-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Who created God?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
No, he's not. Science can explain things only so far, and beyond that point everyone has to accept that they don't know where things came from.
I forget whether it's here or on Slashdot, but I've seen a signature with a quote from Turing that reads "Science is a differential equation, religion is a boundary condition". Basically, religion is beyond the scope of science. The two are separate domains doing different things, and it doesn't make sense to try to use one to understand the other.
i wish i could see into the future, to the time that scientists discover the true origins of the universe and all things we dont understand now. would probably be some mind blowing stuff im sure, but i dont think they would discover that the universe was created by some supernatural fellow with magic powers.
Well God wouldn't have a beginning because he, that is the Abrahamic God, is eternal. To believe in this male personification of a creator is to accept the concept of eternity.
This God is eternal, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (and all that stuff.) You can look further into it by delving into the trinity; the father, the son and the holy spirit, but it doesn't really matter tbh.
The basis behind the belief is to accept eternity. If you can't accept/understand that, then you basically won't have the capacity to believe in the judeo/islamic/christian God.
This God is eternal, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (and all that stuff.) You can look further into it by delving into the trinity; the father, the son and the holy spirit, but it doesn't really matter tbh.
The basis behind the belief is to accept eternity. If you can't accept/understand that, then you basically won't have the capacity to believe in the judeo/islamic/christian God.
Great quote
...one is a human achievement (science) and the other is a human endeavour (religion), the two being an aspect of the duality of the human condition, but both attempt to create order from chaos
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
God's mum and dad obviously.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,651
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Isn't that the point? Debate and all.
I have never read the bible or bothered to listen in R.E. in school. Just wondered if there was a story in the books which at least sounded semi-plausible.
hehePerhaps the OP already knows the answer and their full forum tag is Oxymoron
After the "science" you tried to use earlier with regards to the moon I would be somewhat dubious of any more "science" you try to bring to back up your faith. And it once again turns out that I am correct to be dubious about it.
For a start it seems to suggest that the smallest protein is 2,000 atoms and the average is 32,000. Whereas the smallest protien could have as few as 81 atoms in it (smallest amino acid has 9 atoms and you can have a protien composed of only 9 amino acids). Charles Eugene Jai also seems to be made up appearing only in "proofs" with regards to Islam. It also seems that he is unaware that the universe is considered to be around 14bn years old.
Don't try and use science to back up your faith. It has very little to say about God in general and only negative things to say about claims around specific Gods.
You speak as if science has reached the limits of understanding. We've barely started to scratch the surface but we will go on furthering our knowledge.
No I don't. I speak as if the big bang is - under present understanding - a point beyond which science cannot pass, because beyond there time, space, causality, conventional logic, etc don't function.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,651
- Location
- Sussex, UK
How do you know?
There were particles before the big bang, thats according to the Hawkins doc a few weeks back.
Doesn't the article just calculate the creation of a protein under one instance as well? I.e. it doesn't account for the fact that this process will be happening at the same time trillions of trillions of times throughout the Universe, where on earth did the 2 billion year figure come from as well.
Last edited:
I said it 6 pages back
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Who created you, your mum and your dad? Are you quite so sure.
Given your perception of reality is based entirely on sensory data contained within an active sense-response feedback loop, all of which is subject to fallibility and human error (perceived reality != actual reality) are you quite so certain that your past, present and future all adds up to happy families?
(This is a logical continuation of I think therefore i am. It is impossible for you to be certain of the existence of anybody other than yourself, and even then your existence is based on sensory data that can often be proved false.
Slight of hand magic involves events that occur too quickly for the brain to perceive, at which the brain 'fills in the blanks' and often assumes an impossible scenario over and above the truth. Your perception sees 'magic'; its only your rather clever concious that says 'hang on, i know that cant be possible because thats NOT POSSIBLE!' based on your learning and knowledge. Sensory data fallacy.
Which puts a significant amount of wisdom in 1 Corinthians 8:2 which says 'and if any one doth think to know anything, he hath not yet known anything according as it behoveth [him] to know;'.
Which means if you think you know the answer, your an idiot, because even in science, the answers are always, always evolving
Given your perception of reality is based entirely on sensory data contained within an active sense-response feedback loop, all of which is subject to fallibility and human error (perceived reality != actual reality) are you quite so certain that your past, present and future all adds up to happy families?
(This is a logical continuation of I think therefore i am. It is impossible for you to be certain of the existence of anybody other than yourself, and even then your existence is based on sensory data that can often be proved false.
Slight of hand magic involves events that occur too quickly for the brain to perceive, at which the brain 'fills in the blanks' and often assumes an impossible scenario over and above the truth. Your perception sees 'magic'; its only your rather clever concious that says 'hang on, i know that cant be possible because thats NOT POSSIBLE!' based on your learning and knowledge. Sensory data fallacy.
Which puts a significant amount of wisdom in 1 Corinthians 8:2 which says 'and if any one doth think to know anything, he hath not yet known anything according as it behoveth [him] to know;'.
Which means if you think you know the answer, your an idiot, because even in science, the answers are always, always evolving
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,651
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Religion doesnt give any more of an answer for that which we do not understand than science. Wheras science freely admits they are not sure, religion takes its chance to make something utterly implausible to fill the gap.
If history has taught us anything, it is that as time progresses we learn and understand more. Eventually religion will die out as science understands all the mysteries of today.
It is ignorance to think that religion has a place for answering any question that science cannot. People thought that the sun was magical for quite a long time, that the seas were ruled by poseidon. We dont believe these things anymore. Why is that.
If history has taught us anything, it is that as time progresses we learn and understand more. Eventually religion will die out as science understands all the mysteries of today.
It is ignorance to think that religion has a place for answering any question that science cannot. People thought that the sun was magical for quite a long time, that the seas were ruled by poseidon. We dont believe these things anymore. Why is that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
You sir are a fool. As has previously been stated science and religion (which by the way are not mutually exclusive) tackle completely different concepts. Science attempts to define what is, religion attempts to define why is. Science is very good at encapsulating complex systems in a discrete repeatable way. Theology and philosophy are particularly good at expounding questions of humanity, sociology, morality and abstract thinking.
A good example is the difference between Communism and Democracy. Both are a system of governance, both have their strengths and their weaknesses, and yet members on both sides look at the other with in-comprehensive revulsion. It is to you and I nothing more than that old chestnut; the fear of something new.