I didn't claim religion makes observations of the unobservable. I said, like much of science, religion attempts to explain the unobservable. Quit using Red's tactics...:grin: Feel better? More convinced of your own argument? :lol: Do you ever put your hand over your eyes in a quiet room, take a deep breath, and ponder something or some situation that is bothering you or has you perplexed? You seem like a fella with strong convictions, so I'm going to guess the answer is yes. Well, that's prayer. Period. Some folks add more to it, and some folks get melodramatic about it. But IMO, prayer is nothing more than disconnecting with the environmentals around you as much as possible so that you can access some thinking space and ponder. Saying actual words is optional - and most folks with a strong "prayer life" that I know actually don't really "say anything" the vast majority of the time. You don't understand most folks' concept of a creator. No "contact" or "telepathy" required. In most conceptions of a higher power or creator ("or whatever" ), the connection is already there, all the time. Completely. Lots of incredibly smart stupid people in the history of the world, including Einstein. IMO you are way too smart yourself to resort to this. It really cheapens your arguments. But whatever gives you happiness. First - you seem to be assuming that everything we (humans) observe is correct, and everything science theorizes is correct, and anything science has not observed or theorized is incorrect or cannot be real. I, on the other hand - after studying the history of science a little - assume that there is A LOT that will never be explained by science because it is outside of our ability to observe or comprehend it, much like the moon is outside an ant's ability to observe or comprehend it. So I have no problem with the existence of a creator because I don't see it as magic, and I don't have a problem with it being a complex and incredible notion. I'm extending Occam's Razor a bit, and I'm making different assumptions than you (explained above), but the point is this. Order out of chaos is in no way a simpler explanation for the fragile life on Earth than is order out of design. None of this discounts scientific observation about age, size, makeup, and characteristics of the universe. All I'm saying in this case is that Occam's Razor (extended and with my assumptions since it's my opinion) favors a creator over chaos. Because the odds of conditions conducive to life on earth are - pardon the pun - astronomical.
i guess so. i dont really understand the concept of the singularity and lack of existence around it. in my mind, the universe is still there, just really compacted. i dont understand why the singularity doesnt count as "universe" before the big bang.
science does not attempt to explain the unobservable. science is based on observation. prayer is definitely less magical when you redefine it to mean "thinking about stuff". i dont think i say said you are stupid. i said if you are religious you are being stupid, which you are. well, to be fair, your claim is that we can observe it, but only via magic. if that isnt your claim then you are saying nothing and religion is nothing. fine but then you should drop your occams razor point. who are you to decide what the odds are? you religious folks always pretend to know everything.
ditto. Agreed. I don't have a problem with designer, but I also am not tied in any way to the baggage that word can carry. I'm in total agreement, except that I'm considering everything after the Big Bang. The series of consecutive coincidental miracles that had to happen to put you and I on this message board is staggering. Seems FAR more simple to me that it was guided than it was happenstance in the middle of chaos.
which is exactly what I said in my first post on this subject... I didn't redefine anything. And it's not my definition per se. When folks pray, this is what they do. Perhaps you've never actually prayed in the religious sense so it's understandable this seems like me redefining something. hunh? Dissect that and explain how the first part of that is any different than the second. How is "being stupid" different from "stupid"? :huh: We're talking about the unobservable. What I said was religion focuses on finding explanations of the unobservable. No, because the Occam's Razor point was in respect to the source of life on earth, (source and intent of the Big Bang) not the origin or the characteristics of a creator. That is an entirely different discussion. But since you brought it up. Isn't it simpler (via Occam's Razor) to assume some meaning to the existence of the universe than no meaning? First of all, I'm not giving the odds. Scientists have clearly described how improbable life on Earth really is, and that discussion is at the source of the money being spent on the search for extraterrestrial life. Your second sentence is the absolute height of irony! :lol: It's the exact opposite! I'm claiming that humans actually know very little, and will never know a vast amount about our world. It's some folks in the science community who, very arrogantly in my view, claim to know so much. :thumb: Also - and you may or may not find this shocking - I'm not terribly religious. In fact, I'm very distrustful of organized religion. And I would describe myself to folks who ask as NOT being religious. But I do have a strong spiritual life, and I do have a personal conception of God (or creator, or higher power, or "whatever" )
This is a debate that cannot be won on either side, as has been displayed several times on this board. Those who believe solely in a Supreme Being, will not be convinced that an Omni present God does not exist, and those who adhere solely to the theories of science will not be convinced that there is a God that created everything. As Bandit has stated and I have stated several times, is one of the many reasons I do not believe in institutionalized religion. The churches reluctance to accept that there are something’s that just aren't explained, and that the theories of science are relevant to our very existence. I believe that to fully comprehend and understand our existence one must be open to religious and scientific theories. I believe they go hand in hand. This being because as of today one cannot dispel the other with any concrete facts.
again, if you redefine prayer to mean thinking, it sounds less stupid. prayer, as everyone else understands it, is magical telepathy with god. sometimes i say retarded things, but i am not retarded. see the difference? perhaps they are drawing conclusions about the observations they havent made? what you are saying makes zero sense. without observation there is nothing for anyone to discuss, nothing to make up conclusions about. obviously not. no they havent. "i am not religious, i am spritual" i dont find that shocking. i have heard this so many times. each time the person is congratulating themselves for not being fooled by "organized" religion, as if they deserve any credit for escaping that as they are professing some other nonsense. i have also mentioned before that 100% of strippers claim to not be religious but instead to be "spiritual". i cant relate to words that mean nothing, so i dont really get it.
