The nature of gods and religion

[Green Knight]

Gods and religion play a role in any campaign. While the DnD system offers a lot in the way of providing game mechanics for casting spells and such, it does not go much further. More spesifically, it does not provide answers to the basic questions raised by many religions: What are we, why are we, what are gods, how do we relate to the gods etc.

The BR world also has its gods, but little in the way of answering any of these questions. So good people, do anyone have any answers?

IMC the basic defining characteristic of the god/worshiper connection is that gods derive power from worship, some of which they return to their followers in the form of spells/manifestations etc., in order to help them improve their own lives and the cause of their god.

Another basic assumption is that gods are formed by their worshipers and visce versa. Its a symbiotic cycle, where no one can truly claim that the one is more important than the other, because without each other they have nothing.

[Chioran]

I submit, Green, that the way you deal with religion in your campaign is the way other pantheistic religions have worked in the past. This is also the classical thinking when it comes to religions in general.

As far as explaining the questions: What are we, why are we, what are gods, how do we relate to the gods etc.

You will notice that throughout history it has been up to the priests and worshipers to answer these questions. So, it is my belief that it is right that we have not been given these answers, for it is up to us to define them.

Not a bad idea for a supplement. Individual "handbooks" for each god. I am loathe to call it a bible, but it would be an accounting of the god, its works and related tales.

[Lord Shaene]

I would be happy to see any suppliment for the Birthright campaign and willing to buy it. I agree with green knight also, not enough information has been given on the gods. the info would create some great roleplay

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

I would be happy to see any suppliment for the Birthright campaign and willing to buy it. I agree with green knight also, not enough information has been given on the gods. the info would create some great roleplay

It would be reasonably easy to develop this information. Most information about gods is disseminated by "priest" and "prophets" as well as worshippers. I think it is up to us as players in a campaign to develop these stories and the background in much the same way the disciples of Christ did when he walked the earth.

[Lord Shaene]

theres alot of info that could be added, examples

1) what ritual must be done and how often
2) a doctrine stating what the god stands for
3) required tithes
4) legends concerning the gods
5) former great preists and what they did

[Chioran]

I am not disputing the fact that there is a lot to be added. My point is that we shouldn't be spoon-fed this stuff in a book, written by someone who could give two - for our campaign. The rituals and tithes should be defined by the local church leaders. The legends should come from the people of the land as they traditionally have. This is and opportunity for us (the characters) to shape our spiritual world.

[Lord Shaene]

So you are saying that the DM should give you all that info then? As if he doesnt already have enough to do.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

So you are saying that the DM should give you all that info then? As if he doesnt already have enough to do.

Do you have difficulty reading and comprehending the english language?

I said we (the CHARACTERS) should be doing this. Not the DM. Granted the DM should have some editorial license, but it is in this way that legends become legends and rituals are formed.

[Lord Shaene]

The rituals and tithes should be defined by the local church leaders.

Who is the bishop in our campaign? (the DM)

The legends should come from the people of the land as they traditionally have.

who roleplays the NPC's (the DM)

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

The rituals and tithes should be defined by the local church leaders.

Who is the bishop in our campaign? (the DM)

The legends should come from the people of the land as they traditionally have.

who roleplays the NPC's (the DM)

I said us (the CHARACTERS) are you blind? Are you suggesting that the abbess is not a local church leader? She and her priests are capable of defining these rituals. You are so quick to lay responsibility for everything being done on the shoulders of the DM. Do we not speak for our own people to some extent?

[Lord Shaene]

Who has final say? the bishop or the abbess?

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

Who has final say? the bishop or the abbess?

The bishop has "retired" my dear boy.

[Lord Shaene]

"retired"? then why can he overrule the Abbess if he is so-called "retired"

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

"retired"? then why can he overrule the Abbess if he is so-called "retired"

Because she permits him to do so.

Admit that this is the truth.

[Lord Shaene]

Now you put yourself in trouble, chioron

<Shaene looks around for the abbess>

<Shaene quickly hides in shadows>

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

Now you put yourself in trouble, chioron

<Shaene looks around for the abbess>

<Shaene quickly hides in shadows>

You are so spineless sometimes. Have I not said the same to her face?

[Lord Shaene]

<maintains hiding in shadows>

[Chioran]

Thats right, keep on hiding.

Gutless.

[Lord Eldred]

Boys the Bishop retains power in the Church even if he is retired. The power comes from the vast amount of knowledge that he has that the Abbess does not. Sure the Abbess could choose to ignore the Bishop but that may cause her to lose some of her supporters because of their strong ties to the Bishop. Thus the Bishop retains power through the politics of the Church as well as his knowledge.

Lord Shaene, hiding in shadows won't help you when the Abbess can smell your stench...I mean scent from a mile away!

[Chioran]

Is that what that odor is? I thought someone had taken a bath in the sewers.

[Abbess Allessandra]

Arjen thank you for the dance it seems the "boys" are arguing again....Allessandra walks over to Chioran and Eldred.

Chioran you know full well I cannot disrespect the Bishop. He is semi retired by the way. I don't expect you to fully understand how the church hierarchy works. I do expect you to know that a Bishop is above an Abbey station. She turns to Eldred, Eldred I don't know who you think has been giving you mass every Sunday but it isn't the Bishop. He and his wife are out on diplomatic relations with neighboring countries. The Bishop does not vote on council any longer and that makes things a bit different than before. To the both of them, Just remember that I also have ties to Haelyn's people and specific tasks and goals at hand. Now Eldred about that dance....

[Abbess Allessandra]

Arlen not Arjen, sorry

[Lawgiver]

Originally posted by Green Knight
More specifically, it does not provide answers to the basic questions raised by many religions: What are we, why are we, what are gods, how do we relate to the gods etc.


Completely independent (yet completely intertwined) is the issue of origin. Before you can define the purpose of man you must define his origin. If it is evolution then man's existence is purposeless because there is no "divine" or true meaning to existence. If mankind came from a blob of chemicals that formed a living cell and transformed into its current state (BUWAHHHAA!!! YEAH RIGHT!!!) then morality is a mute point. It can defined independent of a common standard is determined solely on the whims of a person's thought. Thus, if someone defines his or her moral code to allow or even promote the killing of his fellow man there is no wrong in this, because there is no purpose to the existence of man. Man simply came into being and thus has no hope of an eternal destination. Thus they are reduced to fulfilling the lusts of their own flesh. Meaning mankind should engage in all the drunken parties, sexual orgies, or any other activity that provides enjoyment. Because when your time comes your life is over. Might as well make the most of it. Based on evolution human life becomes valueless. We are of no more value than a beast of burden. Without a purpose for existence we are no better than cows. For they have the same origin of a single cell as we do… If human life is valueless than abortion, murder, rape, etc. are of little consequence because human life has no value and can be used and abused in any manner desired.

IF however, you acknowledge that mankind has a Creator then you must answer questions of the following nature:
-Who, what, where is the Creator?
-Why did the Creator form me and what am I supposed to do with my existence?
-Does my Creator truly care about me?
-Is my Creator in authority over me?
-What is the penalty of disobedience?

No offense to some of you, but religion is not a mindless decision (though some religions require you to be mindless :P). It is actually quite the opposite. The existence of a creative force (generally God or gods of some sort) is the only logical answer to the existence of mankind. To believe in evolution is foolish. If you didn’t evolve the only logical alternative is creation. Creation leads to a creator. A creator leads religion. The downward spiral then falls to which “religion” is correct.

Okay, I think I’ve bantered enough for this post… :)

[blitzmacher]

But wasn't god an Ape?

[Green Knight]

Last time I checked he was an old man with a beard. Or that might just have been a picture in a children's book. It's so hard telling fact from fiction sometimes.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

Its good to see fellow Christians defend their beliefs. However, Creationism is kind of vague and assumed. Meanwhile, Evolution is really vague and assumed. However, something similar to standard evolution has evidence of occuring. This leads to the question "Why isn't it happening now?" This is a very valid question. I've often heard it rebuffed by just saying that it takes a long time to evolve. However, given that a long time started a long time ago and evolution still doesn't seem to be in effect, this doesn't lend credence to that reply. There are also many holes in the evolutionary ladder. In addition, the mathematics neccesary to produce enough random chemicals that would create a living organism nears impossibility (far beyond what is considered the threshold of mathematical impossibility, as far a probability is concerned).

Strict creationism, on the other hand, is blind. There is an obvious progression of life-forms. These cannot be ignored. Also, interpreting biblical text is very difficult. The language was far different some 6-8 thousand years ago, and mis-translation is a very real possibility. Day could have originally meant many thousands or millions of years.

A third idea is one that actually has science behind it, particularly recently. The concept of intelligent design (scientists specifically ignore the nature of the designer for this concept) is a growing field. It is very possible that God controlled a version of evolution. This could possibly explain many of the gaps in evolution, as well as account for the mathematics of the theory (a controlled enviornment can remove most of the randomness). There are actually a few different theories and some newly developing ones that look into this concept, most notably the work of Stephen Wolfram. I personally am very interested in the math of the whole thing, and Wolfram (designer/owner of Mathematica and the company that created it) has a very interesting position on it.

However, I will stop preaching now, don't want to start an actual argument or anything.

[Green Knight]

Orginally posted by Lawgiver

To believe in evolution is foolish. If you didn’t evolve the only logical alternative is creation. Creation leads to a creator. A creator leads religion.

Not trying to be rude, but there are a couple of gaping holes in you logic. Think it has something to do with the connection between the first two centences. I don't think you're applying logic here: even if "To believe in evolution is foolish" were true, it does not logically follow that there is only one other alternative, nor that creation is that alternative.

Besides, the truthfullness of "To believe in evolution is foolish" is debatable in itself. You might just as easily turn the argument around and arrive at: the only logical alternative is evolution...

[Chioran]

Well said G.K. I was thinking the same thing myself. I think that there is enough proof to make a strong case for evolution. If the creation of the universe stems from the big bang theory then it is easy to make the remainder of the case for evolution. However, scientifically explaining the source of the big bang is difficult. Sure we can say that there n # of anti-matter molecules and n+1 or (2n) # of matter molecules and the collision between the 2 caused the big bang. The big questipon is where did the molecules come from. THere is no explanation for this.

I think this makes a good case for Aristotle's "Prime Mover" theory.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
Its good to see fellow Christians defend their beliefs.
[/I]
Let me start by saying, that I never mentioned God or Christianity in my defense. Creationism does equivocate Christianity. However, since Garagamel initiated the discussion of Biblical concepts I have been forced (:P) to step up to the plate.

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
Strict creationism, on the other hand, is blind. There is an obvious progression of life-forms. These cannot be ignored.
[/I]
Few Creationists will argue the point that evolution occurs. In fact they will acknowledge that it occurs. However, it is only micro-evolution (changes within a species) not macro-evolution (a change from one species to another). For instance, the many forms of dogs all ''evolved'' from previous dogs, but cats and dogs do not share common ancestry.

Orginally posted by Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel
Also, interpreting biblical text is very difficult. The language was far different some 6-8 thousand years ago, and mis-translation is a very real possibility.
[/I]
No offense, but this a pathetically weak argument. Even non-Christian scholars and ancient linguists can affirm the translations.

Day-Age Theory - This is a theory that attempts to equate the Christian six-day creation of the world doctrine with geological ''ages'' or ''millions of years''.
-1. Nearly every time it refers to a ''day'' in the story of creation it refers to a corresponding night.
( Genesis 1:5 --God called the light ''day,'' and the darkness he called ''night.'' And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.).
Are the nights also geological ages?

-2. Exodus 20:11 ''For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.''
This verse restates the idea God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Now back up 3 verses…
Exodus 20:8-10 ''Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work…''
IF the days are geological ages during creation how can man be told to work for six geological ages and rest during the seventh age?

-3. Adam was created on the sixth day. This means that he lived through the seventh day.
Genesis 5:5 ''Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. ''
If Adam lived through the seventh geological age why is he only 930 years old? Did the measurement of time suddenly alter? Certainly not. The original seventh day was a literal day.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Green Knight
Not trying to be rude, but there are a couple of gaping holes in you logic. Think it has something to do with the connection between the first two centences. I don't think you're applying logic here: even if "To believe in evolution is foolish" were true, it does not logically follow that there is only one other alternative, nor that creation is that alternative.

Besides, the truthfullness of "To believe in evolution is foolish" is debatable in itself. You might just as easily turn the argument around and arrive at: the only logical alternative is evolution...

I beleive you are misunderstanding me. I am not stating that the Christian doctorine of creation is the only alternative.
I'm stating that if something didn't "evolve" or "change" into its current state, it must have existed in its previous form. Do you have another logical alternative to creation of some sort or evolution? if you do I would love to hear it.

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Chioran
I think that there is enough proof to make a strong case for evolution. If the creation of the universe stems from the big bang theory then it is easy to make the remainder of the case for evolution. However, scientifically explaining the source of the big bang is difficult. Sure we can say that there n # of anti-matter molecules and n+1 or (2n) # of matter molecules and the collision between the 2 caused the big bang. The big question is where did the molecules come from. There is no explanation for this.
I think this makes a good case for Aristotle's ''Prime Mover'' theory.

You have in essence proved my point. I'm stating that at some point some form of ''creation'' must exist. You must eventually backup to a point at which even the concept of the big bang must have an origin. Even if it is an unexplainable point in which the universe existed and the clock just started ticking.


Big-Bang To say that the “big bang” created the universe is to contradict one of the primary laws of science itself—the second law of thermodynamics. This law is based on entropy or the measure of disorder. During any reaction energy is neither lost nor gained, but merely changes form. During this change however, entropy or disorder increases. Basically, this constantly go from order to disorder (i.e. Not from a disorderly explosion of elements to the organization of the present universe). To quote an adage that a the creation scientist, Dr. McMurtry, uses, “When was the last time you saw a stick of dynamite create a skyscraper?” There is NO EVIDENCE for the big bang. Forgive the pun but the big-bang is a big-bust.

You say that the remainder of the case for evolution is easy if the big-bang is true. Are you sure about that? At what point do you want to start? The earth has formed with water on the surface and the first cell has yet to be created. Assuming you were to some how lump all the chemicals you needed to form a cell (which is contains strands of DNA, which are thousands and thousands of proteins, which are made up of molecules that must be sequenced exactly right to form life…). You now have a spontaneously turned gel into a cell. Now tell what is the life expectancy of the cell? Most likely a matter of hours, or days at best. Now quick teach this spontaneously generated cell to reproduce… OOOH! Good now we have two cells. Make sure neither of the die… eventually you have to get these “cells” to form into clusters and “higher” life. To avoid any more of my rambling (if that is possible—NOT!), how about answering the following simple questions:

-How do you explain the imagination, emotions or thought patterns of humans?

-How do you explain the altruistic nature (to the point of self-sacrifice) of humans and many animal species? Wouldn’t that be anti-survival of the fittest? If there isn’t a symbiotic relationship there is no benefit to one species dying to protect another.

-How or why would independent cells form into structured organs?

-Assuming that you could cluster cells and get them to perform “simple” combined functions as organs, how in the world could you get them to “mutate” or “evolve” into an organ such as an eye? Why would cells evolve into an optic nerve, develop a lens, rods, cones, retina, etc. and suddenly figure out how to communicate with a mass of cells called a brain? Oh yeah, salinating the eye with tear ducts would be a good idea to avoid drying the lens. Eyelids and eyelashes to clean and protect the eye would be good too... lets evolve those as well. How many “useless” stages of mutants would it take in the supposed “survival of the fittest” theory to develop a working eye?

-(assuming the reader is mature enough to handle this question…) How do explain sexual reproduction? Cells reproduce through division. When was the last time you saw a human or animal split themselves into two beings. Assuming the survival of the fittest basis of evolution, why would a life-form segregate itself into two species for procreation. It’s a bit anti-productive on the evolutionary chart. Suddenly you not only have a mutant that has a womb, but has a womb with eggs that need to be fertilized by a member of the species of the opposite gender. Give me a break... How can anyone honestlly beleive that sexual reproduction in any form could have "evolved"?


… okay, okay I’m getting off my soap box. At least for now! :P

[Chioran]

EXCELLENT!


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

I'm stating that at some point some form of ''creation'' must exist. You must eventually backup to a point at which even the concept of the big bang must have an origin. Even if it is an unexplainable point in which the universe existed and the clock just started ticking.


Couldn't agree more. I presume that you understand Aristotle's Prime Mover theory which implies that a "supreme being" of sorts kicked off creation then went on to bigger and better things. (yeah I know I oversimplified, but the rest is just details)


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

Big-Bang To say that the “big bang” created the universe is to contradict one of the primary laws of science itself—the second law of thermodynamics. This law is based on entropy or the measure of disorder. During any reaction energy is neither lost nor gained, but merely changes form. During this change however, entropy or disorder increases. Basically, this constantly go from order to disorder (i.e. Not from a disorderly explosion of elements to the organization of the present universe). To quote an adage that a the creation scientist, Dr. McMurtry, uses, “When was the last time you saw a stick of dynamite create a skyscraper?” There is NO EVIDENCE for the big bang. Forgive the pun but the big-bang is a big-bust.



The problem with Dr. McMurtry's statement is an issue of mass and substance. I agree that a stick of dynamite contains neither the mass, nor the materials to create a skyskraper. The implication made by the big bang theorists is that the mass of the matter/anti-matter molecules was great enough to produce the universe and that they contained the necessary elements.


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

You say that the remainder of the case for evolution is easy if the big-bang is true. Are you sure about that?


Yep


Orginally posted by Lawgiver
At what point do you want to start?



Doesn't matter. Pick one.



Orginally posted by Lawgiver
The earth has formed with water on the surface and the first cell has yet to be created. Assuming you were to some how lump all the chemicals you needed to form a cell (which is contains strands of DNA, which are thousands and thousands of proteins, which are made up of molecules that must be sequenced exactly right to form life…). You now have a spontaneously turned gel into a cell. Now tell what is the life expectancy of the cell? Most likely a matter of hours, or days at best. Now quick teach this spontaneously generated cell to reproduce… OOOH! Good now we have two cells. Make sure neither of the die… eventually you have to get these “cells” to form into clusters and “higher” life.

Lets discuss the formation of planets. First we start with gases and other elements in a swirling mass. Spinning very quickly, at the center very hot, colder in the outer areas. As the center of the spinning mass creates a gravitational pull exerting its force on the outer reaches of the molecules. Some of them break-free others get sucked in. The outer regions cool more and as they slow down their escape velocity is lost, drawing them further toward the "core". Eventually the exterior cools enough to form solid matter, while some gases still exist above the hardened matter, creating an atmosphere. This atmosphere and the heating and cooling creates precipitation which interacts with the other elements and cells on the "planet".

From here it is all downhill. Give the planet 4 or 5 billion years and there will be intelligent life. Is this a leap of faith? Hmm interesting question, we can have faith in God but not in science?

Given the process of mitosis a cell which only lives a few hours can be significantly larger than the single cell it started out as. Given the right conditions "warmth, moisture, nutrition" it is quite conceivable that cells could ome together in such a fashion that over the course of several billion years an intelligent form of life could be produced. ( Although Shaene's existence could be proof that the universe is beginning to deteriorate ;) ).


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

To avoid any more of my rambling (if that is possible—NOT!), how about answering the following simple questions:

-How do you explain the imagination, emotions or thought patterns of humans?



Electro-chemical processes involving movement of impulses acrosses the synapses. :)


Orginally posted by Lawgiver
-How do you explain the altruistic nature (to the point of self-sacrifice) of humans and many animal species?

More animal species are non-altruistic than those that are. What happens to the weaker/slower/older members of a herd when a lion attacks. Doesn't matter which animal species you talk about there. It is survival of the fittest. Granted humans are different. We have evolved to a point that we understand that there is strength in numbers and that working together we have a better chance of surviving. Another point for evolution!!


Orginally posted by Lawgiver
Wouldn’t that be anti-survival of the fittest?

See above comments.


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

If there isn’t a symbiotic relationship there is no benefit to one species dying to protect another.


I don't understand this statement. I cannot think of one species dying to protect another species.



Orginally posted by Lawgiver

-How or why would independent cells form into structured organs?


The how is molecular bonding.

The why? Because it seemed like the thing to do at the time. You are not going to draw me into a situation where I claim that single cells have some higher level of intelligence. Humans are the finest example of synergy.


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

-Assuming that you could cluster cells and get them to perform “simple” combined functions as organs, how in the world could you get them to “mutate” or “evolve” into an organ such as an eye? Why would cells evolve into an optic nerve, develop a lens, rods, cones, retina, etc. and suddenly figure out how to communicate with a mass of cells called a brain? Oh yeah, salinating the eye with tear ducts would be a good idea to avoid drying the lens. Eyelids and eyelashes to clean and protect the eye would be good too... lets evolve those as well. How many “useless” stages of mutants would it take in the supposed “survival of the fittest” theory to develop a working eye?


A mother cell splits into 2 daughter cells. THe newly arrived daughter cells need to be maintained - for this the cell needs to refer to its blueprints, the plans contained in the lengthy DNA molecules in the nucleus of the cell.

Relevant "documents" are transcribed from the DNA, exported into the main body of the cell and translated into proteins, the molecules that are capable of performing or controlling almost every function in the cell. Proteins are good at forming complex three dimensional structures. They're also capable of controlling all kinds of chemical reactions. We all know that perpetual motion is impossible: how do cells get the energy to keep going? Easy - they have organelles capable of converting chemical energy - typically from carbohydrates - into an energy-rich molecule called ATP that serves as a kind of energy currency within the cell. Any reaction that needs energy - whether moving the cell or joining molecules together - uses ATP as a cooker uses gas. Are we going to run out of carbohydrates to power our cells? No, because carbohydrates are produced by plants using energy from sunlight in a process called photosynthesis... as long as their are enough plants the energy cycle is complete. All cells work in more or less the same way and tend to contain similar documents. Could they all be related? Cells divide but fail to make exact copies of each other because errors occur (called mutations) in the copying process. If cells are changing, bit by bit, why are they so well adapted to the way that they need to live? The explanation (called evolution) is that, if you have a population of creatures that are not identical, some will do better than others. The theory says that the more successful variants will be breeding more and dying less so that, in time, they will dominate the population. It will look as if they were carefully designed for that environment. Of course, they weren't.





Orginally posted by Lawgiver

-(assuming the reader is mature enough to handle this question…) How do explain sexual reproduction? Cells reproduce through division. When was the last time you saw a human or animal split themselves into two beings.


You aren't really serious are you?


Orginally posted by Lawgiver
Assuming the survival of the fittest basis of evolution, why would a life-form segregate itself into two species for procreation. It’s a bit anti-productive on the evolutionary chart. Suddenly you not only have a mutant that has a womb, but has a womb with eggs that need to be fertilized by a member of the species of the opposite gender. Give me a break... How can anyone honestlly beleive that sexual reproduction in any form could have "evolved"?


You use the word suddenly. There is nothing sudden about this process. This has taken billions of years. Sexual versus mitosis or asexual reproduction is a product of evolution. This is not to say that sexual reproduction is better than any other form of reproduction. It is clear that not all products of evolution are better than that which they evolved from. To put it mathematically
EVOLUTION != BETTER
EVOLUTION=CHANGE


Orginally posted by Lawgiver

… okay, okay I’m getting off my soap box. At least for now! :P


Here you can have it back! :P

[Lord Shaene]

OK you guys need to get out more!

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

OK you guys need to get out more!

You're just jealous because you can't string together more than 1 sentence. :P

[Lord Shaene]

thats not true, i can string together more then one sentence

[Mithrandir]

Orginally posted by Chioran



The problem with Dr. McMurtry's statement is an issue of mass and substance. I agree that a stick of dynamite contains neither the mass, nor the materials to create a skyskraper. The implication made by the big bang theorists is that the mass of the matter/anti-matter molecules was great enough to produce the universe and that they contained the necessary elements.


I don't care how much mass a stick of dynamite has, when it blows up, all you have are fragments of dynamite, not tiny structures formed of the basic elements of dynamite


Orginally posted by Chioran


From here it is all downhill. Give the planet 4 or 5 billion years and there will be intelligent life. Is this a leap of faith? Hmm interesting question, we can have faith in God but not in science?



Frankly, yes. The nature of science defies faith. Science says that we believe strictly in patterns formed by observable phonomena. Believing in something without any evidence to support that belief defies the very definition of science. Science scoffs at those that would put faith in a being that cannot be seen or felt, yet constantly makes great leaps of logic it cannot support with evidence. The big-bang is a perfect example of this. No one can have observed and recorded it, so we have nothing to prove it except a few circumstanciul pieces of envidenc, such as the fact that the universe is moving away from itself. I'm in high school right now, and in our science courses we are constantly told to just have faith in what scientists are saying based on very little evidence. The scientists of the world need to realize that sceince is simply not equiped to answer the greater questions of the universe. How can a discipline based on observation comment on things that cannot be observed? The fact is that these questions can only be solved by indivdual application of logic to the world around you. And for a great many people around the globe those anwsers are coming from God, and for most others , from some other higher power.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Mithrandir

I don't care how much mass a stick of dynamite has, when it blows up, all you have are fragments of dynamite, not tiny structures formed of the basic elements of dynamite


So you support my point about Dr. McMurtry's statement. Is in ludicrous.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir

Frankly, yes.


Sorry Mith, but this statement is inaccurate. If you will be so kind as to pull out a dictionary you will notice that once you get past the definitions that are specifically related to religion there are the following:

Faith is defined as anything that is believed. This definitely applies to science. Faith is also defined as complete trust, confidence or reliance. Yep applies to science as well. Finally faith is defined as allegiance to some person or thing. Again this applies to science as well.

Therefore, my point is proven we can have faith in science.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir

The nature of science defies faith.


Nope, see above.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir

Science says that we believe strictly in patterns formed by observable phonomena. Believing in something without any evidence to support that belief defies the very definition of science.


Watch how you contradict yourself in the next statement.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir

Science scoffs at those that would put faith in a being that cannot be seen or felt, yet constantly makes great leaps of logic it cannot support with evidence. The big-bang is a perfect example of this.


They have no idea how the matter and anti-matter which started the big bang got there, but yet they believe. That's faith.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir

No one can have observed and recorded it, so we have
nothing to prove it except a few circumstanciul pieces of envidenc, such as the fact that the universe is moving away from itself. I'm in high school right now, and in our science courses we are constantly told to just have faith in what scientists are saying based on very little evidence. The scientists of the world need to realize that sceince is simply not equiped to answer the greater questions of the universe. How can a discipline based on observation comment on things that cannot be observed?


Have you learned about Hypotheses yet. This will answer your question.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir

The fact is that these questions can only be solved by indivdual application of logic to the world around you. And for a great many people around the globe those anwsers are coming from God, and for most others , from some other higher power.


If you will examine my entire posts on this subject you will note that I actually do specify that science has no idea where the matter & anti-matter that started the big bang came from. They only know that they were there and came into contact with each other.

I never said that science had all the answers. Are you implying that I did?

I think I did an exemplary job of explaining how it is that life was created, but I notice you do not address those items. Do you agree or disagree with those?

Man do I love this stuff!

[Mithrandir]

Okay Chioran, you want a dictionary definition, here you go:
science: n, any branch of knowledge based on systematic observation of facts. How then, can science presume to answer for the act of creation which can not be observed?You say that the fact science has faith in the big-bang proves that it's okay for scientists to believe in something without question, when the basic princples of science say that everything must be proven? That's like saying that when a hypocryte contradicts himself, he really believes both mutually exclusive things. oh wait, that's exactly what you are saying! Yeah, I have heard about hypotheses, and basicly they're something that seems to make sense, but that you can't prove for the life of ya. Basicly, a group of scientists extremly over extrapolated their data and came up with a theory beyond their capacity to prove. And as for faith, my dictionary says it is: acceptance of a belief without conclusive or logical evidence. If you want I'll go get my little sister's grade 5 science text book to qoute to you, but I trust you know enough basic science to realize belief without conclusive proof is a violation of the basic princples of science! and by the by Dr. McMurtry's statement is not ludicrous, if you observe what happens in everyday reactions, he's quite right. Now if you believe in the big-bang, they are uncomparable, but chemisrty says the laws of entropy are universal to all reactions , so which scientist is right? You're right, science doesn't have all the answers, nor is it complety useless. There are just some questions answered with science, and some with faith, and when it comes to the creation fo the universe, science is way out of it's league. And yeah, this stuff is fun.

[Mithrandir]

and don't call me mith;)

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Mithrandir

Okay Chioran, you want a dictionary definition, here you go:
science: n, any branch of knowledge based on systematic observation of facts. How then, can science presume to answer for the act of creation which can not be observed?


By observing the results of the activity and tracing it back to its logical conclusion. How can we claim to know the logical conclusion? Because we know how matter behaves and based upon the properties of matter we theorize about the behaviour of anti-matter. You will note that the big bang theory is still considered a theory. This is because it has not been disproven, and was not observed. It is theorized based on observable evidence.


Orginally posted by Mithrandir
You say that the fact science has faith in the big-bang proves that it's okay for scientists to believe in something without question, when the basic princples of science say that everything must be proven? That's like saying that when a hypocryte contradicts himself, he really believes both mutually exclusive things. oh wait, that's exactly what you are saying! Yeah, I have heard about hypotheses, and basicly they're something that seems to make sense, but that you can't prove for the life of ya. Basicly, a group of scientists extremly over extrapolated their data and came up with a theory beyond their capacity to prove. And as for faith, my dictionary says it is: acceptance of a belief without conclusive or logical evidence. If you want I'll go get my little sister's grade 5 science text book to qoute to you, but I trust you know enough basic science to realize belief without conclusive proof is a violation of the basic princples of science! and by the by Dr. McMurtry's statement is not ludicrous, if you observe what happens in everyday reactions, he's quite right. Now if you believe in the big-bang, they are uncomparable, but chemisrty says the laws of entropy are universal to all reactions , so which scientist is right? You're right, science doesn't have all the answers, nor is it complety useless. There are just some questions answered with science, and some with faith, and when it comes to the creation fo the universe, science is way out of it's league. And yeah, this stuff is fun.



Actually I never said anything about science having faith in the big bang theory. I talked about us having faith in science. Two completely different things.

Actually things can be considered science if they cannot be disproven as well. If you want to try and say that the book of Genesis disproves the theory of the big bang then think again. I will guarantee you that the people that wrote the book of Genesis were not around at the time of creation.

I agree that McMurtry's statement is accurate I just said that it is ludicrous, because it has no relevance to the big bang theory. Here is why it does not, matter is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore, an object the size and mass of a stick of dynamite could in no way create a thing with the size and mass of a skyscraper. This argument does not apply to the big bang theory because when we talk about the big bang theory we discuss the use of matter and anti-matter which does have the necessary mass to create the universe. So, what McMurtry doing is comparing 2 seperate and unrelated situations, ala apples and oranges.

Science is not out of its league when it describes the big bang theory. They can take facts in evidence and draw a logical conclusion. What they can't do is explain how the matter and anti-matter go there in the first place.

As far as entropy goes, that does not make evolution and th e creation of the universe impossible. It makes it highly possible. The definition of entropy that relates to chaos (yes there are others but this is the only one relating to chaos) says that, entropy is a measure of the degree of disorder in a substance or a system. Entropy always increases and available energy diminishes in a closed system.

Where does it say that entropy will prevent anything useful from happening? Is there anything in tha definition which states that randomness cannot reult in the creation of an object?

The fact is given the, uncountably large, number of possible combinations, what is unlikely is that our world was the only one created with life as we know it.

Additionally if you understand DNA you know that DNA contains genetic mappings for the objects it constructs. Dogs, cats, worms, humans it doesn't matter.

Finally, let me state that the big-bang theory does not, in any way, disprove the existence of a supreme being and I never claimed that it did.

BTW
Sorry about the 'mith' i just get tired of typing.

What's next mithran ;)

[Mark_Aurel]

Ah, creationism against evolution again. Swell.

I find that most creationists are too bound up in three dimensions to really be able to imagine what a four-dimensional universe would look like; our concepts of "beginning" and "end" are limited by our ability to fathom the higher dimensions; there needn't really be a beginning and end in the way we view it; the dimensions themselves are theorethically infinite.

That said, creationists also generally don't understand the full implications of the Big Bang theory - it doesn't argue that the universe was some egg floating in a great void - the core is that _everything_, including time, "started" with a quantum fluctuation. There needn't be a "creation" because there was nothing "before" the Big Bang - not even time. The only way to conceive of this from a human perspective, though, is through math.

That doesn't exclude the existence of a creating being, either - it does rather exclude the possibility that he had a single son that got strung up on some cross a couple thousand years ago, though. The existence of such a creating being does not exclude evolution, either. Evolution is simply natural, and, contrary to what creationists tend to argue, it isn't a "theory" in the sense that it may or may not be - it has, generally, been proven beyond a doubt that that is how it generally works and how we came to be. It is a theory in the sense that it is a "work in progress" and not an absolute law that we have defined. It isn't a hypothesis; it's how things are.

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Mark_Aurel

That said, creationists also generally don't understand the full implications of the Big Bang theory - it doesn't argue that the universe was some egg floating in a great void - the core is that _everything_, including time, "started" with a quantum fluctuation. There needn't be a "creation" because there was nothing "before" the Big Bang - not even time. The only way to conceive of this from a human perspective, though, is through math.


Actually the big bang theorists don't say there was nothing. They advocate the presence of a "Singularity" containing all the mass and energy needed to create the universe.

[Mark_Aurel]

That isn't actually entirely correct, but trying to explain the concept of "quantum soup" would likely make me seem like a madman, even more than I am.

[Chioran]

What isn't exactly correct? That the theorists believe that the big bang came from within a primordial atom called a singularity?

[Mark_Aurel]

Yes. The currenmost theories of Stephen Hawkings et al, points to the existence of an omnipresent "carpet" of a "quantum reactive" nature, that spawned the universe, and may have spawned others. Of course this is very far fetched as most people see it, but that is where the train of astrophysics thought has been headed lately.

The term "singularity" is a bit of a misnomer as well; it refers to a single point where gravity is so strong that it causes a collapse of everything - including the dimensions. Calling what came before the big bang a "singularity" of this sort is wrong, because it implies the previous existence of dimensions - remember that dimensions, as we know them, only exist within the universe - there is no time or space "outside" the universe, and time and space only came into existence with the big bang. The primary mistake of most is that they simply cannot imagine that *time* would not exist at some point - it boggles the mind.

[Chioran]

Doesn;t Dr. Hawkings claim that there was no time before the universe? He claims that it was always around. So much for needing to think about a time before time.