Oh no, more christian pseudo-science. The 'too good to be true' argument, again. Just because the numbers are beyond the scope of human imagination, does not mean there must be a supernatural force involved.
I've always preferred the weak anthropic principle in these cases: "We see the universe as it is, because if it were otherwise then we would not be here to see it".
So we have a set of numbers that work for our universe. Who would like to prove that this is the only set of numbers that can work? I doubt anyone's physics is good enough for that.
I've always preferred the weak anthropic principle in these cases: "We see the universe as it is, because if it were otherwise then we would not be here to see it".
So we have a set of numbers that work for our universe. Who would like to prove that this is the only set of numbers that can work? I doubt anyone's physics is good enough for that.
How is it that such beliefs held by a single person can be considered a pathology, with very little disagreement (a supreme being that talks to me and lives in the attic) - and those same beliefs (essentially) when held by a congregation are said to constitute "spirituality"? I propose that group pathologies are no less identifiable. Unfortunately, these aren't as readily dismissed and, despite all enlightenment, are apparently untreatable. So we must suffer them among us.
Thats the weak anthropic principle. With that I can agree, the strong one as proposed by - i think - wheeler has too many religious connotations: The universe is that way we because we as observers make it so.
Anyway, refreshing that there are more agnostics around here.
If you want to reconcile the bible and science - where does faith go?. Faith by definition is the non proof/falsifiability available or possible in the subject of the faith, so by definition science and faith are and have to be on opposite sides.
So - if faith wants to cooperate with science, it can do so only on the terms of scientific investigation - and there it looses any ground and becomes a non faith and has to join science - not science joining faith. This would automatically disqualify it as science.
As long as faith sticks to the principal of creation of the universe by a superior being, that believe is not affecting any scientific investigation . So far this is not concerened with the excistence or non existence of a pime mover, although there are attempts to find a cause for creation. That imo crosses over to faith - see above principles of scientific investigation ..
But it gets really sticky when religion starts to propose an explenation for the "day to day" business of "creation"/development - i.e. biology and its essential principal of evolution, which seems to be more under "religous attack" than any other principle.
Have you noticed that if you don't pretend to believe you have a zero chance of getting elected president? Very sad.
And what about a statistic I read yesterday: only 13% of US citizens agree that humans are part of the evolutionary development of the species (plural).
44% agree that evolution is a false theorie, and all beings were directly created by a supreme being.
A pretty lousy tradesman if he had to make that many tries.
That statement, this being a US website, probably gets me straight to texas...how apt, considering the subject and the present leader....
44% agree that evolution is a false theorie, and all beings were directly created by a supreme being.
A pretty lousy tradesman if he had to make that many tries.
That statement, this being a US website, probably gets me straight to texas...how apt, considering the subject and the present leader....
Geez, you guys are hard core! Relax a little! Perhaps this type of post is a bit annoying (even to me) but cut folks some slack- At the very least, nobody is going to know the truth for sure (faith aside) until they die! By then it is too late, but... 
I also think personally that it is a pretty lousy God that has to use evolution, the big bang etc. In my mind, it weakens the whole proposition of an intelligent designer to try to make it fit with somebody else's theorem of creation.
I believe that nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of God, god or gods by scientific method, especially the Creator-God type. It seems self-evident that if God is such that he can make the universe, with all its physics etc., and remain outside it as far as we can tell, God would be greater than what he made. If I make a line-drawing sketch of a man, I am not bound by the rules of my drawing, either (and BTW, my little sketch will never see or understand me). If I invent the laws of physics out of my head, and then make a place where they apply, am I bound by them?
Anyhow, this is all details. Here is 2 cents on the most important matter. I believe the gospel story is literal truth, and that people who don't have a Very Bad surprise awaiting them after they kick off. If you don't, you are entitled to your opinion, but there is no use in calling names!
I also think personally that it is a pretty lousy God that has to use evolution, the big bang etc. In my mind, it weakens the whole proposition of an intelligent designer to try to make it fit with somebody else's theorem of creation.
I believe that nobody can either prove or disprove the existence of God, god or gods by scientific method, especially the Creator-God type. It seems self-evident that if God is such that he can make the universe, with all its physics etc., and remain outside it as far as we can tell, God would be greater than what he made. If I make a line-drawing sketch of a man, I am not bound by the rules of my drawing, either (and BTW, my little sketch will never see or understand me). If I invent the laws of physics out of my head, and then make a place where they apply, am I bound by them?
Anyhow, this is all details. Here is 2 cents on the most important matter. I believe the gospel story is literal truth, and that people who don't have a Very Bad surprise awaiting them after they kick off. If you don't, you are entitled to your opinion, but there is no use in calling names!
having a wife who is a molecular biologist -- look up the "methylation of DNA" -- also discussed in a NYTimes OpEd last week -- once thought "fixed", to explain it crudely, a portion of your DNA actually is receptive to environmental factors -- and changes much faster than Crick and Watson would have thought -- on the new edge of molecular bio -- species change more rapidly than previously thought.
Nobody was calling anybody names - just suggestions what to label certain beings under certain conditions.
You are perfectly entitled to your believes - as long as you do not label them science or creation science. An oxymoron if there ever was one.
You also can label me as condemmed as a non beliver - as long as you do not use that as a reason to kill me or put me into prison or try to burn me alive.
I simply do not give a hoot if god or anything like a creator exists - history shows his/her total irrelevance.
Stocker said:
this is the difference between Evangelical Christians and Catholics -- but a topic for an entirely different board --
pity on anyone who relies upon the KJV for the entire truth -- unless you know Greek and Hebrew it's useless.
jackinnj said:
Yes (emphatically! ) to the first and not really to the second.
I had no problem as a child understanding the KJV. The NKJV which I also read through a couple of times, is more difficult (the standard readability is IIRC 2 or 4 grade-levels higher). Other versions...oh boy. Some are downright misunderstandable, while others don't add much to the conversation. If you start to question which version is the best, the road suddenly gets slippery and heads downhill (what about non-english languages, for example) In comparing the more popular versions I find that in exchange for ostensibly easier-reading, you get watered-down or even missing concepts, a weaker God, weaker theology, and actually not much easier reading (in some cases confusing even). The (main? only? )benefit being the publisher can actually make a profit off the text, having sufficiently changed it ( ! ) to call it their own copyright. If you are willing to add around 50 words to your vocabulary (really, only about a 1/2 dozen for most of it) the KJV does a great job. But for the neccessary basics of the Lord Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, it's pretty hard to go completely wrong if you are half paying attention to what you read from Matthew to John regardless of the translation. The "Jehovah's Witnesses" paraphrase version is a standout for badness of translation (they call it a transliteration) but otherwise, you can miss Hell with almost any of them.
My daughter (2 yrs old) gets stories from a Bible Stories book with NIV-or-simpler concepts and big colorful pictures, but she also sits still and listens while we read her the King James. Well ok, sits still usually!
For those wondering, from one who uses it almost exclusively these days, the KJV or one of its near neighbours (KJV is definately easier to find) is the better for english speakers willing to actually think about what they are reading.
Theologie and religion has only one function - to screw up otherwise decent human beings.
If you do not think that is true - just look around...
If you do not think that is true - just look around...
Is that an apolgy for an incompetent creator? An omniscient and omnipotent creator who creates a world as it is - based on killing and be killed -no prejudice towards any predators - meaning he had complete foreknowledge of what he was creating and it's history is only one thing - the ultimate sadist.
Maybe you have to visit me in texas now.
oh, btw not to create any misunderstanding - i still adhere to the christian principles that should guide our behaviour towards each other.
I just do not believe in being there a creator.
I just do not believe in being there a creator.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.