Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

Recommended Posts

I don't give a hoot how old the earth is.....so I wouldn't bother giving you an answer. The age of the earth isn't important to me.

God didn't say to believe earth is this or that old. He says to believe that He's the Creator.

Do you believe science when it concludes around 13 billion years old? Or are you more around the 10,000 year old biblical belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe science when it concludes around 13 billion years old? Or are you more around the 10,000 year old biblical belief?

I've already answered your question. Bye, Squid.

I don't want this thread to get derailed. If you want to pursue certain lines of discussion....kindly create your own thread.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that I've got arguments why the Abrahamic God is the only possible God the Creator. But that's for another topic.

There isn't any possible God the Creator than God the Creator. That's obvious. The more you try to apply details to that understanding, the more you risk straying from the Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that process is part of the whole TimeSpace continuum in which life forms and exists. For the lack of a better term, I've decided to call that continuum "God." I have no idea if that's an old man with a beard or some software code or some sort of pure energy, but whatever it is, it's "God" to me. So even though I approach this with agnostic scepticism, I wind up sounding like Betsy.

If you want to call physics "God", that's fine, but simply using the word "God" in this way does not shed any additional light on the discussion at hand. Nor does it put you "on the same page" as betsy who clearly believes not in an abstract definition of "God" as "any science I don't feel like explaining in more detailed terms at this moment" but as the specific character described in man-made religions.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to call physics "God", that's fine, but simply using the word "God" in this way does not shed any additional light on the discussion at hand.

That's because, like Betsy, you're too rigid in what your conception of "God" is, even though it's a concept no one can fully understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because, like Betsy, you're too rigid in what your conception of "God" is, even though it's a concept no one can fully understand.

That's simply not true. God is not an abstract concept to most people. Bonam isn't "too rigid"... he's using a common definition for the term "God" (particularly with a capital 'G' which denotes the god of the bible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because, like Betsy, you're too rigid in what your conception of "God" is, even though it's a concept no one can fully understand.

Not really, I'm up for talking about it under whatever definition you feel like using, I have no particular attachment to any conception of god. But I do have a preference for discussing things in terms of definitions that are useful for shedding some light on the discussion. Your definition is not particularly useful, nor is it satisfactory for believers like betsy to simply define god as whatever science hasn't explained yet, which leaves god as an ever-shrinking creature.

God is a human invention. People believe god created man, but they have it all backwards, man created god. It may have been a useful creation in ancient times if it helped to rally tribes together under a common mythology so they could survive in the face of hardship and rival tribes, but serves no practical purpose today (at least, in the more advanced parts of the world, which is why you see rates of religiosity plunging in the most advanced nations while religiosity lingers in less developed areas).

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's simply not true. God is not an abstract concept to most people. Bonam isn't "too rigid"... he's using a common definition for the term "God" (particularly with a capital 'G' which denotes the god of the bible).

But there are different interpretations of that "God" even among those who take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. If you went to a Pentecostal church and asked 10 people to define God in any detail, you'd probably get 10 different answers. The more we try to define it, the less consensus there is for what we mean. It seems there are as many concepts of "God" as there are people who believe (or don't believe) in it. So I figure, the less we try to rigidly define it, the more we can all get along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are scientists, Bcsapper. The National Academy of Sciences wouldn't be issuing a statement that says there are evidences supporting Creation by God.....if they hadn't done what scientists are supposed to do!

The NAS is made up of many nobel prize winners. This organization is the creme de la creme. It's the organization that offers scientific advice/ explanation to governments.

Okay, they didn't say that. I don't have to go back and read it to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there are different interpretations of that "God" even among those who take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible. If you went to a Pentecostal church and asked 10 people to define God in any detail, you'd probably get 10 different answers. The more we try to define it, the less consensus there is for what we mean. It seems there are as many concepts of "God" as there are people who believe (or don't believe) in it. So I figure, the less we try to rigidly define it, the more we can all get along.

That's all fine but the problem is that the people who do strongly believe in a particular version of "God" tend to want to lop the heads off people who believe differently (or don't believe), or at least to constantly nag them to "convert", or impose their version of what they think this "God" wants onto society.

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wow, this thread based on the false and preposterous notion that there is evidence for creation by a god has a lot more interest than I expected.

1) Creating an explanation for gods to match current scientific understanding doesn't equate to there being evidence for a god. Just like stating forests exist, many undiscovered species and lands exist, therefor there is evidence for the Sasquatch is not true.

2) Words have a meaning so we can have a reasonable discussion. Changing the meaning of a word like god to mean love or physical forces doesn't help the discussion. In this thread it appears that Betsy has defined it as the Abrahamic God of the bible so we should be limiting the definition to a creator deity, not some unexplained natural process.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the meaning of a word like god to mean love or physical forces doesn't help the discussion. In this thread it appears that Betsy has defined it as the Abrahamic God of the bible so we should be limiting the definition to a creator deity, not some unexplained natural process.

It's not changing the meaning; it's deconstructing it. God is commonly defined as both "love" and as "the physical force responsible for the existence of the universe." Those are the aspects of God that we can agree exist. It's when we get into the unprovable specifics about whether God is in the form of a random force or Allah or Jesus or Todd Rundgren that we start to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but you're simply stating your opinion, which in fact is contradictory to science.

I thought you wanted to know what atheists thought, aka their opinions.

Science is not into the metaphysical or the supernatural or the spiritual!

And never will deal with the supernatural or the spiritual. You are doing yourself a disservice by not quite understanding science to begin with.

Do you want opinions and thoughts from athiests, or are you looking for things you can attempt to tear apart with illogical arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, don't even bring up that term, "reasonably," here, when your out-of topic response is not being reasonable at all.

Deal with the issue, Cyber. We're talking about Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the process......etc.,

Science says there are numerous evidences supporting this. From various areas of science.

One problem is that you are trying to deal with athiests in a theistic sense, which has always been a non-starter for these threads. You won't be able to get the answers you are looking for when framing the question in this fashion. As soon as your 'logic' is challenged with similar concepts like the plethora of mythical Greek gods, you claim it goes off topic. Maybe you should define what God you are talking about before we can go any further.

And saying scientists 'believe' that there is a god, is not genuine scientific proof that there is a god as science does not deal with the supernatural which you obviously understand.

Judging by the other threads you created on this topic, you got really frustrated when your notions were ripped apart. I predict the same will happen here.

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's not changing the meaning; it's deconstructing it. God is commonly defined as both "love" and as "the physical force responsible for the existence of the universe." Those are the aspects of God that we can agree exist. It's when we get into the unprovable specifics about whether God is in the form of a random force or Allah or Jesus or Todd Rundgren that we start to disagree.

I don't agree that love or the physical force responsible for the existence of the universe are aspects of God that exist. Though I do agree that both love and the universe exist. We already have words for love and the universe, equating them with the word god to create some sort of phantom agreement doesn't make sense to me. For example we could find agreement in the phrase 'I like powder', but it's meaningless if you mean soft snow for skiing and I mean cocaine.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be an Atheist,but then I realized what's so wrong in believing in a God.

It all comes down to reaching for "HOPE"

Many people get comfort from hope in believing in somthing to give them strength to go forward.

Who am I to take this hope away.

So weather you believe in God or you don't.The real issue is do you believe God gives hope to people in need and is that so bad.

Nobody knows for sure,what's after Life ,it's all conjecture.

But if it gives people confort on there dying bed to grasp for hope,then what's wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I used to be an Atheist,but then I realized what's so wrong in believing in a God.

It all comes down to reaching for "HOPE"

Many people get comfort from hope in believing in somthing to give them strength to go forward.

Who am I to take this hope away.

So weather you believe in God or you don't.The real issue is do you believe God gives hope to people in need and is that so bad.

Nobody knows for sure,what's after Life ,it's all conjecture.

But if it gives people confort on there dying bed to grasp for hope,then what's wrong with that.

That's not the same thing as claiming scientific proof for gods or the supernatural now is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I muddle the topic by posting a very straight-forward statement from the NAS, issued to the general public?

Read it again.....

Agreed...it is quite clear, and consistent with the NAS mission statement:

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology. Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community. Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

The Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) recognizes this possibility as well:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "atheist's" concept of "God" as an unconscious force of energy and nature is just as valid as anyone else's, even if they choose not to refer to it as "God."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be an Atheist,but then I realized what's so wrong in believing in a God.

It all comes down to reaching for "HOPE"

Many people get comfort from hope in believing in somthing to give them strength to go forward.

Who am I to take this hope away.

So weather you believe in God or you don't.The real issue is do you believe God gives hope to people in need and is that so bad.

Nobody knows for sure,what's after Life ,it's all conjecture.

But if it gives people confort on there dying bed to grasp for hope,then what's wrong with that.

If I were on my deathbed I might wish there were a God, but I wouldn't be able to choose to believe in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't agree with science, kindly explain the reasonable basis for your belief that God does not exists.

I have seen no proof. And trust me. I would love to believe in a god but it ain't happening for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen no proof. And trust me. I would love to believe in a god but it ain't happening for me.

Me too. I actually envy those who truly believe that if they are good, they will spend eternity in paradise with all their loved ones (Well, the good ones)

Actually, not to go off topic, but that does bring up an important point. If all my loved ones are bad, but I am good, I'm going to be unhappy in Paradise. Doesn't seem right to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. I actually envy those who truly believe that if they are good, they will spend eternity in paradise with all their loved ones (Well, the good ones)

Actually, not to go off topic, but that does bring up an important point. If all my loved ones are bad, but I am good, I'm going to be unhappy in Paradise. Doesn't seem right to me.

If your spouse is bad but you are good, you'll have plenty of time to date people in a similar situation in paradise. I'm sure the dating game in paradise is great, since it's paradise after all. You know, you can ask out whoever you want and they'll like you. Oh wait, but those are real people too and have their own free will. So you'll still get shot down. Doesn't sound quite like paradise. Hmm...

If only made up fairytales were logically self-consistent!

Edited by Bonam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. I actually envy those who truly believe that if they are good, they will spend eternity in paradise with all their loved ones (Well, the good ones)

Actually, not to go off topic, but that does bring up an important point. If all my loved ones are bad, but I am good, I'm going to be unhappy in Paradise. Doesn't seem right to me.

I have been asked plenty of times from my college years to my adult years why I don't believe in God. I can only say that I am too intelligent to believe in God.

However, I do believe in some weird higher power that has gotten me out of impossible situations. Is that God? I don't know. I don't know wtf it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been asked plenty of times from my college years to my adult years why I don't believe in God. I can only say that I am too intelligent to believe in God.

However, I do believe in some weird higher power that has gotten me out of impossible situations. Is that God? I don't know. I don't know wtf it is.

It was me. Send me fifty bucks and we'll call it even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...