Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Attention!
This topic is locked.Reason: Getting way off topic.
With the publication of Prof Stephen Hawking latest theory about how it all began, can we accept that there was no intelligent creator of the universe. He says because of physical laws such as gravity there was no need for God. I just wonder who thought up the laws of gravity???
No one thought them up, there is no God. Religion and belief in Deity's are a hangover from a time where we didn't know how and why things worked. For some it was easier to attribute things to a 'god'. This was soon followed by charlatans claiming to have an inside line to God as long you 'donate'.
Some people believe in God
Some people believe in Science
and some believe in both
others just get on with life without a care why the apple falls, but take note not to sit under apple trees in autumn 
The thing is no matter how much we like to think it Science doesn't know answers and it doesn't give them. All science can do is observe and explain the possible why of a resulting action as well as predict the possible responses from performing a series of actions upon something.
It can't really tell you the whole story because each time they find something new it only unlocks a whole new area that we know nothing of - and I suspect part of this is the problem with infinity - a concept we have a hard time really understanding (either as a species or through our upbringing in society - or both).
Also blind belief in either is equally as dangerous.
edit - PS
just as religion has its rulers who know that bit more than the uneducated masses (ie they read and interpret the holy texts and the like) - so do does science leave the masses in the dark whilst the very few know the limited answers that we have.
Quote: No one thought them up, they were there long before humans came along.
The laws are a weak human concept that attempts to provide an explanation and a means to predict future actions within a set limit of criteria. Computers and computing power have greatly increased the accuracy of these predictions by extending the boundaries of the criteria limits, but even they are still not quite powerful enough to predict all.
Further blind acceptance of the standing laws is dangerous as once you operate outside of those limits you encounter dangers or problems - eg a bumblebee cannot fly whilst obeying the laws as they were once written - the law had to be re-written/adjusted to take account for that observation. If however we had never seen a bumblebee we might never accept that such a thing is possible - even though the "natural laws" would not limit it the human understanding of those natural processes would have.
Quote:
Computers and computing power have greatly increased the accuracy of these predictions by extending the boundaries of the criteria limits, but even they are still not quite powerful enough to predict all.
The Met Office local weather forecasting over anything more than a day, being a perfect example.
God wins every time - there is no conflict! 
To believe science has, or will have, all the answers requires belief humans are the highest species in the universe. That's a belief I don't subscribe to and I doubt (in fact I am 100% certain) we shall, with our ant-like brains, ever find answers to all the big questions.
But the "God" word is perhaps unfortunate and carries far too much baggage.
May The Force be with you! 
Are there in fact any 'big questions' other than the ones we ourselves have constructed. Similarly why should there be any conflict between god and science - we have created both in order to help us make sense of the world, universe and everything - there is only conflict if we decide there should be.
Reductionist maybe but science certainly doesn't provide all the answers it is just one way of looking at stuff. But then neither does religion its simply yet another way of considering teh human condition.
Not sure I but into the 'ant -like brain' analogy - why don't we just have human brains? Surely we could be the highest form of life in the universe but once again that feels awfully like us constructing some sort of hierarchy in order to make sense of our surroundings - maybe?
Quote: god and science - we have created both
depends what you mean by god
Quote: I just wonder who thought up the laws of gravity???
God did, the invisible man who lives in the sky and controls all of our lives throughout the universe.
Dunno who created him though, maybe he just popped into being.
Then again maybe the universe just popped into being and to explain it we told people Santa Claus made it, or God or the tooth fairy.
"There is a road in the hearts of all of us,
hidden and seldom travelled,
which leads to an unknown secret place.
The old people came literally to love the soil,
and they sat or reclined on the ground
with a feeling of being close to a mothering power.
Their teepees were built upon the earth and
their alters were made of earth.
The soul was soothing, strengthening,
cleansing and healing.
That is why the old Indian
still sits upon the earth
instead of propping himself up and
away from its life giving forces.
For him, to sit or lie upon the ground
is to be able to think more deeply
and to feel more keenly.
He can see more clearly
into the mysteries of life and
come closer in kinship with other lives about him"
Chief Luther Standing Bear
Quote: Are there in fact any 'big questions' other than the ones we ourselves have constructed. Similarly why should there be any conflict between god and science - we have created both in order to help us make sense of the world, universe and everything - there is only conflict if we decide there should be
couldn't agree more. Its like the argument I keep hearing about the fact that the universe is so well suited to the needs of humans that its proof that god created it, totally missing that humans evolved to fit the environment within our universe so, by defintion we must fit it very well!
Sad really as the question is totally irrelevant except as the cause of so much death and harm (all only in my view of course - I ain't religious and afford you the same right to be wrong as I have )
BOTH science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world.
What will help one to reconcile science and religion?
No end is in sight in our quest for answers about the infinite universe, space, and time. Biologist Lewis Thomas noted: "There will be no end to this process, being the insatiably curious species that we are, exploring, looking around and trying to understand things. We're not ever going to get it solved. I can't imagine any terminal point where everyone will breathe a sigh and will say, 'Now we understand the whole thing.' It's going to remain beyond us."
Similarly, when it comes to religious truth, the reach is boundless. One of the Bible writers, Paul, stated: "Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror . . . My knowledge now is partial."—1 Corinthians 13:12, The New English Bible.
Partial knowledge concerning both scientific and religious questions, however, does not prevent us from reaching sound conclusions based on the facts we have. We don't need a detailed knowledge of the origin of the sun in order to be absolutely sure that it is going to rise tomorrow.
In the quest for answers, we need to be guided by sound principles. Unless we stick to the highest standards of evidence, we can easily be misled in our search for scientific and religious truth. Realistically, none of us can begin to evaluate all scientific knowledge and ideas, which today fill huge libraries. On the other hand, the Bible provides a manageable compendium of spiritual teachings for our consideration. The Bible is well supported by known facts.
However, concerning knowledge in general, earnest effort is required to distinguish between fact and speculation, between reality and deception—in both science and religion. As the Bible writer Paul advised, we need to reject "the contradictions of the falsely called 'knowledge.'" (1 Timothy 6:20) To reconcile science and the Bible, we must let the facts speak for themselves, thereby avoiding conjecture and speculation, and examine how each fact supports and adds to the other.
The Bible provides us with knowledge of God and his purposes that cannot be gleaned from any other source. Why should we trust it? The Bible itself invites us to test its accuracy. Consider its historical authenticity, its practicality, the candor of its writers, and its integrity. By investigating the accuracy of the Bible, including statements of a scientific nature and, even more convincingly, the unerring fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies throughout the ages and into our present day, one can acquire firm faith in it as the Word of God. Faith in the Bible is not credulity but a proven confidence in the accuracy of Scriptural statements.
Has Science Taken the Moral High Ground?
Understandably, religion has been rejected by many people of science for its resistance to scientific progress, its dismal record, and its hypocrisy and cruelty. Professor of microbiology John Postgate points out: "The world's religions have . . . brought the horrors of human sacrifice, crusades, pogroms and inquisitions. In the modern world this darker side of religion has become dangerous. For unlike science, religion is not neutral."
Comparing that with the assumed rationality, objectivity, and discipline of science, Postgate claims that "science has come to occupy the high ground of morality."
Has science really seized the moral high ground? The answer is no. Postgate himself admits that "scientific communities have their share of jealousy, greed, prejudice and envy." He adds that "a few scientists have shown themselves capable of murder in the name of research, as happened in Nazi Germany and Japanese prison camps." And when National Geographic assigned an investigative reporter to find out how a fossil hoax ended up in its pages, the reporter spoke of "a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, [and] corruption."
And, of course, it is science that has given mankind horrific instruments of warfare, such as weapons-grade disease organisms, poison gas, missiles, "smart" bombs, and nuclear bombs.
An open mind is required to find the truth, one may have to leave behind cherished beliefs, and make adjustments to our thinking but the truth is out there if you wish to find.
Regards Barry
Attention!
This topic is locked.Reason: Getting way off topic.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top