On the Sixth Day, God Made the Dinosaurs

[Paul98]

Math explains how the Universe works -- it also explains how a watch works...but that doesn't prove that the watch didn't need a designer, does it?

This is a faulty argument as others have pointed out. As I pointed out before look at stars, how they come about what they do to help shape the universe and the elements in it.

There is an interesting argument about the physics of the universe, but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

 

[Retro Rob]

The logic is flawed. Just because all manmade things were made by man does not mean all complex things were made by intelligence. Even if everything man makes is complex does not mean everything complex was made by man. Something analogous might be to say that all roses are red so everything red is a flower. What you are doing is affirming a consequent, a common logical error. Intelligence creates complex things therefore all complex things were created by intelligence. It doesn't compute.

It also sets up a situation in which you are asking for someone to disprove something. When you believe something without evidence and ask others to disprove it, you can create an endless stream of any outlandish scenarios with none being any more valid than the other.

I think the point is this: Design, or the lack thereof, doesn't prove nor disprove a designer.

2+2=4. That simple equation doesn't add four dollars to my bank account, deduct four dollars from it...nor does it prove where I got 4 dollars from, nor does it prove where the number 4 came from.... all it does it explain is a way we arrive at the number "4".

Another way is 1+1+1+1=4 which is subject to the same restrictions.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Math explains how the Universe works -- it also explains how a watch works...but that doesn't prove that the watch didn't need a designer, does it?

After quoting my last post, I expected a response to what I wrote. You asked for some thoughts on evidence and I provided mine.

I also suggested in my post is that it's unlikely that the existence of the supernatural (e.g. a creator/designer) can be proven or disproven based on what we see in the universe (barring some impressive "miracle"). So I obviously agree that math does not disprove the existence of a "designer" for the universe. On the other hand, the fact that a watch has a human designer just as obviously does not prove that the universe needs one.

 

[Retro Rob]

After quoting my last post, I expected a response to what I wrote. You asked for some thoughts on evidence and I provided mine.

I also suggested in my post is that it's unlikely that the existence of the supernatural (e.g. a creator/designer) can be proven or disproven based on what we see in the universe (barring some impressive "miracle"). So I obviously agree that math does not disprove the existence of a "designer" for the universe. On the other hand, the fact that a watch has a human designer just as obviously does not prove that the universe needs one.

I will engineer - just had to run out for a couple hours!

 

[stormkroe]

After reading quickly through this thread, I'd like to ask a few questions regarding generalities.

I'm just wondering what the non-Christian consensus is for creation account of the Bible? I see many people, even professed Christians who adamantly say that the Bible is just simply wrong in regards to the 'Beginning'. Before you jump in too quick, keep this thought in mind:
Almost everything you read can have more than one literally LITERAL interpretation. Add a gap of thousands of years, several languages that don't exchange word-for-word, and the storage media for preservation the strivings of man, for good or ill, and those literal interpretations can expand to a large number.
Now, say you have a text that that falls into that most handicapped category making outrageous claims. There are 10 ways to interpret it to be a lie, but there is 1 way to interpret it that is scientifically, testably true, why fight so hard that the authors simply HAVE to have meant it the way YOU think they did (which happens to be the wrong way)?
Example: You have an apparently coded message from the second century. There are almost infinite cyphers that yield gibberish, but only 1 that decodes it properly, revealing the location of a chest of gold. If those people who decode it that 1 way find the gold, why would so many people still say that the cyphers that yielded rubbish were what the authors truly meant?

That's my quick analysis of the Genesis (and Job, Psalms, various books in the New Testament) creation account. The reading of it that is natural to me (and logical) fits perfectly with the most widely accepted hot Big-bang cosmology model of today (13.7xxx billion year old universe, string theory, expanding universe, unchanging laws of physics, etc).

So what do you interpret it to say that is wrong to you?

Thanks guys

 

[Pulsar]

Deleted - it just isn't worth it.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd put it more strongly that religion or belief can only be sustained by faith. What confuses me is when believers start looking for evidence, or start building "proofs" of the existence of something supernatural. It seems to me that doing so amounts to an admission that faith alone is insufficient. The first step on the road to damnation! 🙂

I can agree -- but this isn't universally true. There are places, real persons, real events that the Bible discusses in detail in some respects so this isn't totally "faith based".

Science has claimed that there "HAS" to be life on other planets due to the sheer amount of them, and they're looking for evidence to cooberate that.

This is an example of putting the cart before the horse.

Let me suggest that an obvious, unambiguous miracle observable by everyone would be evidence. A miracle in this context would be something that can't be explained by (or flatly counterdicts) the physical laws/theories we think describe how the universe works. Something that is not "natural" in that sense -- in other words, it is supernatural. As an example, if the stars in the Milky Way suddenly rearranged themselves to form the words "I am the Lord thy God" as seen from earth then I'd say that's strong evidence.

I think science has a similar-sized burden as well. To say that a creator isn't needed isn't something math/science is in a position to quantify. In fact, it's useless for explaining anything prior to it coming into existence itself, and is by default, limited to only physical forces.

Saying "a creator isn't needed", is just an opinion because how do we really know... scientifically speaking? We can't!

I think this requires an big leap of faith -- faith because it probably won't/can't be known. All people can do is live their lives as if a God doesn't exists, and that's fine...but for this sake of this debate, that doesn't mean anything.

What your foil Stephen Hawkings is saying is that math/science has enough of an outline on how the universe works to eventually explain everything. There's no obvious gaps or inconsistencies that require miracles (i.e. the action of something supernatural) to reconcile. If he's right, then we shouldn't expect to find evidence. To me this would mean that the existence of the supernatural (and all characteristics that describe the nature of the supernatural) can't be proven or disproven based on what we see in the universe.

It's all about faith!

Science does an outstanding job of explaining how things work -- probably can't explain before the Big Bang. We simply weren't here when all this started so no one can say exactly how things started or what caused it.

Throw as much faith and/or math at it as you want...you'd end up making a faith-based conclusion either way. One thing we DO know for sure is that something cannot come from nothing....and don't bother changing the definition of "nothing" because something is still there.

My $.02! 🙂

 

[Madwand1]

Let me suggest that an obvious, unambiguous miracle observable by everyone would be evidence. A miracle in this context would be something that can't be explained by (or flatly counterdicts) the physical laws/theories we think describe how the universe works. Something that is not "natural" in that sense -- in other words, it is supernatural. As an example, if the stars in the Milky Way suddenly rearranged themselves to form the words "I am the Lord thy God" as seen from earth then I'd say that's strong evidence.

It would not be proof. It might be proof of something which could properly be called a super power, but it would not be proof of something which would have to be called 'God'. It, and other hypothetically impressive phenomena could be proof of something powerful enough to be able to force you to call it 'God', but, considering that it is after all only a demonstration of power, great but nothing more, it would not be sufficient to prove that this is the ultimate power. There is an infinite regress in effect, and only a temporary limit to imagination can say 'well, that's powerful enough for me'.

It would also not be enough for many theists -- an act of a child god, so to speak, to play with this universe in that way; an act which would then make the theist ask would the parent god please appear and make the child behave better.

The only valid proof of God would be personal experience of God, as God.

 

[PowerEngineer]

It would not be proof. It might be proof of something which could properly be called a super power, but it would not be proof of something which would have to be called 'God'. It, and other hypothetically impressive phenomena could be proof of something powerful enough to be able to force you to call it 'God', but, considering that it is after all only a demonstration of power, great but nothing more, it would not be sufficient to prove that this is the ultimate power. There is an infinite regress in effect, and only a temporary limit to imagination can say 'well, that's powerful enough for me'.

It would also not be enough for many theists -- an act of a child god, so to speak, to play with this universe in that way; an act which would then make the theist ask would the parent god please appear and make the child behave better.

The only valid proof of God would be personal experience of God, as God.

Actually I have that same desire to ask for the parent god to appear when reading many parts of the old testament. Yahweh wasn't exactly warm and fuzzy. 😀

I do understand your point that a sufficiently advanced civilization (with an alien sense of humor) might be capable of warping the universe in ways that appear miraculous to mere humans; I'm guessing this was the plot in at least a dozen Star Trek episodes. My suggestion of a starry message wouldn't be perfect evidence, but certainly would give us something to think about. Best I can do.

IMHO "proof" has to be based on facts/evidence we can share with others. I don't see "personal experience of God" as a basis for "proof". It's really all about faith.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I can agree -- but this isn't universally true. There are places, real persons, real events that the Bible discusses in detail in some respects so this isn't totally "faith based".

Science has claimed that there "HAS" to be life on other planets due to the sheer amount of them, and they're looking for evidence to cooberate that.

This is an example of putting the cart before the horse.

I think science has a similar-sized burden as well. To say that a creator isn't needed isn't something math/science is in a position to quantify. In fact, it's useless for explaining anything prior to it coming into existence itself, and is by default, limited to only physical forces.

Saying "a creator isn't needed", is just an opinion because how do we really know... scientifically speaking? We can't!

I think this requires an big leap of faith -- faith because it probably won't/can't be known. All people can do is live their lives as if a God doesn't exists, and that's fine...but for this sake of this debate, that doesn't mean anything.

Science does an outstanding job of explaining how things work -- probably can't explain before the Big Bang. We simply weren't here when all this started so no one can say exactly how things started or what caused it.

Throw as much faith and/or math at it as you want...you'd end up making a faith-based conclusion either way. One thing we DO know for sure is that something cannot come from nothing....and don't bother changing the definition of "nothing" because something is still there.

My $.02! 🙂

Better! More like a nickel’s worth. 😀

I typed up a nice long response, and then lost it on submission. Dang! I suspect my second attempt will be mercifully shorter.

I’ll agree that the bible does describe some real people, some real places, and some real events. We have other collaborating sources that help confirm that Herod was a king of Judea, that there is a Sea of Galilee, and that the Babylonians did destroy Jerusalem. That some of its contents are collaborated doesn’t mean that we can safely believe that its entire content is true. That would be like believing everything in a newspaper because just one back-page article appears to be true. What can be collaborated in the bible has nothing to do with the claims it contains about the supernatural. To my mind, it’s still all about faith.

There’s nothing wrong with scientists to espouse a postulate as long as they recognize that it needs to be proven through collection of evidence (which helps explain why Curiosity in on Mars right now). I have no doubt that many bets have been made between scientists about the existence of extraterrestrial life on Jupiter’s moons, and obviously half of the scientists involved are “sure” that there “HAS to be life” on those moons. Of course, these bets will not be settled until enough evidence is gathered to prove the postulate one way of the other. I think this puts the horse clearly in front of the cart. Now if this same postulate was espoused as a belief by a preacher then it could be immediately adopted as a matter of faith! :sneaky:

I think that Steven Hawking's assertion that the framework of scientific knowledge/theories is extensive enough to not require miracles (i.e. supernatural intervention) to explain everything in our universe fits within the range of what science can conclude. Note again that not needing a creator is not the same as proving that a creator does not exist. It does lead us to conclude that the mere existence of the universe is not proof in and of itself that a creator must exist. Your decision whether to believe in a creator or not is therefore all about faith.

The way I see it, the scope of science is limited to the explanation of the “natural”. It’s quite possible that the “natural” will never extend beyond/before the big bang. Even if it somehow does, it is by very definition unable to provide explanations of the supernatural. It seems obvious to me that the existence of a creator can never be determined through science.

Finally, I am fascinated by your firm assertion that “something cannot come from nothing”. How did you come to this conclusion? Is it based solely on your personal experience and/or preference? What evidence do you have (other than something usually comes from something) that this is true? Or is this also a matter of faith? 😕

My return of your nickel… 🙂

 

[Madwand1]

IMHO "proof" has to be based on facts/evidence we can share with others. I don't see "personal experience of God" as a basis for "proof". It's really all about faith.

Proof is not about faith and communication -- it's about establishing truth. If you have constructed a valid mathematical proof, you have established a truth for yourself, and is not necessary for you to communicate that for it to be of value. The writing of the proof may be communicated, but the proof itself is not until it is also internalized by the reader. To dispute this, to logically reduce proof to faith, is irrational.

 

[Timorous]

"nothing"[/URL] because something is still there.

I would argue that based on our current understanding there has never existed a point at any time where nothing has existed, at t=0 there was something that existed. I would imagine that if you could go to t=-1 then what you would intuitively anticipate to be the case would end up being wrong just like what happens when you go to negative Kelvin.

I still find the idea of the supernatural absurd because you cannot really define it. I would say that anything that can affect nature is a part of nature even if it is something we do not really understand such as dark matter. Our models predict X, we observe Y and to fill in the difference we use dark matter. Either our models are incorrect and we do not need dark matter or there is something else that is as yet undetected that is having an effect on the universe as a whole. Based on some the arguments in here that would be considered supernatural for some people but its not really.

If something like Power Engineer suggested were to happen my first thoughts would be that our physical laws/theories are in some way incorrect. I would also consider the possibility of advanced alien life actively trolling us but I would need more evidence than just one example of something very unlikely happening. It might lend more credence to some sort of steady state and infinite universe where everything that can possibly happen does actually happen but I would in no way think it was a) supernatural or b) GOD until we had a lot of evidence to back up that idea.

On thinking about it I guess the only evidence I would consider convincing to me for a GOD would be a tour outside of the universe and through time. That might seem like a very high bar but for an omnipotent being it is trivial.

 

[randomrogue]

Read it and weep.

I suppose calling this child abuse would be hyperbolic. But there is no doubt in my mind that kids exposed to this sort of stuff on an ongoing basis with nobody to correct it are having their minds poisoned in a way that could affect them in the long run.

It's been my view for a long time that many of the religious right who complain about "indoctrination in the public schools" are really just unhappy that their kids are being exposed to reality in a way that threatens the religious indoctrination the parents favor.

Bottom line is that teaching kids things like this makes them stupid. Religion is a crutch for the weak minded. Notice how I'm not saying faith. Organized religion though is a curse upon mankind since it forces dogma onto people and makes them stupid and not critically thinking and productive members of society.

Might as well teach kids that unicorns, mermaids, and the flying spaghetti monster are real. That will net them a good job and a bright future.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bottom line is that teaching kids things like this makes them stupid. Religion is a crutch for the weak minded. Notice how I'm not saying faith. Organized religion though is a curse upon mankind since it forces dogma onto people and makes them stupid and not critically thinking and productive members of society.

Might as well teach kids that unicorns, mermaids, and the flying spaghetti monster are real. That will net them a good job and a bright future.

I think that's a bit harsh. Religion can lead to bad things but good as well. I'd put passing creationism of as science as bad. Also there seems to be a propensity to select religion as the cause of mindless dogma. It may be, but in these forums I can find more evidence for the same using political ideology in religions place. Nationalism. Tribal affiliation, a great many excuses for humans to be a good what you just said the worst qualities of religion allow that to happen but there's much more than that. To borrow from Shakespeare, the fault is not in the stars but in ourselves.

 

[BigDH01]

After reading quickly through this thread, I'd like to ask a few questions regarding generalities.

I'm just wondering what the non-Christian consensus is for creation account of the Bible? I see many people, even professed Christians who adamantly say that the Bible is just simply wrong in regards to the 'Beginning'. Before you jump in too quick, keep this thought in mind:
Almost everything you read can have more than one literally LITERAL interpretation. Add a gap of thousands of years, several languages that don't exchange word-for-word, and the storage media for preservation the strivings of man, for good or ill, and those literal interpretations can expand to a large number.
Now, say you have a text that that falls into that most handicapped category making outrageous claims. There are 10 ways to interpret it to be a lie, but there is 1 way to interpret it that is scientifically, testably true, why fight so hard that the authors simply HAVE to have meant it the way YOU think they did (which happens to be the wrong way)?
Example: You have an apparently coded message from the second century. There are almost infinite cyphers that yield gibberish, but only 1 that decodes it properly, revealing the location of a chest of gold. If those people who decode it that 1 way find the gold, why would so many people still say that the cyphers that yielded rubbish were what the authors truly meant?

That's my quick analysis of the Genesis (and Job, Psalms, various books in the New Testament) creation account. The reading of it that is natural to me (and logical) fits perfectly with the most widely accepted hot Big-bang cosmology model of today (13.7xxx billion year old universe, string theory, expanding universe, unchanging laws of physics, etc).

So what do you interpret it to say that is wrong to you?

Thanks guys

Genesis seems ridiculous now because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests it is inaccurate. So for those who need or desire the Bible to be legitimate, it means that Genesis must now be open to interpretation or must be a metaphor. The problem with going down that road is that it still hurts the validity of the rest of the Bible. If we were to point out every event in religious texts that defies logic, reason, and/or observation of the natural world and claim those are just metaphors then what is left? Is Mary's virgin pregnancy a metaphor? Is Jesus's resurrection a metaphor? Noah's ark? Walking on water? Water into wine? Are these all metaphors as well? What about the existence of God, metaphor as well?

Once you say that you can't take a Biblical story literally because it defies everything we know about the natural world then you pretty much have to extend that to every story that makes claims that are unphysical. What supernatural entity is left after that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Genesis seems ridiculous now because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that suggests it is inaccurate. So for those who need or desire the Bible to be legitimate, it means that Genesis must now be open to interpretation or must be a metaphor. The problem with going down that road is that it still hurts the validity of the rest of the Bible. If we were to point out every event in religious texts that defies logic, reason, and/or observation of the natural world and claim those are just metaphors then what is left? Is Mary's virgin pregnancy a metaphor? Is Jesus's resurrection a metaphor? Noah's ark? Walking on water? Water into wine? Are these all metaphors as well? What about the existence of God, metaphor as well?

Once you say that you can't take a Biblical story literally because it defies everything we know about the natural world then you pretty much have to extend that to every story that makes claims that are unphysical. What supernatural entity is left after that?

For argument sake how would you accurately and unerringly explain The Beginning to Moses?

 

[BigDH01]

I can agree -- but this isn't universally true. There are places, real persons, real events that the Bible discusses in detail in some respects so this isn't totally "faith based".

The supernatural aspects of the Bible are faith based. Some parts of the Bible may be rooted in historical events, but we haven't dug up a video of someone walking on water.

Science has claimed that there "HAS" to be life on other planets due to the sheer amount of them, and they're looking for evidence to cooberate that.

Science hasn't claimed this. Science says there are a lot stars and that we've found some planets. That's it. Some *scientists* believe there has to be life I'm sure, but they don't speak for all of science. I like to consider myself a man of science and I believe ET life is possible although not a foregone conclusion.

I think science has a similar-sized burden as well. To say that a creator isn't needed isn't something math/science is in a position to quantify. In fact, it's useless for explaining anything prior to it coming into existence itself, and is by default, limited to only physical forces.

This, again, is a reversal of the burden of proof. Despite the fact that science isn't really concerned about that which it cannot prove/disprove, it's up to the person making a claim to prove it's validity. It's not up to everyone else to disprove it.

Saying "a creator isn't needed", is just an opinion because how do we really know... scientifically speaking? We can't!

Which is why science doesn't care about this question and why the question itself has no place in science.

I think this requires an big leap of faith -- faith because it probably won't/can't be known. All people can do is live their lives as if a God doesn't exists, and that's fine...but for this sake of this debate, that doesn't mean anything.

I think all people can do is live their life as if they don't know. I can't tell you for certain there isn't a God, but the religious can't tell me for certain there is. Given that I can't know, I don't think about it often because the thoughts are futile.

Science does an outstanding job of explaining how things work -- probably can't explain before the Big Bang. We simply weren't here when all this started so no one can say exactly how things started or what caused it.

Nope, and similarly those who believe that everything must come from a creator need to explain who created the first creator. At some point in the chain of causation there was an event that was caused by nothing.

Throw as much faith and/or math at it as you want...you'd end up making a faith-based conclusion either way. One thing we DO know for sure is that something cannot come from nothing....and don't bother changing the definition of "nothing" because something is still there.

My $.02! 🙂

At some point, something did come from nothing. What was existence before the Big Bang? If we are some bubble universe, where did the other universe come from? If we are living in a simulation, where did are programmers come from? If we were created by God, where did God come from? Despite what you believe here, at some point there was nothingness.

 

[BigDH01]

For argument sake how would you accurately and unerringly explain The Beginning to Moses?

As a person living in the 21st Century I would explain to Moses what scientific evidence suggests about the creation of our world and the evolution of man.

If the question was to pose how I would do it as an omnipotent and omniscient Deity, I wouldn't bother explaining it at all. I would inject the true history as a thought into Moses's mind and bypass the ambiguity involved with the spoken word.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As a person living in the 21st Century I would explain to Moses what scientific evidence suggests about the creation of our world and the evolution of man.

If the question was to pose how I would do it as an omnipotent and omniscient Deity, I wouldn't bother explaining it at all. I would inject the true history as a thought into Moses's mind and bypass the ambiguity involved with the spoken word.

I know a good bit, enough to explain most things to a contemporary, however I could not explain it to Moses. I'd argue that it's fundamentally impossible.

 

[Retro Rob]

The supernatural aspects of the Bible are faith based. Some parts of the Bible may be rooted in historical events, but we haven't dug up a video of someone walking on water.

We really don't have to "see a man walking on water" to believe it no more than you have to see life on another planet to believe it.

No one is asking you (generic) to blindly accept some of the supernatural things written in there. The point is, the Bible isn't going to be credible enough for most people... it is for me, though. When it comes to the supernatrual things, and we believe in a God, then they aren't hard too believe. If you don't believe in God, or even think such a person could exist, then it's foolish to you and impossible for you to accept.

At the end of the day, it boils down to whether or not this is something you're willing to accept. Some do, some don't. There are even people who work in the field of science who have no issue with accepting a supernatural creator. They leave it outside the lab, but that doesn't wreck their faith -- there will always be people like that.

Science hasn't claimed this. Science says there are a lot stars and that we've found some planets. That's it. Some *scientists* believe there has to be life I'm sure, but they don't speak for all of science. I like to consider myself a man of science and I believe ET life is possible although not a foregone conclusion.

I've heard some say it... as you say. True, its doesn't represent the whole, but I think its as good as fact that they think there is life... generally speaking.

This, again, is a reversal of the burden of proof. Despite the fact that science isn't really concerned about that which it cannot prove/disprove, it's up to the person making a claim to prove it's validity. It's not up to everyone else to disprove it.

Stephen Hawking stated that God isn't needed. I assume he was talking about a creator in general regardless of who that is. I hope I am not taking what he says out of context, but he made statements like "the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

So I think they put themselves dead-smack in the "burden of proof" crosshairs at times..IMO... but please, correct me if I am wrong about what he stated.

Science is concerned... to some degree. How can't they be?

Nope, and similarly those who believe that everything must come from a creator need to explain who created the first creator. At some point in the chain of causation there was an event that was caused by nothing.

We don't need to explain who created the creator because the Bible says he's enternal, from that standpoint. Scientifically, we probably would need to... but that isn't where we get out information from. Again, as you say, its an act of Faith.. and that's fine with me personally. Like I stated, it leaves a person with the ultimate decision to believe it or not.

At some point, something did come from nothing. What was existence before the Big Bang? If we are some bubble universe, where did the other universe come from? If we are living in a simulation, where did are programmers come from? If we were created by God, where did God come from? Despite what you believe here, at some point there was nothingness.

We probably won't ever know what was before the Big Bang.

The thing is, too... is that our minds can't comprehend nothing... so we naturally need an explanation even if it's NO explanation. Our minds tell us that something was here first..and that we originated from somewhere, IMO, whether it be a primordial soup, or an Asteroid laced with DNA.. we simply need one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We seek an explanation but that does not mean we can have one. It is entirely possible that the true origin (and I mean that a complete sense) is literally impossible to understand. No reason to stop trying though.

 

[BigDH01]

We really don't have to "see a man walking on water" to believe it no more than you have to see life on another planet to believe it.

These things are not equivalent. The existence of ET life doesn't break any natural observed law of the universe and our own existence demonstrates that it is possible. An instance of a human walking on liquid water would mean that our understanding of these laws is wrong as it would break many of the known mathematical constructs which so far have proven accurate, repeatable, and useful in their predictions (unlike the Bible, which as far as I can tell hasn't really accurately predicted anything with usefulness).

No one is asking you (generic) to blindly accept some of the supernatural things written in there. The point is, the Bible isn't going to be credible enough for most people... it is for me, though. When it comes to the supernatrual things, and we believe in a God, then they aren't hard too believe. If you don't believe in God, or even think such a person could exist, then it's foolish to you and impossible for you to accept.

My biggest issue is that you've already admitted that we can't know that a God exists but then you believe in things that don't conform to what we know about physics and the universe (miracles basically) based on a Deity whose existence you can neither confirm or deny. If I believe in fairies, that's fine, but if someone said that fairies are the reason that someone in an ancient text converted water into wine then I've stretched credibility.

At the end of the day, it boils down to whether or not this is something you're willing to accept. Some do, some don't. There are even people who work in the field of science who have no issue with accepting a supernatural creator. They leave it outside the lab, but that doesn't wreck their faith -- there will always be people like that.

A lot of these scientists I've met will strongly differentiate between a supernatural creator and miraculous events. They use science to explain natural events but believe that these events were set in motion by a higher intelligence. More like a watchmaker view of God. I have no issue with this really, I have issue when this belief interferes with their ability to find an observable, rational, verifiable, and repeatable explanation for the things we see.

I've heard some say it... as you say. True, its doesn't represent the whole, but I think its as good as fact that they think there is life... generally speaking.

This sentence is confusing. Yes, scientists who believe that there has to be ET life believe there has to be ET life. That doesn't mean every scientist believes this or that it is accepted as scientific law.

Stephen Hawking stated that God isn't needed. I assume he was talking about a creator in general regardless of who that is. I hope I am not taking what he says out of context, but he made statements like "the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

He was explaining that God isn't necessary to explain what we observe in the natural world. He was dispelling the God of the Gaps. Like anyone else, he can't prove the nonexistence of a creator that by nature can't be proven/disproven.

So I think they put themselves dead-smack in the "burden of proof" crosshairs at times..IMO... but please, correct me if I am wrong about what he stated.

From the article:

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing," said Denis Alexander.

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion.

Science is concerned... to some degree. How can't they be?

Science doesn't like supernatural explanations for natural events, but science doesn't care and can never know if there's some invisible, unknowable supernatural force guiding the universe through application of universal laws.

We don't need to explain who created the creator because the Bible says he's enternal, from that standpoint.

So your argument that you use that something can't come from nothing is something you don't actually believe in. You do believe that something can be eternal so you would have to concede that any scientist could say that the universe is eternal and it would be just as good an explanation.

Scientifically, we probably would need to... but that isn't where we get out information from. Again, as you say, its an act of Faith.. and that's fine with me personally. Like I stated, it leaves a person with the ultimate decision to believe it or not.

Everyone ultimately derives information through 'science' in the sense that science is simply investigation and observation of the natural world. Assuming you aren't a Biblical literalist, then you have used observation of the natural world to determine that certainly some things in the Bible appear to be inaccurate or metaphorical.

 

[randomrogue]

I think that's a bit harsh. Religion can lead to bad things but good as well. I'd put passing creationism of as science as bad. Also there seems to be a propensity to select religion as the cause of mindless dogma. It may be, but in these forums I can find more evidence for the same using political ideology in religions place. Nationalism. Tribal affiliation, a great many excuses for humans to be a good what you just said the worst qualities of religion allow that to happen but there's much more than that. To borrow from Shakespeare, the fault is not in the stars but in ourselves.

Fair point. I'm not enamored with blind nationalism or political dogma either. Those are a problem too.

I think, for me, at the end of the day anything that impairs people from critically thinking and making good decisions is a problem.

 

[randomrogue]

I know a good bit, enough to explain most things to a contemporary, however I could not explain it to Moses. I'd argue that it's fundamentally impossible.

I posted that link to the video about the old testament in another thread but now that they're doing archaeology on the old testament they can disprove most of the old testament up to either King David OR after Solomon. Jury is still out. Either way Moses' journey doesn't match up to the archeological and written evidence from the time.

 

[Paul98]

Trough the wormhole: What happened before the beginning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELOoqqkygLY