Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
You Know, Thats Strange, Maybe Were Smarter Than We Give Ourselves Credit For! No Text

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.oSofir on December 14, 1999 08:26:51 UTC

: : : Many who believe that a "Creator" exists do so because perhaps it is easier, perhaps they only do as they were taught, perhaps they have thrown their logic/reasoning abilities out the window, perhaps they are hippocrites. God is often judged, not by science and the natural state of the universe, but by the people who claim to believe in Him. Should one judge "science" by the people who believe in it? The same list could by cited about any class of "belief", and people are people in any camp. One cannot deny the "religious" attributes of evolution. Faith is always required in order to come to a conlusion about the origin of all we now see, whether Theist or Atheist. : : : I would like to look briefly at a simple exercise in science, God, and reasoning. Let's examine a pebble. Anything which has material existence will do. There are only four possible explanations for the existence of this pebble. First one could say "It is an illusion" all of life is an illusion. Where did the illusion come from? Is is an illusory illusion? One could argue all day that the entire universe is but an illusion and the idea is so circular that it could keep you wrapped up silly nonsense statements for eternity. So a simple Law of reason subtracts #1 from the list of possibilities. : : : Number two: this pebble exists because it created itself. I'm not a geologist, but let's examine this pebble as the stuff which makes up the pebble and not the specific form or shape. Simple question, where would the "stuff" of this pebble need to be in order to create itself? We could attempt to argue whether it even has the power to create, but lets make the wild assumption that it does, where would it need to be in order to exercise it's power? It would simply need to be! Right? If it didn't be yet, it could hardly do. Same thing is true of any "stuff" yes stuff goes through all kinds of molecular and chemical changes, but those changes never happen until something exists to change. : : : Number three: This pebble has always existed. In some shape or form, the possibility says that the stuff of this pebble has always existed. The Laws of thermodynamics are perhaps the most widely employed in the many fields of science. The first law says essentially that the quantity of molecular "stuff" is constant, that is it remains the same throughout the universe. The second law states the quality of all this "stuff" moves constantly in one direction, down. The basest or lowest chemical element is heat, and the process we observe as atrophy or decay, is the process of all molecular stuff degrading down into heat energy. (There are certainly more educated explanations of this to be found) There are many variables that effect the rate of decay. I a pile of bricks were left out in the sun, they would decay much faster than if buried in ice, however the tendency remains. Life, whatever that truly is, seems to have the ability to defy this law, but even life dies and eventually decays. Yes life propagates, but many scientist have observed that even our genetic stucture has been affected by this tendency. We are not as strong as we once were. Atrophy happens. Back to our pebble. The second law says that eventually, if gieven enough time, the stuff of this pebble wil become heat energy and will serve to heat the universe. (Pretty futile destiny in some respects) So when carried out into the eternal future, this pebble will cease to be a pebble. Now if we apply mathematics (another fascinating science) to this and draw a time-line. we could carry this pebble out into the eternal past. Given this equation, what would this pebble be today? Heat energy. Scrub possibility number three. What remains? If this pebble has not always existed, then at some point it received existence. We already established that it is illogical to assume it received this by it's own hands, so what remains? Scientifically? Logically? Somewhere, somehow, something has the power to give existence. That something however, necessarily is not bound to the same laws as the physical universe. Something HAS always existed, necessarily. And that something HAS the power to create. There is a long arguement that examines the design of the universe and it's laws and the implications thereof, but I'll allow someone else to delve therein. The design is quite beautiful however. Structure, order, beauty. These are likely the very things that have inspired science. This exercise could perhaps make a theist out of anyone willing to reason through the data, but it comes far short of giving us any real valuable information regarding this source of all things. Did this "source" simply create the matter and the laws which govern it and then move on? Have we ever come into any real contact with this Being? Does It care? Does It require anything of It's creation? Religion is very popular in many cultures, there are many "gods" and many impressions of this Creator's attributes. But religion has the uncanny ability to exalt the creature rather than the Creator. We receive a rush from our efforts to "reach" the Almighty. Even if we deem ourselves to be that "Almighty". The concept of Law is obvious to each of us, but the concept of Grace is cross-natured. If science reveals to you the eminent conlusion of a Creator, don't stop there. Find out about that concept of Grace. Christians have said and done some very stupid things. And perhaps they deserve your condemnation but do not judge Christ by His followers, be scientists. Judge the data.

: : ***I think that the word "creation" cannot even be used when describing the universe as a whole. : : There is no evidence that gives any value to any theory in which matter has not always exsisted in some form (energy included). Thus, rearrangement of what exists is the only logical conclusion at this point of the continuos present (presence). : : There is also no evidence to support that the universe is a closed system (has an end or limit) : : thus, we must recognize that most of our perceptions (even in science) are biased by the closed environment we live within, (our body/the earth/solar system/galaxy/known universe/big bang) : : So I guess I should allow myself the label of, um, : : Rearrangementist, or cyclist? Anyone have a better label to fit this kind of thinking?

: ------ : One wonders about the imagination. What we create with it usually turns out to be a reality(for ever individual). Everything seems possible.

: It seems to me that everything is content. What we fill with this content is the mystery.

: Tön

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins