Which statement is more likely to be true:

[Bereanz]

Oh and a face palm. Marvelous, where really getting some where scientific now! NOT! Tumble on pal, tumble on....

 

[tumbleweed41]

I haven't read a majority of the thread, but wanted to point out that both questions assume existence was created without supporting that hidden assumption; therefore I can't answer either.

Same here.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Your the physicist, Im sure you'll work it out in your own good time. Job is reputed to have been written 5000 years ago, so yes well over 1000 years, indeed. The New testament is 2000 years old and nothing in modern science has refuted it, you prove in to be innacurate, and i'll convert to athiesm in a New York Second.

“Science is governed by accepted laws and rules that require a strict, definite, exact, systematic study of rigidly particular, accurately verified observations of true and indisputable facts.

Precise application of facts gained through legitimate, correct, honest, researching, recording and experimentation leads to the legitimate or actual state of a matter that must be measured in strict adherence to fundamental principles and mathematical certainties in order to be definitively, distinctly and honourably quantified as something known to exist in reality by actual experience or observation before it can be something known to be the precise, correct and upright truth, truth impervious to any and all reasonable doubt.”

At the very heart and soul of the word “Science” is TRUTH.

In essence science is the secular human beings finest and utmost highest, honourable and valiant effort to verify record, define and explain the truth of his reality and the world in which he finds himself in scientifically.


I wonder if the learned Sceintist are aware that in the Library of the Louvre in Paris there are three and half miles of obsolete science books, repeat three and half miles. Since 4000 BC the clear message in bible hasn’t changed a bit. (Page 819 WGTTB)

In 1861 the FrenchAcademy of Science published a brochure of fifty-one “scientific facts” which supposedly contradicted the bible. These where used by the atheists of that day in ridiculing Christians. Sound familiar? Today, all fifty –one of those “facts” are unacceptable to modern scientists. In other words they have been proven to be false/wrong/lies.

For some unknown and unacceptable reason, atheist so called science and scientists have been afforded the luxury of getting away with quoting lies as fact for centuries and mores the pity the un-evolved human conscious believes these funny little men in white coats. Why? Is it because they hold a clip board, a test tube and a Bunsen burner, have unlimited access to taxpayers funds to search for and not find things that we intelligent people know don’t exist and use meaningless terms like hypothesis and theories and then teach these “theories” lies to our children wrapped up and presented to them as FACT?. Yes!

So for the record, let’s get this fact clear from the outset; a theory or hypothesis is no more a fact than a conspiracy is a theory.

More Kenny for you. You're getting a little crazy. Job circa 2500BCE, rest started forming up thousand years later. Science is a body of knowledge that produces theories that best explain observational data (fact is such a legal term). Of course it becomes obsolete as new data is accrued. That's the beauty of the system. Talking snakes, giant fish that eat people, burning bushes that are not consumed, throwing sticks into snakes, and fitting all the species of the earth into a 750 foot long boat; are also obsolete concepts.

 

[Bereanz]

More Kenny for you. You're getting a little crazy. Job circa 2500BCE, rest started forming up thousand years later. Science is a body of knowledge that produces theories that best explain observational data (fact is such a legal term). Of course it becomes obsolete as new data is accrued. That's the beauty of the system. Talking snakes, giant fish that eat people, burning bushes that are not consumed, throwing sticks into snakes, and fitting all the species of the earth into a 750 foot long boat; are also obsolete concepts.

Why are your still talking about them then? Hello?

Whose Kenny? Dalgleish or Everette? Im not getting crazy, Im getting real!

Oh and like the universe is circa 13.5 billion years old because why?? The speed of light or summit?? NICE

 

[tumbleweed41]

What a cop out, dissapointing to say the least. Oh well, I've seen you off. Next!

For your educational benefit.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/quizzes/90162-science-quiz-question-1-a.html

 

[Bereanz]

For your educational benefit.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/quizzes/90162-science-quiz-question-1-a.html

I understand the definitions of theory, musical theory etc etc. Moving on...

Are you attempting to try and tell me there isn't such a thing as "Theories" under the guise of "scientific theory" that is foisted on humanity as fact but is as yet unproven? AKA the theory of evolution?

 

[ellenjanuary]

Why are your still talking about them then? Hello?

Whose Kenny? Dalgleish or Everette? Im not getting crazy, Im getting real!

Oh and like the unicerse is circa 13.5 billion years old becuase why?? The speed of light or summit?? NICE

You're talking about 'em like they are science. They're not. The Bible is not theory, it is literature. My NIV says copyright 1995. That's fifteen years old, not five thousand. A Hebrew or Greek document would be functionally useless to me.

And 13.7 billion years for the universe, based on entropy, observational data such as the CMBR, and also based on being a theory that has withstood competition for fifty years. That's good enough for science, but scientists are still looking. That's what they do, observe. There is historical, literary, and archaeological evidence for the Bible being old, and for some of the places and people in the Bible; but there's plenty that is curiously lacking. And there is zero evidence for supernatural beings of any kind.

 

[Jeremiah]

No, I really can't. I think "created existence" is as logically contradictory as a square circle or pacifist war. Creation implies a creator, which implies the existence of a creator... but if the creator exists, then "existence" can't be created, since it existed already.

And it's not like existence is a "thing" that can be created anyhow.


No I can't, because this statement implies that this "something" exists. When you describe it as "something not of existence", you don't resolve the problem; you set up a logical contradiction.


Well-developed, no. Not inherently contradictory, yes.


But we also do not lack the knowledge, since there would be no knowledge to be had. If existence is not created, then your statements in the OP effectively turn into the logical equivalents of "divide-by-zeros" - their truth value is undefined.

And they're especially undefined as long as they contain logically incoherent terms.


An absence of knowledge about the question itself, not necessarily an absence of knowledge about the subject of the question. The question needs to be defined better before that can be determined.

It's as if someone asked you "do you know (incomprehensible foreign statement)?" Your answer to this question has to wait until the incomprehensible part has been properly defined for you. You can't give a knee-jerk response of "no", because if the question turns out to be something like "do you know your own name?" then the correct answer was actually "yes" all along.

"No, I really can't. I think "created existence" is as logically contradictory as a square circle or pacifist war.

Not so much as a square-circle but perhaps more like the problem of evil?

"Creation implies a creator, which implies the existence of a creator... but if the creator exists, then "existence" can't be created, since it existed already."

You are focusing too much on the word "existence". It is an inadequate word but after consideration of the alternatives it was the best one to use. It is the word most commonly used here. The words "reality" or "universe" seemed too limited to me, but I also understand "existence" may be too broad.

However most people grasp the concept, and I figured they would get what I am driving at, as many people do believe something did create existence. They draw a line between "existence" and "creator". The fact that this creates a contradiction does not seem to bother many of these people, just as the contradiction created by the problem of evil does not seem to bother some people. I don't really have a lot of options of word selection though but I am sure if you put some effort into it you could draw a mental line between created and creator.

I am not really saying you are wrong, 9-10ths_Penguin, just that I am not too worried about these details.

 

[Jeremiah]

I haven't read a majority of the thread, but wanted to point out that both questions assume existence was created without supporting that hidden assumption; therefore I can't answer either.

" therefore I can't answer either."

It is not that you can't, it is that you won't. I am sure you could for a moment pretend that was created, but you are simply unwilling to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not so much as a square-circle but perhaps more like the problem of evil?

I don't think so. The problem of evil is easy enough to solve: take away the requirement that God must be perfectly good and the "problem" completely disappears.

You are focusing too much on the word "existence". It is an inadequate word but after consideration of the alternatives it was the best one to use. It is the word most commonly used here. The words "reality" or "universe" seemed too limited to me, but I also understand "existence" may be too broad.

I didn't get the sense that by "existence", you meant something like "reality" or "universe".

But even if we re-phrase it as "we know what created the universe", we still run into problems: is time part of the universe? If so, what does "created" mean in a context without time?

However most people grasp the concept, and I figured they would get what I am driving at, as many people do believe something did create existence.

Actually, I'm still not completely sure what you're driving at.

They draw a line between "existence" and "creator". The fact that this creates a contradiction does not seem to bother many of these people, just as the contradiction created by the problem of evil does not seem to bother some people.

Then maybe they haven't thought it through. Ask most of those people if God exists and they'll say "yes". Ask them if he existed before existence existed and you'll probably just get a puzzled look.

I don't really have a lot of options of word selection though but I am sure if you put some effort into it you could draw a mental line between created and creator.

Sure, and I also realize that if what you were really after was whether people believe in a creator-god, you probably would've just asked about that directly.

I am not really saying you are wrong, 9-10ths_Penguin, just that I am not too worried about these details.

It's hard for me to distinguish "details" from the big picture when I have no idea what the big picture is that you're trying to draw. I can only understand what you're thinking as much as you tell me.

 

[horiturk]

there is a reason buddha said the question wasn't important,we'll never know

 

[Bereanz]

You're talking about 'em like they are science. They're not. The Bible is not theory, it is literature. My NIV says copyright 1995. That's fifteen years old, not five thousand. A Hebrew or Greek document would be functionally useless to me.

And 13.7 billion years for the universe, based on entropy, observational data such as the CMBR, and also based on being a theory that has withstood competition for fifty years. That's good enough for science, but scientists are still looking. That's what they do, observe. There is historical, literary, and archaeological evidence for the Bible being old, and for some of the places and people in the Bible; but there's plenty that is curiously lacking. And there is zero evidence for supernatural beings of any kind.

The bible is Literature, wow that's pretty inciteful of you. The Bible is a literal historical record (granted in part prophetic and in part parable but for the most part a literal record of Human History as we relate to God) And it's a damning no holds barred account of humanity. Men have tried and failed to destroy it for thousands of years including the murder of all the prophets and over 100 million believers and it's still the all time best selling book in the history of human kind (bar none, and none other even comes near it for longeveity ) and this in spite of the worst PR and bad press known to mankind. That's a miraculous supernatural thing in and of itself, in my opinion. Until the bible is proved to be untrue/untrustworthy IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, then it constitutes as more than a valid literal record of the supernatural creation event among many other supernatural events such as angels, demons, excercisims, miracles and resurections. i.e written evidence of all of these things taking place in the history of the human race. Science is continually veryifying (NEVER REFUTING) biblical events. One can deny this all they like, but when they do, I find it alarming but mostly I find it funny and more than a little bit odd.

...Ilsands in the str....up the creek with out a paddle more like.

I applaud you for stating the Bible isn't theory by the way, marvelous.

PS you dont need to learn Greek and Hebrew, it's all been done for you by men and women of God, get a hold of a concordance. Every english word has been painstakingly and loveingly referenced back to the Greek and Hebrew in one ready reference volume for your literal delight and edification. (I got one for $15 twenty years ago) for all who care to seek the truth. Those who just want to add to the CO2 carbon foot print may not be aware of these wonderful tools.

PPS The Now in Vogue version NIV, is a piece of trash, stick to the King Jimmy and a concordance (and not the New King James) or a Geneva Bible.

 

[chinu]

Of the two choices check which one you feel is more likely to be true. Feel free to explain your choice or make any other comment related to the topic.

Human beings the king of spices.

Truly the Human came into existance to know about the created existance.

_/\_Chinu.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I understand the definitions of theory, musical theory etc etc. Moving on...

Are you attempting to try and tell me there isn't such a thing as "Theories" under the guise of "scientific theory" that is foisted on humanity as fact but is as yet unproven? AKA the theory of evolution?

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
From the National Academy of Sciences

 

[Alceste]

" therefore I can't answer either."

It is not that you can't, it is that you won't. I am sure you could for a moment pretend that was created, but you are simply unwilling to do so.

Why should I pretend I think the universe can be accurately described as "created"? I don't think this at all. And if we have to pretend we feel differently than we actually do, what's the point of a poll?

I didn't answer either, but for the record I think physicists are making some interesting headway, for example with M-Theory, but the exact nature and origin of the universe (if it turns out to have one) are still largely unknown.

 

[Dezzie]

I believe we do know what created everything in existence. What created everything in existence is none other than God.

But of course this is just your belief... this doesn't go for everybody... so technically no... noone knows.

 

[PolyHedral]

We don't know what created existence, but in the same way, we don't know wiowifkfvkang. Neither of them are coherent.

 

[Willamena]

We don't know what created existence, but in the same way, we don't know wiowifkfvkang. Neither of them are coherent.

*/me runs away to create a webpage for the Great Wiowifkfvkang that contains the sum of all known about it.

 

[sniper762]

"existence" is infinite, therefore unknowable

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"existence" is infinite, therefore unknowable

If it's unknowable, how do you know that it's infinite?