Original Sin?

Quote: Dalex64

My point is, you can't claim that you are right any more than I can. You can't claim that my violations of the laws of thermodynamics are any less valid than your claims that violate the laws of thermodynamics.

My point is that when we are discussing God science is only going to be able to provide certain facts. It is up to philosophy and higher forms of reasoning then to come up with solutions that are reasonable, logical, and jive with the facts. You can use the possibility of these virtual particles to theorize that everything came to exist from random particles popping into existence, joining together, etc. You can use other facts to point to an ultimate beginning of our universe that expanded in such precision as to create what we recognize as finely tuned laws and constants without which there could not be life as we know it and think that an eternal, all-powerful, intelligent, spiritual being created the universe and all in it, including unique sentient beings that have the ability to discuss and ponder all these important big questions.

Quote: FrGamble

We also create art, make music, sculptures. We also discover new things, form culture, make scientific discoveries, we believe in God

Again, this is all important to YOU, the
universe we live in doesn't give a whit
about it. The universe treats us all equally,
because we are equal.

Try to reason with a hungry bear as he
attacks you. You can explain your importance
to him all day and he's still going to eat
you. You only think your more important
because of your huge human ego, and
religious ego's are even bigger than normal.

You've invented a god that tells you all
kinds of ego inflating things, that's what keeps
people coming back for more. Your god
loves you, he cherishes his relationship with,
doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy
and important. Too bad it's all fake.

The cockroaches will still be here laughing at
us when we're long gone as a species.

Quote: FrGamble

It is up to philosophy and higher forms of reasoning then to come up with solutions that are reasonable, logical, and jive with the facts..

Are you calling the god of the OT a
'higher form of reasoning'? An ancient
pagan god who is jealous, petulant,
angry, unreasonable, and childish?
You're saying higher form of reasoning
came up with that? It 'jives with the facts'?

That was the god of Jesus, the god that is
supposedly his father, the god you worship.
Have you actually read the OT?

Quote: FrGamble

Much overrated?!?

Much overrated, said I. Too teenagey as well. The best thing about it is the boys don't bully anyone.

Quote:

Anyway the point of that scene is what happens when science tries to get at things like poetry.

That scene is what happens when an English academic gets at things like poetry, and makes it all about meter and rhyme.

Science might tell you the most important thing about poetry is content and meaning. Also that meter and rhyme are holdovers from preliterate times when they were used as mnemonic devices. Science can discover it's easier to remember poetry than prose, and how meter and rhyme help to do so.

Quote: Nareed

Much overrated, said I. Too teenagey as well.

It's another 'sappy' Robin Williams movie,
he loved to do them. I thought it was
ideological and manipulative. The only RW
movie I ever liked was Good Will Hunting,
and it had major problems as well. But at
least it was watchable.

Quote: FrGamble

You can use other facts to point to an ultimate beginning of our universe that expanded in such precision as to create what we recognize as finely tuned laws and constants without which there could not be life as we know it and think that an eternal, all-powerful, intelligent, spiritual being created the universe and all in it, including unique sentient beings that have the ability to discuss and ponder all these important big questions.

Ok. let us get philosophical, then:

Why does a universe made largely of inanimate matter requires a sentient being to create it, but this sentient being requires no creator of its own? After all, our knowledge indicates it all flows the other way: complex structures from atoms to human brains, all arise from less complex particles and elements. Quarks and leptons form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form planets, bacteria, plants and animals with brains. Isn't it far more likely the Universe "created" God than the other way around?

Quote: FrGamble

Some very good points if you ignore the revelation of who God is in the person of Jesus Christ and His teachings.

I ignore far more than that: the Egyptian creation and founding myths, complete with afterlife; the Babylonian myths; the Carthaginian myths, the Greek myths, very likely hundreds more, at least, assorted myths I've never even heard of.

There is no difference in principle between Hebrew mythology and any other random set of myths from any other culture. There is a big difference in implementation, especially after the Israelites turned their back on the faith of their ancestors and deified a popular leader (if only Aristotle had been more popular than Plato!). Other religions made no ideology out of their beliefs, not most of then, not in Europe and the Middle East.

That is the sole essential difference between the cult of Jehovah as opposed to the cult of Athena, or any of a myriad other cults.

Quote: Evenbob

The cockroaches will still be here laughing at
us when we're long gone as a species.

You are depressing, and you think cockroaches can laugh. There is something seriously wrong here. What your theory that everything is equal amounts to is that nothing is important and nothing matters. The universe is a big cosmic joke and nothing we do means as much as a fart in the wind. Is that really what you think? Is that how you live your life? Of course not. You might be trying to be a sophist on this forum but nothing you say holds water. Here are a few questions for you.

If you were running into a burning building and could either only save a roach or a little baby, which would you save? How about if you had to do this ten times or 1,000? Are you also so egotistical that you would always save the baby? God is not invented, but let's put that aside for a moment and just by using your God-given brain for a second can't you see that you are special and more important than a bug?!?!

Quote: Nareed

Ok. let us get philosophical, then:

Why does a universe made largely of inanimate matter requires a sentient being to create it, but this sentient being requires no creator of its own? After all, our knowledge indicates it all flows the other way: complex structures from atoms to human brains, all arise from less complex particles and elements. Quarks and leptons form atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules form planets, bacteria, plants and animals with brains. Isn't it far more likely the Universe "created" God than the other way around?

You have it completely backwards. Complex structures can only come from more complex creators. A car cannot arise by accident, it is built using simple parts and pieces put together by a intelligence capable of thinking of and creating a car. Atoms, molecules, and elements are the building blocks that a creator uses to create the complex structures that surround us, make up the universe, and give us life.

Quote: FrGamble

You have it completely backwards.

Can you point the error in my assumptions? Did not simple particles form atoms, then atoms form stars and planets and animals?

Quote:

Complex structures can only come from more complex creators.

Not in nature. See the progression of particles to the glory that is the human mind. Or the progression from single-cell organisms to colonies to the glory that is the human mind.

Quote:

A car cannot arise by accident, it is built using simple parts and pieces put together by a intelligence capable of thinking of and creating a car. Atoms, molecules, and elements are the building blocks that a creator uses to create the complex structures that surround us, make up the universe, and give us life.

We've seen simple components organize naturally into complex structures. We can recreate such things in the lab (Urey et al.) We have proof of it, in other words. Would you care to offer any proof of your position?