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
Re: Empirical Evidence Seems To Suggest Otherwise...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by King Johnny/">King Johnny on February 25, 1999 14:28:13 UTC

You said: I believe that it is possible to learn forever, but as to what "can" be learned gets further from our grasp. I firmly believe that mankind is not omniscient, nor omnipotent. We live finite lives and thus remain finite in knowledge, albeit we learn without bounds.

What you have to keep in mind is everything you just told me is a theory. Yes, there's empirical evidence to back it up. But just imagine for a minute that sometime in the future, a "miracle" drug or some kind of treatment or something is devised to make man immortal. If man is immortal, then knowledge becomes unlimited. You treat knowledge as if it's a speed limit, that once we reach a certain point, we can't learn any more. What seems impossible or unexplainable now may be common knowledge in the future. As to calling my theory "brainstorming", I'll have you know that I didn't come to this conclusion within minutes. I didn't intend to come to this conclusion. I believed in the Big Bang theory for a while now. True, it makes sense, especially with all the empirical evidence, but there are different Big Bang theories as well. Some believe that there are a series of "bangs" and "crunches". Some believe that the Universe is expanding into open "nothingness". Scientists and believers of the Big Bang theory preach their theory the same way theists preach that God is responsible for it all. If we must have an origin for the Universe, why can't we have an origin for God? Why is it wrong to ask "who created God?". What kind of excuse is "we can't understand God"? Why is everything accepted based on evidence but God is accepted with no evidence at all? I'm assuming you believe in God since you said "God bless". If you don't and that was just a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge", then I apologise. But if not, they I laugh at you, who preach your dogmatic science to me based on empirical evidence but still believe in God. Yes, I disagree with you. That's not saying I was ignorant and never researched the information you provided me. Believe me (or not), I researched for countless hours. I understand the theories of special and general relativity. They make sense, I'll admit that. You have to be a fool to not recognise this. I even tend to still believe the Big Bang theory is the closest thing to fact that we have, but still, I still have to stick with my theory of time and "nothing" not existing, negating the Big Bang theory not only because it makes the most sense to me (like the theory you follow makes the most sense to you) but because it puts an end to the debate of an origin. Mankind feels that everything needs an origin and will debate till the "end of time" about it but my theory puts that debate to rest. Life happens. Time doesn't.

King Johnny

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