What do you think happens after death?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Eventually I'll have to take classes on that subject, my main two majors have been Philosophy and Economics. (Persueing both, but got my AA in liberal arts, then went to work... )

But anyway, the only thing I can really say to that, is that experiments are also created.. As are the environments in which organisms are studied. So as you said, it doesn't disprove creationism. At the end of the day, it boils down to if everything became how it is now by design, or by chance.

I think the point that's trying to be stressed is people on the side of creationism typically say "Well you can't prove how evolution happened. You can't prove there isn't a God." However, on the other hand they can't prove there is a God.


The bad thing I find in "faith", is that it closes some minds to expanding our knowledge of life itself.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think the point that's trying to be stressed is people on the side of creationism typically say "Well you can't prove how evolution happened. You can't prove there isn't a God." However, on the other hand they can't prove there is a God.

That really depends on what you define as proof. For a Christian the Bible is their proof. Apparently a man was able to walk on water and heal people with prayer and do various other miracles. Then they'd turn around and ask where's your ptoof.. My point is that it is a choce based off of faith to belive that there's no creator.

The bad thing I find in "faith", is that it closes some minds to expanding our knowledge of life itself.

I actually agree with that statement, in a way. Though I think if nobody was religious, and everyone just accepted that we were created out of random chance, then it'd be just as bad. I think having conflicting faiths helps with the pursuit of the truth.. but the problem is that the truth exists so far back in time that it can't really be proved one way or another.

Though we're in an age of recorded history now.. as long as things stay this way, another 3-5,000 years or so down the line there might be atual video evidence of evolution, or maybe man itself will have evolved over time.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Though I think if nobody was religious, and everyone just accepted that we were created out of random chance, then it'd be just as bad. I think having conflicting faiths helps with the pursuit of the truth.. but the problem is that the truth exists so far back in time that it can't really be proved one way or another.

The thing about science, is that time won't change the answer.


Also, how would it be bad if people believed that we were made by a random chance, or even a high possibility on every planet - except our planet (among with thousands upon thousands of others in our Galaxy alone) have the right conditions for housing and sustaining the beginning organisms?

I view that a miracle in itself. (Let's say for argument's sake was housed in an asteroid that crashed into earth depositing the cells here) If our specific building blocks of life crashed into any other planet, asteroid, or even just flat out didn't hit the Earth, we wouldn't be alive right now. The same principle of our birth from sperm to egg, can be applied to asteroid to planet. It's all just chance.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

The thing about science, is that time won't change the answer.

There's been plenty of times in history where science's widely accepted answers to things were proven to be wrong. This is why scientific discoveries are almost always labeled as theories. The underlying answer to things will never change, but they also can never be proven to be true in every circumstance.

Also, how would it be bad if people believed that we were made by a random chance, or even a high possibility on every planet - except our planet (among with thousands upon thousands of others in our Galaxy alone) have the right conditions for housing and sustaining the beginning organisms?

Its not bad if people believe it, its bad if EVERYONE believes it. Usually anything that's accepted to be a fact by everyone is never questioned hard enough, and takes much longer to disprove. Whenever there's a conflict of Ideas, the truth is actively searched for.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think the point that's trying to be stressed is people on the side of creationism typically say "Well you can't prove how evolution happened. You can't prove there isn't a God." However, on the other hand they can't prove there is a God.

Who here is arguing for creationism? I see your point on a general creationism vs. evolution debate (depending upon the definition of creationism you're using), but I don't believe TheGame has supported creationism in his argument.

As KG said, none of the points raised have a bearing on if there is or is not a God, they are simply an evolution of our understanding of how the universe functions.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

Who here is arguing for creationism?...I don't believe TheGame has supported creationism in his argument.

I was simply making a statement of how I dislike it when people say that.

[Professor S]

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I want to clarify my points a little further:

1) Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

2) "Proving God". This is an impossibility. Even if God came down from the heavens, turned water into grape juice and and cured all diseases, there would still be those who would disbelieve, and the "scientific theorists" would be the first to do so, because they couldn't "prove" how it happened. If you can't prove it, it never happened, right? There must be some provable explanation or random confluence of events because the alternative is not acceptable and cannot be considered... kind of lile the idea of a higher power sparking life into being.

3) I am not a science bigot, but a science realist. There is a lot that is wrong with the scientific community, and most of it driven by ego and the need to be accepted by peers. Tesla was derided and ignored for decades after his death because a rival scientist (Edison) had the hearts and minds (and money) of the community. The fact that much of the community refuses to accept the possibility of God as an option because it's immmeasurable is not based in scientific evidence to the contrary, it's based in closed minded thinking. One can experiment in finding alternatives while keeping other possibilities available, and when the scientific community makes gross assumptions based on theories (evolutionary theory has been horribly abused and overstated in it's scope) it closes more doors than it opens. No one in mainstream science will even sniff at the idea of challenging many of the current assumptions made from evolutionary theory, and thats a huge cultural problem in science, not a scientific one.

I honestly hope that every scientist available puts as much effort available towards determining the origins of life and every other mystery of the universe, and I hope they find answers to all their questions, but considering devine alternatives is not a detriment to this process if one thinks objectively, and can in fact open up new avenues to explore because it asks that we try and prove thewories instead of just assuming they are true.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I want to clarify my points a little further:

1) Origins of life: If you'd like to say random chance, a chance so remote the many statisticians believe it near impossible if not impossible, is the origin of life, thats fine. I remain open to the other option as well. There is as much "science" to support that as the religion/God(s) theory, a theory simultaneously held for thousands of years by many cultures who never interacted with one another. There is something to be said for that, and arguments of "needing an answer" have little to support them other than a thought process intended to find an answer other than "God". They all didn't believe in a purple dragon, of the infamous "spaghetti monster in the sky" as many of the more egotistocal atheists like to call it.

Collective unconscious? Common fear of the unknown? It's not totally implausible to rule out. But indeed the collective belief in some divine being is quite compelling to think about.

Originally Posted by Professor S

2) "Proving God". This is an impossibility. Even if God came down from the heavens, turned water into grape juice and and cured all diseases, there would still be those who would disbelieve, and the "scientific theorists" would be the first to do so, because they couldn't "prove" how it happened. If you can't prove it, it never happened, right? There must be some provable explanation or random confluence of events because the alternative is not acceptable and cannot be considered... kind of lile the idea of a higher power sparking life into being.

I have no problems with this argument. I just assume you're not a Christian and that you are a Deist? I'm making this assumption based on your first point. In your first point you allude to a commonality in all humans. Whereas the majority of all religions are EXCLUSIVE. If you don't follow their set of rules you go to Hell! Take Christianity: if Jesus did come down to Earth, then the billions of people who have a collective tingling for some divine creator but are not Christian are still going to burn in Hell.

Also, to be clear, are you alluding in your post that there has been some proof of a divine creator?

Originally Posted by Professor S

3) I am not a science bigot, but a science realist. There is a lot that is wrong with the scientific community, and most of it driven by ego and the need to be accepted by peers. Tesla was derided and ignored for decades after his death because a rival scientist (Edison) had the hearts and minds (and money) of the community. The fact that much of the community refuses to accept the possibility of God as an option because it's immmeasurable is not based in scientific evidence to the contrary, it's based in closed minded thinking. One can experiment in finding alternatives while keeping other possibilities available, and when the scientific community makes gross assumptions based on theories (evolutionary theory has been horribly abused and overstated in it's scope) it closes more doors than it opens. No one in mainstream science will even sniff at the idea of challenging many of the current assumptions made from evolutionary theory, and thats a huge cultural problem in science, not a scientific one.

How has evolution been overstated? I feel like evolution is used as pseudo-science in armchair anti-religious discussions, but in the real world (medical, biological communities) evolution is used to further medical research, vaccinations, stem-cell research, understanding of the brain, understanding of drug addictions, etc.

Originally Posted by Professor S

I honestly hope that every scientist available puts as much effort available towards determining the origins of life and every other mystery of the universe, and I hope they find answers to all their questions, but considering devine alternatives is not a detriment to this process if one thinks objectively, and can in fact open up new avenues to explore because it asks that we try and prove thewories instead of just assuming they are true.

I'm just curious...towards what step does science take if they incorporate divine alternatives into research?

I'm not lambasting you or trying to stimulate aggressive discussion....btw. I'm impressed that this thread has yet to derail. Woo, trains! Choo choo!