Is Science Arrogant

[Serenity7855]

E.Nato Difficile wrote the following in his rebuttal to me on another thread
But the Biblical account never mentions the evolutionary process per se. And the timeline is wrong anyway. Fruit-bearing trees are mentioned on the third "day," long before the creation of any animals; but in fact they weren't around until the Cretaceous period, when there were insects to pollinate them. By then there were already mammals and birds, which Genesis doesn't mention until a couple of "days" later, and dinosaurs, which don't warrant a mention in Genesis.

This doesn't mean you can't believe both in evolution and God. But it does mean that expecting scientific inquiry to validate your religious beliefs is bound to disappoint.

This was a reply to my post on my belief that evolution does not infringe on science. I am not saying that it is a bad post, it is not, but it is indicative as to how unwilling we are to expand our mind further than known science. It is not the first time that I have heard it so it is a general concept which attempts to destroy the process of the creation.

It is my understanding that a highly tweaked cosmological models regresses us back to the big bang. It is my understanding that such an event requires a cause and a purpose therefore something caused the big bang to occur, the Kalam’s Cosmological Argument. That something, in my mind, was God. After that Big Bang the universe experienced a Rapid Expansion. A phenomenon that we do not have a clue about. How it expanded in such a short period of time is a mystery, however, we know that it must have in order to keep the universal temperature of the universe. An unknown law that we do not yet understand.

God created the universe in which we live and is omniscient and omnipotent. Now omniscient mean that he knows everything that can be known and to be omnipotent means that he has power to do all things that can be done. He knows all of the naturalistic laws and can use those naturalistic laws to assist him in his purpose. Do we know all of the naturalistic laws? Let me answer that by asking how dark matter expands our universe without increasing its mass or how dark energy functions. Both laws of the universe, both laws that act in a way that we cannot explain. When we read the account in Genesis we can see that God is commanding the elements to obey him when it says “And God Said” These are not a natural process that we currently have any knowledge about. To use scientific analysis on a natural law that we do not as yet comprehend is foolish and any conclusions made at present to them is completely erroneous. In essence God used natural laws, which we are not yet familiar with, to create this planet and our universe. When God spoke these words he was invoking those laws.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Today, pollination is an essential requirement for the perpetuation of plant life but is that something that was necessary for the creation? If we believe it is then we are applying our science, which is still very limited, before Gods vast knowledge of the universe and all its naturalistic laws. We assume that because we see pollination as an essential ingredient to life that it was also essential during the creation. That, to me, is narrow mindedness. Not expanding the mind to possibilities outside of known science which only hampers scientific progress. To use known science to authenticate the creation is arrogance in as much as we are saying that our knowledge is greater than gods so his creation must be a fallacy and he is therefore a fantasy on the grounds that we do not comprehend it.

We are still at the naive stage of our scientific knowledge yet we believe that we can answer questions on phenomenon’s that we simply have not acquired sufficient knowledge on. That is arrogance. If God wanted to create a world, in whatever fashion or sequence that he wants, then he can, using naturalistic laws that we know nothing about yet.
Serenity

[Gjallarhorn]

If God created the universe, he covered it up rather nicely.

[Serenity7855]

Originally Posted by Gjallarhorn

If God created the universe, he covered it up rather nicely.

Did he really? Rapid Expansion, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Fine Tuning, the anthropic principle etc etc....

Serenity

[mycorrhiza]

Originally Posted by Serenity7855

Did he really? Rapid Expansion, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Fine Tuning, the anthropic principle etc etc....

Serenity

I'd say that life is adapted to the Universe, rather than the other way around. There is no actual proof that a personal God created the Universe.

Why does the Big Bang require a supernatural cause?

[Gjallarhorn]

Originally Posted by Serenity7855

Did he really? Rapid Expansion, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Fine Tuning, the anthropic principle etc etc....

Serenity

You make reference to fine tuning and the anthropic principle, and then accuse others of arrogance. Cute.

[tumbleweed41]

Is Science Arrogant

No. And assigning anthropomorphic qualities to an abstract concept seems a bit silly, don't you think?

[Serenity7855]

Originally Posted by mycorrhiza

I'd say that life is adapted to the Universe, rather than the other way around. There is no actual proof that a personal God created the Universe.

Why does the Big Bang require a supernatural cause?

Don't Pagans believe in divinity?

Why does the Big bang require a god. The well established "Kalam's Cosmological Argument"

Serenity

[mycorrhiza]

Originally Posted by Serenity7855

Don't Pagans believe in divinity?

Why does the Big bang require a god. The well established "Kalam's Cosmological Argument"

Serenity

I believe they do, yes. What does that have to do with this?

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

I believe that the argument fails on point 2 as I am a follower of the idea of a cyclic Universe. The Big Bang was not the start of the Universe, but rather the start of a new cycle, caused by the end of the cycle before that.

Even if the Universe itself has a cause, it doesn't have to be God. It could just as well be a natural process.

Whatever treatment we allow God (being eternal, not needing a cause) can be applied to the Universe itself.

[Serenity7855]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

No. And assigning anthropomorphic qualities to an abstract concept seems a bit silly, don't you think?

To just say "No" says nothing. i was looking for an opposing opinion that was constructive.

I guess it would to those who do not believe that we were created in the image of god, however, I believe we were so to say my opinion is silly is rude, don't you think

Serenity

[Serenity7855]

Originally Posted by mycorrhiza

I believe they do, yes. What does that have to do with this?

I believe that the argument fails on point 2 as I am a follower of the idea of a cyclic Universe. The Big Bang was not the start of the Universe, but rather the start of a new cycle, caused by the end of the cycle before that.

Even if the Universe itself has a cause, it doesn't have to be God. It could just as well be a natural process.

Whatever treatment we allow God (being eternal, not needing a cause) can be applied to the Universe itself.

I ask because you excuse my God as the creater of the universe and attribute the universe to your god. i find that a little bigoted.

pan·the·ism

 Show Spelled[pan-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA </H2>noun 1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.

2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.






http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pantheism?s=t

By your own logic the universe could just as easily not come into existence as it could come into existence. the coarse of least resistence would be for it to stay as it was, a sigularity. It didn't so something caused it to happen.

God does not have to be the cause, it is true, but what else would you suggest. God is the label of anything that caused the big bang.

I am a follower of the idea of a cyclic Universe. The Big Bang was not the start of the Universe, but rather the start of a new cycle, caused by the end of the cycle before that.

This is your belief and i respect that. It isn't mine. i believe that the cosmological model is correct dispite the times it has been tweaked. I understand your rebutal though based on your belief.

Serenity