all my friends are superheroes (except you)
Thursday, October 07, 2004
On tuesday, in geometry and discrete math (or alebra and geometry as some of you Mississaugians like to call it), we learned about indirect proofs. An indirect proof is used when you want to prove something that cannot be proven. So, to battle this, you assume to opposite, try to prove that, and hope that you run into a contradiction, thus, proving your initial problem.
We can apply this to Christianity. God exitsts. To prove this, assume the opposite and one will run into a contradiction. So, assume that there is no God. That means that the Big Bang theory is correct. Big Bang theory states that there was nothing, and then a cataclysmic explosion in space created everything. The laws of phyics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Morever, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered from one form to another. We have run into a contradiction. Big Bang says we got something from nothing. Laws of physics states that we cannot make something from nothing. Science contradicted itself. There. Done. Since the Big Bang was not the way, then there must be some superior being out there that created everything -- you, me, this computer. Everything.
What does this all mean? Well, for some of you out there who believe that religion, being passed down by humans is flawed becuase humans are flawed, and believe that science is completely flawless, this is for you. Although I probably have not proved to you that God exists, I have simply proved that science is in fact not flawless. Science has its flaw too. True science doesn't exist. Science is only our perception of what we see around us. Science is man's way of explaining our surrounding environment. Thus, science, the perception of human beings must also be flawed, as it is carried down by humans. Therefore, if religion is flawed becuase we humans are flawed, then nothing in this world is without flaw. Either we flawful humans created it, or it is flawless, and we flawed humans simply cannot understand it.
We can apply this to Christianity. God exitsts. To prove this, assume the opposite and one will run into a contradiction. So, assume that there is no God. That means that the Big Bang theory is correct. Big Bang theory states that there was nothing, and then a cataclysmic explosion in space created everything. The laws of phyics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Morever, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered from one form to another. We have run into a contradiction. Big Bang says we got something from nothing. Laws of physics states that we cannot make something from nothing. Science contradicted itself. There. Done. Since the Big Bang was not the way, then there must be some superior being out there that created everything -- you, me, this computer. Everything.
What does this all mean? Well, for some of you out there who believe that religion, being passed down by humans is flawed becuase humans are flawed, and believe that science is completely flawless, this is for you. Although I probably have not proved to you that God exists, I have simply proved that science is in fact not flawless. Science has its flaw too. True science doesn't exist. Science is only our perception of what we see around us. Science is man's way of explaining our surrounding environment. Thus, science, the perception of human beings must also be flawed, as it is carried down by humans. Therefore, if religion is flawed becuase we humans are flawed, then nothing in this world is without flaw. Either we flawful humans created it, or it is flawless, and we flawed humans simply cannot understand it.
Comments:
<< Home
[simon says]
re: season's comment.
perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. I probably should have done some extensive research into this. however, im glad you said that. This is further proof that science IS flawed -- that science perhaps, is NOT perfect. the statement about matter not being able to be created or destroyed was a LAW, not a theory. It was proven. It was widely accepted as true and nobody doubted it. Now, some scientists claim to have created some antimatter, contradicting the laws they have made in the past.
flawless eh?
think again
-simon
re: season's comment.
perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. I probably should have done some extensive research into this. however, im glad you said that. This is further proof that science IS flawed -- that science perhaps, is NOT perfect. the statement about matter not being able to be created or destroyed was a LAW, not a theory. It was proven. It was widely accepted as true and nobody doubted it. Now, some scientists claim to have created some antimatter, contradicting the laws they have made in the past.
flawless eh?
think again
-simon
"So, assume that there is no God. That means that the Big Bang theory is correct."
This is not (necessarily) true. Just because there may be no God, does not mean that the Big bang theory is true. There is a reason why the Big bang is a theory, and not a theorem. Also, the Big Bang Theory is independent of the existence or non-existence of God.
"Big Bang says we got something from nothing. Laws of physics states that we cannot make something from nothing. Science contradicted itself"
Laws of physics only applies to the physical realm and are undefined in the period of time prior to the beginning of the universe.
So if your second paragraph is generally false...then your third paragraph and the "what does this all mean?" is not credible.
This is not (necessarily) true. Just because there may be no God, does not mean that the Big bang theory is true. There is a reason why the Big bang is a theory, and not a theorem. Also, the Big Bang Theory is independent of the existence or non-existence of God.
"Big Bang says we got something from nothing. Laws of physics states that we cannot make something from nothing. Science contradicted itself"
Laws of physics only applies to the physical realm and are undefined in the period of time prior to the beginning of the universe.
So if your second paragraph is generally false...then your third paragraph and the "what does this all mean?" is not credible.
# posted by 
: 2:43 AM
: 2:43 AM
Nope not at all. =P Science is a mechanical construct, used by man to understand the physical world. I personally agree that science has its limits - but the logical argument that science is flawed is very poor. It's very similar to the following argument:
1. Assume God exists.
2. Assume that God is good.
3. Assume that God is in control of everything.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. God, therefore, allowed evil in this world.
6. Since God allowed evil in this world, God is not good, or God is not in control
7. Contradiction exists.
8. Therefore God does not exist.
This is similarily poor use of proof by contradiction. A proof by contradiction requires all of its assumptions to be correct, and all of its implications to be completely true... In the example above, the implications made in points 5, 6 are not vacuously true - there are other possibilities. Hence this proof for the existence of God is not credible. Possible...but by no means proven.
So the provided "proof" for the existence of God is very poor. The quoted "proof" that science is flawed because it "contradicted" itself was in fact not a contradiction. Like any man made mechanism...you cannot expect it to function properly outside the bounds of what it was designed to handle. If you try to use science to interpret things outside of the universe...the flaw is in the user...not the machine. The only true thing that could've been said is "science has its limits."
It was a good attempt to try and integrate school with faith though.
1. Assume God exists.
2. Assume that God is good.
3. Assume that God is in control of everything.
4. There is evil in the world.
5. God, therefore, allowed evil in this world.
6. Since God allowed evil in this world, God is not good, or God is not in control
7. Contradiction exists.
8. Therefore God does not exist.
This is similarily poor use of proof by contradiction. A proof by contradiction requires all of its assumptions to be correct, and all of its implications to be completely true... In the example above, the implications made in points 5, 6 are not vacuously true - there are other possibilities. Hence this proof for the existence of God is not credible. Possible...but by no means proven.
So the provided "proof" for the existence of God is very poor. The quoted "proof" that science is flawed because it "contradicted" itself was in fact not a contradiction. Like any man made mechanism...you cannot expect it to function properly outside the bounds of what it was designed to handle. If you try to use science to interpret things outside of the universe...the flaw is in the user...not the machine. The only true thing that could've been said is "science has its limits."
It was a good attempt to try and integrate school with faith though.
# posted by : 10:55 PM
: 10:55 PM
Frankly not really. That being said, I don't find the arguments of either side to be very compelling. In fact, there is a big question about whether or not creationism and evolution are even polar opposites. There are many people who believe that God created the world through a process such as evolution. But this theory has been by and large ignored here.
Let me ask you a more compelling question. What would you expect to happen if the "truth" about how the Earth and it's people came about was discovered by mankind. What would you expect would happen if a) creationists were right ... and b) if evolutionists are correct? What would happen to society here?
Let me ask you a more compelling question. What would you expect to happen if the "truth" about how the Earth and it's people came about was discovered by mankind. What would you expect would happen if a) creationists were right ... and b) if evolutionists are correct? What would happen to society here?
# posted by : 8:14 PM
: 8:14 PM
re: anonymous' comment
If the secret to this world were revealed and it pointed to creationism, one of two things will happen. People will either suddenly turn towards faith and know that God is the one true God that created everything we know. Or a few atheists (sorry if im generalizing atheists as evolutionists) will still stand by what they believe and say that this discovery has its flaws -- refusing to believe that creationism is correct. By that same token, if the secret is evolution, then the very same thing will happen. Many people, standing strong in their faith, will continue to believe in and pursue God. They will say things much like the atheists in the previous scenerio, that the proof is flawed. The other possibility for this scenerio is that people will abandon their faith.
However, I do not really see the relevence of this question. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with how society will react if it is proven that He does or doesn't. Ultimately, what is boils down to is I believe there is a God, and not everyone believes that and i respect that. But, to paraphrase what Huston said, it takes just as much faith to believe that it all happened with a bang and lifeforms went from simplistic to complex, as it does to believe that there is a superior being out there that created us and is watching over us. Also, to paraphrase what Paul said, if there is science, there is a scientist, likewise, if there is creation, there must be a creator. We are a creation. We are proof of creation. This then points to a creator -- God.
I can't really convince anyone of the existance of God. Frankly, this debate, is quite silly. No one can prove to another person that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It takes faith; and whether or not you believe in creationism or evolutionism, both require a whole lot of it there will be no solid evidence of either -- not in this life at least.
If the secret to this world were revealed and it pointed to creationism, one of two things will happen. People will either suddenly turn towards faith and know that God is the one true God that created everything we know. Or a few atheists (sorry if im generalizing atheists as evolutionists) will still stand by what they believe and say that this discovery has its flaws -- refusing to believe that creationism is correct. By that same token, if the secret is evolution, then the very same thing will happen. Many people, standing strong in their faith, will continue to believe in and pursue God. They will say things much like the atheists in the previous scenerio, that the proof is flawed. The other possibility for this scenerio is that people will abandon their faith.
However, I do not really see the relevence of this question. Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with how society will react if it is proven that He does or doesn't. Ultimately, what is boils down to is I believe there is a God, and not everyone believes that and i respect that. But, to paraphrase what Huston said, it takes just as much faith to believe that it all happened with a bang and lifeforms went from simplistic to complex, as it does to believe that there is a superior being out there that created us and is watching over us. Also, to paraphrase what Paul said, if there is science, there is a scientist, likewise, if there is creation, there must be a creator. We are a creation. We are proof of creation. This then points to a creator -- God.
I can't really convince anyone of the existance of God. Frankly, this debate, is quite silly. No one can prove to another person that God exists or that God doesn't exist. It takes faith; and whether or not you believe in creationism or evolutionism, both require a whole lot of it there will be no solid evidence of either -- not in this life at least.
Re: s's post
I agree with you about the debate being silly. I had hoped my previous question would provide insight into the motivations for the debate about origins in the first place.
Regardless, hope that people here weren't too upset by the dialogue/debate. But no matter how silly or meaningless the debate was, challenging ones own assumptions and predispositions is a worthwhile way to develop your own faith or belief about anything...be it God or science.
Post a Comment
I agree with you about the debate being silly. I had hoped my previous question would provide insight into the motivations for the debate about origins in the first place.
Regardless, hope that people here weren't too upset by the dialogue/debate. But no matter how silly or meaningless the debate was, challenging ones own assumptions and predispositions is a worthwhile way to develop your own faith or belief about anything...be it God or science.
# posted by : 4:44 PM
: 4:44 PM<< Home
Archives
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
