Religion is a hypothesis.

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

Your Theory accepts that a Creator, which is not known to exist, could come from nothing or always have been in existence. Is that correct.

But your theory cannot accept how the Universe, which does exist, could come from nothing, or always have been in existence.

Isn't the evidence of the existence of a Universe , evidence of a Universe.
Why say it is evidence of something else like a Creator, when there is no such evidence for a Creator?

Is there any real purpose in holding a theory which has evidence of a Universe and no such evidence of a Creator and therefore only begs the same question to infinite regress?

Actually the root of my theory is that the Universe is God and is a thinking, living entity, in and of itself. The theory, like yours, accepts that the Universe came from nothing and has always been in existance. Where it parts from yours is that I believe this Universe is an actual being of some sort whom is yet to be understood. The creation of life within this Universe is random only at it's core, and as it evolves becomes more subject to a planned sequence of events that ultimately takes highly evolved life forms, such as ourselves, back to the Creator. Everything else is recycled towards expotential growth of the Universe.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"Of course, who doesn't really already know that?"

Is that a serious question?

Anyway, I don't agree with your position on which takes more energy to sustain though.

Does it take more energy to go with the flow, or go against the flow?

I would in no way limit ideas to a philosophy class.

That is part of the problem, we need more philosophy and genuine open minded critical thinking and less dogmatic rigid pushers of their own beliefs as teachers...

A single day could be spent going over the general ideas of all the cosmological and evolutionary origin ideas.

From that point teachers could teach to the level of development of the students what facts of science actually are.

Seriously, how many people are actually qualified to explain these advanced theories anyway?

Most theists don't really know their scripture of choice intimately, opting to listen to the translations and ideas of their favorite preacher.

Same goes for the typical atheistic scientist types, who clearly don't have the rigor or depth of training in the hard sciences to do anything but parrot the words of top scientists.

So keep it simple, teach what we actually know, spend a day on the dreamy stuff which cannot be known, and give them the tools to think for themselves.

At higher and higher levels of education if so inclined they can get to the point where they could actually make sound philosophical, religious, or scientific arguments with their teachers and professors.

Quote from Ricter:

The whole edifice of science, which yes, does adjust with new observations ("when the facts change, I change my mind"), would still be built whether God exists, or does not exist. That's therefore a "wash. The edifice is useful.

But, I'd agree that in schools, though perhaps limited to philosophy class for the early years, it would be useful to mention that science is a utilitarian worldview and not the only worldview. Of course, who doesn't really already know that?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"Of course, who doesn't really already know that?"

Is that a serious question?

Anyway, I don't agree with your position on which takes more energy to sustain though.

Does it take more energy to go with the flow, or go against the flow?

I would in no way limit ideas to a philosophy class.

That is part of the problem, we need more philosophy and genuine open minded critical thinking and less dogmatic rigid pushers of their own beliefs as teachers...

A single day could be spent going over the general ideas of all the cosmological and evolutionary origin ideas.

From that point teachers could teach to the level of development of the students what facts of science actually are.

Seriously, how many people are actually qualified to explain these advanced theories anyway?

Most theists don't really know their scripture of choice intimately, opting to listen to the translations and ideas of their favorite preacher.

Same goes for the typical atheistic scientist types, who clearly don't have the rigor or depth of training in the hard sciences to do anything but parrot the words of top scientists.

So keep it simple, teach what we actually know, spend a day on the dreamy stuff which cannot be known, and give them the tools to think for themselves.

At higher and higher levels of education if so inclined they can get to the point where they could actually make sound philosophical, religious, or scientific arguments with their teachers and professors.

You release an apple, it falls. Do it over and over and over again, it keeps falling. That's the flow. To go "with the flow", as you put it, we might ask, "is it gravity, or God doing it?" If we accept that (let's be generous) it's both, we'll nevertheless find that the former approach will eventually allow us to put up satellites, while the latter will not, and that the former is no comfort to one who has lost a dearly loved one, while the latter very well may (reports are, it does).

The latter explanation could be done in a day, while the former takes years. Not much different from what we're doing now.

You're issue is really with atheists, is it not?

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

No need to tear down science, just the fools who think it answers the questions of Cosmogony & abiogenesis.

Quote from Index piker:

Quote from kut2k2:

Quote from Index piker:
1a)...

or

1b)"Something always existed" which is exactly equal to "God always existed".

False equivalency, which is sadly commonplace in this forum.

The existence of the universe is not in question, except by dismissable nutjobs or trolls.

The existence of your god is precisely what is in question.

So assuming something that does exist has always existed is not even close to assuming something that is not verified to exist has always existed.

Pure BS, the existence/nature of the universe is precisely what is in question or you are stuck with the "something from nothing" assertion.

Just as the atheist dismisses all evidence around him of God existence so too do scientists discover much to their dismay matter is composed of more and more "nothingness".

The harder they try to discover the basic building blocks of matter the more nothingness they find.

Sorry if you find the truth disconcerting.

Stu has already dismantled your sophistry quite nicely, but here's my own two cents, just to conclude my input into this now pointless discussion.

The very fact that you would now question the existence of the universe marks you as either a lunatic or a troll. Both are dismissable.

The very fact that you would insist that there is evidence for your god by pointing to the same universe that you now question the existence of marks you as the greatest sort of fool.

As I've said before, willful ignorance (aka willful stupidity) is a vital component of most theisms.

Captain Obvious has made some interesting conjectures, and while they may not be evidenced, at least they have internal consistency. A pity you and 777 haven't reached that step in your thinking processes.

Science may never come to a consensus on cosmogony, but I wonder in passing what form your intellectual dishonesty will take when science creates abiogenesis in a laboratory.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"The latter explanation could be done in a day, while the former takes years. Not much different from what we're doing now."

So it takes much more energy to indoctrinate to scientific belief than it does theistic belief.

Anyway...the flow is almost always with the vast majority.

My point is simply that it takes more effort not to go with the flow.

You are reading much too much into this.

I am not trying to say that theism is better than atheism at all.

Freedom of religion, freedom of choice should also protect atheists.

How public money is spent is an entirely different subject.

However, let's make a prediction.

Start a new thread on some message board that is frequented by atheists.

On that thread, simply express a love of God. Nothing more, just a simple post that says that you love God and that God is great for you.

See if you get attacked or not for expressing that love...

I predict you will be attacked by atheists for your love.

Then if you respond innocently that you simple love God and think God is great, nothing more or less, the attacks will stiffen and become more belligerent.

Do the same thing on the same board under a different handle saying you love non God and that non God is great.

See if you get attacked by theists.

I predict you will not have the same amount of attacks or the degree of anger by the theists that you get from the atheists. In fact, you will likely get "schooled" by the atheists for not making a stronger case.

Quote from Ricter:

You release an apple, it falls. Do it over and over and over again, it keeps falling. That's the flow. To go "with the flow", as you put it, we might ask, "is it gravity, or God doing it?" If we accept that (let's be generous) it's both, we'll nevertheless find that the former approach will eventually allow us to put up satellites, while the latter will not, and that the former is no comfort to one who has lost a dearly loved one, while the latter very well may (reports are, it does).

The latter explanation could be done in a day, while the former takes years. Not much different from what we're doing now.

You're issue is really with atheists, is it not?

 

[killthesunshine]

gravity and god are not equivalent subjects for investigation. the former is definable, measurable, disputable and provable. the latter is none of these.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from killthesunshine:

gravity and god are not equivalent subjects for investigation. the former is definable, measurable, disputable and provable. the latter is none of these.

That definition of what is true is defined by science, so we can't use it to understand both worldviews.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from Ricter:

That definition of what is true is defined by science, so we can't use it to understand both worldviews.

what else do you have to provide us with relatively more RELIABLE knowledge of our plight than science/reason? faith? hope? desire? ranker? are these more reliable?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

You do know that it is impossible to actually measure gravity, right?

Quote from killthesunshine:

gravity and god are not equivalent subjects for investigation. the former is definable, measurable, disputable and provable. the latter is none of these.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from killthesunshine:

what else do you have to provide us with relatively more RELIABLE knowledge of our plight than science/reason? faith? hope? desire? ranker?

"Reliable" is another way of expressing those tests of scientifically acceptable truth you mentioned before. I'm not saying science is wrong, only that it's utilitarian. But it does not, clearly, meet everyone's needs entirely.