OT: The Bible?

[Chicago-n]

It's also theorized that the expansion will continue ad infinitum and the universe will eventually die a "heat death." In either case, you are choosing a position that, while based on evidence, cannot be proven. So while that is possible, it is also possible that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

Also, some physicists theorize that instead of a "bounce" a receding universe would result in a "big crunch" and from this condition would not expand again. I've also read that there might not be enough mass within the universe to force a contraction in the first place.

Yep. And they're all possible answers with facts.
Unlike religion. Which is what this topic is about.
Now what is your opposition?

How/When did the universe begin?

Goes back to the F15.

We don't know yet. Just like we didn't know the earth was round.

I think that the most likely explanation is that the universe was created. Most likely via a "Big Bang." The fact that there was likely a Big Bang does not explain what caused it. I think that an "Unmoved mover" is a very tidy explanation and until I find a reason to doubt that, it's the answer I'll continue to look into. As to whether that mover is the God of Christianity, or even interested in humanity at all is a completely different story. Of course, I'm trying to figure that one out as well (as I alluded to in my first post about the other religions I'm studying as well as Christianity.)

Am I right? Probably not. I'm not just gonna accept what someone else says though (whether that's my parents, or a group of scientists.) I'll keep working on finding an answer, and maybe at some point the evidence will exist to prove/disprove one of the many possibilities that exists. Once that happens, I'll re-evaluate where I stand. In the meantime, I'll consider the philosophical questions posed by such great thinkers as Descartes and Aristotle...and hopefully I'll expand my mind while doing so.

Who created the mover?

and I'm not accepting what the scientist say. I'm accepting what they show.
Science > Philosophy

Philosophy = Bunch of old men wondering what could be
Scientist = Bunch of old men finding what is

[NesimLE]

I think that the most likely explanation is that the universe was created. Most likely via a "Big Bang." The fact that there was likely a Big Bang does not explain what caused it. I think that an "Unmoved mover" is a very tidy explanation and until I find a reason to doubt that, it's the answer I'll continue to look into.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM[/youtube]

Yeah, I lol'd several times during this one. Of course, this still doesn't get around the need for there to have been, at some point, something that exists without having needed to have been created. As previously mentioned, even if such a being (or thing) exists, I have no idea what type of nature such an entity might have. I've always been somewhat reluctant to fully commit myself to any religion in particular, mainly due to the possibility that I've been deceived in some way. This is why I'm freshly considering the question (although I'm far too busy to look into it as deeply as I'd like to.)

So yeah, if I believed solely in a "God of the gaps" then this would be quite troubling. However, that's not really what I'm looking for. Really don't know what it is I'm trying to discover at this point, I just figure it'll be interesting to retrace the paths of people throughout history and to look into why they find these "gods" so compelling (to the point where they're willing to kill in his/its name.)

So if I weren't in the midst of working on something else right now, I'd probably spend a good hour or two just thinking about the points raised within that video (although it's not really anything I haven't heard expressed before.) Very interesting point of view though...I'd bookmark it if I didn't already have dozens of others I don't check. And yeah, this probably doesn't belong in a thread about the bible, but I think this line of thought might be more interesting anyway.

Note: I 'lol'd' at how ridiculous these explanations sounded...not because the video didn't have valid points. In fact, I thought it was a very good video...just clarifying, in case that's not clear from the context.

[NesimLE]

Who created the mover?

and I'm not accepting what the scientist say. I'm accepting what they show.
Science > Philosophy

Philosophy = Bunch of old men wondering what could be
Scientist = Bunch of old men finding what is

Hence the "unmoved." At this point, the "mover" could theoretically be anything. All we know is that according to human logic and observable nature, nothing happens without a cause. We just don't know how the universe started. Without the means to study the environment before the universe, it really all falls into the realm of philosophy. Scientists are great for finding facts, but in the end those still have to be interpreted (considering we're essentially studying ridiculously ancient history in this case.) I see no reason why science and philosophy can't co-exist...In fact, it's essentially necessary that they do so in this particular field.

And before you mention the F15 again, I'm NOT saying that we will never discover these answers...but seeing as I'm not living in the future, I'll think about what we know now and re-evaluate as the situation changes.

[NesimLE]

I think that the most likely explanation is that the universe was created. Most likely via a "Big Bang." The fact that there was likely a Big Bang does not explain what caused it. I think that an "Unmoved mover" is a very tidy explanation and until I find a reason to doubt that, it's the answer I'll continue to look into. As to whether that mover is the God of Christianity, or even interested in humanity at all is a completely different story. Of course, I'm trying to figure that one out as well (as I alluded to in my first post about the other religions I'm studying as well as Christianity.)

Am I right? Probably not. I'm not just gonna accept what someone else says though (whether that's my parents, or a group of scientists.) I'll keep working on finding an answer, and maybe at some point the evidence will exist to prove/disprove one of the many possibilities that exists. Once that happens, I'll re-evaluate where I stand. In the meantime, I'll consider the philosophical questions posed by such great thinkers as Descartes and Aristotle...and hopefully I'll expand my mind while doing so.

So can the origins of the universe be better explained by the scientists of today or the folks that wrote the bible? I am guessing neither provide an in-depth answer that satisfies the questions you have. However, only one of those groups fully supports continuing research and constantly accepting an evolved understanding of the universe.

I am going to have a bit more confidence in the intellectual findings of a culture that has discovered a way to transplant a human heart as opposed to cutting it out and eating it.

(OK, OK, the heart thing was sort of not fair. Humans were doing that in the 1,500s. The crazy things in the bible are more up-to-date, right? RIGHT?)

In the (probably unlikely) circumstance that that culture really did have their writings "inspired by God" then their explanation would in fact be preferred to ours. I'd also note that based on my reading, I've seen no contradiction between biblical explanations and most accepted scientific theory. Of course, my interpretation of most things tends to differ from the majority...So I must again note, I DO trust science. I have absolutely no problem with it. I do believe that the results can be misinterpreted, and there are certain hypotheses that I don't believe hold much validity. As more evidence comes in, those will be re-examined as necessary.

[Jo Jo English]

You sound like quite the skeptic scientist. Nothing wrong with that.

I would assume someone that believes what you do, that scientists are great for finding facts, that you would place far more confidence in the more recent findings of great thinkers over the past few hundred years of the influential thinkers that came long before that.

I mean you have to, right? You say you are willing to re-evaluate the situation as it changes.

It has. A lot.

[Jo Jo English]

So can the origins of the universe be better explained by the scientists of today or the folks that wrote the bible? I am guessing neither provide an in-depth answer that satisfies the questions you have. However, only one of those groups fully supports continuing research and constantly accepting an evolved understanding of the universe.

I am going to have a bit more confidence in the intellectual findings of a culture that has discovered a way to transplant a human heart as opposed to cutting it out and eating it.

(OK, OK, the heart thing was sort of not fair. Humans were doing that in the 1,500s. The crazy things in the bible are more up-to-date, right? RIGHT?)

In the (probably unlikely) circumstance that that culture really did have their writings "inspired by God" then their explanation would in fact be preferred to ours. I'd also note that based on my reading, I've seen no contradiction between biblical explanations and most accepted scientific theory. Of course, my interpretation of most things tends to differ from the majority...So I must again note, I DO trust science. I have absolutely no problem with it. I do believe that the results can be misinterpreted, and there are certain hypotheses that I don't believe hold much validity. As more evidence comes in, those will be re-examined as necessary.

If there was any sort of accurate way to show that the writings in the bible were truly inspired by a divine being -- or at the minimum open-minded folks, as opposed to, oh say, a group of powerfully influential men that would have been **** of a "Speak'n'Spell" -- then yes, I would accept their explanation as opposed to ours. Unfortunately that isn't the case we are dealing with. These are men that were a thousand years before being wrong about reading the bumps on a person's skull when it came to determining their personality. Why is one group laughed off (rightfully so), but the folks that came before, well their ideas are still holding strong? Why?

These people believed some absolutely **** insane ideas. They really, really did.

I hope that humans 1,000 years (or more... or less) look back on the things I write now and laugh. Why? That would mean that the human race, and the potential for greatness within it, has advanced past a point beyond my expectation and imagination. That would be awesome.

That is where the science community differs. To be fair, it is a sizable difference.

(Full disclosure, for half of my educational years before college I did attend a Lutheran school. It was an important aspect of my life, and it continues to be integral to my family life).

[NesimLE]

Of course, I accept almost all scientific conclusions. The two sticking points are abiogenesis and macro-evolution. Earlier the analogy was used of walking a mile vs walking 100 miles, but what if the true situation is closer to jumping 10 inches vs jumping 10 feet? I am not denying the possibility that these two ideas could be reality, I am just making it known that on these two in particular, I don't find the evidence very compelling. And even if they were in fact truth, I still don't know that they preclude the possibility of a being that created the universe. I just believe that it is possible that the universe was created and possible that it wasn't. I believe both are worth investigating until I find compelling reasons to exclude either of them.

Although the most interesting case of course would be if I could exclude both...

Also on the faith point mentioned above: I don't think faith necessarily means believing when the evidence contradicts your position...that would be idiocy. I take faith to mean you believe in the absence of conclusive evidence. Of course, maybe my definition is just wrong, but I figure it's worth explaining in case I use the word in that manner again.

[Chicago-n]

Who created the mover?

and I'm not accepting what the scientist say. I'm accepting what they show.
Science > Philosophy

Philosophy = Bunch of old men wondering what could be
Scientist = Bunch of old men finding what is

Hence the "unmoved." At this point, the "mover" could theoretically be anything. All we know is that according to human logic and observable nature, nothing happens without a cause. We just don't know how the universe started. Without the means to study the environment before the universe, it really all falls into the realm of philosophy. Scientists are great for finding facts, but in the end those still have to be interpreted (considering we're essentially studying ridiculously ancient history in this case.) I see no reason why science and philosophy can't co-exist...In fact, it's essentially necessary that they do so in this particular field.

And before you mention the F15 again, I'm NOT saying that we will never discover these answers...but seeing as I'm not living in the future, I'll think about what we know now and re-evaluate as the situation changes.

So you only believe experiments/theories that can be reproduced/proved in a time frame that can be observed by humans.
Okay that's fine.

But saying the bible has just as much merit as that is ridiculous... and that is what I find insulting.

[LoveDaBoo]

Of course, I accept almost all scientific conclusions. The two sticking points are abiogenesis and macro-evolution. Earlier the analogy was used of walking a mile vs walking 100 miles, but what if the true situation is closer to jumping 10 inches vs jumping 10 feet?

It's just the accumulation of microevolution. Species simply evolve over time, and if two populations of a single species are isolated for long enough, they eventually become distinct species and can't interbreed.

Consider ring species:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8[/youtube]

[rsavaj]

I don't believe in macroerosion, just microerosion.

[Michael Jackson]

Who created the mover?

and I'm not accepting what the scientist say. I'm accepting what they show.
Science > Philosophy

Philosophy = Bunch of old men wondering what could be
Scientist = Bunch of old men finding what is

Hence the "unmoved." At this point, the "mover" could theoretically be anything. All we know is that according to human logic and observable nature, nothing happens without a cause. We just don't know how the universe started. Without the means to study the environment before the universe, it really all falls into the realm of philosophy. Scientists are great for finding facts, but in the end those still have to be interpreted (considering we're essentially studying ridiculously ancient history in this case.) I see no reason why science and philosophy can't co-exist...In fact, it's essentially necessary that they do so in this particular field.

And before you mention the F15 again, I'm NOT saying that we will never discover these answers...but seeing as I'm not living in the future, I'll think about what we know now and re-evaluate as the situation changes.

So you only believe experiments/theories that can be reproduced/proved in a time frame that can be observed by humans.
Okay that's fine.

But saying the bible has just as much merit as that is ridiculous... and that is what I find insulting.

The bible has more merit than science! Science has incited people into mass murder and genocide! How can science be trustworthy if people won't kill over it!!!!

[Steve Brule]

The bible has more merit than science! Science has incited people into mass murder and genocide! How can science be trustworthy if people won't kill over it!!!!

I've never killed anybody, but I did burn my nutsack on a Bunson Burner. Still can't grow hair on my left nut. -JD McNugent.

[Michael Jackson]

The bible has more merit than science! Science has incited people into mass murder and genocide! How can science be trustworthy if people won't kill over it!!!!

I've never killed anybody, but I did burn my nutsack on a Bunson Burner. Still can't grow hair on my left nut. -JD McNugent.

See now I am starting to have a little more faith in science. Lets start a war over Bunson Burners and you will have something. Just give me something to believe in.

[Steve Brule]

The bible has more merit than science! Science has incited people into mass murder and genocide! How can science be trustworthy if people won't kill over it!!!!

I've never killed anybody, but I did burn my nutsack on a Bunson Burner. Still can't grow hair on my left nut. -JD McNugent.

See now I am starting to have a little more faith in science. Lets start a war over Bunson Burners and you will have something. Just give me something to believe in.

Gimme a Bunson Burner and a can of hairspray-- I'll take down religion, capitalism, and existentialism in one fell swoop.

[LobosJordan]

I advise everyone here to study, and convert to the church of the flying spaghetti monster. I have studied every single religion, including christianity, and I have concluded that the flying spaghetti monster is the true religion. He has touched me in a time of need, and there is no way of explaining it unless you have experienced it yourself. So don't question my knowledge, join the church of the flying spaghetti monster, trust me. There are false religions everywhere, christianity, muslims, Buddhists, republicans, all of them are deceitful and full of lies. I'm not saying I'm right, but trust me, I'm right.

[Michael Jackson]

I advise everyone here to study, and convert to the church of the flying spaghetti monster. I have studied every single religion, including christianity, and I have concluded that the flying spaghetti monster is the true religion. He has touched me in a time of need, and there is no way of explaining it unless you have experienced it yourself. So don't question my knowledge, join the church of the flying spaghetti monster, trust me. There are false religions everywhere, christianity, muslims, Buddhists, republicans, all of them are deceitful and full of lies. I'm not saying I'm right, but trust me, I'm right.

Link?

[LobosJordan]

I advise everyone here to study, and convert to the church of the flying spaghetti monster. I have studied every single religion, including christianity, and I have concluded that the flying spaghetti monster is the true religion. He has touched me in a time of need, and there is no way of explaining it unless you have experienced it yourself. So don't question my knowledge, join the church of the flying spaghetti monster, trust me. There are false religions everywhere, christianity, muslims, Buddhists, republicans, all of them are deceitful and full of lies. I'm not saying I'm right, but trust me, I'm right.

Link?

The Link is all around you, the earth, the universe, your mind, humans, animals, all of these are evidence enough of the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, duh.

[rsavaj]

I advise everyone here to study, and convert to the church of the flying spaghetti monster. I have studied every single religion, including christianity, and I have concluded that the flying spaghetti monster is the true religion. He has touched me in a time of need, and there is no way of explaining it unless you have experienced it yourself. So don't question my knowledge, join the church of the flying spaghetti monster, trust me. There are false religions everywhere, christianity, muslims, Buddhists, republicans, all of them are deceitful and full of lies. I'm not saying I'm right, but trust me, I'm right.

Ramen.

I too have been Graced by His Noodly Appendage.

[Michael Jackson]

Why lord am I not graced by his divine presence? All I am left with are all these facts! Damn my life damn it all to hell!