| Author |
Topic: Guide to world religions |
xerosaburu
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-18-2006 12:13 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
[B] Actually, time has "always" existed, since the term "always" is dependent on the existence of a time framework.And you missed my whole point in questioning why people anthropomorphize the events of the universe./B]
But YOU are being anthropomorphic in your insistence that all things be amenable to human understanding.
IP: Logged |
TropicalEsq
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Oh, I couldn't agree more with you, but still, it's a super natural event...something from nothing.
See, this is what I mean about religious folks making this argument in the limited framework of Newtonian or Einsteinian space. Consider quantum mechanics, string theory and M-Theory and you see that the big bang need no be "supernatural" or "something from nothing" at all. Just cuz you don't understand it doesn't mean it's supernatural.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Oh, I couldn't agree more with you, but still, it's a super natural event...something from nothing. Similar to the first life form....a living organism created from materials that aren't. People will readily accept this theory of evolution and again dismiss the immaculate conception.
On what basis do monotheists limit the unexplained to the workings of a single supreme being, or even more narrower..to the supreme being of their belief system? Have they given equal weight and consideration to the other notions of god? You chastise the atheist who fails to gain knowledge about god before disbelieving in god, yet aren't most monotheists guilty of the same in their beliefs? As for acceptance of evolution and dismissal of immaculate conception, it seems people are guilty of this in both directions. Many dismiss evolution without a clear understanding of the evidence in favor of the hypothesis. I am ignorant of the evidence in support of immaculate conception, but if you illuminate me I will give it serious consideration. I am most interested in all things related to conception 
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by TropicalEsq:
See, this is what I mean about religious folks making this argument in the limited framework of Newtonian or Einsteinian space. Consider quantum mechanics, string theory and M-Theory and you see that the big bang need no be "supernatural" or "something from nothing" at all.Just cuz you don't understand it doesn't mean it's supernatural.
I'll have to research these areas specific to the Big Bang...have you any references? Do they address cause and effect?
IP: Logged |
xerosaburu
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
I'll have to research these areas specific to the Big Bang...have you any references? Do they address cause and effect?
M theory, string theory and the like are as untestable as any myth. It's all math.
IP: Logged |
torque
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
On what basis do monotheists limit the unexplained to the workings of a single supreme being, or even more narrower..to the supreme being of their belief system? Have they given equal weight and consideration to the other notions of god? You chastise the atheist who fails to gain knowledge about god before disbelieving in god, yet aren't most monotheists guilty of the same in their beliefs?As for acceptance of evolution and dismissal of immaculate conception, it seems people are guilty of this in both directions. Many dismiss evolution without a clear understanding of the evidence in favor of the hypothesis. I am ignorant of the evidence in support of immaculate conception, but if you illuminate me I will give it serious consideration. I am most interested in all things related to conception
Heh..heh....everyone perks up when conception is mentioned.  When looking at the theory of evolution, one of the popular theories is that the first living single cell organism was created from the primordial soup. Little bit o' this and a little bit o' that, add heat, shake vigorously and zap with lightning. and viola..instant life. A single cell organism may seem somewhat a basic life form but do you know how much information is needed (I'm sure a biologist got enlighten us here) to create a single cell? It's not that simple, and has never been replicated since that time...and they've tried. It cannot be random....there is too much structure to have it random...as you can see with all the talk of DNA. People who believe in this evolution thoery don't have a problem that all this non-living material somehow were in the right spot at the right time to somehow mix together and spontenously create something living (super natural). But these same people would not give two thoughts that the possibility of a super natural event such as an immaculate conception ("It could never happen!") could ever happen. Why? Can you comfortably guarantee 100% that it couldn't happen?
IP: Logged |
Arrojo
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
It cannot be random....there is too much structure to have it random...as you can see with all the talk of DNA.
You say that as a statement of fact. But it's only your opinion. Observable scientific facts and observable data disprove your opinion.
IP: Logged |
pfunksbn
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 12:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Heh..heh....everyone perks up when conception is mentioned. When looking at the theory of evolution, one of the popular theories is that the first living single cell organism was created from the primordial soup. Little bit o' this and a little bit o' that, add heat, shake vigorously and zap with lightning. and viola..instant life. A single cell organism may seem somewhat a basic life form but do you know how much information is needed (I'm sure a biologist got enlighten us here) to create a single cell? It's not that simple, and has never been replicated since that time...and they've tried. It cannot be random....there is too much structure to have it random...as you can see with all the talk of DNA. People who believe in this evolution thoery don't have a problem that all this non-living material somehow were in the right spot at the right time to somehow mix together and spontenously create something living (super natural). But these same people would not give two thoughts that the possibility of a super natural event such as an immaculate conception ("It could never happen!") could ever happen. Why? Can you comfortably guarantee 100% that it couldn't happen?
Yabbut...believing something is POSSIBLE versus BELIEVING IT TO BE TRUE are two different things. I won't ever say with 100% certainty that the immaculate conception didn't happen (I wasn't there), but I can say that I don't THINK that it did, based on what I know about human anatomy.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 01:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
Little bit o' this and a little bit o' that, add heat, shake vigorously and zap with lightning. and viola..instant life.
No, no...it is much more complicated than that, and the theories continue to evolve as hypothesis are tested and validated...or not. Patrick Forterre has some wonderful recently published work: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/10/3669 (free download of recent PNAS article) Scientific theory welcomes challenge, faith evades it.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 01:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
On what basis do monotheists limit the unexplained to the workings of a single supreme being, or even more narrower..to the supreme being of their belief system? Have they given equal weight and consideration to the other notions of god? You chastise the atheist who fails to gain knowledge about god before disbelieving in god, yet aren't most monotheists guilty of the same in their beliefs?
Since you didn't address this point Torque, I will revisit this.. I thought about this on my drive into work... Is it perhaps that god manifests himself in different ways to different people to bring diversity to the globe...perhaps to test faith...perhaps to test tolerence? The god of Christians, Jews and Muslims is Buddha, Shiva, etc. Is this more inconsistent or consistent with Christian ideology?
IP: Logged |
aphidgirl
Member |
posted Apr-18-2006 01:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
No, no...it is much more complicated than that, and the theories continue to evolve as hypothesis are tested and validated...or not. Patrick Forterre has some wonderful recently published work:http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/10/3669 (free download of recent PNAS article) Scientific theory welcomes challenge, faith evades it.
Actually the theories or origins are as sterile as they have ever been. All so-called advancements have been in starting with existing life. The fact that so-called scientists embrace theories they can't explain themselves is an indication that scientists are as gullible as anyone else in believing as true what they wish to be true.
IP: Logged |
maryk
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 01:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Since you didn't address this point Torque, I will revisit this.. I thought about this on my drive into work...Is it perhaps that god manifests himself in different ways to different people to bring diversity to the globe...perhaps to test faith...perhaps to test tolerence? The god of Christians, Jews and Muslims is Buddha, Shiva, etc. Is this more inconsistent or consistent with Christian ideology?
I think the Unitarian Church follows this, that each person finds his own path to God.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 01:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by aphidgirl:
Actually the theories or origins are as sterile as they have ever been.All so-called advancements have been in starting with existing life. The fact that so-called scientists embrace theories they can't explain themselves is an indication that scientists are as gullible as anyone else in believing as true what they wish to be true.
Scientist do not seek truth, they seek to validate the hypothesis..within a 95% confidence interval.
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 02:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by maryk:
I think the Unitarian Church follows this, that each person finds his own path to God.
Interesting, I've only read the Cliff notes on the Unitarian Church..but it does seem to be the most inclusive and accepting of denominations...with salvation for all humankind.
IP: Logged |
xerosaburu
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 02:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Scientist do not seek truth, they seek to validate the hypothesis..within a 95% confidence interval.
How does one go about invalidating a hypothesis which is so plastic it can stretch itself in evolutionary fashion to accomodate any evidence unearthed. A good hypothesis is one which can be invalidated. If chemical probability events are wholly against the likelihood of the order arising it becomes announced "Look how powerful chance is!"
IP: Logged |
colby5402
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 02:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by xerosaburu:
How does one go about invalidating a hypothesis which is so plastic it can stretch itself in evolutionary fashion to accomodate any evidence unearthed. A good hypothesis is one which can be invalidated.If chemical probability events are wholly against the likelihood of the order arising it becomes announced "Look how powerful chance is!"
Sorry I can't be in here more today; I have payroll taxes to take care of...but this is spot on. Aren't the odds of one cell coming spontaneous ly to life (because the whole cell would have to exist at once for the cell to...exist...) the same as that of an ant pushing the moon to Pluto? In addition, "random mutation" has been practised on fruit flies for the last, what, 50 years or so? They've produced one fruit fly that was actually able to fly...it had two sets of wings. People were all excited until they realized that the extra set of wings didn't do anything. In fact, it made it harder for the fruit fly to fly. They have yet to produce a fly that could make it in the real world. Random mutation never produces any benefit. In fact, random mutation gives us things like Down's Syndrome...most people would argue that this isn't an advancement of the human race but a sad ocurrance. Not only does "something from nothing" take as much faith as "God," so does all of the rest. Not just in biology...but in the tilt of the Earth and its proximity to the Sun...and all of the other details and factors that make the Earth able to support life such that if one of those things were changed by an insignificant amount, we'd all be history. It takes, I'd wager, as much faith, to think that all of this just happened. Sure, keep looking. Have scientists keep searching for other answers than God. Until then, I'm sticking with the Big Man upstairs. It's the only probable answer. (Not possible...probable.) Anyway, the origins of life tell us how we got here, where were going and what the point of it all is along the way. It helps determine who you are and how you respond to things. I'd say, it's worth looking into, at the very least. Oh, and Cindy...the whole question on Why Christianity and why your version of it? Is a whole nother thread...but to sum it up...Christianity is the only world religion in which God comes to Man. All of the others require that you do stuff to get to heaven...as though all of our "good stuff" were good enough. Christianity is based on grace. To me, that was a differentiating point. Why I'm Presbyterian? Who cares? All of the mainline "denominations" will agree to the creed, "I believe in God the Father, almighty maker of heaven and earth...and in Jesus Christ his only begotten son..." etc. The rest is just theology and style of music. None of those change the basic tenant of who Jesus was and who we are to say he is. C
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 03:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by colby5402:
Christianity is the only world religion in which God comes to Man.
In Islam, didn't God come to Moses and Mohammad as well as Jesus?
IP: Logged |
colby5402
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 03:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
In Islam, didn't God come to Moses and Mohammad as well as Jesus?
What I mean is, you are saved because GOD saves you. Not because of what you do/wear/what rules you follow/etc. Grace is much different than law. C
IP: Logged |
cindyleigh
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 03:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by colby5402:
What I mean is, you are saved because GOD saves you. Not because of what you do/wear/what rules you follow/etc.Grace is much different than law. C
I'm not following you.
IP: Logged |
colby5402
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 03:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cindyleigh:
I'm not following you.
Well, let's start at the beginning... In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And all the living things...including mankind. He created an Eden for "Adam and Eve" where they were able to see him face to face...commune with God and be in a perfect state. When sin entered the world by Adam and Eve's choice to disobey the only rule, they were no longer able to be in the presence of a holy God. As a result, we have the "Fall"...as is commonly used. How can God get his people back? Restore them to their original perfection so that He can be in constant communion with them? Well, all other religions say that people have to be perfect their own in order to be restored to God. And THEN God will accept them. ie: Islam. Be a martyr and you are guaranteed a place in Paradise. DO comes first and THEN comes after. Christianity has it backwards. It says that Christ propitiated. He was the surety. The guarantor. He lived a perfect life in our stead. His perfection is now attributed to those who accept. He saves us...and as a result, we live a better life...instead of the other way around. And our relationship to God is now restored. There's a LOT of things that I glossed over, I know...but grace is hard to put in to words. And actually, wikipedia has a pretty good explanation. I have a screaming baby, so I've got to let it go at that... C
IP: Logged |
PeterP
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 04:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by torque:
I'll have to research these areas specific to the Big Bang...have you any references? Do they address cause and effect?
The big bang was a singularity. Cause and effect (as well as every other physical law) breaks down at singularities. It's a pointless question to ask what caused the big bang because time itself did not exist "before" the big bang. There was no "before" the big bang. You may as well ask what comes before the letter "A" in the alphabet, or what causes a circle to be round. You're using words in a context in which they have no meaning. [This message has been edited by PeterP (edited Apr-18-2006).]
IP: Logged |
this place is so lame
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 04:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by colby5402:
What I mean is, you are saved because GOD saves you.
Don't forget that God prefers to save people born into Christian households. By and large, those not born into Christian households never come accept Christ.
IP: Logged |
colby5402
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 04:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by this place is so lame:
Don't forget that God prefers to save people born into Christian households. By and large, those not born into Christian households never come accept Christ.
You must think God is awfully small and powerless. God doesn't prefer one of his amazing creations to another. He wants each and every one...and will reveal himself to them in any way possible to bring them to himself. Even the internet. Those who have never heard the gospel have a different sort of grace, I think. For example, Abraham never heard of the name of Jesus, but according to Hebrews, his "faith was attributed to him as righteousness." Biblically, I think the only ones who aren't saved, are those who have heard (in whatever form that might be) and yet still reject. Then again, that's not what this thread was about, so I'm sorry to hijack it... And again, TinyE is crying. He's trying to take a nap but it's been totally unsuccessful. I've got to go rock him... C
IP: Logged |
this place is so lame
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 04:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by colby5402:
Those who have never heard the gospel have a different sort of grace, I think. For example, Abraham never heard of the name of Jesus, but according to Hebrews, his "faith was attributed to him as righteousness."
Sounds like you've changed your tune. Define "hear the gospel". I've read the gospel, but don't believe it. Have I heard the gospel? Ghandi certainly read the gospel, but was Hindu. Did he hear the gospel? Virtually every educated Muslim (billions perhaps) have heard the message of Jesus. Yet they prefer the religion they were brought up in. Have they heard the gospel?
IP: Logged |
colby5402
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-18-2006 05:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by this place is so lame:
Sounds like you've changed your tune.Define "hear the gospel". I've read the gospel, but don't believe it. Have I heard the gospel? Ghandi certainly read the gospel, but was Hindu. Did he hear the gospel? Virtually every educated Muslim (billions perhaps) have heard the message of Jesus. Yet they prefer the religion they were brought up in. Have they heard the gospel?
I don't think that this is any different from anything I've said before.  ?? It's not my place to know if they've heard the gospel...God only knows if they have heard and rejected. C
IP: Logged |
