God doesn’t exist... Mathematically?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: I believe in science and scientific logic.

I also believe in science and logic. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Just as someone can be a Christian Socialist, or Christian Environmentalist, so can one be a Christian evolutionary scientist.

[Timber Loftis]

To chime in on the existence of Jesus historically, I think Yorick already mentioned historians who menioned him. From Roman writings, there is little doubt that the "Christ cult" formed around a figurehead prophet with supposed ties to the line of Jewish kings. Like Homer, whether this was truly one person, or whether it was a group of people who became conglomerated into one personality, there is little doubt that Christ existed historically.

I do not challenge the existence of Christ, nor Budha, nor Mohammad. The world has been shaped, to a large degree, by influential charismatic genius prophets. I just can't buy into the resurrection. Not to indicate how much teachers affect us, but this was the same conclusion that lead my religion professor to ultimate conclude he could not advance beyond Judaism in his beliefs.

Me... I stopped at atheism, after many bouts with Christianity as a youth and brief entertaining of agnosticism and pantheism as an undergraduate.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: To chime in on the existence of Jesus historically, I think Yorick already mentioned historians who menioned him. From Roman writings, there is little doubt that the "Christ cult" formed around a figurehead prophet with supposed ties to the line of Jewish kings. Like Homer, whether this was truly one person, or whether it was a group of people who became conglomerated into one personality, there is little doubt that Christ existed historically. I do not challenge the existence of Christ, nor Budha, nor Mohammad. The world has been shaped, to a large degree, by influential charismatic genius prophets. I just can't buy into the resurrection. Not to indicate how much teachers affect us, but this was the same conclusion that lead my religion professor to ultimate conclude he could not advance beyond Judaism in his beliefs. Me... I stopped at atheism, after many bouts with Christianity as a youth and brief entertaining of agnosticism and pantheism as an undergraduate.

Fair enough. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[LordKathen]

So you believe in evolution? I never understood the notion of evolution being created. Are we going end this with a good note or not?

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: To chime in on the existence of Jesus historically, I think Yorick already mentioned historians who menioned him. From Roman writings, there is little doubt that the "Christ cult" formed around a figurehead prophet with supposed ties to the line of Jewish kings. Like Homer, whether this was truly one person, or whether it was a group of people who became conglomerated into one personality, there is little doubt that Christ existed historically. I do not challenge the existence of Christ, nor Budha, nor Mohammad. The world has been shaped, to a large degree, by influential charismatic genius prophets. I just can't buy into the resurrection. Not to indicate how much teachers affect us, but this was the same conclusion that lead my religion professor to ultimate conclude he could not advance beyond Judaism in his beliefs. Me... I stopped at atheism, after many bouts with Christianity as a youth and brief entertaining of agnosticism and pantheism as an undergraduate.

I would agree with you. I never said to yorick that these people in history never existed. Just the magical part, resurection, the holy spirit, etc.

[Djinn Raffo]

And don't forget just recently a funeral box was found in Israel that had the inscription stating James (i think) son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. Of course it was unproven but it is moving proof into a forwards direction.

[Mordenheim]

cut/paste

Science Versus Religion

Science and religion used to run hand in hand with each other, but now common conceptions make us choose between one or the other. Often, we feel that this choice is necessary because the two provide us with very differing opinions. I will attempt in this discussion, to show that this is not in fact the case.
That this year the 1995 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion went to a scientist (Professor Paul Davies) is significant. Fans of Stephen Hawking will know of his final statement in "A Brief History of Time" in which he says that by understanding quantum mechanics, mankind will know the mind of G-d. Science is again moving towards religion, just as religion is taking a more scientific view.
The most controversial of all science vs religion debates is the creation story. Scientists will claim that the Universe started as a Big Bang - a singularity which spontaneously exploded, releasing the matter from which the Universe was to be made. It is significant to note here that in this singularity, no known laws of physics are claimed to have been conserved. But why?
What we must remember as we look at this debate is that "Laws of Phsyics" is a misleading phrase. It implies that we have set rules by which physical processes occur. This, as most scientists will testify, is untrue. What we have are theories which closely match observed physical data. We have Einstein's Theory of Relativity, so named because at first Einstein calculated what we might see to occur, and then the data was observed to fit. The astronomer's ultimate goal is to find the GUT, the Grand Unified Theory, at which point all scientific knowledge will be known. But note this is just a theory.
As I move through this argument, I do not intend, as I should state here, to work against the validity of science. I am not saying that science is wrong, I am merely proposing that science is theory. So, it is impossible for us to state with certainty what goes on in a physical process. As my Astrophysics lecturer said "We do not yet understand the full process of stellar evolution, but the main theme is clear". We cannot observe astronomical processes fully, just as we cannot observe microsopic processes fully. We cannot observe reactions that occur over millions of years, just as we can only guess as to the contents of the atom, leading us to quarks and fundamental particles, which seem to always contain more fundamental particles!
Here, I turn back to Creation. I shall write the translation from the Hertz Chumash and shall add in points which I regard as relevant to this debate.

In the beginning, G-d created the heaven and the earth. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the waters.
These first two verses are the start of biblical/scientific controversy. The first verse (first sentence), is a summary of what is to happen, and not a description. In the second verse, "the deep" comes from the Hebrew tehom, meaning the abyss. This deep space contained nothing, a perfect vacuum, as it were. This is similar to the Interstellar Medium, which we prefer to call outer space (which is not a perfect vacuum).
The Hertz Chumash brushes over the word ha-mayim, the waters. It is possible that it is assumed that this is water in the sense as we know it. However, I believe that we already need to turn to science to help us in our understanding. As far as scientific theory dictates, clouds of dust and gas are forced to collapse into protostars and then into stars and planets. These dust clouds, which we observe as nebulae, consist mainly of ionised hydrogen (H I) molecules, which we observe as the reddish colour of many dust clouds. However, some clouds have a noticeable greenish tinge because of a coupling of O III (Oxygen) molecules. Any chemist will tell you that two molecules of hydrogen plus one of oxygen will form water as we know it. Therefore, we have a cloud of water, yet to be created.
And G-d said: "Let there be light". And there was light. And G-d saw the light, that it was good; and G-d divided the light from the darkness. And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
The separation of light from darkness, I believe, is a purely observational thing. That light itself had to be created is obvious, we reap it's benefits all the time (particularly while reading this!). What science fails to tell us is why light was created. We can create light by exciting photons from an atom, but we cannot say why light was first created, from this singularity. Religion tells us it was the word of G-d.
The next major discussion is of the presence of a day. That the whole creation story is on the timescale of days, whereas astronomers try to observe stellar evolution over millions of years, seems to be a great debate. This argument is solved by the fact that the Sun had not yet been created, and hence a day as we know it did not exist. Indeed, it is not until the fourth day when the Sun is created, so yom, the Hebrew for day, should be read as era, or epoch. This is similar to the debate as used by Muslims to explain the creation story.
And G-d said:"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." This refers to a separation of heavy elements to form the Earth and some other planets and the light elements to form the Sun and the rest of the planets, such as Jupiter.
And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day. And G-d said: "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, and let the dry land appear". And it was so.
Here, we have again a new separation of seas and land on the Earth.
And G-d called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of the waters He called the Seas; and G-d saw that it was good. And G-d said: "Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the Earth".
This is a most challenging debate. That the Sun is required for photosynthesis means that its presence seems to be necessary for this to occur. But we have already assumed that the Sun is being formed, and if we assume that it is now burning on its own accord, as what is known as a pre-main-sequence star, it is possible for this to happen. On the fourth day, when the Sun is truly created, it moves onto the main-sequence stage, and burns much stronger.

That is just a sample of how the very difficult debates can be turned to show that science and religion do, in fact, agree greatly. To go on further, the Bible gives us the story of the Evolution of Man. Although many people take this whole of the first part of the Torah as being metaphorical, we could take it literally and compare it to scientific theories. However, up to the day of his death, Darwin disliked his Theory of Evolution. Indeed, nobody has conclusively proved that man descended 'from the apes', as we like to say, because there has been little evidence to support this (although I am not discrediting the fossils found that may provide some links as to the stature of an early man). Hence, we have nothing to compare it to (yet).
If we are open-minded, we can work with science AND religion to find true answers, and until we know the full truth from both, we are only guessing anyway!