Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
"The Big Bang Theory" is nothing more than a clever and funny TV show....
stevendedalus: From what I have found out, there seems to be some pristine primordial gas clouds observed and is assumed to have been produced in the first couple of minutes after the big bang … not the cause of it. But I do have an alternative theory that completely explains the big bang…
It's called "M-theory"...and plausible is relative
String theory and multiple universes are just over my head … let the scientists have this out. M-theory is too complex (for me) and I don’t have the math skills to even try. A good name for my theory though would be “The Yoyo Theory”.
Big Bang and Creationist belief are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe you've seen people wearing the T-shirts: "I believe in the Big Bang. God spoke and BANG, there it was." If the universe truly came to be that way and the timeline was off--even way off--we wouldn't discount the theory altogether. Let's take the extreme: say the universe exploded and came to be in 7 days' time--not billions and billions of years. There would still have been a Big Bang--it's just the timeline was off. But then we would have to explain the empirical data already out there supporting the Big Bang theory, and on the timeline presently theorized. Which I don't think would be too hard, since the present Big Bang theory requires the universe to be composed of 83% dark matter (something we have no empirical support for) in order for the math to add up.
Christian evolutionist thought (and yes, there are plenty of Christians who also believe in evolutionism) points out that the Bible uses dates in symbolic terms on more than a few occasions. I don't necessarily subscribe to this myself, and personally I think some liberal interpretations take dates too non-literally at times. However, on the 7-day Creation, I can very much see that to be "symbolic". Did the earth rotate around its axis 7 times? Did it revolve around the sun billions of times? Neither--when the universe was still forming, there was no earth or sun yet. How could there be days? And the Bible does support that, to the eternal God, billions of years are as one day to Him. So while I can see that point, I am concerned that we use that viewpoint to dilute the Bible's meaning--I mean, you can just render all dates meaningless that way. e.g. "Jesus rose again in 3 days". But hey, what are 3 days to God? He could have rose again 3000 years later, maybe the days are just symbolic of millennia. I don't buy that.
I'm open to that possibility that god created evolution and the earth, that he/she set the whole thing spinning so to speak. But there's just no evidence for it.
That's deism. Some of America's founding fathers were deist. It's the belief that God created the universe then just stepped away. I'm not deist; in fact, I think most Christians regard deists as non-Christians to an extent (similar to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses...or how Protestants/Catholics view each other). However, that does not mean that God absolutely micromanages every aspect of everything that occurs. He steps away, and lets the laws of physics do their thing--and He steps away and lets mankind make decisions, do their thing. BUT--He reserves the right to step in at any time. He's God; He's allowed to do that. That's what we would call a "miracle", typically.
However--and I'm speaking MHO at this point--even that arguably is not breaking the laws of physics. God IS the Law. How can a king break the law? If He steps in and does something, then that by definition makes "legal" ("legal" in quotes, because "legal" and the laws of physics...that doesn't make much sense...). If you look at a lot of the anecdotal miracles out there, it doesn't seem many/any laws of physics are being broken, i.e. you don't see people magically levitating or going to space. It's more like the Apostles needing 2 denarii to pay their taxes, they go fishing, and they find 2 denarii in the fish. Or someone needing $543 for their rent and somehow, someone miraculously writes them a check for $543, knowing nothing about their plight. Or someone looks at their arm once, and they have leprosy..and then they look away...then they look at their arm again, and suddenly it's healed. It's like it's a miracle, AND...you can't think of any laws of physics that were particularly broken. You can be suddenly healed of leprosy, but gravity is still 32.2/ft/second^2.
It's amazing that how people who have not had an experience and can't imagine it are experts on what it is.
The game Spore combines Creation and evolution. "Crevolution" I think they called it. I think the belief is God watching over the process of Evolution. In which case, God made Evolution. Sounds like some weak willed compromisers made up that idea. You have to pick a side, not ride the fence.
Why does it take having the experience to explain it? Most people I have talked to about their so-called experience can't quite explain what they have experienced if they are even willing to try to explain it. Interesting that most think you need to join or attend a church so that you can attain such a divine revelation. Those who I know that do to some extent try to explain their experience seem to be explaining something that is easily reasoned to be caused by something very different from what they think.it is. Emotions and the biological and chemical actions that control them do some very interesting things to people.
Sounds like the game was intelligently designed by Will Wright to prevent sales from being boycotted by some overzealous consumer group or competitors posing as such.
That's a nice, general reply that assumes a lot of specifics and depends on those assumptions to remain a valid argument.
"Most people"--that you have talked to? Statistically in the population? That you read about on the internet? That you imagine?
"So-called experience"--you are familiar of all possible experiences then and have a clear understanding of their natures?
The rest is generalization. You might not have to have an experience in every case to explain something but you assuredly have to know what the experience is to explain it--and you don't.
Ignorance does not equal expertise.
Your point is basically, "Whoowhee! I don't believe that stuff no matter what anyone says!". It's an opinion.
Sinperium; Sorry, but all your arguments relate to your own personal 'experiences' and your assertion is always that one has to have an 'experience' to understand. I have not seen such badly and angrily used imponderables like 'Statistically in the population' and 'all possible experiences'. This is a Catch-22 for you if ever there was one … but this nonsense does you an injustice.
PS: You said you would write … I take it you changed your mind? You are just acting petulantly here.
I'll write you--we've had a contractor in remodeling and that and work have taken a bit of my time.
I won't speak for other religions or even for Christian "religions" but genuine Christianity is an experience. You can dogmaticaly insist to every self-identified believer its just another "organized, human religion" and then demand that it be examined that way but that's redefining it to fit your terms--not describing it as it actually is.
If what your saying is, "We dismiss the idea it can be a genuine experience and so refuse to discuss it--we only want to talk about organized religion."...well, there isn't much to say to that.
My point in "petulantly commenting" here is that it's annoying to her over and over this same sequence:
You're confining the conversation to a narrow strip of territory (your own) for examination and then out-of-hand with mantras declaring it "invalid".
It's akin to me saying everyone on the forum is a Communist, prove to me you aren't Communist but you can't because I already know you're a Communist. Kinda dumb. I know there are a lot of ignorant "faith-based" comments on the net but it isn't all one-sided. It's either an actual discussion or just a series of soap box proclamations. I let the politicians do that.
I'll have a big part of the day free tomorrow and will write you then.
General? No it is actually quite specific. I am referring to my personal interactions with friends, colleagues,the people who come knocking at my door from time to time, and a few pastors that I have interacted with in the past. All have given me different answers which leads me to believe it is a personal thing and that the only "expert" is the individual and that specific individual is the only "expert" about their own specific experience. As far as statistics I do not use them with this issue. I think the meaning of god is different for everybody and do not discriminate because someone doesn't practice one religion as opposed to any other. In light of that statistics have no bearing. I do not need to validate my disbelief through statistics because I know my disbelief is as different from any other individuals disbelief or belief. And I do believe we are all created equal.
Yes, but some are more equal than others....
Well I guess that part happens after creation. Thought it might be baptism that does it, but I was baptized as a baby and still feel equal. Guess it wasn't in a church that teaches "genuine" Christianity.
You should be in charge of something Jafo... oh wait, you are! lol
Oh heck, no....in charge of 4.5 million Stardockians?
..........eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.....................
What is equal? Is a man equal to a woman? IS a man a woman?? I mean that's what equal means, right? Is Michael Jordan equal to Carrie Underwood? Michael Jordan can't sing, and Carrie Underwood can't play basketball. Every living thing is unique. Different color skin, different talents, different sizes. And dare I say some have more talent than others. Some have more social standing than others, which though man-made, well...Paris Hilton did nothing to earn a privileged life. She was born, or "created", that way. So all men are NOT created equal, right? Let alone men and women.
I would say that in things like the Declaration of Independence where "all men are created equal" or in Christianity terms, what it means is equal value. Equal value in God's eyes; equal value morally. Madonna is clearly "worth" more than the homeless guy on the street, but morally speaking, they are of equal value. Which to confuse things even further, why am I even putting "Madonna" and "moral" in the same sentence? All these terms "equal" and "moral" are heavily overloaded, and mean different things to different people. And that means when you say "equal", what you're thinking in your head probably does not match up with what your listener has in his.
Or how about to express it in computer science terms (since I think we have a fair number of computer literates in the forum): equal is not always the same in software, either. (int* a == int* b ) and (a* == b*) are not the same. One says the two values are the same; the other says that not only the values are the same, but it is literally THE SAME VALUE--as in, the same location in memory. I think it's safe to say the latter is "more equal" than the former. a==b and a=b are not the same--one tests for equality, the other is automatically equal, because you assigned it equality. In Perl, "eq" and "==" are not the same. "One" == 1 would return true, whereas "One" eq 1 would not. It's the same principle.
It is not all about what someone is thinking in their head. It is about the context in which the statement is made and how that is interpreted by the reader. You hit the nail on the head in your second paragraph when stating:
From there it is certainly about what the "listener" has in their head, and although the "listener" may at the time be thinking about money, or computer science, if they think that is the context of the statement then they might not actually be listening to start with.
No problem there. But the specificity was relative to your experince and generalized to "everyone" in how you stated it. Now it's specifically more specified and I find that specifically satisfactory in this specific case.
@Boobz--Christians often are quite specific in describing their experience but when the hearer decides its impossible and dismisses it out-of-hand that isn't for lack of description--it's for lack of consideration by the hearer. There is a difference in "No explanation is given" and "I don't accept the explanation".
You are the one who chose to generalize not me. You tend to put everyone in a category and really don't listen to the individual.You also tend to respond by trying to put words in others mouths instead of replying to what is actually being asked (Hint: ? means somebody is asking a specific question). Although you may wonder why I am asking a certain question I am not looking for what you perceive my motivation to be (I already know that) I am actually looking for your answer to the question.
There certainly is. Who cares if others don't accept one's explanation as it is. Everyone perceives and understands things on their own terms. Lack of consideration from the other side....don't kid yourself. You are better to ask yourself what faith means in nonreligious terms before you make such assertions.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
