EVOLUTION VS. ATHIESM

[Gacalisa]

I was listening to the radio the other day, and this highly aclaimed athiest was being interviewed, I forget his name, lakiin when asked why people have this inate feeling to believe, if not in God directly but find items they see worthy of worship as a connection with God. He was not able to Ask.

and another interview was with this former athiest who oddly enough converted to Christianity, and said he tried for years to analize the reasons for his believe in athiesm, but could not reason ,and ignore the inate feeling he had.

[Cawar]

""Energy can be transformed into another sort of energy. But it cannot be created AND it cannot be destroyed. Energy has always existed in one form or another."

Kamal

This is where the problem arises from. First...where did this E originate from?? and whats transforming it from Kinetic into Dynamic???

See.....there is always a need for an instigator, initiator, provider....wihout him/it....nothing would start...as simple as that.

[Kamal35]

[quote="Cawar"]""Energy can be transformed into another sort of energy. But it cannot be created AND it cannot be destroyed. Energy has always existed in one form or another."

Kamal

This is where the problem arises from. First...where did this E originate from?? and whats transforming it from Kinetic into Dynamic???

See.....there is always a need for an instigator, initiator, provider....wihout him/it....nothing would start...as simple as that.[/quote]

Yeah, Cawar. This has been the leit-motif of the great debate about the matter. Some scientics (I'm inclined to believe them) maintain that both Universe and Energy always existed, that there wasn't a beggining. Others believe in the Big Bang theory, which is one of the most accepted theories today among the science community: energy was the Creator of the Universe. The explosion of energy gave birth to the big-bang and the Universe. And some philophers say that Energy is God, so we all have God inside us. In other hand (that's my favourite theory), there's a kind of eternal return of everything: Nietzsche said that the Universe (which is eternal and has no beggining nor end) is in a continuous expansion-contraction phase, like a heart beating. Every heartbeat is another beggining of the Universe. But every heartbeat takes zillions and zillions of millions of years...

I find all those things like watching an endless abyss and, at the same time, quite fascinating.

[michael_ital]

It just staggers the mind, trying to visualize such a concept. I'm inclined to to the theory you just alluded to, that both Universe and Energy always existed, that there wasn't a beginning. Trying to visualize what there was before the Big Bang is almost fruitless, as only the most brilliant of minds can even propose a vision of what was before the Big Bang. The theory of us all having "God inside us:" also has merit. I'd like to see this answered in my lifetime, but I feel it's to be the neverending question that has no answer.

[Gacalisa]

Its true, these theories can never answer the questions, and all these theories as science as a whole can be all be falsified.


I feel the best way to understand this and have an answer that is logical to the majority of people on earth, is to beleive in God, and believe that God alone is the creator of everthing.

that no BIG BANG created us and everthing else.

[michael_ital]

gacalisa

You're right of course, but it's fun once in a while to try and rationalize. But in the end, faith works best for me.

[Kamal35]

Yeah, Gacalisa, but in a certain way, that would be the 'easy' answer. God created the Universe, etc, for people not to make question by themselves. I would find more interesting a scientisc, or you or me, reaching to some conclusion after trying to understand the whole Universe. I mean: a scientics who, at the end of his life, says: After all what I learned, my conclussion is that God created the Universe because the following reasons...

That would be really worthy for a human being. If you believe in God just because you were said so, and don't make any reflection or introspection about it, in my opinion, you haven't tried to understand the nature of God.

If you, on the contrary, start from the point of view of doubting about everything and want to learn and discover everything for yourself, you're worthy as a human being (in my opinion), because you tried to understand.

Same for the opposite conclussions: that the Universe wasn't created by God. I have all the -same- respect for muslims who reach to the conclussion that Allah created the world because this and that, etc, after trying to understand God through science, than for people who reaches to the opposite conclussion through science.

What I find 'easy', lazy and not worthy is believing in things just because you were said so. I hope you understand my point.

[Gacalisa]

if for any moment you doubt that God does not exists, then I would consider that person insane.


science if fairly new, and gets more creative by the year. Religion has been here for centuries, since the making of earth.


I would consider a worthy human, one that believes God exists, and uses science, logic, and religion to prove the existance of God.

eventhough its all ready easy to prove the existance of God, using science would not hurt.

[Kamal35]

Gacalisa: Unfortunately, no a lot of people think like you. They think science is a threat for religion so they attack science, deny science's discoveries and despise science advances.

I'm talking, for example, in the Western/Christian culture: Galileo, Copernico, Miguel Servet... all them suffered the punishments of the religious establishment because their discoveries...

[michael_ital]

gacalisa

science will def need to play a role in "proving" the existance, though I personally believe we'll never really get the kind of proof that people like DD are looking for.

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="Kamal35"]I want to introduce some correction (and controversy) here.

"Energy can be transformed into another sort of energy. But it cannot be created AND it cannot be destroyed. Energy has always existed in one form or another."[/quote]

Right on! It's called the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. All the mass and energy in the Universe is, as far as we know, constant. It can't disappear or be created from nothing. Only transformed from one form into another.

For instance. If you combine 1 part Hydrogen and 1 part Cl to HCl, energy and mass before reaction equals mass and energy after rxn.

[michael_ital]

Where did this mass and energy originate?

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="Cawar"] This is where the problem arises from. First...where did this E originate from??[quote]

From matter.

Next!



[quote] See.....there is always a need for an instigator, initiator, provider....wihout him/it....nothing would start...as simple as that.[/quote]

And the instigator never had instigator of his own, right? Why not?

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote="michael_ital"]Where did this mass and energy originate?[/quote]

From the Big Bang. Mass is instrinsic property. Mass and Energy change forms everytime we have nuclear reaction via einstien E = MC2.

[michael_ital]

what was the catalyst of the Big bang?? And what was before it?