• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Research on Belief in God

Page 77 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
RetroActive said:
After you give him one free miracle (the big bang) then he's going to give you all sorts of mathematical models that don't work together and require greater and greater abstraction like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes that have never been observed or measured or detected but must be there to make the math work. 90% of the universe is missing and black holes are a contradiction but don't worry, he'll use the words 'scientific method' as his proof.

Oh, and infinity keeps expanding infinitely, I forgot that part of the story and it seems important to him.


Science has not answered all the questions and I have never claimed it has.

But you can't fill unanswered scientific questions with the answer that supernatural being did it.

We do know about black holes
If a star is big enough – and we’re talking at least twenty to twenty-five times bigger than the Sun here – it will end its fiery life in a massive explosion called a supernova. When this happens, the outer shell of the star gets blown apart, but the inner core of it collapses in on itself. For some, the core forms a small, dense lump and the star ends its life there. For others, the core just keeps getting smaller and denser and smaller and denser. The pull of its gravity is so immense that anything within a certain distance gets sucked in and is trapped forever. Like a huge spherical, invisible whirlpool in Space

dark matter
After the Big Bang, the universe began expanding outward. Scientists once thought that it would eventually run out of the energy, slowing down as gravity pulled the objects inside it together. But studies of distant supernovae revealed that the universe today is expanding faster than it was in the past, not slower, indicating that the expansion is accelerating. This would only be possible if the universe contained enough energy to overcome gravity — dark energy

dark energy
Knowing how dark energy affects the spreading universe only tells scientists so much. The properties of the unknown quantity are still up for grabs. Recent observations have indicated that dark energy has behaved constantly over the universe's history, which provides some insight into the unseen material.

One possible solution for dark energy is that the universe is filled with a changing energy field, known as "quintessence." Another is that scientists do not correctly understand how gravity works.

The leading theory, however, considers dark energy a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first to understand that space was not simply empty. He also understood that more space could continue to come into existence. In his theory of general relativity, Einstein included a cosmological constant to account for the stationary universe scientists thought existed. After Hubble announced the expanding universe, Einstein called his constant his "biggest blunder."

But Einstein's blunder may be the best fit for dark energy. Predicting that empty space can have its own energy, the constant indicates that as more space emerges, more energy would be added to the universe, increasing its expansion.

Although the cosmological constant matches up with observations, scientists still aren't certain just why it fits.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Jspear said:
I agree with your post here. This is the way to objectively learn about our universe. You do realize that the methods and extensive testing you mention as definitions of true scientific evidence in no way support or prove evolution....you give to much credit to science in what it "proves" to us. Science is what we use to advance medicine, reduce pollution, produce more food, ect. You can't use objective science to prove the age of the earth for example. What I'm getting at is science can't prove there is no God....that isn't the realm in which it works.

Science can't prove I am not God. Science could prove I am human but if you believed I was god then you would throw away that evidence and just say that I am god because you have blind faith

ps Im not:D
 
ray j willings said:
Science can't prove I am not God. Science could prove I am human but if you believed I was god then you would throw away that evidence and just say that I am god because you have blind faith

ps Im not:D


Thank god your not! :p

Sorry that's kinda a weak analogy...I would never believe your God for many reasons. :) And of course you'll disagree but my faith isn't blind...it's an informed faith.
But I do agree with you that we can use science to determine if you are human.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Jspear said:
Thank god your not! :p

Sorry that's kinda a weak analogy...I would never believe your God for many reasons. :) And of course you'll disagree but my faith isn't blind...it's an informed faith.
But I do agree with you that we can use science to determine if you are human.

I enjoy your posts Jspear and chewing the fat with you.

It will always be something we disagree on "god existing" but I as you do enjoy putting my view across ,,,,,

nice one
 
Jspear said:
I agree with your post here. This is the way to objectively learn about our universe. You do realize that the methods and extensive testing you mention as definitions of true scientific evidence in no way support or prove evolution....you give to much credit to science in what it "proves" to us. Science is what we use to advance medicine, reduce pollution, produce more food, ect. You can't use objective science to prove the age of the earth for example. What I'm getting at is science can't prove there is no God....that isn't the realm in which it works.

So in other words, science is what doesn't question your beliefs. Directly, science cannot prove there is no God - however its it's other discoveries and evidence provided, be it related to biology or physics or cosmology, that at certain point conflict with religious assertions, and one has got to wonder why. Natural science is antithetical to religion, or the other way around. In this age, to deny evolution is to deny science. I shall remind you again that in science, a theory doesn't have the same meaning as it has in colloquial, lay or everyday language: a guess. A theory in scientific terms is an actual explanation that has overwhelming amounts of evidence, acquired through the scientific method, tested and confirmed plenty of times, observed and experimented. This is evolution.

So yes, evolution can be proved. But you do not believe in the objectivity of radiometric dating, as you claimed before (quoting a bible site to try to prove it wrong), and somehow think it's accuracy point is so inaccurate it can confuse ~6000 years with at least 4.4 billion years. Radiometric dating is objective, perhaps fallible of getting a few of millenia wrong, for more or for less, but given the extraordinary nature of such big number, it would be meaningless. From the universal genetic code, the fossil record, common traits in embryos, genetic commonalities, there's so much to back it up... If we were made in the image of God, why do we share approximately 96% of our genes with chimpanzees? Or 80% with cows? Does that mean the chimps were made 96% in the image of God? Or that God is 96% Chimp? That's a lot of exclusivity and claimed oneness gone right there. Unless of course you deny this (thunderous similarities in interspecies' DNA) as well.
 
rhubroma said:
This is your source??? You have got to be kidding. This is the most shameless type of historical revisionism and wilful manipulation of the evidence.

http://www.amazon.fr/Pie-contre-Hitler-Bernard-Plouvier/dp/2353741444

I nailed it. Atheists still believe in the "Hitler's Pope" myth. How can they be trusted after that? They can face facts. Titanic was a plane.

I haven't read that book but now there's plenty of evidence to support that the Church, Pius XII ahead, actually opposed the Nazi regime from the very start! I said it time and again on this forum. Thousands of Jews owed their lives to him. Gino Bartali was a part of that huge rescue plan (as anyone should know on this forum).

How could anyone have made such shameless allegation is beyond me and how atheist can still believe in their dogmas despite the evidence is also beyond me.
 
BigMac said:
So in other words, science is what doesn't question your beliefs. Directly, science cannot prove there is no God - however its it's other discoveries and evidence provided, be it related to biology or physics or cosmology, that at certain point conflict with religious assertions, and one has got to wonder why. Natural science is antithetical to religion, or the other way around. In this age, to deny evolution is to deny science. I shall remind you again that in science, a theory doesn't have the same meaning as it has in colloquial, lay or everyday language: a guess. A theory in scientific terms is an actual explanation that has overwhelming amounts of evidence, acquired through the scientific method, tested and confirmed plenty of times, observed and experimented. This is evolution.

So yes, evolution can be proved. But you do not believe in the objectivity of radiometric dating, as you claimed before (quoting a bible site to try to prove it wrong), and somehow think it's accuracy point is so inaccurate it can confuse ~6000 years with at least 4.4 billion years. Radiometric dating is objective, perhaps fallible of getting a few of millenia wrong, for more or for less, but given the extraordinary nature of such big number, it would be meaningless. From the universal genetic code, the fossil record, common traits in embryos, genetic commonalities, there's so much to back it up... If we were made in the image of God, why do we share approximately 96% of our genes with chimpanzees? Or 80% with cows? Does that mean the chimps were made 96% in the image of God? Or that God is 96% Chimp? That's a lot of exclusivity and claimed oneness gone right there. Unless of course you deny this (thunderous similarities in interspecies' DNA) as well.

Agree with your post, strongly disagree with your signature line. :D
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
BigMac said:
So in other words, science is what doesn't question your beliefs. Directly, science cannot prove there is no God - however its it's other discoveries and evidence provided, be it related to biology or physics or cosmology, that at certain point conflict with religious assertions, and one has got to wonder why. Natural science is antithetical to religion, or the other way around. In this age, to deny evolution is to deny science. I shall remind you again that in science, a theory doesn't have the same meaning as it has in colloquial, lay or everyday language: a guess. A theory in scientific terms is an actual explanation that has overwhelming amounts of evidence, acquired through the scientific method, tested and confirmed plenty of times, observed and experimented. This is evolution.

So yes, evolution can be proved. But you do not believe in the objectivity of radiometric dating, as you claimed before (quoting a bible site to try to prove it wrong), and somehow think it's accuracy point is so inaccurate it can confuse ~6000 years with at least 4.4 billion years. Radiometric dating is objective, perhaps fallible of getting a few of millenia wrong, for more or for less, but given the extraordinary nature of such big number, it would be meaningless. From the universal genetic code, the fossil record, common traits in embryos, genetic commonalities, there's so much to back it up... If we were made in the image of God, why do we share approximately 96% of our genes with chimpanzees? Or 80% with cows? Does that mean the chimps were made 96% in the image of God? Or that God is 96% Chimp? That's a lot of exclusivity and claimed oneness gone right there. Unless of course you deny this (thunderous similarities in interspecies' DNA) as well.


The Cosmology of the big bang is a religious contemplation crudely, and literally, rendered. Natural philosophy, that became science, had religious inspiration. Whenever you read the number 6 in the bible it's a symbolic number, you have to look deeper for meaning - that meaning is to be found in a cube, like the holiest of holies (that was Egyptian and Babylonian and is still used in coronation ceremonies if you understand the symbolism of what you're seeing). If you want to interpret the number 6000 slightly more literally then the human ordered world (civilization) would have been created 6000 yrs. ago, more or less, (when the story started circulating) - that doesn't negate the symbolic meaning.

As for the rest it doesn't have to be antithetical, it's really a false dichotomy unless you're a dogmatist.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
2
0
Visit site
BigMac said:
If we were made in the image of God, why do we share approximately 96% of our genes with chimpanzees? Or 80% with cows? Does that mean the chimps were made 96% in the image of God? Or that God is 96% Chimp? That's a lot of exclusivity and claimed oneness gone right there. Unless of course you deny this (thunderous similarities in interspecies' DNA) as well.

Although throughout the history of theology there have been a few different interpretations of what it means to be created 'in the image of God', I have never before heard of a theology that interprets it to refer to genetic similarity! To the average Christian this question will not make a whole lot of sense, because it presupposes a materialistic reduction for human beings.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Echoes said:
I nailed it. Atheists still believe in the "Hitler's Pope" myth. How can they be trusted after that? They can face facts. Titanic was a plane.

I haven't read that book but now there's plenty of evidence to support that the Church, Pius XII ahead, actually opposed the Nazi regime from the very start! I said it time and again on this forum. Thousands of Jews owed their lives to him. Gino Bartali was a part of that huge rescue plan (as anyone should know on this forum).

How could anyone have made such shameless allegation is beyond me and how atheist can still believe in their dogmas despite the evidence is also beyond me.

:D I love you man:D
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Although throughout the history of theology there have been a few different interpretations of what it means to be created 'in the image of God', I have never before heard of a theology that interprets it to refer to genetic similarity! To the average Christian this question will not make a whole lot of sense, because it presupposes a materialistic reduction for human beings.

Might be better understood if it said created in the imagination of God, God creates, humans create with our imagination. Of course there's Universal man that says that the human is a microcosm of the Universe but this gets deeply philosophical. These folks were thinking in abstractions, fractal embedded correspondences and yet modern dummies think it's literal. Have we really progressed? Sometimes I wonder.

We certainly like to infantilize everyone that isn't us to make ourselves feel superior. Never mind that these peoples (on different continents) came up with writing, maths, architecture, art, astronomy etc. they were stupid, we're smart. Sure, tell me more.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Although throughout the history of theology there have been a few different interpretations of what it means to be created 'in the image of God', I have never before heard of a theology that interprets it to refer to genetic similarity! To the average Christian this question will not make a whole lot of sense, because it presupposes a materialistic reduction for human beings.

This maybe news to some of you, please watch as its not a hoax and has been studied by Gary Nolan the director of stem cell biology at Stanford school of medicine also studied by Ralph Lachman one, if not the leading bone expert in the world very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XjietgsBDY
 
Echoes said:
I nailed it. Atheists still believe in the "Hitler's Pope" myth. How can they be trusted after that? They can face facts. Titanic was a plane.

I haven't read that book but now there's plenty of evidence to support that the Church, Pius XII ahead, actually opposed the Nazi regime from the very start! I said it time and again on this forum. Thousands of Jews owed their lives to him. Gino Bartali was a part of that huge rescue plan (as anyone should know on this forum).

How could anyone have made such shameless allegation is beyond me and how atheist can still believe in their dogmas despite the evidence is also beyond me.

The Roman Church did what was convenient to its own interests. This was neither opposing Nazism, nor supporting it. The grey area may well have been necessary for the culture of civilization, when we think of the Sistine Chapel, but less so in the spirit of damn humanity.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
Christian said:
Did god also create Neanderthals and other humanoids? If so, why did he let them go extinct?


If God is potential from which all expression springs forth and retreats back into, like an ever changing symphony - then you are a blockhead.
 
RetroActive said:
If God is potential from which all expression springs forth and retreats back into, like an ever changing symphony - then you are a blockhead.

I rather appriciate the dying Plotinus: "I give the energy in me, back to the energy that is in everything." Eat, sh!t, eat again, given what you eat was shat, until time inexorably runs out. But I contribute to the cycle!
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
rhubroma said:
I rather appriciate the dying Plotinus: "I give the energy in me, back to the energy that is in everything." Eat, sh!t, eat again, given what you eat was shat, until time inexorably runs out. But I contribute to the cycle!


lol, the most 'backward' tribes in the amazon apparently recognize this. When dumb-dumb whitey asks them where they think they go when they die - duh - they point everywhere and laugh at the stupidity.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,245
2
0
Visit site
RetroActive said:
lol, the most 'backward' tribes in the amazon apparently recognize this. When dumb-dumb whitey asks them where they think they go when they die - duh - they point everywhere and laugh at the stupidity.

My favourite bible passage, from the few that i know: "from dust were ye made and dust ye shall be"
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Visit site
Christian said:
My favourite bible passage, from the few that i know: "from dust were ye made and dust ye shall be"


That's why it's in there, but few take the time to think through the implications these days. The bible isn't the best, or most inspirational, book I've ever read regardless. Dense, harsh, crazy contradictory stuff. It gets somewhat easier with plenty of supplemental reading but there's plenty of filling the blanks via interpretation. There's some sort of universal message that runs through all religious texts though. It seems to be that YOU are part of something larger than YOUrself. That can be interpreted many ways but the basic message is fairly self evident.

At best it's a lesson in humility. I'm just an ape, I don't know, yet I'm connected. There's a great freedom (and responsibility) in that.
 
BigMac said:
So in other words, science is what doesn't question your beliefs. Directly, science cannot prove there is no God - however its it's other discoveries and evidence provided, be it related to biology or physics or cosmology, that at certain point conflict with religious assertions, and one has got to wonder why. Natural science is antithetical to religion, or the other way around. In this age, to deny evolution is to deny science. I shall remind you again that in science, a theory doesn't have the same meaning as it has in colloquial, lay or everyday language: a guess. A theory in scientific terms is an actual explanation that has overwhelming amounts of evidence, acquired through the scientific method, tested and confirmed plenty of times, observed and experimented. This is evolution.

So yes, evolution can be proved. But you do not believe in the objectivity of radiometric dating, as you claimed before (quoting a bible site to try to prove it wrong), and somehow think it's accuracy point is so inaccurate it can confuse ~6000 years with at least 4.4 billion years. Radiometric dating is objective, perhaps fallible of getting a few of millenia wrong, for more or for less, but given the extraordinary nature of such big number, it would be meaningless. From the universal genetic code, the fossil record, common traits in embryos, genetic commonalities, there's so much to back it up... If we were made in the image of God, why do we share approximately 96% of our genes with chimpanzees? Or 80% with cows? Does that mean the chimps were made 96% in the image of God? Or that God is 96% Chimp? That's a lot of exclusivity and claimed oneness gone right there. Unless of course you deny this (thunderous similarities in interspecies' DNA) as well.

Evolution can not be objectively proven. You do realize that there are real authentic scientist (some Christian and some who are not - I could stress this point...there are scientists out there, who although they aren't Christians, still believe that the world was made by some sort of intelligent designer) that have done extensive studies proving that evolution is in conflict with science. Evolution is a bias put into science.

"the objectivity of radiometric dating" did you actually ever read the article I posted. It was written by scientist...again understand there are qualified individuals who disagree with evolutionist but they fully support science. I only posts links because I'm not a scientist. If I could answer you in my own words I would...here's a scientific article...

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/

I would expect us to have similarities in our DNA because there is a common Creator. But the simple fact is similarity does NOT mean the same. Again I'll leave the comprehensive answer for the experts.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/chimp-human-dna-similarity-what-does-it-really-mean/

For the record. Creationist are not in anyway scared to look at the facts of science...we fully embrace it. :)
 
Jspear said:
Evolution can not be objectively proven. You do realize that there are real authentic scientist (some Christian and some who are not - I could stress this point...there are scientists out there, who although they aren't Christians, still believe that the world was made by some sort of intelligent designer) that have done extensive studies proving that evolution is in conflict with science. Evolution is a bias put into science.

"the objectivity of radiometric dating" did you actually ever read the article I posted. It was written by scientist...again understand there are qualified individuals who disagree with evolutionist but they fully support science. I only posts links because I'm not a scientist. If I could answer you in my own words I would...here's a scientific article...

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/

I would expect us to have similarities in our DNA because there is a common Creator. But the simple fact is similarity does NOT mean the same. Again I'll leave the comprehensive answer for the experts.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/chimp-human-dna-similarity-what-does-it-really-mean/

For the record. Creationist are not in anyway scared to look at the facts of science...we fully embrace it. :)

If you think that the world was created according to the myth of Genesis, in six days, God resting on the seventh, and that humans did not evolve from apes; then you are not qualified to post articles about science.