Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,651-8,700 of 12,463

[George3]

I'm an atheist so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that religion is not essential. I think religion is a guideline for those who can't handle moral issues themselves- & of course everybody seems to be at lost when it comes to some points of moral implications- but that doesn't render religion as something mandatory. Religion has it's own downfall, I think.

[Travis]

George3 wrote: "I'm an atheist so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that religion is not essential. I think religion is a guideline for those who can't handle moral issues themselv..."

As a personal philosophy, religion has it's uses, and has some good things to say.
When people use it in place of science or don't seem to have actually read the instruction manual, then it becomes a problem.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: always used who, so this last minute 'Oh, but I meant...!' seems more than a bit weaselly...."

Weaselly sounds a bit Harry Potter'ish.

I use the word 'who' when referring to a creator, but the 'who' you are referring to was regarding your 'stuff'. Who made the stuff happen? Or what made it happen etc.

Travis wrote:but I have evidence for stuff happens

I know you do, lots of evidence; it's all' around us, I have seen the evidence as well.

BUT... it is that first little tiny bit of 'stuff' that made all other stuff happen, that you do not have any evidence for.

And it's that very first bit of 'stuff' one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second — before the Big Bang started, that there is no evidence for.

Not even science has the answer ......

http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-o...

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: so why can't I have imaginary payments.

Well, you can't have imaginary payments; the scenario was mine to illustrate a point, so if you then start changing my scenario you will be c..."

How did I change the point? I used your scenario to illustrate what I see you and other theists doing.

I have to wait for my money/ you have to wait for science to tell you

I have decided to comfort myself with imaginary payments/ you have decided to believe in a invisible undetectable god and subscribe to one set of mythologies.

I insist that the imaginary payments are real and attempt to use them in reality/ you insist the god is real and that you know what it wants and attempt to apply this in reality... (you here is the general theist and not personal)

But the real point here you are not content to say "I don't know" so fill the gap with "god" an unprovable hypothesis on how the world functions.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: always used who, so this last minute 'Oh, but I meant...!' seems more than a bit weaselly...."

Weaselly sounds a bit Harry Potter'ish.

I use the word 'who' when referring to a creat..."

But science has theories that it is working on, and none of them require a who to work.
While they have not pinned down the exact stuff that made it happen, it will still happen without a man in the sky, Shiva, Odin, Galactus or Cthulu.

there are answers, but you cannot accept an answer that does not contain a grand design.
So, the failing is not in science, it is the people that either are too busy to wait for an answer, cannot accept the scary answer that no one is in charge or are content to keep the imaginary friend.

[Hp]

Shannon wrote: "I saw this exchange and decided to ask a real astrophysicist! Well, I didn't ask the question; it was already asked and answered. I'm really sort of digging the NASA/Ask an Astrophysicist page.
Check it out! But, sit down first. It will make some smile, but it will likely come close to making others spontaneously combust!
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask... "

I did smile. The guy's an idiot:

"The big bang theory is the theory that the universe started from a single point, and has been expanding ever since."

No. The universe of space and time as we know it did not exist before. There was no "point" (in so many ways :-) The whole universe has been expanding ever since.

"This has been well-established by observations, such as the apparent movement of galaxies away from us, and the cosmic microwave background radiation believed to be the leftover light from the big bang."

No. All the galaxies are moving away from each other (and us): the very space within the universe is expanding.

"The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case."

Well the generally accepted age is 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years so he's well out (1-6 billion years) right at the start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang...

"However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one."

No it doesn't. The "why" is very much a scientific question which could relate to any of the prevalent big bang explanations such as intersecting branes.

I take it Jonathan Keohane is a religious man.

Perhaps the "who" question would go some way to being a religious issue but that is so anthropomorthic it hurts.

"Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ..."

No. First came the big bang which created time and space; then a sea of extremely high energy particles; then a quark–gluon plasma; then after after some 370,000 years the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded and there was light as we know it; then billions of years later the heavier elements were created, in dying stellar furnaces, of which the earth (and life as we know it) is made.

The biblical creation narratives (as well as being stolen from the Babylonians) are in no way related to the current big bang theory.

[[deleted user]]

Hp wrote: "No."

Well, heck ....

Someone needs to contact NASA and tell them their astrophysicist is wrong and they need to link with Wiki or the Angels and Demons thread! And, ... to think ... my tax dollars went to funding the astrophysicists who post on NASA's site!

[Hp]

Shannon wrote: "
Well, heck ....
Someone needs to contact NASA and tell them their astrophysicist is wrong and they need to link with Wiki or the Angels and Demons thread! And, ... to think ... m..."

I think they probably have more that 1 astrophysicist on their books (if he really is with NASA). If this guy can't even match up with the simplest big bang ideas (which are explained in the most basic astronomy courses at university not just wikipedia) then he really does need a sabbatical.

And the "why" being a religious question? Seriously?
Why does the sun rise in the east? Must be a religious question. Why does hydrogen and oxygen when mixed and heated produce water? Must be a religious question. Why oh why?

Even on the perennial "Why are we here?" question there is a scientific answer: Abiogenesis followed by evolution by means of natural selection.

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "Though, as I assiduously attempted to point out, neither have I, neither COULD I, and neither could anyone else. It's not that straightforward a subject."

Well Michael, science has contributed a fair bit to our lives. It is doubtful if religion has contributed anything positive. Charity is not the sole domain of religion and much of the biblical ethics are downright terrible. Believing in the paracosm of a creator is a sign of madness in my book.

Cognitive dissonance is rife within this thread...

[Hp]

I have found the answer! I searched for religion on Uncyclopedia and got:

"No search results for that term. God does not exist."

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Re...

[Sherrie]

Going back to the original question, I can see that both religion and science have been necessary parts of our evolution. Both, at the basic level, are trying to explain our existence. However, I think we've outlived our need for religion and from my personal experience, it has done more harm than good. I don't really think we need religion as a moral compass. Those that are good are good with or without it. Evil never changes its way because of it. Spirituality, I agree, is very different from regilgion. And, science is still in its infancy. We still just scratch the surface of what we know or can prove. And maybe we will never have the definitive answers. Not sure it matters. Millions have gone before us who were never able to explain the universe.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Not even science has the answer ......

http://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-o...... "

Interesting. Are you coming round to science? Your linked article ends with:

"We know all these things now," Carroll said. "The pace of progress is actually astonishingly fast, so I would never give in to pessimism. There's no reason in the recent history of cosmology and physics to be pessimistic about our prospects for understanding the Big Bang."

Albrecht voiced similar optimism, saying we may one day even figure out what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.

"I base my hope on the fact that cosmology has been so successful," he told SPACE.com. "It seems nature has sent us a clear message that we really can do science with the universe."

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: Interesting. Are you coming round to science?.."

Not sure what you mean by that.........

Hp wrote/quoted:There's no reason in the recent history of cosmology and physics to be pessimistic about our prospects for understanding the Big Bang."

Albrecht voiced similar optimism, saying we may one day even figure out what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.

Science is already understanding the big bang.

Albrecht's use of the word 'may' leaves things very open.

One day I may win the lotto. One day you may believe in a God.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: it is the people that either are too busy to wait for an answer..."

I would stop everything I am doing and wait for the answer if I though that would help.

But, be honest that is the ultimate question for science to find an answer to and yet it can't even land a man on mars. That is how behind science is.

[Michael]

HP wrote "Cognitive dissonance is rife within this thread..."

You're not wrong - I'm feeling it right now.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: I insist that the imaginary payments are real and attempt to use them in reality

They are not real, I know because I am the instigator.


Shanna wrote:But the real point here you are not content to say "I don't know"

Are you content to say "there could be"?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: it is the people that either are too busy to wait for an answer..."

I would stop everything I am doing and wait for the answer if I though that would help.

But, be honest that is ..."

How many men has religion landed on mars?

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: I insist that the imaginary payments are real and attempt to use them in reality

They are not real, I know because I am the instigator.


Shanna wrote:But the real point here you are..."

Ok if you are going to insist on missing the point, we are back to cs...

Yes I'm content to say there could be. There is no reason however to use this "could be" as guide to my life, to presume to know what this "could be" wants and use its name, presumed wants and anything else as a weapon against my fellow humans... There "could be" so many things it's no reason to assume that "they are" and the statistical likelyhood that your particular "could be" is a "they are" infintessimal....

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Ok if you are going to insist on missing the point, we are back to cs...
..."

You have not grasped the point and now you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

I used a scenario to illustrate a point. You could have said that my scenario was not a good one or you could have given a better one, but you altered my one. That does not make sense.

Example: If my barrister said to the Judge that he would like bring to the judges attention the case of Smith v Jones of 1995, in which the then judge gave a ruling, your barrister can’t alter that ruling but could refer the Judge to another case if it was relevant. That is the same for a scenario, otherwise what is the point of a scenario.

Shanna wrote:Yes I'm content to say there could be. There is no reason however to use this "could be" as guide to my life

Is that not just what I said but in reverse?

I'm content to say there might not be, but I have no reason either. Although there 'may' not be. As in Hp's 'may'.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:How many men has religion landed on mars?..."

Now you are grasping at straws.....you can do better than that. :)

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:How many men has religion landed on mars?..."

Now you are grasping at straws.....you can do better than that. :)"

What, judging religion by the same standards you seem to be judging science by...?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:
What, judging religion by the same standards you seem ..."

No, but to criticise religion rather than being able to defend the point i made about science is rather telling. And, as I keep saying, I am not a great supporter of religion either.

[Shanna]

I have grasped the point, you have settled on the god option because science hasn't answered the question, yet. You can't just accept the we don't know, yet, as the intellectually honest answer. You take this choice and insist it is the right one and condemn others (even if it's only with smug superiority) for not making the same intellectually dishonest choice.
It's Pascal's wager and any "god" worth it's salt would see it as the petty wager it is...
So scenarios are not to explore hypothetical situations and their hypothetical implications and consequences? Silly me...
Case law and precedent, are not applicable or equivalent...

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "Ok if you are going to insist on missing the point, we are back to cs..."
Oh, he was never gone.....

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:
What, judging religion by the same standards you seem ..."

No, but to criticise religion rather than being able to defend the point i made about science is rather telling. And, as I ..."

Well, you are creating silly and pretty much arbitrary examples of failings of science, when the answer you are putting out hasn't a crumb of evidence backing it up and is just something you latched on because science is taking too long.

yet, 'god did it' has been around for 2,000 years and hasn't produced anything concrete, but you want it treated as serious answer, as if science and 'god did it' are on equal footing.

If science has to jump through hoops, then 'god' either has to jump through the same hoops or it needs to stop wasting our time.

[Shanna]

Cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Ok if you are going to insist on missing the point, we are back to cs..."
Oh, he was never gone....."

He just seemed more reasonable recently... wishful thinking for me perhaps.

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "He just seemed more reasonable recently... wishful thinking for me perhaps."
Had seemed like business as usual to me.....maybe a step up from his trolling of old, but a small step at that.

[Shanna]

Cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "He just seemed more reasonable recently... wishful thinking for me perhaps."
Had seemed like business as usual to me.....maybe a step up from his trolling of old, but a small step at..."

Like I said wishful thinking...

[Garima]

Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."
I agree! Big Bang is a big bang on every irrational mind. :)

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Not sure what you mean by that..."

You provided a link saying "not even science has the answer" which is what we have been admitting all along; but your link gave a positive spin on the future of cosmological science which you keep on disparaging.

”Albrecht's use of the word 'may' leaves things very open.”

Exactly! That’s the wonder of science – we admit we have much to learn. Science doesn’t just pick an unverifiable, unfalsifiable answer and then stick to it.

Your answer (a creator) has no evidence supporting it which would not support scientific explanations of observed events and explains nothing above the simple act of creation itself.

You go on about not liking the idea of religion but religion contains a belief in a superhuman controlling power. Religion can be defined as “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe” which seems to be your stance with a creator.

"Science is already understanding the big bang..."

Science does not yet fully understand the big bang and admits it! It has many theories that explain the evidence we currently perceive for the big bang event but as you are often stating we don't know the physics at or before (if that actually means anything given that time as we know it may not have existed before) the BB.

” One day I may win the lotto. One day you may believe in a God. “

That’s fine and dandy but it won’t take a god to win the lottery – just pure random chance. One day I may believe in a god; the difference between you and I seems to be that I require evidence of a god which isn’t explicable via scientific means (which is surely required for such an extraordinary claim).

People who have a belief in a creator or god always have a belief in their creator or god sustained by “evidence” they would simply not accept for any other thing in their lives.
People believe that their god answers their prayers; but every religion believes that their particular orthogonal god answers their prayers even when that god contradicts all others. And I find that my needs are answered in exactly the same statistical way by pure natural chance.

[Hp]

Garima wrote: "I agree! Big Bang is a big bang on every irrational mind. :) ..."

Whoa! The "Big Bang" (which was indeed Big - it created the entire visible universe, and a Bang - we can still measure the "sound" via the cosmic microwave background radiation http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer...) has reams of supporting rational evidence.

Perhaps you should use your rational (reasonable - sensible - sane - logical) mind, given to you by billions of years of evidenced evolution by natural selection, to search for the real truth, not just the "truth" you want to hear.

Irrational (not logical or reasonable) minds seem happy to just accept the idea of a god (which is chosen, usually by birth, from the thousands of man made deities) without any rational reasoning whatsoever.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Well, you are creating silly and pretty much arbitrary examples of failings of science, when the answer you are putting out hasn't a crumb of evidence backing it up and is just something you latched on because science is taking too long..."

At last we may be agreeing in a roundabout sort of way.

I do not have a crumb of evidence, but on this issue nor does science.

I am happy to go with the creator idea as the most likely option, whereas it seems as though you nor Shanna have any ideas of your own since you did not respond to the question I asked previously. But that is fair enough, you are happy to sit it out until science comes up with an answer. It just that you won't be around to know what that answer is.

Science has made incredible advances on many fronts but regarding this issue it is still very much in it's infancy.

That's why to many a belief is better than nothing.

If you want to apply your logic that 'stuff' happens then that could apply to anything including a creator.

If one of science theories is that the universe could have happened from nothing then you could equally apply that logic to a creator.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "I do not have a crumb of evidence, but on this issue nor does science."

Well science does have a crumb of evidence: the universe itself and the observed features within this universe. There are scientific theories of the creation that do involve something from "nothing": "nothing", as a scientific entity, seems to be eminently unstable. If the total energy of the observed universe (gravity vs matter and energy) is zero then it may well have come from no energy at all!

"whereas it seems as though you nor Shanna have any ideas of your own since you did not respond to the question I asked previously..."

Which question?

I could say I believe the universe was farted out of a cosmic hybrid goat-elephant-like "creator". Just as much evidence and rationality as any creator: Unprovable and unfalsifiable! And (ha, ha) so much of a better idea than what science provides us.

"Science has made incredible advances on many fronts but regarding this issue it is still very much in it's infancy."

Exactly! We have come so far (I think it's amazing that we can see the evidence of the Big Bang and find science to explain much of what we see) in such a short time. A creator has been proposed for thousands of years and has got us nowhere nearer the truth than when it was first proposed. Give science (which you have admitted is in its infancy) another 3000+ years to match Judeo/Christian creation myths and humans will be truly amazed. But the creator idea will still be just that - a creator idea!

"That's why to many a belief is better than nothing."

Sorry? Just because we don't have a scientific answer to the metaphysical "Why are we here?" people are willing to accept any old tosh? I hope rational people are more sensible than that!

"If one of science theories is that the universe could have happened from nothing then you could equally apply that logic to a creator."

You could indeed. But that gives us nothing. Where did the creator of the creator from nothing come from? Where did the creator of the creator of the creator from nothing come from? A "creator" of the universe by definition must be greater than the universe itself. A creator may have been created from nothing in which case cut out the middle man and just say the creation came from nothing.

Science has limits and the creation of the universe may well be a scientific limit (even though, amazingly, there is work going on pre-Big Bang science which examines the observable evidence which may point to previous universes). Physical Science can only work from observations and if we run out of those that's it. Theoretical Science can go on forever with "What if?"'s.

"If you want to apply your logic that 'stuff' happens then that could apply to anything including a creator."

But science requires evidence that 'stuff' happens; needs theories as to why the 'stuff' happens; and needs to predict what other evidence the 'stuff' may produce.

A creator does none of this: it doesn't even explain why the stuff happens in the first place except by saying "the creator did it".

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: You provided a link saying "not even science has the answer" which is what we have been admitting all along; but your link gave a positive spin on the future of cosmological science which you keep on disparaging. ..."

I understand now. I see cosmological science as very interesting but it does have it's limitations; that's what I think. I would see that as an honest viewpoint rather than a disparaging one.

Hp wrote: Exactly! That’s the wonder of science – we admit we have much to learn. Science doesn’t just pick an unverifiable, unfalsifiable answer and then stick to it.

I like the wonders of science and I like the word 'may' and if you are happy to use the word 'may' in regard to things science has no evidence for at the moment, then you should also use it regarding a creator.

There 'may' be a creator. Otherwise you are not applying your logic fairly.

Hp wrote:....time as we know it may not have existed before) the BB..

I agree, time is a 'man made' thing, a measurement, but something caused the BB to happen. And that is something I don't think science will ever answer fully, because whatever answer science agrees on will only produce an even greater question.

Hp wrote: One day I may believe in a god; the difference between you and I seems to be that I require evidence of a god which isn’t explicable via scientific means (which is surely required for such an extraordinary claim).

Well that's a step forward in our agreeing. You are saying that there could be a god. And I am saying that there may not be. But my belief is strong enough to believe there is, until science can give me a better answer. You think there is no god but will wait for evidence.

Without using the bible as some sort of evidence here.... and because the evidence is not strong enough to prove beyond doubt, but I believe it is strong enough to have a belief that it could be a workable hypothesis.

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: Well science does have a crumb of evidence: the universe itself and the observed features within this universe. There are scientific theories of the creation that do involve something from "nothing": "nothing", as a scientific entity, seems to be eminently unstable. If the total energy of the observed universe (gravity vs matter and energy) is zero then it may well have come from no energy at all!.."

Theories. Something from nothing. Eminently unstable. Then it may well have come from no energy at all.

“it may well have” That word ‘may’ again. It may well have been created as well.

Hp wrote: I could say I believe the universe was farted out of a cosmic hybrid goat-elephant-like "creator". Just as much evidence and rationality as any creator: Unprovable and unfalsifiable! And (ha, ha) so much of a better idea than what science provides us.

That’s my point. You do not have an answer either.

Hp wrote: A creator has been proposed for thousands of years and has got us nowhere nearer the truth than when it was first proposed. Give science (which you have admitted is in its infancy) another 3000+ years to match Judeo/Christian creation myths and humans will be truly amazed.

You really don’t get it. 3000 years is just a work of fiction as far as we are concerned. You have no idea what science will have come up with in 3000 years and you will never know. So your proposal deserves as much ridicule as you give to the creator idea.

Hp wrote: Sorry? Just because we don't have a scientific answer to the metaphysical "Why are we here?" people are willing to accept any old tosh? I hope rational people are more sensible than that!

I am afraid that you are putting science on to high a pedestal in this regard.

You think any one who believes in a creator, which I guess is the majority of folks on this planet, are not sensible. But those who have no idea "Why are we here?" and are not even able to a least discuss possibilities and who suggest that maybe in 3000 years we will, (we being mankind) will be told by science……… are more sensible.

Hp wrote: But science requires evidence that 'stuff' happens; needs theories as to why the 'stuff' happens; and needs to predict what other evidence the 'stuff' may produce.

Correct. And that is why I said to Travis that stuff does NOT just happen as he suggests it does. You are agreeing with me on that one.

[Hp]

Thanks Chris, Interesting responses!

You say "There 'may' be a creator. Otherwise you are not applying your logic fairly." but science is derived from considerable evidence which led to testable theories which have provided predictable, verifiable events. The "creator" hypothesis does not. They are not equal propositions. The "may" need not apply to the simple creator hypothesis.

"I see cosmological science as very interesting but it does have its limitations; that's what I think. I would see that as an honest viewpoint rather than a disparaging one."

But you are not admitting that the creator idea has even greater limitations. The creator provides no other reason but that it creates. If it doesn't please provide evidence of such.
Cosmological sciences cover much of the observable creation event and the 13.7 billions years since and what would appear to be billions of years into the future.

Science, as you said, is in its infancy - we have far to go. Thousands of years of a creator have added nowt.

"I agree, time is a 'man made' thing, a measurement, but something caused the BB to happen."

Time isn't man made. There is something which appears to be a fourth like dimension in our observations which we relate to time. It's not simply something we made up. This "time" thing really exists as it can be fully treated as an extra dimension in the mathematics which appears to explain our world.

It is not necessary for something to have deliberately created our universe. You said you understood quantum physics in an earlier post (Feynman once said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics") and within quantum physics events happen purely randomly. No reason causes these purely random events and the randomness fully fits in with the theories and mathematics of quantum mechanics.

Radioactive decay is a case in point. The decay is purely random and we can only predict a probability for the decay pattern; no predictive pattern for the decay of an individual atom can be found.

"Without using the bible as some sort of evidence here.... and because the evidence is not strong enough to prove beyond doubt, but I believe it is strong enough to have a belief that it could be a workable hypothesis."

I didn't think you did religion. Why mention the Bible?

The evidence points so far in the direction of no creator (being as there is no independent evidence which only points to a creator) that I see no rational reason to perpetuate the myth.

I think what you are really saying is you want to believe regardless.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Theories. Something from nothing. Eminently unstable. Then it may well have come from no energy at all.

Sorry, Was there a point to this sentence?

Are you implying that scientific theories have no worth? If so you do not understand true scientific theories (often a problem with creationists).

“it may well have” That word ‘may’ again. It may well have been created as well."

It may well have been anything that any sentient being could imagine but evidence is crucial.

[Ken]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Well, you are creating silly and pretty much arbitrary examples of failings of science, when the answer you are putting out hasn't a crumb of evidence backing it up and is just someth..."

again, you keep saying science has no evidence, when it actually does.
It is incomplete and does not provide perfect answers, or give any support to there being a man in the sky, but compared to the creator idea, it's got truckloads of crumbs.

the idea of a creator isn't actually 'better than nothing' it is actually nothing. science has a crumb of evidence, people that settle for god are imagining a creator and then also imagining a crumb.

Your creator gives no actual answers, and in fact asks a whole bunch more that can't be answered.

and what is this evidence that you mention that leads you to a working hypothesis from post 8854?

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Without using the bible as some sort of evidence here..."

I think a wizard created the universe but without using Harry Potter as some sort of evidence here.... and because the evidence is not strong enough to prove beyond doubt, but I believe it is strong enough to have a belief that it could be a workable hypothesis.

[Hp]

Now we're getting somewhere:

"You think any one who believes in a creator, which I guess is the majority of folks on this planet, are not sensible. But those who have no idea "Why are we here?" and are not even able to a least discuss possibilities and who suggest that maybe in 3000 years we will, (we being mankind) will be told by science……… are more sensible."

I DO have an idea why we are here: science explains almost all of it. “Creator did it!” explains nothing.

When there is no evidence for a creator that does not also support cosmological science; and all those people you quote believe in a number of different forms of non-overlapping creators; and the fact that just because a load of people believe something does not make it true; and when cosmological science gives us more than just a simple “the creator did it”; and projecting from the amazing advancements of science just over the last 100 odd years forward through a minimal period of creation myth time; and when rational thought should involve some level of rationality; and I am discussing the rational possibilities, then I do think I am moving forward in accordance with wisdom or prudence.

I think you're taking Occam's Razor to the extreme here. Just picking the "theory" with the minimum assumptions (one) doesn't imply you should just say "a creator did it".

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: but compared to the creator idea, it's got truckloads of crumbs.
.."

...what are the crumbs telling us?

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Without using the bible as some sort of evidence here..."

I think a wizard created the universe but without using Harry Potter as some sort of evidence here.... and because the evide..."

.....nice try :)

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: Sorry, Was there a point to this sentence?
"

Yes, they were your words and they suggested good ideas but nothing more.

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: I think you're taking Occam's Razor to the extreme here. Just picking the "theory" with the minimum assumptions (one) doesn't imply you should just say "a creator did it".."

Is the creator idea not the simpler of two competing explanations; that is of course when science is able to give us an alternative one.

Hp wrote: I DO have an idea why we are here:

.....but for now I would be happy to hear your idea.

[Awal Hidayat]

A&D give us many lessons, ok, to answer the question let me describe what it is.. First, don't be an extremist (such as, on religion). Camerlengo prove it. I just can't imagine at first, but it's the fact. Then, what'll answer between live in world without science raher without religion absolutely without science. I'm not sure, I can live in this world without guide. Religion brings me to the better world and heaven. I mean it.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "...but for now I would be happy to hear your idea"

You must read more than the first few words of a sentence:

"I DO have an idea why we are here: science explains almost all of it. “Creator did it!” explains nothing."

Science is well on the way to completely explain the creation evidence we observe from our remote viewpoint in this immense universe which was only given an appropriate scale via the scientific investigations of less that 100 years ago. Getting to within a nanosecond of the creation of our (potentially) particular pocket of the vast universe is pretty good going from such a removed standpoint. Amazing stuff this science! And this science, which accurately predicts the ratio of light elements and radiation from this creation event and the creation of the heavier elements of which we and all planets and potential life in this universe are made, then goes on to give us all of the chemistry we use and the electronics that we now depend upon. Wow! impressive stuff. And the creator idea gives us, eh, well, um, a creator. Who we can’t explain and who appears to have taken no further interest in its work.

I agree that the idea of a creatrix is a simple hypothesis for the source of a creation event but that’s all that particular idea gives us – the creation event. And why a creatrix - implying a "someone" rather than a something. Why does the process which resulted in the universe have to be a sentient entity (as far as we are concerned) rather than an unthinking, uncaring process?

Another simple explanation for the creation event observed in our particular volume of the universe would be a simple, natural procedure which rapidly expanded a multidimensional space/time pocket, which looks massive to us but is just a microcosm, within the greater and complete universe. Alright that sounds an awful lot more complex than “creator did it” but that misses the point that the creator has to be a vast, complex entity greater the universe we observe. And where did that creator come from? Points that the wonderfully simple “creator did it” fail to address.

”...nice try :)”

And no different than the “god did it” hypothesis. Wizards do not exist as far as we know (even though many religious texts seem to think they do – and mete out severe punishments to these poor, imaginary beings – bit like my imaginary friend is bigger than yours) but Harry Potter is certainly documented well with many historical and geographical references we know to be true; much like many religious texts.

”Yes, they were your words and they suggested good ideas but nothing more.”

And your creator suggests what exactly? I am sure we are heading down the biblical route eventually (after your Freudian slip earlier) even though you seem rather reticent to admit your true faith…

And from what I’ve read the two biblical creation events, as well as being contradictory, are most likely myths stolen by the Jews during their Babylonian captivity. They must have been jealous that they didn’t have any of their own.

[Michael]

Hp wrote: "Now we're getting somewhere"

I think you're being optimistic, as far as settling the issue goes. Five years in and I see circles, picking holes in teabags, overly enthusiastic discourse analysis (it's even possible that's what I'm doing right now, but I'll haul the guilt like a good 'un), and no end in sight to the to and fro.

So, getting somewhere? Where you started pretty much. But where else can you go?

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "So, getting somewhere? Where you started pretty much. But where else can you go? ..."

We're always getting somewhere further than we were; that's the nature of time and entropy.

Now I understand more about where other people are coming from even if I don't agree with them.

Do you think we are going backward in some way?

[Michael]

Hell's, that was quick. Anyway - I'm getting the idea you need Religion as much as anyone as you need something to butt your head against. Like Batman needed the Penguin, it's your dialectic tickle, your arch-villain. So to speak. Deny it all you like, I can see the wide eye - this debate, from the time you invest in it, is looking like it's both your headache and your Paracetamol, which is also nicely dialectical in an absurd sort of way. Of course, you are certainly not alone.

That time and entropy thing though - a bit too gnomic for my needs, if I'm honest.

Going backward though. You can't go backward when a forward step has been taken, but you can end up going nowhere in particular. (Gee, that was a bit gnomic too. That was almost Confucianist - you know the type of thing. "Man who is easily distracted is... oh, look at that spider!")

I may be meandering. I am not concerned.