57:40

Re: Religion vs Science

#72 2004-09-01 14:13:24

Re: Religion vs Science

#73 2004-09-02 10:45:50

Re: Religion vs Science

#74 2004-09-02 10:54:23

Re: Religion vs Science

#75 2004-09-02 11:22:08

Re: Religion vs Science

Board footer