Sorry, but I have to speak up
-
Why ? If there are multiple realities then why cannot each religion have created its own ? They are only mutually exclusive if there is only one 'true' reality. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
-
I like the bit about the size of the universe , but hey , why think small ? If you can create reality why not make it a big bugger ? As far as Adam and Eve are concerned You are confusing the argument of the existance of God with the argument of the validity of specific religious stories . If you succeed in prooving or disprooving any story in ,say, the Bible all you are doing is prooving or disprooving one story . It may be evidence for or against the existance of God but it is not proof .All it does is help sway what you have faith in , faith being something you beleive as being true that does not require proof. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: If you can create reality why not make it a big bugger ? Agreed, but really, that big? Andrew Torrance wrote: It may be evidence for or against the existance of God but it is not proof . I take your point, but I'm just trying to point out out ludicrous it all is. Rather than trying to disprove anything specifically, I would rather provide cumulative evidence in order to support my argument. TBH, I find it really hard to understand that people can actually "believe" in something like God especially when you consider the horrendous callousness He shows in the Bible. This is another example of cumulative evidence. I'd also challenge most "religious" people as to their sincerity. At least if there is a God, on Judgement Day I will be able to stand before him and say that I would gladly have believed in him given the chance. It's far worse, in my opinion, to just act the Christian just in case He really does exist. The fact is that I and many other people have not been given the capacity to "believe". I'd actually love to believe it were true because then there'd be an after-life, I'd get to see all my loved ones again, etc. Perhaps like many others before me I will have a revelation on my death-bed and suddenly "find" God. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
-
I'd also suggest that the vast size and complexity of the Universe itself also lends weight to your argument. I've always wondered, if we really were "created", why did our creator bother creating everything else? Why is our planet fairly mundane when compared with rest of "Creation"? We're on the 3rd planet circling a a smaller than average star in an unfashionably backwater arm of a typical spiral galaxy. One star in a sea of billions. One galaxy in a sea of billions. There is nothing special about our planet, its position or anything. In the context of the rest of the Universe, our planet is probably analogous to ordering a white coffee with no sugar in Starbucks. Why did the creator even bother with the rest of it? It's just total overkill! what was he thinking? Then again, in the Garden of Eden, I've always wondered why God had to ask Adam and Eve to come out of hiding because he didn't know where they were. So a few bushes can hide a human from an omnipotent being? And then he acts all surprised when he finds out they're covering their nakedness! Surely he knows what has happened and what will happen. Why is he surprised then? Surely he knew Eve would taste the apple and the Adam would also. Surely he knew he was setting mankind a test he knew they'd fail... :)
The universe is so big because God used a char[] array and forgot the NULL terminator. So most of the universe is just any old junk found in memory :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
I'm a programmer and I believe in god but I don't think about God as the "chief software architect" of the universe :) I can't explain why I believe in it and I can understand arguments against religion, it's not rational and it can't be explained using rational thinking. I like the quote: "Thank god I'm an atheist" :) The important thing is not to use religion as a way to discriminate between people or let "religious" gurus tell you their truth instead of using your own head. P.S. the earth is a program and is runned by the most intelligent form of life and the dolphin are the second most intelligent... (and Douglas Adams was an atheist too...) -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD
-
If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Daniel Ferguson wrote: If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. Let us agree for the sake of this argument , there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Then how do we know which reality we are in within that supergroup , and how do we know that the supergroup itself is not a member of a megagroup of supergroups of reality ? Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. Regards Torrance Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
I'd also suggest that the vast size and complexity of the Universe itself also lends weight to your argument. I've always wondered, if we really were "created", why did our creator bother creating everything else? Why is our planet fairly mundane when compared with rest of "Creation"? We're on the 3rd planet circling a a smaller than average star in an unfashionably backwater arm of a typical spiral galaxy. One star in a sea of billions. One galaxy in a sea of billions. There is nothing special about our planet, its position or anything. In the context of the rest of the Universe, our planet is probably analogous to ordering a white coffee with no sugar in Starbucks. Why did the creator even bother with the rest of it? It's just total overkill! what was he thinking? Then again, in the Garden of Eden, I've always wondered why God had to ask Adam and Eve to come out of hiding because he didn't know where they were. So a few bushes can hide a human from an omnipotent being? And then he acts all surprised when he finds out they're covering their nakedness! Surely he knows what has happened and what will happen. Why is he surprised then? Surely he knew Eve would taste the apple and the Adam would also. Surely he knew he was setting mankind a test he knew they'd fail... :)
Also, so much if it is all just completely useless in the context of mankind. Why did He bother even making that particular type of bacteria that lives at incredibly high temperatures near volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean? What use could they ever be to mankind? Why did He have to create so many types of insect when a few hundred would probably have sufficed. Why is man's physical form such a work still in design? You can't tell me that the best an omnipotent being could come up with is our knee-caps! Further, isn't is obvious that the way a woman's pelvis has been designed, limiting the size of a human baby's head, is a huge compromise - something that could only have happened due to evolution? What about mouth ulcers - why are they sooo painful when they're so trivial? This must be a mistake (something an omnipotent being could never make). Then there's the more well-known questions like how could He ever create a being which can be so hideously cruel to itself and other species? How can He watch all the unspeakable suffering that mankind endures? Isn't all this just because we were thrown out of Eden? Just because God set mankind a task he knew they'd fail. It wasn't the Devil that tempted Eve, it was God - He placed the tree of knowledge there in the first place and warned them not to eat of it (knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to resist, and having given mankind insatiable curiosity in the first place). If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
Also, so much if it is all just completely useless in the context of mankind. Why did He bother even making that particular type of bacteria that lives at incredibly high temperatures near volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean? What use could they ever be to mankind? Why did He have to create so many types of insect when a few hundred would probably have sufficed. Why is man's physical form such a work still in design? You can't tell me that the best an omnipotent being could come up with is our knee-caps! Further, isn't is obvious that the way a woman's pelvis has been designed, limiting the size of a human baby's head, is a huge compromise - something that could only have happened due to evolution? What about mouth ulcers - why are they sooo painful when they're so trivial? This must be a mistake (something an omnipotent being could never make). Then there's the more well-known questions like how could He ever create a being which can be so hideously cruel to itself and other species? How can He watch all the unspeakable suffering that mankind endures? Isn't all this just because we were thrown out of Eden? Just because God set mankind a task he knew they'd fail. It wasn't the Devil that tempted Eve, it was God - He placed the tree of knowledge there in the first place and warned them not to eat of it (knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to resist, and having given mankind insatiable curiosity in the first place). If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. I agree, which is why I can never believe in a supreme being. How can a being with these kind of powers let people go hungry, let children be abused by priests, cause death and destruction with earthquakes and floods etc. Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
Also, so much if it is all just completely useless in the context of mankind. Why did He bother even making that particular type of bacteria that lives at incredibly high temperatures near volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean? What use could they ever be to mankind? Why did He have to create so many types of insect when a few hundred would probably have sufficed. Why is man's physical form such a work still in design? You can't tell me that the best an omnipotent being could come up with is our knee-caps! Further, isn't is obvious that the way a woman's pelvis has been designed, limiting the size of a human baby's head, is a huge compromise - something that could only have happened due to evolution? What about mouth ulcers - why are they sooo painful when they're so trivial? This must be a mistake (something an omnipotent being could never make). Then there's the more well-known questions like how could He ever create a being which can be so hideously cruel to itself and other species? How can He watch all the unspeakable suffering that mankind endures? Isn't all this just because we were thrown out of Eden? Just because God set mankind a task he knew they'd fail. It wasn't the Devil that tempted Eve, it was God - He placed the tree of knowledge there in the first place and warned them not to eat of it (knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to resist, and having given mankind insatiable curiosity in the first place). If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
If I were God I would invent evolution and go down the pub and let the little people c=get on with it ! Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Juan Carlos Cobas wrote: Well, I believe all religions are wrong, but this is just my very humble opinion. I respect the beliefs of everybody How can you say all religions are wrong , there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions and reach a conclusion about them all . What I think you mean is that you believe there is no God , and I too share that belief. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions If you believe there is no god, then you may consider religions have no sense. The concept of religion lies in the existence of a god.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. Let us agree for the sake of this argument , there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Then how do we know which reality we are in within that supergroup , and how do we know that the supergroup itself is not a member of a megagroup of supergroups of reality ? Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. Regards Torrance Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. My grey matter is at 100% utilization and some parts of my memory have been paged out to accomodate this task as well. Andrew Torrance wrote: there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Are they not all part of the same reality then, as they exist within the same reality? Each of them must have the same fundamental laws, ie the speed of light. The only way I can see having different realities is different observers. Reality is subjective; mine can be different than yours, but I don't think that either of them are the one 'true' reality. Maybe it's like Schroedinger's cat; I thinks it's dead, you think it's alive, but the reality...? Am I still making sense? "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
-
Hello Christopher You post was very thought provoking. I am atheist myself and I have always puzzled over the fact that people could actually believe in theories evolved by barbaric man. Emma Goldman, a writer/atheist once said, “The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena”. I should think that explains it all. Barbaric man was confused and frightened by all the complicated things he saw around. God and Religion were his inventions. It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win]
I find the biggest puzzle in where do you think? Ok, we think in our brains. Fine. But why does that have a sense of self? Why does that exists? You know your alive. Fine. But why? Nishant S wrote: It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. No, I think it's just a constant search, and no matter what science comes up with there will always be more questions. The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Ok, we knew of atoms, and then we knew of protons, neutrons, electrons and then we knew of quarks and other sub-atomic particles... Maybe we can get to the bottom of it; maybe we can't. A belief in a god makes a lot of people happy (ok, it makes some people crazy and do stupid things, but I think in general it creates more peace and solace for people). I still puzzle most about where do you think? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
Christopher Lord wrote: I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. And I can make the exact opposite statement that I can not believe a programmer does not believe in GOD. As stated several other times 'belief'. It is a choice. For me seeing how complex the universe is I can not believe it is a random uncontrolled occurrence and yours is just the opposite. Neither of us can provide proof to the other. A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Christian Graus wrote: The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? Go on admit it , ...... You either got or you havn't got Faith... If you got it then belief it does make ..... I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . Perhaps we are both right ,perhaps God exists for you and not for me, perhaps if enough of us beleive something to be true then it will be. After all it seems to work on the stock market. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? I'm sorry, were you responding to someone else's post ? That is not what I said, even remotely. Andrew Torrance wrote: I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . I can't prove a thing. HE can. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? I'm sorry, were you responding to someone else's post ? That is not what I said, even remotely. Andrew Torrance wrote: I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . I can't prove a thing. HE can. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
Christian Graus wrote: I can't prove a thing. HE can. He never does though does he? In fact, aliens offer more proof they exist than "He" does. In fact, as time goes on, the lack of proof is more evidence that he probably doesn't exist, because the loving God we have heard of, couldn't possibly be ignorant to the suffering of his "children"? Yet suffer we do. Are we to believe he is simply biding his time in order to save the righteous and punish the wicked? How can anyone truly believe this? It's time mankind took responsibility for itself and stopped using religion as a crutch in times of need and an excuse for violence and persecution. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions If you believe there is no god, then you may consider religions have no sense. The concept of religion lies in the existence of a god.
What about Buddism ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
What is wrong in saying that the Bible is wrong and God created the big bang ? It would be the logical choice if I were omnipotent. Stuff all that tweaking here and there , just throw in a few basic rules and kick everything into existance and go and have a nice cup of tea . Ah you say , but that is not what it says in the Bible . So the argument becomes not one over the existance of God , but the accuracy of the Bible . It is this argument that seems to exercise most people rather than the much more important argument , does God exist . The bible is a translation , when you translate between any two languages you change some of the information , therefore what was perhaps the word of God in one language will be subtly different in another . Therefore the Bible cannot be the EXACT word of God in all languages. Hence the Bible is meant to be interpreted . All that is up for discussion is the extent to which it is interpreted . When you look at the Genesis story you can see broad similarities to the big bang. Once there was nothing( or at least something very diferent to what we see now), something happened and reality flicked into existance. The physisicts tell us that space and time themselves flowed from the Big bang , not to dissimilar from the one a day approach in the Bible. After all if you want a bunch of sheep and goat farmers in the Middle East thousands of years ago to understand it , you are not going to use the language of quantum physics are you ? So the conclusion is that logically speaking the evolution Vs Creation argument is one huge dead end , simply because God may have caused the big bang . Its all about faith man , you either have it or you don't. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
What about Buddism ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: What about Buddism ? Yes, you're right. I should have said, "most of the religions are based on the concept of a god".
