Posted by Ford Prefect [68.99.206.78 - ip68-99-206-78.ph.ph.cox.net] on 14 February 2003 at 19.21.32 ZuluTime:

In Reply to: Existance of a creator posted by Rasta Aaron on 14 February 2003 at 14.03.38 ZuluTime:

In spite of my education in astrophysics, I agree that you are at least partially right. You can't make something from nothing. There must have been some sort of catalyst to the creation of the universe. However, the presence of a 'creator' is a flawed argument in this context. If, as you made abundantly clear, "you can't have something from nothing", then the existence of a creator implies the existence of ANOTHER creator, and another creator before that. This can go on ad infinitum, and it still boils down to something from nothing. You can't argue that a deity created the universe while still arguing "you can't have something from nothing". You must invariably ask "where did god come from?" and then, once you know the answer, say "Okay, where did THAT come from?". Hence, by your rationale, both the existence of god, and the existence of the universe are a total mindfuck paradox.

And as is my opinion, and the opinion of hundreds of astronomers before me, that the question of "where did it ALL come from?" is in fact a paradox, and one that we may simply be ill-equipped to fully understand.

I don't believe in a god. I do however believe in an underlying ORDER to the universe. There is evidence of this all around us, in the very fact that EVERYTHING can be calculated and explained by the same relatively easily understandable laws of mathematics. Mathematics is something that is built into the very fabric of everything. From brain wave patterns to cells multiplying, from the conditions at the moment of the big bang to the tidal forces of a black hole. EVERYTHING boils down to math. (and people wonder why they need to learn it in school)

I know I'm going to recieve shit from a lot of the people on this board for this, but you must understand that I AM an atheist.

There is a place for theology, but not if it is taken at face value. My view of the value of a belief structure in our lives is best summed up by Father Christopher Corbally, a jesuit priest and renowned astrophysicist. He said "theology can not tell science how to do science. Science can not tell theology how to do theology. But the two can use eachother to ask deeper questions and find deeper answers."

I feel that religion, early in the development of human civilization, forced us to ask how things work. As time wore on, the faults in it forced us to embrace science as a way of understanding the world. But all of the questions asked by modern science, are ones first posed in religious and philosophical texts from around the world. Some scientists, like Chris Corbally, simply use religious texts as a source of questions, and then he uses science to answer them. I feel that this is the best use of religion.

Okay, I realize I'm rambling more than my alloted share. I should know that this is an internet bulliten board, not a soapbox.

Submitted respectfully to people on both sides of the argument,