If you are into platitudes - here some other examples that proof as much - but may be closer to the truth:
"Who are you to tell God what to do?" -- Bohr
"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be
seen." -- Hawking
"Who are you to tell God what to do?" -- Bohr
"God not only plays dice, but sometimes throws them where they cannot be
seen." -- Hawking
"First, Universe was created. That made a lot of people angry, because it was overwhelmingly considered as a very bad move."
It is a common (though indefensible) offense to quote this completely out of context. Physicists usually use 'god' metaphorically (including this case). See this interview with Weinberg from a PBS program.Mike Gergen said:
audio-kraut said:
Agreed. The Texas threads must be in another city. I never seem to see any here. 😉
Wimms has the appropriate attitude toward this discussion being on an audio forum...quite a comical quotation, if you remember where it's from! 😀
wimms, quoting Adams without attributing the quote is copyright infringement. Worse, you have misquoted it, thus making finding the source for those not familiar with it more difficult. The correct quote is:
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I might add that if those that are interested care to read the beginning of the book, they would see that things started out just peachy (no death whatsoever and people and animals were all vegetarian) .... but it was us that stuffed things up by breaking the rules .... it is also us that now suffers because we (mankind) broke the rules ~6000 yrs ago. But God also made a way out thru the new birth. Alot of people (believers and otherwise) share the misconception that God is purely a Good / Kind / Loving God... The book also says that He is a Righteous God, a Holy God and a Jealous God amongst many other things. It was us collectively that messed up, and it is us collectively that pays the price.
And regards to science and creationism.... Fact is that there have been more scientific discoveries amongst "reputable" science in the past 100yrs / 50yrs / (pick a time frame) to prove creation than to disprove it. If you would like to argue this, just look at the numbers... in recent years there have been truly massive numbers of the scientific community that have taken up belief in a supreme supernatural creator simply because the bulk of scientific material supports it. Those that like to use science as evidence that God does not exist often quote Occam's Razor "all things being equal, the simple choice is the best choice" but when it comes to the beginning of time, biology or other such matters where all things being equal, the simple answer points to a supreme supernatural being, they insist on coming up with something else that often is far less logical simply because the premise of a creator does not suit their ideals ... let me ask, how seriously do such people take Occam's Razor? If they truly believed what they were saying, they might like to consider that by immediately rejecting the idea of a creator, they have made things anything but equal.
Just thought I'd add those few little insights since many people like to use such excuses to pay out on those that are willing to stand up for their faith ... I've personally got no problems if someone wants to question my faith ... but please don't expect me to just lay down and give up. I'm plenty capable of keeping up my side of the debate.
And regards to science and creationism.... Fact is that there have been more scientific discoveries amongst "reputable" science in the past 100yrs / 50yrs / (pick a time frame) to prove creation than to disprove it. If you would like to argue this, just look at the numbers... in recent years there have been truly massive numbers of the scientific community that have taken up belief in a supreme supernatural creator simply because the bulk of scientific material supports it. Those that like to use science as evidence that God does not exist often quote Occam's Razor "all things being equal, the simple choice is the best choice" but when it comes to the beginning of time, biology or other such matters where all things being equal, the simple answer points to a supreme supernatural being, they insist on coming up with something else that often is far less logical simply because the premise of a creator does not suit their ideals ... let me ask, how seriously do such people take Occam's Razor? If they truly believed what they were saying, they might like to consider that by immediately rejecting the idea of a creator, they have made things anything but equal.
Just thought I'd add those few little insights since many people like to use such excuses to pay out on those that are willing to stand up for their faith ... I've personally got no problems if someone wants to question my faith ... but please don't expect me to just lay down and give up. I'm plenty capable of keeping up my side of the debate.
This is a common misconception. See Pascal's Wager and the multiple refutations.
Moreover, I'm not going to bother refuting creationism's pretense to be science; others have done it, and a great starting point with numerous references can be found at the usual place.
One thing I might add to this... before anyone tries to argue away my faith, just because Catholicism is often considered to be the Christian faith, I am not a subscriber to rome, the pope, their beliefs or practices. KJV is actually quite a nice translation if you can learn some fundamentals and also realize that certain words have a different common meaning today than they did when the KJV translation was originally made.Prune said:
I also will not try and tell you that the big bang theory is impossible ... it is possible that such a mechanism was used.
I don't care about faith, as long as it doesn't try to push into the domain of science. Science has explained away more and more of what previously was in the domain of religions and other mysticism. Now even the Pope has admitted the evidence for the big bang is significant, and only holds onto the first moment of 'creation'. Except that now science can begin to explain that as well, making a creator unnecessary.
and i think this thread should be closed, as it is a discussion that in the ends leads nowwhere, as there can be no resolution - as has been shown - between the tenets and the rigour and questioning of science and the purely human construct of a supreme being that has to be accepted unquestioningly and is not proofable or disproofable.
So this posting that led to this discussion proofs again the unreconcilability of the two positions and makes any further discussion nonsensical.
So this posting that led to this discussion proofs again the unreconcilability of the two positions and makes any further discussion nonsensical.
I think you mean "proves again the irreconcilability".
There is a point to these discussions despite the fact that neither side will budge. The purpose is to try to reach the undecided and the doubters. However, this thread should be in the Off Topic forum instead of in Everything Else.
Thanks for the correction - happens when you just get out of bed because sleep not possible.
Anyway - in my experience the doubters never participate in such discussions - though they might read along.
Night - try to get back to sleep
Anyway - in my experience the doubters never participate in such discussions - though they might read along.
Night - try to get back to sleep
You've just made point of smile into point of bs. kudos. Adams wouldn't give a damn, funny that you do.Prune said:
I omitted attribute because I knew I'd misquote - I've read it in other language and it was from memory.
Accusing in copyright infringement for such a "hint" only reminds one how sick this universe is. Proves the Adams' point.
Prune said:
I'm actually talking about respected individuals thruout the scientific community that once held similar beliefs to you but now believe otherwise.
Let us analyse this construct "god" and see where it leads. We have here a creator that in the full knowledge where it would lead to creates something that turns to be evil - be it one of his "angels" or his sentient creation. So in the final short analysis - god created all evil - and man kind sofar has been the worst of his creations.
What would you call a designer of audio circuits that knowingly creates something ludicrously disfunctioning?
Take the story of isaac - here in the foreknowledge how isaac would react he still tells him to kill his son? why, when this god construct knew in advance how the father would react? There simply was no need for such a test.
Take the story of the paradise - god creates a being that when it - through the agency of his former angel - attains consciousness - gets kicked out of paradise. So god as the benevolent tyrant: obey me and do not think and i will feed you - clothes are not needed - otherwise you get the boot.
My interpretation is - to attain sentiency man has to abandon god - as god has abandoned him. Paradise is the state the animal is in.
All those incongruencies in this construct tell me one thing - man created god, not the other way round. And this god was needed to supply a coherency through religion for a society moving from being nomads to become city dwellers. And to permit the creation of laws based on that religion that would make governance easier.
Now lets go back to the beginning - in what state did god exist before creation - it must have been timeless because an immaterial state necessarily is such (time only is observable through interaction of matter) - then what made god decide to create the universe either 15 billion years or 6000 years ago? If god existed forever then the universe should by implication also bee indefinite - which it is in neither interpretation . For - if no time elapsed for god, no point of creation could have been referenced.
That leads me to only one conclusion - god was created with the universe, i.e. this - our universe - is god, if one is needed. This universe had a definite point of creation, it could not have been created at any particular time from the outside - as time there does not exist, god being immaterial in a 0 state of creation would not know When to create..
That this universe created everything it contains and also the genesis from energy to "frozen" energy - i.e. matter - this is obvious. You can literally grasp it. So - there is no need for an outside creating force; according to occams razor as this would only beg the question - who created god? Just another layer of inexpliccability.
Spelling mistakes are the property of the finder 😉
What would you call a designer of audio circuits that knowingly creates something ludicrously disfunctioning?
Take the story of isaac - here in the foreknowledge how isaac would react he still tells him to kill his son? why, when this god construct knew in advance how the father would react? There simply was no need for such a test.
Take the story of the paradise - god creates a being that when it - through the agency of his former angel - attains consciousness - gets kicked out of paradise. So god as the benevolent tyrant: obey me and do not think and i will feed you - clothes are not needed - otherwise you get the boot.
My interpretation is - to attain sentiency man has to abandon god - as god has abandoned him. Paradise is the state the animal is in.
All those incongruencies in this construct tell me one thing - man created god, not the other way round. And this god was needed to supply a coherency through religion for a society moving from being nomads to become city dwellers. And to permit the creation of laws based on that religion that would make governance easier.
Now lets go back to the beginning - in what state did god exist before creation - it must have been timeless because an immaterial state necessarily is such (time only is observable through interaction of matter) - then what made god decide to create the universe either 15 billion years or 6000 years ago? If god existed forever then the universe should by implication also bee indefinite - which it is in neither interpretation . For - if no time elapsed for god, no point of creation could have been referenced.
That leads me to only one conclusion - god was created with the universe, i.e. this - our universe - is god, if one is needed. This universe had a definite point of creation, it could not have been created at any particular time from the outside - as time there does not exist, god being immaterial in a 0 state of creation would not know When to create..
That this universe created everything it contains and also the genesis from energy to "frozen" energy - i.e. matter - this is obvious. You can literally grasp it. So - there is no need for an outside creating force; according to occams razor as this would only beg the question - who created god? Just another layer of inexpliccability.
Spelling mistakes are the property of the finder 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.