Hello everyone!
Let me begin by saying I am a blogging virgin. This will be my first attempt at the wide world of blogging! So any advice on the subject would be appreciated...
As for a little background on myself, I want to lay it on the table first and formost that I am an Atheist, not an Agnostic. I love science. I love spirituality. (How can an atheist have spirituality? That is one of the things we will discuss here in my blog.) I was raised in the Church and believed it wholeheartedly. My life took some different turnings and I walked down some different paths. I am very open-minded and would love discussing anything and everything as long as I've got a discussing partner. This leads us to my blog...
I set this blog up in hopes that people of all belief systems (Atheist; Christian, Fundamentalist or otherwise; Muslim; Hindu; Buddhist; Scientist of any field; Skeptics of any variety; etc.) could get together and peacefully discuss difficult topics, freely expressing their opinions and reading the beliefs of others. I do not intend to delete anyone's posts, however, if anyone posts anything cruel, I will not hesitate to remove their post. I will not limit access to anyone, but I will regulate if need be. I intend for this blog to be a free space for anyone with any belief to feel comfortable.
Note: One thing that I believe will be important for this blog is references. If you quote someone, note from where you took it. If you mention a scientific study, note in which journal or newspaper it appeared. etc... Thanks, I hope this turns out to be everything i am hoping for :)
shall we begin?
topic 1: "For the beginning, why not start at the Beginning?"
The Universe: Do you believe that the occurance of all existance in the Universe came about Naturally or Supernaturally?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm of the opinion that the belief in or acceptance of anything 'supernatural' defeats the whole point of scientific inquiry. In fact, every major advance in how we view our world has come from people who were unwilling to accept a supernatural explanation for a phenomena not fully unterstood.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but observe the trend that supernatural events, when investigated properly, always seem to turn out in fact to be natural. To change my mind, all it would take is one example of something that defies nature, that violates the laws of physics in such a manner that it would not imply a revision of those laws, and I'll be a believer.
So to answer the question, the Universe came about naturally, since 'supernatural' is just a cop-out for something we don't understand.
Just out of curiosity, I'd LOVE to hear what's been going on with you the past 10 years or so. Whatever happened to good, Christian Scooter who used to debate Hot Topic customers on the merits of having Jebus tattoos?
I think there have to be some things beyond our current comprehension.
ReplyDeleteDetroitus said "To change my mind, all it would take is one example of something that defies nature, that violates the laws of physics in such a manner that it would not imply a revision of those laws, and I'll be a believer."
Just the simple idea that, as we understand matter, something doesn't come from nothing. The universe, if we're going from the natural standpoint, either came from nothing, or has always existe, both ideas that go against current scientific laws.
But, my vote goes for nature.
Dasha - "Just the simple idea that, as we understand matter, something doesn't come from nothing. The universe, if we're going from the natural standpoint, either came from nothing, or has always existe, both ideas that go against current scientific laws."
ReplyDeleteActually, I disagree with this. The laws of physics state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All we can do is change their form, but the total amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant. The idea that this matter has always existed and will always exist does not go against the laws of physics, where as the creation of matter from 'nothing' does.
The idea that everything HAS to have a beginning and an end is a purely philosophical one. Science doesn't particularly have any qualms with the idea of infinity.
And for the record, something being 'beyond our current comprehension' in no way necessitates an assumption of the supernatural.
No I agree. I never said supernatural because I don't believe that we have to have answers for everything. Jumping to supernatural is really the easy way out. I do however think there is still alot that we don't know. I do think the universe is infinite. I don't, however, understand how it's possible, which is fine with me, there is plenty I don't understand.
ReplyDeletehey guys!
ReplyDeletethanks for being the first ones to discuss a topic on my blog! you rock...
i posted this blog a few days ago and since then have done some reading about Intelligent Design (ID)... the more i read their "proofs" the more i am certain that there is NO supernatural force out there...
the physics law of Conservation of Mass-Energy states (as noted above by detriotus) that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed... the ID philosophy says that since matter and energy can't be destroyed or created, it must have been an act of god... that idea is ad hoc because it leaves out the 'who created the creator?' question... the religious answer, of course, is God always existed, but if that is the case, than (according the the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy) we don't need god for the equation to work; i.e. the universe always existed... we don't need a supernatural act to explain something that is perfectly explained by natural law...
Detroitus shared -
ReplyDelete"I'm of the opinion that the belief in or acceptance of anything 'supernatural' defeats the whole point of scientific inquiry. In fact, every major advance in how we view our world has come from people who were unwilling to accept a supernatural explanation for a phenomena not fully unt(d)erstood."
You've made some very strong statements here, especially that "acceptance of anything 'supernatural' defeats the whole point of scientific inquiry" Many of the scientists of the past who made incredible discoveries were devout men and women. They not only believed in the supernatural but found their motivation for discovering the natural world a means to understand the Creator.
Consider these quotes by some of the most prominent of histories scientific minds:
Blaise Pascal - (French mathematician, physicist, and Catholic philosopher) -
“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus”
He also said, "Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.”
Francis Collins - M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time" (wiki)
In reference to the limits of naturalism he says, "Naturalism alone leaves one in an impoverished state... To the four questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why am I here anyway? What happens after I die? Is there a God? Is it not immediately apparent that science has to remain silent on those four questions? And yet are those not some of the most important questions that any human being ever asks? Do you simply render them irrelevant and decide that they have to be taken off the table or do you try to find someway to answer them? And if so science is not going to be the way. That caught me short (by surprise) - further more I began to realize that my own beloved science contained within it pointers to God that could not be ignored not proofs mind you but certainly suggestions that make a strict atheist perspective rather hard to defend. There is something rather than nothing - no reason that should be (the case). Those beloved second order differential equations (the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics) why do they work? Why should mathematics be successful in describing how the universe is put together? Anyone who has worked in the field of physics will tell you the experience of first understanding Maxwell's Equations is one of those moments of realizing that this is not just mathematical elegance it is beauty. It is so simple and yet it describes something so complex..."
These are hardly the comments of wild-eyed fundamentalist.
Louis Pasteur - "spontaneous generation requires a supernatural influence"
In addition these are hardly proofs for the existence of God. But belief in God was certainly not an impediment to these men in their quest for scientific knowledge.
Matt, there is no doubt that their are accomplished scientists that also believe in god. This in itself is not proof of his/her existence. Also your last quote from Pasteur about spontaneous generation does not help your argument as Pasteur DISPROVED spontaneous generation. He in fact proved that "life begets life". This is just another example of how anyone trying to prove a point can manipulate the facts in their favor.
ReplyDeleteDasha -
ReplyDeleteI was not citing Pasteur to prove or disprove spontaneous generation. I was simply quoting Pastuer's own words - If you would have responded to my following comment which was, "In addition these are hardly proofs for the existence of God. But belief in God was certainly not an impediment to these men in their quest for scientific knowledge." You would not have had to respond at all.
My comments were directed toward Detroitus who said, "In fact, every major advance in how we view our world has come from people who were unwilling to accept a supernatural explanation for a phenomena not fully unt(d)erstood."
Every major scientific discovery has certainly not been made by Atheists. Pasteur was a man of faith who made a major scientific discovery. If you read my post completely and insightfully you will see I did not manipulate any statement to get my point across.
Dasha - Thanks for your comments. My basic point was what I closed with, "In addition these are hardly proofs for the existence of God. But belief in God was certainly not an impediment to these men in their quest for scientific knowledge."
ReplyDeleteMatt, my point about Pasteur was not meant as an insult, simply as an observation on the use of facts to prove a point. The same facts/quotes/observations can be used to support whatever point we are trying to make. I would also like to add that though we know there are scientists that have made significant discoveries despite their faith, we have no way of knowing for sure that their faith didn't impede those discoveries on some level. The greatest scientific discoveries have always been looked at as an attack on the church and the religious community has taken much longer than the scientific community to accept these uncovered truths.
ReplyDelete