The Creation: Science v Religion; Documentary (4 of 4)

[creativeprojects720]

It's also just a lot easier to say that "god did all this", than to have to explain every detail of what happened. That's why the religious people are not as smart or inquisitive, than the scientist- types. The scientist types have a lot of questions and they are very inquisitive, spending a lot of their time thinking and pondering. The religious ones are more content with "work" and not as much mental thinking.

[DrMontague]

@creativeprojects720 John Polkinghorne (in this vid) was a Professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University. He is now an ordained priest. So obviously he does think. He's an authority on theoretical physics. This simply shows that top physicists can have a psychological yearning for the gods.

[creativeprojects720]

@DrMontague Well there are always exceptions to the rule. I was making a generalization. A lot of scientists are also Christians.

[rstevewarmorycom]

There are simplistic childish believer literalists of course, but

then there are quantum physicists who say nothing exists when

you're not looking at it. We don't bring ourselves to this life, we

know we didn't do it, and when we go away we know it isn't we

who does that, it's Something Else. And we know that since it

did it once, that precedent means it can do that anytime and

anyway it wants, if it "wants". And we know nothing comes

into our awareness as anything but a thought arising .(cont)

[DrMontague]

@rstevewarmorycom It's called the measurement problem. It goes beyond our common sense reassuring everyday experience of the world.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@DrMontague (cont) All that we see hear taste touch smell

THINK comes into our mind as a thought, and also part of the

thought that we are the thinker and we are aware of this thought,

and we have no control of this, it happens without our desire or

agreement. We are unable to change even the tiniest thing that

we believe. If we could we might well believe we were somewhere

else more pleasant, and we'd believe we were that other person

there, no causation, chaos completely by whim. (cont)

[rstevewarmorycom]

@DrMontague And if we are not made of atoms, if atoms are,

like Bohr said, only a model, and the little balls on some device

screens are more a feature of the our seeing and that device

than reality, then are we just thought, and not even provably our

OWN thought but Something Else's?

There is enough room in physics for Deity or the Divinely Infinite,

you just have to be careful what you're claiming it them, because

*I* sure as fuck don't know what "God" is, and NOBODY does

or ever did!!

[DrMontague]

@rstevewarmorycom Basically you have a psychological yearning for wanting to believe there is a supernatural natural being behind everything. Of course like any other religious belief you offer no proof of these supernatural beings. It just that you would like to believe in them. Then we get back to the argument where did the supernatural being come from? And why the fuck do these supernatural being fuck about so much!? Come off it their planet making skills are appalling .

[rstevewarmorycom]

@DrMontague What I'm saying, quite simply, is that there is a

reason that each one of us calls ourself by the same name, ME!

It's NOT a coincidence. We're the same Infinite One/Many.

That WE is the Uncreated. It exists outside all time and all lives

and within each one of us, AS us!

[DrMontague]

@rstevewarmorycom . What are you blabbering on about.? Your last comment is total excrement. Do you have a problem with English language? It is quite simple, you want to believe there is an intelligence behind the cosmos i.e. a god, a supernatural being. In other words you are a theist who makes a feeble attempt at hiding behind scientific and philosophical Jargon which you have a poor understanding of.

[rstevewarmorycom]

@DrMontague Something else important is that my take on the Infinite holds that it is NOT "supernatural". It is the source

and heart of Nature, it operates Evolutionarily, and anything that

had to be arranged "before the foundation of the world" for our

existence to exist, exists spontaneously in Deep Nature as what

we would call the complexities of the proton and other particles/

forces. Everything already happened and is implicit in Deep Nature.

Infinite Multi-Universal Timeless Determinism.

[DrMontague]

@rstevewarmorycom You do not know how to present a coherent argument. You're all over the shop. Go and learn English. You are nothing but a creationist retard. Non fool the Doc!

[220hotrod]

out of body expereince anyone? Spirituality can also be proven with whatever term for the word you want it to be called. Many people tell their out of body experience to other people as a nonfictional story and it is really interesting. How about that for Psychology?

[emikochan13]

@220hotrod all out of body experiences are hallucinations. We've been able to replicate the effect in the lab with ease.

[1RothMan]

i extended the game of life, adding genotypes, random mutations, etc

/watch?v=iS_LCsaFRDs

[ShootMyMonkey]

Throughout the 4 parts, I have serious problems with the way John Polkinghorne is posing the relevance of God. He begs the question quite a lot with his ideas of maintaining stability of physical interactions or a world containing the experience of beauty and faith as if to suggest that they would be more arbitrary without a God.

He's moving the goalposts -- where people once believed things to be divine which are now understood in science, he's saying the divine is in why it is understandable.

[MrMarkllama]

They created a set of rules to illustrate their point. Should we also use chess to illustrate how a king can never die? this video is failtarded.

[DrMontague]

@MrMarkllama It is obvious that you have not understood fuck all!

[MrMZaccone]

It illustrates only that simple rules can result in complex results. Chess does not have simple rules. You're the failtard, or perhaps you prefer the term fucktard?

[Nygaard2]

@MrMarkllama

Very funny!

How did Jesus illustrate questions of faith again?

[KiddJesus]

rules that Christ put in

lol these guys are hilarious

[Mudbikerz]

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=3SUwMb­yNQz8

[chunkybutt420]

game of life? isn't that called go?

[nitai86]

It's game of life, they just have used the goban (board) and stones from go

[drfoxcourt]

No. Go is a game with 2 opponents and rules involving space filling and surrounding.Go is probably more complex than the game of chess with simpler rules

The game of Life does not have opponents, merely rules. They just used a go board in the demo

[balumuthu]

First and foremost in any a debate of this type on creation, there must be an agreed and clearcut definiton of what we EXACTLY we mean by Religion, God [whether he is to be personified or can be formless, or just equated to a Universal Consciousness; let alone existent/ non-existent], Science, Creation/Origin of Universe. This clarity and definition must be there in all participants' discussion BEFORE debate is started. Or else, half through any debate, the situation can get too funny or odd.

[DrMontague]

The debate is pretty straight forward. The religious are classed as those who believe that the universe was created by a supernatural cause of some kind. The non believing scientists argue that although we don't fully understand the creation, the universe is a result of natural phenomanoma.

[balumuthu]

DrMontague, your reply is good enough.

[Oo9999999makes1]

interesting, i havn't thought about matter coming from a loophole in phsics. this gives an even greater base for my atheism. also id like to play a video game version of that board game, anyone with flash who reads this should put that on newgrounds.

[viharsarok]

There are numerous sites where you can play the Game of Life online, just search for them with Google.

[humanist7117]

When Westerners (and especially Americans) debate Science versus Creatiionism, they cannot see beyond their Abrahamic heritage.

Most know nothing about other world religions.

They just assume that theirs is the correct religious beersion. How arrogant and ignorant!

(Religion by the way is a generic term. One should specify which religion about which one is speaking.)

[DrMontague]

One thing all religions have in common is the belief in a supernatural being.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Dictionarydotcom

Professor John Polkenholme does specify that he is talking about Christianity.

[humanist7117]

What do you know about basic Buddhism?

[DrMontague]

Buddhism is a set of teachings often described as a religion. However, some definitions of religion would exclude it, or some forms of it. Some say it is a body of philosophies influenced by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha.

Wikipedia

I knew this argument already but to quote a source saves a lot of time. However if any form of Buddism starts to talk of supernatural things e.g. reincarnation then I would regard it as a religion.

[19995700]

I'd agree that its (Buddhism) a body of philosophies , but as they don't believe in a deity its probably not strictly a religion.

In my militant atheist opinion its the best of them. And interestingly I watched a program that cited a number of studies saying they are hands down the happiest group of people in the world. No planes into buildings for this lot.

[DrMontague]

Accept if they happen to live in Burma!

BTW the dictionary now states you can have a religion without a deity e.g. if your beliefs follow a set pattern of observance,conduct, pattern etc. e.g. meditation. Or where I live football has become a religion.

[19995700]

Yeah I've heard that many times and I see it here - i.e. people religious about footy and such. Only they do have a deity - he's called Chris Judd (a local football hero).

Buddhism has got some cred though (apart from the wacky shit) they try to find happiness within themselves. I'm all for that. Fuck the Abrahamic religions they're hypocrites.

[chunkybutt420]

i would say they are happy because of their low expectations.... if you aspire to shit in the woods than wiping your butt with a pine cone wouldn't be to bad

[RobDeManc]

Can't we just kill all creationists and have done. That would be natural selection at its best.

[MaximusMcc]

I suggest the other way around. WOW wait a min... IT WILL BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!!! WOOO HOOOOO i CANT WAIT!

[iisonnet]

Everything has a designer. Are you going to believe that everything just came to exist randomly because of some "BANG" ?. Its the same as saying to someone "What you did just happened because of randomness". Go tell that to engineers/architects or even to computer scientists and you will only get one answer:

" go die "

[DrMontague]

iisonnet. You are a creationist retard. you cannot grasp intellectual argument or scientific reasoning. I don't attempt to educate village idiots, I leave that to special educational needs teachers.

[jesokingcryst]

not everything has a designer, toenail clippings aren't designed.

according to the video -- the rules are set, things happen on it's own according to the rules, and complexity is build on top of the simple rules. That explanation works best (so far).

it still is a better explanation than "god did it" and it works better.

[freakscene225]

you are a fool

[silvercade]

God is great! I can blame him for every mistake I've ever made! After all it's his fault for making me less than perfect! Of course this shows how stupid the whole idea of God is. Einstein recognized that and he was 'kinda' smart don't ya think?

[sinebass808]

"This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

-Sir Isaac Newton

[DrMontague]

He got it wrong. We now know about the big bang.Sir Isaac Newton did not!

[sinebass808]

My point was, just because Einstein was "kinda smart," doesn't make him right.

Maybe...

Isaac Newton was "kinda smart" too. So they must both be right?

[DrMontague]

Issac Newton's laws of motion are correct when dealing with at what we might call ordinary every day level i.e. The clock work universe which every day physics depends on. However On November 7, 1919, leading British newspaper The Times printed a banner headline that read: "Revolution in Science -- New Theory of the Universe -- Newtonian Ideas Overthrown"

Wikipedia.

[RobDeManc]

Im a computer scientist and I would not say that. I would say that to a person who believes in god. Because really you should be quite eager to die if you really believe you will meet your maker.

[dingerdingdong]

Part 1... BTW.. on lying. I forgot that scientists never lie to get themselves published, recognised or for cheat for monetary gain.. I mean every evolutionist scientist from Dawson & Woodward (the guys who pieced together the Piltdown man) to Henry Osborn (Nebraska Man) have been absolute stalwarts for presenting the truth with no barrow to push :)

[DrMontague]

I don't waste my time or other evolutionist time debating with creationists. I have seen several uploaded vids on YouTube where blatant lying is is used in a futile attempt to discredit evolutionary theory. You are right some scientists have lied but other scientists come forward to discredit them. NO fuckin lying creationist would denounce the lies of twats like Kent Hovind You and your fuckin cronies are prepared to go along with the lies.

[DrMontague]

Part 3.

Professor Polkinghome the priest and theoretical physicist in this video is not a creationist. Creationists take the ancient texts literally. Polkingholme states that science by in large has got it right i.e. he agrees with evolution and the big bang theory.

[DrMontague]

Part 4

I have seen several creationists videos are YouTube. They all have the following in common i.e. they set out to lie and deceive, they ban comments altogether or censor comments i.e. allowing only creationists to comment and banning evolutionary theory comments. In my opinion creationists are lowlife lying scumbags. They do not present counter arguments, they blatantly lie in their futile attempt to ridicule scientific endeavour!

[DrMontague]

Part 5.

Conclusion the a belief in god/s or supernatural beings is psychological yearning and not reality i.e. some humans find it difficult to comprehend that one day they are going to die (nothingness). Therefore they seek comfort in a imaginary god/s

[dingerdingdong]

Part2

". I think creationists have it right in asking the question. "WERE YOU THERE?" to those saying that billions of years ago life began from nothing and evolved into what we see today. Darwin didn't discount his theory, but always said it was a theory. Religion is awful. God is Good. For those out there who believe in evolution... read 'ORIGIN" by Darwin. Then look around you.

[DrMontague]

Part 1

Non of the ancient texts remotely correspond to amazing discoveries made by scientific i.e. the big bang theory or evolutionary theory. We there fore have to conclude thatt these ancient texts are merely the figment of the human imagination and not reality.

[DrMontague]

Part 2

We are all the product of historical forces therefore  even if you do not believe in the ancient texts your notion of god/s has its origin in them.

(Quote) I think creationists have it right in asking the question. "WERE YOU THERE (Unquote)

Were creationists there at the beginning? Answer: NO

Creationist simply take at face value the ancient written texts as their (pathetic) proof. Therefore the worship Zeus and Apollo are equally valid.

[dingerdingdong]

Notice how he says "Simple rules and starting conditions". At the start of the video it shows an empty board.. then "POOF" 'miraculously' 3 markers 'appear'. Evolution says that those markers came out of nothing (big bang etc) Creation says that all the markers were created by God. Science can never disprove creation, neither can creation 'disprove' evolutionary theory. Science by definition is the "study dealing with a body of facts".

[acme181169]

Science is so beautiful and awe inspiring! If the masses understood it more they would have no need for a deity. After all the desire for a god is nothing more than a desire for reason, unfortunately that desire becomes mutated by religion

[borris79]

close your eyes and belive what your told or OPEN YOUR EYES and go look for yourself. its up to you simple.....

[searchthetruth]

Science will never give you all the answers cause it doesn't have all the answers. There is more to life than just what you see. Even the father of evolution denied his own theory at the end of his life. But then again, maybe he understood more than you guys will ever be able to...

[deekeeley83]

You didn't listen to the Doco did you?

The Father of Evolution? it does not have one. You and your god have all the answers?.

[lordsovereign]

serchthetruth, you say, "Even the father of evolution denied his own theory at the end of his life." well 1st, even if he did there is such massive evidence that even most theists [as did pope john paul II] now finaly accept they've been wrong about evolution for 150 years. but anyway could you please show any accredited sources that corroberate this claim that darwin "...denied his own theory..." ?

[DrMontague]

Wikipedia: [Christianity]His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.

[DrMontague]

[Wikipedia]When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.

[DrMontague]

The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[121] His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[122] His last words were, in fact, directed at Emma: "Remember what a good wife you have been."

[DrMontague]

Hi lordsovereign. As yoo can see I have investigated Darwin's Religious beliefs and presented ALL the facts. See how creationists cherry pick the bits they like and leave out the bits they don't like, and in this case not cited any reliable sources at all

[DrMontague]

Let us not forget evolutionary theory began with Darwin it didn't end with Darwin. Darwin himself was at first religious but we can see that he became skeptical. He was the FIRST to question our origin whilst he was living in a very strong religious society. He was ridiculed and scorned.

[DrMontague]

He did NOT at the end of his life deny evolutionary theory. He knew he was correct in this. What the argument is about is whether or not he still believe in god at the end of his life not evolutionary theory.

[DrMontague]

Read my oldest post first and scroll up to keep the flow of the text.

[lordsovereign]

yeah doc thanks, i knew serchthetruth was full of shit, but thanks for that detailed explaination. i think it's important to challenge their fraudulent claims. if not for them, then for the sake of other people who may read such comments and believe it without checking. not that i count wikipaedia as a highly accredited source, but it is good for general quick refference. these theists though wouldn't know an accredited source if it fell on them.

[DrMontague]

You are wrong. Darwin did not deny his own theory. Evolution theory began with Darwin it did not end with Darwin. He believed in god but turned his back on Christianity but still held on to evolutionary theory.

[Jokker88]

God i love that music. Something magical about it. I'm a hardcore atheist by the way :D

[pdoeman]

Jokker88

The Music is by Brian Eno, its from the album "Music for airports"

[JohnHasSeriousQ]

Evolution, without a god, is most plausible and most palatable.

[Curi0uss0uL]

ha..no chance

[johnny102marvin]

Where did the first atom or sub atomic particle come from. Did the first atom just pop out of nowhere. Did the first atom create itself. Did you create yourself?

[DrMontague]

You are asking a strange question as regards the documentary. The documentary is investigating the arguments between science and religion as to how the universe came into existence. The religious argue God. The scientists argue that one day they might be able to discover how it came out of nothing.

[Lockmanship]

Science and Religion and Syncretism

Science- systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Religion- the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Syncretism- the merging of two or more originally different inflectional forms.

[tarhad]

good technical, information

[RIPCB]

Theres no battle between Science and Religion. Science owns religion.

[romanoskar]

Go science!

[theez14]

that sounds just as zealous as most religious zealots...but hey go with that-science has not turned in to its own religion at all.

[tothboy01]

Science is truth, and religion is myth. Jesus was a sun god, and the book of Revelation was a form of astral mythology. Enough said.

[dwellerofrhymes]

You're preaching to the choir. :)

[deekeeley83]

Virus found

Must Dance

Only have one chance

i own a chick that wears pants

i've also been to France.

oh..yeah Wicken Power!

[deekeeley83]

Digg ya Message Bro