straightUp Loc: California

I understand the point you are making but it doesn't invalidate the argument that religion and science employ opposite patterns. Yes, a scientist is largely defined by his field of study but that doesn't mean the abundance of fields don't have common methods. And underlying these common methods there is a spirit of discovery which is opposite to the central theme of religious censorship.

Bottom line here is that science, at it's common denominator, is a process of redefining reality based on discoveries while religion is a process of preserving reality despite the discoveries.

And yes, there are scientists who are also religious. But religion is no less diverse than science and there is a wide range of perspectives on what or who we think God is.

JohnCorrespondent

I haven't seen it.

JohnCorrespondent

I've been expecting that. Republicans are from Pluto.

Iliamna1

You stated "And underlying these common methods there is a spirit of discovery which is opposite to the central theme of religious censorship." I have to take umbrage with that.I can point out a polethora of lkearned men who were persecuted just because of their faith. One of the most famous was Christopher Colombus. He 'discovered' the New World and was persecuted for that little discovery, thinking he had circumnavigated the earth. Then, the commonly held (religious) belief was that the earth was flat.. Poor man. He didn't know where he was when he arrived and never really knew when he returned home. But he did discover some things really remarkable. Current scientists use the scientific method, which has revolutionized patterns of thought and investigation as I am certain you're aware.This step by step method of formulating a theory, a means of testing and then revising those theories is elemenntary school education in science courses. Having faith means discovery of the amazing universe the Lord has made and how He designed it to function.


The most knowledgeable person can only scratch at the surface of God's creation, whether he believes or not. I think of creation as a monumentous piece of art that gives us a small hint of how awesome, great, and unimaginably wonderful the Creator really is.


My medication is finally kicking in. I'm going to try to get some sleep. I hope you find Him.

JohnCorrespondent

If we ever get some messages going back and forth between us and life on another planet, there are some interesting things they might tell us.

I would like to know whether they think the same way we do about three-dimensional space and about time.

Here is something the late physicist Richard Feynman wrote:

"Before 1920, our world picture was something like this: The 'stage' on which the universe goes is the three-dimensional space of geometry, as described by Euclid, and things change in a medium called time. ..."

(from: _Six Easy Pieces_, page 27)

I wonder whether space has to be in exactly _three_ dimensions. Or maybe there's something arbitrary about how many dimensions we think about. Why couldn't space have 2, or 4, or two-and-a-half dimensions? "Time" is kind of strange, too. Maybe there's something arbitrary about how we think about it, and the aliens could have some other way to think about it.



True.

JohnCorrespondent

Theories are an important part of science, at least.

JohnCorrespondent

Sure it's _possible_ we're the only intelligent life in the universe. But the fact that we're here, together with some thinking about how we developed, indicates that something like this has likely also happened elsewhere in the universe. The universe is so vast, with so many galaxies, that it would be improbable that intelligent life would only develop on just exactly _one_ planet.

The other intelligent beings are probably so far removed from us in time and/or space that we won't discover them, though. Or if we do discover them, it would probably be unfeasible to even have an interesting conversation with them, because it would take so long for messages to go back and forth at light-speed.

JohnCorrespondent

I agree.

I especially like this part: the expanse of time and space allows the improbable.

JohnCorrespondent

I disagree.

I find the simplest scenarios to be the easiest to believe.

One of the simple scenarios is that there has always been "stuff" and, in the vastness of space and time, some of the stuff evolves into life.

Evolution, the way I think about it, is simple enough. Some things tend to last longer than some other things. There. That's almost half an evolution theory in a nutshell.

Another scenario that some people put forward is that a god existed and created everything. But they don't say where the god came from. And they don't say much about what the god is. So they're not really answering any questions, they're just dodging questions by saying "God did it" which could mean anything or nothing.

Supposing there is a god, then I find it easier to believe that the god evolved from the universe, than that the universe came from the god.

Another of the simple scenarios is that something came into being out of nothing. There's at least one book about this. I was reading part of one. It's like a book on physics written for a general audience. After a hundred pages or so I quit reading it. I wish the author would get to the point sooner.

My favorite theory (which is my own theory that I made up) (and no-one has to take it seriously) about "nothing" is that, if there were nothing at all, then there'd be nobody around to keep it neat and clean. (If somebody were around, like a god, then there would not be just nothing; the god would be something, not nothing.) I imagine that it would be improbable that there would be a pure, neat, clean, perfect nothingness forever and ever. (And if there were a total nothingness, then what would "forever" mean? It would be meaningless.) What happens when there's no housekeeper, for ever and ever? You get dust. All it would take would be some dust in it, and voila an entire universe could evolve from the dust. Any imperfection would do. The universe could evolve from it.

Total perfection is unlikely to occur. It's more likely that there would be some imperfection somewhere.

A more "scientific" theory (one imagined by "scientists") which I encountered somewhere is that nothingness has things in it that oscillate between one state and another. They are like little positive and negative things which cancel each other out so fast that normally we don't notice them. So it's not really totally just pure nothingness; there's no such thing as pure nothingness.

So anyhow, those little things have some randomness in them, I suppose. (Now this is just me theorizing again.) And so eventually you end up with a "something" that didn't get cancelled out yet, and exists long enough, or is big enough, or there are enough of them at the same time, so that there is a significant "something", and then the universe evolves from that.

The Creator-God theory takes the greatest leap of faith of all. It posits not merely that the universe already existed, but even more extravagantly, a "God", which is greater than the universe, already existed. The existence of the God is even more bizarre than the existence of the universe. Where did this God come from? Adherents of the Creator-God theory don't ask and don't seem interested in answering any such question.

(I happen to believe that at least one god does exist. I mention this, just to be personable. But it doesn't add much to the discussion.)

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Exactly

bylm1-Bernie

The expanse of time and space doesn't change the probability of anything. It simply changes our finite thinking. We can then convince ourselves that something that seems improbable is now more probable.

Silent Hammer

WHY do we have to be RIGHT so much? It seems to me that most of our opinions, theories and beliefs are based on our past experiences and senses. We CAN be "fooled". So much of our energy is spent defending our own view that we will miss valuable things others hold true, and which might contribute to our own thinking. We have held false "t***hs" innumerable times in the past. What's to keep us from doing the same now? The problem is that we can and do make critical decisions based on misinformation or false doctrine. We held that Black People were "subhuman" and therefore not entitled to the rights and respect of "citizens" (W****s) of the U.S. We have been told that pre-born humans are not really "persons" yet, and therefore are not entitled to "life" as a "born" person is. Both decisions have critically affected our society, economically and emotionally, the damage done -- and BEING done -- incalculable. Whether "extraterrestial life" exists seems to be a moot question. How do we define "life"? How can this existence benefit humanity? Why are we debating these questions while so many "life and death" questions here go unanswered and not debated to bring about GOOD for humanity? IMO, our most pressing actions should be to establish and maintain beneficial relations with our human brothers and sisters. Otherwise, we fight and waste energy on solutions that degrade our civilization. We developed nuclear capability, yet those trillions of dollars have benefitted us NONE (factions around the world fight against its use for domestic power because of their own agenda). We have developed drugs which alleviate pain and bring about healing, yet these same drugs bring about millions of deaths because of their misuse every month. We ens***e, abuse and murder those of other "religions" because they are somehow "less" than us, yet "religion" is defined as a system of knowledge of and communication with a "higher" existence to benefit our own existence and self knowledge. In The Bible, we are told that if we are on our way to the temple (to give adoration to "God") but we have a "beef" with our neighbor, we are to stop, reconcile the "beef" and THEN offer our worship. This seems to mean that we should be taking care of social, human issues before attempting to deal with perhaps esoteric questions. Jesus Christ gave us practical tasks as humans in His "Sermon on The Mount". I believe this is the way He intended us to live our lives. The only way to have Peace on Earth.

straightUp Loc: California

So, you just confirmed my point. Columbus was persecuted by the censorship of religion because of his scientific discovery (thinking he circumnavigated the earth). He wasn't being persecuted by the scientists he was being persecuted by a church trying to defend its preconceived claim that the earth is flat. Thank you for the example.


Well, someone should have explained that to the church when they were persecuting Columbus for suggesting the earth is a globe or when they arrested Galileo for using scientific evidence to suggest the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Maybe someone can explain it to the religious people today who refuse to consider the scientific evidence that we evolved and would probably be arresting the Darwinists if not for the fact that we're a secular republic now.


I think everyone can agree on this - the disagreement seems to be whether we call it nature or "God's creation."


It's ok. Personally, I don't need to believe God created something for it to be awesome - our modest observations of the universe so far is enough to boggle my mind with what they suggest.


Thank you Iliamna, I hope you got some sleep and BTW God has always been part of my life. People tend to assume I am an atheist because I'm not sold on Creationism but you can acknowledge the existence of something without having to comply with any of the specific theories about it.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

No,actually we are from Venus...Venus...Goddess of Beauty,Love,Fertility,Desire and Sex!!!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

That has been my take on it... At least since I saw the women on the other side if the aisle