How do you think the world began?

[Pipine 10]

I'm still on the fence on this one.

 

I'm pretty convinced by all the evolution/science stuff and I think most religions are a nice collection of stories to help the inhabitants of planet earth get on a little better (working well that one!)

 

BUT.. I think science is only one way of looking at the planet and I can conceive that there may be other better, more correct ways of describing what we see around us and its origins that we haven't thought of yet.

 

Its all very subjective... and as my favourite author, Robert Anton Wilsons says "Belief is the death of intelligence". But I hope theres a debriefing when I die with some higher being that DOES know how it all came about and how it will all end then I can truely rest in peace !

[Ramen 10]

Originally posted by Anne23

But I hope theres a debriefing when I die with some higher being that DOES know how it all came about and how it will all end then I can truely rest in peace !

 

Or rest in pasta, Ramen!

 

He will be there for you Anne. His all loving, all seeing noodly goodness will be there for you when you need him.

 

In our heaven we have strippers and beer volcanos. Forget these fuddy duddy religions, convert to the truth. It's teh fastest growing religion.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by absynthfairy

Yeah I can appreciate that - but thats where the recipe comes in, the blueprint, the original design...

 

I never said the analogy was perfect, but it certainly is powerful to see when you're 12 and questioning the origins of the universe for the first time. Sure beats a textbook!

 

I appreciate the dramatic effect of the demonstration. But I think a demo like that is leading the kids 'up the garden path.'

 

The analogy with a cake presupposes design. You can't start with that outlook and discover there isn't a creator!

 

i.e. The results of the experiment are already known....

 

 

What is it in the nature of the world that allows us to presuppose design? What features indicate design that might prompt us to look for a creator?

 

And if we are talking about a perfect being, they really screwed up because their creation is not perfect. Far from it in fact. If god created man, you think he would have done so with slightly better components suited to upright walking and talking.

 

Intelligent design as a 'science' demands knowledge of the mind of God. It is difficult to see how it will help us establish "a body of regular or methodical observations or propositions".

 

Most of our lives we depend completely on the fruits of scientific method, and it has served us practically for thousands of years, correcting and refining itself continuously; it seems perverse to not use it when trying to establish the origins of the world.

[absynthfairy 10]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

I appreciate the dramatic effect of the demonstration. But I think a demo like that is leading the kids 'up the garden path.'

 

I think thats unfair to be honest. I try really hard as an RE teacher to open the extremely closed minds of our youth and "demo's" such as my cake ingredients at least stops them throwing pencils up at my ceiling tiles and sit up and watch - and maybe ask a few questions - which I accept I can't answer for them - but at least gets them thinking a bit further than getting drunk on the lidl carpark at the weekend.

 

The analogy with a cake presupposes design. You can't start with that outlook and discover there isn't a creator!

 

i.e. The results of the experiment are already known.....

 

Ok - granted, I accept what you are saying. However to suggest there is no element of design visible in the world is a little, I want to say arrogant but don't wish to offend so I will say naive (perhaps as bad). I believe that science has provided many of the answers that we seek that at one time religion sought to provide us with. However, science has also taught us a lot of things that have since been proven false as our knowledge and technology have progressed. I just think in this sometimes quite horrible - and badly designed world that we live in it is just a terrible shame that we can't sit back and suppose for a second that there might be something bigger than ourselves - but again I am tempted to use the word arrogance, not as a personal attack but as a criticism of the general human race.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by absynthfairy

I think thats unfair to be honest.

I'm sorry but I don't agree - it is a misleading analogy.

 

I try really hard as an RE teacher to open the extremely closed minds of our youth and "demos" such as my cake ingredients at least stops them throwing pencils up at my ceiling tiles and sit up and watch - and maybe ask a few questions - which I accept I can't answer for them - but at least gets them thinking a bit further than getting drunk on the lidl carpark at the weekend.

 

Yes, but isn't there a better demonstration that at least has some kind of relation to the truth and doesn;t commit a basic category error on a very important topic.

 

Drop your cake mix and ingredients in a big puddle on the floor and ask:

 

"Now why did that happen, Gravity? or God pulling the shopping downwards? Why?"

 

I accept that getting some pupils to engage with an idea is like trying to herd cats, however and the more bows to your string the better.

 

I'm not going to comment on your RE lessons, as there is obviously a lot more to them than just this demonstration, so please don't see my criticism of the analogy as extending to your teaching, please. Teachers have a hard enough time as it is.

However to suggest there is no element of design visible in the world is a little, I want to say arrogant but don't wish to offend so I will say naive (perhaps as bad).

Well rather than simply argue the toss over whether it is rational or naive, what elements that suggest design do you see in the world around you? We could work through some examples.

 

I believe that science has provided many of the answers that we seek that at one time religion sought to provide us with. However, science has also taught us a lot of things that have since been proven false as our knowledge and technology have progressed.

 

Precisely! Scientific method (rather than just 'science') is a self correcting discipline. I can't think of any other field of human endeavour that has produced knowledge and then gone on to discredit it's own knowledge in favour of a more accurate hypothesis.

 

It would be a bit like having a bible that was constantly being revised, with old bits about the vengeful and angry god being edited out, and new bits, about how the meaning of life is actually about shopping cars and sex, being constantly tacked on to the end.

 

I just think in this sometimes quite horrible - and badly designed world that we live in...

 

Badly designed?

 

it is just a terrible shame that we can't sit back and suppose for a second that there might be something bigger than ourselves - but again I am tempted to use the word arrogance, not as a personal attack but as a criticism of the general human race.

 

Supposing there might be something 'bigger than ourselves' is pretty much a universal human emotion from where I stand. To go from there to the proposition that the world was created is an enormous leap.

 

Even if "intelligent design" was true: depending on the extent to which you follow the 'theory', it does not require the existence of a living god.

 

A long dead God or even a race of technologically superior creatures would suffice. And so would a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

If the world was created by intention on the part of another being, noodly or otherwise, I want an explanation of gravity (a.k.a "intelligent falling") from the reasoning that took us to that conclusion. And it has to work, it has to predict the behaviour of falling bodies, and it has to agree with all other divine interventions (world rotating on its axis, the speed of light, observable quantum uncertainty etc etc.)

 

Scientific Theories are always wrong, and that is their strength. We know they are wrong and we strive to correct them. Deistic theories are always right (unless you happen to believe in another deity, in which case they are heresy or the local equivalent) which does not spur us to improve upon them.

[BrainThrust 10]

I think, as an aside to question whether the 'cake situation' is a valid analogy or not. I'd like to bring this back to something that confuses and annoys me about this idea of a creator.

 

If you don't believe in any form of deity, you're an Atheist. Now I hate that word. If you ask anyone what it means and they'll probably tell you 'oh, it means that you don't believe in God'.

 

To me, the involvement in a deity in the term ruins it. It makes it feel like another religion, because it connotes that belief in the non-existance of God is a faith also. The question simply never enters my head. In my eyes, it isn't a belief, it isn't a value I hold dear, it just is.

 

I'd prefer to put something like 'none' if asked to choose a religion, it doesn't pre-suppose that I've made a decision not to accept a deity into my belief system, nor does it suggest that I'm living my life trying to deny there is a God.

 

How often do we really question existance? How often do we go along through our lives without giving it a second thought, both people with faith and those who simply don't care. Why can't things simply be?

 

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't question our own existance, nor the world around us, but why does there have to be a plan? Why does there have to be anything other than the fact we wake up everyday and just do it? Call it chance that we exist, but those who use the fact we do exist as proof of God seems laughable to me. If life hadn't happened (by however means you believe) we wouldn't be here to question why it did anyway, it becomes a cyclic argument. If we're here because God created us, you have to make some vast assumptions, not the least being the fact they did exist, do exist or always will exist.

 

I'm quite happy just to go along though it all not paying much thought into it all. I'm here, I can sit and thinka bout it all day and get no answers, why don't I use that mental effort on something else, like learning about what I can see? Why not try to make a connection with someone in an attempt to assimilate their worldvview with mine? Why don't I (to be really specific here) set my mind on tryign to ignore tha girl I'm smitten with.

 

I just don't get it in the end, I don't see what the issue is, in this modern age I have enough to think about without having to question things I'll never solve.

 

Some of you might think I'm not a fan of Philosophy, because I simpyl accept the world around me. Now don't get me wrong, I like philosophy when it sums up the questions I might at one self-reflective point but 90% of it to me is bobbins. It's filtered through too much personal experience I don;t have and opinions I don't share, not to mention the social construct of the time being wildly different to what it is now.

 

Wilf

[Ollie 10]

I made it!

Why did you even need to ask???

[syko1979 10]

The time machine which they built for my mission could only go back as far as the day after the Universe settled down and kind of resembled what we see now.

 

In theory my craft should be able to travel back to the begining of time however this was not the case.

 

The boffins at the lab beleive I was litteraly halted in time by a force.

 

The Spectophonographalator device on board my craft showed that the force was made up of an energy not found anywhere in the universe. The display showed that the force formed the shape of a giants hand being held by ever gianter tweezers.

 

My mission was over 30 years ago and despite our boffins best efforts and huge investment in the research the source of the force is still a mystery.

 

I have my own theory. I beleive we are in a lab right now. The universe in no more than a complex computer simulation.

 

The giant hand and tweezers image is no more than a hint from them who study us that we are being watched.

 

For example. Imagine an alien race on another planet who have no limbs but use telekenesis to move and manipulate.

 

In their quest through time no doubt the energy force showed on their displays as a highly evolved brain controlling an object such as a spoon.

 

Them who study us will leave further clues.

 

In summary there is no us, no universe, no mackrel, no aliens, no moons, no flames, no joy, no shag pile, no words, no cake.

 

We have been generated by them as model. Eventually them will create "a universe" and we may well be created to reside in that universe and we may well not.

 

I presume that some of you will mock my theory, call me a mad fool and send threats to my sister in Quebec.

 

But I say open your mind. Am I wrong? Could I be right? Is there really no mackrel?

[Jamie 10]

Originally posted by BrainThrust

Why don't I (to be really specific here) set my mind on tryign to ignore tha girl I'm smitten with.

 

Because some things are impossible!? (and in any case, you'd be much better off thinking about something better that you'd like, rather than expending your energy ignoring her).

 

Aside from that, good post Wilf.

 

You don't have to believe in anything, you don't have to engage yourself in the activity of believing, full stop. I'd go so far as to say, that ultimately, whatever you believe, is infact wrong, and is just made up (by you).

 

Probably much more healthy not to think about all this, and to just get on with life, doing what you've been put here to do (!).

 

Mwaahh hah hah.

[Ramen 10]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

If the world was created by intention on the part of another being, noodly or otherwise, I want an explanation of gravity (a.k.a "intelligent falling") from the reasoning that took us to that conclusion. And it has to work, it has to predict the behaviour of falling bodies, and it has to agree with all other divine interventions (world rotating on its axis, the speed of light, observable quantum uncertainty etc etc.)

 

 

My God is no fake God like the others! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. We know this because we have thousands of pages of text describing him and his and his appendages. The other Gods are fakers. There can only be one God and mine is the one. I know this as i have been touched. Honestly I find it very insulting for you to compare the one God to other made up Gods. People are leaving other religions in their thousands, only the FSM is growing, don't be the last on the boat! With the strength in our number we will destroy other religions, only our will be taught in schools!

 

I do fully agree with you on the analogy, I would have been much clearer if the teacher had thrown spaghetti and meatballs, and possibly some cheese on the floor.

 

As for what consists of intelligent noodly design, how about the eye? It's very complex, and without the retina it would not work, without the muscles the eye could not move. It is the sum of it's parts, how could evolution create an eye? I will tell you, it's no coincidence an eye looks like a meatball. You have been enlightened; the path to God is yours to follow brother. Ramen!

 

Have you been touched yet?

[Guest]

did no one go to school?

 

this is simple.

 

God had a bad curry on a weekend and 7 days later he World was created.

[Ramen 10]

Originally posted by robbie

God had a bad curry on a weekend and 7 days later he World was created.

 

Why would a Spaghetti monster eat a curry? That’s just silly. This is serious. Thank you for taking part in the debate, one which the Christians know they will loose, the evidence for the FSM is overwhelming. We have ten volumes of texts they only have 2.

 

P.S : His noodlyness loves gay people!