What to believe about creation? Science or Religion?
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
It is impossible to answer that question. To answer any question one must implicitly assume there is some basis on which to answer it, which means the question of something v nothing is begged.
The question itself is nonsensical.
ruveyn
Although physically there is no such thing as nothing because even a pure vacuum contains physical fields.
It is impossible to answer that question. To answer any question one must implicitly assume there is some basis on which to answer it, which means the question of something v nothing is begged.
The question itself is nonsensical.
ruveyn
Although physically there is no such thing as nothing because even a pure vacuum contains physical fields.
The so-called vacuum was never considered empty in modern physics.
ruveyn
It is impossible to answer that question. To answer any question one must implicitly assume there is some basis on which to answer it, which means the question of something v nothing is begged.
The question itself is nonsensical.
ruveyn
Although physically there is no such thing as nothing because even a pure vacuum contains physical fields.
The so-called vacuum was never considered empty in modern physics.
ruveyn
A vacuum has space-time fabric to it but the hypothetical nothingness has none of that. It should theoretically have no dimensions at all, not even time. So therefore it would not exist as a standalone entity.
It is impossible to answer that question. To answer any question one must implicitly assume there is some basis on which to answer it, which means the question of something v nothing is begged.
The question itself is nonsensical.
ruveyn
"Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable."
C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
It is impossible to answer that question. To answer any question one must implicitly assume there is some basis on which to answer it, which means the question of something v nothing is begged.
The question itself is nonsensical.
ruveyn
Although physically there is no such thing as nothing because even a pure vacuum contains physical fields.
The so-called vacuum was never considered empty in modern physics.
ruveyn
A vacuum has space-time fabric to it but the hypothetical nothingness has none of that. It should theoretically have no dimensions at all, not even time. So therefore it would not exist as a standalone entity.
look up the new boundary proposal,
it presents a completely self contained universe,
there is no before or after and no outside so your "vacuum" outside the universe, wouldnt even exist.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
A vacuum has space-time fabric to it but the hypothetical nothingness has none of that. It should theoretically have no dimensions at all, not even time. So therefore it would not exist as a standalone entity.
The so-called vacuum is no such thing. Look up the Cassimir Effect.
ruveyn
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
John Paul II said that if evolution is proven to be true, then we as Catholics should simply accept that while God did create the world, evolution is simply the way He chose to do it.
This way both are true. We, - Catholics - also do not interpret everything litrally in the Bible as some other religions do. The creation story could simply be a way that people at the time were able to grasp the world being created by God. God obviously knew a lot about sciene and it would have probably been too difficult to explain then.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
The key to the controversy (so-called) is the irrational reading of the Bible particularly Genesis. The Bible was never, ever intended to be read literally or as a book of fact. As Galileo once said (or so we are told). the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
ruveyn
Not on personal observation or modern cosmology. This is an article of faith.
Note the word which follows the first person pronoun.
ruveyn
Beliefs aren't ipso facto faith-based. Some beliefs are true and rationally supported.
Not on personal observation or modern cosmology. This is an article of faith.
Note the word which follows the first person pronoun.
ruveyn
Beliefs aren't ipso facto faith-based. Some beliefs are true and rationally supported.
True they may be rationally supported, but how do you know the facts on which you have based your reason are correct? The truth is you do not, you can only ever surmise. There will always be an element of doubt and because of this to believe anything, even the most solidly supported scientific theory, always requires a leap of faith. Even what you consider as fact is based on other facts, which are in tern based on still other facts, in an infinite cycle of regression, until at last you find you have to accept something on faith or else everything is undone.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
Not on personal observation or modern cosmology. This is an article of faith.
Note the word which follows the first person pronoun.
ruveyn
Beliefs aren't ipso facto faith-based. Some beliefs are true and rationally supported.
True they may be rationally supported, but how do you know the facts on which you have based your reason are correct? The truth is you do not, you can only ever surmise. There will always be an element of doubt and because of this to believe anything, even the most solidly supported scientific theory, always requires a leap of faith. Even what you consider as fact is based on other facts, which are in tern based on still other facts, in an infinite cycle of regression, until at last you find you have to accept something on faith or else everything is undone.
that however says little about any divinity in itself.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
Anyway, I'm not sure what to believe about the creation of everything living and non-living. I'm not even sure if I should believe anything about religion or science (but I tend to think everything was created by science and evolution, and I still believe in one God).
Has anyone else gone through a similar situation, where you learn everything was created by science of some sort and evolution, and on top of that, also learned that the Earth and everything living and non-living was created by a God?
Any helpfull ideas for me, please?
What do I do when I am told that there are two ways the Earth and living things were created and evolved?
Thanks!
You don't believe in religion in the same way that you "believe" in a scientific theory, and it is improper to believe in science the way that you would believe in a religious concept. This is a difficult distinction to make out for some people, but it is an extremely important distinction. They are two different categories of belief. Getting the two of them confused is like getting carnal lust confused with fraternal love or adoration of a child. These are things that look vaguely similar, but it is deeply and dangerously perverted to try to mingle any of them together. One ruins the other.
Science is concrete, and religion is abstract. That's a catchy, easy way of saying it, but it conveys a very important idea. There is a reason that scientists insist on calling every idea they have a "theory," even if they have supported and proven that theory to a millionth of a millionth of a degree. It is a great peril for a scientist to become emotionally wedded to a theory. It is potentially dangerous, and it could also make him or her look like a fool. You should never look upon a theory as a source of meaning or purpose in your life. It's not just dumb, but someone could actually get hurt. If it's a concrete type of belief, you need concrete evidence behind it, and concrete evidence is all that counts. If it doesn't satisfy this requirement, you throw it out with the trash, and you move on.
On the other hand, when you say "I believe in God," it means roughly that you think that God is something worthwhile. It is not so important whether God actually exists. This is a kind of belief that doesn't depend on the thing you believe in being real. It is N/A in religion whether God is tangibly real or not. What matters in religion is that God is something that you can build your life around. It's something that you can derive purpose from. Therefore, if you want to get this religion thing right, you should just put away all of your insecurities about whether or not God is actually there, and just believe. Believe with your heart, and understand with the part of your mind that loves poetry and sunsets. Looking upon God with any eyes but faith defeats the purpose, and it leaves a clammy sort of sensation where there should be nothing but warmth and trust.
Does that make any sense? I hope it helps.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Greece releases draft law to allow creation of private unive |
21 Feb 2024, 9:49 am |
Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
The Science Behind the "Spinach Mouth Phenomenon" |
09 Apr 2024, 9:30 pm |