Are we so dependant on mythology and spirituality that if something can't be explained by existing methods that it defaults to the realm of the supernatural?
For example, the universe. While we have a fair idea of what probably happened to put it in it's current state (Big Bang theory), we don't know how or why and we don't know what state it was in prior to whatever actually happened.
Does this mean, though, that we should resort to saying that a divine being initiated it?
How is that any different to, before the reason and means for lightning were discovered, saying that Thor or Zeus were responsible for thunder and lightning?
At what point do we draw the line?
2007-05-01 23:50:39 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"Typical of atheistic mentality"
Excuse me, I forgot that some people don't like it when you actually think about something.
2007-05-02 00:05:37 · update #1
"Why can't there be room for both science and spirit?"
There can and is but declaring that something is the result of a divine being's actions is pure speculation.
2007-05-02 00:09:55 · update #2
Instead of disputing semantics, how about answering the question?
2007-05-02 01:55:22 · update #3
Deof Movestofca, you make it sound like everything can be explained either by science or by making up the answer. It doesn't work like that. Either something is explainable or it isn't. "Science" doesn't claim to have all the answers, "it" is just optomistic in that it will have most of them, some day.
2007-05-02 01:59:01 · update #4
I draw the line with facts but i can only speak for myself.
2007-05-01 23:54:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How is this so different from having it instantly fall into the realm of "well science will get around to answering that some day"? Atheists claim that Christians believe in the "God of the gaps", all the while believing in the "no god of the gaps". Science can't explain how life came naturalistically from non-life or how most of the animal phyla that are around today suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion without any trace of traceable prior ancestors? Have faith, it will someday.
"we don't know what state it was in prior to whatever actually happened."
Whatever state it was in, in a naturalistic universe, it had to be matter or energy of some sort and that matter or energy had to come from previous matter and/or energy, which had to come even more previous matter and/or energy, which had to come from even more previous.... And so on and so on and so on, rinse, wash and repeat ad infinitum. But infinity and matter don't mix well.
"Does this mean, though, that we should resort to saying that a divine being initiated it?"
Either the universe:
1) is just an illusion;
2) always existed;
3) was created out of nothing from nothing; or,
4) was created by something.
2007-05-02 07:24:47 · answer #2 · answered by Deof Movestofca 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just being able to ask this question is divine. We all have power to shape the world around us. There are many in the scientific community that believe the universe it's self is a thinking entity, or more like the atoms that make the entire universe are intuitive. Why can't there be room for both science and spirit?
2007-05-02 07:07:13 · answer #3 · answered by sirill2007 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Instantly falls into the realm of the divine,eh? Gee, if I were to actually believe this silly generalization I might have called the preacher down the street by accident instead of the electrician when my panel box short-circuited last week. Why do you assume that generalizations like yours aren't any worse than someone who thinks that all christians literally believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or is it that you can't get your mind around the fact that alot of christians are far more advanced in their thinking than you obviously already disbelieve? For that matter, alot of christians really don't care what the scientific community is in to. There are other fields of inquiry just as interesting to them than science is to you. Myself, I love to write non-fiction essays about society and historical events. I do not need to understand the scientific method in order to do so. Science does not and cannot validate anything I write about because the topics I write about have nothing to do with science. Throw into the mix the fact that science bores the hell out of me and there you have it. Science is not the final arbiter of what is meaningful and what is not. Anyone who says differently is a complete ***.
2007-05-02 07:33:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Albert Einstein was not a believer in god, this is a common misconception... he used god as a literary device to express wonderment at physics and the cosmos. He clearly stated he was an athiest.
2007-05-02 07:18:01 · answer #5 · answered by Narmak 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can draw your line anywhere YOU would like...we humans have made it a grand ordeal to create limits, set facts--and change them as we become wiser.
We also have a funny side...we put human characteristics into everything because that is what we know & it makes it easy for us to explain to ourselves & discuss with others...often using these to place blames & waylay responsibilities...ie. "the Corn God must be mad at us...our crops are bad this year." or "The Devil made me do it"...changing these characters & notions as we grow wiser...See??? At what point is wiser to YOU?
2007-05-02 07:15:11 · answer #6 · answered by MsET 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Typical of atheistic mentality.
2007-05-02 06:59:57 · answer #7 · answered by Preacher 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
because as soon as you resign an unknown to the domain of 'god did it' you can stop thinking about it; if god wanted you to know then he would let you know.
2007-05-02 06:58:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It lead Albert Einstein into believing in God.
Everyone is going to decide what they believe for their own self anyway so whats with the 'we' you got a turd in your pocket?
2007-05-02 06:57:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋