Religion Debates and Discussions

I am hesitant to post this as it talks about well... controversial stuff, like usual
It helps to watch the whole video through.

It covers a basic theory to the existence of the universe and somewhat about how Science and Religion have a hard time seeing eye to eye.

I know I am late but I felt obligated to reply. I can't answer your question to why you can't seem to find God. He works differently through every person, but here is a poem that has helped others in the past:

One night I dreamed a dream.
As I was walking along the beach with my Lord.
Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand,
One belonging to me and one to my Lord.

After the last scene of my life flashed before me,
I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that at many times along the path of my life,
especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
there was only one set of footprints.

This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it.
"Lord, you said once I decided to follow you,
You'd walk with me all the way.
But I noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
there was only one set of footprints.
I don't understand why, when I needed You the most, You would leave me."

He whispered, "My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
Never, ever, during your trials and testings.
When you saw only one set of footprints,
It was then that I carried you."

Just remember that patience is a virtue for a reason. What has helped me personally in the past has been reading different viewpoints in books. I often find strength in that.

 

hmm interesting. thank you

 

The idea that science and religion can really ever see eye-to-eye has always seemed a little unlikely to me. I think the speaker makes a good point in saying that science and philosophy aren't very interchangeable, and that using scientific methods to justify philosophical questions is a bit ridiculous. That being said, I think that saying that there's something wrong with scientists talking about philosophy is equally as ridiculous, so long as said scientist doesn't try to use science to talk about it.
I think that a lot of the beginning of the video hinges on the use of the word "nothing." To me, the idea of "nothing" from a physical sense is sort of ambiguous, and there's a lot that could be meant besides a literal absence of existence. Nothing, referring to a perfect vacuum still isn't nothing, it's spacetime, just with no mass. Or, because space literally is time, he could just mean that quote in a nonliteral sense, that without space, there isn't time. Keep in mind that this is a subject that's incredibly hard to study. We have a lot of data, but making sense of it is very difficult, and there are so many holes that have yet to be filled that it's impossible as of yet to make a definitive stance. That the universe just came into existence out of nothing could just be the hypothesis that Hawking finds most compelling.

The next point he makes is that the complexity of the universe can't have been chance; that the mathematics that describes it has to have been intelligent design. I feel like this point is pretty common, but it's a little misguided, as far as I can see. Mathematics is not a fundamental part of nature. Mathematics is a human-made concept, built and refined to describe nature as we see it. If nature were different, math would be too. There's no reason that this unique set of mathematical rules should apply in a world where 1+1=3, because in that world 1+1 would equal 3, in their unique set of mathematics.
As for the universe's complexity, that also sort of has to be. Every level of physics depends on a smaller level, down until the bare minimum of elementary particles (it's worth noting that some theories place all of everything as fields, and that matter is only disturbances in the field, and particles are only our observation of the field. Physics is hard.)
An equally as valid question is this: How would intelligent design create the near-infinite complexity of a (probably) infinite universe? How would a being, even as powerful as God, have time to do infinitely many things in finite time? And if he can do that because he is omnipotent, or is above the laws of physics, how can that God be described as anything, if he transcends the universe he exists in? How could a God make laws that restrain Himself more than He can be restrained?

The next point he makes is the analogy to a student and his professor.
The professor would be rightfully upset, because a better explanation would exist. The creation of the universe has to be settled at that answer for the time being, because no better explanations exist. It's not like science has thrown up its hands and said "good enough." It's an active field of research, much like a student who couldn't answer a question would have to research to find the answer.

He goes on for a while about how something can't come from nothing: again, that's not the final explanation. People are still working on it.
But now is as good a time as ever to ask this rebuttal: Why can God come from nothing, but the universe can't? Why is it that it's so preposterous and unacceptable that the Universe came into being from nothingness, but the idea that God can come from nothing is okay? The answer, to me, is that in both belief sets, the creator in question has just always existed, and saying that it came into existence at all is preposterous. Until a better explanation presents itself to me, that's the one I'm sticking with, because it acknowledges that no real answer could be given, and it suggests an alternative. It works in both ways, tool; for religion because it says that God could have just always existed, and for atheism because it says that the universe could have always been there. It's a pretty agreeable stance, to me.

Next, he says that asking the question "why is there something rather than nothing" implies an answer outside of the universe. I have to disagree with this. There's no reason that asking that question demands some explanation outside of the universe. If an explanation within the universe exists, why should it be ignored or taken as not an answer?
He talks about this for a while, on the point that each level of existence depends on something higher than itself to explain it. While this makes sense to a point, it's the same as going deeper and deeper into complexity. At some point, something can explain itself (I'm not an expert on quantum particle physics, so I'm not going to try very hard to explain it). Again, if an explanation can be found as to why the universe exists in the state it does, why should it be taken as not enough to show why the universe exists in the state that it does?
And, again, as is the case with a pattern that I'm sensing as I'm watching this, the same question can be asked about God. Why does God exist in the state that He does? Why is it that God was created to be by nature a good thing for humanity, and not a terrible torturer who created humans only to condemn them to pain and terrible things? Obviously, if there is a God, He doesn't do these things to us (thankfully), but why? What part of a God guarantees that He is good?
He says that the nature of something that exists just to be is to be good, but he never really explains why that is. Something that is the reason for its own existence could just as easily exist and want to hate the world in which it exists, or would want to cause suffering or evil.

Kind of as a nitpick, he says that "gravity is variable," which is pretty much by definition not true. Gravity is a universal constant, as as been described earlier in this thread.

He then quotes an article which says that Hawking sets out to show that science "leaves no room for a deity." Barron takes this to mean that science disproves a deity, but I'd take it more to mean that with science, there's no reason to believe in a deity, that science can explain the world without need for transcendental interference. Science can't disprove a God, that's a stance I'd be willing to debate with Hawking about. By religion's very nature, God can be described as having made the world the way it is, wherever science is. Science can, however, negate the need for a deity to explain the world around us.

The last thing he talks about, "scientism," he calls it, is the idea that all knowledge is able to be found by science. I'd debate scientism, with the famous "Gödel's incompleteness theorem." It applies specifically to math, saying that there will always be something that is true, but not provably true. I think, however, that it can be applied equally as validly to science. There may be things that are true but not provably true. However, these things would, by the nature of scientific knowledge, have no effect on the observable universe, and we should have no reason to believe them. I think that the idea that all truth is scientific knowledge is bogus, but the idea that all effective (in the sense that it has an effect on the universe) truth is scientifically provable.

tl,dr: I think a lot of the points he makes are misguided but worth considering. The main point he makes, which is that science and philosophy can't ever see completely eye-to-eye is completely accurate, but his claim that scientists shouldn't talk about philosophy because they're scientists is laughable.

Again, I'm not a physicist or a mathematician or anything. I'm a high school student, typing in a debate about religion at 12:07 AM. If you know something that I was wrong about, or see anything that didn't make comprehensive sense, please feel free to correct me or ask me about it.

Rereading my post, I have no idea why I said this. It's wrong and implies that I know something that I don't. Like I said, I don't know anything about particle physics, so I don't know why I bothered trying to justify it. Ignore that bit.

 

Completely disagree about the tone of this thread. 95% of this thread has been handled in a mature manner and I'm actually proud of how this turned out. We've been harsh towards each other at times but it's gone both ways and no ones really crossed the line. Sure Gehenna has said that I don't have a heart but I don't think his intention is ill minded because in his mind he's trying to help us. And it's the same with us towards him.

TLDR; Fantastic job guys, proud of this thread it's been a pleasure

 

The number of the supporters of a view won't make it right. Only proven facts.

About the second one. Stupid **** again.
You warn me I am dead for not believing in a flying invisible beard man. As long as YOU don't believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster you are dead for me :v

Not a threat.

 

because gehenna has issues and i'd like to help.

1. "sin". and who decides what things are sins? God.

Gehenna you can't simultaneously claim God is all-knowing and all-powerful then at the same time claim that Hell isn't his fault.

Also, I'd like a clarification on the statement that Adam and Eve's descendants number in tens of thousands. There are 7 billion people on the planet.

This is completely and utterly false. Gehenna, people used to think the world was flat. People used to think all kinds of crazy sht. THE TRUTH IS NOT THE TRUTH JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE!

1. Yes, I talk down to Gehenna. If I could talk to chimpanzees I'd probably talk down to them too, they have a similar level of ability to reason.

2. Attacking someone for their beliefs maybe not be PLEASANT but my goal isn't to be pleasant. If I kept calling Gehenna fat and ugly or whatever, that'd be just downright wrong (probably) and pointless and a d*ck move. When I call Gehenna mentally disabled or whatever, it's because that is how he is acting. If he wants to be treated like a grown-up, he should stop acting like a 5-year-old.

3. Atheists aren't as moral as Christians. Generally they're more moral.

I don't really differentiate between "you're dead inside because you don't believe in God" and "you're f*cking dead inside because you don't believe in God". It's still an ugly thought.

 

How much I love this response.

 

The title says "Religion debates and discussions".
Not "I'll save you from damnation"

 

how much i love this response to my response :3

dude, gehenna started the thread

betcha he won't change the title just to prove you wrong

 

How much I love this response to my response to your response c:

 

I can agree.

 

I think that this is sort of what enderdragon meant when he said that the responses haven't been very friendly, and I'm inclined to agree with him, in this instance.
Most of this response in fine, yes, but there are some things that easily come across as pretty demeaning, whether or not you meant them that way, and if you want to keep a debate, you have to avoid things like that. If both sides work to be less insulting, the whole thread will be a lot more rewarding.

 

No. Science is perceived as true because there is quantifiable, empirical, physical evidence of its truth, not because a bunch of scientists got together and said "ya know what would be cool? Evolution." And, again, for the umpteenth time, science is not static. Our understanding of the world through science is constantly changing. It's not up to you to say that science is wrong because it's been wrong in the past. What matters is that the evidence is examined and analyzed, and that predictions are made. We used to think the Earth was flat because it fit our view of the world. Without telescopes, we couldn't see that not everything orbited only us, and we didn't make the mathematical measurements that the Earth couldn't be the center of the universe until a long time later, even after we figured out that the Earth was round. Our understanding of the world we live in has expanded, but it's far from complete. Until someone produces repeatable evidence, or shows an inconsistency in the theory of evolution, it's our best guess at how life could diversify and spread across the Earth.

The idea that science is a man-made concept is sort of like saying that time is a man-made thing. It's not. Humans do, however, measure and identify it, much like they do with scientific knowledge. The answers are somewhere out there, but we haven't seen far enough or accurately enough to find the answers.

Science does not give everyone meaning in life, either. It's a way we view the world, but it's not what ultimately gives the majority of atheists meaning. I believe that everyone makes their own meaning, and whether or not sciences are a part of it is unique to the individual. Like I've said, pursuit of my interests in the arts and some math gives me meaning, as well as some science. But there are atheists for whom meaning comes from their passion to lead a happy family, or to make a lot of money and donate to the poor, or their desire to help humanity as a whole.

I've mentioned the very large difference between religious faith and secular faith a while back. Please stop using the two like they're the same thing. It's like me saying that you're worshiping false deities because you have faith in your parents. It's a whole different spectrum of the word, and the two spectra shouldn't be used interchangeably.

It could be. That's not entirely out of the question. Evolution is, as I've said, our best guess at the world based on what we know for sure. It could turn out that some piece of evidence can find a flaw in the theory that ultimately means it needs serious change, or that it really just doesn't fit the world.
However, until anyone finds any evidence to the contrary of evolution, there's no reason to believe that there is evidence to the contrary. In other words, it's illogical to say that something is wrong because there could be evidence that doesn't support it.



Since I never got a real answer, I'll ask it again, to anyone who wants to answer:
Are moral things moral because God wills them to be moral? Or are they innately moral and God only tells us that they're moral?

 

I've never told my parents I am an atheist neither my sister (Actually I am unsure about her faith too). I don't think Dad would like to know that as I was baptized just 2 years ago.

 

The problem with the majority of scientists and them talking about philosophy is it is way out of their "jurisdiction" you could say. I will reference Bill Nye for instance. Does he know his science? Somewhat I suppose, but he creates a problem where he has built a large enough fan base to make people think that whatever he says is credible because he said so. He has begun commenting on philosophical arguments which he has no degree or training in talking about. Because he is well known and generally liked people assume that, "Well he is right when it comes to science, so he must be right when he talks about..." I found this general issue with other scientists. They have a degree in science but that doesn't necessarily mean they can provide a reason that is sustainable in the philosophical sense.

I think that's what Bishop Barron meant. These scientists think since they can talk about Point A and then think they can jump to Point C without difficulty. Almost all Liberal Arts colleges offer a philosophy major which is completely different than the sciences in terms of thinking.

Just look 2 posts down.

Praying for you

A quote that I rather like especially in these situations:

"A little science estranges man from God, but much science leads them back to him." - Louis Pasteur

 

I think then that this isn't the fault of the scientist, it's the fault of the blind followers of said scientists. I'll continue on the example of Bill Nye. It would take a lot of evidence for me to disagree with Nye on, say, to what extent the Earth's gravity affects the sun. I know that I know less than him in that, and so I don't try to argue. But on philosophical matters, one''s conclusions come heavily from one's own experience. If Nye said that he was an existentialist, I wouldn't necessarily decide that that was the best way of thinking, unless he provided enough support and reasoning for his idea. It's not Nye's fault that his followers are impressionable, it's the followers' fault.

Can you explain this process a little bit more? If science can lead a man back to God, how come no scientific evidence can directly provide proof for God?
Similarly to with Bill Nye, I wouldn't disagree directly with Pasteur on how bacteria form on hunks of meat until I had enough evidence and support to form a reasonable counter-hypothesis, but I would easily disagree with him on a philosophical matter like this.

 

I know I am about 40 pages late in replying to this but upon re reading, I think it's important that I explain my point. I was using fundamental constants to start to show how the universe has more order to it that many Atheists think. I didn't directly state that it was because of God that made is possible, but only to show the possibility of order in the universe.