Florida license plates

[Amianthus]

And the stuff of the big bang came from ....??

A singularity.

[Stray Pooch]

I cannot help  but think that any God would admire us for applying Occam's Razor.

The Christian God certainly would, seeing as it was developed by the great thinkers of His church.  William of Ockham was a Franciscan Monk.  His expression of the ideal was "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.]"   

I agree that simplisity is good, but in the case of creation, assuming that an infinite God who has neither beginning or end decided one day to snap the universe into existance is simpler than the long process of accidental phenomena which just happened to result in what we have today.  That is especially true when we consider the biodiversity we see on this planet and consider how that might be continued in the infinite possible amount of worlds like it throughout the universe.  Just considering the universe on the level of galaxies, stars or planets raises enough questions and suggests an awful lot of amazing accidents.  Explaining the whole thing by the "singularlity" of a creator is far simpler than searching for a Grand Unified Theory by looking at all of the forces, types and organization of matter, odd coagulations of stardust that make so many known and unknown things that float around our universe. 

Much simpler to believe in " . . . unum Deum, factorum coeli et terra, visibilium omnium et invisibilum."

[kimba1]

I`m probly wrong
but i don`t think there has been any real deliberate research trying to prove or disprove the existence of god.

[Rich]

>>A singularity.<<

And it came from?

[Amianthus]

And it came from?

Since it existed prior to the creation of the universe, it cannot be determined.

[Rich]

>>Since it existed prior to the creation of the universe, it cannot be determined.<<

In other words, God.

[Amianthus]

In other words, God.

Yes, or random occurrence. Take your pick. Either explain it as well, and it is outside the realm of science to explain it. Science can only explain the current universe, not anything outside of it.

I said this already.

[Rich]

I watch a show call The Universe every week on the Discover Channel. This week was about how the universe might end. during the course of the program they spoke about how they had recently discovered that things weren't slowing down as previously believed, but are actually speeding up. To me, this is another example of how things change. One day we know eggs are no good for you, they next we know they're great. One day we know the Universe is slowing down, the next it's speeding up. I'm not sure anybody really knows anything.

[Amianthus]

I watch a show call The Universe every week on the Discover Channel. This week was about how the universe might end. during the course of the program they spoke about how they had recently discovered that things weren't slowing down as previously believed, but are actually speeding up. To me, this is another example of how things change. One day we know eggs are no good for you, they next we know they're great. One day we know the Universe is slowing down, the next it's speeding up. I'm not sure anybody really knows anything.

Yes, I TiVo it.

There has long been a question of whether or not there is enough matter to pull everything back into a singularity (a hot death for the universe) or if there is not enough and the universe will continue to expand until the stars all go out (a cold death for the universe). Neither of those theories had solid evidence until recently.

[Stray Pooch]

I`m probly wrong
but i don`t think there has been any real deliberate research trying to prove or disprove the existence of god.

That depends on what you consider research, Kimba.  In fact, much of human history has been involved with exactly that quest.  Science and religion were not always separate entities.  Science, however, used to take the existance of God as a sort of given, and the work of determining the make up and function of other entities was merely examining how God went about doing his work.  From such a perspective, questioning the existance of God was unnecessary.  Today, the concepts have separated themselves.  Those who study the physical often deny or ignore the metaphysical, and so again there is no need for science to concern itself with the existance of God.  Wise scientists have no interest - regardless of their faith - in proving or disproving there is a God.

There are those who try to prove the correctness of a particular religious belief - creation science comes to mind - but even if they were able to prove absolutely that everything the Bible says is supported by science, it would at best prove that keenly observant historians who passed on stories from thousands of years ago got the facts correct.  There is a story in the Koran that God caused a city to be swallowed into the earth.   For years it was considered a myth until the city was discovered, right where it was supposed to be, buried by an earthquake.   Does this prove that Islam is true, or the Koran is the word of God?  I don't think so.  It's jsut that this event had a major impact on cultural memory, as one might expect.  There is much evidence to support the idea of a great flood that at the very least inundated the middle east.  Does this prove that Noah built an ark and saved two of every creature?  Hallelujah!  In South America a recent earthquake (apparently seismic activity is important in theological debate) uncovered some ruins that greatly expanded our knowledge of, IIRC, Incan history.   Turns out there were two brothers fighting for control.  Many people followed both brothers and there were wars and atrocities among them.  If I were more willing to accept coincidence as evidence of divinity, I might say that this story rather handily matches Book of Mormon history.  But I keep in mind that there have been an awful lot of sibling rivalries in history. 

Now it may be that either the Koran or the Bible or the Book of Mormon did in fact describe exactly these events.  I suppose it would be a little more remarkable if the Book of Mormon accurately described this Incan thing since Joseph Smith couldn't have known about it and if it was only history passed on through the ages that would still make Joseph's claims about the BofM true.  But in reality, compelling as some evidence of ancient claims may be, they ultimately prove only the accuracy of oral traditions or the amazing nature of coincidence.  Nothing in them proves there is a God, or that this God is the God of Abraham.

In reality, there is only one way to prove the existance of God and that is through the Holy Spirit.  God seldom makes a big show unless it is absollutely necessary.  The Bible exists only to give us a history and frame of reference of God's dealings with His people and what He expects of us.  It is the Word of God to those who believe in Him, but it's just the user's manual for faith.  Faith leads to knowledge, and each of us must experience that for ourselves.  We cannot be collectively saved any more than we can be collectively fed.  Each of us must eat our own bread and each of us must seek our own proof of God.  In that regard, research into the existance of the Divine is ongoing, and will always go on.

[Amianthus]

There are those who try to prove the correctness of a particular religious belief - creation science comes to mind - but even if they were able to prove absolutely that everything the Bible says is supported by science, it would at best prove that keenly observant historians who passed on stories from thousands of years ago got the facts correct.

That's like trying to prove that "Gone With the Wind" is a true story by showing the Civil War happened pretty much the way it's written about in the book. The events described can be real, but that doesn't make it a true story.

[Stray Pooch]

That's like trying to prove that "Gone With the Wind" is a true story by showing the Civil War happened pretty much the way it's written about in the book. The events described can be real, but that doesn't make it a true story.

Exactly true, but since we know GWTW is fiction I can think of a better analogy.  Lots of people get their history lessons from movies.  They then take as "fact" any poetic license the film happens to take.  As an example, there is a wonderfully dramatic scene in "Mary, Queen of Scots" where Elizabeth confronts Mary upon taking her prisoner.  Ultimately, Elizabeth is impressed enough by Mary to say something like "If you ruled with your head instead of your heart you might be taking me prisoner."  In fact, as I recall there are a couple of similar scenes.  These are all very compelling theatrical devices, but in reality Elizabeth and Mary never met.  Similarly, whether Elizanbeth;s half-sister and predecessor Mary Tudor (aka Bloody Mary) was indeed any more bloody than her contemporaries (including Elizabeth) cannot be adequately ascertained by an appeal to Hollywood. 

And if you want some REAL fiction, try watching the musical "1776."  A lot of effort was put into getting accurate historical quotes in some cases - especially the correspondence between John and Abigail.  But on the other hand, John Dickinson and James Wilson get absolutely abused.  If I were Wilson's descendant, I might sue!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Back in the mid 1950's an anthropologist colleague of mine, just out of college, was hired by the LDS Church to supervise a dig in Chaipa del Corzo, in Mexico. The Mormons have this theory that some of the American Indians are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel (the ones that vanished during the Babylonian Captivity), who came to the Americas and settled in, but eventually the more pious among them were outnumbered by the more sinful members, who were polluted by other Indians, and eventually perished, leaving behind only the gold plates that Joseph Smith allegedly found with the help of the angel Moroni.

The LDS are always seeking to prove this rather farfetched theory to the scientific world, and hired my colleague to supewrvise the dig, rather than someone from BYU that would not be considered a credible source to the "Gentile" or non-Mormon world. Eventually they dug up some cylinder seals, which are pieces of pottery that have glyphs pressed into them which will leave a seal in wax or fresh clay with the name of the authority, author or priest. Cylinder seals are pretty common in societies in India, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica, but some authority mentioned that some of the characters pressed into one or two of the cylinders resembled cuneiform writing, such as one sees in Mesopotamia. The sponsors in Salt Lake went ape, and offered my friend a huge amount to bribe the locals to dig up more stuff at the site of the oldest pyramid, which was unfortunately directly under a the main church, built in the late 1500's, one of the oldest in the area.By then, he had married the oldest daughter of the Mayor and head PRI (Partido REvolucionario Institutional) boss, which gave him a lot of power as a respected anthropologist and authority

My friend was convinced that the resemblance of the images on the seals was a coincidence, and refused to destroy the colonial chuch to prove what he was by then convinced was a bogus theory. So far as I know, the Chaipa del Corzo Church is still, intact, sitting atop the remains of a 13th century pyramid.