BulgarianPride said:
But then he is responsible for gravity... He designed the rules / formulas that everything in this universe has to obey, and if we never find the Unified field theory then wouldn't that be direct proof of god? He couldn't himself make it as one, so he creates two systems. One of the very large, one of the very small with different types of governing equations.
But if everything is unified then that would also be proof of god?
And if god did create this universe who then created him. This is all one big circle. there will always be questions that is why nobody can ever say god exists or does not. That why you believe or you don't.
No, absolutely not.
If we never find a theory unifying the quantum world and the normal world, it's absolutely no proof at all, let alone direct proof, that God exists. All it means is that we have failed to understand it. This is proof of nothing apart from that we failed to understand it.
I cannot say this enough times. Even if all of the science that we have so far discovered turns out to be wrong, it is NOT any sort of proof of a God, all it is, is proof that we have misunderstood things. Considering that you are an engineer, I would have thought that basic cause-effect logic should be well within your grasp.
Personally, as I have said, I don't BELIEVE that any sort of a God exists, but I cannot say with any sort of certainty. There are currently holes in human understanding. It is
possible that God could come into our understanding within these holes, but I find it extremely unlikely. However, as with everything, I'll examine the evidence when I see it then make an informed opinion upon the subject.
Any other position than the above is anti-scientific and those who are saying that God definitely does not exist are not living by the rigorous scientific standards that they claim to be. There is no proof of God existing. There didn't used to be proof of a heliocentric solar system. Saying that something will never happen means that you close off your mind to possibilities and you look at evidence in a skewed manner.
This is why Buzzer was so important to this forum, and I would very much enjoy it if he returned. He didn't just sit there expounded views; he showed you the evidence that convinced him for you to make your own decision. People like this should be celebrated.
You however, are the complete opposite. You're whole vein of evidence is basically "well, if we don't understand it, then God must have done it". You are using God as the default cause, which is wrong. Misunderstanding is the default cause, every piece of knowledge that we gain through widespread, peer reviewed evidence adds to our understanding of a subject.
God is just as likely as aliens, which is just as likely as a fridge magnet creating the universe. I refuse to rule out any of them until we figure out the exact cause of creation.
Ally.P said:
Can I believe in Creationism and Evolution at the same time please?
Because I do.
You can believe whatever you feel necessary, just don't expect it to be correct. I'm sorry to say that Creationism in the sense that God created the Earth directly has been entirely disproven, and if you'd like, I could explain from a couple of milliseconds after the Big Bang to how we got here today. It's a large sequence of events that focus around stars, gravity and luck. However, if by Creationism you mean that God created the Big Bang then left it alone to run by the laws that God set, nobody can touch you scientifically.
You shouldn't
believe in Evolution. Evolution has as much evidence behind it as, say, the Earth orbiting the Sun does. It's a commonly known, widely accepted theory.
One of the problems with the Creationist movement, is it's complete misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. It isn't a theory in the sense of "I have a theory that City will beat Spurs". That's what we call a hypothesis. A theory scientifically is something that has being tested, over and over, has masses of evidence behind it, has been peer reviewed by hundreds and thousands of scientists all over the world, all doing their own experiments in double blind conditions and replicating the same results.
Evolution and Creationism aren't natural bedfellows. It could be said that the planets and stars themselves have undergone a
sort of evolutionary development from Type 1 stars through to Type 3 stars. The whole point of evolution is a simple one, things that work better have a better chance of surviving than things that don't work as well. Over time, the ones that survive will breed until the ones that don't die out. That's what all of the fuss is about. The Universe in it's early state was full of heavy metalled, Type 1 stars. These stars were burning hot, yet incredibly unstable, thus exploded a lot and created many of the elements in the periodic table through moving around the insides of some atoms due to the sheer forces involved. No life could be supported in this environment as we currently know it. Over time, our Sun type of star developed, and rubble from other explosions gravitationally attracted one another whilst sweeping (orbiting) round the new Sun. This is where the planets come from, the rotation of which is one of the reasons why nearly all of them are pretty spherical.
This isn't just hyperbole either, we can actually prove this by the dating of asteroids, and by direct observation of other systems in a similar phase. As I say, it depends on what you mean by "Creationism".
