- 27,205
- United Kingdom
Long post alert.
Not necessarily. If the theory is correct, then the world of science will be able to explain many of the physical and astronomical happenings if the Large Hadron Collider manages to reveal the Higgs boson particle. At the moment, the theories are just that: Theories. Should the particle be discovered as expected, then the theories will become very strong answers indeed. Even if they don't discover it, I'm willing to bet there's a hundred other more likely theories waiting in the wings than "a creator".
Yes, they came from somewhere - the matter that already existed in the universe, moving and swirling around, perhaps very volatile already and all that was needed was the right combination of gasses and boom, we have the bang, the fusion and fission of atoms and mixtures of gasses that developed over billions of years into what we see today. There's nothing in fact to say that the same hasn't happened before, many thousands of times, and other universes have come and gone before us.
Do you believe that God is infinite, and has existed in a time before existance itself? If that is the case, why is it so hard to imagine that there was existance before the big bang?
People seem to think of time pre-big bang as a big white void with nothing in it. What's to say that's true? Pre-big bang the void would have been dark - darkness doesn't need creating, it just needs little enough light. Did time itself start with the big bang? Why would it? Time is as infinite as anything else. It's just that humans only tend to think of time as something they've created by measuring day and night in an ever more accurate fashion. It doesn't mean it was created though. Time is just the measure of the passing of events. If events have always happened, even before the supposed big bang, then time has existed too.
You pose this question on your beliefs, we pose the question - why is it so hard to accept that physics, chemistry and biology are responsible for the whole thing?
Personally it amuses me when people think that it's impossible it happened by chance, reasoning that the probability of us being like we are is so small without some divine being creating us this way. This is incredibly ignorant to the vastness and infinity of space, and the many billions of other galaxies, an exponentially larger amount of stars and an exponentially larger number of planets than there are stars. As we know very little about these, who is to say that these are uninhabited? The odds of life on other planets might be much higher than we think. Just because we're the only inhabited planet out of the handful in our solar system, it doesn't mean the same applies throughout the rest of the universe.
Let's put that into a believable concept - just because you can't find a particular CD (aka life) in any of your local record shops (aka our local planets), it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in another town (aka another solar system) or even another country (aka another galaxy). All the criteria for it existing are present and correct, you've seen it for sale on the internet (we are aware that life exists in the first place - the evidence is ourselves), it just isn't nearby (we know what is required to sustain even basic, single-celled life - we just need to find it elsewhere in the universe).
That's a ridiculous thing to say, and insulting to those who actually believe in science. I don't reject God because I'm high and mighty about how I live my life, I reject the concept of a God because it's nonsensical in the extreme and I'm fascinated by the progress of science.
Religious believers and even those who simply don't know enough about science always make the mistake of assuming that you must have a whole brain as it is at the moment in order for it to function and in order for us to do the things we do. The other old chestnut is the eye. "How can something so complex simply have evolved", they ask. It's completely ignoring the concept that only part of a brain or part of an eye would be incapable of doing anything useful, which isn't the case. Part of a brain (even a miniscule part) is still useful for cognitive thought and descision making, even if it's on an instinctive level (an animal might shelter itself when it gets cold, even if it's brain isn't capable of coming up with the working plans for a suspension bridge).
An eye is still an eye even if the only things you can discern are light and dark. You don't need to be able to focus or even discern the shape of objects - which is likely how most eyes in creatures started, as simple light/dark receptors. They've had millions upon millions of years to evolve into the eyes we have today.
If the human race had taken the easy and comforting route throughout it's history, we'd have been extinct long ago. We need inquisition, risk and certain discomfort to advance our species. It would have been easy and comforting for the Wright brothers to stick to walking everywhere, but they wanted to soar with the birds and as a result we owe them and their fellow pioneers the glory of being able to make machines that allow us to fly.
People seem to believe that evolution is the product of chance, and then argue that as a reason that God must have created us instead.
Firstly, you don't create something that evolves, something evolves from something else, right back to single cells, that evolved from microbes and bacteria, that existed from the correct amounts of chemical reactions and elements already present in the universe.
Secondly, evolution itself is very much not a product of chance. It's the complete opposite, in fact. It's non-random survival. Again, this doesn't need someone to create it - we weren't created as we are today - it just needed our ancestors to not get killed, or to breed with the stronger and more intelligent so that we could become stronger and more intelligent ourselves.
If God is the sort of being that will ask St. Peter to disallow passage into heaven simply because you didn't believe in him despite leading a good life, whilst "believers" who led a bad life yet confessed all their sins are allowed in, then the passage into heaven isn't worth it anyway.
And again, it's mildly insulting to assume that all of us will eventually recant on our death beds because we're scared of what will happen otherwise. It again points to a God that isn't as merciful as he's made out, which is a bit of a crummy immage for a deity.
Not necessarily. If the theory is correct, then the world of science will be able to explain many of the physical and astronomical happenings if the Large Hadron Collider manages to reveal the Higgs boson particle. At the moment, the theories are just that: Theories. Should the particle be discovered as expected, then the theories will become very strong answers indeed. Even if they don't discover it, I'm willing to bet there's a hundred other more likely theories waiting in the wings than "a creator".
Yes, they came from somewhere - the matter that already existed in the universe, moving and swirling around, perhaps very volatile already and all that was needed was the right combination of gasses and boom, we have the bang, the fusion and fission of atoms and mixtures of gasses that developed over billions of years into what we see today. There's nothing in fact to say that the same hasn't happened before, many thousands of times, and other universes have come and gone before us.
Do you believe that God is infinite, and has existed in a time before existance itself? If that is the case, why is it so hard to imagine that there was existance before the big bang?
People seem to think of time pre-big bang as a big white void with nothing in it. What's to say that's true? Pre-big bang the void would have been dark - darkness doesn't need creating, it just needs little enough light. Did time itself start with the big bang? Why would it? Time is as infinite as anything else. It's just that humans only tend to think of time as something they've created by measuring day and night in an ever more accurate fashion. It doesn't mean it was created though. Time is just the measure of the passing of events. If events have always happened, even before the supposed big bang, then time has existed too.
You pose this question on your beliefs, we pose the question - why is it so hard to accept that physics, chemistry and biology are responsible for the whole thing?
Personally it amuses me when people think that it's impossible it happened by chance, reasoning that the probability of us being like we are is so small without some divine being creating us this way. This is incredibly ignorant to the vastness and infinity of space, and the many billions of other galaxies, an exponentially larger amount of stars and an exponentially larger number of planets than there are stars. As we know very little about these, who is to say that these are uninhabited? The odds of life on other planets might be much higher than we think. Just because we're the only inhabited planet out of the handful in our solar system, it doesn't mean the same applies throughout the rest of the universe.
Let's put that into a believable concept - just because you can't find a particular CD (aka life) in any of your local record shops (aka our local planets), it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in another town (aka another solar system) or even another country (aka another galaxy). All the criteria for it existing are present and correct, you've seen it for sale on the internet (we are aware that life exists in the first place - the evidence is ourselves), it just isn't nearby (we know what is required to sustain even basic, single-celled life - we just need to find it elsewhere in the universe).
That's a ridiculous thing to say, and insulting to those who actually believe in science. I don't reject God because I'm high and mighty about how I live my life, I reject the concept of a God because it's nonsensical in the extreme and I'm fascinated by the progress of science.
Religious believers and even those who simply don't know enough about science always make the mistake of assuming that you must have a whole brain as it is at the moment in order for it to function and in order for us to do the things we do. The other old chestnut is the eye. "How can something so complex simply have evolved", they ask. It's completely ignoring the concept that only part of a brain or part of an eye would be incapable of doing anything useful, which isn't the case. Part of a brain (even a miniscule part) is still useful for cognitive thought and descision making, even if it's on an instinctive level (an animal might shelter itself when it gets cold, even if it's brain isn't capable of coming up with the working plans for a suspension bridge).
An eye is still an eye even if the only things you can discern are light and dark. You don't need to be able to focus or even discern the shape of objects - which is likely how most eyes in creatures started, as simple light/dark receptors. They've had millions upon millions of years to evolve into the eyes we have today.
If the human race had taken the easy and comforting route throughout it's history, we'd have been extinct long ago. We need inquisition, risk and certain discomfort to advance our species. It would have been easy and comforting for the Wright brothers to stick to walking everywhere, but they wanted to soar with the birds and as a result we owe them and their fellow pioneers the glory of being able to make machines that allow us to fly.
People seem to believe that evolution is the product of chance, and then argue that as a reason that God must have created us instead.
Firstly, you don't create something that evolves, something evolves from something else, right back to single cells, that evolved from microbes and bacteria, that existed from the correct amounts of chemical reactions and elements already present in the universe.
Secondly, evolution itself is very much not a product of chance. It's the complete opposite, in fact. It's non-random survival. Again, this doesn't need someone to create it - we weren't created as we are today - it just needed our ancestors to not get killed, or to breed with the stronger and more intelligent so that we could become stronger and more intelligent ourselves.
If God is the sort of being that will ask St. Peter to disallow passage into heaven simply because you didn't believe in him despite leading a good life, whilst "believers" who led a bad life yet confessed all their sins are allowed in, then the passage into heaven isn't worth it anyway.
And again, it's mildly insulting to assume that all of us will eventually recant on our death beds because we're scared of what will happen otherwise. It again points to a God that isn't as merciful as he's made out, which is a bit of a crummy immage for a deity.
It's not that their use hasn't yet been discovered, it's more that, in the case of little toes and the appendix, that our earlier human ancestors did have use for them, but we have evolved in a way that they are no longer of any use to us. Male nipples on the other hand are there so we have something to hang our nipple clamps on.
