Is Nothing Possible?

[Mroberts3]

seems like the problems stems from the way humans think. We love to make analogies so when we think of "nothing" we first think blank sheet of paper, well how about space... theres nothing there. but there is you realize, space is something, therefore its not nothing. I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that the unverise encapsulates all space and time, what is outside of the universe or what came before it is asking the wrong question. its like saying the answer to a calculus problem is a passage from a poem.the TRUE nothing is what is not in the unverise, but since we have no experience and no way of conceptualizing that fact our tiny brains keep spinning with no tracting trying to find something (no pun intended) to hold on to.

Is this like "straight line thinking?" If I know one thing to be true then this must apply to every thing/situation?

I smile whenever a deep space probe or photo baffles scientists. Or seems to contradict something they've long held to be fact.

For me, in my simplistic way, I find the answer is my inability to know how God "thinks." If He does, in fact think - as I understand thinking.

Man continually discovers things as we go along. And we continually find things we can't explain or understand. It's always been that way and I'm betting it's going to continue for a long, long time.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this like "straight line thinking?" If I know one thing to be true then this must apply to every thing/situation?

I smile whenever a deep space probe or photo baffles scientists. Or seems to contradict something they've long held to be fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand science completely. Science seeks testable explations for phenomena. It is the domain of religion to hold untestable "facts" as being the truth of how things are.

[ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand science completely. Science seeks testable explations for phenomena. It is the domain of religion to hold untestable "facts" as being the truth of how things are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire, mon ami. I understand the pursuit of scientists for explanations/answers/solutions.

I was making light of scientists and non-degreed folks who mock religious beliefs simply on the basis of non-provability. The can’t accept my acceptance of that which I can’t demonstrate to their satisfaction. I was pointing to their fallibility. I admire their knowledge and their pursuits. I benefit directly from them. They ask for my faith in them and all I ask is respect for and acceptance of my faith in God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I was making light of scientists and non-degreed folks who mock religious beliefs simply on the basis of non-provability.

[/ QUOTE ]
no-one mocks religous belief because they cannot be proven.

chez

[ QUOTE ]

no-one mocks religous belief because they cannot be proven.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]


I've not noticed that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

no-one mocks religous belief because they cannot be proven.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]


I've not noticed that.

[/ QUOTE ]
look again, I think you've misunderstood. Give some examples if you like.

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Man continually discovers things as we go along. And we continually find things we can't explain or understand. It's always been that way and I'm betting it's going to continue for a long, long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man also continually discovers explanations for, and eventually understands, things previously unexplainable and poorly understood. That's the fun part, the part which many so casually dismiss as the "unknowable workings of the mind of God" or some such.

[ QUOTE ]

Man also continually discovers explanations for, and eventually understands, things previously unexplainable and poorly understood. That's the fun part, the part which many so casually dismiss as the "unknowable workings of the mind of God" or some such.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, please read my reply to Trantor.

I accept and can understand the enjoyment of discovery. It’s the proverbial pot at the end of the rainbow. And every time that discovery is made I’ll congratulate whoever found it. However, I’ve yet to see the scientist who has the proof of whatever, that will cause me to change my belief in God.

I’ve known scientists and doctors who believe in God. They’ve made cases for the co-existence of the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I agree with them and don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I accept and can understand the enjoyment of discovery. It’s the proverbial pot at the end of the rainbow. And every time that discovery is made I’ll congratulate whoever found it. However, I’ve yet to see the scientist who has the proof of whatever, that will cause me to change my belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally don't know any reputable scientists who would try. The best I can say about my own beliefs is that the God Hypothesis does not appear to be necessary to explain any observable phenomena.

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known scientists and doctors who believe in God. They’ve made cases for the co-existence of the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I agree with them and don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know plenty of doctors, scientists, economists, etc. who believe in God and see no conflict between some idea of a Created Universe and the scientific theory of evolution. I have no problem with them, and no beef with their ideas or beliefs.

What I dislike is the idea that because something inexplicable or poorly understood is discovered, the devout get a free pass for fingerpointing at science and scoffing, "See? You don't know everything. There are things we can't understand, aren't meant to understand, etc. Therefore God did it." This puts science in the uncomfortable position of appearing to attack religion, because as scientists we take away from religion that which it held special prominence over, the unknown, the inexplicable, the poorly understood.

And what I really dislike is the idea that the God Hypothesis can be yanked out of the closet and used as a panacea to fix the gaps in science. A God of the Gaps should be downright embarassing to the faithful, yet it seems to be gaining strength due to the sophistry of pseudo scientists and charlatans like Behe and Dembski, Gish and Gitt.