Origin of the universe: god versus no god

[freeztar]

vetrad,

 

You ask a lot of questions that need their own thread to answer. Some of these have been addressed here and I recommend doing a search for those threads. None of the questions you ask are directly related to astronomy or cosmology (well, one of them kind of is). Please ask your questions in the appropriate threads.

[Pyrotex]

...That version of God-belief is promoted by the same group that promoted ...the geocentric model of the universe ....

Okay. :cup:

I'll give you that one. In fact, the biggest problem with most religions is that they remain too attached to their primitive beliefs for too long.

Science is not to be judged by its primitive beliefs except in the context of the pervaling ignorance of the times. That's why we still honor Isaac Newton so much, and always will.

Science is to be judged on its willingness to "let go" the primitive beliefs as more accurate information and better understanding becomes available.

[sigh] If only religions were as mature.

[maddog]

That version of God-belief is promoted by the same group that promoted (and I use the term loosely) the geocentric model of the universe (and as far as I know, it hasn't really changed its primitive concepts for a long period of time, which is why they remain primitive: what is good enough for someone who doesn't bathe isn't necessarily good enough for a modern man).

It is/was this strict adherence to Geocentricism or a variation of the Anthropic Principle that I felt was the limitation to those Religion that adhered to it. This is especially true to

the Christian faiths that arose from Catholicism. Born and Raised a Roman Catholic myself, I

can personally attest this from their Catecism classes. My innate curiosity had me early on

latch on to Logic and all the Sciences that went with them. I don't know that I ever became

truly an Atheist, maybe strongly Agnostic until High School when I got eagerly interested in

Astronomy, watching the majesty of the nightly heavens.

 

Then an into college, I started reading comparatively on different religions, contrasting

those beliefs from each other. I noticed a strong similarity with each faith having a slightly

different dialect. It was like looking into a gemstone from different angles. Each saw a

facet of the light reflected yet diffracted differently.

 

In the last 10 or so years, I have become more sympathetic to Gnosticism (those were

the Heretics that Catholic Church burned through the Ages). Gnostics did not Deify Jesus.

Constantine and the Council of Nicae did.

 

Science can prevail because self consistency rules over dogma. In Religions, Dogma prevails

over all. Those that dissent are dealt with in the most brutal fashion. Look at History.

So, during the time Newton and his peers was a truly clarifying time for Science. Without

the threat of being burned at the stake with the likes of Gordono Bruno, for one.

 

maddog

[maddog]

... so I would like to lay jesus to rest for now (although it may rise again ;).

Ya' Rest in Peace. :)

I had a few commments/observations that I think about sometimes, I was hoping some members here can offer their opinion or comments on these.

 

1) There is the observation that nearly all human communities through the past seem to have developed a kind of religion to explain where they came from. I assume animals do not ponder this. Do you think this evolutionary jump simply comes from our higher intelligence or could this desire to find a god/creator/origin or other explaination to our lives be self-engrained and perhaps purposeful?

Without jumping off a cliff whether this requires a Soul (I won't be doing this)...

I think it likely that not long after a creature with a social structure that can acquire the

thinking of themselves as outside of themselves (first concept of 'I'), then their second

strain of thought would be "Where did 'I' come from ?". As we [science] currently consider

only Humans as sentient on the Earth at the moment. No yet much is know about the

possible sentience of Ceteations (Whales, Dolphins, Orcas, Porpoises, etc). Were it the

case that they were, I would think that this is pondered then the sea as well.

2) When I sit back and admire the beauty of the night sky (perhaps after a few beers :(, it is hard to not feel some connection with the universe. I look at my body and the stars and know they came from the same material. I have a hard time grasping the jump to what actually initiated life (nucleic acids and amno acids spontaneously becoming organized). If this is truly a sponataneous product, then it would seem life is inevitable, given enough time and appropriate conditions on earth (or other planets). So to accept life here as spontaneous, and the universe as vast, I assume you have to believe there are other alien civilizations (past, present or future)?

I love pondering under the night sky also... :) I definitely think what has been researched

about Carbon Chemistry to be that Life of some form is inevitable given enough time and

the right environment. We are already beginning to see that Planets are a natural occurance.

It has yet to be found that a Terrestrial type planet has been discovered. Though as

methods improve this may happen soon. Models of planetary formation all currently seem

to form planets. So Drake's equation is getting that much closer to being 1. There is still so much unknown to say without a doubt yet.

3) There is a tendency to feel what is right or wrong. For example, I hope all of us here would agree to the statement that 'killing babies is wrong'. In the godless world, there is no moral consequence to this action. How do you rationalize knowing some behavior is wrong, when there really is no right or wrong? Fear of consequences or behavior conditioning?

I for one consider "Killing any human" wrong, yet in the face of it attacked, I might be

forced to make that "mistake" in self defense. This is also found in nature. Many creature if

forced with death will eat their young to survive. This is not wrong it is natural. So now

to extrapolate with what I think you speaking to is about abortion. To me this is not the

same. A fetus isn't born yet.

 

Do I think that are too many unnecessary abortion. Yes. Does that make it wrong. No.

I actually promote finding 1) a better way of In Vitro Incubation (babies born without a womb) 2) find way to lower teen and other unwanted pregnancies before the abortion

is required.

4) There seems to be some driving force behind our development/evolution. As I stand back and (from a laymans perspective) look over evolutionary charts, it seems to mimick commercial product devlopments. There is trial and error which leads to breakthroughs. Breakthroughs lead to improvements which are exploited in future models. It seems there is a driving force BEHIND life which is pushing it, rather than all the biological breakthroughs occurring because there is evolutionary force working AGAINST it?

This may appear that way on the surface. However, Natural Selection aka, Darwin shows

how these breakthroughs occur naturally. This is not to say there isn't a driving force per se, just that it is Not required. There actually is a driving force, it is called Entropy

and actually works in the opposite direction.

5) My last thought goes back to life seeming inevitable, given the right conditions. Could it be that "god" is everywhere in the universe simultaneously at the particle/wave level making it so travel in the universe is not necesary. And he (or she!) was created upon shis demise. Shis demise may have caused the big bang and it's consequences. It would follow, it is inevitable for a planet hospitable to life to form. It would be inevitable life would evolve. It would be inevitable for us (or other civilization) to evolve toward a higher purpose and, in a day in the distant future, evolve to 'gods' ourselves? Upon which we would experience our own collapse, then big bang, and it starts all over again?

Not sure what you mean by a shis demise ? Putting a variable X in it's place here, I think

you are getting at the tennent or principle of Gnosticism. Being pieces of "God(s)" ourselves.

I would accept your statement then this may be the end inevitable outcome.

I really appreciate if you take the time to reply to my thoughts on these matters. My logic may be flawed but I am hoping you can iron it out for me. I apologize if these questions were answered in previous posts. Many of the replies were fairly abstract and I may need to reread - please direct me back to them as needed. Thanks again, -David

Here is my attempt above. I may not have answered everything to your satisfaction because I

am not sure what that is for you. Enjoy! :(

 

maddog

[Hasanuddin]

Hi everyone, cool thread… but it looks like it is splitting into two, perhaps three, different lines of thought. One line of thought moves down the line of who are we within the Universe. That is a cosmologic question… one that I am particularly fond of (just see my posting signature.) The second line of posts that splits this thread deals with where do we belong with relation to God, which is a theological/metaphysical question. Very cool, but it should be on a more specialized board. The third line begins at post 17. I agree with freeztar’s assessment in port 18 that too many questions not aligning with the rest of this thread all came out at once. This first post will addressed vertad’s original cosmologic questions. The post after this will address the interesting theological and metaphysical question posed later.

 

Dear vetrad,

 

The quest that you have embarked on is truly one of the great reasons for life. What is our place, what is the nature of the cosmos, and how do we fit in? All are serious and important questions. As an individual, though I’ve spent many years considering these questions, happily, I admit that I do not have any categorical truths that I can tell you. I can say that the more I have studied the primary data and fringes of scientific understanding, the more comfortable I am with the notion of God, evolution, master plan, Judgment, and Death. I know, it’s ironic. How can studying deductive sciences cause one to become more comfortable with notions requiring Faith, as the only “support” for basic premises? All I can say is, for me, it was. Therefore the best way to answer your question is to recommend that you study as much science, especially cosmology that you can. Another irony, I’m the author of a hotly debated more modern view of existing cosmologic data. Actually, the best thread to view is right here, see http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html Hope you enjoy it. As one traveler to another, I hope you are enjoying the ride. Believe it or not, according to Islam, pondering the cosmos, studying scientific data, and discussing the workings of nature with others are some of the highest order most rewarded things that humans can do. These actions are specifically recommended during times when piety is most important, e.g., during Ramadan.

 

That is my advice to you. Open your mind, and learn as much science as you can. Read different explanations to account for existing data. Think about that data; I mean really think about it. What was being measured? Why/where significant? What are the scientific limitations? Where/how is error introduced? Does this data pose a contradiction to existing assumptions. And then question basic assumptions. That’s the truly cool thing about this field. So much is unexplainable under current theory, therefore there is amply room for improvement (adjusting perceptions.) NASA has a fun website to poke around in. Enjoy. If your eyes are open I believe you might find tangential answers related to God.

[Hasanuddin]

Though I probably should leave well enough alone, there were a couple statements I can’t ignore:

 

Originally posted by Boerseun post 3

“If there is a God, or a creator of any kind, he must exist within the fifteen billion light years that you observe all around you. He may very well exist outside of it, but there is no way for God to interact with the universe in that case,

I totally disagree. Who are you to say that you “know” the limits of God or the nature of God’s ability to interact? How dare you? Honestly, you are trying to unhinge the only known categorical “truth” of God, as determined by the only true consensus between the five/six greatest (numerically) religions:

The Catholics say “God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”

The Protestants say “The Lord is my shepherd.”

The Jews say that “God is eternal.”

The Moslems repeat hundreds of times a prayer, “God is biggest.”

The Buddhists say “The Path is ever before you.”

The Hindus say “Shiva is ever watching.”

 

If this one thing is true God would encompass all--that which is seen and that which is not seen. Also God retains all potency and relevance despite his size--you have established no reason to suggest causal connection between size and capability. In post 20, I believe maddog is referring to his own comparisons through the religions

Originally posted by maddog post 20:

"I noticed a strong similarity with each faith having a slightly

different dialect. It was like looking into a gemstone from different angles."

Therefore I respectfully disagree with the Boerseun post 3 statement.

 

----

 

In post #5, Pyrotex brought up a fascinating concept

originally posted by Pyrotex:

"But he never attempted to deal with the paradoxes you encounter by assuming a God not bounded by time. For example, you pray to God to heal your daughter. Let's say that your daughter gets well a week later.

 

But when God heard your prayer, he looked up into the future and already knew she was going to get well."

Yes, I have considered these paradoxes. Though in my structure of beliefs (Islam) you are not allowed to ask for anything during prayer. That is not the purpose for prayer, to come begging like spoiled children. Keep selfishly doing that, and Islam would warn that you could get back-handed for insolence. No, in Islam the interpretation of your scenario is that your child got better, by the mercy of God & to meet some unknowable purpose, despite your impertinent offense.

 

In Post #8 Pyrotex hits upon the true paradox that has me stumped. Free-will vs predestination. These two concepts are completely paradoxical of one another. Actually, these two concepts are perfectly paradoxical with one another. To me, one who loves logic, reason, and words the resulting relationship is somehow “beautiful.” I don’t know how else to describe it. This is only one area where I see this "beauty," but I recognize that same beauty as something I've seen while lost/immersed in prayer. It is the perception of this “beauty” that fills my Faith to overflowing. You will understand (or not) that last statements depending on your background. I expect that people with true faith--regardless of denomination--will know exactly of what I speak, while people who don't believe are probably confused (or are just now concluding that I am "confused.") I expect some are even sharpening their knives to justify confusion and/or lack of understanding of my meaning. Let me just publicly state that I don't fault for atheists for not seeing the beauty of which I speak. In the next breath, please let me request the same level of tolerance extended to me as a non-atheist.

 

Going on to post number 11 Pyrotex gives three ways to approach this "What is our/my place Big Picture" quest.

1. Via god

2. Via Science

3. Via introspection.

Let is be noted that the are four more ways that come by blending any two or all three of the listed methods. Personally, I believe greatest results occur when we give prominence to all three. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of meditation to truly consider all three on par with and compatible with either other… therefore most folks choose the “easy” way of only considering one option at a time.

 

Ironically Pyrotex’s assessment in post number 11 is exactly the way this thread is splitting

[Boerseun]

I totally disagree. Who are you to say that you “know” the limits of God or the nature of God’s ability to interact? How dare you?

Hi Hasanuddin.

 

I think you're now touching on the very roots of the incompatibility of Science with Religion. I respect your right to disagree, but as to your question "who am I to say", I'm merely an objective, dispassionate bystander, letting myself be led by the evidence to get to something we might call "the Truth", a.k.a. Science.

As to you question of "how dare I", Science in itself is a pretty daring business in exposing the fallacy of dogma. The freedom to question anything taken for granted is critical if science were to proceed and progress. Else we would still be under the impression that Fire is Magic.

Honestly, you are trying to unhinge the only known categorical “truth” of God, as determined by the only true consensus between the five/six greatest (numerically) religions:

The Catholics say “God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”

The Protestants say “The Lord is my shepherd.”

The Jews say that “God is eternal.”

The Moslems repeat hundreds of times a prayer, “God is biggest.”

The Buddhists say “The Path is ever before you.”

The Hindus say “Shiva is ever watching.”

That "truth" you speak of, is all dogma. There is no proof. If I unhinged it, oops. I can repeat the mantra "God is biggest" a million times, or "The Lord is my shepherd" ten million times, or "Fire is Magic" a billion times, it still won't make it so without proof.

If this one thing is true God would encompass all--that which is seen and that which is not seen.

If it is true. Which it most demonstrably is not.

Also God retains all potency and relevance despite his size--you have established no reason to suggest causal connection between size and capability.

This presupposed his existence.

 

Based on everything we know from Scienctific proofs and facts, if God did indeed exist, he would have to exist within our horizon of 15 billion light years if he were to interact in any way with Earth. And even that would've been in the very distant past. If he did indeed send his Son down to Earth (ala Christianity) or if Mohamed indeed is his Prophet and God spoke to Him (ala Islam), then he must be located somewhere in a sphere with a radius of about 1500 - 2000 light years centered on Earth. There is no other way - based on a speed limit God imposed on Himself. If, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews claim, God interferes in the daily business on Earth, then he must be here, or close by. Maybe on the Dark Side of the Moon, or something.

 

Hasanudin, please understand that I mean no offense. But Science is Empirical, Religion is Dogma. There is no common ground. If you want to be a good scientist, you have to cleanse your mind of any preconceptions which might spoil your data. Including religion.

 

And to make a long story short, that is how I "dare".

[modest]

Though I probably should leave well enough alone, there were a couple statements I can’t ignore:

 

Originally posted by Boerseun post 3

“If there is a God, or a creator of any kind, he must exist within the fifteen billion light years that you observe all around you. He may very well exist outside of it, but there is no way for God to interact with the universe in that case,

I totally disagree. Who are you to say that you “know” the limits of God or the nature of God’s ability to interact? How dare you? Honestly, you are trying to unhinge the only known categorical “truth” of God, as determined by the only true consensus between the five/six greatest (numerically) religions:

The Catholics say “God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”

The Protestants say “The Lord is my shepherd.”

The Jews say that “God is eternal.”

The Moslems repeat hundreds of times a prayer, “God is biggest.”

The Buddhists say “The Path is ever before you.”

The Hindus say “Shiva is ever watching.”

 

If this one thing is true God would encompass all--that which is seen and that which is not seen. Also God retains all potency and relevance despite his size--you have established no reason to suggest causal connection between size and capability.

 

Are you well-aware of the beliefs of these religions?

 

Boerseun has asserted that God is within a distance for which light can travel in time to interact with Earth. A verse in the Qur'an (70:4) says that angels ascend from earth to Allah in one day (which is "as fifty thousand years"):

The angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:

Many Muslims use this verse and its two measures of time to assert that the Angles travel at near the speed of light and experience time dilation as a result. Thus the distance from Earth to Allah is the distance that light travels in one day (a light-day) or (299792.458 km/s x 86400 s = ) 2.59 x 10¹⁰ kilometers.

 

I've also seen the verse explained with general relativity—that God is on a planet that is so big that time dilation leaves one of his days equivalent to 50,000 Earth years (the time it takes Gabriel to get from Earth to the massive planet). In another interpretation it is God's energy which warps spacetime enough to cause the time dilation.

 

The western religions typically do not attribute omnipresence to God (especially Islam) as much, or as often, as do the eastern religions. Historically, omnipresence was very rare of the west.

 

So, I don't think it's terribly fair to get upset with Boerseun for using the limiting nature of the speed of light in the description of the location of God when at least one of the Religions you list have asserted the same as Boerseun in hopes of supporting scripture.

 

Speed of Angels in Quran

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Boerseun,

 

Yes, science and religion are truly incompatible on some levels. This is especially true if one is an atheist. To say that science and religion are completely incompatible would lead to the conclusion that the two could not exist logically within a person’s mind, i.e. and therefore, there should be no religious scientists. Some of the greatest of all scientists were also highly devote. Some scientists had epiphanies as they conducted their research, viewed the natural “beauty,” and gained a religion. Einstein was one who started out semi-atheist and became devote as continued to delve into the fountiers of understanding of the Universe. Just consider this sampling of professed beliefs by famous scientists:

”I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is a child place before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale.”

Marie Curie – (1867-1934)

 

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Albert Einstein – (1879-1955)

 

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

Carl Sagan – (1934-1996

 

All of these noteworthy people saw the compatibility between science and religion; I see the connection; yet you do not. I am sorry to hear that. But then again, how could you know of what I was referring to, you’ve already made it quite clear that you are an atheist.

 

Remember what I said in post 22

Originally posted by Hasanuddin Let me just publicly state that I don't fault for atheists for not seeing the beauty of which I speak. In the next breath, please let me request the same level of tolerance extended to me as a non-atheist.

 

Look, I see no reason to try to convert you. Nor do I truly have any reason to explain my beliefs. You’ve already made it quite clear in your summary of post 3

Originally posted by Boerseum

“There is no higher calling, there is no higher authority, there is no bigger purpose or reason. You've got this one shot at life, and you better make it count. Because for whatever you do during your stretch on Earth, you will not be punished or rewarded for it afterwards.”

Talk about dogmatic, that stance is categorical and absolute, though none of these dismissive beliefs are backed up by evidence. I don’t think there is much I could say that you’d listen to.

 

As far as the “how dare” part, let me say, "I am sorry;" I should have kept those words to myself. I did not mean to be judgmental. It is not my place to cast judgment on you. I was only reacting personally by the audacity of your assertions. According to Islam, although considering/learning the natural sciences of the Earth, cosmos, etc is one of the highest actions a human can take, questioning the workings, limits, and nature of God is said to be one of the most damning acts. But you wouldn’t know that, being unfamiliar with Islam. BTW, in Islam is understood that attempting to quantify or measure any aspect of God will never be allowed possible, and to try is to risk maximum punishments.

 

---

 

Hi Modest,

 

First, as mentioned above I am not upset with Boerseun.

 

Secondly, I do not claim to be an expert in either Buddhism or Hinduism. However, I have been taught quite a bit about both. The quest to find any all common denominators naturally had to include them. So, when the big-3 seemed to produce this commonality that God is far more extensive than anything else, naturally, I sought out Hindu and Buddhist clerics/believers to confirm/deny this commonality.

 

Lastly, that is a fascinating insight you’ve gleaned from the Quran.

Originally posted by Modest post 25

“Many Muslims use this verse and its two measures of time to assert that the Angles travel at near the speed of light and experience time dilation as a result. Thus the distance from Earth to Allah is the distance that light travels in one day (a light-day) or (299792.458 km/s x 86400 s = ) 2.59 x 1010 kilometers.

 

I've also seen the verse explained with general relativity—that God is on a planet that is so big that time dilation leaves one of his days equivalent to 50,000 Earth years (the time it takes Gabriel to get from Earth to the massive planet). In another interpretation it is God's energy which warps spacetime enough to cause the time dilation.”

I’ve never heard of anyone using the Quran mathematically. Cool, I suppose anything is possible when it comes to that and other scriptures. The number of hints and “signs” that appear in those texts is part of the ongoing “beauty.” Interesting theses you bring up. I have no comment other than that one of these could be correct for all I can see.

 

Question Modest: Does this quranic passage lift your level of believe or do you see it as coincidental trivia?

[lawcat]

I agree with Hassanudin; especially the part in which he calls for scrutiny through application of logic to scientific evidence , and introspection, while keeping an open mind to possibility of intelligent design. The reason is simple: Intelligent design can not be ruled out and it is just as likely as the opposing theory.

 

Now back to Vetrad's original inquiry.

 

Dear Vetrad:

 

Welcome to the forum. I encourage you to remain skeptical of opinions on this forum for two reasons. Moreover, I encourage you to remain skeptical of everything that is written or said in the noisy world we live in. First, you seek opinion from scientists on matters of religion--creation. Scientists are no more skilled in religion than you are, as a veterinarian, in matters of public accounting.

Second, opinion of scientists is only as good as their facts, logic in application, open-mindedness, and policy. Policy of science towards religion is analogous to that of republicans towards democrats, or police towards criminals. In other words, the scientific policy is antagonistic towards religion, and you should not look for reconciliation here. Logic and openmindedness is for you to judge from the correspondence, and we all know that every one of us has a different level of pedantry in such matters. Finally, scientific facts may be blindly trusted only if direct. But if indirect, or implied, then the facts are subject to independent scrutiny of logic, open-mindedness, and policy.

For example, Boersun's assertion that the universe is 15 billion years old is an indirect scientific fact, and is thus subject to revision when more direct facts can be obtained, as we, humans, remain technologically limited. Boersun's opinion, that whatever exists must exist within 15 billion year radius, is his opinion based on his logic, open-mindedness, and policy--he pulled it out of his arsse as they say in my neighborhood.

For the foregoing reasons, I believe, you must come to independent conclusions on questions of reconciliation, free of any scientific inputs other than the scientific facts.

 

OPINION

 

As far as my opinion, I must agree with your preacher to an extent, although I do not know his exact words or stance; and here is why.

Three things are of pertinence if you wish to speak of reconciliation. First, the origin of life on Earth is of pertinence because it is addressed by both religion and science. Second, the nature of matter is of pertience because it is addressed by both. Third, the nature of creation is of pertinence because it is addressed by both.

 

Origin of Life

 

Religion says that the Creator created life from Earth. The science says that direct facts support the conclusion--the indirect fact--that life started from primordial mud. The two are consistent, at least in this respect, and I will leave it at this for now.

 

Nature of Matter

 

Matter is a particle--however we define that word (imaginary or real)--that spins. Since it spins, it changes state in time. Future state is a function of the past state plus some additional input. Thus, past state plus additional input are information embedded in every future state of the particle. Therefore, particle, in its essence, containts information. Particle is both a physical object and information, and that information, as far as additional input goes, can not exist without time. (The example of this is light, which under duality theory is both physical and has frequency characteristics.)

Matter contains information which is constantly updated with input due to time, whatever the information is.

 

Nature of Creation

 

Science supports abiogenesis and evolution. The current theory is that matter always existed, either as dispersed matter or as dense energy concentrated at a point--an issue of quality, not quantity. Eventually, in accordance with laws of interaction between matter, Earth was formed. At a fortunate point in Earth's life, self-replicating cells emerged--the first life as we call it. There are several theories of what this was and how it occured, but the most pertinent one here is the RNA, for RNA is the crux of intelligent self-replicating life capable of evolution, limited as we study it. (In other words, we do not speak of stones when we speak of evolution in biology, although we could since every evolves and changes.)

But what is RNA if not information? RNA, and also DNA, is information stored in collections of particles that informs other collections of particles to act in unison to create self replicating life. Thus in matter we have information about particle-self, and information about interaction with other particles, and information about interactions between collections of particles. None of the additional informational inputs can exist without time. Time (spacetime), and information, is what gives rise to life in matter and from matter, and we may presume that time acts everywhere. Or you can look at it this way: time acts on matter and creates information.

 

Information

 

Since time and matter interact, and create information, we may ask ourselves: what if there was no matter or no time? If there was no time, then matter would exist, but information would be static and unitary--a snapshot; particle would not spin, and there would be no motion; there could be no evolution or life. Thus, time must give life to matter.

On the other hand, If there was no matter, then time would exist. If time existed it would store and have information about past, and convert it into future with additional inputs; information would be dynamic but useless to produce this life in absence of matter. In other words life could exist hypothethically in an imaginary sense as information in time; time is information.

 

Religion say that the Creator created Earth and Skies. Science says that matter always existed. In my opinion these two are consistent, since religion does not claim that God created matter, but merely Earth and Skies. moreover, other religions, such as Buddhism, claim the principles of duality of nature. Science also speaks of spacetime and matter.

 

Since time is everywhere as your preacher says, and science rarely disputes this, the two are consistent. Since time must have merged with matter to create life as we know it, your preacher is onto something and consistent with the science.

Since time is information, or creates information, the answer to the creator could be in "time" consistent with your preacher line of thought.

Most importantly, theoretically, information can travel instantaneouslly over any distance under the theory of spinor non-locality. Of course testing of this is difficult since our technology is limited.

 

In sum, yes, God could be everwhere instructing every point in an instant, and this is consistent with scientific facts. This can not be ruled out, except by a scientific fiat.

 

Conclusion

 

The possibility, likelihood, or knowledge that God does or may exist and be omnipresent does not, however, tell us anything about goals of God--what his modus operandum is. Is this a good God or a careless God. Does this God pay attention to us, care about humans, wants to save us, or is he busy building other things. This is where religious dogma is the strongest: We must believe that God is good and merciful.

 

Funny thing happened at the beginning of 20th century. Humanity has been disenchanted with God's results on Earth. In essence God has not met our expectations of goodness on Earth. Yet our level of sophistication in medicine and sciences had risen. So Nietzche and Germans proclaimed: God is dead and man is the God. Humanity charted a new course relying on itself to provide for itself in the best manner we know how. Where you end up in afterlife is of no consequence. Well, many reject this, or have not quite figured it out yet.

 

Even if existance of God can be or is proven, the essential difference between science and religion is: Religion believes in goodness of God, and Science does not. In fact science does not care--goodness of God is either rejected or inconsequential. This is evident from Einstein's thought in diety. Einstein did not outright reject the possibility of existence of God, or creativity of God, but rejected the goodness of God as it relates to us on Earth.

[maddog]

If this one thing is true God would encompass all--that which is seen and that which is not seen. Also God retains all potency and relevance despite his size--you have established no reason to suggest causal connection between size and capability. In post 20, I believe maddog is referring to his own comparisons through the religions Therefore I respectfully disagree with the Boerseun post 3 statement.

Note: In my comparison, I am only referring to Monotheistic Religions, Pantheistic.

Pantheism have their own similarities with each other.

[maddog]

I think you're now touching on the very roots of the incompatibility of Science with Religion. I respect your right to disagree, but as to your question "who am I to say", I'm merely an objective, dispassionate bystander, letting myself be led by the evidence to get to something we might call "the Truth", a.k.a. Science. As to you question of "how dare I", Science in itself is a pretty daring business in exposing the fallacy of dogma. The freedom to question anything taken for granted is critical if science were to proceed and progress. Else we would still be under the impression that Fire is Magic.

Freedom to question, yes. So we all. You are welcome to your opinions as I am mine.

If we agree so be it. If we do not so be it. Either way, the discussion can be valuable.

If it is true. Which it most demonstrably is not.

This is one of your opinions. Not all parties agree with you. This does also not make you wrong either.

This presupposed his existence.

Existence of God by anyone is not based upon factual evidence (at least not what one

can demonstrate to another).

Based on everything we know from Scienctific proofs and facts, if God did indeed exist, he would have to exist within our horizon of 15 billion light years if he were to interact in any way with Earth.

That would presume you were to know what "God" is made of. I am not sure I fully do.

My belief in God is not based upon his "material" presence.

If he did indeed send his Son down to Earth (ala Christianity) or if Mohamed indeed is his Prophet and God spoke to Him (ala Islam), then he must be located somewhere in a sphere with a radius of about 1500 - 2000 light years centered on Earth. There is no other way - based on a speed limit God imposed on Himself. If, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews claim, God interferes in the daily business on Earth, then he must be here, or close by. Maybe on the Dark Side of the Moon, or something.

I for one do not take Jesus as any other than Mohamed, a Prophet and not a deity or

sub-deity. It was Constantine and the Council of Nicea that Deified Jesus as the Son of

God. Those are facts in the history of the Catholic Religion. As time passed it became

Dogma.

Hasanudin, please understand that I mean no offense. But Science is Empirical, Religion is Dogma. There is no common ground. If you want to be a good scientist, you have to cleanse your mind of any preconceptions which might spoil your data. Including religion.

And to make a long story short, that is how I "dare".

I will grant you that a separation between Religion and Science is prerequisite only so far

as for Religion to become Scientific would require a scrutiny towards the body of evidence

that would make it unrealistic. Yet since they live in two separate paradigms, one can of

a mind so as to subscribe to both for their needs without impending chaos or controversy.

Not all scientists are atheist nor non-religious. Just keep things separate.

 

maddog

[modest]

Yes, science and religion are truly incompatible on some levels. This is especially true if one is an atheist.

 

I agree with the "especially true if one is an atheist" part. It is relatively easy for a religious person to apply atheistic truths to their life. It is, in fact, necessary to accomplish pretty much anything. It is not so easy for an atheist to find religion necessary or even compatible to their life. You should see already why that is.

 

Imagine two people looking at a mountain range. One is religious (Christian, let's say) and the other is atheist. Their job is to build a road from one side to the other. In applying religion to the problem at hand the religious person might choose to have faith in God and to pray—moving the mountain. It says, after all, in his scripture, which we can assume he rightly believes, that having faith means you can tell a mountain to move from here to there and it will move.

 

But, our christian friend doesn't do this. For him it is easy to fall back on the atheistic belief that natural laws of gravity and kinetics are going to require tunneling through the mountain. His religious views are nice, but he must apply natural laws to accomplish things in a natural world.

 

Now then, how easy is it for the atheist to assume that having faith and telling the mountain to move will work? That's simply not going to be part of his thought process at all. Why would that work?

 

It's easier for a deluded person to find the truth compatible with their delusion (and to use it) than it is for a rational person to find a delusion compatible with their rationality (and to use it). You're spot on.

I should clarify: I don't mean "delusion" to be derogatory. I mean it in the sense of "Ancient Greeks were deluded into thinking that lightning bolts are hammered into creation by Hephaestus and thrown by Zeus"

To say that science and religion are completely incompatible would lead to the conclusion that the two could not exist logically within a person’s mind

 

Well, yes, if they were completely incompatible then they couldn't both exist on Earth and no single person could be aware of the existence of both at the same time. But, clearly that doesn't seem to be the impetus of the question.

 

Science and religion both have a method for investigating (I use the word loosely) to find the answers to questions. The methods are fundamentally different. Religion uses divine revelation and faith while science uses empiricism and deductive reasoning. We find, in the case of the origin of the universe, that the two different methods have often led to contradictory results.

 

For example, a person with a religious mindset and faith in the Bible named James Ussher asked himself when it was that the universe as we know it came to be. That event is well documented in his book of faith along with a geneology from then until historically datable events, so his faith afforded an answer:

In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC.

-

source

His method gave the answer: approximately 6000 years. The question, ultimately, is if his method was flawed. I refer here to the fundamental method and not its execution.

 

I believe that the religious (or new age spiritualism if you like) method is flawed. I believe better results are obtained by experimentation, observation, and falsification. You can't falsify god—the guy's never wrong. But, you can falsify human ideas because they more-often-than-not need improving. After seeing that galaxies were receding Hubble calculated the age of the universe to be 2 billion years. Was his his fundamental method of investigation flawed?

 

Which method gives the better answers? Do we look to God in solving the questions regarding the origin of the universe? I think it's very evident. You don't pray to God to get the answer to a math problem. You don't meditate to find out what killed the dinosaurs. If it is not a useful approach to building a road through a mountain range then we would be silly to think it would be a useful approach to understanding the origin of the universe.

 

Talk about dogmatic, that stance is categorical and absolute, though none of these dismissive beliefs are backed up by evidence. I don’t think there is much I could say that you’d listen to.

 

As far as the “how dare” part, let me say, "I am sorry;" I should have kept those words to myself. I did not mean to be judgmental. It is not my place to cast judgment on you. I was only reacting personally by the audacity of your assertions.

 

Look at the situation objectively. Theism is based on an infallible idea of God, scripture, and divine revelation, and science is based on falsifiable theories. To the religious mind: how do we know which things which God says are correct? They are all correct. To the atheistic mind: how do we know which theories are correct? They must agree with observation and experimentation. You denounce the assertions of Boerseun as audacious and dogmatic, and I'll be the first to admit that Boerseun may be wrong and there may-well be a God. But, objectively, I must say that theism (belief in an infallible God) is far more audacious and dogmatic than atheism (no belief in a God). Theism is by its very nature more audacious.

 

According to Islam, although considering/learning the natural sciences of the Earth, cosmos, etc is one of the highest actions a human can take, questioning the workings, limits, and nature of God is said to be one of the most damning acts. But you wouldn’t know that, being unfamiliar with Islam.

 

What audacity

 

The concept you're referring to is called "ulum al-qur'an", or sometimes just "ilm". You paint the issue with the wrong character (though, in your defense, it is no doubt something you've heard as it is often characterized as you put it). To get a real idea of what 'ilm entails you can read:

 

Ulum al Quran

 

The introduction in particular. You'll see that the Qur'an is given absolute priority to all worldly knowledge. While Islam is historically much better about recommending study of nature as a means of understanding how to be a good person of faith than Christianity, it still falls way short of recommending science as a means of falsifying scripture. And, in a conflict of scripture and science, scripture still wins. So, the problem is fundamentally the same.

 

And, Kashf is worse:

Kashf

 

(Arabic: “uncovering,” “revelation”), in Sufism (i.e., Islamic mysticism), the privileged inner knowledge that mystics acquire through personal experience and direct vision of God. The truths revealed through kashf cannot be transmitted to those who have not shared with them the same experience. The Sufis regard kashf as the alternative to ʿilm (“knowledge”), which applies systematic theology, logic, and speculative philosophy to the study of the nature of God. When the Muslim jurist and theologian al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) felt that philosophy and speculative theology had failed him, he turned wholeheartedly to Sufism, abandoning his teaching profession in the hope of finding the peace of mind that he did not find in his intellectual pursuits. After a period of mystical contemplation, he became certain that pure philosophical systems are contradictory and illusory and that the intellect should be used only to destroy trust in human logic. He concluded that kashf is the only means through which true and trustworthy knowledge can be attained and described it as “a light with which God floods the heart of the believer.”

 

kashf (Sufism) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Where you say that questioning the mind or extent of Allah is forbidden, you must realize that from an atheist's perspective Kashf or Tajalli is certainly no better then rationally and empirically exploring the possible nature of a God that would be compatible with the universe we know. Meditating and becoming inspired as to the truth of the attributes of God does not give consistent results, so how can it give good results? Science would say that it's not a good method. I would agree, though, if we are to discuss it we should create another thread for the topic and if we continue to discuss religion vs. science we should do it here: 18209 or in a new thread of its own topic.

 

I think we all have a lot to learn on such a deep and complex philosophical question as religion vs. science or even the "god versus no god" topic of the thread's title. Calling Boerseun dismissive and implying that he is incapable of understanding what you're talking about does little more than diminish your standing in a discussion or debate.

 

Hi Modest,

 

First, as mentioned above I am not upset with Boerseun.

I've just now gotten to my part, Yikes! Sorry for the long post.

 

Secondly, I do not claim to be an expert in either Buddhism or Hinduism. However, I have been taught quite a bit about both. The quest to find any all common denominators naturally had to include them. So, when the big-3 seemed to produce this commonality that God is far more extensive than anything else, naturally, I sought out Hindu and Buddhist clerics/believers to confirm/deny this commonality.

 

Do you believe that a concept or claim that is common in those 5 religions must be ture? If I show you a specific example of something claimed in all 5 that is demonstrably false would you change your mind?

 

Lastly, that is a fascinating insight you’ve gleaned from the Quran.

I’ve never heard of anyone using the Quran mathematically. Cool, I suppose anything is possible when it comes to that and other scriptures. The number of hints and “signs” that appear in those texts is part of the ongoing “beauty.” Interesting theses you bring up. I have no comment other than that one of these could be correct for all I can see.

 

I, first of all, agree with your comment "anything is possible when it comes to that and other scriptures". Constraints which appear for the natural world are not present in scripture. A quick example would be the stopping of the Sun in the sky for a full day in Joshua 10. In a factual account of an ancient battle we cannot expect this to be possible. But, in scripture, it is reported as possible and factual.

 

I would go so far as to say that a defining characteristic between religion and science is that the former includes the impossible while the latter does not. In asking "Origin of the universe: god versus no god", science is constrained to answer in a manner consistent with what is known of the natural world.

 

One thing I have never understood about religious systems (even when I was a devout Baptist) is how we are expected to know what is true when any truth is possible. For example: which miracles were divine and really happened? I do not know of a rational way of answering that question. And it is, if you think about it, a huge problem.

 

Question Modest: Does this quranic passage lift your level of believe or do you see it as coincidental trivia?

 

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if I believe it takes an Angel one day to move from Earth to God? No, the scripture does not convince me of that. My purpose in that example was to show you that many Muslims have said something consistent with what Boerseun said, and you, ironically, give Islam as a counterexample to his assertion.

 

This was a long post. Sorry, I get caught up in these philosophical/theological discussions. I understand if it takes you a long time to look it over and consider carefully the issues I raised rather than submitting a quick knee-jerk reply. No problem, that.

 

~modest

[Boerseun]

Please bear in mind the context in which this thread is offered.

 

It's in the "Physical Sciences Forum/Astronomy and Cosmology".

 

This is not a religious forum, it's a Science Forum.

 

As such, we have to keep the rules of evidence in mind.

 

As far as science is concerned, there is no argument against "God" (or any deity of your choice) having created the universe, provided you can give credible evidence as to the existence of God, and the mechanisms by which he created everything. Then, of course, the argument shifts from "who created the universe" to "who created God". That is the logical next step.

 

And for all staunch believers out there, Christians, Muslims, Jews, or whatever you choose to believe, saying that the nature of God is "unknowable" and being afraid to dig too deep into the matter lest ye be smitten, clearly this is not the topic for you to discuss on a Science Forum, where us heretics like to ask questions of that nature.

 

And please, for the love of God, stop trying to define scientific matters in religious terms. There are religious forums aplenty on the internet. There is no need for Hypography to become one of them. This is not the platform to preach, or to even condone viewpoints without an empirical foundation.

 

If we were sitting in church, I would chat about God's wonderfulness with you. But we're not in church here.

[Hasanuddin]

I apologize Boerseun, as I mentioned earlier, it appears this thread has split three ways. Perhaps the religious posts could be bundled and split off. But with your leave, let me respond to Modest.

===================

 

Modest,

 

I am very aware of the teachings and practice of both Christians and Moslem. I can tell you first-hand, that Christains do not do as you project:

Originally posted by Modest post 30:

In applying religion to the problem at hand the religious person might choose to have faith in God and to pray—moving the mountain. It says, after all, in his scripture, which we can assume he rightly believes, that having faith means you can tell a mountain to move from here to there and it will move.

Huh? No. Haven't you heard of the Protestant work ethic? The Puritans were workaholics.

 

You’re making stuff up for the convenience of a fanciful projection. Nowhere have I heard of anyone praying to move mountains. The ultimate goals of this whole narrative is to ultimately reach the conclusion that spiritual people a delusional while atheists are rational.

Originally posted by Modest

“It's easier for a deluded person to find the truth compatible with their delusion (and to use it) than it is for a rational person to find a delusion compatible with their rationality (and to use it). You're spot on.”

Bam! That is spot on the argument I was trying to convey on the Dominium threads http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin-3.html#post260597

Legacy assumptions have accepted a flawed view of cosmologic data with multiple paradoxes because of a shared baseline (yet unverifiable) story of an all-matter universe. Such an assumption (if incorrect) would, by definition, be a ”delusion’ (Webster’s: something that is falsely believed, or propagated.) Though I wholeheartedly agree with this statement of yours, it appears that to be an assumption that the only form of delusion is religious and that there are no scientific delusions. but history disproves that assumption. The deluded view of Ptolemy cursed both math and cosmology for centuries.

 

Later talk is extended at length about some guy, Ussher, who made up his own religion. But what’s the point? The major religions, it stands to reason, are the major religions because they hit closest to the Truth. Personally, I believe that God is so big and complex that none of the religions could possibly have the exact “Truth” crystallized perfectly down. Each possesses certain degrees of truth. The major religions are those long-lived versions of man-gleaned truths of the “Truth.” For example, say hunter-gatherer-dude is walking along and suddenly has a great epiphany and clarity for some aspect of the greater Truth, say of the connectedness of nature. But let’s say he had the epiphany under a gum tree. Hence that valley takes on the gumtree religion. In a neighboring region, a different epiphany for a different aspect of the truth while sitting in a cave to escape the sun, hence the beginning of the religion of the cave. Tribes mixed and so too did the sharing of ideas. The concepts could merge, or one prevail. It is safe to conclude that the religion closest to the Truth would prevail in such a contest. Prophets were people that came into one group of people and who possessed packages of insights of Truth that was especially appealing.

 

Today we live in a modern world were the religions are quite mature. Therefore, the major religions would all be expected to have some aspects that are absolutely representative of some aspects of Truth. However, the aspects of Truth represented by one religion need not be the same as the next where both sets are absolute true. Therefore, places were the five great religions all align would be places that would be expected to have the greatest amount of understanding of that Truth. Therefore I am quite intrigued by the challenge issued:

originally posted by Modest:

“Do you believe that a concept or claim that is common in those 5 religions must be true? If I show you a specific example of something claimed in all 5 that is demonstrably false would you change your mind?”

Hopefully those were not empty words. Must say I am impressed with your understanding of many of many facts of Islam, so I will be interested what commonality between all religions proves the lack of worth of them all.

 

I believe you misunderstand my meaning when I said, “Cool, I suppose anything is possible when it comes to that and other scriptures.” To that comment of mine, you bring up a specific excerpt, Joshua 10. No, that is not my intent. Please remember that scripture use many literary devices (parable, slimily, metaphor, allegory, myth, mystic, etc) therefore it is very dangerous and misleading to read too literally at all times and without reflection. Personally, I believe it is quite dangerous (metaphysically) to over analyze any scripture. So I will not go down this rabbit-hole. What I was referring actually to was the epiphanies and understandings that one achieves when reading scripture that could apply to “anything is possible.” What I mean is that if someone were quietly reading that scripture, came to Joshua 10, and between the lines epiphany is gained that directly applies to issues/problems in that individual’s life—that gained truth need not literally relate to the sun standing still.

 

After discussing many aspects of science and religion (with which I agree) you present a very interesting paradox:

Originally posted by Modest

“how we are expected to know what is true when any truth is possible. For example: which miracles were divine and really happened? I do not know of a rational way of answering that question.”

Cogito ergo sum… that’s a place to start. I know I am real; are you real? Well, I try to be real, at least.

Miracles? What miracles? Who said their needs to be miracles to feel/believe in God? I guess that’s less extreme than demanding a private interview. I don’t know, sir. The miracle, to me, is that “beauty” that is so evident in nature and science. BTW: you have not acknowledged or denied whether you can see (or have seen) that beauty which I am trying to describe. Yes, you said that you once practiced as Baptist, but did you even see what I’m talking about?

The direct question I posed to you about the Quranic passage was basically asking the same question. Do/did you appreciate the “beauty” of the quranic words… or do you just know facts about interpretations of others, yet no appreciation of your own? Not that it matters. It’s just that I wasn’t sure whether you were atheist or believing. After your attempt this last post to tag believers as delusional & atheists are rational, it seems quite certain that you are atheist. That’s cool, your life/fate are of no consequence to mine, and v.v. But that does help explain where you are coming from and trying to go to on this thread.

[freeztar]

Vetrad, if this thread has gone too far off-topic from its original intent, let us know.

 

(hint, hint)

[Hasanuddin]

It was good that this topic was moved. Actually the whole question asked by the title "god or no god," is implicitly a theologic one.

 

Also, in terms of these types of questions we must all retain absolute respect for one another. There is no way that either side (atheist or believing) can know the answers to these questions with any degree of certainty. That is why it is called "Faith." Let is also be noted that atheism is just another belief system. The premises are slightly different, but just as unverifiable.