Message boards :
Politics :
What did God do before creation?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Bernie Vine Send message Joined: 26 May 99 Posts: 9954 Credit: 103,452,613 RAC: 328 |
You got to admit, we love reality TV. Our minds are naturally voyeuristic. Thought I was the only one!! Extremely cheap way of polluting the airwaves. |
Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 536 Credit: 75,967,266 RAC: 0 |
Wow, i thought Einstein was kind of partial to religion. its seems that he was very strongly anti-religion. That's very biased... being clever doesnt prevent you to have believings... Was not Einstein, who said that God doesn't play dice to show his rejection to Quantum theories/hipothesis? For me, that is evidence that he may have been very critic about religions (in the sense of institutions ruled by men), but anyway he had his faith and he lived by that no matter how clever he was. Of course, a scientist should look for evidence, it has to be skeptical on conclusions about not repeatable and observable things, and mainly he/she has to filter out any subjectivity in their "science" activities. But, science is just a "tool" for knowledge, and by no means can be thought as the only, universal, absolute and ultimate tool to rule our entire lifes. You can choose to do it, but that is a sujective choice, and as any other subjective choice it could be perfect to you, but not for others... Faith, religion, and any other spiritual beliefs are other ways to learn things (for example ethics or moral) that are less restrictive about subjectivity... And is up to you is you choose them or not, and again it may make perfect sense for me but not necessary for you... Obviously, if we are going to share our knowledge, then we should do through science or else the subjectivity might lead us to disagree in everything... But then we had to accept that there are still answers that science can't give, for that answers, we can compare what each one believes and if we do it the right way then each one will try to undestand the other and see if there is something in common or not, but always having in mind that no matter how strong each ones belief is, it never will be enough to "convert" the other (at most both will get a wider view, or a less extreme position, but these things happens very few times...) The nice thing is, in any case we both had subjective beliefs, even Einsted had, so beeing clever or not has nothing to do with what you believe. If you choose the "die hard" science path, its not because you are clever, its just because your experiences in life, your personality, your temper, and a lot of other personal and subjective things made you think that's the best way... Someone is really clever if they can understand that "the best way" is not the universal best way for everybody. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I am sure people are using quotes to serve their own agendas, and cherrk-pick. So, I am gathering just a "few" sites you can peruse, and as I gather and copy and paste the links, we may find evolving perspectives from Einstein. Read for yourself, and, of course, we may also be skeptical of the agendas of the website authors. http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/einstein.htm http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/EinsteinGodReligionScience.htm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/albert-einstein-god-letter-ebay-auction-3-million-religion_n_1940726.html http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
The question remains before "God created the heavens and the earth" Does that mean she was homeless before? Janice |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
|
Johnney Guinness Send message Joined: 11 Sep 06 Posts: 3093 Credit: 2,652,287 RAC: 0 |
Some good points raised on this.... That video was really funny. Really enjoyed that :) The comedian, Dave Allen is Irish. The video is funny for me because thats what Catholic schools used to be like in Ireland. I don't know what they are like today, maybe they have relaxed a little bit from the old ways. The video brings back memories from my school days. I went to a De La Salle Brothers Catholic school. Many good and bad memories. I'm from a later generation, religion was tought in my classes. But its wasn't shoved down our throat's. When your young, you pretty much just accept what ever they tell you. Here is another one - Dave Allen's thoughts about Adam and Eve; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0 John. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Exodus 3:13,14. When Moses asked God what his name was, he replied “I AM.†In saying this, God was describing himself as the eternal self-existent being. Jesus gave a similar answer when asked about when he was born. He said in John 8:58, “before Abraham was born, I AM.†This is not going to be a answer that most here will buy into. However, the Universe IS. It was caused. You cannot prove that it was by chance nor can you prove multiverses. Where there is no time, there is no creation (t=0) t=time. As I have stated God is outside of our timeline. Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is “the uncaused cause,†according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today. Philosophers of science come up against the ultimate cause problem as well, although that is not admitted here. Example--one could ask why objects fall.People here that are honest with themselves and others might just explain that gravity is the cause of falling things. You could then ask the scientist why gravity exists. They might explain that all objects with mass produce gravitons, or gravity particles, which produce the attractive force and or Higgs Boson. You might proceed to ask why all objects with mass produce gravitons. The scientist will indeed get VERY, very abstract with you and begin discussing string theory or whatever that is in effect just hypothesis speculation and what he or she would call God. At some point, the scientist will have to stop and say “that’s just the way it is.†Or, if the scientist is not an atheist, he or she will say “God made it that way.†|
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Now that is a good post I.D. Better than all this "first mover" crap. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
You'll need to look a little closer Sirius. His post was still pushing a 'first mover' argument as being just as valid of an answer as anything else he believes the scientists have - except that there is still no direct evidence that a 'first mover' exists. Any scientist that is honest with themselves, regardless of their faith or lack thereof will tell you that we simply don't have all the answers, and a conclusion of a 'first mover' is still a matter of faith and not science. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Exodus 3:13,14. When Moses asked God what his name was, he replied “I AM.†In saying this, God was describing himself as the eternal self-existent being. Jesus gave a similar answer when asked about when he was born. He said in John 8:58, “before Abraham was born, I AM.†Straw man. Who here has argued that multiverses exist? Where there is no time, there is no creation (t=0) t=time. As I have stated God is outside of our timeline. You have stated it several times, you have not provided any evidence in support of the statement. Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this question way back in the 13th century. In the pondering of the concept of causality, the man noted that everything which happens in the natural universe has a cause. He also noted that there had to be an initial cause of the first things. He defined God as the initial causer of all things. God is “the uncaused cause,†according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Although this is a very abstract definition and proof of God, it remains valid today. That's a valid proof? Clearly we differ on what constitutes the grounds of a valid proof. Why is Aquinas' statement that "God is the uncaused cause" any more plausible than Aristotle's "unmoved mover"? How many unmoved mover's did Aristotle believe might exist? Were either thinker aware that the Universe appears to be far stranger than they might've imagined, that causality might not be the universal truth they based their proofs upon? Philosophers of science come up against the ultimate cause problem as well, although that is not admitted here. Example--one could ask why objects fall.People here that are honest with themselves and others might just explain that gravity is the cause of falling things. You could then ask the scientist why gravity exists. They might explain that all objects with mass produce gravitons, or gravity particles, which produce the attractive force and or Higgs Boson. You might proceed to ask why all objects with mass produce gravitons. The scientist will indeed get VERY, very abstract with you and begin discussing string theory or whatever that is in effect just hypothesis speculation and what he or she would call God. At some point, the scientist will have to stop and say “that’s just the way it is.†Or, if the scientist is not an atheist, he or she will say “God made it that way.†A physicist will likely say something along the lines of "matter's interaction with the Higgs field is believed to be the thing that gives matter its mass, a Higgs boson is to the Higgs field as a photon is to the electro-magnetic field". Likewise, a graviton is believed to be the quantum particle that embodies the gravitational field. The answer "we don't yet know, it's the way it appears to be, though we are trying to find out" ("that's just the way it is") seems to me a much more credible statement of knowledge than "God made it that way", as the former is based on available evidence, the latter is not. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
Thank you Sirius B. I seen 2 posts after yours. I'll assume they were crap also? LOL! |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
So says the person who actually believes you can test for the presence of a Designer. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19080 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. Unless you have answers to all the questions asked of you before your vacation you shouldn't be posting. Unless, of course, you have something scientifically proveable to add to the discussion. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. Unless you have real answers, no WAG, GIGO shouldn't be taught in school |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. In that case, neither should Intelligent Design (No pun intened). |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. Real answers = if you don't have one, make one up and call it "God", then make the data fit your conclusion. I'd rather we take the scientific approach instead. This tends to get rid of GIGO like ID "theory". |
musicplayer Send message Joined: 17 May 10 Posts: 2430 Credit: 926,046 RAC: 0 |
Ah, blew my better contents. What a shame! |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. Intelligent Design is full of reason. WAG and GIGO is not. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
To the people I ignore...Just WAG is all that I seen from them. No real science that can be tested. GIGO. ...and you have yet to provide proof for why you believe it to have reason. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.