|
|
| How was the world created? |
| G-d created the world and is involved in it. (Monotheist) |
|
28% |
[ 7 ] |
| G-d created the world and left it byself after that. (Deist) |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
| Many gods, or one of many gods, created the world. (Polytheistic) |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
| The world was created through random acts of science, with no deity. (Atheist) |
|
12% |
[ 3 ] |
| I have no clue, maybe a deity or maybe not. (Agnostic) |
|
16% |
[ 4 ] |
| Other group |
|
16% |
[ 4 ] |
| Hey! You wrote my group's beliefs wrong! |
|
16% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:05 pm
I've read both arguments (religion vs science) and, personally, I don't really see the point in the arguments. We're here. We've survived evolution or tests that whatever deity may be out there put us through. All religions have made mistakes or have things they regret doing in some form or other. They also have very similar stories told to make their deities seem more important.
Science has been wrong before. Personally, I believe it to be a crock that those who want to think they are more evolved want to believe in. Granted it has brought great cures and advancement for society but it has also caused pain and destruction too. Look at the biodrugs and warheads that are being made year after year. These are the people who want to play god rather than believe in one.
I just think we should be glad that we are alive and here on a planet that seems to be the only one with life on it in this solar system. No offense is meant to any who believe in science or in deities. I think we are just figments of someone's imagination and the gods we worship, whether they be "pagan" or "one true god", are just different personalities for one being.
Approve, Disapprove, or ignore. Your choice.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:58 pm
pantherdor Science has been wrong before.
See, it's not EXACTLY science but what we know.
Let's say we moved back to the days of cavemen when they discovered fire. If they told you how fire is made, they'd most likely be wrong. However, that isn't the fault of the science, just the fault of ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:00 am
Captain_Shinzo That's technically wrong. See, it's not EXACTLY science but what we know. Science is what we know even if our descriptions are wrong. OED compact Science - 1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment 2. a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject If you are going to say science is never wrong we might as well stop all experiments and investigations now cause we're wasting our time since it's already right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:28 am
rmcdra If you are going to say science is never wrong we might as well stop all experiments and investigations now cause we're wasting our time since it's already right. I think the point was that science can't be wrong, because it's a process of acquiring knowledge - the results of the process can be wrong, though. But one of the best things about the scientific search for knowledge is that it corrects its mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:04 am
Okay, guys, we're really just splitting hairs here. Anyone who knows me IRl knows that I love nothing better than to argue like that. However, since this is a thread with a given topic and not a natural segwaying conversation, I'm going to have to ask you to agree to disagree. Having said that, I agree with Artto. Artto rmcdra If you are going to say science is never wrong we might as well stop all experiments and investigations now cause we're wasting our time since it's already right. I think the point was that science can't be wrong, because it's a process of acquiring knowledge - the results of the process can be wrong, though. But one of the best things about the scientific search for knowledge is that it corrects its mistakes. ^ Yes, that. But I digress. We all do. Back to the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:01 pm
Lumanny the Space Jew Reform Judaism says: Once upon a time there was nothing. Nothing but the one G-d, YHVH. And then G-d created antimatter. And simmeltaneously G-d created matter in forms Solid, Liquid, Gas, and Plasma, organized into elements in molecules made of atoms made of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons. And in a flash of power the intensity of a supernova, G-d created the Biggest Bang that there ever was. And then there were dimensions and universes and galaxies and suns, planets, and moons. On one such galaxy, much later to be called the Milky Way, G-d placed one such Sun with Eight orbitting planets, and on the Third planet from the Sun, much later to be called Earth, G-d created life in what to Him were Six Days but what were several Billion of what we now call years. ---G-d created Amino Acids out of the Earth. He formed these Amino Acids into Polypeptides and then formed those into Proteins. By the end of the first day, G-d had created Ribonucleic Acid(RNA)- based prokaryote life forms from the proteins. He then evolved them into Eukaryotes with Deoxyribonucleic Acid(DNA). ---G-d evolved these unicellular life forms into Multicelular Life forms and then involved them into so many life forms that the intelligent Homo Sapiens he evolved from Ape-like beings on Day 6 would need Domains, Kingdoms, Phyla, Classes, Orders, Families, Gena, and Species to organize them all. And the first Homo Sapien Male and Female, called אדם (Addam) and חבה(Chava), multiplied and created the Human Race as we know it. --- G-d Rested on the Seventh Day, and when the Humans began to organize their time into 7-day weeks, the Seventh Day became the שבת (Shabbat), the Sabbath Day of Rest. i can say that i find this to be very similar to what i believe, except that i believe that the Creator had way less direct activity in it all.... i dunno yet how or why, but this SuperAtom, or God Particle as it has been called, that i heard about seems to be my idea of what the Creator was, or maybe the Big Bang that it cause is the Creator (or maybe the Creator is some force that came into being because of the Big Bang). you can look up the Higgs Particle online, and on the History Channel videos of a series called The Universe for more information on this theory. i wonder often whether the Creator has Conscious Thought or not, and i can go either way on that. but i know that the Creator is a force that still effects us and our laws of Physics. i believe that everything happened the way science is describing (with theories about the exact nature of it and all... after all, not every scientific discover is correct), but that it is because of some kind of Divine Guidance. not the Direct Hand of God, or any of that nonsense. i think though, i may be of the mind to at least finally believe (for now at least) that the Creator isn't totally uncaring and non-chalant. just impartial. maybe not even so much, i mean, think Spore for a second. realy though the speculation is just that, speculation. i can't claim to know it all. i believe that individual Cells have enough of a self-awareness to choose their own Evolution, and that that is why we have such varied life-forms on our planet. we have Animals of all kinds, Plants of all kinds, Fungae of all kinds, Protists of all kinds and all manner of other Bacteria. however, the idea that all of the Elements that we know of just formed randomly into existance on their own from nothing with no explanation is ******** bogus. >.> which is why it has to be the work of some infinite Uber-Being (an equally bogus and rediculous concept, but only if the rediculous is real can it make sense). i mean, think of it this way... if science says that it's own rules can be broken to explain a phenomenon that baffles us to no end, why can't Mythology have the same kind of non-sensical Explanation? isn't it a bit of a double-standard to call one Science and the other a Faerie-Tale? the question of how the Multiverse (or at least the Universe) was made is one that nobody can truely answer (leastways not yet), but so far no belief is any crazier than the next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:04 pm
Echo Ligeia I believe that science and God go hand-in-hand. Therefore, I kind of believe something akin to: the theory of cause and effect must be wrong, because this theory can never explain "first cause". (If God made the world then who made God? And who made whatever made God? Etc.) So, "cause and effect" - or any kind of linear qualities to the universe - must be illusions or some sort. Beyond the human experience, there is no time or cause or effect. There is nothing to do or say or experience; one can only "be". This is how God is. But through this belief I can see the many admirable qualities about human life, where we can learn and struggle and succeed (and the price to pay for being able to do these things - for having linearity - is that we can also fail, be in pain, and live in ignorance). So, I don't believe the world was ever really "formed", for it doesn't really exist. It is a reality, but realities are not measurable by science. Humans cannot gauge them or give them a "starting date". They just "are", I think. i like this! biggrin tell me, are you a fan of Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, and/or Peter J. Carol? i tottally agree with this, as do all three of the men a mentioned above (the first two being Quantum Physicists, and the last one being the author of sch titles as Psychonaut).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:09 pm
divineseraph In the beginning, there was One Thing. This was Ein Soph and Kether. It was a mathematical point, zero in area but infinite in mass and energy. This One Thing burst outward with energy and formed the Abyss- Pure energetic chaos. As this chaos gained distance from the hottest starting point, it cooled and was able to become particles in a plasma state. As this moved away and cooled, it became lighter elements like hydrogen, and eventually heavier elements. As it cooled further and went further from it's original perfect point, it corrupted further and formed molecules. Those things followed the laws crafted by God and did what they did- The gasses fused into stars, the gravity of the stars pulled dust into planets, some planets were able to support life. This follows the recent theories of Hawking and Einstein, as well as the ancient knowledge of the Alchemists. I find it amusing that as science clears up the infinite gaps in our knowledge, we prove more and more that the ancients already knew it. Matter as a phase of energy, a single point as the origin of the physical universe, chaotic energy as the first stage of all things, plasma- The ancients knew it in different words, but they knew it. huh... zero... the concept of naught... but to be a concept at all makes it a self-contradiction... is it perhaps that Zero was self-aware, or became such, and that when it realized it's own self-contradiction it created it's duality (existance) so as to give itself meaning? if so that would make Zero the Highest God.... huh... very thought provoking! biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:15 pm
Chieftain Twilight divineseraph In the beginning, there was One Thing. This was Ein Soph and Kether. It was a mathematical point, zero in area but infinite in mass and energy. This One Thing burst outward with energy and formed the Abyss- Pure energetic chaos. As this chaos gained distance from the hottest starting point, it cooled and was able to become particles in a plasma state. As this moved away and cooled, it became lighter elements like hydrogen, and eventually heavier elements. As it cooled further and went further from it's original perfect point, it corrupted further and formed molecules. Those things followed the laws crafted by God and did what they did- The gasses fused into stars, the gravity of the stars pulled dust into planets, some planets were able to support life. This follows the recent theories of Hawking and Einstein, as well as the ancient knowledge of the Alchemists. I find it amusing that as science clears up the infinite gaps in our knowledge, we prove more and more that the ancients already knew it. Matter as a phase of energy, a single point as the origin of the physical universe, chaotic energy as the first stage of all things, plasma- The ancients knew it in different words, but they knew it. huh... zero... the concept of naught... but to be a concept at all makes it a self-contradiction... is it perhaps that Zero was self-aware, or became such, and that when it realized it's own self-contradiction it created it's duality (existance) so as to give itself meaning? if so that would make Zero the Highest God.... huh... very thought provoking! biggrin Zero in matter, yes. But what we forget is that the divine isn't matter, and doesn't take up space. It exists, but not as we can fathom. The original matter came from a mathematical point which is PHYSICALLY zero in volume but infinite in mass and energy. So, to the divine, the fact that it had zero volume was irrelevant. But then, the divine became energy and matter, and that took up space and made it into "More than zero", as it could be described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:39 pm
Chieftain Twilight Echo Ligeia I believe that science and God go hand-in-hand. Therefore, I kind of believe something akin to: the theory of cause and effect must be wrong, because this theory can never explain "first cause". (If God made the world then who made God? And who made whatever made God? Etc.) So, "cause and effect" - or any kind of linear qualities to the universe - must be illusions or some sort. Beyond the human experience, there is no time or cause or effect. There is nothing to do or say or experience; one can only "be". This is how God is. But through this belief I can see the many admirable qualities about human life, where we can learn and struggle and succeed (and the price to pay for being able to do these things - for having linearity - is that we can also fail, be in pain, and live in ignorance). So, I don't believe the world was ever really "formed", for it doesn't really exist. It is a reality, but realities are not measurable by science. Humans cannot gauge them or give them a "starting date". They just "are", I think. i like this! biggrin tell me, are you a fan of Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, and/or Peter J. Carol? i tottally agree with this, as do all three of the men a mentioned above (the first two being Quantum Physicists, and the last one being the author of sch titles as Psychonaut). Haha, I had never heard of any of them before you mentioned them to me, but I may have actually studied them before but forgotten (I'm extremely bad with names). I can agree with the concern about anthropocentrism, and the connection between God, environmentalism, peace, science, and space. I am not an atheist or an agnostic though, far from it. I find that God is most prominent as an emotional companion, before It is as a scientific technique or result, so the more I study things like chaos magic or chaos theory or string theory or space, the more I appreciate the emotional side to these things, and the more I appreciate God. I believe if you study something, as a human being, you will always affect that thing that you study; it will change its nature simply from being observed by you, because you are an imperfect observer. And a "perfect observer" doesn't exist. So, maybe it is the same with God. I believe all things are subjective. And thanks for pointing out these figureheads to me! I will have to look further into them. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:44 am
Odin and his brothers made the universe, with the exception of Muspelheim and Nelfheim, from Ymir's body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:35 am
i'd say the world and mankind were created rather sloppily, with lots of loose ends. i believe, not out of reason but out of personal choice, that Jesus of Nazareth the carpenter's son is the creative Word of the universe. that is offensive, which is partly why i love it. see the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Colossians. taking that as your premise leads you on much different paths than will reductionist materialism. Puddleglum in The Silver Chair tells the wicked queen that he cannot refute her reductionist and evil) story about the nature of the world, but if his own story is false he still prefers it to hers because her story is so dry and empty. "One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show_tag?name=puddleglum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:16 pm
chessiejo i'd say the world and mankind were created rather sloppily, with lots of loose ends. i believe, not out of reason but out of personal choice, that Jesus of Nazareth the carpenter's son is the creative Word of the universe. that is offensive, which is partly why i love it. see the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Colossians. taking that as your premise leads you on much different paths than will reductionist materialism. Puddleglum in The Silver Chair tells the wicked queen that he cannot refute her reductionist and evil) story about the nature of the world, but if his own story is false he still prefers it to hers because her story is so dry and empty. "One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia."]http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show_tag?name=puddleglumSloppily? It was made with utmost perfection and attention to detail- YOU try creating dimensions that have never existed before, or imagining never-before-seen colors. Just figure out how light works, let alone create it. If you are referring to corruption, disease, and death- That comes with being physical. It would be like saying that the greatest masterwork clock is sloppy and poorly constructed because it will, in time, mold and rust and decay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:22 am
I think the world came about through natural physical processes, and mankind through evolution. Also it's a mischaracterization to call them random acts since there's a reason they came about (natural selection/processes) which clearly demonstrates the world and mankind didn't happen randomly. By saying things happen randomly by view of the scientific perspective is to create a strawman.
As for naming this view (atheist) it seems to me to suggest your ignorance about what atheism actually is. How the world and mankind came about relates to atheism in so far that they don't believe a god was necessarily responsible for it. To add that all atheists think the world also came about through random acts is to make a fallacious statement about atheism. Since you're saying atheism implies something it has absolutely nothing to do with. Atheism only implies that you don't believe in god, for atheists beliefs about how the world and mankind came about will never necessarily be "from random acts." Indeed it depends on the atheists other beliefs that have little to do with their atheism.
My beliefs about how the world and mankind came about comes from cosmology and biology not my atheism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:13 pm
Captain_Shinzo I have no DEFINITE idea of how the universe was created, but that doesn't mean I'll just believe some random story of any deity I choose.
How, particularly, the universe was created is pretty much a blur to me because of my lack of the understanding of the world of matter. That doesn't mean there ISN'T a way the universe was created, however.
I'll just let some powerful scientist discover a theory while I just focus more on other things of the world. That sounds about right to me. As far as I'm concerned, all the religions have interesting origin myths, but honestly nothing that I'd accept as truth. Since finding the truth of the matter is just about impossible for someone in my position, I just accept the fact that I don't know and make do with what I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
