Original Sin?

March 18th, 2014 at 5:35:23 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: s2dbaker
Or perhaps atheists don't require gods to explain the as yet unexplained.


Then why do atheists often use the 'as yet unexplained' to explain and require that there is no God?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
March 18th, 2014 at 7:33:30 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
Evidence of a creator is creation,


No. That is evidence that something exists. That is, the universe, the Earth, the Sun, my kicthen and so on.

Quote:
look around it's everywhere and it had to come from somewhere.


Why does it have to come from somewhere?

Quote:
We even understand the concept of creation, it makes sense to us and we see it all the time - you create some amazing food dishes I've heard.


I create a great deal of self-doubt on tohers, too :) I like to think my cooking is inspired, but since I cook to suit myself I can't very well proclaim it otherwise. I wouldn't mind a neutral third-party to try it.

But let's say there was a creator of some kind. What proof do you have that it was one of the Biblical deities in particular? The Maya have their own creation myths, as do the Sumerians, Norse, and very likely every single civilization and rag-tag colelction of tribes that ever existed.

Coincidentally yesterday were announced findings concerning evidence for Inflation in the early Universe. If verified, these would be incredibly important, not to mention amazing. Hwoever, until these are verified, the whole idea of Inlfation, though compelling on many levels, remains unproven.

That's because in science poeple don't juts make up, or point to, a story and say "That's what happened." They are expected to prove their claims, or at least to let others find proof (theoretical physicists rarely go experimenting to find their own proof). So things which seemed agreeable, like the Steady-State Universe, or sensible, like Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, ultimately were proved to be wrong or incomplete. Whereas others which seemed outrageous, like the whole of quantum mechanics or the existence of Dark Matter, keep on scoring one proof after another.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
March 18th, 2014 at 7:42:29 AM permalink
boymimbo
Member since: Mar 25, 2013
Threads: 5
Posts: 732
Quote: Wizard
We're also the only living species that can comprehend our own mortality. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but I think it does in this case.


How do you know that? Do you know what the elephant, the whale, the dolphin, are thinking?

We were watching Cosmos last night (brilliant series), and my Christian wife said, "do you believe all that" when Tyson went on about evolution. I said, it's science, and therefore, it's highly likely that it's true. She responded, "but it is just a a theory, right?" to which I responded, "yes, but it's a damned good one".

I then thought about the fact that we are all related to every other organism on this planet via our DNA and tried to reconcile it with God. Clearly, the six days of Genesis is but a parable to explain our existence to the folk of the day. But because of our advances in science, we've come to recognize that six days is just not true, and that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman on this planet, that most of the Old Testament stories are parables mixed in with truth and history.

For me, if we can only believe in God through faith alone, then there would be no evidence through science that would present overwhelming evidence for God because it would present proof for God if there was strong scientific evidence for evolution for every species except humans. If God created the heavens and the earth, then why would the DNA be different -- it all came from the same source! Humans are just part of that chain and the creation story doesn't take away from that (save the rib from Adam to make Eve).

Forgive me for blathering, but it gave me another thought about this planet. I find it incredible that a single species (homosapiens) rapidly (in astronomical terms) became the dominant species on this planet. I wonder what our planet would be like, for example, if another species had the same dominance as man, what would other planets be like if several intelligent species were all competing at the same time.

Which brings me back to original sin. Clearly, human advancements occurred over time. Hunter-gatherers leading to villages to tribes to city-states to modern societies due to key technological developments which led to social developments. "Sin" was defined as right and wrong at the time. It still is. How did the Catholics reconcile "thou shalt not kill" with the Crusades? Surely a papal decision was made to trump that commandment with the needs of the time.
March 18th, 2014 at 7:47:54 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
Dear Ace, you and others have asked the question about the Creator needing a Creator at least three times in this thread alone and I've tried to explain, probably not very well, that for anything to exist without falling into a nonsensical infinite regress then there has to be a non-contingent being whose essence contains its own existence and does not depend on another to be its creator, but is rather the uncaused cause of all things.


No offens,e but that seems to me like saying "Things cannot originate out of nothing or be eternal, they were created by God. God, of course, need not be created." it simply amkes no sense.

Let's take a different approach. Consider a rock adn ask what's it made of. You will rpogress from compounds, to elements, to atoms, to subatomic particles to quarks and leptons. Now, it has to end somewhere, right? But are quarks and leptons the end, or do still smaller constituents exist? Either way, the question can be settled with evidence, eventually. Or we may find there is no end, though that would be difficult to prove.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
March 18th, 2014 at 7:56:57 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: boymimbo
Forgive me for blathering, but it gave me another thought about this planet. I find it incredible that a single species (homosapiens) rapidly (in astronomical terms) became the dominant species on this planet.


One thing about studying history, is the realization that things really took a long, long time coming. Right up to the mid-XIX century lots of learned people believed at elast some diseases were caused by "fould smells." Not by anything contained or associated with such smells, but by the smells themselves.


Quote:
I wonder what our planet would be like, for example, if another species had the same dominance as man, what would other planets be like if several intelligent species were all competing at the same time.


It seem very unlikely. Consider in the millions of years in which large animals have existed, only a handful were capable of the reason and manual dexterity required to develop technology. All of these but two were our ancestors. Of the other two, one was at some disadvantage that resulted in their extinction (or maybe incorporation) by the other. The other is us.

Still, let's say in some planet an almost sentient species arises, and somehow finds itself scattered into different areas by some antural disaster (like a volcanic eruption or a flood), and then five or six nuclei of this species evolve in slightly different conditions and at slightly different rates.

It might make for a good SF story.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
March 18th, 2014 at 7:59:34 AM permalink
s2dbaker
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 13
Posts: 241
Quote: FrGamble
Then why do atheists often use the 'as yet unexplained' to explain and require that there is no God?
Atheists don't require a universe void of gods. As Bill Nye the Science Guy said, and I'm paraphrasing poorly, if you offer a testable proof of your theory of gods then atheists are more than happy to believe.

So far, you have offered us talking serpents, clearly an experiment with negative confirmation when repeated. Further, why does your uncaused cause have to be intelligent? As it has been pointed out, the Big Bang can be the uncaused cause just as easily as any of your gods and there is far more proof of the Big Bang than that invisible man who punishes talking serpents.

The uncaused cause does not itself require consciousness.
March 18th, 2014 at 9:48:36 AM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
I saw a quote the other day, I think attributed to Michio Kaiku, that said matter is a positive energy and gravity was a negative energy. Separately, they are Things. But add them all together, and you have No Things.

Something from nothing.

Anyways, here's another thought. The question posed to FrG about being brought up in a different culture was interesting. Of course, being brought up in his culture, Catholicism was available and came to him. Someone brought up Hindi would have it available to come to them as well. There are still aboriginal peoples out there who have no contact with the outside world, who probably have their own religions that don't include the big ones we know of. Cultures before us have had theirs; some have died, some live on. There was once a time when religion didn't exist. There are religions now that exist that didn't when I was born (FSM, Scientology, etc)

The one constant is that religions throughout history have a habit of being proven wrong. Whether it's the earth on the back of a turtle, or the sun being carried about the sky by chariot, little by little the beliefs get chipped away. I suspect a day when abiogenesis is proven and a great many modern religions are going to reel.

If we could erase all memory and start anew, I've no doubt religion would pop up again. But it'd be different. There'd be no history of earth turtles or gods carrying stars; something new and different would be created to tackle the unknowns of today. But science... it'd stay exactly the same. All the truths of pre-memory erasure would still be true, and would still be there, until we found them again. And eventually we'd catch up to where we are now, and carry right on with it.

Can the same be said of religion?
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
March 18th, 2014 at 10:54:08 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Nareed

Let's take a different approach. Consider a rock adn ask what's it made of. You will rpogress from compounds, to elements, to atoms, to subatomic particles to quarks and leptons. Now, it has to end somewhere, right? But are quarks and leptons the end, or do still smaller constituents exist? Either way, the question can be settled with evidence, eventually. Or we may find there is no end, though that would be difficult to prove.


It would not just be difficult but impossible to prove, because what you are implying truly makes no sense, no offense. You can't keep getting smaller just like you can't keep going back in time, eventually there is an ultimate beginning, a first cause, an unmoved mover. I don't know why this is so difficult to see when you seem to have no problem imagining your kitchen just popped into being on its own?!?

What seems to be tripping up many of you is that you think this is some kind of proof for a Christian concept of God and you have such an aversion and mental block to such things that you won't even conceive of it for a second. Take away the personification aspect of this higher power and I think you will see that since obviously material things cannot be eternal, because we know they were created by something else, then eventually there must be a immaterial force that is truly eternal that created all things out of nothing. I think sd2baker and someone else are now trying to call this the Big Bang, fine call it that, anything to get you to see that the idea of something that does not need to be created not only makes sense it is required if anything at all is to exist.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
March 18th, 2014 at 12:36:04 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Sure, the Big Bang. The Big bang = The Creator.

Given that it still doesn't require omniscient, omnipresent and omni-whatever else it is. it doesn't require God to love man, or care about our lives, or have a sun. Sure, I'll by the Big Bang as the prime mover. But there is still no need for God to worship in that case.

It's possible that there is no prime mover and all material things 'just are', in a constant state of flux. That boggles my mind, as does the Big Bang. Neither unknowns require an ever-loving, Christian God to explain them.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
March 18th, 2014 at 1:27:14 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Face

The one constant is that religions throughout history have a habit of being proven wrong. Whether it's the earth on the back of a turtle, or the sun being carried about the sky by chariot, little by little the beliefs get chipped away. I suspect a day when abiogenesis is proven and a great many modern religions are going to reel.

If we could erase all memory and start anew, I've no doubt religion would pop up again. But it'd be different. There'd be no history of earth turtles or gods carrying stars; something new and different would be created to tackle the unknowns of today. But science... it'd stay exactly the same. All the truths of pre-memory erasure would still be true, and would still be there, until we found them again. And eventually we'd catch up to where we are now, and carry right on with it.

Can the same be said of religion?


Lots of good discussion points in your post, lots of potential threads.

Throughout the history of religion and science there have been many times when theories or ideas have been proven wrong. As I mentioned in my response to your Harlem Globetrotters analogy a while back this is the privileged position of science. Science and religion can never truly be in conflict without one or the other being wrong. This is the privileged position of science and its role in observing visible things and coming to understand them, it can help religion see its scientific errors. When a religion bases itself on these scientific ideas and is proven wrong the death knell rings. Some religions are so mystical that trying to pin them down to scientific fact is like nailing jello to the wall. I wonder sometimes if these types of religions are scared of scientific power. Some religions try to escape the unrelenting pursuit of scientific fact and proof by escaping into the netherworld, where they remain untouchable (and in my opinion worthless).

Christianity is amazing because it is so Incarnational. It gets down and dirty with the reality of this world and does not remain distant from humanity or the limited reach of science. It claims that a historical person, Jesus Christ was truly man and truly God, who lived among us, suffered for us, died, and was raised again. All of this is to subject itself to historical and scientific scrutiny. It shows no worries or fear about the beauty and power of science because there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth. In fact throughout its history Christianity has encouraged scientific study of the world around us (except in the famous Galileo case), which we fundamentally believe has something to teach us worth learning. So press the restart button and the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth remains, can the same be said of other religions?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (