Science cannot explain anything before the Planck Time (1x10^-43 seconds after the initial "moment" of the Big Bang). Anything before this time is philosophy, not science. Science simply cannot be applied to this time. Does this mean that God exists? Or that creationism is true? No, of course not. It may well be, the point is we will never know. It is impossible for us to find out what happened prior to the Planck Time, the best we can do is think up philosophical theories. I like to think that the universe has existed forever, but not in the way you might think. If time was created at the moment of the Big Bang, then time did not exist "before" it. Since the timeline stops at the Big Bang, the universe has essentially existed forever. It's like asking what's 100 miles north of the north pole, there is no answer. Likewise, asking what happened "before" the Big Bang is a meaningless question, because there was no "before". What does this have to do with religion? There is still room for God in the world, even if evolution is right (I think it definatly is). As much as science will be able to explain, the one thing it will not be able to explain is the very origin of the universe itself, that is left up to philosophy and to your individual beliefs.
The old "Science has no answer to this, so does god exist?" Yeah yeah, the theists say this one every week. 1) If science does not have an answer, that doesn't mean it is the realm of gods and elves and honest politicians. It just means you should remain undecided, come up with theories if you like, and wait for science to discover mroe things. 2) Why leap from "Science hasn't covered this yet" to "God might exist"? Why the second part? Why not leap from "science hasn't covered this yet" to "so that's where my other sock went"? What exactly is it that made you leap from considering a question in science to considering a question in religion?
"Does this mean that God exists? Or that creationism is true? No, of course not. " "If science does not have an answer, that doesn't mean it is the realm of gods and elves and honest politicians. It just means you should remain undecided, come up with theories if you like, and wait for science to discover mroe things. " I'm saying this is beyond the scope of science. All physical laws that govern science break down at the Planck Time. What you are expecting to do is explain how to play checkers using the rules for poker, you are using rules that don't apply. The laws of science don't apply to the universe before the Planck Time, it is effectively outside the realm of science. Science can never explain what happened between the Big Bang and Planck, or what happened before the Big Bang, it's simply not possible. Again, I'm not saying God exists, I don't think he does, but it's useless to try and scientifically explain something that cannot be explained through science. "Why leap from "Science hasn't covered this yet" to "God might exist"? Why the second part? Why not leap from "science hasn't covered this yet" to "so that's where my other sock went"? What exactly is it that made you leap from considering a question in science to considering a question in religion?" Why not? The immediate reaction to this would be "Oh, so God does exist is what you're saying?", I was simply pointing out that that isn't what I'm saying at all.
I suppose it is possible. I am athiest, but I can't claim to know there was no God who put this all in motion. While I can't say I believe it to be true, simply because of probability, I will admit it is possible. Either way, we can agree it was something powerful.
*Originally posted by Xelios As much as science will be able to explain,* LOL What exactly has science "explained?" * the one thing it will not be able to explain is the very origin of the universe itself,...* That makes science pretty much useless. It is also an admission that science is a defective way of "explaining" things in general. To demonstrate otherwise, simply come up with a "scientific" way of proving that data obtained by the scientific method is corroborated by other methods of collecting data.
"LOL What exactly has science "explained?" " A great many things that religion will never be able to even begin to comprehend. "That makes science pretty much useless. " In what way? "It is also an admission that science is a defective way of "explaining" things in general. " Not at all, it's just an admission that science, like all things, has it's limitations, something you are too proud to admit about religion.
*Originally posted by Xelios "LOL What exactly has science "explained?" " A great many things that religion will never be able to even begin to comprehend.* Sloganeering won't actually get you anywhere. In actual fact, science has explained exactly nothing. All science has provided is a means for creating questions, with no answers. Where an answer would ordinarily be appropriate, science merely provides more questions. *"That makes science pretty much useless. " In what way?* In all ways that usefulness would be more useful. *Not at all, it's just an admission that science, like all things, has it's limitations, something you are too proud to admit about religion.* God doesn't have any limitations, so pride doesn't enter into it at all. Science, OTOH, is all about limitations, the biggest one being: having no answers.
ah Tony1 Yea, it won't. What is this "actual fact" based upon? Science is objective. Why don't you give an example of what you stated? Why doesn't God have any limitations? Have you personally met God? Science is limited, but it does have answers. What do you propose? Most believers that pray to God can be broken down into 2 types: 1) The "Mercedes God" - Please God, grant me a mercedes to be happy. Please help me do better on a test. 2) Wordless, true communication with God. Most fall into category 1.
Re: ah Tony1 *Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~ What is this "actual fact" based upon?* Two things. Science itself, and statements made by people who are pro-science. One example: "Science cannot explain origins" *Science is objective. Why don't you give an example of what you stated?* OK. Example: "Why don't you give an example of what you stated?" *Science is limited, but it does have answers. What do you propose?* "What do you propose?" looks like a question, not an answer to me. *1) The "Mercedes God" - Please God, grant me a mercedes to be happy. Please help me do better on a test. 2) Wordless, true communication with God. Most fall into category 1. * You make a relatively good point with that. However, what is your definition of "true" communication with God? After all, if someone tried posting a wordless post here, few would consider that to be "true" communication.
"In actual fact, science has explained exactly nothing. All science has provided is a means for creating questions, with no answers. Where an answer would ordinarily be appropriate, science merely provides more questions. " A more appropriate statement would be "Science has yeilded many answers, but most of the time more questions come with them.". "In all ways that usefulness would be more useful. " Basically "I can't back that up". Good, lets move on then. "God doesn't have any limitations, so pride doesn't enter into it at all. " I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about religion. "Science, OTOH, is all about limitations, the biggest one being: having no answers." If telling yourself that over and over makes you more comfortable with your religion then more power to ya tony. Just goes to show how insecure you are about your beliefs. "One example: "Science cannot explain origins" " Can religion explain why things fall to Earth? No? Then by your logic all of reigion can explain exactly nothing. ""What do you propose?" looks like a question, not an answer to me. " Way to dodge the question.
Why do you have to have an answer for everything? Why the obsessive need for explanations and firm conclusions? To say that god explains the universe is to say that god is the answer to a question. If there is no question then there is no need for an answer.
[Q]"What do you propose?" looks like a question, not an answer to me. [/Q] Sorry to but in Tony but just because science doesn't lay down a strict doctrine of what to believe such as "Thou shalt not (put in anything applicable)".. doesn't make science limited or even limit science.... I would prefer to follow a mind set that was open to new way of thinking and usually that involves asking questions (like the young child that asks and grows into an adult with a firmer understanding) I think the fact that science asks questions is NOT condemning I think blind faith is much much worse an alternative.
It's odd in certain respects, If someone did kickstart the Big Bang, okay they might of created all life, but when you think of the Destructive potential unleashed should you really call them a god? I think not.
Science is the best tool we have found so far for understanding the world we live in. tony1's young-earth-creationist vision hasn't managed to tell us anything true yet.
If someone did kickstart the Big Bang, okay they might of created all life, but when you think of the Destructive potential unleashed should you really call them a god? I think not. If the someone did kickstart the Big Bang then I would think of them as God... they created our universe, they created me, by accident maybe, we dont really know. But they would be God in my eyes. Just shows to go that God might be a alien that accidently made us when he dropped a cookie into some alien dog crap.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thats another way of saying "If human intelligence does not have an answer yet, that doesn't mean it is the realm of higher intelligence". Listen adam, try ok? Science is intelligence. I repeat, science is intelligence. One more time, science is intelligence, once again, science is intelligence, got it? Our intelligence CANNOT demonstrate creation of life, its impossible, but if it can (for the sake of the sorry atheist), it means the success of our intelligence improved, and this proves the higher intelligence exist. The success of science DOES NOT prove "earthquake, tornado, wind, hurricane, and sunlight" created the life form, again success of science proves success of intelligence. Therefore scientifically Higher intelligence exist. We call it "God", not "elves" not "giant purple squid monkey" "not toothfairy", but we call it "God", because we are mature.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Life is ordered, complex, detailed, imagine the human body, how the heart functions, the brain, etc. and each creature have purpose. Carnivors, omnivors, etc. seasons, etc. A TRUE AND PERFECT DESIGN. U can probably fill 1 million pages describing the ordered complexity of life.ANY DESIGN IMPLIES A DESIGNER. INTELLIGENCE IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE THECAUSE OF ANY DESIGNS, FROM BIOLOGICAL TO TECHNOLOGICAL. "CHANCE" HAS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER, AT ALL, NONE, NADA. GOT IT? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
muscleman, The human eye is not perfect. It is a bad design, with the blood vessels in front of the retina instead of behind it. Did the Grand Designer stuff up when he did the eye?
Geez, I like the human eye. Such a groovy mixture of rods and cones, the blindspots each covered from the other eye. I'm sure there is some good reason for the arrangement of the retina, I just don't know what it is. Anyway, compared to many other eyes, ours are quite funky. I wonder if, in the future, we will alter our eyes to include extreme flexion of the lenses and such, for powerful telescopic vision. Maybe increase the range of the spectrum we can view, stuff like that. Could be fun.
