Not necessarily true. You still can't disprove that those men were inspired. I'm not saying God wrote the books himself, but a book written by someone who is inspired is different than one that is not.

That's not to say that other people weren't inspired either.

Course, I can't prove that they were inspired either.




Yeah, more or less.

Er. Missed this post, somehow. There is no second question worth considering - God can not be defined using science, and, thus, the actions He took when He set the creation of the universe in motion can not be determined, as our tools are insufficient to qualify and measure those actions. The question can not be answered, under any circumstances (given that God exists). Thus, it's not a question worth considering.



I fail to see how Occam's Razor eliminates God from the equation, given that God is not a part of the equation, in my consideration. Science will eventually be used to find a balanced equation or simply an explanation of how the universe was created - not what God did to create the universe. Thus, God is not part of the equation.

Look at it this way: if God is a constant in all equations of the universe, then, in a balanced equation, God will cancel out, and does not need to be considered to solve the equation - however, it does not mean that God plays no role in the equations.

You hit the jackpot. God as a concept is not at stake in the science-religion debate, at least not as far as proponents of the scientific method are concerned. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are the ones who turn the debate into a science vs. God holy war, because their world view is based upon taking a written work literally - meaning that any idea that does not agree with the written word is a threat to their lifestyle and, for that matter, their very essence. My opinion is that the bible is a fascinating work on the relationship of human beings with their morals and beliefs, and the fact that it is diminished to an instruction set, rather than explored and understood further in light of man's progress over the centuries, stops the real meanings and values from shining forth.

The belief in a force outside of nature is a fascinating issue, and should be a psychological and philosophical debate. It all depends on how open minded you are on one hand, and how well you understand the roles of science and religion in society on the other. Both extremes, i.e. strict atheism on one end and religious fundamentalism on the other, are unacceptable in such a debate.

My personal belief, if anyone is interested in hearing it, is that the evolution of self-conscious thought in the human brain, i.e. the subjective notion of 'self', is intertwined with a deep-rooted drive for self-definition and meaning which arises from the constant conversation we have with ourselves in our head. That fundamental distinction between 'me' and 'myself' ("I think to myself", "I tell myself") creates the sensation of an alternate entity that exists outside of visible reality but which must be "real" or "meaningful" somewhere, somehow. I believe this alternate entity is so deeply ingrained in our minds that it is not possible to bypass it, despite the fact that we can be consciously aware of it. I myself feel a deep connection to an unknown reality that is hidden underneath the surface; my mind cannot agree with the notion that life, love, and existence are meaningless and simply an ironic chance event. I analyze these thoughts and understand how natural processes can create them yet my inner self does not truly believe them.

Am I making any sense?

Except that I was joking... if you choose to put the god idea on the same validity level as my idea, by all means go ahead.

But earlier you said: No. Saying "God did it" and not investigating the matter any further is laziness. Saying "God did it" and then asking "What happened when He did it?" is not laziness, which I believe is the stance that many theists on this thread take.



So, whatever research findings come up, you're right?

Yes it does.

sin(x) + 7 - a + b = 3b - a
sin(x) + 7 + b = 3b
sin(x) + 7 = 2b

a plays no role in this equation. This equation has only x and b.

God, the Spectator Ion.

haha, I feel so nerdy for actually finding that quite funny.

Ah. Sorry - poor wording on my part. What I meant by "What happened when He did it" is this: a star goes supernova. Now, the lazy response to "what happened and why" is "God did it and willed it so." The non-lazy response would be that the star ran out of the proper fuels to be able to support its own weight, causing it to crush itself into degenerate matter.



I'm not sure what you mean.



a plays no role in solving the equation. But a does participate in the equation itself, by your own writing: "sin(x) + 7 - a + b = 3b - a". God is not necessary to define the natural universe, yes, but that does not mean that God is in no way involved with the natural universe. Likewise, a is not necessary to find x and b - but that doesn't mean that a doesn't play any role at all in the equation.

Granted, with this argument, purple rhinos orbiting the moons of Jupiter, when added to both sides of F=ma, can be considered to be a part of the equation to determine the force of an object has with acceleration a and mass m - however, I simply choose not to believe that they exist, and, likewise, you choose not to believe that God exists.

Perhaps this is a better way to explain my position - science does not need God to explain the workings of our universe. Science can not be used to describe God, as, by His very nature, He is supernatural. Thus, mentioning God in a scientific field is unnecessary - when describing in class how an electrical current running through a wire generates a magnetic field, there's no need to append "and God makes it so" to the explanation - the fact that God doesn't need to be mentioned in that specific academic situation not withstanding, for those who believe that God wills it and does it, it's implied.

I think hearing statements like this pretty much sums up why I don't try too hard in these debates anymore.

And coincidentally, you've just summed up the reason that I'm an atheist (or at least, agnostic. see other thread for details); God is unnecessary.



Then why try at all?

You assume, though, that all religions exist for the purpose of explaining natural events. And that people believe for the same reason.


Boredom. Fortunately, I go back to work tomorrow, so I won't be bored.

In reference to 'The Big Bang'. This theory isn't as simple and elegant as some of you seem to think it is. It is not the existence of nothingness that suddenly exploded into an enormous blob of matter that resulted in the creation of planets, stars and galaxies. What it is, is the theory explaining how matter itself is formed into these things.

Ultimately, the universe itself has always existed. The plane of space and time has always been here and always will. What exists in this plane is what changes. The Big Bang theory offers an explanation of what all this "space junk" did to eventually become what we, the tiny insiginifcent, dust-in-the-wind specks of nothingness percieve as the universe today. Again, the universe being everything that exists in space and time, not space and time itself.

The Big Bang builds itself off the oberservation (or perception, if you will) that the universe is constantly expanding. Some scientists theorize that the universe is slowing down. Taking that a step even further, even others theorize that while the universe is slowing down, it will eventually come to a halt and then start moving back to whence it came. Taking that even further, this would result in a "reverse" Big Bang, cramming every atom of matter and energy into a single, tiny ball that would then explode and start the whole process over again.

Anyway.

I thought I would clarify on this because it seems the general consensus here in regard to TBB theory relative to a/the God creating a/the universe is that there was nothing and instantly something. That's not the case.

Wow

Don't even talk about something if you're ignorant about it.

First of all, Evolution is UNDEBATABLE

It merely refers to the mistakes cells make in DNA copying, which due to Natural Selection will change small things gradually.

It is undebatable that this at the very least accounts for things such as physical differences in race, etc.

I personally believe it accounts for everything, but that's beside the point.

The term THEORY is used entierly to refer to something TRUE, but they cannot make it scientific LAW.

A theory has been PROVEN to be true, by definition.

You're misusing, and confusing with HYPOTHESIS.

A hypothesis is an idea, a thought, the first step, after which you gather information and prove whether or not it is true via Scientific Method.

Science takes an idea. [E.G. The ball in the box is red.]
Collects information [E.G. Observe the ball in the box and find it is not red.]
Determines conclusion [E.G. The ball is not red, your hypothesis was wrong]
If it is completely true, sometimes [E.G. DNA sometimes makes a mistake and natural selection changes a species] It is a theory
If it is ALWAYS true, it becomes Scientific Law [E.G. Gravity]

Intelligent Design is the opposite of science.
It takes all the information given and makes a conclusion
The ball in the box is not red, therefore it must be blue.
It takes the OPPOSITE of sientific method, which is what SCIENCE tries to get across.

*stalks off muttering about ignorance*

Being an athiest myself, I think that if you choose to believe in God, good for you and contribute everything that you learn in science to God making it so. You don't need to say that in the classroom.

*ehem*

theory:


-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

-Abstract reasoning; speculation.

-a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

all from dictionary.com

:p

actually god creating the "singularity" is just as valid as it always existing, or creating itself. any of them are exangable. Occam's Razor wont explain everything.

And all definitions based on casual context.

Right. Alran, there is a difference between a scientific theory and an "everyday" theory. They're not the same.

That's not a scientific theory. Evolution is a theory in the same way Gravity is. Do you dismiss gravity because it's 'just a theory'?
Scientific theory: A theory is an explanatory hypothesis which has passed test after test, and is still the best available explanation of the facts in question.

One of the main sticking points for ID not being science is the question of fallibility.

Is ID theory fallible? Can it be proven right or wrong? No.

The question of fallibility is one of the significant elements of the scientific method. If you create a hypothesis which can neither be validated or invalidated through empirical methods, then this is not science as it stands today.

Again, I have no problem with God or Creationism, but they don't belong in a science curriculum, where the course of study is based on tactile/physical evidence and true scientific hypothesis.

sorry if anyone's already covered this. I'm still amazed this thread, and people's apparent ignorance, has continued this far.

Seriously, quit with the deep debates, sometimes I feel like a real college student.

Thanks to this thread, and this lecture, I've decided that at this point in time, I must agree with those who have stated that "the supernatural has no place in science". However, I believe without evidence, through philosophical exploration, that there is more than our universe out there, and that the hypothesis of an always existing universe, while fascinating, still fails to answer many of the important questions. Contrary to what many of the religious want to believe, these are matters of philosophy, and not science, at this time, and things should remain this way until science can begin to explore what's beyond our realm of existence.

Kudos to all for such a great thread. My vacation is nearing its end, and I will be out of town for a few days, so I may or may not have time to check back.