The new fundamentalists

[TheAnimus]

On the whole where did the energy before the big bang come from?

WHERE THE HELL DID GOD COME FROM?! (or was he formed by another god?)

To me religion is like that nice fable about the woman who went upto a famous astrophysicist and informed him of how he was wrong about the earth. She told him that it is in fact supported on the back of a giant sea turtle. The physicist looked stunned for a moment and then asked her, "what supports that turtle?" She replyed with "why another turtle of course". He looked stunned, and asked "what supports that turtle?", she shakes his head at him, and says its no use trying to confuse me, its turtles all the way down.

Relgion is used to explain what people don't understand and is circular.

Does the earth revolve around the sun? Or the sun around the earth? Religion is often used to shut up that infuriating 8 year old who just won't stop saying "WHY?". The result is when people need affermation of their faith, they often don't want their belives to be marginalised by, well reality, and they take it out on science. I wouldn't call these people stupid, just emotionally crippled.

[alterion]

Animus i am not sure that you understand the concept of a GOD. GOD dosn't need to have come from anywhere. A God by his very nature embodies everything in the metaverse (seeing as how universe is no longer a big enough world for us nowadays.. God dosn't need another turtle as there would be no turtles without god Secondly if you look up relativity theory (yes relativity is only a thoery as is evolution and the theory that when i smacked you in the mouth with a metal bar 2 weeks ago it hurt you. all we can see is evidence we can never reaaly be sure what happened becasue we wern't there- n.b i'm a christian but i think evolution sounds a darn sight more palusible than I.d/Creationism) you'll see that every point in the universe revolves around every other point in the universe.
I would have a problem in teaching the creation myths of religions in schools:
If you compare creationism (creationism and I.d are used interchangably here even if thier drastically different theories) to some of the explanttions other relgiions give for the origns of the universe (ancient egyptians belived the the universe was formed when their creater god masturbated and spat his semen over the land and they were by no means the worst). I think you'd end up with a lot of angry parents and some rather unsuitable material.
But aside from all of this i think we need to stop and assaign a point to this debate so that it dsonlt devole dawn into a simple argument. I'll happily play the apologetic if you want one. (apologetic is a word that has sadly lost alot of its meaning in modern english. Its original connetation was about truth rather than its rather obvious english counterpart

[TeePee]

A God or deity is supernatural by definition, and so is not bound by natural laws, like having to come from somewhere.

We all know the turtle is swimming through space anyway.

[TheAnimus]

so surely for anything to excist if you don't ask the question, where did this beer come from. I'm drinking god?

[JPreston]

Evolution is only a theory.

So is gravity. Stupid theory of gravity, I'm glad I was taught the theory of 'Intelligent Falling' instead at my Reg Vardy school

[TeePee]

Actually, Newton's theory of gravitation, as taught and used in schools IS wrong... Einstein's theory of relativity is probably more accurate...

Which shows the point. When a theory doesn't work, find a new theory which does! Don't give up and pretend it's evidence for god.

[JPreston]

Maybe, but 'Intelligent Relativity' wouldn't have worked as a joke

Evolution by natural selection as a theory still works in that it easily explains everything thrown at it so it should actually be less controversial than gravity.

I don't know much about history, or what a slide ru-ule is for, but I believe that some islamic countries had their own 'dark ages' centuries ago when books were effectively banned because any information not in the Koran was held to be heresy, and duplication of anything already in there was superfluous.

Today's fundamentalists seem perfectly happy listening to Christian rock CD (lasers, quantum effects, electronics) in their SUVs (petrochemistry, robotics) while driving to protest about Terri Schiavo lying in hospital (intensive care, neuroscience, architecture). I.e. every scientific advancement known to man is absolutely acceptable EXCEPT FOR the concept of evolution

[Woodchuck2000]

To believe in god is to believe that natural causes are insufficient to explain certain phenomena. The scientific view is that just because we don't fully understand the causes of certain phenomena, that doesn't mean that natural causes don't exist, and that we can look for them, instead of giving up and saying there must be something supernatural.

That's certainly not the case. To believe in God is to suggest that there exists an intelligent being who is able to act. That does not by any means preclude natrual causes, it simply suggests that they may be influenced by another entity. You're stuck in a very classical man with big white beard and lightning bolts view of what a god is and I'm not sure quite where that's coming from...

[Woodchuck2000]

A God or deity is supernatural by definition, and so is not bound by natural laws, like having to come from somewhere.

We all know the turtle is swimming through space anyway.

A God is not supernatrual by definition.

If there exists a god, then nature as we know it is entirely constructed around that fact and god is therefore natrual.

Equally there's no reason why a god shouldn't be bound by natrual laws. It's simply possible that such a being is able to do infinitely more within the bounds of natrual law than us.

[Woodchuck2000]

Animus i am not sure that you understand the concept of a GOD. GOD dosn't need to have come from anywhere. A God by his very nature embodies everything in the metaverse (seeing as how universe is no longer a big enough world for us nowadays.. God dosn't need another turtle as there would be no turtles without god.

Where exactly are you getting this information about the nature of God from? The Bible, as a text, is remarkably quiet on the subject and you're making some remarkably precise assumptions about what God is and isn't.

[TeePee]

A God is not supernatrual by definition.

If there exists a god, then nature as we know it is entirely constructed around that fact and god is therefore natrual.

Equally there's no reason why a god shouldn't be bound by natrual laws. It's simply possible that such a being is able to do infinitely more within the bounds of natrual law than us.

Supernatural means outside the bounds of nature.

A being which is bound by natural laws, although more advanced laws than science has theorised so far, is not god. Is not omnipotence an essential qualification for the position? If god cannot change the natural laws to suit himself (and some have claimed he created those laws) then he is not god.

Interestingly, such a being might well fit into the 'aliens created life' idea.

[fuddam]

A God is not supernatrual by definition.

If there exists a god, then nature as we know it is entirely constructed around that fact and god is therefore natrual.

Equally there's no reason why a god shouldn't be bound by natrual laws. It's simply possible that such a being is able to do infinitely more within the bounds of natrual law than us.

you are not taking into account a god who CREATED those natural laws, and therefore is not subject to them

[fuddam]

Where exactly are you getting this information about the nature of God from? The Bible, as a text, is remarkably quiet on the subject and you're making some remarkably precise assumptions about what God is and isn't.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created....

John 1:1
In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God. He was in the beginning with God. He created everything there is. Nothing exists that He did not make. Life itself was in Him, and this life gives light to everyone...

Therefore He exists before natural laws. It makes Him omnipotent and as everything comes from Him, omnipresent.

As to his personal nature, it is that of a Father. That idea is widespread within the bible, and gives one insight into his motivations, his behaviour, his attitude towards us. And seeing as Christ is God too, there are people who experienced his nature in the flesh; and for those of us who experience him now, we too know of his nature, albeit through other ways.

[TheAnimus]

yes but then how do you know there isn't another supernateral being who created the laws who excisted before the laws to which teepee refers.

its all a bunch of turtles, stood on each others backs.

[G4Z]

oh man... what a load of crap, we are well off topic here but I'm gonna chip in anyway before I try to steer it back OT.

ok, you are arguing here about what god is here, there is no evidence that there is any supreme being of any sort, no evidence of omnipotence either. The beauty of this kind of religious argument is that anybody who supports this view will always fall back on "well, he is omnipotent of course he can do this, and you wouldnt know because omni..." and so on.

Can we stick to ideas that are at least grounded in reality please?

Fuddam, stop quoting the bible, seriously it does not help you make any points you just sound like an evangelist. You still have not provided me with an answer as to why your bible text is true and my Flying spaghetti monster menu text isn't. The reason is because you cant, you cant disprove my FSM any more than I can disprove your god.

Your saying that because god in your view created the rules he can break them, what kind of logic is that? Why is that the case? You cant just state it and expect people to think its a fact. Give me some evidence that wasn't written 2000 years ago by somebody who thought that the earth was flat and don't expect me to believe that you spoke to him and accept that for an answer because lets face it, your perception is your reality and its not objective and is certainly not the reality that I live in.

Ok I said I would try to steer that back OT, I ask the people that think its ok to indoctrinate kids in this way, would you still think it was ok if I was to buy a school and teach FSM as equivalent to and science? - EDIT -I did say creationism and science, but then these people arent exactly talking about religions other than thier own.

[TeePee]

This is on topic, or very close. The arguement is that theistic religion and science do not mix. Fuddams knowledge of 'the nature of god' is useful, becasue he is right to say that any god must exist outside of natural laws, a supernatural entity. As I explained above, to acknowledge the supernatural is to abandon scientific thought.