FORUMS
- 5
| 06-27-2012, 01:23 PM | #67 | |
|
Second Lieutenant
![]() |
Quote:
As far as the why goes, I'm not sure how embracing such a belief system actually provides answers to "Why". Why are we here on this planet? I don't know. I'm totally cool with not knowing, I dont lose any sleep over it at all. If I felt the need to fabricate some fairy tale to placate my mind, and say "well, God put us all here", that still would not help me sleep better, because the left side of my brain would fire up and say, "OK, but WHY did God put us here? Why is there a God? If creatures are too complicated to be the result of evolution, and could only be the product of intelligent design, then God must have created us, but then who created God? I mean, after all, if humans are too complicated to result from spontaneous evolution, then surely the entity which created us must be even MORE complicated, so it's even less plausible that he could exist without an intelligent creator, so who created him? And then who created the entity which created God? And so on... And why did all this happen ? People say they embrace religion because it provides comfort and answers, but to me, it just creates more questions than answers.... I find that more unsettling than comforting. |
|
|
|
|
| 06-27-2012, 05:42 PM | #68 |
|
Private First Class
![]() Drives: 2009 335i, Space Gray / Black Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 146
iTrader: (0)
|
I could not have said it better myself. I detect a hint of Dawkins in there and perhaps some Hitchens and Harris as well
Also, putting forward the question "why are we here?" is flawed by it's very nature; what if there is no why? There is no reason to believe that we (as individuals and as a species) have a reason to exist at all, it may simply be the case that we do and nothing more. This does not make life or the universe any less marvelous or beautiful though. |
![]() |
|
| 06-27-2012, 07:18 PM | #69 | |
|
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
|
| 06-28-2012, 07:54 AM | #70 | |
|
Major
![]() |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-28-2012, 08:53 AM | #71 | |
|
Banned
|
Quote:
It would seem just the opposite is true; things that we previously chalked-up to faith have now been explained by science, and so it'll be going forward. And BTW, Aristotle developed the concept of the planets and planetary motion back in the 300's BC, and it stood for nearly 2 millenia. It's due to religion and lack of science that Aristotle's knowledge got lost among greater civilization until Galileo. And yes, childbirth is amazing and wonderful, but seeing marsupials do the same thing sort of kills the "miraculousness" of it for me. |
|
![]() |
|
| 06-28-2012, 11:40 AM | #72 |
|
Private First Class
![]() Drives: 2009 335i, Space Gray / Black Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 146
iTrader: (0)
|
OldArmy is utilizing a flawed argument known as the "God of the Gaps". It is overused and underwhelming in it's ability to explain anything. I don't want to rehash all the faults in it because I think we all (including OldArmy), as intelligent people already know why it is weak. If prompted to though I will show why.
|
![]() |
|
| 06-28-2012, 12:32 PM | #73 |
|
Second Lieutenant
![]() |
A much more current example often still used is the incorrect "science says that bumblebees can't fly" argument, which then implies that since we've all seen a bumblebee fly, that there is much that science doesn't know, and can only be explained via supernatural means, a God of some sort. Some even take this further to suggest that this "proves" that science cant be trusted.
This is yet another example of how science improves over time, whereas scripture does not. The argument started back in the 1930's when a prominent German aerodynamicist, using what little was known at the time in that field, did some calculations and found that the lift generated by a bee's wing should not be enought to enable it to fly, given it's weight. Hearing that, then seeing a bee actually fly does not mean that science is inherently unworthy of your consideration or "faith". It just means that the knowledge to fill in the blanks isn't fully developed yet. Of course, science thinks it's OK to leave some answers blank, or unknown, to be answered later. It does not abhor a vacuum to the point where it must fill in blank with the old stand by "it's the work of God". In the 1930's, they only knew enough to apply very simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils, which led to the whole "this shouldnt work" answer. Today, our improved understanding of steady viscous fluid dynamics allows us to accurately model what is happening, and we can prove that their wings leverage vortex separation in every oscillation cycle, which actually increases the lift momentarily. Nerd link: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases..._Wang.hrs.html There are things today we dont fully understand. I have absolute FAITH that as knowledge grows, someday all the things that appear supenatural in origin now, will have a valid explanation, just like the bee. In the meantime, it's perfectly OK to leave that answer blank; you dont need to fill it in with some other speculative, unprovable explanation. |
|
|
|
| 06-28-2012, 01:32 PM | #74 |
|
Major
![]() |
Sidebar: Thanks for the link, I LOVE fluid dynamics
__________________
|
|
|
|
| 06-28-2012, 03:34 PM | #75 |
|
Private First Class
![]() Drives: 2009 335i, Space Gray / Black Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 146
iTrader: (0)
|
I love intelligent conversation, so refreshing compared to the norm encountered throughout daily life. Also, thanks for the link from me too and thanks to whomever posted the earlier QUALIASOUP link, great video!
|
![]() |
|
| 06-29-2012, 08:47 AM | #76 | |
|
Enlisted Member
![]() |
Quote:
I am religious...I think I rated myself 2 on the scale....and this is my exact same feeling or way of thinking. I don't profess that my religion can answer every question nor offer understanding on everything we may wonder about. I also don't believe in magic or the supernatural. I do, at the same time, believe in a God. I am fine not having an answer for everything, and just like you I also have absolute faith that as knowledge increases so will our understanding of the universe which will include the nature of God. As I said previously, I don't think science and the idea of God need to contradict each other even if they don't always seem to parallel each other. Science is conerned with the discovery and understanding of absolute truth....or rather, things as they really are. I view religion as the same thing although they may go about reaching that goal in different manners (as someone has already pointed out). Certainly science is more proactive at understanding this truth where religion seems to be based more on teachings of prophets that profess to have seen or understand truth and leaving the rest to faith. In the end, the goal, at least to me, is the same....understanding things as they really are. With this mindset, I do believe that someday that the increase of knowledge and understanding of both science and God will collide as we better understand things as they really are. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
| 06-29-2012, 10:05 AM | #77 | ||
|
Major
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
|
|
|
| 06-29-2012, 10:19 AM | #78 |
|
Enlisted Member
![]() |
You are correct. I suppose the two are, by definition, mutually exclusive. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think there is anything magical about God and that the "mysteries' of God probably aren't mysterious if we had more understanding.
|
|
|
|
| 06-29-2012, 10:21 AM | #79 |
|
Major
![]() |
I see.
__________________
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|