Religion?

[Cube Equation]

Isn't it just plain obvious that you can't create something out of nothing. A quote from Zane C from just the last place

Please define obvious. We are dealing with creation here, an issue which is different from all other mundane events. Conventional logic does not necessarily apply. I may be a physicist (or one who is aspiring to becoming one), but I don't think the Conservation of Mass-Energy must apply in a singularity which many cosmologists claim to mark the beginning of existence as we know it.

 

[collinbxyz]

With everything above said, I think that in the future, especially when science proves religion wrong (i mean it gives proof of no god , but not completely) more and more people will become athiest for the lack of a need of a god. Like I think Zane said, gods and religion odten cover up for unknown knowledge. So as we learn more that gives more proof of no gods, there will be less need for them, making more atheists.

This is just a possible prediction. Dont take this wrongly, as I find it quite realistic from my point of view. Of course i could be completely wrong...

 

[hic0057]

There once wasn't a universe... and now there is. There's proof that you get something from nothing.

There once was a time when Australia wasn't inhabited by humans... And now it is. Does that prove that Australians come from nothing. Maybe there is something outside of reality that we know it that created us

Please define obvious.

For science to be science it needs to be observed than explained. What I'm trying to say is that scientist can't/haven't observed nothing turning into something. I personally believe that is impossible for something to originate from nothing. That is mainly comman sense and plain logic.
Sorry for not directly answering your question though.

Um...
How about what we were talking about?
What created the universe?

There was a post done by Emolover who doesn't believe in the big bang but instead in there being a creator. He doesn't believe directly in a god from what I understand. When I posted that question I meant why can't there be a god/creator and what are the flaws for it.

Creationist job is to defend the bible scientifically.(mainly stuff like a young earth and universe, a global flood and there being a creator)

 

[Weston]

There was a post done by Emolover who doesn't believe in the big bang but instead in there being a creator. He doesn't believe directly in a god from what I understand. When I posted that question I meant why can't there be a god/creator and what are the flaws for it.

I never said that there "can't" be a god. There's just no compelling evidence for it. You arbitrarily fill gaps in human knowledge with god and say "It's not impossible!" so you think your position is justified.
It isn't the least bit justified.

Creationist job is to defend the bible scientifically.(mainly stuff like a young earth and universe, a global flood and there being a creator)

No, your job is to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you shouldn't believe it.

 

[shelley]

With everything above said, I think that in the future, especially when science proves religion wrong (i mean it gives proof of no god , but not completely) more and more people will become athiest for the lack of a need of a god. Like I think Zane said, gods and religion odten cover up for unknown knowledge. So as we learn more that gives more proof of no gods, there will be less need for them, making more atheists.

This is just a possible prediction. Dont take this wrongly, as I find it quite realistic from my point of view. Of course i could be completely wrong...

Nah, it makes sense. Just look at how knowledge has progressed and grown through history. Our ancestors used the supernatural to explain things like thunder and lightning, sunrises, disease, earthquakes, and other natural phenomena. Over time, people came up with natural explanations through observation and scientific experimentation. Today, we have no need for a god of thunder to explain our weather. Grade schoolers are taught the structure of the solar system and how the earth moves in relation to the sun, and modern medicine makes possible what past generations would have called miracles.

Sure, there are plenty of things science can't explain yet, but is there any reason to think that this progression isn't going to continue? That at some point science is just going to give up and concede, "okay, a supernatural force is responsible for that one"? So far, this has never happened. Ever. That's just not the way it works.

I don't think science is actually going to "prove religion wrong". For that to happen, there has to be a falsifiable claim to be proven wrong, and religions aren't big on producing falsifiable claims. Besides, the burden of proof is not on scientists to prove that god doesn't exist. It's on those who claim that there is a god. What (I hope) happens is that as time goes on religion just becomes less important as it becomes less relevant not just for explaining natural phenomena, but also for dictating morality in our ever evolving society. Maybe humanity will eventually realize it doesn't need religion.

 

[hic0057]

No, your job is to prove it. If you can't prove it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Many of the question/problems that creation scientist have faced have proven the answer to it especially on the topic of a global flood.

Also there have been many times throughout history when people have believed in something and couldn't prove it and have been right. Should those people believed differently when they Had the correct answer.

 

[shelley]

Many of the question/problems that creation scientist have faced have proven the answer to it especially on the topic of a global flood.

All this proves is that some of the stories in the Bible may have some basis in actual events, which we already know. It says nothing about the divinity or existence of a supernatural being and nothing about the questions we still have about how the universe/life began.

Also there have been many times throughout history when people have believed in something and couldn't prove it and have been right. Should those people believed differently when they Had the correct answer.

Example?

 

[Weston]

Many of the question/problems that creation scientist have faced have proven the answer to it especially on the topic of a global flood.

Also there have been many times throughout history when people have believed in something and couldn't prove it and have been right. Should those people believed differently when they Had the correct answer.

Jesus, are you drunk or something?
I'm going to try to reword what you said so that it makes sense. You can tell me if I got it right or wrong.

Creation scientists have proven the Bible to be true using the global flood.

Also there have been many time throughout history when people have believed in something that they couldn't prove, but then were later proven to be right. Were those people right to believe what they thought to be true before it was proven to be correct?"

Just because a Biblical event has been shown to be an actual historical event doesn't mean that the Bible is true. Cats exist in Harry Potter and IRL, but that doesn't make Harry Potter true.

The number of times when people thought something was right, but then were later proved to be wrong massively outnumbers the number of times when people thought something was right, then were later proved to be right.
So you're basing your life on something that might be discovered in the future if a huge chunk of science is wrong?
What?

 

[Zane_C]

Maybe there is something outside of reality that we know it that created us

Maybe gravity is caused by sub-atomic pink fairies, yet is there a compelling reason to believe that?
It seems reasonable to say that "maybe" isn't good enough to state something as fact. Not unless there is supporting evidence, which is why religion is faith, and why science has 'theories'.

I need to go do something productive now.

 

[irontwig]

the historical parts of the bible claim to be written by eye witness writers.

Which parts? I don't see any such claims, and Luke and Paul (whoever they were) explicitly tell us that they were not on the scene of the crime, so to speak. In a way I agree with you though as I see very close to zero history and eye witness testimony in the Bible.

 

[hic0057]

Just because a Biblical event has been shown to be an actual historical event doesn't mean that the Bible is true. Cats exist in Harry Potter and IRL, but that doesn't make Harry Potter true.

The number of times when people thought something was right, but then were later proved to be wrong massively outnumbers the number of times when people thought something was right, then were later proved to be right.
So you're basing your life on something that might be discovered in the future if a huge chunk of science is wrong?
What?

The biblical flood was just an example of many more out there. Even some of its prophecys that have been fulfilled in the last century. Many of these things the education system don't want you to know about.

A lot of people in our culture just get spoon fed their information believing whatever people who can use long scientific words say. I highly respect people who go out think about what there being talked instead of being indoctrinated.

Maybe I'm basing my life on something that is wrong. Every time I've challenged the bible and being a Christian I've found a solution to it.

Also for examples for Shelly, the only ones I could think of on the spot is Galileo and Greek philosophers.

For the record, I don't have any degrees or whatever in this topic, I just find it really interesting. Look at some of the previous links that I've posted which argues from people who are highly qualified in this topic

 

[irontwig]

Wait, so you think that there's actual scientific evidence for a global flood with a sea level of about 5000 m (height of mount Ararat) over the current one? Sure, we know that there were floods in the Middle East that might have been the basis of the different deluge myths in that region, but that does not mean that we have evidence that a guy built a boat to house 2 or 7 (btw how did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean?) of each animal during a ginormous global flood.

 

[d4m4s74]

Looking at all "evidence" for god on the internet, God seems to be an alternative to saying "I don't know" for people who are to arrogant to admit they don't know everything.
How did the big bang happen? I don't know
how did the first living cell appear? I don't know
****ing magnets, how do they work? I don't know
But we'll find out.

Anyway. I have to feed my invisible, non-corporeal dragon that breaths invisible room temperature flames.

 

[Muesli]

The biblical flood was just an example of many more out there.

1: Where did all the water go?
2: Where did all the water come from?
3: How did all the Saltwater fish survive in the freshwater flood?
4: Where has all this genetic diversity come from, in humans and the other animals alike? It's impossible that it could have come from one breeding pair of each species in less than 6000 years.
5: Why are there no signs of erosion on a scale that a worldwide flood would cause?

If you can't account for all of these glaring problems then you can't claim truth on this matter

Even some of its prophecys that have been fulfilled in the last century.

Surely if the bible was inspired by an omnipotent and omnipresent god then every prophecy would have come true.

Many of these things the education system don't want you to know about.

Lol. Conspiracy theories now? Do you have any idea how many people would absolutely love the bible to be proved correct, and how many people have devoted their lives to trying to prove it?

A lot of people in our culture just get spoon fed their information believing whatever people who can use long scientific words say.

Every 'long scientific word' has a meaning. They're long because each part of the word describes the phenomenon. They're not there to confuse you. Take the time to understand them and you'll discover that everything that you're being 'spoon fed' is real.

 

[asportking]

Just to clear things up, some parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally. God didn't really create the world in seven 24-hour periods, and Noah didn't take two of every single animal that existed and put them on a boat.

 

[zmikecuber]

Which parts? I don't see any such claims, and Luke and Paul (whoever they were) explicitly tell us that they were not on the scene of the crime, so to speak. In a way I agree with you though as I see very close to zero history and eye witness testimony in the Bible.

Gospel of John for example... Also, the Exodus is in tradition written by Moses, and the mystery writer of this book has a very accurate knowledge of the geography of that area.

Ok, the historical parts of the Bible are based on eye witness accounts. either the writer saw the happenings, or wrote down what an eyewitness told him.

Regardless, you haven't separated your religion/church's belief from other similar religions'/churches' beliefs. Do you know what I mean? The Koran, Torah, and most other religious writings have similar evidence to that which you describe above. What makes your religion/church's belief MORE believable than other religions and churches?

Quite simply because all other religions lack or err in something which God obviously wouldnt put in His religion.

Please show me a religion which is united as one. Like everybody believes the same core beliefs in that religion. Its not an "interpret what you want" thingy.
Thats holy.. meaning the teachings of the religions are objectively holy. reading the catechism would be a good place to examine this.
thats universal... a Church thats for everybody of every race and age and gender. essentially worldwide, not excluding anyone.

actually, we should first determine whether God exists or not, and define God, then the next step would be to figure out what religion He founded.

ok, so Patrick, whats the cause of your existence?

EDIT: I know lots of people believe that life began from apes, and all that stuff, but Im wondering, because of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe continues to grow in randomness.. how did something so unrandom as life ever come to exist? I just thought of this and it doesnt seem to make sense to me.... :S cuz Im not saying that evolution etc. etc. isnt true, Im just trying to figure out how all these things happened which have such a small probability and seem to go against the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[d4m4s74]

How do you know what parts not to take literally?
The parts we've proven wrong?
The parts we don't agree with?
The parts in leviticus condoning slavery, is there any way we can take that metaphorically?
Is Deuteronomy 22:28–29 to be taken literally?
How about we just ignore the whole bible and decide what is right or wrong, find out the truth, on our own?

 

[Christopher Mowla]

I have only read a few posts since I posted previously, but to give all (open-minded) Christians something to think about, watch this 3-part series on Youtube when you get a chance. It is primarily focused on astrology, but also mentions how the Bible borrowed literature from older works. If anyone who is Christian has the stomach to watch this all the way through and still chooses to follow Christianity strongly, then you at least can determine the reasons why you believe what you believe, and can now better share them with people of other beliefs in the future.

​

 

[zmikecuber]

How do you know what parts not to take literally?
The parts we've proven wrong?
The parts we don't agree with?
The parts in leviticus condoning slavery, is there any way we can take that metaphorically?
Is Deuteronomy 22:28–29 to be taken literally?
How about we just ignore the whole bible and decide what is right or wrong, find out the truth, on our own?

the parts that God's Church tells us to be taken literally. thats where Protestants and Catholics differ.

Why would God leave us with just a book? The Bible is written by God, sure, I believe that, but Catholics believe thats only half the picture. Whats more important than the Bible is the Church he founded on St. Peter.

He interprets the Bible for us as well through His bride the Church.

oh my gosh, I just realized I voted for Chrisianity!!! hahaha!

 

[drewsopchak]

Wait, so you think that there's actual scientific evidence for a global flood with a sea level of about 5000 m (height of mount Ararat) over the current one? Sure, we know that there were floods in the Middle East that might have been the basis of the different deluge myths in that region, but that does not mean that we have evidence that a guy built a boat to house 2 or 7 (btw how did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean?) of each animal during a ginormous global flood.

lmao the flood is such odvious bull ****. To cover the tallest mountain tere would need to be 29 k feet. Look there's not enough vapor in the atmosphere for that to occur. By the way, the theory of gravity is only a theory.