How Did God Create The World?

[Ouroboros]

I’ve heard some scientists suggest that the Big Bang is a modern myth. I don’t know enough physics to decide for myself if I believe it. But they could be right or wrong and I wouldn’t much care. I’m not interested in how the universe came into being. It’s enough for me to know that it’s here.

I could very well be. Maybe the universe is eternal? Well, if scientists finds that out, who will be first on the doorstep to argue that "I can't be so?" Christians would rally up WWIII if that happened. They should rather be glad that science have anything currently, that somewhat can be retrofitted into their belief. If it was proven as a fact that the Universe has been around for infinite time, then they're in really big doo-doo! Then they really can say "Oh, shit! Now what? How can we argue Genesis for the Eternal Universe?"

[Antlerman]

I’ve heard some scientists suggest that the Big Bang is a modern myth. I don’t know enough physics to decide for myself if I believe it. But they could be right or wrong and I wouldn’t much care. I’m not interested in how the universe came into being. It’s enough for me to know that it’s here.

I could very well be. Maybe the universe is eternal? Well, if scientists finds that out, who will be first on the doorstep to argue that "I can't be so?" Christians would rally up WWIII if that happened. They should rather be glad that science have anything currently, that somewhat can be retrofitted into their belief. If it was proven as a fact that the Universe has been around for infinite time, then they're in really big doo-doo! Then they really can say "Oh, shit! Now what? How can we argue Genesis for the Eternal Universe?"

I don't get that either. It does seem that Big Bang supports something like this, "Let there be light, and there was light". That would be true. I think the real issue is that they don't want there to be a series of natural events from that moment on that brought everything into existence. They want it be the "Big Bangs", plural, where for six consecutive days another god-event made another feature of the universe complete and formed out of nothing. They don't want to accept any natural mechanisms, regardless if it could be loosely laid over a Biblical mythology or not. I think they don't want to accept the Big Bang because they know it fits into a theory of natural science, as opposed to magical anti-science.

 

I just don't get it. If they believe God did create it, wouldn't they really want to understand how?? It's like people who say they believe the Bible is God's word, but have never had much interest in actually reading it! Something insincere there about that whole claim to belief, don't you think?

[Ouroboros]

I just don't get it. If they believe God did create it, wouldn't they really want to understand how?? It's like people who say they believe the Bible is God's word, but have never had much interest in actually reading it! Something insincere there about that whole claim to belief, don't you think?

Exactly. To me it's a very strong signal that, not that they don't care for an explanation, but that they strongly reject any explanation. An honest Christian would either say: the Bible and science can go together, or he would say: I don't know the mechanics God used to create the world and I don't care. But to insist that science is wrong, just because it doesn't fit what they want to believe. They want it to be wrong. Science and religion can fit together, if the religious person wants to, however can it be that we have thousands of scientists that never have an issue with it?

 

I have argued several times that Genesis actually can be fitted (somewhat) into both Big Bang and Evolution, and the Creationists claims and interpretations are utterly ridiculous, since they don't even read the Bible literally when they make their claims!!! The Bible say that God told the ocean to bring forth life, in other words, it was indirect creation and not direct, so that fits perfectly into Theistic Evolution, and NOT *poof* from thin air theory. (Not that I subscribe to the Genesis or Creationism, but that's not my point here.) I think Ken Hovind is the perfect example of extreme dishonesty and insincerity when he say things like "Evolution teaches we came from the rock", like that would anything wrong, considering that he believes we come from DIRT! It's so obvious that they want conflict and not the truth. And it bugs me to no end that they're so blinded by their own lies and their consistency of reinforcing them.

 

They remind me of a story my son told me. In high school they had math or computer class, and at one time the question came up who invented the computers, the mouse, the operating system and such. And the majority of students honestly believed that Bill Gates did all that, and they were adamant and it was strongly held beliefs. My son had to argue with them and explain that it wasn't so, but these "religioust Microsoftists" had a hard time believing my son! Their perceived truth trumps all facts. That's human self-delusion in a nut-shell.

[Antlerman]

They remind me of a story my son told me. In high school they had math or computer class, and at one time the question came up who invented the computers, the mouse, the operating system and such. And the majority of students honestly believed that Bill Gates did all that, and they were adamant and it was strongly held beliefs. My son had to argue with them and explain that it wasn't so, but these "religioust Microsoftists" had a hard time believing my son! Their perceived truth trumps all facts. That's human self-delusion in a nut-shell.

I love it! What a perfect example of how the religious followers are operating out of something other than honest inquiry. They understand the world one way, and anything that challenges them to change understanding, is adamantly resisted and rejected. This is the ear-mark of a follower, not those who desire knowledge. The knowledge the follower desires is in order to just get by, not to understand, to learn, to grow, to appreciate, to value, to share, etc. It's lazy living, plain and simple. And I'll add from the religious view, it shouldn't be called faith. Faith would not be something bent towards denial of knowledge, but rather embracing and incorporating it into the belief.

 

So... Gaunilon, what are your thoughts to these things?

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I love this: faith is the expression of a lazy mind.

[The-Captain]

So... Gaunilon, what are your thoughts to these things?

 

Send more creationists

[Antlerman]

So... Gaunilon, what are your thoughts to these things?

 

Send more creationists

As a parade of examples of what I said?

[Guest end3]

A-man, maybe I am misreading you, but from a religious view, "knowledge" is something that might be construed as temporary. And I think it is that that leads people to be wary of "knowledge" vs. "truth". (And then there is the case of not having the mental capacity). Additionally, I think fear keeps people from moving forward as well.

[Ouroboros]

The parade is a coming. What is it with this time of the year? Is it the hormones in spring or what? It seems like we always get a flood of new and returning a Christians about now. God prefer to send their messengers to evangelize when the rain season is over?

 

Anyway, long time no see, End3.

[Antlerman]

A-man, maybe I am misreading you, but from a religious view, "knowledge" is something that might be construed as temporary. And I think it is that that leads people to be wary of "knowledge" vs. "truth".

Artificial distinction. Belief isn't temporary also? Truth is what we believe we know. All those, truth, knowledge, belief are constantly evolving. I should qualify that truth is really a perception of what we believe something is or means. Those perceptions change, and no two are 100 percent identical. So in my humble opinion, being open to new information, and allowing your ideas of truth to be adaptable to it, is in fact the stuff of life - evolution.

 

To be rigid and unchanging is the opposite of the dynamic of life and leads to its death and decay. What exactly does "living water" mean to you? That sounds dynamic to me. BTW, try inserting the word "Wisdom" in there where it says "Jesus said, he that believes on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". Wisdom is the feminine personification as an extension of God in the Jewish traditions leading up to the Gospels. "Wisdom said, he that believes on me..." It gives it a different feel, doesn't it?

 

(And then there is the case of not having the mental capacity). Additionally, I think fear keeps people from moving forward as well.

I don't think it has to do with mental capacity. I believe strongly it's really all about emotional capacity. Some people are gripped by fear about their doctrines changing ("move not the ancient border posts", etc). They are the ones who create religious institutions to keep everything the same, a.k.a The Pharisees. They worship their beliefs and doctrines, not truth. If they didn't, then I see no reason why the church would have been so freaked out by Galileo's dangerous idea that the sun is the center of the solar system, or Darwin's Dangerous idea that the natural process of evolution led to the rise of the species, or the Dangerous Idea of the Big Bang.

 

It's exhausting. Frankly it's far easier for people to just try to incorporate things into their beliefs, as opposed to the contortions one must go through to continually deny overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Again, this isn't faith - it's stubbornness.

[white_raven23]

So... Gaunilon, what are your thoughts to these things?

 

Send more creationists

As a parade of examples of what I said?

 

The good Doctor is making a play on a quote from a well known zombie movie, Return of the Living Dead. The line...uttered by a zombie into the radio of an ambulance called to the graveyard (you can probably guess what happened to those driving it) was: "Send more Paramedics."

[The-Captain]

So... Gaunilon, what are your thoughts to these things?

 

Send more creationists

As a parade of examples of what I said?

 

The good Doctor is making a play on a quote from a well known zombie movie, Return of the Living Dead. The line...uttered by a zombie into the radio of an ambulance called to the graveyard (you can probably guess what happened to those driving it) was: "Send more Paramedics."

 

Hee Hee

[Guest end3]

Hey Hans! Maybe it is new growth in the springtime...

 

A-man,

Do you think there are more reasons other than stubbornness for not moving forward. Are the ones that are gripped by fear the one's to blame?

 

It is exhausting.

[Eccles]

What pisses me off is the idea that anyone still thinks there is a "god', especially those in the USA, or as I prefer to call it: the United Christian States of America. There is that nation, the most technically advanced nation in the World and it's citizens are still sucked in by Christianity (or any other religion). Politicians are usually regarded as liars. Well EVERY preacher is a liar. He reads from that book of bullshit claiming it to be true. The problem is that these lying preachers are working hard to get the other liars, the politicians to suppress the teaching of Science, of have the bullshit of creation taught in schools as an alternative to science. Why fill student's minds with all those lies about creation?

 

If you want to know what Science says about the beginning of the Universe, it won't give an answer until it knows and can prove it. At least science does not live in the Dark Ages when everyone had to believe some "god" dunnit or suffer the consequences of the Inquisition.

 

If I am asked how did god create the World, I say, "What God"? THERE IS NO GOD.

[Gaunilon]

Hey Antlerman, good to see you too. Been a while since that highly enjoyable Noah's Ark discussion - always a pleasure to disagree with a civil and thoughtful individual like yourself.

So I grant you the distinction between matter/energy during the initial phases of the Big Bang, but I don't think it matters (har!). Matter and energy are pretty much interchangeable anyway. The point is that whatever it was either (a) came from something else, or ( came into existence from nothing, or ( c) always existed. Now, like you, I acknowledge that in our common experience there is always a prior cause for everything we see. But if there was a start-point to everything, then clearly there must have been a first cause that wasn't caused by something else. And I don't see how the matter/energy of the Big Bang could have been that first cause since it would have been sitting around forever before arbitrarily deciding to explode. In the business we call this a 'symmetry' argument; without something to cause a change, there is no reason for matter to suddenly start acting differently at a particular time when all the time before that held no change, and so the entire time axis must be indistinguishable and hence constant (or possibly periodic). And of course, if there was something that caused the change then THAT thing is the original cause, and then one has to wonder what made it suddenly decide to act, etc. Without adding an element of choice here, it's difficult to see what would break the time symmetry.

 

And to Solo, actually I consider the Big Bang to be a theory on fairly solid ground. It isn't known for a certainty but it is the only known model that fits the data, which is good enough for me. However, like I said, it doesn't explain the beginning of the universe; just the short period of time immediately after the beginning of the universe. Which leaves the questions above.

 

Graphicsguy, don't be too hard on yourself about science, and I wouldn't blame it on Christianity were I you. The vast majority of scientific discoveries have been by Christians, especially during the Enlightenment which laid the groundwork for the general use of the scientific method.

You seem to think that most Christians deny the Big Bang. That is not my experience; most Christians deny that the Big Bang explains away Creation, which is a different objection, and I think they're perfectly correct on that point. This is where I was taking issue with you.

 

Legion, greetings to you too. I agree with you that saying "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding in terms of explaining things. That said, it may still be a true statement. So if we can push our understanding to the point where we can conclude that an intelligent being must have been (or must not have been) the first cause of the universe, that is a worthy inquiry since it adds to our understanding of the universe...which is, after all, the ultimate goal of science.

 

 

Just noticed Antlerman's / Solo's posts about intellectual inquiry being opposed by Christianity. Might be true in some cases (I've met a few of those), but again, most major discoveries have been by Christians. And I think the prevailing theory about why science finally took off in the middle ages, after being nearly stagnant for eons prior, is that the majority of the western world had become Christian and embraced the Christian idea that the universe was created by a Deity itself bound by reason, and therefore that the universe also could be apprehended by reason. Prior to Christianity most cultures believed that the universe was created by Deity/deities that had no relation to reason whatsoever (the one society that did make significant scientific advances in those times did so as a result of two men who broke away from Greek mythology in favor of a reasonable deity). You'll also note that in the Middle Ages it was only the Christian parts of the world that experienced the Enlightenment....other cultures continued to stagnate until the wars of the 20th century forced them to catch up.

Anyway, this discussion is best left for another thread, but since you brought it up...

[Ouroboros]

And to Solo, actually I consider the Big Bang to be a theory on fairly solid ground. It isn't known for a certainty but it is the only known model that fits the data, which is good enough for me. However, like I said, it doesn't explain the beginning of the universe; just the short period of time immediately after the beginning of the universe. Which leaves the questions above.

And that position is acceptable to me. However, I don't consider speculations of the if's and maybe's concerning the things we can't measure or know for certain to really be adequate foundations for a rational discourse. I know what both Agustine, Descartes and the others said, but I can only find most of arguments begging more question rather than fulfilling the answer for "what was before time zero." What is North of the North Pole? Only Santa knows.

 

Speculative adventures aren't evidence, but just the musings of the imaginary mind.

[Gaunilon]

"I don't consider speculations of the if's and maybe's concerning the things we can't measure or know for certain to really be adequate foundations for a rational discourse. "

 

Speculation is not evidence, but deduction from known facts is. It is this sort of deduction that leads the way in science (example, Special Relativity: deduced by Einstein from two commonly known facts with no additional measurements required). We are not covering new ground here: everything we're discussing was covered 2300 years ago. But the deduction is solid and admissible evidence nonetheless.

[GraphicsGuy]

Graphicsguy, don't be too hard on yourself about science, and I wouldn't blame it on Christianity were I you. The vast majority of scientific discoveries have been by Christians, especially during the Enlightenment which laid the groundwork for the general use of the scientific method.

 

Been by Xians...bullshit and you know it. The ONLY reason they were "Xians" was because the Catholic church ran everyfuckingthing. The church excommunicated, imprisoned, exiled, or even executed any scientist that brought forth a theory that disproved church/Biblical doctrine.

 

Not to mention NO ONE was an Evangelical Charismatic at the time. This is the group screaming for Biblical literalism in our day. Seems like it's a step backwards actually. So, yeah, I do blame Xianity. It's why I didn't pay attention to science in school.

 

You seem to think that most Christians deny the Big Bang. That is not my experience; most Christians deny that the Big Bang explains away Creation, which is a different objection, and I think they're perfectly correct on that point. This is where I was taking issue with you.

 

Umm...your previous statements were worded exactly opposite of this:

 

Come on dude. The Big Bang is a nice explanation of a lot of stuff but it has nothing to do with how things began.

[Ouroboros]

Speculation is not evidence, but deduction from known facts is.

Agree. But what I mean is that the "god" idea is not deducted from fact. A simple, core, principle for the origin of existence could be, but it requires imagination to consider a complex consciousness that have a non-temporal perception. Nothing in logical deduction can explain how something can have experience, thought and awareness without a temporal process, in this dimension or in next, and also being more complex than our universe. Hence it's not a deduction, but rather an induction from hopes, dreams and wishful thinking.

 

That "something" existed "before" the big bang is true. But what that something is, is only speculation. That's what I'm getting at. Your belief that this "something" is a "loving" or "good" creature with a will and a mind, is your belief and not a result from arguments based on facts.

 

It is this sort of deduction that leads the way in science (example, Special Relativity: deduced by Einstein from two commonly known facts with no additional measurements required). We are not covering new ground here: everything we're discussing was covered 2300 years ago. But the deduction is solid and admissible evidence nonetheless.

The big bang was covered the last 100 years or less, but imaginary friends, in a separate dimension have gone through many iterations and version, that humanity lost count, long time ago. While Big Bang theory has only managed to be revised maybe once or twice, but its core concepts are very much the same. The God principle have gone from anything of everything to all of nothing. And these concepts were treated even before 2300 years ago in poetic literature predating Plato and gang, and even in other religious literature outside of the Judeo-Christian world. Even the atheists have been represented in history in the BCE. So not even atheism is new concept, only reformed and more distilled. Does one view more accurate than the other? Well, it's still up for debate.

[Antlerman]

Hey Antlerman, good to see you too. Been a while since that highly enjoyable Noah's Ark discussion - always a pleasure to disagree with a civil and thoughtful individual like yourself.

Likewise. I look forward to an engaging discussion.

 

So I grant you the distinction between matter/energy during the initial phases of the Big Bang, but I don't think it matters (har!). Matter and energy are pretty much interchangeable anyway. The point is that whatever it was either (a) came from something else, or ( came into existence from nothing, or ( c) always existed. Now, like you, I acknowledge that in our common experience there is always a prior cause for everything we see. But if there was a start-point to everything, then clearly there must have been a first cause that wasn't caused by something else. And I don't see how the matter/energy of the Big Bang could have been that first cause since it would have been sitting around forever before arbitrarily deciding to explode.

The problem I have with this is that it assumes that everything at that point equals everything at this point. You assume that the laws of this universe apply in that state. Like in a black hole, space and time break down, so why would we assume that things that pertain to the laws of this universe apply in that state of the singularity? Cause and effect are possibly a non-principle there, as is time.

 

In the theory of mutiverses, laws of physics would not necessarily be the same in those universes. Electrostatic force would not necessarily be a force of that universe. So isn’t what you’re doing extrapolating the laws of this universe to everything that possibly exists outside it? Again, is “cause” a meaningful word in that state?

 

To the point of everything have a beginning, or a prior cause, this leads to the old argument I almost hate to bring up of infinite regression. It assumes, again, that everything must have a First Cause. But I see this as an artificial ‘place holder’ for the sake of reference only, like the number zero. Zero is not a real thing per se', and First Cause is also an assumed point. It’s like the idea of perfection also, which has no equivalent in any reality we expereice. These are concepts we create. Personally I prefer seeing a huge “?” “in the beginning”. It’s cooler.

 

Just noticed Antlerman's / Solo's posts about intellectual inquiry being opposed by Christianity. Might be true in some cases (I've met a few of those), but again, most major discoveries have been by Christians. And I think the prevailing theory about why science finally took off in the middle ages, after being nearly stagnant for eons prior, is that the majority of the western world had become Christian and embraced the Christian idea that the universe was created by a Deity itself bound by reason, and therefore that the universe also could be apprehended by reason. Prior to Christianity most cultures believed that the universe was created by Deity/deities that had no relation to reason whatsoever (the one society that did make significant scientific advances in those times did so as a result of two men who broke away from Greek mythology in favor of a reasonable deity). You'll also note that in the Middle Ages it was only the Christian parts of the world that experienced the Enlightenment....other cultures continued to stagnate until the wars of the 20th century forced them to catch up.

I somewhat agree, and somewhat disagree. A lot of science was promoted for understanding the universe by the church for the reason of exploring God's creation. Of course the problem was it was tainted by biases, which of course has a history that doesn't merit another repeating.

 

One story that always impresses me is that of Copernicus, how he spent years trying to plot the orbits of the planets, but always finding the orbit of Mars to be problematic. He had it doing loop the loops, raising ahead of earth, then falling back behind to explain it's behavior in the night sky. The reason he had such a strange orbit was because he was assuming God created it, and that God would create perfect circles, because God is perfect. So... once after many years he gave up on that idea, he changed the math to have imperfect, elliptical orbits and suddenly it all worked! What does that say? I see a real lesson in that process for the role of religious thought in the process of scientific discovery. Additionally, I see a real lesson for religion in its assumptions about what their God should and should not be like or do! Evolution anyone?

 

One last thought, you do know that science and literature made a circle of cultures through the ages, and that the Islamic countries kept the knowledge alive while Christianity was busy burning books, right? I really don't see a linear line that follows the religion of Christianity with a respect or pursuit of science and knowledge.

[Gaunilon]

Solo,

 

I agree that any concept of a loving/perfect/omniscient deity as the first cause is not a part of the first cause argument we are discussing; however such arguments can be made (some other time!) and some of them may be sound. For this discussion I am only talking about how the Big Bang does not address the origin of the universe, and therefore does not eliminate creation.

The reference to '2300 years' was about the first cause, matter/energy arguments we are having. These were hashed out in great detail by Aristotle's "Physics" circa 2300 BC. The Big Bang is indeed a recent theory, on that we agree, but it does not address origins.

 

 

Antlerman,

You're correct, I am assuming the most basic observable laws of nature (e.g. cause and effect). What other choice do I have? Our sensory observations are the only thing we can use as basis for further deduction.

First cause is not something assumed, it is a necessary deduction from the fact that there are later causes. The integer analogy fails because integers are all in our imagination; causes are real (at least some are). Any real cause must have a prior cause, and therefore there must be a first cause...otherwise there would not have been a second, or a third, etc, down to the ones we observe around us. If the ones we observe are real, then the one at the beginning of the chain must also have been real.

 

About Copernicus (a Christian monk by the way, and the first man to show that the earth goes around the sun), you've got the history a little wrong. He used equants and eccentric orbits, true, to fit his assumption that all orbits must be circular (in this he was following the ancient pre-Christian scientist Ptolemy, who made the argument that the Deity would make all orbits circular because they're somehow more perfect). However it was Kepler (another Christian) who first suggested using elliptical orbits. All this shows, if perfection has anything to do with it, is that ellipses are no less perfect than circles. Personally I think arguing about physics using perfection as a criteria for anything is a mistake, but I could be wrong.

 

"One last thought, you do know that science and literature made a circle of cultures through the ages, and that the Islamic countries kept the knowledge alive while Christianity was busy burning books, right?"

I'm afraid you have the history wrong on this as well. It was monasteries that safeguarded knowledge during the fall of Rome and the ensuing dark ages, and it was only the labor of Christian monks hand-copying books through medieval times that kept books around in the west. To this day a book-keeper is referred to as a "clerk" from the word "cleric".

There have been many mass book burnings through history, and every religion/culture bears blame for them. The most famous were the burning of the Library of Alexandria by the invading Moslems, and the ones perpetrated by the Bolsheviks (atheist) in 1917 and Adolf Hitler (ex-christian) in the 1930's. So let's not be too quick to cast universal accusations about this: there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Ouroboros]

Solo,

 

I agree that any concept of a loving/perfect/omniscient deity as the first cause is not a part of the first cause argument we are discussing; however such arguments can be made (some other time!) and some of them may be sound. For this discussion I am only talking about how the Big Bang does not address the origin of the universe, and therefore does not eliminate creation.

The reference to '2300 years' was about the first cause, matter/energy arguments we are having. These were hashed out in great detail by Aristotle's "Physics" circa 2300 BC. The Big Bang is indeed a recent theory, on that we agree, but it does not address origins.

Ah. My bad. I misunderstood you. I thought your 2300 reference was to some Biblical text. Wasn't it the council of the 70 that put together the Torah about 350 BCE?

 

Anyway. Yes, I understand that are other arguments for the making the "simple god" into a "complex god", which faults the first argument, but anyway, right Big Bang doesn't address the origin of whatever was that "banged". And that's what I meant by "speculation". Anything that is "before" the Bing Bang will be very much of ideas and thoughts, but hard to prove. There are mathematical models that suggests what kind of state the proto-universe was in, but there are other challengers in the race, like the brane model and such. If you want to believe in a God that created it from nothing, that's fine with me, but do remember that the day when science are able to prove what this proto-universe was, then be ready to modify your view and push God just one step further away...

[Neon Genesis]

The point is that whatever it was either (a) came from something else, or ( came into existence from nothing, or ( c) always existed. Now, like you, I acknowledge that in our common experience there is always a prior cause for everything we see. But if there was a start-point to everything, then clearly there must have been a first cause that wasn't caused by something else. And I don't see how the matter/energy of the Big Bang could have been that first cause since it would have been sitting around forever before arbitrarily deciding to explode.

This makes no sense. You claim that everything must come from something else and say that the universe needs God to create it because it must need something else to come from that didn't have a first cause and that something else must be God. You say that the universe could not exist without God because it needs a first cause that didn't have a cause before it, yet you then say that God does not need anything before it in order to cause God. Why must the universe need a first cause before its existence in order to exist but God does not need a first cause before his existence to cause God? And if the first cause can't be the Big Bang because it would have just been sitting around forever arbitrarily before deciding to explode, then why must God be the first cause since God would have just been sitting around forever arbitrarily before deciding to speak the universe into existence? In other words, why can't your same arguments to prove God is the first cause also be applied to the Big Bang? And even if we accepted the probability that there was a God that was the first cause, how do you know it was your God that did it or that it was even a sentient being?

[Legion]

Legion, greetings to you too. I agree with you that saying "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding in terms of explaining things. That said, it may still be a true statement. So if we can push our understanding to the point where we can conclude that an intelligent being must have been (or must not have been) the first cause of the universe, that is a worthy inquiry since it adds to our understanding of the universe...which is, after all, the ultimate goal of science.

Hey again Gaunilon. I am going to try to hold a scientific mind set (whatever that means), but it may be difficult because I also want to speak to you from my heart.

 

You say,"...the point where we can conclude..." Do you conclude or assume? To be a conclusion it seems to me that we would first have to form the hypothesis that God created the universe. So far so good. Then we would have to try and imagine what other kinds of things this might imply. Then we would need to see if these implied things hold true, right? Talk to me my man.

 

Just noticed Antlerman's / Solo's posts about intellectual inquiry being opposed by Christianity. Might be true in some cases (I've met a few of those), but again, most major discoveries have been by Christians.

One of the things that I find beautiful about science its potential to transcend race, gender, nationality, creed, and many other kinds of ways we have devised to divide ourselves. I have no doubt that many prominent scientists have been Christian. I believe Galileo, Newton, and Darwin were all Christians at some point. Yet there are, and have been, scientists across the entire human spectrum.

[Ouroboros]

Just noticed Antlerman's / Solo's posts about intellectual inquiry being opposed by Christianity. Might be true in some cases (I've met a few of those), but again, most major discoveries have been by Christians.

I just saw this. And yes, I won't deny that plenty of discoveries were done by Christian scientists. Also, some major work in political theory and philosophy as well. But interestingly enough, many of them were outcasts and did not present a solid, strong believer view, but rather the kind of doubting, soft approach, to the whole God thing. Descartes approached his Mediations based on doubt, and tried to reach assured, solid faith, through reason (personally I think the arguments are a big shaky at times - but that's my view), and Machiavelli was not very liked by the Church. And you know the stories about Galileo and so on. Great thinkers usually think outside the set norm. Back in those days community and not individualism was the creed. Solidarity was more important than creative ideas. They broke the norm.

 

My references are mainly to Christians of today. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I also have no doubt that there are many good Christians in general, and good scientists who are Christians, but way too many pulpit suckers come here and tell us that Big Bang is Bull and Evolution is Evil, without knowing A from B. You're an exception though, and that what gives me enough reason to keep my dialogue with you on a civilized level.

 

Furthermore (I could be totally wrong about this) but we have to thank the Muslims for saving the ancient Greek literature. Without it Aquinas et al wouldn't have had the Plato's work or Aristotle's.

 

And I think the prevailing theory about why science finally took off in the middle ages, after being nearly stagnant for eons prior, is that the majority of the western world had become Christian and embraced the Christian idea that the universe was created by a Deity itself bound by reason, and therefore that the universe also could be apprehended by reason.

Well, it happened to be that Christianity was well suited for it, but there were other cultures that were making discoveries, just not as explosive. The big change came after Protestants introduced the idea that salvation was more of a personal matter, and individualism became the next fab. Also the social contract by Hobbes changed a lot of the view of what a fair and just society, which eventually allowed unique and scientific thought. The Catholic Crutch was definitely not the backing power for scientific progress. The Huguenots broke with the Catholic Crutch, and finally allowed Europe to breathe and disagree with the Church in power. That's when science had a chance to progress.

 

But it's true that it was the view that a organized Deity was partly behind the inspiration to the scientists to find out - discover - his creation, but it was first after the Catholic Crutch were defeated as a thought supervisor. Sadly though, currently, a majority of Christians reject that view - a discoverable creation by an unknown Deity - and don't want to hear the findings of the scientists. Basically they don't want to recognize the Deity that created the Universe, but they rather believe in their own version of a God and find excuses to why not to retrofit their belief to what science have figured out. They lost the spark for knowledge. They rather have fantasy instead.

 

Besides, the best roses grows in manure. So sure, Christianity was a good planting bed for reason and science.

 

Prior to Christianity most cultures believed that the universe was created by Deity/deities that had no relation to reason whatsoever (the one society that did make significant scientific advances in those times did so as a result of two men who broke away from Greek mythology in favor of a reasonable deity). You'll also note that in the Middle Ages it was only the Christian parts of the world that experienced the Enlightenment....other cultures continued to stagnate until the wars of the 20th century forced them to catch up.

I agree. And I have no problem to admit that it is true. However, today is a different matter. Now when science is showing that this creating force, the Deity, isn't compatible with the preachers ideas of what is supposed to be true. Christians don't believe in the Bible, they believe in the preacher ideas and wishful thinking. So they won't listen to the scientist explaining the creation, but they listen to a non-scientists last night "visions".

 

Christians have stagnated and reverted back into collective thinking again. So even if the individualist thinker, who would dare to go outside of the box, seems to be very rare in the Christian pew, and probably because the few who does, find themselves incompatible with the mainstream religion, and most likely become either agnostic or deists.

 

No wonder it seems like Christianity is losing members...

 

Anyway, this discussion is best left for another thread, but since you brought it up...

Sure. And I wanted to respond.