Sheldon
Veteran Member
What exactly do you mean when you say "creation"?
I am dubious that you, or more often religious apologists are talking about entirely natural phenomena.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
What exactly do you mean when you say "creation"?
I am dubious that you, or more often religious apologists are talking about entirely natural phenomena.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Why do you assume when someone submits a claim to critical scrutiny in a debate forum, that they're angry?
I have seen too many theists use the term creation and the context they use it in, not to suspect they using a begging the question fallacy, so when I see it used in the context of describing the natural or physical universe and world, yes I call it into question, and i can do that without being angry.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I believe in a Creator, and make no apologies for holding that belief. But I am not a creationist. In the context of the singularity from which the Universe emerged, my spiritual beliefs are an irrelevance really. I can easily entertain theory that the universe was self created; Just as you would probably say there is no need for God in a scientific description of the universe, I would argue there is no need to have the argument at all, in that context. Science studies natural phenomena, and has yielded fantastic results doing so, for centuries now.
Evolution is universally accepted as incontrovertible fact, pretty much everywhere beyond a few corners of rural USA. I am far from being anti science, and I do not reject logic or reason as tools to help us understand the universe.
My belief in a loving creator is unshakable - try it, see if you can shake it out of me - but that belief in no way conflicts with my respect for scientific achievement; indeed, quantum theory is a recently acquired passion of mine, although as a layman I don’t even try to follow the complex mathematical language it’s written in. As with the Bible and the Baghavad Gita, I am forced to read developments in physics “in translation”. Science does have it’s limits though, the Uncertainty Principle pretty much guarantees that some things will always remain unknown; there’ll always be gaps, but those aren’t where I would recommend looking for God.
Sorry, your beliefs are not credible and are meaningless to me, because there is nothing intelligent to support them.
Why the need after over 100000 years? Why not continue without it, if they had done so that long already?
Sorry, i think it is ridiculous to believe humans would not have invented it almost instantly.
Is there some good reason to believe that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The need could have existed for quite some time. Different individuals would have developed their own personal methods of keeping records. The problem with that is that others would be unlikely to understand them. Villages had to get large enough so that a constant record would have been needed. And even then it would have started out very simple with ways of just counting amounts and saving the numbers and symbols for what the goods were.
You seem to think that for some reason writing would just appear out of nowhere. Why do you have that belief?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, since the Romans did record what they did. We know where Quirinius was and when. And we also know why there would not have been a census of Judea while Herod was king.
When Herod was king Judea was a client state of Rome. That meant that Rome was that Judea either was beaten in a war by Rome or they recognized the obvious and gave up ahead of time. People living in client states were not Romans. They did not pay tax to Rome. The government paid tribute. They still taxed the people using their own means and sent the money in. The Census of Quirinius. The one referred to in Luke is well dated. Around 4 or 5 CE Herod's son that took over Judea on his death failed at governing Judea. Rome kicked him out and took over the country directly. That was when Quirinius took over as the first Roman governor of Judea. Now that Rome took over there was no taxation method. He had to do a census for Rome so that they country could be taxed directly.
A good leader needs to know how many people he is ruling if one wants the maximum tax funds out of them. Too high and no one can pay it. Too low and they do not pay what they should be paying. So the first step is in counting the people. One of the reasons this was well recorded is that many of the Jews in the area revolted at the concept. Josephus was one of the persons that recorded this event in his histories.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That doesn't strike you as closed minded? Nothing I believe to be true or correct is unshakable, all it would require is sufficient objective evidence to change my position on anything no matter how well established.
No thanks, that would be the very definition of futility.
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I think you may be using the word intelligent here as rhetoric to try and provoke a response, but the only intelligent response is an open mouth, and stunned silence at the idiocy of the assertion that a scientific fact like species evolution supported by overwhelming objective evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, "has nothing intelligent to support it".
The irony is palpable.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am always amazed when people on a discussion forum declare that they can not and will not reason rationally.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You're almost right, just remove one word from that sentence. There now it is a ridiculous assertion.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Or will not reason at all, their belief is "unshakable". I've never understood pride in being closed minded, whilst pretending it's people who are prepared to accept any idea, even if it reverses everything they currently understand to be true or correct, if the evidence demands it.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Of course there is, but sadly you are co closed minded the effort would be fruitless. When you're ready to consider that scientific theories are not just hunches or guesses, but are broad explanations of naturally occurring phenomena, that are well evidenced testable and falsifiable, then you will at least have the most basic understanding of what's being discussed, but it is clear from your dismissive hand waving here and elsewhere, that you have no interest in the facts or evidence, or anything that remotely disagrees with your archaic unevidenced superstitious beliefs. So just enjoy them, as debate is meaningless to anyone that closed minded.
Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, as I mentioned.
You raised the topic, but don't want to clarify it, don't want to discuss it?
Okay, your call.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually it is. I can give examples.
Considering how you were obviously wrong in the first half of your post the odds do not look good for you the second time that you used the same response.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Genesis 1 is not a science handbook. It is a creation myth. There is no need to say taht it describes the Big Bang.
Please work it out for yourself, from the implications of skeptical reasoned enquiry, and the use of empiricism and induction in scientific method. Why, for example, did scientists go looking for a real Higgs boson? And why, for example, are they not looking for a God, at least at the present time?
In #485 you said,
"The discussion was about Brahman, you steered it away to scientific evidence that says all supernatural things are imaginary which bogus"
In this conversation, that was the first time Brahman was mentioned, and it wasn't mentioned by me.
And I further have no recollection of your presenting a reasoned argument at such a time or any other, showing that supernatural things with objective existence could be found in reality ─ something I suspect I'd have remembered. But feel free to correct me with a link to any such argument that you've made ─ whether with me as your colloquist, or someone else.
Or set it out afresh, of course.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
It was your claim.
With someone else. And you came in with something irrelevant.