# Church Admits Darwin Was Right



## Drachir

Amazing.  The Catholic Church has just admitted that Darwin's Theories are compatible with Christianity.  

Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

I wonder what will be next - according women equality?  Admitting that overpopulating the Earth is not a good idea?  The sky's the limit.


----------



## Saeltari

Woman want what? What kind of equality? I'm suspicious... 

*runs and hides, assuming he won't get a chance to contribute to the overpopulation thingy now...*

It was interesting you posted that, I just came across a TIME article where a bishop states that heaven is here and Christians got it wrong, which is funny because the guy they interviewed was such. If you are interested i will see if I can find the link?

*still hiding*


----------



## Drachir

Saeltari said:


> Woman want what? What kind of equality? I'm suspicious...
> 
> *runs and hides, assuming he won't get a chance to contribute to the overpopulation thingy now...*
> 
> It was interesting you posted that, I just came across a TIME article where a bishop states that heaven is here and Christians got it wrong, which is funny because the guy they interviewed was such. If you are interested i will see if I can find the link?
> 
> *still hiding*



Do that; it might be amusing.


----------



## Ursa major

Saeltari said:


> It was interesting you posted that, I just came across a TIME article where a bishop states that heaven is here and Christians got it wrong, which is funny because the guy they interviewed was such. If you are interested i will see if I can find the link?


 
I'd be interested to see that link. (I can't help feeling that for too many people, Earth is hell.)


----------



## Cayal

Drachir said:


> Amazing.  The Catholic Church has just admitted that Darwin's Theories are compatible with Christianity.
> 
> Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist
> 
> I wonder what will be next - according women equality?  Admitting that overpopulating the Earth is not a good idea?  The sky's the limit.



Wow that's rare. Religious people changing tunes. You mean how the Earth is now round and not the centre of the universe?

Galleo called, he wants his life back.


----------



## Overread

meh the Christian religion is so big and has so much written history to it that the Vatican can pick and choose pretty much any stance to take if they so wish. They just have to release (or bring to light) the right documents and give it their seal of approval and its done.
Just look at the Bible - its cut and pasted to form what they want it to say - they can cut and paste it many different ways to say many different things. 
The only difference is that once they take a stance they usually don't change their tune - I think in this case they have realised that if they didn't change it soon they were liable for being made to look like a laughing stock (and also losing members big time to the science community)


----------



## sloweye

* watches the curch back peddel with a smile on his face*


----------



## Ghost Of Gernsback

Drachir said:


> Amazing. The Catholic Church has just admitted that Darwin's Theories are compatible with Christianity.
> 
> Vatican backs Darwin, dumps creationism - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist.


 
The fact you are only something like 60 years behind the times is a far more interesting debate topic. The Catholic Church has not had an issue with evolution since Pope Pius in 1950


----------



## Saeltari

As requested here is the link -> Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop - TIME

and I am hesitant to agree with them not having an issue with evolution since 1950, ok not hesitant pretty much disbelieving...


----------



## AE35Unit

I don't see how evolution or Darwinism can be compatible with ANY kind of theism. The two are seperate. Let them ride seperate horses into the sunset!


----------



## Ursa major

Thanks for that link, Saeltari: not quite what I was expecting: more thoughtful, for one thing; and the John Polkinghorne quote links in quite well with a (partly) SF site.



AE: What you might want to consider the existence, or otherwise, of a God (or god) of Unintended Consequences.


----------



## Parson

AE35Unit said:


> I don't see how evolution or Darwinism can be compatible with ANY kind of theism. The two are seperate. Let them ride seperate horses into the sunset!



It is not so difficult. I believe that humanity came into being through the process of evolution. I believe that God oversaw* the process so that humanity might come into being. 

*Made sure no blind alleys were followed and got the process started.

I am very pleased with the link about heaven. I think that the title was misleading. The Bishop believes in the Biblical heaven, not the "popular" one.


----------



## dustinzgirl

AE35Unit said:


> I don't see how evolution or Darwinism can be compatible with ANY kind of theism. The two are seperate. Let them ride seperate horses into the sunset!




Not really. Evolution supports that there is the possibility of beings far more evolved than modern humans. So I don't see how a para-dimensional, supra-natural being is a far off possibility when Darwin supports that it is possible.


----------



## mosaix

Drachir said:


> Amazing.  The Catholic Church has just admitted that Darwin's Theories are compatible with Christianity.



Who cares?


----------



## AE35Unit

How anyone can believe in the existance of a God in this day and age is beyond me! It seems such a narrow minded and simplistic view to me! Oh we're in trouble,but its ok cos god will fix it. Its his way.


----------



## AE35Unit

Ursa major said:


> AE: What you might want to consider the existence, or otherwise, of a God (or god) of Unintended Consequences.



You've lost me there Mr Bear


----------



## Saeltari

AE35Unit said:


> How anyone can believe in the existance of a God in this day and age is beyond me! It seems such a narrow minded and simplistic view to me! Oh we're in trouble,but its ok cos god will fix it. Its his way.


 
Belief is a powerful thing; and your statement could honestly fit quite comfortably in any time period in history. The times has nothing to do with the belief.


----------



## Grimward

Well said, Saeltari.  Faith and belief are not rendered narrow and simplistic by the conditions and events around them, nor are they neatly summed up by the phrase "its ok cos god will fix it".  A truly open mind allows for the possibility of faith (and the actions therein rooted) that can change those very conditions and events, even if that same mind chooses not to embrace such faith.  I'm not labeling anyone here, merely stating my perspective.


----------



## Drachir

mosaix said:


> Who cares?



Perhaps those capable of thought.


----------



## Vladd67

I think what Mosaix meant was some people regard the church as irrelevant so what does it matter what they believe in this week.


----------



## mosaix

Vladd67 said:


> I think what Mosaix meant was some people regard the church as irrelevant so what does it matter what they believe in this week.



Spot on Vladd. I should have explained myself more clearly, but couldn't really be bothered at the time.


----------



## Urlik

AE35Unit said:


> I don't see how evolution or Darwinism can be compatible with ANY kind of theism. The two are seperate. Let them ride seperate horses into the sunset!


 
I shall let Devo answer that


> God made man
> But he used the monkey to do it
> Apes in the plan
> Were all here to prove it
> I can walk like an ape
> Talk like an ape
> I can do what a monkey can do
> God made man
> But a monkey supplied the glue


----------



## AE35Unit

Saeltari said:


> Belief is a powerful thing; and your statement could honestly fit quite comfortably in any time period in history. The times has nothing to do with the belief.



For me a belief in god is a weakness,or rather a RELIANCE on god to sort your life out shows a weakness. It seems there's two types of faith. Faith in your own abilities and in those around you,and a delusional faith in which you put your trust in an imaginary being in the hope things will turn out ok. If it works then great,but its not your imaginary friend thats helped you,its you yourself! Cavemen had gods but we don't live in caves anymore and we have science to explain why that flower is yellow while another similar one over there is white. The sun doesn't rise in the east and set in the west,the earth simply rotates. Its a belief in god that put us in the centre of the universe,when we all know now that we're not even at the centre of the solar system! We are insignificant,a dot on a page,and its a BIG page!


----------



## Interference

No one cares, Mosaix, which is both the cause and effect of modern society.

Society seems to have evolved now beyond the _need_ for God.  On one side, moral strictures are well-known and respected by those who already have a functioning moral compass, while on the other the "Fear of God" has had no noticable effect whatever on wrong-doers, and it's been like this for quite some time, now.  The issues become even more complex when we witness leaders _encouraging_ the doing of wrong in the _name_ (whatever that phrase means) of the God they represent.

For thousands of years our species was encouraged to take onboard that God was a Vengeful God who would visit His wrath on us, even unto the _whatever-it-was_th generation, if we stepped out of line.  Examples were passed around about how this Vengeance would manifest itself, from plagues to raining fire.  And in case we should find that unconvincing, there was even a little cameo that asserted you don't even _need_ to be bad for God to go all Supreme Deity on your a$$ (Job).  But, for the last two millennia, He's mellowed, by all accounts (you can read all about it in the Jesus stories), so it's okay to be a little bit naughty, because He's evolved into a Forgiving God and even lowly priests are currently well placed to pass on His absolutions.

This has, of course, allowed murderers to be assured of a place in Heaven as long as, once they've done all the murdering they can reasonably take on in a single lifetime, they are able to say they're sorry.

But these days, people have cut out the Middle Deity and gone straight to forgiving themselves without the apology.  The fear or promise of mythical afterlives are as nought to their mindset as they begin to wonder if having only one life to live might mean they'd be as well to pack as much into it as possible before it's over.

So where does that leave us?

It may be necessary to invoke some other form of moral arbiter to keep even the worst of us on the straight-and-narrow, because any deity worthy of being recruited to the role that stands squarely and mulishly in opposition to science is going to have a tough time of it in a scientific age (where even the smallest child can have a basic comprehension of the pre-historic and of man's origins as a species).  If the New God is going to have any relevance for those who need Him, the Church is naturally going to have to redefine Him, and this may be the first subtle step towards that end.

We've done our bit.  Now, it's time for _God_ to evolve .....


----------



## Parson

AE35Unit said:


> For me a belief in god is a weakness,or rather a RELIANCE on god to sort your life out shows a weakness. It seems there's two types of faith. Faith in your own abilities and in those around you,and a delusional faith in which you put your trust in an imaginary being in the hope things will turn out ok. If it works then great,but its not your imaginary friend thats helped you,its you yourself!



The Christian God is more nuanced than this. We believe that God can even work through tragedy to bring about his ends. God does not bring tragedy, that's the results of sin at work. It is much the same way I believe that God worked through evolution to create humanity.



> *Interference:* But these days, people have cut out the Middle Deity and gone straight to forgiving themselves without the apology. The fear or promise of mythical afterlives are as nought to their mindset as they begin to wonder if having only one life to live might mean they'd be as well to pack as much into it as possible before it's over.



These days are the same as all the prior days in this regard. Some people are able to forgive themselves and some people are not. But some of what people in all generations forgive themselves of, needs more than a personal free pass.


----------



## Saeltari

AE35Unit said:


> For me a belief in god is a weakness,or rather a RELIANCE on god to sort your life out shows a weakness. It seems there's two types of faith. Faith in your own abilities and in those around you,and a delusional faith in which you put your trust in an imaginary being in the hope things will turn out ok. If it works then great,but its not your imaginary friend thats helped you,its you yourself! Cavemen had gods but we don't live in caves anymore and we have science to explain why that flower is yellow while another similar one over there is white. The sun doesn't rise in the east and set in the west,the earth simply rotates. Its a belief in god that put us in the centre of the universe,when we all know now that we're not even at the centre of the solar system! We are insignificant,a dot on a page,and its a BIG page!


 
I don't disagree with most of what you say, I am actually pretty firmly in your camp but I know that some people feel the need for a diety of some sort and others do not. 

However, I do completely and absolutely disagree with you where you think believing in god shows a weakness. Honestly in this case I would suggest it is only a weakness in your perception, because, following the logic, then belief in a psychiatrist would also be a weakness or belief that needing a friend to listen sometimes is a weakness. I have known people who are firm in their beliefs, but trust me, they were not weak in any sense of the term. 

One could say that perceiving a weakness where one wants to perceive a weakness could be construed as a weakness . One could also say, in opposite, that some beliefs do bring a weakness, but not that they are in and of themselves a weakness.


----------



## Cayal

Parson said:


> The Christian God is more nuanced than this. We believe that God can even work through tragedy to bring about his ends. God does not bring tragedy, that's the results of sin at work. It is much the same way I believe that God worked through evolution to create humanity.



I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.

If God was perfect and all-powerful, he would have made a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve. 100% holy and incorruptible.


----------



## Drachir

mosaix said:


> Spot on Vladd. I should have explained myself more clearly, but couldn't really be bothered at the time.



Then I'm sorry I was so sharp.


----------



## The Procrastinator

Saeltari:


> However, I do completely and absolutely disagree with you where you think believing in god shows a weakness. Honestly in this case I would suggest it is only a weakness in your perception, because, following the logic, then belief in a psychiatrist would also be a weakness or belief that needing a friend to listen sometimes is a weakness. I have known people who are firm in their beliefs, but trust me, they were not weak in any sense of the term.


 
I agree with you here. "God is a crutch" - often touted, rarely honestly examined. We all have our little crutches (mine is chocolate). But seriously. Truth, justice, the human spirit, doing the right thing, the free market, human rights, equality, etc etc. In the cold light of day they look a bit like God's cousin, don't you find? All ways we try and get by. If someone wants to get by using faith or religion or whatever, that's all right by me, as long as they don't expect me to join in.

Cayal:


> I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.


 
Ha yes, I love this too. Difficult to argue with, isn't it. Things quickly become emotional...


----------



## Parson

Cayal said:


> If God was perfect and all-powerful, he would have made a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve. 100% holy and incorruptible.



Maybe God thought that robots were not capable of true love? How do we know? 

Christians believe in a God with infinite orders of magnitude more intelligence, love, and power that what humanity has shown. To understand God's motives would be as likely as a fly being a qualified candidate to be in charge of the Quantum Physics department of MIT. 

(The Parson does not know if MIT has a Quantum Physics department, but the point remains the same.)



> I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.



The truth may be frustrating, but it's always better in the long run to work with the truth than a convenient and happy fallacy.


----------



## Interference

Parson said:


> The truth may be frustrating, but it's always better in the long run to work with the truth than a convenient and happy fallacy.



I _really_ don't want to get stuck into this discussion (again) but, Parson, that sentence _could_ be used against your proposition, you know.

Otherwise, your description of how religious people view their gods is, imo, right on the money.


----------



## AE35Unit

Saeltari said:


> belief in a psychiatrist would also be a weakness or belief that needing a friend to listen sometimes is a weakness. I have known people who are firm in their beliefs, but trust me, they were not weak in any sense of the term.
> 
> .



But a psychiatrist is real,tangible. God isn't. Its an abstract idea, an ethereal being,a ghost,literally. A psychiatrist is there to help others. A god is there to make people help themselves. But ultimately its dilusional.


----------



## AE35Unit

Cayal said:


> I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.
> 
> If God was perfect and all-powerful, he would have made a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve. 100% holy and incorruptible.



Spot on there!
Also there wouldn't have been wars,false god worship a la Al Queda allowing its disciples to kill millions and call it gods will. Oh I'm sure god would REALLY approve of that if he were real!


----------



## mosaix

Drachir said:


> Then I'm sorry I was so sharp.



Drachir, not a problem. 

The fault was entirely mine. I should have explained myself more clearly at the time.


----------



## mosaix

Cayal said:


> I love how religious people always make God infallable. That when something bad happens it is the fault of man, but when something good happens it is God's doing.



How true.

I remember that there was mining accident a few years ago, in the States I think. Several people trapped under ground. There was an erroneous statement released that trapped men had been found and were being brought out. A TV crew interviewed relatives waiting outside the mine - "It's a miracle, thank you God" was a common theme. However they were all dead. Subsequent interviews - not a mention of God but lots of blame on the mine owners and the guy who issued the original statement.

But my take on this 'Church admits Darwin was right' issue is that gradually, things that the Church thought were true - the structure of the Solar System being one - are being proved not to be so. 

I would imagine that the Pope is in daily contact with God, via prayer (or imagines that he is) and is being guided by God. Isn't it plausible that once, just once, God would have said "Look before you torture that guy, let me tell you about the nature of the Solar System....". If there's one time that guidance was needed, it was then. 

Anyway, about my post 'Who cares?'. What I meant was that what the Church thinks is irrelevant to me. The fundamental laws of the Universe and the physics and chemistry that drive the biological processes here on Earth are what they are - regardless of whether the Church agrees with them or not.


----------



## Allegra

I saw this the other day and found it quite funny: BBC NEWS | Europe | Two sexes 'sin in different ways'

So men's top 'sin' is lust (anything new?). Now that they accepted Darwin, they shouldn't be too picky on it for that's merely part of the survival business! Men or women, someone have to take the lead, right?


----------



## Contrary Mary

Must put in my two or three cents ehre.

First, the title of the thread.  If you read the article, the Vatican stated that Darwin's theory is "not incompatible" with the Christian Faith.   It did not specifically Darwin was right.

As far as Darwin being right, is it not ture that what is taught is the "theory" of evolution?  I do agree that Darwin's theory does appear to be supported by very much scientific evidence.

One last point.  If someone personally regards religion as a "weakness" that person may chose not to indulge in this perceived "weakness".

However, there are many, many people who find strength and comfort in ther religion.  If religion helps some cope with the stresses and troubles of daily life, then permit them their "wekness".

I myself find comfort in reigion and strength.  I am not quick with words so I probably cannot defined my faith as well as Parson can.  But, the state categorically the "religion is a weakness: is a pretty sweeping statement.  For some people I know, religion is their strength.


----------



## j d worthington

Contrary Mary said:


> As far as Darwin being right, is it not ture that what is taught is the "theory" of evolution? I do agree that Darwin's theory does appear to be supported by very much scientific evidence.


 
Mary, while I could take issue with other points in your post (I've come to believe, on rather strong evidence, that religion is a weakness, across the board, for instance), the point I want to address is the common misconception of what "theory" means when applied to scientific concepts. For all intents and purposes, by the time anything reaches the point of being called a "theory" in science, that is the same as saying in common parlance that it is a fact, as it is supported by all the available evidence, as well as repeated testing and experience (yes, we have seen examples of speciation, for example). "Theory" in common parlance is much looser, meaning something like an idea or -- in scientific terms -- an hypothesis; something which seems reasonable and likely but has yet to be proven.

However, one of the prime points of science is falsifiability -- that is, that it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances which brings such an idea into question or proves it to be erroneous. Nothing in science is considered beyond that; hence it is no longer called "the law of gravitation" save in the historical sense of, e.g., "Newton's First Law", etc. Instead, it is "gravitational theory" because, even though we have absolutely no indication that it isn't the explanation for why bodies are attracted to each other, there is always the possibility left open that at some point something may refute it. Both with gravity and with evolution, that possibility is vanishingly close to the zero point, but it has to be left open to new evidence of that sort.

In other words, in everyday speech: No, it isn't a theory. It's a fact, backed by every scrap of evidence we have, and with nothing whatsoever to contradict it as an explanation of the diversity we see in life.


----------



## Ursa major

Allegra said:


> I saw this the other day and found it quite funny: BBC NEWS | Europe | Two sexes 'sin in different ways'
> 
> So men's top 'sin' is lust (anything new?). Now that they accepted Darwin, they shouldn't be too picky on it for that's merely part of the survival business! Men or women, someone have to take the lead, right?


 
Strictly speaking, men and women seem to have _owned up_ to different sins. (The people who go to get their sins forgiven are still members of the same old shifty human species, a species that is quite willing to tailor what it says to its best advantage. )


By the way, I saw this article in yesterday's Observer:
Science is just one gene away from defeating religion | Comment is free | The Observer​It strikes me that some people (in this case the writer of the headline more than the author of the text) see the word, religion, and lose the ability to think straight. It's obviously a trait not confined to the religious**.



** - Ignoring anything else, some, at least, of the religious won't be listening about some gene or other, so it's hardly sensible to talk of "defeating religion" in this context.


----------



## Parson

Contrary Mary said:


> However, there are many, many people who find strength and comfort in ther religion.  If religion helps some cope with the stresses and troubles of daily life, then permit them their "wekness".
> 
> I myself find comfort in reigion and strength.  I am not quick with words so I probably cannot defined my faith as well as Parson can.  But, the state categorically the "religion is a weakness: is a pretty sweeping statement.  For some people I know, religion is their strength.


C Mary,

I would agree with what J. D. has said about Evolution being a scientific theory, rather than a theory as we normally use it in our language.

I would agree with you that many people find strength and comfort in their religion. I believe that is for a very good reason. I believe that God saw to it (through the evolutionary process) that we were wired up to look for why questions, some of which can only be answered through faith systems.

However, I would not agree about my being "quick with words" if that means good with them. I often read what I wrote and say to myself: "If only you could write the way that so many of your teachers and heroes do!" But thanks for the KIND words! 

On the other hand if you meant quick to speak and slow to listen, the sin of which James speaks, I plead guilty to that one nearly all the time.


----------



## Saeltari

A weakness is often a strength, and no, I am not religious. 

I do believe that flatly stating anything is 'all' one way or another is a good first step to being wrong. Logically it don't work. 

For example I could state:

"All religious people are weak."

and I could state:

"All people not religious are doomed."

Would either statement actually stand up? I would be surprised if it did. 

Adding 'some' to either statement would have me agreeing with it.

I just hate labeling everything as one when in fact it is many.


----------



## Lobolover

J.D.-I agree, except the recognised chronology isn't. Remember all those artefacts, like the hammer so metalicly pure we can't make it even today or all those other stuff, clearly made by inteligent beings, which is dated at ages impossible for the curent "timetable" to fit in, hence why many of these artefacts "mysteriously" dissapear from museums (without any evident investigation, of course) or the curators just flat out refuse to show them to reporters.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

mosaix said:


> How true.
> 
> 
> I would imagine that the Pope is in daily contact with God, via prayer (or imagines that he is) and is being guided by God. Isn't it plausible that once, just once, God would have said "Look before you torture that guy, let me tell you about the nature of the Solar System....". If there's one time that guidance was needed, it was then.


 
Yes good point however look at it the other way. Maybe the advice *was *to torture the guy



mosaix said:


> Anyway, about my post 'Who cares?'. What I meant was that what the Church thinks is irrelevant to me. The fundamental laws of the Universe and the physics and chemistry that drive the biological processes here on Earth are what they are - regardless of whether the Church agrees with them or not.


 
Are here I must take issue. If we could just ignore the churches position it would be great. However the centuries are littered with the effects of religious influence on our lives with it's suppression and indoctrination.
All it takes for the tyranny to succeed etc.



Contrary Mary said:


> Must put in my two or three cents ehre.
> 
> First, the title of the thread. If you read the article, the Vatican stated that Darwin's theory is "not incompatible" with the Christian Faith. It did not specifically Darwin was right.
> 
> As far as Darwin being right, is it not ture that what is taught is the "theory" of evolution? I do agree that Darwin's theory does appear to be supported by very much scientific evidence.
> 
> One last point. If someone personally regards religion as a "weakness" that person may chose not to indulge in this perceived "weakness".
> 
> However, there are many, many people who find strength and comfort in ther religion. If religion helps some cope with the stresses and troubles of daily life, then permit them their "wekness".
> 
> I myself find comfort in reigion and strength. I am not quick with words so I probably cannot defined my faith as well as Parson can. But, the state categorically the "religion is a weakness: is a pretty sweeping statement. For some people I know, religion is their strength.


 
C. Mary:

I have a problem with this from a purely what if point of view.

Lets (just for the sake of argument) presuppose that all religion is wrong. That there is no god, spiritual forces or anything other than a vast nothingness. 

Now lets take an individual with a deep belief in the existence of god and ask ourselves this.

How is the individual drawing strength from this none existing support.

Could it be that what is really happening is that they are self supporting themselves through the use of this imaginary friend and might it not be better to develop the ability to draw on ones own strength and not depend on this fickle support that can't be relied upon.

I think that's what god would want us to do.


----------



## Ursa major

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Now lets take an individual with a deep belief in the existence of god and ask ourselves this.
> 
> How is the individual drawing strength from this none existing support.
> 
> Could it be that what is really happening is that they are self supporting themselves through the use of this imaginary friend and might it not be better to develop the ability to draw on ones own strength and not depend on this fickle support that can't be relied upon.


 
What you are describing is not strictly internal, though, is it? (We are not, I assume, dealing with a self-generated theism, but one shared with others.) Could it be that the very act of sharing a faith gives the belief more power?

(On a related note, are doctors encouraged to dispense** with the placebo effect? I think not.)



** - Not a pun: pharmacists, not doctors, dispense medicine.


----------



## mosaix

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Are here I must take issue. If we could just ignore the churches position it would be great. However the centuries are littered with the effects of religious influence on our lives with it's suppression and indoctrination.
> All it takes for the tyranny to succeed etc.



TEIN, I agree entirely with you except for one point. If the Church was denying Darwinism or teaching creationism then I would, of course, speak out and add the weight of my opinion (little as it is) to the argument. But in this case they are accepting, finally, the scientific evidence that most of the rest of us have accepted for years. I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies. 

Perhaps instead of '_who cares_' I should have posted '_about bl**dy time_'.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

mosaix said:


> TEIN, I agree entirely with you except for one point. If the Church was denying Darwinism or teaching creationism then I would, of course, speak out and add the weight of my opinion (little as it is) to the argument. But in this case they are accepting, finally, the scientific evidence that most of the rest of us have accepted for years. I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies.
> 
> Perhaps instead of '_who cares_' I should have posted '_about bl**dy time_'.


 

We must all pray for their eyes to be opened further and that in time they will come to full enlightenment  (not long now though)


----------



## Contrary Mary

I am still new to this computer so I do not know how to quote.  But the End Is Nigh posted a scenario "what if all religion is wrong that is nothing spiritual exists?"

Every human society that I am aware of has had  SOME form of religion.  Not just Christianity but Islam; Judaism; Huduism. etc etc.  The god of the Greeks and Romans and other ancient peoples.

Is ther, perhaps a pyschological need for religion?   It seems that many--not not all of course--seem to beleive in  something.  When the do the Gallup polls here in America, the belief in "God or some higher power" runs about 70?.

I do not intened to force my religion down anyone's throat.   As long as I am permitted to beleive in God, anyone else ican NOT believe in God.   But, I do object to staements implying that all who beleive in religion are weak.  Just because I do not beleive in the same way as other persons does not make me either weak or stupid.  I am neither.

Btw, as far as "god" being immaterial, thoughts cannot be touced or seen. Yet, are not thoughts real and vital?


----------



## Saeltari

Contrary Mary said:


> ... I do not intened to force my religion down anyone's throat. As long as I am permitted to beleive in God, anyone else ican NOT believe in God. But, I do object to staements implying that all who beleive in religion are weak. Just because I do not beleive in the same way as other persons does not make me either weak or stupid. I am neither. . .


 
Exactly. (a nonbeliever )


----------



## j d worthington

Lobolover said:


> J.D.-I agree, except the recognised chronology isn't. Remember all those artefacts, like the hammer so metalicly pure we can't make it even today or all those other stuff, clearly made by inteligent beings, which is dated at ages impossible for the curent "timetable" to fit in, hence why many of these artefacts "mysteriously" dissapear from museums (without any evident investigation, of course) or the curators just flat out refuse to show them to reporters.


 
Sorry, Lobo, but I'm going to need more information on these; all such I've ever encountered have turned out to be complete hoaxes or misrepresentations of the facts -- not uncommon when it comes to the general media reporting on science.



Contrary Mary said:


> Is ther, perhaps a pyschological need for religion? It seems that many--not not all of course--seem to beleive in something. When the do the Gallup polls here in America, the belief in "God or some higher power" runs about 70?.
> 
> I do not intened to force my religion down anyone's throat. As long as I am permitted to beleive in God, anyone else ican NOT believe in God. But, I do object to staements implying that all who beleive in religion are weak. Just because I do not beleive in the same way as other persons does not make me either weak or stupid. I am neither.
> 
> Btw, as far as "god" being immaterial, thoughts cannot be touced or seen. Yet, are not thoughts real and vital?


 
Mary -- I did not mean to offend with my statement, so perhaps a clarification may help. I did not state (nor do I believe) that "all who believe in religion are weak" -- at least, no more so than the majority of people. But I stand by my statement that religion itself is a weakness. A perfectly understandable one, given our history, but a weakness nonetheless. This is a position I've come to gradually over a long period of time, and not without a great deal of struggle about various issues connected with it.Whether it is one we will ever manage to outgrow remains to be seen.

Your statement above, I think, goes close to the core of the matter; I'd agree that there is an emotional need (or, more properly, desire, though it is strong enough to feel like a need unless very closely examined) which religion fills for many people; but I'd also say this is because it evolved to fit that niche over time, becoming more "fine-tuned" over the millennia for that very purpose. And, after all, for most of the existence of the human race, religion of some sort has been "the default position" as far as addressing "the big questions" goes. Only in relatively recent times (say, from the beginnings of the civilizations in the Mesopotamian region) have we evolved a better tool for such, one which relies not on guesswork and/or "simple" acceptance of supposed sacred authority, but one based on rational examination of the world and universe about us, combined with an increasing ability to test and refine our observations and conclusions.

Still, the emotional appeal is immensely strong for the majority of people, and for many reasons; not least of which it taps directly into some of the most basic emotional complexes in the human psyche.

However, this is getting rather off-track to the main thrust of the thread, which is the Church's statement anent Darwinian evolution. I think that, if you look at the historical record, you'll find that a great number of religions accepted much of Darwin early on; it wasn't until his further work, The Descent of Man, brought home some of the implications, that they began to have trouble with it (this happening almost concurrently with the rise of the fundamentalist movement, iirc). The Catholic Church, however, has long had a (somewhat uneasy) compromise with the idea. This is nothing new. It's what the Church has done throughout its existence -- if it can't destroy that which is opposed to its teachings, eventually it adopts it to some degree; usually only as much as is necessary to maintain the Church's viability....


----------



## Drachir

Contrary Mary said:


> I am still new to this computer so I do not know how to quote.



Really?  It has nothing to do with your computer.  Try clicking on the *Quote* button on the bottom right hand side of this post.


----------



## Ursa major

I still think weakness is the wrong word to use, except in very specific cases. Weakness (or strength) is an attribute of a particular person, not of that which they do or do not believe.

(Most) human beings like social interaction or to be in relationships. Is this a weakness? No. It can be a strength. Think of science: even where discoveries have not resulted from collaboration, they rely on the discoveries of others.

However, some people are dependent on social interaction: they seek it out and hang on to it to an unhealthy extent (staying in abusive relationships, whether with a partner or natural family member or other social relationship). It is this utter dependency that is a weakness.

Some people depend on their faith in this way. It is unhealthy and this _is_ a weakness. Most believers, though, are not in this position. They hear the calls of their relgious leaders, consider them rationally and make their own decision. That is not being weak.

Substitute the word politics for religion and party for faith, and you can see that a lot of strong, healthily sceptical people associate with others who share a particular political view; it is only those who do it thoughtlessly - fanatically, even - who are truly weak.


(I would say, though, that some ideas seem so mad that one might think that only the weak could believe them: anyone here believe in, say, quantum entanglement? )


----------



## Lobolover

J.D.- there's a book about it, called "Forbidden archeology" I believe. I have details in an issue of a magazine, but a neighbour has the earliest ones, where it most likely is. And givent he fact I have about eighty or so issues of this, It will take a while to find. Not that the magazine was always 100% acurate, however those were prety intresting news and quite alot of them. I sugest looking up either of the full or "public's" versions of the book I mentioned for more info, because, well, _youre _in america, whereas you probably know by now how limited _my _acess is


----------



## mosaix

Contrary Mary said:


> Every human society that I am aware of has had  SOME form of religion.  Not just Christianity but Islam; Judaism; Huduism. etc etc.  The god of the Greeks and Romans and other ancient peoples.



Hi CM. In my view this is because, in the past, all societies have had a need to explain what is going on around them in order to be able to control their destinies.

A simple example is the weather. Warmth is important for staying alive and rainfall important for crops. When the weather behaves unpredictably, (drought, floods) then early man attempted to explain this by inventing a controlling, all-powerful force - a god if you like - that must be displeased with them. In an attempt to please the god sacrifices, prayer and worship were the obvious choice. And so religion was born.


----------



## Parson

Lobolover said:


> J.D.- there's a book about it, called "Forbidden archeology" I believe. I have details in an issue of a magazine, but a neighbour has the earliest ones, where it most likely is. And givent he fact I have about eighty or so issues of this, It will take a while to find. Not that the magazine was always 100% acurate, however those were prety intresting news and quite alot of them. I sugest looking up either of the full or "public's" versions of the book I mentioned for more info, because, well, _youre _in america, whereas you probably know by now how limited _my _acess is



I'm sorry to say this, but what I've seen of this book (quotes on the net -- from someone who thought it was great) -- It is utter bunk! Worse than that it presents fabrication as truth. The dinosaur and human footprints together in stone was the basis of a "Christian movie," but when pressed they could not come up with the evidence of what they were portraying. SIGH! 

I don't know why so many people think that it is up to them to defend God even to the point of fabricating evidence when they can't find any. Let God be God. God can take care of himself.


----------



## Lobolover

Hmm. Well, I don't know it's the same book. Again, I would have to find the exact article, because Im not entierly sure it's the same title. The book I read about had only one author to my knowledge.Also, the description I found of the one you seem to mean seems sligthly religionistic.

And I don't want to bring Däniken into this- but ive seen one thing of a similar nature in a book of his I don't exactely own, I only funelled through it. Something about a block of stone they wouldn't let him investigate, but my memmory is fuzzy.All im saying is yes, evolution is proven, but there are stil things that don't fit into later timetables.


----------



## j d worthington

Lobo: Everything I'm seeing on a book of this or a similar title indicates to me that it is very much in the same class as von Daniken's tripe: in other words, complete balderdash.

Sorry, but I've yet to see anything which makes claims to question any major points of evolution which hasn't been debunked rather thoroughly.....


----------



## Lobolover

Ill look up som of those entries,but like I said, they dont question evolution at all, only the time table set up by some of the more modern researchers.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Contrary Mary said:


> I am still new to this computer so I do not know how to quote. But the End Is Nigh posted a scenario "what if all religion is wrong that is nothing spiritual exists?"
> 
> Every human society that I am aware of has had SOME form of religion. Not just Christianity but Islam; Judaism; Huduism. etc etc. The god of the Greeks and Romans and other ancient peoples.
> 
> Is ther, perhaps a pyschological need for religion? It seems that many--not not all of course--seem to beleive in something. When the do the Gallup polls here in America, the belief in "God or some higher power" runs about 70?.
> 
> I do not intened to force my religion down anyone's throat. As long as I am permitted to beleive in God, anyone else ican NOT believe in God. But, I do object to staements implying that all who beleive in religion are weak. Just because I do not beleive in the same way as other persons does not make me either weak or stupid. I am neither.
> 
> Btw, as far as "god" being immaterial, thoughts cannot be touced or seen. Yet, are not thoughts real and vital?


 
CM: 

Most early religions concocted explanations about the sun moon and stars, (every human experience in fact) most claimed to have the ear of or ability to convene with their particular gods mind. Most are now are rubbished (and rightly so). Think of all those ancient civilisations that no longer exist yet each believed themselves to be the chosen people of their god. (guess those gods got bored)

It's not too hard to imagine that in centuries to come our current batch will suffer the same fate. (the sooner the better - we should should be so lucky to see it in the short time we all have left).


A nassertion that thoughts can't be touched or seen is in fact incorrect.
Modern brain imaging can detect the changes in the brain due to differing thoughts some claim they can detect whether the observed brain is lying or telling the truth. Even older techniques could measure the electrical patterns given of by a brain - REM sleep and the like. The effects a touch has on the observed brain can also be detected.


----------



## Precision Grace

TheEndIsNigh said:


> CM:
> 
> Most early religions concocted explanations about the sun moon and stars, (every human experience in fact) most claimed to have the ear of or ability to convene with their particular gods mind. Most are now are rubbished (and rightly so). Think of all those ancient civilisations that no longer exist yet each believed themselves to be the chosen people of their god. (guess those gods got bored)
> 
> It's not too hard to imagine that in centuries to come our current batch will suffer the same fate. (the sooner the better - we should should be so lucky to see it in the short time we all have left).
> 
> 
> A nassertion that thoughts can't be touched or seen is in fact incorrect.
> Modern brain imaging can detect the changes in the brain due to differing thoughts some claim they can detect whether the observed brain is lying or telling the truth. Even older techniques could measure the electrical patterns given of by a brain - REM sleep and the like. The effects a touch has on the observed brain can also be detected.



but what is the cause and what is the symptom
?


----------



## daisybee

Does this mean I am not a brain in a jar? 

man, I had only just gotten used to the idea.


----------



## Interference

But you didn't think it through, Ms Bee.  _Who made the jar?_


----------



## daisybee

My brain in a jar beliefs are laid back at best dude, I mean who cares how the jar came to be if I am a brain floating in it? 

Creationists don't have a clue about feeling marginalised, try finding _that_ box to tick on an application form. LOL. 

It seems obvious and reasonable, but it also strikes a bit of a blow for alternative philosophical debate don't you think?


----------



## Interference

I see your point, all right, but the evolutionist's view is equally untenable when it comes to Jarianity, surely.  Wasn't it in the fifth book of Jams that King Damson said "Ooh, sticky"?


----------



## chrispenycate

Interference said:


> But you didn't think it through, Ms Bee.  _Who made the jar?_



The existence of a watch presupposes a watchmaker (and stronly suggest Rolex)?

That's a jamthromorfic phallusy. Jars, even Klein bottles. are mathematically simple enough that they can come into existence without external interference, and withour jarring our perception of reality; it's the 'brain' bit that's more difficult to explain away; unless, of course, it's a very simple brain.


----------



## Interference

Sorry, Chris, but I know for a fact, as a poet once said:

I well never see
A thing as lovely as a tree,
And I bet you don't know what'll
Match the wonder of a Coke Bottle.

Hah!  Point to me and Holy Jarusalem, I think.


----------



## Parson

As the poet's audience said, "Say, what?"

Let me try:

I know I see.
A tree I saw.
What that poem means
Remains unseen.

(Where is Holy JARUSALEM?)


----------



## The Procrastinator

On the Jardan River, of course.


----------



## Interference

Parson said:


> As the poet's audience said, "Say, what?"
> 
> Let me try:
> 
> I know I see.
> A tree I saw.
> What that poem means
> Remains unseen.
> 
> (Where is Holy JARUSALEM?)



Obviously not a Jarian.  Jarusalem is the centre of all Jardom, as you'd know if you'd been paying attention in Glass.  It is the place where the first rays of the first Light of  the Universe touched the first brain in its jar - and cooked it.  The shrivelled relic is still there, but it's kept in the Holy Bottle and no one can get the lid off.



The Procrastinator said:


> On the Jardan River, of course.



A very common misconception, but the River Jardon (proper spelling) has never actually been found.  However, many tales are told of the Holy Prophet Molasses and how he was found in the reeds by its banks.


----------



## Parson

Ahh! Jardom has always been a pain in the stain ---- glass. Jardom's pain comes because of it's habit of keeping the lid on its activities until forced to open up.

This thread gives a hole new light to the quote "seeing through a glass darkly."


----------



## jojajihisc

Alright. I'm glad this argument has been put to rest. *Moves on.*


----------



## dustinzgirl

Eh, I'll be more interested when the Church admits it was wrong. But I don't really care, since its not my Church and I don't prescribe to their special brand of hatred anyways.


----------



## ManTimeForgot

Brains in a Jar versus All Life is a Dream...  Doesn't really matter.  In the grand scheme of things if it should happen that pure sollipsism is fundamentally correct (with respect to all perception of reality as we know it), then all observations we make about "reality" become irrelevant.  If this "dream world" matters at all it is only to make "life" bearable.  Speculating as to how something like "brain in jar" or "all life is a dream" could possibly come to pass are all predicated on our experiences and knowledge of *this* reality.  The net result here is that since everything we know or can speculate is predicated on laws and features of existence which do not actually "exist" under the presupposed sollipsistic scenarios we, therefore, cannot actually know anything beyond basic tautological truisms (if I exist, then I exist).



Religion (organized practice of spirituality with specialized rituals overseen by popularly or dogmatically determined leadership) is almost certainly a weakness.  The problem here is that many people seem to assume that all practice of spirituality must necessarily be a weakness if religious practice is a weakness.  This is not just illogical; its fundamentally incorrect.  It is an empirical fact that throughout history (and even in modern day) that there are numerous men and women of strength that were/are highly spiritual (religious might be the word we would use, but I wish dissociate from organized practice).  As this is the case: spirituality cannot possibly be a weakness if formidable individuals can still be produced, furthermore it should be noted that a great many of these formidable individuals counted their faith as a source of strength.


Religion attempts unify the satisfaction of two basic human needs: curiosity and community.  For early Man (humankind for the politically correct) explaining the world around Him and ensuring communal bonds meant a large increase in security (both intellectual, emotional, and physical).  This is highly adaptive for humans living in a world where survival is "uncertain" (just look at life expectancies to see what I mean).  The problems that arose are a function of being too far removed from the people and the original purpose of the institution.  The institution has taken on a "life of its own" so to speak.  As such leaders can/will make decisions that spark wars, rewrite canon that displeases them, and/or find means of exploiting their followers.  The problem doesn't rest with the congregation or community; it rests with the simple human fact that humans will tend to believe and act as their community does; a fact that corrupt leaders have exploited throughout history.


As far as God or other spiritual agencies are concerned: I dare anyone to try and argue that we are the lone intelligence in this universe (let alone multiverse).  I dare anyone to argue that our universe is not a wildly mysterious place with innumerable things that we, have not only no knoweldge of but have no conception of.  And finally I dare anyone to try and convince me that beings/entities of a nature fundamentally superior (of a higher order of existence) to us do not co-exist with us even now (in case this doesn't seem like a daunting proposition to some of you: consider that 60 years ago a stealth bomber could have flown over the United States and gone pretty much completely undetected.  If 50-60 years of technological difference makes that much difference when the body of scientific knowledge doubles every 10 years, then what do you suppose a million years of difference does?  Even considering prodiguous periods of dark age, a 500,000 year difference amounts to a numerical difference so vast as to be almost completely incomprehensible...).  If you take what we know about the universe/reality and divide it by what we don't know, then you get zero (this is what top scientists, especially physicists and cosmologists will tell you: anything divided by infinity is zero).  The long and short of it is: reality/the universe is so complex and mysterious that making absolute claims about what isn't so almost absolutely ensures that you are wrong.  Make a claim about what is correct (according to what is known) and you are _probably_ right.  Make a claim about what is not correct and just about anything short of outright contradiction is bound to be wrong.  The universe/reality is just that wildly awesome, mysterious, and ridiculous.


Side Note: Congratulations to the Catholic church for trying to reconcile with the times, but there is a problem.  God exists in mystery; as such giving up ideological room to fact necessarily diminishes God.  Either the church needs to present a 100% certain description that it believes immune to change or it needs to concede that their beliefs are human in origin.




If reality is infinite in extent (that is there exists no boundary to all that is; one could potentially delve the depths of reality indefinitely), then how is reality not synonymous with God?  _Note:_ I am not talking about Jehovah; I am talking about the perfect being that is motivator of existence.

If reality is "limited" in extent, but eternal (always has existed and always will), then here again how is this not God?  Transcending changes of all kinds (superceding time itself): what else but God could do so?

If reality is "limited" in extent and had a temporal beginning point, then necessarily at some point there was a "time" where reality did not exist.  This means that there was "nothing."  Thus in order for reality to come to be _some thing_ must have created something from nothing.  This violates more than just science.  Passing on a quality that one does not possess is a contradiction.  Nothing definitionally lacks all qualities.  So this leaves one possibility: something which can encompass infinite contradictions (creation of all things from nothing) must have created reality: God.


Every effect requires a cause and vice versa where ever anything short of perfection is involved (the cause and effect may very well be seperated by temporal, spatial, conceptual, dimensional, physical, or probability barriers that we are unable to surmount, but they must exist in tandem); any time a transfer or copying of a quality/facet/feature of existence takes place, then something must be the agent of that event and something must be the recipient.  This necessarily means all things in reality can be explained (up until you attempt to explain reality itself whereupon logic, experience, and our imaginations fail utterly).  Of course once you invoke perfection all bets are off.  Perfection can very well be its own source.  God is the ultimate cause of God.  Reality is unto itself.  God and Reality are very likely synonymous if we are just able to test its true boundaries/unboundedness.

_Note:_ I realize that pretty much none of what I said above amounts to faith.  I reject arguments from design (beauty is far too subjective and order necessary to a certain extent in order for things to exist, so even if Jehovah didn't exist order would be purely necessary to for things to be as they are).  I reject arguments that intelligent design is just a camouflage for Creationism exactly because ET and the Great Spaghetti Monster are just as valid explanations for the universe under intelligent design as God is.

In the grand scheme of things faith is a personal thing and like all things we are aware of, too much of it is a bad thing.  Everything in moderation, including moderation.  Taken too far (or without the proper balancing traits) anything becomes dangerous; faith becomes fanaticism and blindness.  But does this mean that faith cannot be a virtue?  Not by a long shot.  Too much trust; too much love; too much happiness; too much honor; too much compassion can all lead to problems a person if they exist in isolation.  Faith isn't necessary to lead a fruitful existence (I don't think any singular virtue is), but I think anyone would be remiss to think that their life could not be improved by at least a token amount of faith.  The question is finding some thing that for you personally is worthy of faith (ideology, entity, fate, karma, yourself...).

MTF


----------



## Vladd67

There are a couple of Darwin related articles in the March edition of Fortean Times


----------



## dustinzgirl

Please don't confuse the church on the seven hills with Christianity as they do not follow the commands of Christ or of the bible in nature, actions, speech, nor doctrine. 

Thank you.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

> ManTimeForgot
> 
> If reality is infinite in extent (that is there exists no boundary to all that is; one could potentially delve the depths of reality indefinitely), then how is reality not synonymous with God? _Note:_ I am not talking about Jehovah; I am talking about the perfect being that is motivator of existence.


 
Why would we need to worry about the synonymousness of this existence with god. It would just be and would always be. Why invent a name for a state that needs nothing to encompass it. we could just call it reality.




> If reality is "limited" in extent, but eternal (always has existed and always will), then here again how is this not God? Transcending changes of all kinds (superceding time itself): what else but God could do so?


 
Again why bother to name this encompassing when no encompassing is required. Why muddy the water. If the thing can't be exactly related to what you're are describing why bring in something even less defined to encompass it. Why not cal it reality.



> If reality is "limited" in extent and had a temporal beginning point, then necessarily at some point there was a "time" where reality did not exist. This means that there was "nothing." Thus in order for reality to come to be _some thing_ must have created something from nothing. This violates more than just science. Passing on a quality that one does not possess is a contradiction. Nothing definitionally lacks all qualities. So this leaves one possibility: something which can encompass infinite contradictions (creation of all things from nothing) must have created reality: God.


 
Given, as you mention our pathetic understanding of what's what, for all we now in the circumstances before reality, a fundamental principle of the universe before big bang (BBB) is that where ever it can be shown that nothing exist then something shall come about. (Nature abhors a vacuum and all that)

Personally I don't agree with the big bang theory in that I see no reason for the uniqueness of the event. Why shouldn't the local event we call the BB just be that. A local event. Maybe in the vast extent of existence there are other big bangs, undetectable yet influencing us we know not how. This would explain the problem of the expanding local universe. There could be 20 Billion other expanding masses out there, all having a gravitational pull on our local space. There's no reason to suppose (and arrogant in the extreme if we did) that we are the only Big Bang in existence.


----------



## ManTimeForgot

TEIN:

Two minor points: Reality does not definitionally entail perfection, thus to complete one's understanding sometimes synonyms are required.  A = A.  But if A = B and B = C, then A = C.

Big Bang and _the beginning of *reality*_ are _not_ the same thing.  There are undoubtedly other universes out there with a beginning similar if not almost exactly the same as our own.  You are missing the beginning here by more than a few degrees.  Take the beginning of the universe back to the highest dimension we know of, then go past the one's we can conceive, and take that just past the one's that we have no idea are even possible and you _might_ reach the beginning of reality (assuming it even has one).

MTF


----------



## Urien

"If reality is "limited" in extent and had a temporal beginning point, then necessarily at some point there was a "time" where reality did not exist. This means that there was "nothing." Thus in order for reality to come to be _some thing_ must have created something from nothing. This violates more than just science. Passing on a quality that one does not possess is a contradiction. Nothing definitionally lacks all qualities. So this leaves one possibility: something which can encompass infinite contradictions (creation of all things from nothing) must have created reality: God." MTF

...and the question begged is "where then did God come from?" If the answer is he/she just is; then as TEIN says why couldn't the current state of the universe just be? 

And if one still persists who created god?

God as Occam might say is one phenomenon too many. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Explaining a very difficult to understand aspect of the universe by invoking an impossible to prove god is not an explanation.

"Listen Thag, to the sound the sky makes."
"God is angry."

We now know it as thunder.

None of this of course disproves god, indeed it is impossible to disprove; just unnecessary and improbable in the extreme.


----------



## daisybee

ManTimeForgot said:


> Side Note: Congratulations to the Catholic church for trying to reconcile with the times, but there is a problem.  God exists in mystery; as such giving up ideological room to fact necessarily diminishes God.  Either the church needs to present a 100% certain description that it believes immune to change or it needs to concede that their beliefs are human in origin.
> 
> 
> MTF




I agree with this sentiment. Which is why I joked about the whole brain in a  jar thing. Plus by making room for science, they have essentially undermined the only story in the Bible I kinda liked.


----------



## Ursa major

So the universe is neither open nor closed but ajar; but because everything else would hinge on it, that would still leave us in a jamb.





And so was invented the Jamb Jar theory of creation....


----------



## daisybee

Ursa major said:


> So the universe is neither open nor closed but ajar; but because everything else would hinge on it, that would still leave us in a jamb.
> 
> 
> And so was invented the Jamb Jar theory of creation....




 Ha. 

You may joke...we are in actual fact just bacteria swirling about in a giant jar of jam (flavour unknown and possibly unknowable) tucked in the back of a cupboard somewhere. Forgotten for all we know. Not that being jam or not being jam changes what we do in the slightest. 

Or we could be marmalade. 

What? Who's cupboard you say? Oh bugger...


----------



## mosaix

andrew.v.spencer said:


> "If reality is "limited" in extent and had a temporal beginning point, then necessarily at some point there was a "time" where reality did not exist. This means that there was "nothing." Thus in order for reality to come to be _some thing_ must have created something from nothing. This violates more than just science. Passing on a quality that one does not possess is a contradiction. Nothing definitionally lacks all qualities. So this leaves one possibility: something which can encompass infinite contradictions (creation of all things from nothing) must have created reality: God." MTF
> 
> ...and the question begged is "where then did God come from?" If the answer is he/she just is; then as TEIN says why couldn't the current state of the universe just be?
> 
> And if one still persists who created god?
> 
> God as Occam might say is one phenomenon too many. Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.
> 
> Explaining a very difficult to understand aspect of the universe by invoking an impossible to prove god is not an explanation.
> 
> "Listen Thag, to the sound the sky makes."
> "God is angry."
> 
> We now know it as thunder.
> 
> None of this of course disproves god, indeed it is impossible to disprove; just unnecessary and improbable in the extreme.



Good post.


----------



## Urien

Thank you sir.


----------



## ManTimeForgot

There exist no multiple exigent circumstances or agencies here.  Occam should be satisfied.  Perfection (aka God as prime motivator) must necessarily be extent regardless of reality.  Perfection cannot afford to be limited in anyway, including being limited by "mere" existence.  Perfection must be able to embody all traits and none; it exists in the logical state of indeterminancy.


So asking the question: "What created God?" is functionally meaningless...  Might as well ask: "What is airless air like?"  The presumption of faculty of being creatable is the flaw here.  Perfection cannot be created as it must supercede all things, and the presumption that some agency can be superior to it as a function of having created it necessarily invalidates the state of being perfection.


When looking at the individual instance of a cease of reality one cannot assume that the reality is extent eternally (that is one of the presumptions after all).  But if one assumes an infinite reality, then by all means reality and God become synonymous.  The reason for this declaration is simple: eventually it will become necessary (however many billions of years down the road it may be) to plumb the deepest depths of reality (if that is indeed at all possible).  At which point it will need to be established whether reality is indeed completely understandable (limited in some way) or inscrutable in its completeness (reality is perfect and thus attempt to encompass it would require infinite information storage and infinite processing capability; which means perfection).



I don't think you all understand that I am not making a religious or spiritual argument.  Religion is an institution.  Spirituality is something deeply personal, and if you can't find it on your own, then you are not ever going to find it.  What I am making is a metaphysical assertion about deep level cosmology.

Can reality be without God?  If reality in its complete form, that is to say taking into account all that is, is equivalent with God, then the question is tautologically, Yes.  I will admit that a tautological answer does not lend itself to practical application, but it is a truth nonetheless.  But this leaves the scenario outlined wherein God and reality are not synonymous; what then?  I contend that the answer to the question: "Can reality be without God?" is still no.  And that answer while impractical for our current use is not entirely without merit.  Knowing that reality has an endpoint (whereupon we can start branching out our search for knowledge into greater interrelations) is useful knowledge to a limited extent...



Daisybee:  

I won't lie to you and say I believe in Jehovah.  I contend that the Bible is written by men, and as such even if divine revelation did occur (which I don't believe since my conception of a deity precludes such contact; contact with a more advanced being than ourselves is not precluded though), the truth of what was learned would inevitably be "watered down" by its translation into the words of man.

But this does not mean that no truth can be found in the Bible.  The creation story is an attempt at understanding things which could not be properly understood given early man's grasp of the universe's principles.  So how is it a bad thing if "When God said let their be light" your mind is put to the Big Bang?  It was afterall just energy for like the first 10 -43 seconds (rapid expansion phase; this likely corresponds to the universe's one and only true white hole ever to exist...).

And as far as days are concerned... What is a day for God or for any being which exists outside of our space time?  If I was an ET billions of years advanced on humans having originated in another section of reality altogether; does the orbit of a chunk of rock really have any meaning to me?  Why couldn't a billion years be like unto a day for such a being?


If the Bible is a source of strength for you, then don't let it cease to be just because someone tells you that science is physically correct.  There is more to life than being correct as a matter of observation.  The faithless will never understand the appeal of faith.  The imaginationless will never understand the value of metaphor.  And the historyless will never understand the value of tradition.  Sometimes a well-timed story or well-chosen parable is all that it takes to make a change in someone for the better.  Don't give up on your strengths to try and adopt someone else's.

MTF


----------



## Urien

"Perfection (aka God as prime motivator) must necessarily be extent regardless of reality." MTF

Er no it mustn't. That's even before we question the nature of perfection. What is perfection and perfection differs for different people. This is one of the places where Descartes fell over. I paraphrase: I can conceive of perfection, perfection can have only one source, therefore God exists. Needless to say He got a good intellectual kicking for that.

Just because reality might prove to be not understandable to us, does not mean god must exist. We are intellectually limited. An ant cannot under any circumstances understand what I have just written. It can never fully comprehend reality. It does not prove god exists.

There is no logical proof for god. None. 

There is however faith, and faith no matter how much one might want it to be so is not fact, nor even supported hypothesis. I believe MTF that you have faith, and good for you, but your tortuous grapplings with infinity are seeking a factual basis that just does not exist.

There is no need for a magical being in the mysteries of the universe.

Good luck to you MTF. I'll leave the debate to others now, as I've done these before and they just turn into trench warfare.

Cheers and best

AVS


----------



## daisybee

ManTimeForgot said:


> Daisybee:
> 
> 
> If the Bible is a source of strength for you, then don't let it cease to be just because someone tells you that science is physically correct.  There is more to life than being correct as a matter of observation.  The faithless will never understand the appeal of faith.  The imaginationless will never understand the value of metaphor.  And the historyless will never understand the value of tradition.  Sometimes a well-timed story or well-chosen parable is all that it takes to make a change in someone for the better.  Don't give up on your strengths to try and adopt someone else's.
> 
> MTF



Hi MTF-

I should mention here that I do not believe in God, or to phrase that better I put no faith in organised religion. 

I do think that science and religion can work together-I think that science may explain the how's of a so called miracle, but still stumbles at the why of such things. 

I think I like the 7 day story because of its boldness, and brilliance.

However it is just a distillation of an idea, and I treat it as such. 

It seems that sometimes the big questions like why we are here and how we came to be sometimes overshadow the real point of it all. We do exist. Even if just our thoughts, or yours or mine, are all that is-it still _is_.

We are here, so we should be grateful and try our best to give our brief little blips of lives a purpose that resonates for us-on an individual scale.  I am guilty of not being true to this all the time, but find the older I get the more I think, the only "purpose" to life is that we give ourselves.


----------



## AE35Unit

daisybee said:


> the older I get the more I think, the only "purpose" to life is that we give ourselves.



The only purpose of life is to create more life! And we are shockingly good at that!


----------



## Parson

AE35Unit said:


> The only purpose of life is to create more life! And we are shockingly good at that!



All hail the God of evolution.

(I, for one, refuse to believe that life has no meaning; which is exactly where you must go, if you all there is, is chance.)


----------



## daisybee

Parson said:


> All hail the God of evolution.
> 
> (I, for one, refuse to believe that life has no meaning; which is exactly where you must go, if you all there is, is chance.)



Meaning can be defined by each of us individually though-and thinking that we are all here by cosmic chance doesn't devalue what we have, if anything makes it infinitely more precious.

AE-I think those that cannot reproduce would take exception at that!


----------



## Fried Egg

Why do I keep reading this title as: "Church*ill* Admits Darwin Was Right" ?


----------



## Ursa major

Fried Egg said:


> Why do I keep reading this title as: "Church*ill* Admits Darwin Was Right" ?


 
Is it because you think that Churchill, MB is twinned with Darwin, NT and that they've been involved in some sort of dispute (perhaps who pays how much for the air fares)?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

> Daisybee:
> 
> I think I like the 7 day story because of its boldness, and brilliance.


 
I'm surprised you feel this way given the flawed technique and methods allegedly employed.


A. Let there be light.

Now lets face it if I'm an all powerful transcendental... etc etc... being apparently comfortable in a non existing space aware of everything that can or ever will happen why do I need the benefit of a 60W bulb to work. Surely I would work feverishly on my little hobby getting everything ready for the big switch on so that any being able to admire my work would get the full impact of what I'd done. 

In which case 

Let there be light should be the last thing in the story (followed by the big band intro)

Then there's the obvious mess up (my original got stared out - that's a new one) regarding the late arrival of the leading lady of the story. Now I'm as macho and self centred egotistical as the next guy but I have to admit if asked the female form is by far more symmetrical and therefore nearer to perfection than the gangling odd shape of the male so surely if I was a perfect being not only would I be female I would produce something less awful to look at than a man.

And that he should need to start hacking into this man thing (supposedly perfect) creation to find the material to manufacture a female sounds a little desperate to me. I mean the worlds never been short of clay to mold so why not repeat his efforts of the day/week/month/century before.

I haven't time to draw up a proper work schedule at this time (lets not forget we have so little of that left) however it seems to me that for a perfect being this god has a lot to learn about proper working practises.

I won't even go near the health and safety/ product liability issues left in the wake of what was created.


----------



## daisybee

TEIN- spoilsort! 

As a story it is cool. Not perfect. 

Some of the best stories I know are utterly ridiculous on closer inspection. 

I just think as an introduction to or of God, the creation story rocks. And conveniently works its way to completion in a handy seven day period...

By saying it is essentially metaphorical rather than The Truth, the dudes are punking out of what they argued about forever. I can imagine a mass recall of bibles, where footnotes are inserted in Genesis and the whole thing collapses under a bunch of **.

I like to think that by stating women were created second, the writers were admitting that man was a flawed design, and we were the perfected version. If women came first I reckon they'd have been hard pressed to find a plausible reason to create man...  we'd have dismissed the story as unbelievable.


----------



## Interference

Perfection cannot be judged without comparative imperfection.  God created Ferrari.  Hmmm, thinks God.  Better make a Mazda to do the shopping in.

I think TEIN's TA-DAAAA moment is what God would have done if he'd thought of it, too.

But come on.  Nodeity's perfect


----------



## ManTimeForgot

Side Note:  I never said I agreed with Descartes in the slightest.  I took college philosophy too.  Perfection by its very nature is utterly inconceivable in its actuality.  Perfection is definitionally that which supercedes all things; containing, defining, not containing, indefinite, illogical, logical for all qualities of existence and non-existence.


My argument has nothing to do with being unable to conceive of how things could be.  My argument is that if A (reality is infinite), then A (God is infinite therefore reality and God are equal); again I know this is tautological.  OR  If reality is B (limited), then at some point reality must not have existed and something must have created it, and the only which can't exist and still exist is perfection.

MTF


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Wait a minute though - Who said god was perfect.

Heard a lot of claims about what god is but never that.

I mean look the many mistakes - us for instance. 

As for perfection superseding all things what evidence is there for that. 

I might suggest that chaos is a better contender.

As for this :- all pens are blue therefore that which is blue must be a pen argument I don't see it holding water :-

Numbers are infinite god is infinite therefore god is number and the number shall be known as  'one'.  All praise the 'one' true god - sort of reasoning..


----------



## dustinzgirl

If you consider yourself a mistake, why are you still alive? 

People often forget that a day in heaven is not the same as a day on earth. 

I'm sorry, but all too often people simple make judgments on what they have heard from other people rather than what is actually said in the Bible. Especially Catholicism as laws dictated from the Church and its Popes. 

God is, in fact, perfect. And there is in fact more than one god. Otherwise, why would God care about false idols to other gods? 

Anyways, I have my beliefs and others have theirs, and as long as we aren't judging or hurting each other because of those beliefs, all should be well in the universe. Making statements that generalize all persons of a specific religious doctrine or creed really annoy me. I don't think all Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists or Wiccans are the same type of person, nor do they all follow the same doctrines, nor do they all follow the same ideology.


----------



## Interference

dustinzgirl said:


> ....more than one god. Otherwise, why would God care about false idols to other gods?



I'd assumed it was because He didn't want us to make fools of ourselved by following people who say they're gods, but couldn't possibly be, because He's _it_, as far as Godiness is concerned.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

> If you consider yourself a mistake, why are you still alive?


 
Presumably because god wants me to be. 

Although given the short time we all have left not for much longer.

However, for the moment we seem to getting along just fine.




> DG:
> God is, in fact, perfect. And there is in fact more than one god. Otherwise, why would God care about false idols to other gods?


 
This doesn't compute.

god is perfect is fine as a stance however, it doesn't allow for other gods since they would either be more or less perfect. This would beg the question which is the more perfect. Obviously worshipping something less than perfect would be silly so there we have a dilemma.

If we allow the existence of other gods, then god couldn't object to the worship of them, since the idols wouldn't be false. They would be things that god allowed to exist presumably in order that they can be worshipped.

It's nice and harmonious to think that all forms of religion are in fact just facets of the one god however in most cases the character of the gods worshipped are so opposed to each other that it would be ludicrous to propose they were all one and the same.


----------



## dustinzgirl

TEIN,

If you constantly try to fit everything that could ever be possible in the entire universe into a tiny human computational, statistical, or logical box of knowledge, you will be constantly disappointed in my definitions and explanations. 

Of course it doesn't compute. God does not compute. That is why it is called faith. 

Silly TEIN! (jokingly)


----------

