This is a great post, Nobody. I really miss understood your post above and I am so sorry. I let my anger over others cloud my ability to see straight. The only time I let myself get mad in a forum turned into a disaster for me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by N0B0DY;39625[/quote A few years back I endeavored to prove the opposite of what was normally endeavored by atheists and theists. Instead of trying to prove the existence and non-existence of God, I tried to prove the non-existence of the universe to lessen the friction between the religious and scientific communities.
A few caught the gist, a few didn't, but the more we looked into the religious texts and scientific theories, the more similarities kept popping up that made people go hmmm. Like the one god and the one universe; the many gods and the many forces and phenomena of nature; Akhenaten's spiritual-light creator and SLAC's physical-light creator; all knowledge, power and presence being contained within the universe and god.
Pretty much anything attributed to god can be attributed to the universe, to the extent that preachers are teaching science and scientists are bearing witness to the power of god. What's the difference? The forever mysterious universe is the forever mysterious god.
Perhaps the supernatural god is really the subnatural workings of the universe, and we can all be happy campers knowing that we really don't know much about anything. As the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss," because seeking too much knowledge too fast can give you a mighty headache.
I think it's interpretational in the sense that both communities are studying the same circumstantial evidence, but drawing different conclusions as to the scope of the causes. I wouldn't say that it is all that illogical to conclude that a creator is required for the creation of complex systems, much like a creator is required for the creation of a complex computer system. It has been proven that even bacteria are extremely complex and remarkably intelligent.
I think it depends on the religion as well, as some religious texts depict all individuals as existing within god and god within all individuals. The same can be said to apply to the universe. If my religion is based on god being the universe and my church is the whole world, without changing anything whatsoever with respect to the universe, then even atheists would have no choice but to be my fellow churchgoers.
Scientists are brutally honest though, I'll give you that. They are concerned with in-the-box effects and will be the first to admit it, never claiming to know the absolute truth, only what is generally accepted as adequate explanations for certain phenomena. Yet, for me, when out-the-box causes are introduced it often sheds new philosophical light on both religious and scientific interpretations that render preconceived notions obsolete. |