Origin of Universe: God <vs> Big Bang/Non-God theories

[karrie]

If a kid comes home from school and tries to tell his parents about how he learned about the big bang theory and they laugh at him, that poses a real problem. I have to wonder how you would handle that if you had children. Would you attempt to insill your belief in god right alongside the science you kid had just learned?

Take for instance the ID fight going on in the U.S. at the moment. The religious wackjob extremists down there are attempting to hav it taught in science classes to children in elementary schools. You remember what we said about the informative years. If ever there was a reason for censorship it is there!

my son is a scientist through and through. He's only 5, but he has a thirst for anything science related. We take him to church. We talk to him about God. But I would never mention ID to him, no. It was never mentioned to me, I had to seek it out. In Catholic school, we went to religious study, and we went to science class, and the two did not cross paths. We were taught natural selection and evolution. No teacher ever tried to meld it with the bible. It was left to us to come to our own conclusions on the subject. I see no reason not to handle it exactly the same way with my children. Personal truth is personal truth. They are welcome to follow theirs as they come to understand it.

I will also teach my kids the key value that my family has passed down to me.... to continually strive for learning. Never to stop questioning your surroundings, your notions, or the nature of the universe. Learning and exploring simply does not stop in our family.

 

[hermanntrude]

Absolutely not but IMO the opposite will be proven soon. God belief is based on lies which are easily disprovable. Religion has a very inconvenient book staring it in the face. As long as religion continues to take that book as the gospel truth and entirely the literal word of god then it can only get worse for them. God in their sense is a completely false idea.

If religion would perhaps change and try to get it's followers to believe in something which is not literally from the bible then they may have a chance of proving some kind of god, sky fairy, or something entirely different from the current beliefs. Of course that would be a complete abandonment of religion as we know it for some sort of scientology (ish) thing. The bible must be thrown out first and then they could start from a new beginning. For those believers who have already thrown out the bible, and there are some, they may be able to start to reconcile their beliefs with science. For instance, if I as an atheist needed to have some kind of sky fairy out there I would have to make sure it is consistant with science. I don't need one but for those who do there shouldn't be any problem.

you didnt approach this response very rationally. it's obvious to you and I that literal interpretation of the bible is wrong. In fact much of the bible seems a little wonky. But it's still possible that some of the messages and basic stories hold some truth. In fact it might yet turn out to be a very important book. The wrong-ness of literal interpretation of the bible is NOT proof of the non-existance of God.

 

[karrie]

It's nothing karrie, so leave it alone and don't try to cause more trouble with it. In some cases it was nothing more than a response to a person who started the tactic first. And the reason why it's nothing is because it's now history. The rules are now much stiffer and so they should be. This place was nothing more than a mudslinging match four days ago. Let's all carry on and try to do our best.

Take a look at your sig, and then come back to me on this subject.

 

[lieexpsr]

I guess I do believe that. Perhaps because I don't believe that God is an entity in the same way we are. I think in discussing God we have to use human concepts to try to define what it is we sense. But, when I try to discuss the idea of intelligent energy flowing through the universe, I get dismissed even quicker than I do when I tell people I'm Catholic. lol.

If you want to expand on your idea of intelligent energy I for one won't put you down with a rude reply. I may or may not disagree though.

 

[hermanntrude]

If you want to expand on your idea of intelligent energy I for one won't put you down with a rude reply. I may or may not disagree though.

are you suggesting that my reply about star trek was rude? It wasnt. I meant that some very valid scientific concepts are involved in that show and have even been shown to exist since. I meant that if it was realistic enough a concept for the directors to include in their shows, I agree.

 

[lieexpsr]

what's good enough for star trek is good enough for me. they've already invented the hypospray

I think karrie is thinking on a slightly higher level than startrek, and besides, is mentioning startrek on this discussion conducive to a good exchange of ideas? Not that I am against a little humour at tiems! ;-)

Just my opinion.

 

[karrie]

you didnt approach this response very rationally. it's obvious to you and I that literal interpretation of the bible is wrong. In fact much of the bible seems a little wonky. But it's still possible that some of the messages and basic stories hold some truth. In fact it might yet turn out to be a very important book. The wrong-ness of literal interpretation of the bible is NOT proof of the non-existance of God.

Not to mention the fact that not one of the Catholics I've met here, or in the real world, says that it should all be taken literally. Not one nun or priest I've discussed the issue with has EVER said that. It's simply too old, been translated too many times, and was written for an audience with a much smaller understanding of the universe.

 

[hermanntrude]

I think karrie is thinking on a slightly higher level than startrek, and besides, is mentioning startrek on this discussion conducive to a good exchange of ideas? Not that I am against a little humour at tiems! ;-)

Just my opinion.

read my post above.

My point was that tomorrows facts are todays fantasies. This is a valid concept, an important philosphical point, and admittedly presented in a humourous way, but that doesnt detract from it's meaning. At least to those of us who can think on more than one level at a time

 

[lieexpsr]

Just give it another decade By then I'll be out of school and I can amaze you all with my knowledge... ^.^

You are already amazing me with your knowledge.

And that's sincere even though you have said very little here. I 'am' assuming that you are 17-21 and going to university or college.

 

[darkbeaver]

Absolutely not but IMO the opposite will be proven soon. God belief is based on lies which are easily disprovable. Religion has a very inconvenient book staring it in the face. As long as religion continues to take that book as the gospel truth and entirely the literal word of god then it can only get worse for them. God in their sense is a completely false idea.

If religion would perhaps change and try to get it's followers to believe in something which is not literally from the bible then they may have a chance of proving some kind of god, sky fairy, or something entirely different from the current beliefs. Of course that would be a complete abandonment of religion as we know it for some sort of scientology (ish) thing. The bible must be thrown out first and then they could start from a new beginning. For those believers who have already thrown out the bible, and there are some, they may be able to start to reconcile their beliefs with science. For instance, if I as an atheist needed to have some kind of sky fairy out there I would have to make sure it is consistant with science. I don't need one but for those who do there shouldn't be any problem.

God belief is not based on lies, it's based on awareness of power, that awareness of power is very old and universal, certainly the modern God concept has always sought to use that universal awareness and awe for the mysterys of the natural world to exert control over the masses, but to understand how we got from reverance for the life sustaining natural observable world to monotheistic religious practices of today does entail a study of betrayal, deciet and murder.
We all have an adherance to one god concept or another, yours seems to be science.:laughing7::wave:

 

[lieexpsr]

The universe has a big headstart on the human mind, to think that we'll catch up and write a service manual on everything is optimistic to say the least, but this is what we're intent on doing with our science. I have seen it written somewhere that this is the monumental conciet of mankind, I have also seen it written that we were created in Gods image and emmulation of God is our ultimate goal.What will we do if we ever get to the point in time when there are no more unanswered questions, every rocks been flipped over and every nook and crannys been explored and there is no mystery left anywhere? I suggest we will die of boredom the second that happens, what keeps us going day in and day out is not necessity but mystery. To know all is to be all and that's God. I wouldn't worry to much about running out of mystery and dieing of boredom just yet, it appears we have a few more papers to write.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

We are never going to know it all but we may know enough to write off religious superstition in the foreseeable future.

 

[AmberEyes]

You are already amazing me with your knowledge.

And that's sincere even though you have said very little here. I 'am' assuming that you are 17-21 and going to university or college.

21. I'll be starting first year sciences in september, right now I'm just upgrading my ABE.. my marks weren't as good as i liked during highschool, so I'm improving upon them now.

 

[karrie]

If you want to expand on your idea of intelligent energy I for one won't put you down with a rude reply. I may or may not disagree though.

You know, I'd love to expand on it more, but there's simply no way to! it's a gut feeling, it's something I can't explain thoroughly. There's no scientific basis for it, no links to back my argument up with. Just, a personal sense. Thus, the laughter and dismissal. Anytime people talk about Heaven, it makes me laugh a little inside, because I really don't feel there is some place hidden up in the clouds where we'll all go and gather as ourselves. I feel there's just an excess of energy holding the world together, an undercurrent from which we draw our intelligence. We die, and it simply reabsorbs what's holding us together. We go back to that flow. *shrugs* and there you have it. lol.

 

[AmberEyes]

You know, I'd love to expand on it more, but there's simply no way to! it's a gut feeling, it's something I can't explain thoroughly. There's no scientific basis for it, no links to back my argument up with. Just, a personal sense. Thus, the laughter and dismissal. Anytime people talk about Heaven, it makes me laugh a little inside, because I really don't feel there is some place hidden up in the clouds where we'll all go and gather as ourselves. I feel there's just an excess of energy holding the world together, an undercurrent from which we draw our intelligence. We die, and it simply reabsorbs what's holding us together. We go back to that flow. *shrugs* and there you have it. lol.

Your words speak my heart. I understand that feeling completely. I do not believe in God in the traditional sense, just that there's some kind of binding energy that holds us all together.. I don't know what it is, it could be no more than our thoughts and feelings having an affect on each other, but it's still there.

 

[lieexpsr]

my son is a scientist through and through. He's only 5, but he has a thirst for anything science related. We take him to church. We talk to him about God. But I would never mention ID to him, no. It was never mentioned to me, I had to seek it out. In Catholic school, we went to religious study, and we went to science class, and the two did not cross paths. We were taught natural selection and evolution. No teacher ever tried to meld it with the bible. It was left to us to come to our own conclusions on the subject. I see no reason not to handle it exactly the same way with my children. Personal truth is personal truth. They are welcome to follow theirs as they come to understand it.

I will also teach my kids the key value that my family has passed down to me.... to continually strive for learning. Never to stop questioning your surroundings, your notions, or the nature of the universe. Learning and exploring simply does not stop in our family.

Well then if you are taking your child to church and you persist with it you will be instilling your beliefs in your child. If that's your choice as a parent then you need to know that religion will become a part of him because of the fact that he is very impressionable at the age of 5. You have made your choice but for me I would avoid the church for him at least until he is capable of making an intelligent decision on his own. Perhaps the age of 12 would be a good time to introduce a child to religion IMHO. I trust you are coming to learn and accep this concept karrie, as it's apparent to me that you didn't understand when I first introduced it to you a few days ago. In fact you appeared to be quite hostile toward the idea. Think about that o.k? It's not originally my idea, it comes from the experts who are qualified to talk about such things. Perhaps do some research if you care about the implications enough?

I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your child, I'm only giving you the logical consequences of the religious education you have chosen. And I'm very concerned that somehting I say may be taken as an insult so I want to jus ensure you that none is intended. The new rules ya know. ;-)

 

[karrie]

I think karrie is thinking on a slightly higher level than startrek, and besides, is mentioning startrek on this discussion conducive to a good exchange of ideas? Not that I am against a little humour at tiems! ;-)

Just my opinion.

I think it's the one and only key to a good exchange of ideas. Taking ourselves too seriously just burns us out, and makes for a testy environment. A giggle here and there is the lifeblood of this forum.

 

[lieexpsr]

you didnt approach this response very rationally. it's obvious to you and I that literal interpretation of the bible is wrong. In fact much of the bible seems a little wonky. But it's still possible that some of the messages and basic stories hold some truth. In fact it might yet turn out to be a very important book. The wrong-ness of literal interpretation of the bible is NOT proof of the non-existance of God.

If god belief becomes non-literal and not based on the bible then I have no problem with that. That would need to be a belief in a non-personal god who is watching everything and has a part to play in everything. It flies directly in the face of current Christian belief. And I would just add that science has no problem with that new concept either. Has that made my idea a little more palatable for you?

 

[lieexpsr]

Take a look at your sig, and then come back to me on this subject.

My signature is doing nothing more than recording religious hate and bigotry. If it makes you uncomfortable, and I imagine it could, you can report it to the moderators and if they wish for me to change it then I will. Be aware though that what you are doing is censoring my right to free expression. If that becomes a part of the new rules then I think we are all in a lot of trouble!

Think about it before you act!

 

[lieexpsr]

are you suggesting that my reply about star trek was rude? It wasnt. I meant that some very valid scientific concepts are involved in that show and have even been shown to exist since. I meant that if it was realistic enough a concept for the directors to include in their shows, I agree.

No not rude. Just what I considered off topic. If you posted it because you think some of startrek's ideas are relevant then I may be wrong in thinking that.

 

[hermanntrude]

If god belief becomes non-literal and not based on the bible then I have no problem with that. That would need to be a belief in a non-personal god who is watching everything and has a part to play in everything. It flies directly in the face of current Christian belief. And I would just add that science has no problem with that new concept either. Has that made my idea a little more palatable for you?

much more palatable. I am very much a fence-sitter in this matter. I truly believe there's no way we can logically say one way or the other at this stage. I do disagree with one of your statements, though. I don't think that any possible God would necessarily have to have a part to play in everything. I think it's perfectly possible for Him/Her/It to have started everything and left it to develop. I also don't think that the theory flies in the face of all current christian belief. certainly your average catholic wouldn't agree but there are as many kinds of christians as there are christians themselves.