"Churches urged to back evolution "

This is intolerable.
What's next: churches urged to accept the idea that the world isn't flat?
Those wacky scientists will never be able to prove that....
 
superluminal said:
There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes.



Again, there is no evidence for a god and plenty to contradict god claims.


How about the existence of the origins of the universe? Even the BB theory(which is coming under more and more criticism as of late) does not explain how anything and everything came from nothing. Don't be delusional. Although I shouldn't be surprised, atheists basically believe that everything did come from nothing, as nothing physical can be eternal. So you're left with a big fat fucking nothing, Mr. atheist.
 
Last edited:
Zappa said:
How about the existence of the origins of the universe? Even the BB theory(which is coming under more and more criticism as of late) does not explain how anything and everything came from nothing. Don't be delusional. Although I shouldn't be surprised, atheists basically believe that everything did come from nothing, as nothing physical can be eternal. So you're left with a big fat fucking nothing, Mr. atheist.

First of all, BB theory explains what happened after the initial event and does not explain what happened during or prior the event, which would encompass another theory.

Theists believe an imaginary being waved his magic hand and created everything from nothing.

So, who is delusional?
 
(Q) said:
First of all, BB theory explains what happened after the initial event and does not explain what happened during or prior the event, which would encompass another theory.

Theists believe an imaginary being waved his magic hand and created everything from nothing.

So, who is delusional?


How about reading my response in the context of what I was <b>responding to?</b>

Super's quote, once again..."There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes. "

If you create the initial event that spurred the process, do you not have a role in the thing you are creating??! "ALL OF THE PHENOMENA ATTRIBUTED TO GOD ARE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED" Oh, like our existence? Like the existence of any life? Like the existence of our universe?

If you can't understand WHY or HOW something IS, it is not explained. What is so hard to understand about that?
 
Last edited:
Zappa said:
How about reading my response in the context of what I was <b>responding to?</b>

Super's quote, once again..."There is nothing currently unexplained regarding gods role in the universe. All of the phenomena attributed to god are adequately explained by natural processes. "

If you create the initial event that spurred the process, do you not have a role in the thing you are creating??! "ALL OF THE PHENOMENA ATTRIBUTED TO GOD ARE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED" Oh, like our existence? Like the existence of any life? Like the existence of our universe?

If you can't understand WHY or HOW something IS, it is not explained. What is so hard to understand about that?

So, are you asserting that since an event is yet unexplained, it should automatically be credited to an action of gods? Our existence, the existence of life and the universe can be explained by natural processes, why would we then assume any other process prior to that would be any different?
 
Scientists have so far failed to explain life. And the existence of the universe too, btw...
 
Or, more precisely, you are ignorant and are under the delusion there is a purpose to life and the universe. Science does not answer the question, "why."
 
Where did I say there is a purpose? Where did I talk about the question "why"?
Science hasn't been able to explain life period
 
TruthSeeker said:
I'm not saying theories should be taught. The purpose is to make them aware of different perspectives, and to teach them to be logically explorative.

If this really was the case, teachers could easily inform students that other ideas/theories exist without mentioning any specific one (introducing bias), inviting students to do their own research if they so pleased...
 
TruthSeeker said:
Oh.. so you say they should be biased towards evolution?

No bias is required.

When all facets of sciences agree with theories of evolution, and all the evidence agrees with theories of evolution, what need is there for bias?
 
(Q) said:
So, are you asserting that since an event is yet unexplained, it should automatically be credited to an action of gods?

I was asserting that not everything that we have attributed to God has been explained. Sheesh.

(Q) said:
Our existence, the existence of life and the universe can be explained by natural processes, why would we then assume any other process prior to that would be any different?


Because natural processes can't be eternal. Nothing PHYSICAL can be eternal. Energy cannot be. Matter cannot be. Nothing that operates on a linear scale can be eternal. But, something IS indeed Eternal, unless you would just like to assert that something came from absolutely nothing.

Eternal is a circular concept; no beginning, no end. We've classified time as linear. Everything that we experience is on this linear time scale(cause and effect relationships). We can not comprehend anything outside of the realm of this. Your physical motions, your thoughts; everything that makes you an existing thing lies within cause and effect relationships.

So, you keep going farther back in time, and you would apparently reach an initial cause - the one that started it all.

But HOW did the cause come to be?

Do you think you can explain it, or that science will ever be able to?

I don't.

Whatever brought this "cause" to fruition is not something that human beings could ever understand, as it would exist outside of physical cause and effect relationships - outside of time - outside of the possibility of human comprehension. This is why I do not believe that any "natural" process can explain the existence of everything. Nature deals with the physical. Nothing physical can be eternal. We cannot understand eternal; only that something <b>is.</b>

Something that you, because of your very nature, cannot hope to understand is existing beyond what you do understand.
 
Last edited:
Zappa said:
But HOW did the cause come to be?

Do you think you can explain it, or that science will ever be able to?

I don't.

If all there is to know about the universe is not infinite, perhaps science will in time.

Whatever brought this "cause" to fruition is not something that human beings could ever understand, as it would exist outside of physical cause and effect relationships - outside of time - outside of the possibility of human comprehension. This is why I do not believe that any "natural" process can explain the existence of everything. Nature deals with the physical. Nothing physical can be eternal. We cannot understand eternal; only that something <b>is.</b>

Who said anything about eternal?

There is little or no reason to suspect that which lead to and was the big bang could be anything other than a natural process, if everything that came about afterwards was indeed the result of natural processes. Why would we assume any differently?

Something that you, because of your very nature, cannot hope to understand is existing beyond what you do understand.

Yes, always there, just out of reach, grasping, grasping, ...grasping...
 
Oh, like our existence? Like the existence of any life? Like the existence of our universe?

Zappa,

I think you are making a mistake. Even if the scientific method cannot penetrate past the first few fractions of a second, proposing 'God' as an explanation of our 'existence', the universe' 'existence', or any other existence for that matter does not solve the problem. Firstly, I think you will agree that 'existence' is a nebulous word used only by philosophers (and maybe theologians). Secondly, 'God' should not be used as an explanation of 'God's existence' (do you believe God exists?).

I hope you can see clearly now that if science attempts to resolve whether something 'exists' or not, especially when no one knows what 'exists' even means, we are going to all end up in the same 'First Cause' problem. I think it is safe to say science works with what is available. Information about the universe is not available for a certain period of time in the beginning and so science does not propose any theory there. You might be insinuating that (a) God is responsible for that initial expansion but you can see that that does not explain very much in terms of why, or even what.

Just to be sure anyway, are you playing Devil's advocate or do you believe that (a) God is able to cause events in nature?
 
Back
Top