Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Darwin year: 2009

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    The Netherlands
    Thanked 266 Times in 258 Posts
    Blog Entries

    Default Darwin year: 2009

    In the beginning, there was nothing (i). Then some kind of cosmic anomaly occurred (in a state of nothingness?), and there was something (ii). The something was nothing but dead matter, until a new singularity occurred, producing living matter (iii). Out of the living matter evolved species (iv). Then Darwin came along to study them (v).
    (i) - (iii) is the domain of religion (or whatever we would like to call it). (iv) - (v) is the domain of science.
    Unfortunately, there are people who don't keep the two domains strictly separated: creationists on the one hand, Richard Dawkins on the other hand. That's not Darwin's fault.
    Arie Molendijk.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Illinois, USA
    Thanked 690 Times in 678 Posts


    That's assuming that the big bang actually is an answer to anything. It's a question of domain, relevant to any belief: string theory: who or what created strings and in what domain do they exist? God, etc.: who or what created god? Is there a god of gods? the big bang: what existed before the big bang?

    Certainly the big bang is the beginning (on a limited timeline) of something, but what existed before it?

    One option is that time exists only within this reality within the bounds of what was created within any of the options above, but then it still doesn't explain the existence of what is beyond them.

    Thus it becomes a matter of faith and something to be unknown. We can know what is in the area of our domain but not what is outside it. Being trapped in a room, we know there must be something outside it, but without a window can never know.

    Both science and religion adapt to new information, and both will do so for scientific advancements. But in the case of science it is for science with the assumption that not all is understood whereas religion is an attempt to explain everything unknown while constantly modifying that domain.

    Faith is the act of not defining, and science is the attempt to define.

    Regardless, neither actually explains anything, because even if such an explanation is found, then an explanation for that explanation must be given and it is beyond our domain to understand.

    As our reality can potentially be defined as our reality, my viewpoint is that as such all we can do is perceive what is around us and understand our domain though never explain anything beyond it. I have no faith for that reason, though I also can't know anything to be wrong, except for those theories that attempt to explain everything by posing an answer beyond our domain (and especially claiming that explains all levels of domains).

    In other words, who cares? Science is good, because it works toward understanding the world (giving us tools like electricity, though I suppose it's also dangerous giving weapons like atomic bombs). But using science or a form of faith to explain everything is illogical, because by the very definition we cannot explain it. In fact, true faith would then be the belief in not knowing, perhaps worshiping the greatness beyond our reality, but not striving to know it.

    Though obviously just for cinematic effect, the title sequences in Men in Black demonstrate this well.

    God does not exist, by definition. He/it is beyond existence, in an entirely broader and unexplained domain. Nor does science explain anything beyond what we can ascertain from the minimal evidence available in this domain, from which, however, we will only be able to see a certain distance.
    Daniel - Freelance Web Design | <?php?> | <html>| espa˝ol | Deutsch | italiano | portuguŕs | catalÓ | un peu de franšais | some knowledge of several other languages: I can sometimes help translate here on DD | Linguistics Forum


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts