Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by Akady

I dont disbelieve the big bang theory(not proven).

You realize the distinction between scientific theory and theory as used in the vernacular correct?

Originally Posted by Akady

... I dont[sic xman's edit] disbelieve the big bang theory(not proven). ...

We've defined these terms better already. In science, a theory is something which is credible, not just any old fairy story. I can't really argue with you until you've read the thread and visited the Critical Thinking link I recommended in my signature. I'll encourage you again to do that and catch up on the debate.

X

Originally Posted by Akady

That does not negate the primary mover. God is who is.

This argument puts a bullet hole in the foot to anyone who uses it.

You mean that the simplest constituent of the Universe (energy) could not have come into existence without being created, but the most immensely complex, ultimately powerful, infinitely intelligent, and utterly incomprehensible being that could possibly exist, could?

If something had to have existed for all time, it would more than likely be the simplest form possible, which means anything intelligent is out of the question.

I would be interested to know how many people who buy into the first mover argument have read anything on the details of the alternatives.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Entropy?

Oooh, sorry that is incorrect.

Entropy applies to matter and energy in the state that we know it in currently, the temperatures and pressures present in the "pre-big-bang" "universe" would have resulted in forms of matter that we can't yet describe. Though as long as we stick to our secular principles and leave hearsay arguments out of the physics labs, we're bound to find out someday.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation. An adrenaline rush feels a certain way (actually finding Suzy-Q with Billy-Joe-Bob, perhaps?...), heartache another.

"Adrenaline rush" has a lot of connotation behind it, but the truth is that grief, despair, depression, mourning, etc. have the same chemicals involved as situations of extreme peril or surprise.

a recent study found connections between mourning deaths and heart disease:

"Men, in particular, are more susceptible to suffering serious health consequences on the anniversaries marking the deaths of loved ones, especially a parent, according to new research from the American College of Cardiology. ...It's likely that men are more sensitive of everyday life, and on this anniversary day, in ways that cause their adrenaline to go up more than women," said Dr. Redford Williams of Duke University Medical Center."

Is heartache from being rejected not corollary to the grief of losing a loved one? It's been the same experience for me, anyway.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

If he created the world and made something come from nothing just by his power, then we are dealing with something much greater than our own ideas and concepts. That is why I think there must be proof if he is real, and not just for special people, but for anyone who will accept it. I didn't need to be open to God to experience his creation. He was here before I was, but like you are indicating I think, to actually experience him one does have to be open to the possibility that it is indeed him!

But surely you see the predicament here?!?!

The people who want to understand our existence the most are the scientists who spend countles years of their lives devoted to answering the questions that are conveniently provided by God to those who will accept it.

But to entertain the notion of God is to allow for sundry other beings and entities that are utterly silly, there's no argument that's been made for God that hasn't been made for invisible pink Unicorns, or Paradoxasaurs. Such thinking is precisely counter to the processes that have led us to where we are today. If Ben Franklin had been satisfied that lightning was God's wrath we wouldn't have the technologies that we do. If Galileo had been satisfied that the Universe revolved around us, we would never have put two men on the moon. If Watson and Crick had been satisfied with the creation stories, we would never know that DNA exists nor how interconnected life really is.

No, these men are constituents of a long line of doubters, who stood on the shoulders of the secularists and intellectual giants before them and thrust the world into the future, despite the option of just accepting God's will.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

But surely you see the predicament here?!?!

...

If Ben Franklin had been satisfied that lightning was God's wrath we wouldn't have the technologies that we do. If Galileo had been satisfied that the Universe revolved around us, we would never have put two men on the moon. If Watson and Crick had been satisfied with the creation stories, we would never know that DNA exists nor how interconnected life really is.

No, these men are constituents of a long line of doubters, who stood on the shoulders of the secularists and intellectual giants before them and thrust the world into the future, despite the option of just accepting God's will.

Actually, Franklin and Galileo were not strangers among the many scientists who through the centuries have believed in God's existence:

[I believe] That there is one God, who made all things.
That he governs the world by his providence.
That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving.
But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.
That the soul is immortal.
And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter.
- Benjamin Franklin

For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words: “We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine; by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.”
- Galileo Galilei

Where did God command that man should not explore his creation and discover its depths? Or where did God ever tell people to just keep their meddling minds out of his efforts? I don't see any predicament here

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Actually, Franklin and Galileo were not strangers among the many scientists who through the centuries have believed in God's existence:


Where did God command that man should not explore his creation and discover its depths? Or where did God ever tell people to just keep their meddling minds out of his efforts? I don't see any predicament here

I didn't say they were atheists.

They were practicing secularists who went against the religious notions of their times, they doubted the religious conventions is all I meant.

Doubting the religious conventions has gotten us where we are today. There's no manner of spin you can put on the fact that religious establishments have never made a scientific breakthrough, never championed the social issues that differentiate us from peoples of the dark ages, and have tried on numerous occasions to suppress those advancements.

Some counter quotes:

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."-Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

"They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit."-Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer

And a few just for fun, since we tend to lose sight of our Founding Father's stances on religion:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity." –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.


"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
- Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

I didn't say they were atheists.

They were practicing secularists who went against the religious notions of their times, they doubted the religious conventions is all I meant.

Doubting the religious conventions has gotten us where we are today. There's no manner of spin you can put on the fact that religious establishments have never made a scientific breakthrough, never championed the social issues that differentiate us from peoples of the dark ages, and have tried on numerous occasions to suppress those advancements.

Russell,

I'm not arguing for religious establishment, I'm arguing that the study of nature doesn't conflict with believing in the existence of God. I thought you were using the long line of doubters phrase to describe men who made great strides in science because they were not held back by a belief in God

The point I was trying to make is that they looked elsewhere for those answers, while you've said (and many people have done the same throughout history) the God offers all answers if you'll accept him.

He seems suspiciously selective about which answers he gives us, if it's even true that "god's answers" are anything more than subconscious resolutions. He really should have let us in on the secret of equal rights for all human beings, that piece of knowledge came at the price of countless innocent lives. Or how about knowledge of microorganisms, man those little buggers killed millions of people before they were discovered.