Science Or Spirituality

[craz 0]

I read everything above and in conclusion..without any prior knowledge, I think god created everything, including the universe etc. From what I have read, we live in the realm of time and space. God exists outside of these and so is not limited by them as we are so used to thinking. The concept is difficult for us to comprehend, because we live within time but with thinking we can comprehend a little of it.

[kasm 0]

I read everything above and in conclusion..without any prior knowledge, I think god created everything, including the universe etc.

From what I have read, we live in the realm of time and space. God exists outside of these and so is not limited by them as we are so used to thinking. The concept is difficult for us to comprehend, because we live within time but with thinking we can comprehend a little of it.

Let me explain or summarise or recap hope you will understand me. After that summary read again my first post:

 

1. The thread topic is Science and spirituality . I said I am scientisy but believer. And I explain that

and refer to my old post of mine.

 

2. Somebody mention the Evolution . I responded and asking to have say which Evolution he/she refer to. I explained that there are 6 types of Evolution : Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, organic, Macro [Darwinism] and micro Evolution. Saying Evolution without its type make the decussion naieve

 

3. Then I said all mentioned type of Evolution is not Science or even Scientific Theory. To explain that I give quotation of definition of Science or Scientific Theory. There are in text book and philosphy of cience books. but I refered to some in the net instead giving printing reference. Thest sites are refered to these books. Also I gave the legal defition of science by High Court

 

4. Then I said the relegion and the Evolution [except the micr Evolution ] are faith and belief. Both of them can't approved but you beleve in them by another measures. I referred to another previous post in the forum.

 

5. One mention the tail as proof for evolution then I responded saying that the similarities doesn't mean the things evolved from other and explained my opinion.

 

6. Using quotion for the definition of science and scientific thories were necessary. Also quotation from my previous postings in the trap forum were necessary that not accusing me by spam.

 

7. By the way I studied Darwinism Evolution 49 years ago when I was 14 years and volunterly because in that time it wasn't compulsary subject. NOW I involved in it deeply but the threat not for it.

[Hirishiolo 0]

The Darwin Theory is very reliable now... evolution is more affidable than creationistic view... I think no one can think otherwise!

[kobra500 1]

Science... I'd rather base my knowledge to something with some sort of evidence rather than something created as wishful thinking. The truth is the one thing man Is scared about most is death, religion was created to ease peoples minds that there is more out there and however uch i'd like to I am unable to believe in a 'higher being' or the afterlife. Of course I am a strong Athiest and do not wish to offend. But so many things in history we believe are done for one reason aren't... Just watch QI at any time. I do not wish to offend anyone this is just my view although bias.

[chopsticky 0]

I read everything above and in conclusion..without any prior knowledge, I think god created everything, including the universe etc. From what I have read, we live in the realm of time and space. God exists outside of these and so is not limited by them as we are so used to thinking. The concept is difficult for us to comprehend, because we live within time but with thinking we can comprehend a little of it.

That's what I was going to say.

I've been pondering the question of whether God exists or not. I've been brought up Christian but was taught only what to believe and not why we believe which is also very important. I don't want to live with a blind faith.

As I have come back to this question quite a few times about whether there is a God or not, I always end up at the point that there has to be a God because of how the universe and all that it contains is so organized. From the furthest reaches of the universe which we can barely see to the subatomic particles, it is all organized. I just can't bring myself to believe that organization can come from disorganization or along the same lines intelligence from unintelligence.

I am not forcing my belief just stating them.

[strange-garden 0]

[NOTE: Sometimes in my statements about science or religion, I can get a bit athiest, if you may be offended don't read, but ill try my hardest not to be athiest]
First of all: how did god create the world? Who created god? How does he exist although he is never found? How can he be "watching over all of us" when the world has billions of people and he is 1 thing. Everybody has done bad things. Because of a person killing themselves, we are forgiven.. who is forgiving us? What are they going to do? If we go to hell or heaven, how come nobody, not even physics can view this place.
It is unexplainable at the moment how the chemicals, and space were formed to create a big bang. Radiation, planet travelling and more proves of the big bang. The spinning formation of these gases compresses them into stars, these stars can grow to be planets. Absolutely everything is made up of elements, your body structure could be like this (on larger scale though) : co5H3b3...............
When these mix together, this is when microorganisms are formed. These evolve into larger creatures over thousands of billions of years. I do not need to explain the scientific details of this, but wikipedia has good, moderated information!
Evolution is actually EXTREMELY simple, except it takes such a long time, that the number of watches above, is probably about a tenth of a billionth of what evolution to a trilobite took. How did god become so complex and amazing, you say we are complex... can we build a world? God didnt evolve so he was just magically amazing?

To explain god.. how was he here before anything? He must of been here after space and time? How did such a smart thing be made without billions of years of evolution and learning.

Yes, we are extremely complex, but its all scientifically explainable. For god to be able to watch every single person, listen to their prayers (about 1 every 2 seconds starts) is not! And how god came about... its not explainable without using the fact that he was always there or "something" Well, if you use an arguement "who put all the chemicals and gases and elements into the universe," the same answer could be given "they were always there!"

People who join religions join it when they are scared, or sucked in. For example, my grandfather used to not be into it, but he hert his back and ran to church. Not because he believed, because he thought that there may be something in it.

4160 Days Are Spent At Church... Why?

Ahahaha, who said this?

First of all, Christianity, really isn't a religion, It's a love relationship with the God who created the world and His son who came to redeem our sins. We all have a guilty conscience. We all have done something wrong, even me. All we have to do is accept his gift of eternal salvation and forgiveness. Because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our sins, we are all forgiven.

lets define religion, shall we..."a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". Wouldn't saying christianity being non-religious be insulting towards their god?

-edit- (I ppologise to the people I'm quoting, but I don't want to make a double post)


and I may aswell include it in this post aswel...To the guy who said people coming from monkeys is silly and unbelievable, don't you think a supreme being controlling the earth, watching everything we're doing and making planets in 7 days, a little bit silly? Yeah? I can't fathom how you find evolution silly, yet you believe something so irrational, because a book told you to.
Edited January 14, 2008 by strange-garden (see edit history)

[wiggy15 0]

One man or not, Darwin's theory makes sense. God is a myth. Yes I know that's hard to take on, but he is. There is no real proof that Jesus could do any of the things that the bible sai. (Water into Wine ect..) I'm not saying he doesn't exist, because I am a Baptist myself, I'm just saying that even the Supernatural can be wrong about some things.

[Skepticus 0]

Oh brother!! where to start with this lot.

 

Well it is patently clear that there is a distinct lack of rigorous thinking around these parts. I could honestly care less whether somebody claims to have 'academic qualifications' on one hand or 'personal revelations' on the other, the problem that concerns me is with the status quo. The evidence at hand and the level of nativity regarding that evidence. Also with respect to the creation vs evolution debate itself, it always seems to get rehashed and the same lame points are revisited in utter, blissful ignorance of the huge volumes of material available to each of us, which provides concise explanation of the supposed mysteries and paradoxes.

 

Too many people are content to wallow in their own ignorance and proclaim that because they don't understand something there is no possible explanation, at least without resorting to some kind of supernatural cause. The interesting thing about this kind of thinking, is that it does at least ultimately require that any plausible explanation, should ultimately be predicated on cause. We are all prone to assuming that every effect must have some kind of cause. At some point however, we must assume that this chain of cause and effect breaks down. Why? because if everything must have a cause then that cause must have another cause and so on ad infinitum. Meet the infinite regress people.

 

Creationists wish to circumvent this dilemma by proposing that a supernatural being exists, that has the power to create the entire universe in all of it's splendid glory. I might just as well propose that the universe itself is just a supernatural event or at least, its spontaneous creation out of nothing, is such a supernatural event. I won't trouble you with that speculation (although I kind of already have ), oops... never mind, I know I will never get an intelligent response to that dilemma from any creationist because it is more logically problematic than the very dilemmas that they set out to explain by invoking their God. Likewise they will never explain why their supernatural benefactor, should just be let off the hook in terms of cause and effect relationships. It is indeed an incredulous complaint that nature itself can not exist without cause and yet super-nature can. if you are trying to explain things without scapegoating, then supernatural beings which have no rational explanation for existing in the first place simply will not do.

 

Contrary to several things that have been stated here. Biological evolution by means of natural selection is not only a viable explanation for the existing empirical evidence we have to hand, but it is a logical necessity of it. Knowing how genes propagate from one generation to the next. carrying traits as they do, it is inevitable that natural selection must act on them, to weed out any unsuccessful genes in the gene pool. Genes themselves know no boundaries between species, so speciation events must also be seen as inevitable. Specious arguments, about macro vs micro evolution, seem to always come from those, who seem to have little comprehension of evolution and almost no knowledge about biology. The assumption (and let's be clear about this: An assumption is exactly what it is) that complexity and order, can not come from simplicity or disorder - or that organization can not come from disorder if necessarily false. If we have order or organization, enough to warrant an explanation, then surely it comes from somewhere. Anybody can invent a fictitious entity called God and propose that it solves the problem of where order and organization comes from. I'm so sorry creationist folk, but it doesn't. I will simply point out that your supernatural creator is orders of magnitude more complex ordered and organized, than any artifact of nature which you employ such a God to explain away.

 

It is obvious to the point of being purely trivial, that there is another clear motive, for arguing the existence of such a supernatural creator and that has nothing what so ever to do with, attempting to explain the apparent organization in nature. a purely psychological motive, is the real explanation for creationist zeal and tenacity, in contriving ever more specious arguments in favor of a supernatural creator, it is simply this. Creationists do not want to believe that they will simply die and cease to exist, body and soul (whatever that is). they have been promised a place in Gods kingdom, eternal life in heavenly bliss, and like children who never quite grow up, they can not throw the shackles of the immortal promised land of heaven.

 

The problem with much creationist rhetoric is the banal assumption that if they can pick a flaw in evolution (or big bang cosmology) however contrived or based on bad logic it may be, that if it were a valid argument, the next best explanation is the puerile bronze age mythology of creationism. Creationist ideas are nearly always based on poor logic and scientific ignorance, but to suppose that even if there were an element of truth to them, that they have brought mainstream empirical science crashing to it's knees, is the essence of absurdity and wishful thinking. To go one step further and propose that the alleged discrepancy in science, therefore vindicates the idea of supernatural creation, is blind arrogance and dogma in all of it's plain stupidity.

 

Should I dare give you an example of such ignorant stupidity? Well why not. This is not my opinion. The facts I will speak of are not speculative or in any way conjectural. The creationist plaint however, it isn't based on clearly thought out rational reasoning, it is just base ignorance and stupidity about how evolution works. I am talking about the idea that if humans evolved from something else then why does that something else still exist. It's hard to find a stupid question that more clearly points out the biological illiteracy of the proponent.

 

Firstly I will digress, as the worst form of this complaint, takes the form of "If humans evolved from monkeys why do monkeys still exist". The point about biological illiteracy is driven home by the first rate ignorance that modern day monkey species have nothing whatsoever to do with the recent appearance of '*person*-sapiens'. Where ever did these ignorant creationists get the idea that humans evolved from monkeys? Their inability to draw distinctions between modern species is bad enough, but to stupidly assert that one modern species evolved from another according to evolutionary science is lamentable indeed.For starters, monkeys are not a species and therefore not the kind of taxonomic group, that any individual species can sensibly be said to have evolved from. Monkeys are hot even a part of the super family Hominoidea but rather primates who's common ancestry predates any of the modern ape species. This biological ignorance is obviously based in a basic lack of any capacity (or simple understanding of nature), to make a distinction between monkeys and apes. So if you hear a creationist rabbiting on about how humans supposedly evolved from monkeys, you should immediately hear alarm bells and realize their ignorance of basic biology is abysmal. What anybody so hopelessly ignorant of basic paleoanthropology, could help to contribute to a more complete understanding of human origins is non-existent.. It mounts to just so much worthless noise.

 

The real foundational problem, I have not touched upon just as yet, That is, putting aside the irrelevance of our biological kinship with monkeys for the moment. The basis of the claim that one thing should not evolve 'into' another in such a way as the original ancestor continues to exist. Now where does this ridiculous and preposterous claim come from? You would think that biologists themselves would be all over each other in the first instance, if nature in anyway suggested that the divergence of new species were some kind of problem.

 

Now I will generalize my argument, because this issue happens to fit many of the baseless creationist plaints that exist. If a scientific idea is faulty, then it is the job of other scientists to debunk the idea and call it to reason. If there were any credibility in creationist complaints, then you would have to ask why scientists in the interests of intellectual honesty, have not torn them down. If I understand anything about science, it is that it is self correcting and it won't stand for irrational nonsense. You can propose a fabulous idea in in science that has no merit based on what is clearly understood and fails to fit with carefully studied, reasoned knowledge, but you can't expect it to survive the onslaught of other scientists who will gladly tare it from limb to limb as the nonsense it may very well be.

 

So if it doesn't stand to reason and if there is no merit in it then it will surely get torn down. It certainly won't rise to prominence as the best explanation of the known evidence. It will rightfully be torn apart and thrown aside as useless conjecture. The point is, considering how carefully studied the science of biological evolution by natural selection is, and supposing that there were some fundamental flaw in it, so simple that an uneducated (nay - ignorant) layperson could understand and bring forward, then why would the thousands of well educated experts, who are on the front lines of biological science, not be the first to come forward and take the flaws in the popular theories to task?

 

To answer this we need to postulate three things:

 

1) That mainstream biological scientists are (approximately) as stupid / uneducated (naive) as the creationists adversaries who challenge them and that most if not all of them simply did not think of the obvious misconceptions and inconsistencies in their popular models of mainstream biological science.

 

2) That science is involved in a huge conspiracy to confabulate a mainstream scientific theory called evolution by natural selection. Many thousands of scientists, who are trained to hold each others scientific ideas up to the light of reason and who have a process of pier review, that constantly works in every other area of science to purge mainstream science of bad ideas, are nearly unanimous, in a world wide conspiracy to maintain this cockamamie idea called evolution which disagrees with nature.

 

3) That evolution by natural selection, is a fully vindicated scientific theory, that completely stands to reason with veritable mountains of conclusive evidence that confirms it beyond a shadow of doubt. That further to this, creationists are just a whiny group of religious zealots, who don't want to believe it for the true fact of nature that it is, because it gets in the way of a literal interpretation of a barbaric bronze age, supernatural creation myth. But not only do creationists not want to believe this irrefutable fact of biology, they don't want others to believe it and they don't want it being taught to children in school.

 

Considering that creationists reject the last proposal out of hand and claim that evolution is a false theory, then we have to go back to the second and first proposal. Either highly educated mainstream biological scientists, don't know what they are doing and just happen to come up with an addle brained crazy theory that doesn't stand to reason, or they know very well that their preferred explanation for biological diversity and the origin of species, is false and are all involved in a massive conspiracy to prop it up. It is as if mainstream professional science were involved in doing pseudo science, replete with confabulation, misrepresentation and willful deception of the wider public.

 

The problem with the second proposal, is that it is fundamentally ignorant of how science is done. The scientific method of biology is the very same principal used in physics, chemistry geology and every other mainstream science. If science in general didn't have some reliable way of getting it's thinking straight, then it couldn't succeed at producing reliable knowledge that is used in space travel, manufacturing pharmaceuticals and that masterpiece of technological wizardry you are using right now, called a computer. In any case for biology to be confabulating a fraudulent theory, many other areas of science would also have to be implicated in the conspiracy. Biological evolution after all is massively supported by geology, with its massive timescale, its geological stratum and plate tectonics. None of evolution by natural selection, would have made any sense, except by virtue of the geological underpinnings of a very very, old world and of the precise methods developed, to scrutinize the age of rocks etc... That in turn, implicates physics into the conspiracy, because geologists rely on physicists having gotten their facts straight about the decay of radioactive isotopes, and that in turn implicates mathematics in the conspiracy because the physics borrows so heavily upon mathematical knowledge. Without biological evolution by natural selection, paleontology would also lay in ruins, for lack of any coherent model of organization to categorize and correlate mountains of fossils that have remained in the earth for millions of years.

 

Turning to the first proposal, that biologists are just muddle-headed wackos, with crazy ideas about the origin of the diversity of life on this planet and that an uneducated layperson is just as qualified to criticize them and call them to task. Well... You won't hear me complaining that a lay person can not understand science or that academic qualifications are a necessary prerequisite to understand or even criticize mainstream scientific knowledge. There is no equivalent of 'divine authority' in science and it is fundamental to the success of science, that its ideas are expected to stand on their own merit, in the face of whatever support evidence and reason procures for them. The problem with the layperson in practice being capable of criticizing science, falls not on their lack of qualifications, but rather that in order to criticize an idea, you must first understand it. Even then, there is no elitist barrier erected to keep scientific ideas away from the layperson. I have read dozens of good popular science books, that are excellent at explaining what is understood about nature and how science has come to the conclusions it has. There are mountains of good non-technical introductions to scientific ideas on the internet.

 

There is no problem in principal with a layperson understanding and criticizing science. The problem is in practice, that when creationists attempt to criticize science, they do so without even a basic understanding of the ideas they are attempting to refute. The idea that humans evolved from monkeys is not false because biological science has gotten its facts wrong, it is false because it is just a stupendously ignorant misconception of what evolution tells us. Why do creationists propose such a question as if it even deserved an answer. What is more annoying than a creationists innocent naivety of science is their arrogance in proposing problems that just don't exist and which would be meaningless in light of even the slightest understanding of biology. It is simply naive to not know something. It is arrogance to assert a contradiction of well established knowledge without understanding how that knowledge is derived and it is utter ignorance to set up an idea as false based on a straw-man caricature of that idea which is complete and utter garbage and for which refutations are abundantly available. If the creationist wishes to know why monkeys still exist, "if humans evolved from monkeys", then they should be informed of these few things:

 

1) firstly humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

2) If you wanted to know the answer to this ill conceived question, then it would take you about one minute to find an appropriate article on the internet that thoroughly debunks not only the misconception that humans have evolved from monkeys or that biological evolution suggests that they did, but also the fallacy that speciation (the process leading to new species), requires that ancestral species must become extinct for new species to arise.

3) If the creationist has a problem with the current scientific theory, then the onus is on them to explain why they believe there is such a discrepancy and why we can not come to the conclusions we have. For instance if the creationist proposes that the emergence of a new species should logically preclude the ancestral group from continuing, then why?

4) If you want to find fault with an idea, you must first understand that idea.

 

This 'monkeys to humans' misconception is wrong on just so many levels. It beggars belief that anybody could be so woefully ignorant and yet so arrogant in their willingness to challenge scientific ideas. The expectation of creationists that everybody else should answer their ill conceived problems with evolution, is underwritten by a pretense that, they could even understand a flaw in basic evolutionary theory, without even the minutest understanding of the idea itself, that the objections they raise are valid or even meaningful and that those objections represent 'holes' in the scientific idea that still remain unexplained.

 

None of the above pretenses are worthy of the evolutionists effort to dignify with a response. It a completely ignorant fantasy, that species are required to evolve in their entirety from one species to another and nothing in biological science suggests any such thing. The only intelligent response to such a ignorant question, is 'don't be stupid, and go and learn something about evolution before you try to pick holes in it.' Why don't you just Google for an article about how the mechanism of speciation is proposed to occur? Why do you just pretend that this make believe discrepancy, has not been thoroughly debunked? Why do creationists continue to ignore abundant refutations of creationist arguments and simply restate them as if they have never been proposed and refuted before? This is particularly obvious in online communities where by virtue of the fact, that the creationist is present, it is also obvious that they have an abundance of relevant information at their fingertips. Literally in moments, they could be reading the answer to any common creationist objection to evolution and then they could move forward. Either they should accept the refutation and acknowledge this or present a more enlightened criticism based on the understandings so derived by looking into the answers generously provided for them.

 

Creationists don't want to know how evolution works. They don't want to believe there are explanations for their objections to evolutionary science. They don't care that their objections are simply ill conceived nonsense. They are living in a make believe fantasy world, with supernatural creators, angels, demons and miracles a plenty. Evolutionists are not permitted to compete with this fantasy because creationists are immune to reason. They expect science (quite rightfully) be held accountable to reason, as they so obviously present objections which are supposed to give us reason to doubt evolution. But they are not willing to be held accountable to that very same incumbency to reason. Their entire worldview is accountable to pure faith and no 'proof' would ever suffice to undermine that mindset which is predisposed to belief without reason. It is all a big game of make believe to creationists like preschoolers that never grew up, they are immersed in a fantasy world. Inevitably then , their approach to science takes on this form of make believe fantasy. The alleged inconsistencies with scientific ideas, are just make believe ones that are fantasized into existence, for the obvious benefits they entail in protecting their communal delusions.

 

The idea that monkeys should not exist because humans do, is roughly the intellectual equivalent, of proposing that if the earth is really a spheroid, there should be no such thing as Australians because we should have all fallen of the planet. I am so sorry to disappoint the 'spheroid earthers' out there, by my embarrassing continuation to exist. The world really must be flat.

[OpaQue 15]

Skepticus, I am quite disappointed by reading your reply. My first impression, looking at your post was "WOW, This guy knows a lot, May be I can learn something new... or expect a new idea".But its disappointing that you have given us all the points about how each theory contradicts the other and also the lack of Scope of understanding of general audience who basically have limited background for understanding a theory as complex as evolution.I pretty much had an idea about the debate that would arise off this topic.Anyway, I still put forward my same question. Science must try to define Life. May be then, they can use some laws of spirituality. Because I see only one thing connecting these two words "Science" & "Spirituality" with which all would agree.That is Life.If Science can define Life. Then Spirituality which deals only and only about life and conscience can come in picture

[MadDog 0]

Anyway, I still put forward my same question. Science must try to define Life. May be then, they can use some laws of spirituality. Because I see only one thing connecting these two words "Science" & "Spirituality" with which all would agree.

 

That is Life.

 

If Science can define Life. Then Spirituality which deals only and only about life and conscience can come in picture

To me, that is the only post in this entire thread that I can understand and deal with.

Firstly, I would never razz on anyone because of their beliefs, however bizzare they might seem to me. Each to his own I say. Diversity is a great thing. BUT.

Where does this discussion leave people like me?

I neither believe in god, in any of his thousands of incarnations around the world, nor do I subscribe to evolution, which I see as almost as faith-based as god.

I know the topic only gave 2 choices, but are there any other possibilities?? Think about it. Why not? I know y'all posted your "qualifications" and stuff, but to me, that doesn't really mean a hell of a lot. ( I is just an uneducated country boy from outback Australia....) haha. I personally don't see how one "theory", makes any more sense than another. For all I know, "god", could be an alien from another system far in advance of our meagre intelligence... In fact, that actually makes more sense scientifically to me. God, or Grokk un Lahh from Sirius. Why the hell not? Until someone can prove what actually instills conciousness in the bundle of atoms we are made up from, I reserve my judgement.

Oh, and again I say that I'm not pissin on peoples beliefs, because that is what defines folks lives, and people take that stuff very seriously. Fair Enough. What gets my goat, is people that are so fixed in their ideas, that they dismiss everybody else as lunatics or heretics. To me that is the sort of close-minded thinking that prohibits advancement of this entire planet. Open up your minds and smell the roses guys, not everything has to be defined in black and white. And until I see some absolute proof of a theory, it's all hypothetical to me. My 2 cents anyway. If I offended anyone, I apologise now. Once.

[icemath 0]

Cool question. Before thinking over this question, let's think about another question: Bruno found out that the sun not the earth is the center of universe. However, at that time Papacy regarded the earth as the cosmic center. Then a contradiction came out: whether the public should believe in the GOD, represented by Papacy, or the SCIENCE, Bruno as a representative?

 

Common sense though it is for contemporary people that the sun is the cosmic center, yet who can imagine the heated discussions at that time, undeveloped in science and ruled mainly by theology, about this COMMON SENSE today? As science progressed forward, human being solved more and more controversial problems in a scientific way. Gradually more and more common sense formed.

 

Yet, as more disputations were fixed, more emerging problems came at an advanced level. Before such emerging problems could be explained in a scientific way, people always turn to spirituality, like the GOD, for psychological satisfaction as a born nature for human beings. Time forward, more research work dedicated to such new controversial problems made it clear that science can explain how these problems came out.

 

This is an interesting circulation that human beings seem never tired to solve emerging problems, first in a supernatural way then a scientific way. Why GOD still exists in western people's minds for so long a period? It is obvious that never could be various problems solved completely, therefore people will turn to GOD for spiritual explanation or satisfaction.

 

This is more or less like the egg-chicken problem, one producing another forever without definitely RIGHT explanation. However, in my point of view, science is a definite trend as human progresses, accompanied by super-nature. The only thing making a person unique is the solution of 'a' and 'b', weight of science and spirituality, in the equation

Uniqueness=a*Science+b*Spirituality (0=<a=<1, 0=<b=<1, 0=<a+b=<1),

based on his framework of knowledge. Edited March 30, 2008 by icemath (see edit history)

[byronarnold 0]

My spirituality is science. For me, it isn't one or the other. For me, they're the same. Science explains the world around us. Or at least attempts to. Spirituality is an attempt to explain the world around us. most the time these two approaches (science and spirituality) are contradictive and against one another. But for me, they complement each other.

 

Of course, I am a pantheist, a naturalistic pantheist to be precise. The entire universe, to me, is "god" in the sense that it has my awe and leads me to ponder its mysteries.

 

Peace to all!!!

[saitunes 0]

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. A comic once compared Genesis with the big bang, 'God said let there be light, could it be a metaphor for the big bang?'I think that a being made all that we see, and is responsible for all that has been created. I mean think about how well everything works (non-man made) How perfectly ecosystems find their balance, how stable everything is. I don't think it just happened, I think someone or something planned it all. It's just worked out too perfectly.

[byronarnold 0]

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. A comic once compared Genesis with the big bang, 'God said let there be light, could it be a metaphor for the big bang?'
I think that a being made all that we see, and is responsible for all that has been created. I mean think about how well everything works (non-man made) How perfectly ecosystems find their balance, how stable everything is. I don't think it just happened, I think someone or something planned it all. It's just worked out too perfectly.

Why couldn't the ecosystems work simply because planet Earth happened to be in the right place at the right time to evolve life? I mean look at how many planets in our system didn't happen to be in the right place at the right time to evolve life. And guess what, they don't have life.

Just my two cents. Peace to all!!!

[magic 0]

I knda agree with byronalds post. Science and god are kinda on the same path. On any concept or thought it seems to me that some thinking god or a more advanced being had created us by accedent, fusion or what ever, something created it. Not to go off the subject or affend any ones thoughts but and I cannot remeber who some where in thew bible it states that someone was affraid to die and that they left the world in a flamming chariote, well my first thought was wow this is way out in left field. Then I thought if I looked at it in there prospective a chariote was a wagon pulled by a horse, which got me to think ok something that carries a person or people, ok then I thought what about the horse well maybe they didnt see the horse but saw what they thought was a chariote cuse it carried beings or people. So if the chariote or what ever came into the our atmosphire from the sky it would glow so I can see where they got the flameing chariote. So basically it carried people or beings and appeared to be on fire from the glowing outside or what ever powered it. And also if these people all appeared to look the same and could perfome unbelievable tasks I am assuming the charriote carried only one being or person but had roon for 2, and only saw one peson or being at any given time keeping in mind they looked the same wouldnt they consider them to be a god? Keeping in mind they never knew what an airplane is, a space ship was, UFO ect... I guess I got off the subject but its a thought that there is something out there that we have not discovered yet that is far more advanced than our scientests and us, not saying thats a bad thing or to insult any one. Keep in mind look how long from the bible times to now to figure out how to fly, to dicover atomes, telephone, lighting, plumbing, ect... all these years, kinda makes you wonder what will descover in the next 1,000 years if they world lasts that long?

Edited May 17, 2008 by magic (see edit history)