My thoughts, part IImrwhippymugJanuary 14 2005, 01:10:55 UTC
I don’t agree with the notion that just because God is infinite and deals in infinite time, he can’t also, at the same time, deal with finite time. A good example would be a DVD player. If we take the regular movie speed to be finite time, then we would, for the purposes of this illustration, have relatively infinite control over that time, and thus exist in infinite time in relation to the movie. We have the power to slow the movie down or speed the movie up, or not watch it at all. However, that’s not to say that we can’t pick and choose certain points of the movie and watch them at normal speed, or watch the whole movie from the beginning at normal speed. Albeit a rough metaphor, that’s how I would view God’s control over finite time. There was a certain point in time that we believe the universe was created. A hyper-dense ball of matter, roughly the size of an atom, exploded, filling a void with matter, dark matter, anti-matter, and anything else we haven’t discovered yet. Now, where did that matter come from? One theory is that the universe will eventually collapse in on itself once it stops expanding and everything will get sucked back into that ball, only to explode again, holding up that infinite circle theory that Billy had. However, the original ball still had to come from somewhere. I don’t think science will ever be able to explain how matter could come from nothingness, hence the need for a Supreme Being to get the ball rolling (no pun intended).
And as for one final note, I also would disagree with the notion that religion has been wrong far more than scientific law. I consider it the other way around. Scientific law -or, at least the human comprehensiona of what we believe to be scientific law - has been proven (that word is crucial) wrong far more times than you can imagine. If you were to compare what we used to think was true with what we now think is true with what actually IS true, there would be an inconcievable amount of differences. Religion, on the other hand, cannot be proven wrong. We don’t have any way to say it’s wrong. It can be argued, but never proven. Even taking into account the fact that every person has a slightly different and unique idea as to what religion is and what they believe to be true, there are general beliefs that have remained incredibly constant throughout time when compared with scientific laws. And also, with science we have a vast amount of places to discover new things and disprove what we know. Christians have the Bible. You can interpret it a large number of ways, but nothing near what the universe holds in store for physicists (YES!).
Re: My thoughts, part IImrwhippymugJanuary 14 2005, 15:24:59 UTC
Aren't we confusing scientific (or mathematical) law with Theorey? Theories get proven wrong constantly...but law?? Maybe I'm mistaken, but It was my understanding that we never disprove laws, only theories (for the most part, anyway)
And when I'm talking religion, I'm not limiting myself to judeau/christian ideas, I'm using the word as an all-encompassing term. Wiccanism, ancient druids, nomadic religions in north america, ancient greek and roman religion, hinduism, and yadds yadda yadda. There's a BUNCH of old religions (some more ridiculous than others, in my opinion) that have attempted to explain what we do not know, and have been WAY off...yet people believed in them literally for ages...that's why I start with scientific fact, and add religion on from there :O)
Re: My thoughts, part IIwildirishroverJanuary 14 2005, 21:02:17 UTC
when have we ever been way off, mathematically speaking? sure our explanations have been ridiculous when we're trying to explain things [ie earth=flat].
Religions are wrong because they cause ppl to believe, not think. I have this crazy idea that it is much better to have ideas about something rather than beliefs.
And as for one final note, I also would disagree with the notion that religion has been wrong far more than scientific law. I consider it the other way around. Scientific law -or, at least the human comprehensiona of what we believe to be scientific law - has been proven (that word is crucial) wrong far more times than you can imagine. If you were to compare what we used to think was true with what we now think is true with what actually IS true, there would be an inconcievable amount of differences. Religion, on the other hand, cannot be proven wrong. We don’t have any way to say it’s wrong. It can be argued, but never proven. Even taking into account the fact that every person has a slightly different and unique idea as to what religion is and what they believe to be true, there are general beliefs that have remained incredibly constant throughout time when compared with scientific laws. And also, with science we have a vast amount of places to discover new things and disprove what we know. Christians have the Bible. You can interpret it a large number of ways, but nothing near what the universe holds in store for physicists (YES!).
Reply
And when I'm talking religion, I'm not limiting myself to judeau/christian ideas, I'm using the word as an all-encompassing term. Wiccanism, ancient druids, nomadic religions in north america, ancient greek and roman religion, hinduism, and yadds yadda yadda. There's a BUNCH of old religions (some more ridiculous than others, in my opinion) that have attempted to explain what we do not know, and have been WAY off...yet people believed in them literally for ages...that's why I start with scientific fact, and add religion on from there :O)
Reply
Religions are wrong because they cause ppl to believe, not think. I have this crazy idea that it is much better to have ideas about something rather than beliefs.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment