[rubicon]

Originally Posted by tedquick

Your point is well taken and it reminds me of a situation I was in a number of years ago. I am politically very conservative and had a good friend who was just as passionate as I, except he was a liberal. Our discussions were often times a gathering place for the entertainment of others. We finally had to cease those discussions because he ended up getting very angry when he could no longer defend his positions. So as “they” say in religion and politics, there is no winning. When there are intractable views on either side, a debate (or discussion) could very well sink into an argument where nothing is being accomplished except to anger the party whose position seems indefensible. Once that happens nothing is being accomplished except to farther divide us from each other. (There is too much of that presently being done purposefully in Washington).

The conscious reason for my topics is to share thoughts, beliefs and feelings with others who have similar and even those with opposite views. I think a lively debate/discussion is good for all involved. As long as communication is taking place something is being accomplished, whether that be a changing of heart or mind, or at a minimum some thought provoking exchanges. None of us live on an island. We are all a part of something much larger.

tedquick: you underscore exactly what is wrong with our society today. My Dad and hi boyhood friend argued politics there entire life my father a liberal Democratic and his friend Tony a conservative Republican If a stranger listened to them they would have thought they would come to blows. Nope when they finished they hugged had a brewski and continued with other topics. People can't do that anymore and your friend is a prime example of that.

[rubicon]

It might help if posters if theyseparate the discussion of GOD vis a vis religion because all it does is confuse the main issue and that is does GOD exist?

A person may no longer follow a particular religion or any religion because of human omissions or commissions.

Science follows its consecutive discoveries to replace a previous theory or add on to it and use them to support their beliefs.

Christians follow the bible and utilize it to support their beliefs

A person can be a Christian and not belong to any religion

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by rubicon

It might help if posters if theyseparate the discussion of GOD vis a vis religion because all it does is confuse the main issue and that is does GOD exist?

A person may no longer follow a particular religion or any religion because of human omissions or commissions.

Science follows its consecutive discoveries to replace a previous theory or add on to it and use them to support their beliefs.

Christians follow the bible and utilize it to support their beliefs

A person can be a Christian and not belong to any religion

I agree with your entire post except that in science there are “laboratory” proofs that are available for testing and experimentation, while in religion (or the simple act of believing there is a God or not) no such laboratory proofs are available.

While you and I are a little off topic (but maybe we’re really not), you bring up an excellent point: I think religion is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. I believe in God and in the redemption of His Son. “Religion” gets carried away with its own particular versions of “the right way to believe” while it is each individual’s right to decide on their own how and what they choose/want to believe. After all, if God Himself has given us free will to choose to believe or not, why is it that man thinks he should decide or judge for any/all others?

Or is it man’s insecurity that has frightened him into judging others who think/believe differently than he does? After all, if “you” think differently than I do then one of us has to be wrong and because of my precarious walk, I dare not let that error reside within me, therefore, the euphemistic “you” must be wrong.

I’m interested in your or any other reader’s thoughts.

[quirky3]

Originally Posted by tedquick

I agree with your entire post except that in science there are “laboratory” proofs that are available for testing and experimentation, while in religion (or the simple act of believing there is a God or not) no such laboratory proofs are available.

While you and I are a little off topic (but maybe we’re really not), you bring up an excellent point: I think religion is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. I believe in God and in the redemption of His Son. “Religion” gets carried away with its own particular versions of “the right way to believe” while it is each individual’s right to decide on their own how and what they choose/want to believe. After all, if God Himself has given us free will to choose to believe or not, why is it that man thinks he should decide or judge for any/all others?

Or is it man’s insecurity that has frightened him into judging others who think/believe differently than he does? After all, if “you” think differently than I do then one of us has to be wrong and because of my precarious walk, I dare not let that error reside within me, therefore, the euphemistic “you” must be wrong.

I’m interested in your or any other reader’s thoughts.

I strongly agree with most of the statements you just made....very astute. I would love if people were much more inclusive and focused on discovering and leveraging our common values to help others and make the world a better place. Then you have "we", not "us" and "them".
Fear and man's own particular versions of “the right way to believe” work against all that.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by tedquick

I agree with your entire post except that in science there are “laboratory” proofs that are available for testing and experimentation, while in religion (or the simple act of believing there is a God or not) no such laboratory proofs are available.

While you and I are a little off topic (but maybe we’re really not), you bring up an excellent point: I think religion is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. I believe in God and in the redemption of His Son. “Religion” gets carried away with its own particular versions of “the right way to believe” while it is each individual’s right to decide on their own how and what they choose/want to believe. After all, if God Himself has given us free will to choose to believe or not, why is it that man thinks he should decide or judge for any/all others?

Or is it man’s insecurity that has frightened him into judging others who think/believe differently than he does? After all, if “you” think differently than I do then one of us has to be wrong and because of my precarious walk, I dare not let that error reside within me, therefore, the euphemistic “you” must be wrong.

I’m interested in your or any other reader’s thoughts.

tedquick you and I agree to the shortcomings of religions and I am speaking from an overview of religion. I am certain that many individuals take comfort in their deep seated religious beliefs Catholics Protestant, Mormon, etc.

However when it come to science we differ. Laboratory studies are subject to error, sometimes exaggerated because of hubris or out of desperation. Further science is the continuing study of disproving a previous theory and as such it is never settled. Finally and overall it is ridden with confirmation bias and too often inferences that are pure speculation such as why dinosaurs disappeared

Essentially whether is is GOD or science they are both faith based

I greatly respect you deep faith as it takes great courage to get to that point

[KayakerNC]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Essentially whether is is GOD or science they are both faith based.

Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence.

Is science faith-based? - Bad Astronomy | DiscoverMagazine.com : Bad Astronomy

Faith in science and religion: Truth, authority, and the orderliness of nature.

Science Is Not Based on Faith*|*Victor Stenger

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence.

Is science faith-based? - Bad Astronomy | DiscoverMagazine.com : Bad Astronomy

Faith in science and religion: Truth, authority, and the orderliness of nature.

Science Is Not Based on Faith*|*Victor Stenger

KakayerNC

Thank you for those article they do give one pause for thought and they are very enlightening. good information thank you.

I noticed that in the first referenced article the author stated : "The scientific method makes one assumption and one assumption only, the Universe obeys a set of rules." But does all of the Universe, obey a set of rules, the same set of rules. As vast and complex this issue envelopes what rules are those and the bigger question is WHO MADE THOSE RULES AND WHO CONTROLS THEM?

Is this assumption an admission of faith? All the discoveries they cite relate to the Earth per se
but do they or can they relate to the entire Universe, a Universe we only now speculate about? One has to admit that it takes an act of faith to explore a country, a world, a theory. What the authors have done is to express the end of the story (result) but the beginning all had to have a faith based element by the scientist to even contemplate to explore their curosity.

[Shimpy]

Originally Posted by tedquick

If you are an atheist, and there is no God, then how can you explain the origin of the universe?

We can't even explain how to cure the common cold or eliminate cancer. How in the world can you expect us to explain the origin of the universe with our limited intelligence? If you give credit to God for things we can't explain, then you can give him credit for the cold or cancer.

[tucson]

How an Atheist Found God - Why the Change - What Facts Led to Believing in God

[charlie49]

"If you are an atheist, and there is no God, then how can you explain the origin of the universe?"

Somethings are just beyond our current frames of reference and hopefully people will remain curious about these ideas like the origins of the universe and learn more in the future. This is different than concluding there must be a supernatural being involved in creating the universe because we do not have another answer.

The question makes me think of what ancient people thought about the cause of thunder. Their understanding of science so limited, they thought it must be caused by the gods. They had no other answer to what caused thunder. The question was beyond their frame of reference.

I cannot explain the origin of the universe, but, I remain curious about it.

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by tucson

How an Atheist Found God - Why the Change - What Facts Led to Believing in God

Great piece -- pieces actually. Thanks

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by charlie49

"If you are an atheist, and there is no God, then how can you explain the origin of the universe?"

Somethings are just beyond our current frames of reference and hopefully people will remain curious about these ideas like the origins of the universe and learn more in the future. This is different than concluding there must be a supernatural being involved in creating the universe because we do not have another answer.

The question makes me think of what ancient people thought about the cause of thunder. Their understanding of science so limited, they thought it must be caused by the gods. They had no other answer to what caused thunder. The question was beyond their frame of reference.

I cannot explain the origin of the universe, but, I remain curious about it.

I am not a believer because believing is the default position when there is no other answer. I believe because of all of the evidence around us that points to a God. Many have offered pieces of that evidence within this string. tucson offered a site that has 2 additional sites within the initial reading. Onslowe (after reading it I, too have recommended it) has suggested the same book twice within this reading. There simply is evidence of God. While it may not be provable in a laboratory today, there is so much evidence that Onslowe's recommended book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" should give you a strong idea as to its content. Bottom line of the book is this: after looking at all of the evidence within the book, it really does take more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer in God!! You may borrow my copy if you'd like to read it.

[tucson]

Originally Posted by tedquick

Great piece -- pieces actually. Thanks

My pleasure

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by tedquick

Great question but you know as well as I do that there is no “proof” of what existed before the Big Bang. There isn’t even any proof of a BB, it simply seems to be the most widely accepted “possible” explanation for the origin of the universe. Now let me throw a curve at you: the theory suggests that the expansion of an infinitely small and dense singularity is what “birthed” the universe as we know it today. What there is even less explanation for is how long that singularity might have existed before it expanded. And it is even more complicated than that because before the BB, the theory (additionally supported by Einstein’s theory of relativity) suggests that there was no time. With there being no time, and no thing outside of that infinitely small and dense singularity, in today’s language, there was nothing. BTW, I am not smart enough to understand Einstein’s theory of relativity, so I don’t want to imply that, but I do understand parts of what it and other theories might suggest and based on that information and using today’s language, as I understand our language, effectively there was nothing before the BB.

And then along comes quantum physics and some other possible explanations for what might have been “before” but none have been accepted as readily and as widely as the BB Theory. The bottom line is, and both you and I know it, this is all theory and NONE of it can be proven in a lab today. This and all other credible theories are run on mathematical models, all of which are above my pay grade, but I do accept the opinions of the experts.

I’m sure your comment about “. . . . to read a book” is because I suggested (actually challenged) BarryRX to read “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”. I suggested that he, (and I think you should too) read the book because the length of the proof he requested would not be allowed on this blog.

Oh, and by the way, what’s wrong with reading a book? It is a great book! And it might surprise but even more importantly, it might cause you to take another (or at least different) look at not only Christianity, but also the Big Bang. Take care and keep smiling.

I don't think I disagree with anything you have said about the BBtheory. It makes sense up to a point because scientists have observed the universe expanding. If you could imagine everything moving in reverse, eventually the universe would come together at one point.....a singularity. And that's as far as it goes.

Maybe it's correct and maybe not but I don't see a big need to know more than that. If they eventually find out more or come up with a new theory I'll be glad to hear about it. But I'm not under any illusion that we will ever have a final comprehensive answer as to how the universe began. A singularity was not the beginning, in my opinion.

I don't have anything against books, I just don't have the time to read everything that's been recommended.

[Patty55]

I consider myself an agnostic theist.

One of the many things I question is why topics such as this are even included in the "Non-villages discussion". Why is this not off with all the church stuff.