by HowTheBibleWasCreated 32 Replies latest jw friends
When I discovered ERvs and #2 Chromosome I knew there was no personal God. The rest is history. I have always since kept updated in science as much as possible.
Recently , as not to be ignorant, I have studied many philosephies with interest... the concept of a God in Philosephy is Panatheistic at best... To be honest I cannot despute a God like that though I find it unliekly considering the multi-verse...
Any comments?
I find Panthiesm to be a highly interesting take on the God hypothesis. Though, I find it almost entirely impossible. There have been two experiments done to try and calculate how much energy is in our universe. The first one was done in 1996 by a groupe of cosmologist ( Adam Riess, Brian Schmidt, and Saul Perlmutter) who used the gravitational lensing around galactic clusters to try and figure out how much energy there is. The result was so startling they thought there calculations must have been off but they couldn't find anything worng with their method. So a second experiment was commisioned (WMAPS) which looked at the ancient structure of our universe (the CMB). It too came back with the exact same startling answer. We we account for all the positive and negitive energy in our universe the total sum energy works out to ZERO. There is no energy in our universe.
This to me, seems to make Panthiesm almost entirely impossible. Though, just out of curriosity, have you ever heard of the book Faltland? Theres a Charachter called Pointland who IS his own universe. People can go and visit him but Pointland can't comprehend anything coming from outside of himself so when they try to speak to him Pointland just thinks its coming from himself.
Good idea... Another book to add to loist... tahnsk.. of course we agree though since this is philosephy and not scencie genral I will state we connaot competley deny pantjeism... I find it so far beneath the muliverse and quantumn mechanics
I knew there was no personal God.
Science can not be used to prove or disprove a creator entirely. I personally think its a 50/50 possibility considering the fact that it all boils down to either matter/energy thats always existed and exploded to give us galaxies or its a creator thats always existed (granted that creator would have to be careless of life). Science has shown us much and most religions seem to update or even change their doctrines and teachings to accomodate scientific discoveries after they become widely accepted. There are many priests and churches that accept evolution now, however, 30 years ago not so much.
There is still much to be learned. Many scientific theists are pointing to dark matter as existence of God. People like Dinesh D'Souza try to claim that atheists say that resurrection can't happen due to our knowledge of matter concerning re-materialization of matter. Yet D'Souza says the universe is 95% dark matter/energy and we know nothing of the exact qualities of dark matter, therfore christians are ignorant to afterlife just as much as atheists since neither have died yet to re-tell their story and atheists still can't explain things like dark matter. Coded, did those studies accomodate for dark matter and energy which can't be quantified by any scientific instruments? Either way, I say, give it enough time and we will know much about dark matter as well through advancements. Also give it enough time and our sun's luminosity will increase enough to kill off all human life (4billion years don't worry). I enjoy philosophy as well :)
I personally think its a 50/50 possibility considering the fact that it all boils down to either matter/energy thats always existed and exploded to give us galaxies or its a creator thats always existed (granted that creator would have to be careless of life).
What have you studied on the subject?
People like Dinesh D'Souza try to claim that atheists say that resurrection can't happen due to our knowledge of matter concerning re-materialization of matter.
Dinesh D'Souza is political commentator. Why is his opinion relevant?
Coded, did those studies accomodate for dark matter and energy which can't be quantified by any scientific instruments?
That question isn't even wrong. Without measurements, how do you think dark matter and energy were discovered?
"What have you studied on the subject?"
Enough to know that there are two possibilities of the existence of matter/energy, both are infinite. Creator or no creator, there isnt a third option.. However i tend to lean more towards no creator as of recently. I used to subscribe to Pascals Wager and stick with a creator based on that mindset. Although, the two concepts of a creator always existing or matter/energy always existing on its own are both equally inconcievable to me..
"Dinesh D'Souza is political commentator. Why is his opinion relevant?"
It's an interesting perspective that I heard from him on a 2hr religous debate with sam harris, christopher hitchen, daniel dennet, etc. Just regurgitating something I heard from that clip yesterday, you would have to watch it to really get what i was trying to say. Must he be an astrophysicist to make a valid claim about the universe?
"That question isn't even wrong. Without measurements, how do you think dark matter and energy were discovered?"
I was reffering to the inability to see or measure the physical properties of dark matter since its existence is an inferred hypothesis. "Dark Matter is a kind of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for gravitational effects that appear to be the result of invisible mass. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emitsnor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light. Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe."wikipedia
It is spelled philosophy.
zed
Passing thought . . .
Since only "possible" things happen (by definition) . . .
Miracles cannot happen, inasmuch as they are contrary to the laws of science (rendering them impossible.)
If Miracles cannot happen, then God (as a category of provisional causation) ceases to be of interest.
That's all I've got so far. Feel free to Ad Lib
If Miracles cannot happen, then God (as a category of provisional causation) ceases to be of interest.
That is to assume that any type of God that exists must be one who performs miracles. Can not a God exist who obeys the laws of science? Ofcourse this would mean denying any passed down "records" of miracles. I agree that a miracle-less God would be less interesting than one who performs miracles if thats what you are alluding to.
Philosophically speaking the multiverse idea is not science yet, but a hypothesis which has not been observed directly or indirectly. Philosophy also doesn’t settle on any type of God as it simply looks at the arguments for them or him, to see if they have validity or not. To the best of my knowledge the preponderance of philosophy in general is that a theistic God cannot be proven or unproven in objective terms.
