• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Science versus religion and the creation story your thoughts

Masked Man said:
Nope. I don't believe in any gods. The planet is far older than any human being can comprehend and life has evolved over a VERY VERY long time. (using two "very" doesn't even come close to how old the planet is).

Human beings created stories and myths to explain their surroundings. These myths became religion with a slew of gods. (Now religion is widely used as a means to control human beings but that's another tangent and I won't go there).

I don't believe because it doesn't make sense to me to believe. I don't believe in magic and I don't believe in gods.
Click to expand...

Generally I agree with you. I don't really know about physics and stuff like that and I won't claim to, and TBH, I don't really need an explanation for that. Would be neat, but I'm comfortable saying "I don't know", and I will defer to scientific understanding instead of trying to make up stuff.

One thing I can say is that the idea of a deity is completely unsubstantiated, and thus to me it's a completely random hypothesis to try to stick in there. I could also note that the concept of a creator just adds more questions than it attempts to answer, such as "Where did that deity come from?". If someone personally wants to believe in a deity, fine, but coming to someone else and trying to make one of those boring philosophical arguments that the existence of the universe must mean a creator (which, I repeat, is an unsubstantiated claim. It's a random hypothesis to me), I just loop right back to that question. The claim is unsubstantiated and it doesn't even answer anything, if you ask me. It just creates more questions, I think I've heard it described as "infinite regress". Why even assume that a creator is necessary? Why not say "I don't know" until we know what actually happened to form our universe?
 
Lots of philosophical discussionpports the years among very bright people. Once you pass the answer becomes known My out of body experience through not definitive gave me some glimpses, yes physics supports life after death, not the existence of God, see Baruch Spinoza.
 
Last edited:
I just went through the magazines and selected these quotes and thought that I would post them.

Quoting a few quotes from a astrophysics magazine

“For many, there’s something very appealing about the Big Bang Theory, quite apart from its scientific veracity. With its image of a single, dramatic moment of creation, it conforms to earlier mythological and religious accounts”

“While an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang Theory it doesn’t necessarily require it”

“Yet the Big Bang prevailed in the end, and the steady state picture fell by the way side. Thanks to further observational evidence”

“Scientists found it impossible to reconcile this with the idea that the universe has always been expanding at the relatively slow rate we observe today. Instead they had to assume a very brief period of Cosmic Inflation during the universe grew at a truly enormous rate”
 
Last edited:
Actually, due to the James Webb telescope, scientists are resetting all timelines, especially per anything related to the big bang theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom