Illuminati-R-Us

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 84,00.html

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

this guy is right on the money IMO.

except I believe that humans will continue to evolve.

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world.

No, science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because you cannot prove the negative.

So the guy became religious at an earlier time because he saw people taking strength from their faith. Now he finds that the human genome is consistent with his beliefs. OK. Not new.

Personally, it is not the concept of god that I have a problem with, but the concept of religion.

Doe, John wrote:Personally, it is not the concept of god that I have a problem with, but the concept of religion.

I'm the same way, except for the "God" part. I don't get the whole "single entity-that-has-a-thing-for-anthills" concept.

I personally think that, if there were a powerful spiritual realm, it's concept would be far more complex and difficult to decipher than any human could easily conceive. Thus, claiming that we even have a chance of being "right" is rather hubris. But that's IMNHO.

Lonewulf wrote:

Doe, John wrote:Personally, it is not the concept of god that I have a problem with, but the concept of religion.

I'm the same way, except for the "God" part. I don't get the whole "single entity-that-has-a-thing-for-anthills" concept.

I personally think that, if there were a powerful spiritual realm, it's concept would be far more complex and difficult to decipher than any human could easily conceive. Thus, claiming that we even have a chance of being "right" is rather hubris. But that's IMNHO.

My definition of god (notice small "g") is a little more flexible than that. If the universe was created then the being, collection of beings, or whatever responsible for that creation, is likely complex beyond our ability to define completely. A Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably as accurate a definition as Yahweh or Allah or whatever, which is to say, not accurate at all. So I'd say we (you and I) are pretty close to agreeing that we (mankind) have no idea what we're talking about.

Doe, John wrote:So I'd say we (you and I) are pretty close to agreeing that we (mankind) have no idea what we're talking about.

You act as though people (in general) often know what they're talking about. If we knew we wouldn't be talking, debating, expanding, evolving.

--hippie

Doe, John wrote:My definition of god (notice small "g") is a little more flexible than that. If the universe was created then the being, collection of beings, or whatever responsible for that creation, is likely complex beyond our ability to define completely. A Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably as accurate a definition as Yahweh or Allah or whatever, which is to say, not accurate at all. So I'd say we (you and I) are pretty close to agreeing that we (mankind) have no idea what we're talking about.

We do know what we're talking about in some limited capacity, but my main argument is that there are limitations to that knowledge; and that Truth may be up for debate, but it should never be up for compromise. "This is my Truth, and that is your Truth" is something I cannot stand; to admit ignorance where it exists makes greater use of our mental capacity than practicing Hubris. That's IMO, and that's why I'm rather intolerant of religion in general.

But yet we do know many things; we know about genetics, biology, geology, astronomy, etc. We're developing complex theories to answer questions that get raised from our studies, some of which *only* exist within the realm of the hypothetical.

I just think that there will come a time where we will answer almost all the questions that we pose; but that it won't happen within our generation, and not for generations left to come.

Lonewulf wrote:I just think that there will come a time where we will answer almost all the questions that we pose; but that it won't happen within our generation, and not for generations left to come.

I gotta disagree with this statement. I doubt we will ever answer almost all the questions we pose. Every question that gets answered raises two more questions. And then comes the discovery that the answer was incomplete or inaccurate and must be readdressed. The universe is not a static environment with a finite set of questions and answers. It is continually growing and evolving. The answer that was true yesterday, may not be true tomorrow.

sheesh, anybody got a shovel, the tops of my boots just went under

:)

Doe, John wrote:I gotta disagree with this statement. I doubt we will ever answer almost all the questions we pose. Every question that gets answered raises two more questions. And then comes the discovery that the answer was incomplete or inaccurate and must be readdressed. The universe is not a static environment with a finite set of questions and answers. It is continually growing and evolving. The answer that was true yesterday, may not be true tomorrow.

That may be true, but as we go along, more and more questions become answered. Assuming that our species (or subspecies that come as a result of us) lives that long without threat of extinction, one has to wonder when the questions start growing narrower and narrower. Then you have to factor that, if our species truly expands throughout the universe, we will have a much broader field of vision; that, assuming transhumanists win out and cybernetics and genetic engineering become a larger issue, we'll have a much broader "field of vision" with a differing set of mindsets...

I'd say that whether or not all questions will be answered or not is not a question we could really presently express. To answer that question, you have to know what the questions are, and how the universe works; as we do not know yet, and because we don't know if there exists a limitation, I think we should just both agree that the future holds a lot of unknowns. We can make vague predictions, but no outright statements.

Well, with current science anyways, for every question answered, two new one arise...this will likely happen for a very long time...

Dragon Star wrote:Well, with current science anyways, for every question answered, two new one arise...this will likely happen for a very long time...

And I'd agree. I can't speculate as to what science will lead to in the future, however. That would take information I currently I do not have.

As long as it doesn't turn out to be like "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", frankly I don't care as long as we survive. :)

Dragon Star wrote:As long as it doesn't turn out to be like "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", frankly I don't care as long as we survive. :)

Science didn't do that. Vogons did.

I didn't know God was lost.

Khrushchev's Other Shoe wrote:I didn't know God was lost.

Well, he missed that one signpost, and accidentally went on the Highway to Hell. It's a nasty intersection there...

Lonewulf wrote:I personally think that, if there were a powerful spiritual realm, it's concept would be far more complex and difficult to decipher than any human could easily conceive. Thus, claiming that we even have a chance of being "right" is rather hubris. But that's IMNHO.

In my opinion as well. If a god exists, he is surely not the petty, intellectually stifled consciousness that various religions paint him as. How could an all powerful, all knowing being care whether I show up at the local church on Sunday morning or not? Has he nothing better to do with his infinite time than keep track of the minutiae of our adherence to the Bible, or Koran, or whatever? Personally, I think if he's there, he set the universe to running and then took off to have a go at something else. Maybe he checks in on occasion to see what's up and maybe not.

Frogmarch wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

this guy is right on the money IMO.

except I believe that humans will continue to evolve.

God is not something found.

Some of the men who walked on the moon later became priests.

Some of the cosmologist who worked with Hawking later became priests.

God is either everywhere and everything or nowhere and nothing. Since existance simply exists, what is there to "find"?

THat is a rhetorical question.

Your car keys exist even if you have lost them but that doesn't mean that if you can't "find" them.
The finding of God is in the realising that he is there not that he wasn't there before you found him and then there after you found him.


It's like finding that you car was made in Norway instead of Sweden, it is still a discovery even if you car always was made in Norway.

Frogmarch wrote:Your car keys exist even if you have lost them but that doesn't mean that if you can't "find" them.
The finding of God is in the realising that he is there not that he wasn't there before you found him and then there after you found him.


It's like finding that you car was made in Norway instead of Sweden, it is still a discovery even if you car always was made in Norway.

I do not think using an analogy of any tangible object is applicable.

Well what about a piece of knowledge?
Perhaps a fact about the second world war that you hadn't known, but had existed for 60years and that existence could be argued to be everywhere then one day you watch a documentary and then you "find" out this fact. Is that a better analogy?

Frogmarch, don't even try. If you've read any of Bills posts, you'll realize he is intellectually dishonest, and loves to try to misdirect the debate away from any contrary input.