If you're talking about Genesis 1:1-20, I want to encourage someone start this thread back up, because I still simply do not see the "obvious inconsistences" of which you speak. I'm sure it won'd shock you that I'll stick up for Genesis.
Were any of the great scientists/inventors also religious?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
If you're talking about Genesis 1:1-20, I want to encourage someone start this thread back up, because I still simply do not see the "obvious inconsistences" of which you speak. I'm sure it won'd shock you that I'll stick up for Genesis.
Thought:
In the long-run the Bible and all Bibles of various traditions, must be critically reviewed, most likely by many great scientists, for the purpose of modifying and re-writing it in order to avoid many potential problems (such as drinking poison has no harm) that are not rational, nor logical.
The Bible and all Bibles should not be the main and only source of knowing God, as this rational God can be found by such as writings/ films/ publications/ sayings/ live-examples by all decent people with the same Spirit, whether or not they believe in God in whatever terms of any brands/ labels/ traditions.
As IF one day all people will believe in this same God of a peaceful and positive nature, hopefully there would be NOT more wars or any religious killings on this tiny planet that we and our descendants have to live here!
Quote from ArchAngel:
No one said you were irrational for NOT believing in God. What was said is that it is irrational to have such self-righteous certitude in your chosen opinion that there is no God merely because you currently lack evidence to the contrary. Same is true of the other camp too (I'm not trying to convince anyone of the existence of God, just saying that it's not irrational nor inconsistent to do so).
As noted earlier, those who were absolutely certain the Coelacanth had died 400 million years ago because they had never found a live one ultimately found that lack of evidence was not proof of non-existance.
We're not talking about the "Creationist" fringe.
Modern physics has no idea the source of the Big Bang or an explanation of how the initial hyperdimensional spacetime fabric came to exist. In addition, current theories offer an incomplete picture and contain numerous "givens" and fragile unproven presumptions.
So one has at least a couple of choices -
1. The multiverse was initially brought into existence by a transcendant intelligence (or in some as yet not understood way the multiverse IS that intelligence).
2. Believe that "it was always here" (whatever that means) and it was just a happy random vacuum fluctuation that hundreds of billions of years ago somehow one day kicked off the spontaneous production of enough matter/energy (out of this "always here" spatial fabric) to ultimately produce the Big Bang.
If there's a third alternate I can't think of it right now - but I'd certainly be interested in hearing it if anyone has one that's not just a variation of these two.
As to your "examples" -
1. Fornons - obviously the inclusion of this means you've completely missed the whole idea - a supposed particle you just dreamt up is irrelavent since the mere fact that you just pulled it out of your butt is evidence that it does not exist.
2. Green martians - hmm, I always thought they were blue. Oh well, maybe I'm confusing them with Andorians.
However, your purposeful trivialization here obfuscates the more specific issue. Is there life on Mars? Since we've sent probes there and have mapped the planet, we have some basic data that suggests there is likely currently no large-scale intelligent life unless it moved below ground a long time ago anyway. As to whether there had been intelligent life there perhaps a million years ago - there is no conclusive evidence either way.
3. Unicorns - horses with a horn growing out of their forehead have been documented, it's a rare abberation and most likely the source of the myth. As far as the existence (or one time existence) of the magical, mythical beasts - unprovable either way - hey, weren't the last of the unicorns taken to Avalon by Merlin before he closed the dimensional barrier?
its all about a weighing of the evidence, and the evidence at this time does not support the existence of a supernatural being. the problem of origin of universe is just that an unsolved problem, and I for one do not hurry to ascribe supernatural causes to every event I can't immediately explain. I realize the mind does not like uncertainty and constantly seeks comfort so i am always careful not to let my imagination run away with me when dealing with such matters. I like to dream grand schemes as much as next guy but my rational mind is ever vigilant.
yes i fornons came out of mu butt; whose butt did concept of god come out of
i offer Monty Python's *Life of Brian* for consideration! 
lack of evidence IS proof if the claim is grand enuf and if the lack of evidence is equally as grand. if i claim a herd of elephants just stampeded thru my living room you take a look see nothing out of place [ie a distinct lack of evidence that one would reasonably expect to find should such an event occur].. that IS proof of the falsity of my claim!
Furthermore, reductionism continues to minimize god's domain. First EVERYTHING that happened was gods hand. A rock moved because god willed it to move. The Sun rose because god willed it to rise. Our reductionistic models have put an end to these theistic explanations, and many many many more. Gods domain is ever decreasing and even the origins of life and the universe may fall under the force of Reductionism. You [spiritualists] may scoff at this but dont forget the religious icons that have fallen over the years.
And the Grand problem of first cause that EVERY theist here neatly avoids:
If god created the universe what created god?
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
If you're talking about Genesis 1:1-20, I want to encourage someone start this thread back up, because I still simply do not see the "obvious inconsistences" of which you speak. I'm sure it won'd shock you that I'll stick up for Genesis.
Religious people might say the Bible being consistant therefore has no mistakes.
It seems that the Bible by itself would Not state that claim so clearly!
If God is and God did create the Universe, why does it follow that God must have been created?
Why should our native sense of creation and process in life, cosmological existence, and ontology apply to the nature of God?
And if there is an all powerful creator, we and the religions of mankind may not have the slightest grasp of its true nature.
To the same degree, there isn't any evidence to suggest there isn't. Either way, it's nothing more than a personal opinion formed without specific evidence to support it either way.
You draw exactly the wrong conclusion from your example. You appear to be confusing an actual "lack of evidence" with "an existence of evidence to the contrary". They are NOT the same.
It is absolutely correct that if you claim a herd of elephants stampeded your living room but a check of your living room shows no disturbance consistent with a herd of elephants passing, then you CAN logically conclude there were no elephants.
The reason's simple - it is NOT about a lack of evidence that there were elephants. Instead, while there is no evidence showing elephants, there is a clear PRESCENCE of evidence to contrary. The evidence being that none of the damage that must follow a herd of elephants stampeding through your living room.
On the other hand, so far no one has presented any evidence that is inconsistent with the belief in a universal creative intelligence. There have been a lot of equally unsupportable opinions/beliefs that no such entity exists, but no actual evidence to the contrary. In this case, this really IS a lack of evidence and therefore does not prove non-existance.
The difference should be axiomatic - however perhaps personal bias or belief in your own opionion's "rightness" is preventing you from seeing the otherwise clear distinction.
Conclusion - with a lack of outright evidence to support or evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly reasonable for people to have opposing views on the subject based on their own way of looking at the universe, beliefs, views, etc.
And while it is true that in the final analysis, given that the views are diametric opposites, only one can ultimately be "right" - we may never know which it is.
Indeed - an excellent question for which it is doubtful any of us will ever know (or understand) the answer.
Here's a few more modern scientist I've run across who believe in/are open to alternative theories of the universe:
William Phillips, Nobel Prize winner (laser research in physics)
Freeman Dyson, Princeton physicist
Ian Barbour, physicist
George Coyne, Vatican astronomer
Sir Alesiter Hardy, knighted Oxford marine biologist
Allan Sandage, well-known astrophysicists
John Polkinghorne, physicist
William Phillips, Nobel Prize winner (laser research in physics)
Freeman Dyson, Princeton physicist
Ian Barbour, physicist
George Coyne, Vatican astronomer
Sir Alesiter Hardy, knighted Oxford marine biologist
Allan Sandage, well-known astrophysicists
John Polkinghorne, physicist
Quote from LongShot:
this is a cop out.
you cant explain or rationally support your belief so you conveniently assert that language or our other reductionistic tools are hopelessly inadequate.
but there was a time when you DID attempt to justify yourself here.. failed and now like the fox in Aesop's fable decided you never wanted the grapes in first place
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Aesop/Aesops_Fables/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.html
your simplistic logic and inability to reach beyond the basics is glaringly obvious. i'll try to explain this the best that i can in this format---- the world is divided into two basic frameworks, causality and participation. causality is the pragmatic rationality of science--- ( you, axeman, gg, et al ) you detach yourself and explain the world by objective, explanatory schemes based on neutrality and instrumentation.
i, on the other hand, enter into the "participation" framework of the world. this framework places the individual into a collective sea that erodes the barrier between human agency and the surrounding environment--- in the participation framework-- a creator is an obvious given regardless of the inability of language to describe same.
i also view the market and trade from this framework, by choice , adding a tinge of causality to fine tune the macro picture.
try it, you just might like it.