Origin of Earth

abbyadams

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
7
Is it possible to use science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligent being?
 
Werbung:
Is it possible to use science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligent being?

As soon as objective evidence of such a being is found, science will support it. As it is, there is no evidence one way or the other, so science has no opinion on the matter.
 
Abby this has been discuss elsewhere here ad nauseum...

but welcome to the HOP.

If you are a lib, you have my apologies.

Okay, I figured it was.

I have studied the theories of evolution and intelligent design and I believe whole-heartedly that when the facts are studied objectively, the only truly rational conclusion I can perceive is that our universe was created by an intelligent being.

I'm not, so I guess I don't then. ;)
 
Okay, I figured it was.

I have studied the theories of evolution and intelligent design and I believe whole-heartedly that when the facts are studied objectively, the only truly rational conclusion I can perceive is that our universe was created by an intelligent being.

Many here at the HOP agree with that, but there are a few who don't. I am sure you know the type...

Glad to know you are not a lib.

I feel so sorry for libs...they force themselves to live a life based on lies...so sad.
 
Okay, I figured it was.

I have studied the theories of evolution and intelligent design and I believe whole-heartedly that when the facts are studied objectively, the only truly rational conclusion I can perceive is that our universe was created by an intelligent being.

I'm not, so I guess I don't then. ;)

how so when there is not one single fact that suggest that? even if you where to believe that, it just leads to the same question...who created the being that created us then? its just a stop gap answer to a question we may never be able to prove with science...makes people feel good, but its not realy back up by anything other then hope...
 
Is it possible to use science to support the idea of creation of the universe by an intelligent being?

Since it is not possible to use science to support the idea of a creator of the universe, it would be equally impossible for science to support the idea that a creator that it cannot support then created the universe.
 
Science and religion are two separate things entirely.

Science tells us how life on Earth evolved. It does not say whether there is a purpose to that life or not, nor can it.

If there is a purpose to life, then it follows that a creator made it for a reason. If not, then it follows that life simply evolved without any guidance or any purpose whatsoever. When life ends on this little dust mote we call Earth, then it will have ended, with no one caring one way or the other.

Even though there is no proof one way or another, some of us choose to believe that there is a purpose, and therefore a creator. To believe otherwise is simply too depressing. What if it really doesn't matter that we exist, what we do or don't do? What meaning does life have then?
 
Even though there is no proof one way or another, some of us choose to believe that there is a purpose, and therefore a creator. To believe otherwise is simply too depressing. What if it really doesn't matter that we exist, what we do or don't do? What meaning does life have then?
Speak for yourself. I am content to believe in science and not a creator. Life without "meaning", does not depress me. It is what it is. Without invented superstitions imposed on me by those too weak to accept reality.
 
Speak for yourself. I am content to believe in science and not a creator. Life without "meaning", does not depress me. It is what it is. Without invented superstitions imposed on me by those too weak to accept reality.

Just because one doesn't believe in a creator doesn't mean that life has no meaning. I dare say that for those who don't believe, there is much meaning in their lives. I think Einstein said it best when he said:

"A human being is a part of a whole called by us 'universe'; a part limited in time, space, and human consciousness. He sees himself and his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can acheive this completely, the striving for such acheivement is a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security."
 
Speak for yourself. I am content to believe in science and not a creator. Life without "meaning", does not depress me. It is what it is. Without invented superstitions imposed on me by those too weak to accept reality.

Reality being that we inhabit a little blue dot no bigger than the period at the end of a sentence circling a minor star in a galaxy of billions of stars, surrounded by more galaxies of billions of stars each, with no evidence that there is life elsewhere? Reality being that none of the history of mankind matters one whit, none of the billions of ordinary lives matter, that one day this small insignificant planet will end, and intelligence will end with it.

That is, if we don't destroy ourselves by our incessant warfare first.

Yes, i find that idea depressing to say the least.
 
Reality being that we inhabit a little blue dot no bigger than the period at the end of a sentence circling a minor star in a galaxy of billions of stars, surrounded by more galaxies of billions of stars each, with no evidence that there is life elsewhere? Reality being that none of the history of mankind matters one whit, none of the billions of ordinary lives matter, that one day this small insignificant planet will end, and intelligence will end with it.

That is, if we don't destroy ourselves by our incessant warfare first.

Yes, i find that idea depressing to say the least.

Check out my Einstein quote. That should give you cause to to be a bit more optimistic.
 
Check out my Einstein quote. That should give you cause to to be a bit more optimistic.

If a person were able to achieve what Einstein described, and then cease to exist after less than a tenth of a millennium, what would it matter? That time is insignificant, just as the human race is insignificant.
 
If a person were able to achieve what Einstein described, and then cease to exist after less than a tenth of a millennium, what would it matter? That time is insignificant, just as the human race is insignificant.

His point, I think, is that one need not despair just because the universe doesn't play fair, that one way to deal with this ruthless existence is to have more compassion for people and the world in which we live. It may not make a bit of difference to indifferent nature, but I think it makes a big difference for us humans if we can learn to get along. Certainly, it is a much better outlook than 'every man for himself'. Wouldn't you agree?
 
Werbung:
His point, I think, is that one need not despair just because the universe doesn't play fair, that one way to deal with this ruthless existence is to have more compassion for people and the world in which we live. It may not make a bit of difference to indifferent nature, but I think it makes a big difference for us humans if we can learn to get along. Certainly, it is a much better outlook than 'every man for himself'. Wouldn't you agree?

Certainly, it is a better outlook than every man for himself.

Still, if mankind is as small, short lived, and insignificant as must be the case if we just happened to evolve out of the primeval ooze all on our own, with no other intelligence helping with the process and no purpose behind it all, what does it matter whether we continue to populate this small planet or not? Of what use is human life?
 
Back
Top