god v science

Darron, the point is, if you are going to try and understand God vs Science, then one should understand that god started out in history as science. If we are going pigeon hole the meaning of god to the deity, then we are working with miss translations, or fairy tales at best and in a very limited time of our history.
Whatever you say, Humpty.
The oldest Genesis stories say that God created earth for mankind.
Why are you citing biblical references for any kind of authority?
Mike Yohe, same paragraph-We need to step out of the biblical thinking if we are going to view history as a whole.
Right. Then why did you reference old bible passages above?
Just go into a supermarket and take away everything that was created or not in its form that Mother Nature intended and you end up with maybe fish. So yes, god created earth for mankind.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Besides senseless, where I live you'll get arrested! I don’t want to live where you live! :lol: Let me make it simple. If you understand the history of items like wheat, olives, cotton, just to name a few of the many items we have today that came from pre-history. Then you will understand the cradle of civilization. The cradle of civilization has moved in the last fifty years from Egypt, to Jordan, to Israel and is now from Turkey to Iraq. We still have Indus Valley and Yellow River Valley in China to go yet. Point being, we don’t have all the answers yet. But if you just understand the history of protein then understanding the history of god will come naturally. In the oldest Genesis story it says everything is made from matter. How the universe came to be man may never know. The earth is made of star dust. Man came to be. Man created god. God created earth for man. Now, god as a deity had not yet happened. So, you can interpret the meaning several ways. The way that makes the most sense to me is that god is a word at the time that meant knowledge.
The oldest Genesis stories say that God created earth for mankind.
Why are you citing biblical references for any kind of authority?
Mike Yohe, same paragraph-We need to step out of the biblical thinking if we are going to view history as a whole.
Right. Then why did you reference old bible passages above? Genesis is not biblical. Genesis just means the beginning of things. The same with god. God first meant knowledge. Then the upper and lower gods, were nothing more than the people with knowledge. Nothing biblical. Biblical items came latter after pre-history. The Genesis use in the bible is mostly a fairy tale based upon bits and pieces of the older Genesis stories. But you hit the point. God created earth for mankind. There is no proof of deity god in pre-history. Translated. Man’s knowledge created earth for mankind. In other words science was referred to as god. Latter the deity gods came to be. Now look at the Egyptian god and the Christian god. The power of both gods was in the word. The word was pre-history knowledge. The word was created in pre-history.
Let me make it simple. If you understand the history of items like wheat, olives, cotton, just to name a few of the many items we have today that came from pre-history. Then you will understand the cradle of civilization. The cradle of civilization has moved in the last fifty years from Egypt, to Jordan, to Israel and is now from Turkey to Iraq. We still have Indus Valley and Yellow River Valley in China to go yet. Point being, we don’t have all the answers yet. But if you just understand the history of protein then understanding the history of god will come naturally.
I prefer to think that civilization arose from the desire to make beer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdwYjFnFoJU http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/did-a-thirst-for-beer-spark-civilization-1869187.html Maybe religions started with people who drank too much of the stuff.
But may be the problem is that the whole thing has been addressed in the wrong way. Why should the problem be stated as god v science? In my opinion we should address the issue as "god and science".
They are mutually exclusive. You might as well say address the issue as Truth and Fiction, Good and Evil, Light and Dark.
But may be the problem is that the whole thing has been addressed in the wrong way. Why should the problem be stated as god v science? In my opinion we should address the issue as "god and science".
They are mutually exclusive. You might as well say address the issue as Truth and Fiction, Good and Evil, Light and Dark. Unsurprisingly, I agree with Lois. Science and religion are different ways of thinking. Science entails keeping an open mind and following the evidence. Religion requires faith, which is believing things without or despite the evidence. The two are incompatible. Yes, I realize some people are scientists and religious, but that requires compartmentalizing their thinking, aka cognitive dissonance.
Genesis is not biblical. Genesis just means the beginning of things.
Ok. Sorry about that then. Way back when people were doing "science" without knowing they were doing science there must have been some religious overlap certainly.
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Lois. Science and religion are different ways of thinking. Science entails keeping an open mind and following the evidence. Religion requires faith, which is believing things without or despite the evidence. The two are incompatible. Yes, I realize some people are scientists and religious, but that requires compartmentalizing their thinking, aka cognitive dissonance.
I think of it as religion being built on received wisdom that can't be questioned and science is built on derived knowledge which is constantly tested.
I don't get the god vs science or God and science connection. I know science exists.
And is there anything the scientific evidence we have today and the way is has evolved tells you about the existence or absence god? It seems that the origin of the universe might be a good instance to look for some answers to this question. I cannot comprehend looking to the origin of the universe for answers to any questions much less a question that I have no interest in. I would love to say I could do that but it is beyond my ability to even know where to start. Good luck in your quest. Not so hard really ! You don´t even need to have a religious background, or you don´t even need to know there is a Bible, just your natural curiosity or your intellectual appetite should raise the question. If the Universe had a beginning, as indicated by the scientific evidence, it is reasonable to ask yourself where did it come from, how did it get going? And the answers are really either the negation of its beginning (it has always existed) or that something else jump started it. We can exhaust the discussion for the first alternative but this is not what science is telling us so IMO that discussion would be a waste of time. So the discussion should focus on what may have gotten the universe going. One alternative is a creator, alternative which you probably despise. Sure you may have ideas on the subject and I find it hard to believe you are not interested given you are participating in this discussion.
Not sure CJ you are addressing the point, is it god vs. science or god and science ? The idea is that both science and religious thought or if you want you can call it faith (at least in the abrahamic religions), state that the universe had a beginning. We can´t really add much to the religious claim but we can consider from the point of view of science what the alternatives are, which are not many. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn´t. Actually the later, posited by the Steady State Theory, was the position held for a while by Einstein, Hoyle and other physicists, but it was soon abandoned considering the overwhelming scientific evidence (Hubble, LeMaitre, Penzias and Wilson and the CMB, etc) If the evidence had indicated that the universe did not have a beginning then the creation story would be questionable, but given the scientific evidence we have, which is build into the Cosmological Standard Model, the universe had a beginning and the creation story is not contradicted by science.
God made the first man out of clay, and the first woman out of that man's rib. It doesn't seem consistent with what we know of biology. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is just a metaphor, if one wants compatibility with science. God created the world in 7 days. It doesn't seem consistent with geological or a number of other branches of science. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is metaphorical. I could make the most outlandish assertions, for which there is not, yet, any evidence to the contrary. When evidence to the contrary arises, I could claim that I was speaking metaphorically, and that my essential message remains true. Certainly the Bible is not a science book and should not be judged by its scientific content. The Bible has many authors who in the course of thousands of years conveyed what is supposed to be god´s revelation. If they had tried to make up a phoney story it would have been much more consistent. Just take for instance the story of creation; there are two different stories and it is not possible that both are true. So clearly there isn´t an intention, or a conspiracy, to write a story which is to be interpreted literally and, if you care, you have to look into what the essential message really is... Actually, I think that each original story teller did know that they were making it up (or were under a delusion of sorts). But once it attained the status of something holy to be believed by faith, believers are gonna believe, despite logical discrepancies. But when believing the literal, by faith becomes, too much of a strain to credulity, then metaphorical interpretation comes to the rescue. You do know, that there are people even today, living thousands of years after those conflicting creation stories were originally told, who have faith that the stories are a literal truth? They don't require retreating to metaphor, in order to believe. A person, such as yourself, who has decent critical thinking skills, does need to transform the stories' message in such a way that it can be credible. But when one does that through metaphor, I suggest that it is done, in retrospect and influenced by one's contingencies, that are vastly different than those of the original storyteller. Tim, For me it is hard to think that the whole story was purposely planned. I mentioned the two stories of creation as an example to illustrating that things could not really have been planned unless these guys were stupid or thought we are stupid and that they would get away with some silly details or that including some pretty gruesome stuff would be ok. But whatever, we do not have to invoke the bible to get a religious sense of our existence, there are many sources that can lead us to that state, the birth of a child, death, a sunset, logic, a flower, Mozart´s Requiem, etc, and yes, scientific evidence. Of particular interest for me is the origin of the Universe and the scientific evidence that we have accumulated. Hard to understand anyone would not be moved by this event and motivated to ponder about the most fundamental principles.
Of particular interest for me is the origin of the Universe and the scientific evidence that we have accumulated. Hard to understand anyone would not be moved by this event and motivated to ponder about the most fundamental principles.
We are moved to ponder the origin of the universe. We've discussed it here several times. What we object to is invoking god into the discussion. Scientists are coming up with all manner of ideas to explain the origin, but so far the answer is, "We don't know." String Theories, the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the Multiverse Theory and more are attempts to explain where the universe came from. Scientists are working on ways to test and refine these theories. I agree with DougC. Religions are built on received wisdom while scientists always test their ideas. Religion has had several thousand years to explain things, and gave us pretty much no valuable knowledge. Our society's received wisdom banned shellfish and condoned slavery. Science has given us many benefits and dangers, but has also given us fantastic insight into the universe. There is no need for a god in the equations.
Of particular interest for me is the origin of the Universe and the scientific evidence that we have accumulated. Hard to understand anyone would not be moved by this event and motivated to ponder about the most fundamental principles.
We are moved to ponder the origin of the universe. We've discussed it here several times. What we object to is invoking god into the discussion. Scientists are coming up with all manner of ideas to explain the origin, but so far the answer is, "We don't know." String Theories, the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the Multiverse Theory and more are attempts to explain where the universe came from. Scientists are working on ways to test and refine these theories. I agree with DougC. Religions are built on received wisdom while scientists always test their ideas. Religion has had several thousand years to explain things, and gave us pretty much no valuable knowledge. Our society's received wisdom banned shellfish and condoned slavery. Science has given us many benefits and dangers, but has also given us fantastic insight into the universe. There is no need for a god in the equations. Really ? There is no scientific evidence supporting String Theory or Multiverse Theory. These are just speculative mathematical contraptions desperately developed to confront the real scientific evidence, mainly the Cosmological Standard Model and the Laws of Thermodynamics, which clearly indicates there was a beginning (by observation) and that there must have been a beginning (intrinsic to the model and the Laws). These other theories try to deny the beginning of the Universe since it is a hard fact to live up with for some physicists. On the other hand we have to take note that some renown physicists such as Lawrence Krauss who are very critical of string theory, this is, there is absolutely no agreement in the scientific community about the validity of these theories. Therefore WRT cosmogony the scientific evidence we have is that the Universe had a beginning and this is congruent with the idea of a creator posited by religious views and therefore the argument god and science instead of god vs. science. The other theories you mention are speculation, there is no scientific evidence supporting them, yet it seems to me you chose to believe they will eventually offer a answer to the "beginning" dilemma and prefer to disregard the scientific evidence opting for a, I would say, cynical "we don´t know". Cynical without the intention of offending, but in the sense I understand you mean "I rather turn away from the evidence we have now therefore we don´t know".
Really ? There is no scientific evidence supporting String Theory or Multiverse Theory.
I guess you did not understand the part of my post where I said scientists are working on methods to test those theories.
These are just speculative mathematical contraptions desperately develop to confront the real scientific evidence, mainly the Cosmological Standard Model and the Laws of Thermodynamics, which clearly indicate there was a beginning (by observation) and that there must have been a beginning (intrinsic to the model and the Laws). These other theories try to deny the beginning of the Universe since it is a hard fact to live up with for some physicists.
No, these other theories are, in part, attempts to figure out what came before our universe began.
On the other hand we have to take note that some renown physicists such as Lawrence Krauss who are very critical of string theory, this is, there is absolutely no agreement in the scientific community about the validity of these theories.
That is how science works. You should read some about the history of science. It is really quite lively.
Therefore WRT cosmogony the scientific evidence we have is that the Universe had a beginning and this is congruent with the idea of a creator posited by religious views and therefore the argument god and science instead of god vs. science.
Occam's Razor, dude. Adding god to the discussion does not yield any answers, it just adds an unnecessary assumption.
The other theories you mention are speculation, there is no scientific evidence supporting them, yet it seems to me you chose to believe they will eventually offer a answer to the "beginning" dilemma and prefer to disregard the scientific evidence opting for a, I would say, cynical "we don´t know". Cynical without the intention of offending, but in the sense I understand you mean "I rather turn away from the evidence we have now therefore we don´t know".
Did you bother reading my post? If so, how did you miss the part where I said, "... but so far the answer is, 'We don't know'."? You are attempting to argue with me using points I already mentioned, but acting as if I did not know them. Pay attention.
Genesis is not biblical. Genesis just means the beginning of things.
Ok. Sorry about that then. Way back when people were doing "science" without knowing they were doing science there must have been some religious overlap certainly. Overlap, I think it is the first time I have use this word in a long time. I would have to say you are correct. Take the oldest data we have today about the Holy Ghost. A story passed down from pre-history says they put a man to death for breaking the law. But they liked the man and to honor the man they burnt his bones to free his spirit so he could live forever. I think that would be overlap. Remember no deities, but they did have religion that included heaven. Those type of religions are still here today and active. The picture that is forming is that in the 15th thru 17th centuries the thinking in Europe was one that understood the connections with animals, fruit, vegetables and nuts with the creation out of India. Even latter on Darwinism was built on the foundation of creation of domestication. Take the Garden of Eden, the area where most of the domestication took place. Today people can’t find the Garden. Yet, on the oldest maps, the Garden is located in India. Point being as the Christian religion became a world power the knowledge of items like the Gods, domestication and the Garden of Eden have been mostly wiped out of history. The common factor is that these items are about science and the history of science. The key point is that creation is the religious word for domestication. And do to the latest findings that white skinned people have only been around for less than eight thousand years, the understanding of domestication must have scared the hell out of the church in the past, when this was common knowledge. Why else would the Christians say the earth is only five thousand years old and they can follow man’s lineage back to Adam?
Overlap, I think it is the first time I have use this word in a long time.Why else would the Christians say the earth is only five thousand years old and they can follow man’s lineage back to Adam?
I don't really want to be correct or incorrect on this topic. I mean that science and religion overlapped at certain times throughout history. Some things that come to mind quickly would be alchemy or early astronomy that was sanctioned by the church etc etc.. I must tell you that I'm not proposing any theories on the ideas of holy ghosts or what knowledge "meant". You're on another tangent that doesn't interest me. It's similar to that Greek guy from a few weeks back. Let's just take what we know about anthropology and history. You're making too many weird guesses and interpretations in my opinion. What we know is enough for me so far. It's pretty cut and dry.
Overlap, I think it is the first time I have use this word in a long time.Why else would the Christians say the earth is only five thousand years old and they can follow man’s lineage back to Adam?
I don't really want to be correct or incorrect on this topic. I mean that science and religion overlapped at certain times throughout history. Some things that come to mind quickly would be alchemy or early astronomy that was sanctioned by the church etc etc.. I must tell you that I'm not proposing any theories on the ideas of holy ghosts or what knowledge "meant". You're on another tangent that doesn't interest me. It's similar to that Greek guy from a few weeks back. Let's just take what we know about anthropology and history. You're making too many weird guesses and interpretations in my opinion. What we know is enough for me so far. It's pretty cut and dry. Got yea, and no problem, and thanks for being up front. That’s good. I do wish for better communication skills and this site does help a lot. I find subjects like religion are best worked with timelines. With the speed of scientific findings today I don’t think we will have to wait long until a clear picture of past history and events is available.
Really ? There is no scientific evidence supporting String Theory or Multiverse Theory.
I guess you did not understand the part of my post where I said scientists are working on methods to test those theories.
These are just speculative mathematical contraptions desperately develop to confront the real scientific evidence, mainly the Cosmological Standard Model and the Laws of Thermodynamics, which clearly indicate there was a beginning (by observation) and that there must have been a beginning (intrinsic to the model and the Laws). These other theories try to deny the beginning of the Universe since it is a hard fact to live up with for some physicists.
No, these other theories are, in part, attempts to figure out what came before our universe began.
On the other hand we have to take note that some renown physicists such as Lawrence Krauss who are very critical of string theory, this is, there is absolutely no agreement in the scientific community about the validity of these theories.
That is how science works. You should read some about the history of science. It is really quite lively.
Therefore WRT cosmogony the scientific evidence we have is that the Universe had a beginning and this is congruent with the idea of a creator posited by religious views and therefore the argument god and science instead of god vs. science.
Occam's Razor, dude. Adding god to the discussion does not yield any answers, it just adds an unnecessary assumption.
The other theories you mention are speculation, there is no scientific evidence supporting them, yet it seems to me you chose to believe they will eventually offer a answer to the "beginning" dilemma and prefer to disregard the scientific evidence opting for a, I would say, cynical "we don´t know". Cynical without the intention of offending, but in the sense I understand you mean "I rather turn away from the evidence we have now therefore we don´t know".
Did you bother reading my post? If so, how did you miss the part where I said, "... but so far the answer is, 'We don't know'."? You are attempting to argue with me using points I already mentioned, but acting as if I did not know them. Pay attention. I did understand your post indeed and I posited that the theories some scientist are working in, such as String Theory or Multiverse Theory are extremely speculative and after 50 years of investigation by leading physicists is seems they are going nowhere and on the other hand well known physicist such as Krauss, Smolin, Penrose, Gross, and Woit (are extremely critical of String Theory (Krauss LOL´s and Woit "views the status of string theory research as unhealthy and detrimental to the future of fundamental physics") The Universe comprehends space and time therefore it is not proper to talk "before our universe began", since there was no time there was no before in the sense we understand before. If that were the case time existed before time began, which doesn´t make any sense. With respect how science works, the problem here is that you are putting your "faith" on theories that are speculative for which there is no scientific evidence, even after 50 years of investigation, yet you are ready to dismiss the ones based on scientific evidence. Occam´s razor is not a an "irrefutable principle of logic" and empirically it is not clear the simpler solution is the better solution or the solution. And in this case, what looks more simple: the scientific evidence shows the Universe, space time, had a beginning, and since everything in the Universe has cause, the Universe must have had a cause. Nothing can spring spontaneously out of nothing therefore neither the Universe (1st Law of Thermodynamics). Or, the scientific evidence shows the Universe had a beginning, but this is not possible because, (with no scientific evidence) you say a few guys came up with string theory and you believe they eventually will prove it really did not have a beginning, has existed eternally (which also doesn´t make sense since according to the Second Law perpetual motions not possible) It seems it is you who did not understand the point: I certainly acknowledge your "We don´t know", but I bring the point that you just prefer to disregard the scientific evidence we have. It would be more proper for you to say that " we don´t know for sure", but the evidence we have indicates the Universe had a beginning, and therefore it must have had a cause. Seems proper to talk then about what that cause might be and if we are in a science vs. god situation or in science and god situation ?
It seems it is you who did not understand the point: I certainly acknowledge your "We don´t know", but I bring the point that you just prefer to disregard the scientific evidence we have. It would be more proper for you to say that " we don´t know for sure", but the evidence we have indicates the Universe had a beginning, and therefore it must have had a cause. Seems proper to talk then about what that cause might be and if we are in a science vs. god situation or in science and god situation ?
But that's not where the evidence leads. What you are doing is taking this one feature, cause and effect, and saying it applies all the way back to the beginning. Even though, when physicists have rolled back to that very early point, they say the laws of nature that we currently experience, break down. It gets very speculative at that point, but there's pretty clear agreement on that. It's funny that you keep referencing Krauss, the guy who wrote the book "A Universe From Nothing"
It seems it is you who did not understand the point: I certainly acknowledge your "We don´t know", but I bring the point that you just prefer to disregard the scientific evidence we have. It would be more proper for you to say that " we don´t know for sure", but the evidence we have indicates the Universe had a beginning, and therefore it must have had a cause. Seems proper to talk then about what that cause might be and if we are in a science vs. god situation or in science and god situation ?
But that's not where the evidence leads. What you are doing is taking this one feature, cause and effect, and saying it applies all the way back to the beginning. Even though, when physicists have rolled back to that very early point, they say the laws of nature that we currently experience, break down. It gets very speculative at that point, but there's pretty clear agreement on that. It's funny that you keep referencing Krauss, the guy who wrote the book "A Universe From Nothing" Yes, it is indeed amazing as we get close to T=0 that the models fail. The point is all the scientific evidence we have indicates there was a beginning, actually there must have been a beginning. And causation is universal, there is no way out of it in the natural realm. As for Krauss, yes the same one surprisingly ! And found a good one: "Philip Anderson: Condensed matter physicist Philip Anderson was awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physics for work in magnetic and disordered systems that led to the development of electronic switching devices necessary for the operation of computers. Anderson has made the point that the method followed by string theorists is the same process used in medieval times, where mathematical ideals were followed without any recourse to experiment." So it is proper to say that when someone defends string theory is because of his "faith" in the theory; there is no rational evidence that supports it.