Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Can you prove the second sentence of your statement… or is it a result of your system of belief… hence unproven and not scientific. Your assertion is lacking in my opinion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Again, science is limited to operate within our universe. It can describe the what and how, but not the why.
Probabilites or improbabilities themselves do not postulate the existence of a guiding force.
Smash a plate on the ground and look at the pieces. The chance for them to lie in that *exact* shape and order is infinitesimally small. If you we´re trying to achive that specific pattern by chance you wouldn´t be able to, even when smashing plates on the floor for your entire life.
And yet there it is.
The chance for our universe to be just the way it is, of course, far, far smaller yet. But *Every* single possible universe capable of bringing forth sentient life would have it´s inhabitants wonder, at some point: “Wow, if the characteristics of our universe were even a tiny bit different… we wouldn´t be here!”

A guided universe is not a necessity for our existence or to explain the way the universe is now.
In fact, instead of giving an answer it only makes things even *more* complicated. Because we now wouldn´t need an explanation for a universe, but for a being capable of *creating* a universe.
Such a being or force would be even more difficult to explain, and even more unlikely than our universe itself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My personal theory (currently at a nascent stage of analysis) deals with the possibility that the “laws” and “rules” that the world run on ARE God/higher intelligence. I am not talking about mundane laws of gravity or action/reaction which change at different levels of matter. We might be yet to find a universal law, which adjusts, bends in exact proportion, but never breaks. one possibility is the Divine Proportion/Golden Ratio. Science has yet to come up with an explanation for the same. But again, i do not say that when it does, that it disproves the existence of a higher intelligence. The question is, why did 1:1.618 have to be true everywhere? what if the ratio had been 1:2? could science have explained it too? If it could, then science is at a loss to explain why 1:1.618 exists and not 1:2 as the “default” universal ratio. That brings in the higher intelligence argument.

Everybody, please keep in mind that I am not defending a God in the classic sense. I do not believe that a big old man is running the universe or that something is true because it is written in a book considered to be holy (take “Atlas Shrugged” for example…).

My theory is that we might be a very small part of a very large framework of events.

I get disturbed when I see people turn into atheists just because of famines, floods and other unfortunate events happening to undeserving people. That is not a logical reason to disbelieve in the existence of god. No, i am not going to give you crap like “HE gives you problems to make you strong”. My point is, who said that there was a deal that “you pray, i keep you happy” or “be good, get good”? then the relation isn’t religious or spiritual, its business.

And as to not believing in what you don’t see, you know they have these miraculous invisible angels in the heavens which perform magical acts. They were called Infrared rays, UV rays, X-rays, Oxygen, Sperms, Black Holes. What are you talking about when you are “not able to see”? you mean “if i cannot see it with naked eye, microscope, telescope and an infrared/UV light detector, it doesn’t exist.”? I believe that you need to open our mind more.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You are right, outright refusing to consider the concept of a God, of creationism, intelligent design or some form of “guided” evolution because one doesn´t *want* to believe in a god is as unscientific as outright refusing to consider the theory of evolution because one doesn´t accept any thing that contradicts the holy book of one´s religion.

Science is not about how things *should* be or what would be the most “pleasant” reality.
It is simply about looking at the world, observating, constructing theories to explain it and testing them. And the best way to prove, or rather, support a theory is by earnestly trying to disprove it and failing.

Technically, it might be the case that a higher being simply made up the “laws” and “rules” of our universe. ( Personally, I always consider terms like “laws of nature” somehow misleading. They aren´t laws. They simply describe the way things have – as far as we can tell – always happened. But if the universe at some point *doesn´t* behave according to our “laws” we can´t really sue the universe for not adhering to them ).
But even then, the scientific approach is not to assume the existence of a god. But rather looking at the evidence and produce theories to it´s explanation that are as complicated as necessary and as simple as possible.
Science can´t touch the possibility of a higher being designing the universe by giving it certain rules. Science is caught *within* these rules. We can´t really tell *why* gravity exist, we can only describe it. Does it exist because it was necessary for our universe to become what it is now, our is our universe the way we see it now because gravity exists?

In the end, we, as humans, are an inseparable part of the universe. We can´t look at it from the “outside” just as the man in Plato´s cave can not see the “real” objects, only their shadows.

But neither can religions. They just claim they can. If a god interacted with this world, it would be verifiable somehow. That means it could be proven by scientific means. But if this god is content to act not directly but through the “law”s and “rules” of nature he created… than there is no sense in “bothering” with speculations about his existence. All we needed to learn about him – and all we *could* really learn – we could learn by observating the workings of His naturla laws. Just what science is doing.

Did a god design the concept of evolution as a tool to bring forth life and sentient beings?
It doesn´t matter *a single bit* as far as describing how evolution works is concerned.
Just as Newton´s Theory of Gravity is correct in describing how gravity works *regardless of what ( or whose ) origin gravity is*, so Darwin´s Theory of Evolution is the, so far, best way to describe how it came that earth is inhabited by so many and so different forms of life.

A god is simply *unnecessary* for the concept of evolution, as long as it works in line with the laws of nature. Claiming there “had” to be one involved is little more than human arrogance, which cannot deal with the thought that humanity is neither the center nor the purpose of the universe.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I am a Hindu by birth, not a Christian, but i see where you are coming from. I would understand my plight to be the same as yours. Whether we be Hindu, Christian, Atheist or Pastafarian, we did not assume that we “know”, either by strength of faith or that of science. While it is true that neither science nor religion can explain certain things and answer some questions like the existence of consciousness, the human spirit, faith itself etc., it cannot be assumed for sure that any one of them is correct. the answer might even be a common path between the two. For example, one of the statements that you had in your original article, struck me as true…

“I don’t have a conflict with intelligent design versus evolution,” [School Board Member] Sellers said. “The two go together.”

Why can’t this be true? Why couldn’t evolution be the process of design of a higher intelligence? And that higher intelligence does not necessarily have to wear a long white gown and have a flowing white beard and speak with a bass-heavy tone from the heavens with an echoed voice.. What if “God” (or Allah, Krishna, FSM, what-you-have) was actually a set of basic principles of Physics on which the universe ran? Does that possibility make our fellow Pastafarians queasy?

I have been lurking around this website for some time now and I was very impressed by some of the brilliant articles around here. But I believed that Pastafarianism was a religion that supported the search for truth and not one which blindly refuted all other possible explanations of the existence of the universe. There does not need to be just two theories of God vs. No God. There can be other possibilities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

davehead said:
“one event i cant seem to embrace is the big bang. in my view for there to be a big bang there needs to be something there in the first place. maybe we are living in a universe that has always existed and doesnt have a starting point. the large explosion at the so called begining may have been just a large star big enough that we cannot comprehend.”

There is a theory under development, quite radical but of simple mathematics. Depending on your formation (I haven’t quite read here a lot, so I don’t know if you’re a physist or a vet or what) it may be readable from the several articles being published. Search Scientific Commons for Montemayor-Aldrete et al. There are right now at least 4 articles for the Crystalline Vacuum Space Model.

Now the following is far more Star Trek than what MrMiami said… but being a psychologist I’ll do my best to simplify. The model proposes a universe with crystaline properties in which matter is just a defect and Big Bangs work to release gravitational tension of the structure. So there is no single Big Bang, there is no need for something at the beginning of time, and there is not a single universe at a time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It does not answer “why” there are sentient beings, especially not why you and me are here. Nor it explains what our “purpose” is or what we can expect after our death.

If you are looking for answers to these questions, you´ll likely not find them through evidences, facts or observations. You´ll find them within yourself. And each has to find his own answers.

But confusing your personal answers to these questions with the hard reality of facts, evidences and observations is folly. It is simply not enough to show shortcomings and obscurities within scientific theories. A theory doesn´t have to be perfect, it just needs to be *better than any other theory*.

So we can´t disprove the existence of the jewish/christian/islamic god and therefore need to teach creationism in schools?
Than we have to teach the existence of the FSM as well, as no one can disprove It. We also have to teach the theory of “hey we´re all living in a gigantic computer simulation it´s true i swear” because no one can disprove it. Hell, no one can “disprove” that *I* created the universe within the last 5 minutes.
At some point its not about “can we disprove it” but rather about “how far does it get us?” Science has the advantage that people are actually welcome to argue about it. The scientific view of the world and the universe has changed, sometimes dramatically, through the last centuries. Instead of ignoring or repressing new evidence, it is evaluated and integrated.

And lastly, “God did it” doesn´t explain anything.

“God created humanity” is an explanation for our existence as “factories created cars” is for the existence of the automobile. It always begs the question “Well, where did God come from?”. And that question is left just as unanswered as the question “where does the universe come from” is by science.

“Why do I exist?” Because God wants it. “Why does he want my existence?” Uh… because he has got some divine plan we wouldn´t understand. Great. So I exist for some reason I won´t understand anyway, but hey, I´m glad there is a reason after all…

Where do I go when I die?” Apparently to some greast place, kinda makes you wonder why we have to put up with this existence here on earth anyway. And why do so few people ask “Where were I before I died?” I mean, that question is just as important, isn´t it?
If I came from nothing, it´s quite likely I´ll just go back to nothing. If I existed in some form, I apparently have no memories – which are essentially to define “me”. Even if I continue to exist in some form, without my memories, my personality, it won´t be “me”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Broadening the view of kids and showing them how like most religions are is never a bad idea…altho bible thumpers(of any religion) will get their noses out of joint over it because they can not be on top….

Pastafarianism modern parody or not is a off shoot of Christianity like a dozen other variants that has odd or strange customs its not better/worse than them.. whats the old saying, whats the diffrance in a “religion” and a “cult”, numbers,popularity,ect,ect…

For the most part one could agree with it but my take is (in a zippyisim non the elss)
“The purpose of religion is to bring humans together to understand them selfs and their faith, when it divides people into petty labels and damns them for being “different” it is nothing more than a cult that lives off fear,greed and ignorance, for its far more easy to hate and fear than love, forgive and move on.”:ZippyDSmlee

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Now, have anyone of you seen Zeitgeist? It takes up quite many interesting paralells between religius faiths, at least in part one. And no, I don’t take this up becaus I want to pick a fight. I do it becaus of davehead, MrMiami and Cannibals “dirt-flings” if I have the right to say so.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Watch it, becaus it gives a loot interesting things, the only thing is that the intro is 9 minutes and that it contains some not-so-good laughters in it. Watch part one ( 30 min after the intro ) and if you try to discuss it here, please use proper language and don’t kick on others beliefs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wow, way to make a comparitive to Islam and not know anything about it. No further explanation? Maybe you should read up more about Abraham, buddy. Reason to exist? It’s called Tawhid, one of the most fundamental concepts in Islam. What happens when I die? They call it paradise, or a state closer to the will of Allah.

I can’t believe you find a few lines that contradict each other and claim that the religions are all that different. At the core, the values that each one holds, is identical. The story of Jesus and the Ressurection is a must believe in Christianty, and that is where they part, but the values held by each or scarily similar. If you came here to defend Christianity, just know that we were never attacking it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Secondly, unless you think that the fossil remains of ancient hominids were placed by God to confound the unbelievers, those creatures existed. What you could challenge, perhaps, is that they share a connection with the human race.
Well… I study engineering. And as every good engineer knows, when one measures anything, be that the variation of temperatures in an oven or the neutralization curve of an acid, it is impossible, even forgetting about the errors implicit in the measuring, to take the infinite measures necessary to plot a COMPLETE curve that shows the behaviour of a system. So you just make do with some points in your graph, taking into account the errors involved. You look at them really hard and you say “Hm… I think this looks like an exponential/linear equation/quadratic equation”. After this, you use your preferred adjusting or interpolating program and voilá. There you have the equation that solves, with reasonable error, your problem.

And wether you want to believe it or not, that IS science. It’s science at it’s most basic. Down to when I had to measure a table with a ruler fifty times the first day I went to physics laboratory.

And that is what the theory of evolution is about. You look at similarities between fossils and current humans and you plot a possible “course of evolution” throughout prehistory. As you learn more and find more fossils, you discard some lineages, as you would discard a temperature measure that was wrongly taken in the oven. And you improve your theory.

So, to put it simply, ID contradicts several scientific findings, whereas evolution does not. Granted, the theory of evolution might not be complete, but it, also, evolved and still evolves.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Carl sagan (All round awesomeness): “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

What proof is there to back anything that is written in any religious text? Intellegent design is fantasy. You seem like a smart enough person yet lack a grip on reality.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Our children, our future, need to be taught the freedom of thought and HOW to learn. Telling our children some specific and not training them for independent thought is indoctrination not education!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0