Science and Religion

Quote: FrGamble

Time is a succession of moments .

You just cherry pick what you want
to respond to. You totally ignore
this bombshell:

Quote FrG:
Science looking for God is as silly.

Dalex: So is using faith in science as a justification or validation of faith in god.

Quote: FrGamble

Time is a succession of moments that follow one another. As such it is contingent on what came before. Therefore it cannot be infinite in the past but must have a start or beginning. If there was no beginning then there could be no present moment.

There is nothing but present moments.

You are giving your own definition for time, [controlling the parameters]. I think Einstein would agree with me, that time doesn't pass [one moment stacked "contingent" on another, or lego's through the floor]. Time only exists relatively to space. Time isn't linear, so it has no end, and no beginning.

All time is contained in the now, it needs no beginning, and doesn't end.

The other question, "what is nothing" is similar, especially with the advent of dark matter/dark energy. I don't believe "nothing" exists, in other words, there is no "nothing".

But thanks for playing.

Quote: petroglyph

There is nothing but present moments.
You are giving your own definition for time, [controlling the parameters]..

Exactly right. There is only the
present eternal moment. The
past is just a memory of a
moment, the future is an
imagining of a moment.

This is what a lot of the
Eastern mystics study, how
to only be in the present
moment. A zen koan says:

"When my master eats, he
eats. When he walks, he walks."

Meaning his mind is totally in
the moment of eating and
walking. In 1971 an American
yogi named Ram Das wrote
a book, Be Here Now. It was
about how to live as much of
life as possible in the present
moment. It was a NYT bestseller.

Quote: Evenbob

You just cherry pick what you want
to respond to. You totally ignore
this bombshell:

Quote FrG:
Science looking for God is as silly.

Dalex: So is using faith in science as a justification or validation of faith in god.

I didn't mean to ignore it as I thought it a very true statement I agree with. Using faith in science to justify faith in God is not what I am doing. My faith in science provides some of the very good evidence that leads a reasonable person to infer that God exists.

Quote: petroglyph

There is nothing but present moments.

You are giving your own definition for time, [controlling the parameters]. I think Einstein would agree with me, that time doesn't pass [one moment stacked "contingent" on another, or lego's through the floor]. Time only exists relatively to space. Time isn't linear, so it has no end, and no beginning.

All time is contained in the now, it needs no beginning, and doesn't end.

Isn't time really a human concept, does it exist outside of our reckoning? Anyway, it seems fairly obvious that the present moment does contain all that has gone on before it. However, isn't it just as obvious that this moment now is not the same moment a year ago? The present moment is built on the successive moments that preceded it. I do very much like the idea that this present moment contains all the moments of the past from the very beginning, but surely you see that there must be a very beginning for this to make sense. Do you think that this present moment also includes all future moments as well?

Quote:

The other question, "what is nothing" is similar, especially with the advent of dark matter/dark energy. I don't believe "nothing" exists, in other words, there is no "nothing".

But thanks for playing.

So it is your contention that dark matter/energy popped into being out of nothing or do you think dark matter/energy is eternal and the source of all that exists and is not contingent on anything else for its existence?

Quote: FrGamble

My faith in science provides some of the very good evidence that leads a reasonable person to infer that God exists.

HUH??? You just said science looking
for god is 'silly', now you say science
provides evidence for god? Which is
it, silly or a provider for evidence.

Wow..

Provider of evidence. The facts that point to an expanding universe that had a beginning, the fine-tuned and consistent natural laws, the mystery and marvel of life, the beauty and organization of life as well as the stars and planets, etc. All point in the direction of a creator don't you think? Can you really think about these things and have your heart not speak to you of something more than random and impossible chance? Do you really think that something so wonderful sprang into being without a cause or more unbelievable yet has always been here breaking the laws of energy and logic? Science does indeed provide evidence for God. Do you think not? What evidence does it provide that points to God not existing?

FrG, do you still believe science has to disprove your god? That that is a valid argument?

If so, how would science go about disproving your god?

I'm just trying to point out, it's not even a reasonable or logical requirement to ask for.

Quote: FrGamble

an expanding universe

Where is it expanding to.

"In the standard physics theory, the galaxies are all getting farther apart; that is the expansion of the Universe. Yet in the way the theory describes it (I mean in General Relativity Theory) none of the galaxies are actually moving. All that is happening is that the amount of space (vacuum) in between them is increasing."
Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

So no, the galaxies are not expanding,
they are in a fixed position. Confused
yet? That's because none of this is
settled science.

Quote:

Science does indeed provide evidence for God

Only if you add a bunch of theories and wishful
thinking. But you can make science say anything
if you do that.

Quote: rxwine

If so, how would science go about disproving your god?

Oh, well that seems about the easiest thing in the world, since they went and got all dogmatic about it. Bible is the word of God. God is infallible. Prove God wrong, you disprove God Himself.

Now find one thing in the Bible that's false.

See how easy that was?