For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

That is a good summation for my beliefs. I see no need for any negation of science because of God, or negation of God because of science, even when they seem to take diametrically opposed stances.

Did God create the world (and universe) 4,000 years ago as the bible may say? I have no issue there. Did the universe form in a big bang some dozen billion years ago? Sure looks like it.

After all, no where does it state God created a new universe, he may have made a 12.75 billion year old universe just to save some time and skip a few intermediate steps. That's his call, not mine to question.

Thy will be done.

 

That is a good summation for my beliefs. I see no need for any negation of science because of God, or negation of God because of science, even when they seem to take diametrically opposed stances.

Did God create the world (and universe) 4,000 years ago as the bible may say? I have no issue there. Did the universe form in a big bang some dozen billion years ago? Sure looks like it.

After all, no where does it state God created a new universe, he may have made a 12.75 billion year old universe just to save some time and skip a few intermediate steps. That's his call, not mine to question.

Thy will be done.

I believe this is known as the gap creationism theory, although it seems to stretch the words a bit far. I suppose there might not be any reference of the so called gap but it seems like a pretty important event to miss out.

I have always heard it was 6,000-10,000 years for young earth creationism, depending on which interpretation you use, not 4,000 years, although on the grand scale of things, it is quite a distance from the 13.75 billion years estimated. (±0.11bn years.)

 

I didnt go through all replies for English is not my native language either.

I didnt believe any god before.Though I don't belive now, sometimes I just pray good luck from her.
at the beginning of this year I went to one place and there were God sculpture, I took part in the memory god activity and donated a little money to the temple.
Then I found I am in good luck this year

 

How far is the baby? Now there is an act of creation.

 

How far is the baby? Now there is an act of creation.

4.5 month

 

4.5 month

Half way there

Wishing you all the best, happyganl

Der Strom

 

She was the op on a post that is getting near birth year 2011,
yet you guys don't kick the can and run up the numbers.I am going to the post and kick the can again. Loosewire

 

Half way there

Wishing you all the best, happyganl

Der Strom

Thanks,hope that day comes quickly

 

She was the op on a post that is getting near birth year 2011,
yet you guys don't kick the can and run up the numbers.I am going to the post and kick the can again. Loosewire

you did great contribution to that thread

 

Well,thank You,that was unexpected.
Loosewire

 

She was the op on a post that is getting near birth year 2011,
yet you guys don't kick the can and run up the numbers.I am going to the post and kick the can again. Loosewire

Can you post the link? Thanks

 

@ DerStrom8,( Show your picture one by one-Happyganl) op off topic.

 

@ loosewire, Ok, I remember that one. The longest thread on the site Thanks!

 

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I'm glad that this thread has been getting along decently. I wanted to make another related inquiry and thought it would be more apt to start it here.

Are morals objective? Is there there any 'objective' morality?

Well, it seems that this "moral talk" is very important when discussing the so-called conflict between science and religion. I have heard many times people saying morals are objective and science tells us nothing why they are objective. In the first place, in my humble opinion arguing in terms of "science vs. religion" is not a wise thing to do. Personally, I don't think there are any "fixed" morals and I also believe moral are totally subjective. If they were purely objective then that would mean they are fixed. The laws based on morality are not ageless because morality has no absolute value and it keeps changing from one period to another. In the past sexual orientation was really a matter and was considered a part of “moral canon”. If you were a male then you are bound to fall for a woman and vice versa. But this "taboo" subject of the past is on its way of decline. The so-called morality is an invention of humans and many times they use this invention of theirs to their own advantage. You can say to kill someone is an immoral act. The immorality of this act is completely subjective. During a war the more enemy soldiers you kill the more heroic you become. But isn’t it also a murder? In societies where there is no proper justice system, people take law into their own hands to revenge the death of their loved ones. To an outsider this could be considered a murder but they don’ t have a choice except that they do the justice by themselves. On the other hand, when a court punishes someone to death penalty we say its justice.


Almost every religion give some guidelines which are termed as "moral principles" for healthy society. Even if there were no religion we would have the same so-called moral laws. One can raise another question that why we (i.e. humans) are here and how we should treat each other. The short answer is that what other animals are doing here on earth. Like other animals humans are also by product of evolution.

I understand that my reason is naive, incomplete and unsophisticated but I hope you can see what I want to say. And please don’t be offended by anything I said above. Thank you.

Regards
PG

 

Keep on poken, the balloon will eventually burst.

A lot of people will tell you with a straight face that morality comes from being religious. I vigorously disagree with that statement. Morality comes from a code of Honor and Duty, most of which you develop when you grow up. Religion can influence it, but it is not the only influence. Most (but not all) people are born with a sense of empathy. If this is a given then "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty basic. You want to live, you understand other people feel pretty much the same way. Give it a little thought you can see how it would hurt those who love the other individual if he were murdered.

If you look at most societies you will see a lot of the laws repeated, you don't murder, you don't steal, etc. In the end it comes down to what you feel is honorable, some people are basically more honorable than others.

When you talk about war you are getting into basic instincts (again, my opinion). The "other" wants to take what is yours, and/or kill the ones you love. Once you have reached that conclusion then you will defend yourself, and killing becomes justified. There have been many conscientious objectors over the years, some (maybe most) for religious reasons, but when it comes to kill or be killed most people defend themselves.

There are those who DO lean on religion for moral values. I see nothing wrong with that, unless they want to force me to join their religion against my will. I think you would be hard pressed to find exceptions for every religion, it seems to be a phase all of them go through at one point or time. The inquisition killed people so they would go to heaven, or at least not pollute other peoples souls and cause them to go to hell. The current Jihadists want to force Islam onto everyone, Bin Lauden stated he would end the war if we would only convert. This kind of reasoning will always result in war.

 

I agree with you completely, Bill. My religion has solidified my morals and ethics, but even without religion, I would still have many of the same principles. You don't have to be religious to know that killing and stealing is wrong.
As for killing because of religious beliefs, I disagree with the idea entirely, but I don't want to be the one to burst the balloon. I, personally, am enjoying this conversation. It is good to see other people's opinions. Let's keep this thread clean and respectful--it's going great
Der Strom

 

The so-called morality is an invention of humans and many times they use this invention of theirs to their own advantage. You can say to kill someone is an immoral act. The immorality of this act is completely subjective. During a war the more enemy soldiers you kill the more heroic you become. But isn’t it also a murder? In societies where there is no proper justice system, people take law into their own hands to revenge the death of their loved ones. To an outsider this could be considered a murder but they don’ t have a choice except that they do the justice by themselves. On the other hand, when a court punishes someone to death penalty we say its justice.

I have gone down this road of thought many times and found myself at several different conclusions. My current ideas on the matter are pretty closely aligned with Bill's.

Most (but not all) people are born with a sense of empathy. If this is a given then "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty basic.

I don't necessarily think we are "born with a sense of empathy" but I do think that what sets us apart from the animals is the capacity to be taught empathy. I suspect that if a person were raised in an environment where empathy were not taught, it would not develop on its own. Observe the behavior of undisciplined child. I had cousins growing up who were not given the same guidance that I was. They did not share their toys. I remember being bludgeoned about the head with a tonka truck by my cousin for touching his GI Joe toy. If you were to remove all the variables (influence from others during developmental stages; teachers & counselors in school, law enforcement, etc; in essence put him in the wild) and let him to continue on this path, that translates to slaying people with a broadsword for touching his TV remote later in life.

If you want to boil this all the way down, yes I believe that "morals" are totally subjective; even in your most extreme example, murder. Even Genocide. But, if you are willing to condone murder & genocide on the grounds that they're subjective then you're just an ape with a t-shirt on. We would not have made it to the pinnacle of civilization (several times) without our morals to guide us. It is the essence of being human to be moral.

 

If educated men can walk out of tribal history and sit at a bar then go
and have people jumping 90 floors to there death. Go to there death
with out ever knowing what they had caused. Its eternal,Its history
to be repeated,as a great man has said.

 

Life is meaningless, Slaughtering of animals

Below is given a part of a discussion I was having with my friend:


I said:
Some days ago I was discussing with someone that life is meaningless. This was my position. There could be some subjective meanings and they could be bad or good. The meaning of life for a serial killer could be to kill as many people as possible. But as we progressed with the discussion I changed my position as soon as the guy asked that if life is meaningless then what, in my opinion, would be a "meaningful" life? His question was really good.


There are logical things, illogical things and then alogical - where the logic cannot be applied. So, this was my final position that life is neither meaningless nor meaningful. We cannot really determine its absolute answer. This is perhaps the limitation human thinking. Please guide me on this. What is your position from secular point of view?

Reply from my friend:
The meaning of life? That's an interesting question that humans have been grappling with for many centuries.

My thesis is: If something is to have meaning, it must have a purpose, so that its meaning can be fulfilled and measured. This translated in many civilizations to a theological question: Why are we here? What was God's purpose in creating the earth and the life on it? What is our purpose in existence? The Abrahamic traditions deal with this in the very first chapter in the first book of scriptures. That's how important it is. That first book, Genesis, reads that after each phase of creation, God looked at it and considered it "good." Each creation had a purpose, but that is not revealed until the last. After the last act of creation - that of man, God gave him a purpose - to rule over the earth and to be fruitful and multiply. I suppose that other religions have similar creation stories, but from this theological perspective, man's purpose in life is to tend the gardens, have children, and worship the Creator for His good works. Meaning is achieved by fulfilling this purpose.

But you wanted a purely secular argument, not a theological one. Do we have a purpose? That can be answered on many levels, but probably the core one is at the individual level. The freedom and individuality that is essential to our being separate entities lets us answer that for ourselves. Each person can choose their own meaning (or allow someone to choose it for them). That purpose is rendered tangible in where they expend their most precious resource - time.
Those who subscribe to a religion, derive this from the tenets of their faith, and spend time in the rituals or prescribed religious activities.
Those who do not, can find it in personal creation or service. By personal creation, I mean that they find their meaning in their progeny, or creative arts - music, literature, visual art, or in intellectual discoveries in mathematics, science, philosophy or technology. Meaning can be also gained from service which can be benevolent or malevolent.

Since we all have this resource of time, it is impossible to have a "meaningless" existence. A person might not be very wise in using it, or even aware of its passing, or be thwarted in exercising their specific choice of fulfillment, but that does not deny that it exists. The value of the meaning of a person's existence to society is visible in the kind of life that they live. Thus, one could subjectively assign values or qualities at any point in a person's lifetime - for good or for evil, degrees of merit, on multiple scales in multiple dimensions, or even the quality of no value at all. The assignment of a zero value does not mean that the notion of "meaning" does not exist. The greatest invention of mathematics was the number zero. It is a real number, even though it has no quantitative value!

Then I said:
So, in your view life has a meaning from both points of view - secular and religious. But, what about the animals? After all man is also a social animal. Eat, drink, produce, and then die! Although animals' lives seem meaningless to us, they also do these things. I hope you see where I'm coming from. In my view if a man's life has a meaning, then an animal is also entitled to such a meaningful life. Yes, they aren't that much creative as a man but so could be true of many humans. A person living in poverty ridden parts of Africa could have such a low "common sense" that one may wrongfully think that that person has some mental problem.

If you agree that there is also 'some' meaning to animals' lives, then what animals rights groups and vegetarians (who have chose this practice not because of health benefits, religious reasons, etc.) say is also correct. Isn't then butchering an animal for meat also equals murder? No, why? What is your position in this matter?


Once again I would request you to answer from a secular point of view. The reason is simple: the secular arguments carry more weightage. I like this approach because works in many cases.


What is your opinion on this?

Thank you for your time.

Regards
PG

 

OK, I want to give one example from my small mind:-

There is a blind man who says there is no light which i can see, people say there is light(sun) we can see...!!
The blind man said if there is sun then why i can't see ??If there is light than show me...!!

people said, there is light it is problem in your eye.............

Conclusion:-
It is ours mistake that we can't see, God is every where.

I have also listened that there are 1 or 2 scientist in million or billion..
like this saint are also there in this billion and million people only one or 2 very less in numbers...

Saint are those who has waken up 100%
If we see animals they are 8-9% wake up then man 10-12% than we talk about maximum rating they are 15% wake up human beings.