Religion, evolution, & low-carb?!?!?!
 

I'm having a great amount of trouble talking myself back onto a low-carb diet. So I came here for some back up. Does somebody have my back???

Anyhow.... when it comes to major diet plans, I am familiar and have read (if not tried) most of them.

Alot of the argument for LC comes from an evolutionary viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I'm a smart, educated woman, but I don't exactly believe in evolution. Let's just say I believe in intelligent design. I mean, I believe humans and other creatures have evolved, but I don't buy into the we all came from goo theory. I believe God designed us, put us here.

If you read biblical accounts, man ate everthing. Meat, fruits, vegetables, bread. Granted it wasn't the refined s**t that we call food today, but it was inclusive.

I was just reading the post about low-carb not being sustainable for the "world at large". And it's true. Scientifically speaking, producing meat depletes the earth and it's resources. Not to mention the horrors of pollution and the meat markets.

So I feel all in flux. Science vs. religion??? I have trouble reconciling the stuff in my head. I truly believe that we can choose a diet that will bless our bodies and the earth. But I know the diet that blesses my body (low-carb) doesn't bless the earth. And the diet that truly blesses the earth (vegetarian) does not bless my body. And although I know some of you do it, I have not been able to eat vegetarian low-carb.

This is long and windy. Any input?

Two words...food chain. The grass grows, the herbivores eat it, the carnivores and omnivores eat them. Granted, we have scewed the ratios somewhat, however I happen to believe human lives take a far greater toll on the natural world than cows.

I also happen to believe evolution and religion need not be incompatible.

Cori
I'm not going to debate evolution with you. But here's some food for thought. No, humans did not eat everything when they were first here. What you ate, what your diet was like depended on where you lived, i.e. Maoris--meat, milk and blood; Eskimos--meat and blubber; Amazon natives--meat and native foods. None of these were big fruit and veggie eaters and none had grain. In fact, grain is a very recent introduction and processed foods an invention of the late nineteenth century. So your reasoning is based on a fallacy.

Also, the vegetables you're thnking of as man's natural diet, a lot of them don't exist in other parts of the world and never did. The vegetables we eat today, for the most part, are very Western culture and new world. There was a study that the varied diet that earlier man ate has shrunk by about 60-70%. In this more varied diet man ate not only more naturally but according to the seasons and what foods were available. A bounty of foods and rich ones were available only on special days. During the middle ages, European man ate mostly meat and unprocessed grains and the grains were sparing.

So pick your spot and you will find that human's natural diet, in that spot, varied greatly from place to place and region to region. That's why I like the Metabolic Typing diet. It explains that humans are one of three metabolic types, carbo, protein and mixed. How well you do on any eating program or diet is determined by which type you are. It also illustrates what moving from their native diets, however spare and leaning toward protein or carbs, to the so called "healthy" diet of the industrial world does to these peoples' health.

I agree that agribusiness as it exists now is not sustainable. However there are other ways to have sustainable agriculture and meat production. It is a nice idealistic stance to take that we should all become vegetarians. However, as it would improve tremendously the health of those of us who are meant to eat that way, it would only deter the health of those who are not.

I am not Christian and therefore have no input as to whether we were "placed here" by someone. I am not even going to get into how many times the Bible was rewritten and translated and rewritten and translated, etc. (by men I might add). Who's to say what was actually in "the first edition?"

But I believe that we need to care for our mother (earth) and I try to buy only organic sustainable produce, dairy, eggs and meat. There is plenty available in my area and although it is a bit more expensive (at least the meat is) I feel like I am at least trying to do my part.

If I am correct, didn't Atkins say in NDR that if you can, try and buy organic meats anyway?

Hey Cori-

Actually in the Garden of Eden-God tells Adam and Eve they are to be stewards of the animals. Not to eat them willy nilly. In Deuteronomy, God specifically tells people not to eat pork. There are lots of conflicting eating messages in the Bible-depending on which quote you choose-that seem to support carnivore eating or vegetarian eating. I am not aure how you would reconcile all that.

I am a vegetarian low carber, but I don't have a problem with other people eating meat. I just choose not to do it. I would think that going free range, hormone free would be the best bet for both you and the earth, though. The more that we all buy those products, the cheaper they will become. Soy is another alternative that can replace meat in a meal even if you don't want to become a vegetarian.

As far as evolution is concerned-I am not going to get into a debate with you about that either-since human evolution is what I do for a living, obviously I accept it. I will say this though, science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. Actually, science has nothing whatsoever to say about God-he is an untestable hypothesis. We cannot measure him or take his blood or test him-so therefore he is beyond scientific knowledge. Science can only gather knowledge about the world at hand that we can feel and touch and test.

And eat.

More food for thought...
 

While it's true that the Biblical accounts of diet did include fruits, grains, vegetables and meat it says nothing about the proportions in which those foods were eaten. Was it equal portions of each, heavy on the meat, heavy on the fruits and veggies or heavy on the grains? I'd also like to point out that the "Biblical" diet isn't necessarily a guarantee of good health. Obesity was not unknown even then (take Eli the priest, for example). When mummies from Egypt are examined from that time period, they found evidence of obesity and heart disease and those folks weren't exactly eating Twinkies and Ding Dongs, either. With the exception of grains that could be stored, the fruits and vegetables that were eaten were dependent on what was in season and on what you could grow yourself or afford.
What we do know is that even though all the food groups were eaten, those that ate them also lived a very strenous lifestyle. The average person worked hard from morning to night at physically demanding tasks. They walked pretty much everywhere they went unless you were wealthy enough to own a donkey. Today, most of us don't live those kinds of lifestyles, so it's difficult to apply that type of eating pattern to a culture that is much more sedentary. I could probably get away with eating a lot more carbs than I do if I were to get a job that involved heavy physical exertion for 10-12 hours a day and walked everywhere I went too.

IMHO, grain (with the exception of the Exodus)...was not the main food in the biblical diet. My belief is that fish dominated the biblical diet. In one passage god tells the people to eat bread in the morning and fish in the evening.

He is telling them to load up on carbs before they start working. But, he's also telling them to avoid carbs at night (when they are more likely to store them). The amount of bread they probably ate in the morning was probably burned off by Dinner time.

It is my opinion that grain was a one meal a day thing...not the 6-11 servings the USDA is trying to pass off on us. In addition, the fruits and vegetables found in that region (olives, etc...) of the world are very healthy and contain good fats. It is clear, at least in my mind that while the biblical diet was higher than Atkins in carbs, that is was still relatively high in fat and protein and low in carbs compared to the diet the USDA is pushing on us.

religion, evolution, & low carb
 

Glad to see everything has remained civil here. I sometimes feel bad that the diet which is so good for me relies on cows and pigs living short miserable lives. As a Christian, I believe that knowledge is part of the Fall of humanity - knowledge of good and evil, life and death. A cat or a wolf just eats, doesn't reflect. We do. Just this evening my sort-of-vegetarian wife was reading some item about how awful commercial meat farming is. We agreed that getting organic, free range stuff, bison, etc. would be so much more responsible. But hey, I'm already spending big bucks on my healhty lc lifestyle, so going to free-range stuff would be a still greater hit to the not very thick wallet. Also, don't forget that a huge area of land cannot raise grains and stuff but can raise beef ( or goats or bison) so the argument for ecological vegetarianism can be disputed.

Without a HUGE amount of doublethink (hypocrisy), religion and science are completely at odds with each other.

They both claim to inform us as to the nature of reality but their claims are contradictory. For example, science has well-established the age of the universe as being in the billions of years, but religion puts that age at about 6000. It cannot be both.

Former Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that we had to hurry up and use up all our natural resources, because Jesus was returning soon, and He'd be pissed if we wasted any by not exploiting them fully. Ludicrous, of course, but also perfectly in line with a non-hypocritical reading of Scripture. A Christian who accepts scientific findings must make a mind-boggling number of cheats and compromises in what she thinks and believes - it is not surprising that an honest Christian, struggling with this knowledge, finds her head spinning.

A Christian geologist, for another example, would be utterly helpless in finding oil deposits without information derived from Physics, Evolutionary Biology, and a host of other disciplines at odds with religious teachings. Prayer won't help you find oil, but Darwin will. Hell, you can't even draw a circle without disproving the scriptures that set the value of Pi as 3.

Jesus may love prostitutes, tax-collectors, and you, but he HATES hypocrisy and hypocrites, and on that last bit we agree.

On the day when the thousands of competing, mutually-exclusive religions unite and reach agreement on teachings that do not contradict the facts of the real physical world, then they will be worthy of scientific consideration. Until then, they have the same value as fairy tales: good for comforting the fears of children, and not much else.

Religous scholars, not religion, directly stated the earth was 6,000 years old. This is based on a literal interpretation of scripture. You cannot always read scripture literally. I find no reason why the earth cannot have been both created by God and be billions of years old.

If the Bible left out years of Jesus' (God's son's) life...why is it so hard to fathom that it is possible that it may also have left out alot more. In addition, the 6,000 year figure was based on modern science. Think about that for a second. Without the modern sciences of Astronomy and Physiology...they could never have put a date on creation. The days/years listed in the Bible were assumed to be Earth years/day...which draws on Astronomy and our understanding of what constitutes a year/day. Could the Biblical day/year be different than our own ???



Nothing ludicrous about it. Our earth was designed to give us everything we need. Science says resource A will be used up in a Billion years. But, science never said the world won't end before then. Both could very well be right. That resource could dry up in a Billion years and the world could very well come to an end long before then.



Physics is not at odds with religion. Physics is how God designed the world to work. It is his method. Where in the Bible does it say that Newton was wrong or that there is no gravity ??? Evolution is the only science at odds with religion.

Scripture is not literal. When God says he made B from A, who knows that there may not have been something in between that was left out of the scripture. Just because the Bible/Torah/Nevi'im/Koran doesn't say it happened, doesn't mean it didn't. Even if we believe in science, who is to say that God/Jesus did not simply violate the laws of science when he performed some act mentioned in the Bible.

So, are you saying that god breaks his own laws capriciously? Do as I say, not as I do? Doesn't that call all "divine" laws into question? Is such an immoral deity worthy of anything but scorn? Ambrose Bierce once defined “prayer” as “a request that the laws of the physical universe be temporarily annulled on behalf of the petitioner, admittedly unworthy.”

One cannot allow religious myths to be tested scientifically if one is unwilling to accept a negative result. Such a challenge to religious authority either ends with damage to the scientist (Galileo, for example) or to the religion (your own denial of the literal truth of scripture, for example, a stance for which the dozens of Southern Baptists I work with would deny you any standing at all in the Xian community).

Physics is completely at odds with religion - according to physics, the earth is NOT the center of creation, it is not flat, it has no corners, atoms can be destroyed, and god's hand was unnecessary at creation, lightning is electriclty (not god's punishment), rainbows are caused by the refraction of light, the Grand Canyon was NOT caused by the Great Flood...

Physics has completely displaced the religious superstitions as an explanation for existence.

Nope



I'll grant you that one.



Again, this is the literal interpretation part. For example, it says that God stopped the Sun. Some purists claimed that proved the Sun revolved around the Earth. But, you cannot read it literally. When it says the Sun stopped, it means that the Sun appeared to stand still. Whether that was the result of God stopping the Earth or some other means...doesn't matter. You cannot read it literally. If not sure whether there is a passage that would indicate the Earth is flat. But, if there is...it is one of those things that is not literal.



Where did God say atoms can't be destroyed. I don't think they even knew what an atom was back then.



The Bible says God created the Earth, etc...It doesn't say specifically how he did it. When I want to make something...I don't snap my fingers and its done. Though, God could...he likely has his own methods of doing things. Those methods are the laws of science. But, as always...God can set aside the laws of science and do what he wants. That is what a miracle is.



Who says electrictity hitting you from the air isn't a punishment. It may seem random to us humans. But, who knows for sure that God doesn't play a hand in where storms go, and who gets struck ???



Again, who says God didn't cause that refraction of light. Science is God's methods.



That is not in the Bible/Torah/Koran. They didn't even know that Arizona existed in Biblican times. They didn't even know it much later in Koranic times. It seems most of your stuff comes from local myths, not the Bible/Torah/Koran. Alot of Ancient myths (Greek, Roman, Nordic, Japaneese, etc...) are so explicit that they are at odds. The Bible/Torah is not so specific that it is completely at odds with science.

Saying that God created the Earth, etc...is alot less specific (and thus less at odds with science) than saying Isanagi stuck his scepter into the Ocean, pulled it out, and the brine formed the Islands of Japan...and that he then populated it with lesser Gods called Kami.

Sorry, dude. God doesn't control lightning - but the lightning rod does. You are over 200 years behind the times if this is the level of science you are touting. The following article would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Franklin's Unholy Lightning Rod

Written by Al Seckel and John Edwards, 1984

link to article

It is well-known that the Catholic and Protestant churches opposed the scientific theories of Galileo and Copernicus, but did you know they also opposed Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod?

Biblical Meteorology

For centuries, Protestant and Catholic churches, basing their teachings on various texts in the Bible, taught that the air was filled with devils, demons and witches. The great Christian scholar St. Augustine held this belief to be beyond controversy.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."

Martin Luther asserted that the winds themselves are good or evil spirits. He declared that a stone thrown into a certain pond in his native city would cause a dreadful storm because of the devils kept prisoners there.

Christian churches tried to ward off the damaging effects of storms and lightning by saying prayers, consecrating church bells, sprinkling holy water and burning witches. Lengthy rites were said for the consecration of bells, and priests prayed that their sound might "temper the destruction of hail and cyclones and the force of tempests and lightning; check hostile thunders and great winds; and cast down the spirits of storms and the powers of the air."

Unfortunately, these efforts were to no avail. The priest ought to have prayed for the bell ringer, who was frequently electrocuted while ringing the blessed bells. The church tower, usually the highest structure in the village or town, was the building most often hit, while the brothels and gambling houses next door were left untouched.

One eyewitness to the damaging effects of lightning recorded, "Little by little we took in what happened. A bolt of lightning had struck the tower, partly melting the bell and electrocuting the priest; afterwards, continuing, it had shattered a great part of the ceiling, had passed behind the mistress, whom it deprived of sensibility, and after destroying a picture of the Savior hanging upon the wall, had disappeared through the floor . . ."

Peter Ahlwardts, the author of Reasonable and Theological Considerations about Thunder and Lightning (1745), accordingly advised his readers to seek refuge from storms anywhere except in or around a church. Had not lightning struck only the churches ringing bells during the terrific storm in lower Brittany on Good Friday, 1718?

In 1786, the Parliament of Paris finally signed an edict "to make the custom of ringing church bells during storms illegal on account of the many deaths it caused to those pulling the ropes."

The Heretical Rod

The first major blow against these biblical superstitions about storms and lightning was struck in 1752 when Benjamin Franklin made his famous electrical experiments with a kite. The second and fatal blow was struck later in the same year when he invented the lightning rod. With Franklin's scientific explanations of lightning, the question that had so long taxed the minds of the world's leading theologians-"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated temples, or suffer Satan to strike them"-could finally be answered rationally.

Thunder and lightning were considered tokens of God's displeasure. It was considered impious to prevent their doing damage. This was despite the fact that in Germany, within a span of 33 years, nearly 400 towers were damaged and 120 bell ringers were killed.

In Switzerland, France and Italy, popular prejudice against the lightning rod was ignited and fueled by the churches and resulted in the tearing down of lightning rods from many homes and buildings, including one from the Institute of Bologna, the leading scientific institution in Italy. The Swiss chemist, M. de Saussure, removed a rod he had erected on his house in Geneva in 1771 when it caused his neighbors so much anxiety that he feared a riot.

In 1780-1784, a lawsuit about lightning rods gave M. de St. Omer the right to have a lightning rod on top of his house despite the religious objections of his neighbors. This victory established the fame of the lawyer in the case, young Robespierre.

In America, Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of Old South Church, blamed Franklin's invention of the lightning rod for causing the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755.

In Prince's sermon on the topic, he expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston more are erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."

It took many years for scientists to convince the priests to attach a lightning rod to the spire of St. Bride's Church in London, even though it had been destroyed by lightning several times.

The priests' refusals prompted the following letter from the president of Harvard University to Franklin: "How astonishing is the force of prejudice even in an age of so much knowledge and free inquiry. It is amazing to me, that after the full demonstration you have given . . . they should even think of repairing that steeple without such conductors."

In Austria, the Church of Rosenburg was struck so frequently and with such loss of life that the peasants feared to attend services. Several times the spire had to be rebuilt. It was not until 1778, 26 years after Franklin's discovery, that church authorities finally permitted a rod to be attached. Then all trouble ceased.

A typical case was the tower of St. Mark's in Venice. In spite of the angel at its summit, the bells consecrated to ward off devils and witches in the air, the holy relics in the church below, and the Processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently damaged or destroyed by lightning. It was not until 1766 that a lightning rod was placed upon it-and the tower has never been struck since.

Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."

The Rod Spared

Such examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The ecclesiastical formulas for preventing storms and consecrating bells to protect against lightning and tempests were still practiced in the Churches, but the lightning rod carried the day. Christian Churches were finally obliged to confess its practicality. The few theologians who stuck to the old theories and fumed against Franklin's attempts to "control the artillery of heaven" were finally silenced, like the lightning, by Franklin's lighting rod and the supremacy of the scientific method.

According to quantum physics, whenever we see A going around B, we must also say that B goes around A. (Otherwise the world doesn't work). So in fact science has proven, finally, that the sun does go around the earth.

danny

gotbeer, you are quoting a very old myth. Demons in the sky is not in the Bible/Torah/Koran. It was a myth made up by priests hundreds of years ago. The only foundations for Christianity (with some exceptions) are found in the Bible. Same with most other religions and their holy books. If its not in the Bible, then it isn't a foundation of Christianity...but, simply something claimed by a priest/minister/etc...

As for Lightning Rod vs. God, it is possible that God set in motion lightning and controls indirectly where it goes...Or, he may take a hands-off approach and let it go where it may.

There are scientific explantations for alot of stuff. But, if you follow it back, it leads back to something unexplainable. For example, the Big Bang. They claim there was a supercompressed mass that exploded. Ok, where did the supercompressed mass come from ??? Care to explain that one ??? Since time has no beginning and end it is inconceivable that a supercompressed mass could simply have existed without being created.

Cori,

I thought your opening post was thoughtful. Thank you for sharing your feelings.

While I'm not a Christian in any fundamentalist way, I do struggle with the same issues, and for me, they are also spiritual and ethical. How do I reconcile eating in a way that harms the earth - in a way which ultimately threatens my children's future... yet which my body sp clearly responds to in a positive way.

It isn't an easy question.

Oh, I should add. I eat meat, cheese and eggs everyday. I've been low carbing since about mid-may, and am experiencing the health benefits of doing so. The quetion is not getting easier.

To take that concept one step further, unless of course you are one that maintains that matter and energy have always existed which is inconsistent with what has been observed scientifically (ie the universe and the matter contained within it have a measurable age) it could not have created itself. For something to create itself, it must both exist and not exist at the same time which is not logically possible. Furthermore, whatever did create the universe, whether it be the matter from which it was formed or the individual bodies themselves, had to be outside of it and independent from it, not to mention terribly powerful.
But all this is straying far from the original post of how to reconcile using limited resources in a world that is already short on resources with what seems to be best for yourself. I don't believe that low carb is necessarily at odds with being wise stewards of what we have available to us, nor is it necessarily at odds with eating a wide variety of foods in the correct proportions. We as individuals can do much to contribute to not wasting resources starting at home. How many of us leave leftovers in the refrigerator until they begin to resemble some warped science experiment and then find their way into the trash uneaten instead of eating the leftovers or freezing them so that they don't spoil before they can be eaten? How many of us make a conscious effort to recycle materials that can be recycled instead of sending them off to the local landfill? If consuming protein sources that you feel are harmful to the earth in the way that they are produced bothers you, you can choose protein sources that don't such as tofu and fish. If you are a Christian, the Bible is clear that we are to be wise stewards of what God has provided for us, not abusers and wasters of it and you don't have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the wisdom in that.

So, god can exist w/o being created, but nothing else can? Silly, silly, silly.

Actually, a tiny, random fluctuation in the quantum foam is more than enough to explain and account for the Big Bang without invoking any sort of deity, powerful or not.

Adding a god to the equation is no more explanatory, and hence, unnecessary to our understanding.

Is it? Consider that you are comparing that which is physical to that which is not. All physical things have a point at which they began to exist, but can you apply that same criteria to that which is not physical, ie that which is spirit? I don't honestly believe that you can.



While this sounds impressive, it still does nothing to explain where the matter dispersed by the "big bang" came from originally. Matter doesn't just appear from out of nowhere, at least not in the reality that I live in, so where did it come from?

Our concept of "Spirit" comes from our observations about air, which is as physical as any matter.

So SPIRIT can come from nothing, but nothing else can? Silly, silly, silly, silly.

No offense, but that may be where your concept of spirit comes from, but not necessarily mine. Also, if a concept arises from observations of one thing, that does necessarily make it indentical in properties or the same thing as that which was observed in forming the concept.
My concept of the nature of God is that He is a self-sustaining spiritual being and as such has no need of a creator, nor does he have a beginning as He is not a physical being or an end for the same reason. In other words, He is eternal. And while you may not agree with my belief, you cannot disprove it. While we're on the topic of beliefs, it would be helpful, if not just plain polite, if the topic could be discussed in something other than a condescending or demeaning tone even if you don't agree with what others believe.
I'm also noting that the issue of where matter originated from isn't being addressed. ;)

Yes it is, in a roundabout sort of way.

I could claim, like you, that there is some thing that is self-sustaining and hence, uncreated.

Unlike you, however, I could claim that uncreated thing is "matter", not "god".

There is MUCH more evidence to prove that matter exists than there is evidence that some imaginary god exists. (You are typing on a part of that proof). We know that new matter cannot be created, and that existing matter cannot be destroyed - sounds self-sustaining to me. ("Matter" and "energy" being different forms of the same thing, of course.)

Positing an invisible, undetectible god with the same properties gets us nowhere - an uncreated god explains the same thing as uncreated matter, but unlike my matter, this god cannot be proved - it is an unnecessary premise, and Occam's Razor says such premises are to be discarded. You don't need to worry about the dragon if the dragon doesn't exist in the physical world - or for that matter, the ghost.

People believe in god because they fear death and the unknown, and crave a comforting mental crutch when confronted by the cold fact that they are both alive and will someday die.

Believing in god is the surrender of reason to fear. It says, like cc48510, that "we don't care anymore what the point of lightning really is - we give up" - it must be from that god-thing, whatever THAT is. It says "we don't care anymore where the earth really came from - the math is just too hard" - it must be from that god-thing, whatever THAT is. It starts wars because that's what the god-thing wants. It ignores child-molestation because that's what the god-thing wants.

I say, don't surrender to the fear of the unknown and the fatigue of the search. Carry on with courage to discover the real beauty of the world.

***

The Greek word for spirit is "pneuma", which also translates as "air" or "breath". When one is born, one begins to cry with the first breath. When one dies, the breath departs. This is the root and foundation of all Xian understanding of Spirit-uality, even if you believe that YOU, on the contrary, were in-Spir-ed by some non-corporeal (in other words, non-existing) ghostly spirit.

The Greek physician Galen was renowned by early Xians for his teachings on this breath-spirit. Here's a link if you'd like to learn a bit more.

Very very interesting, Gotbeer! Have you ever read Robert Tillech and The Courage to Be? Sounds a lot like his theories... I had to read that for my Philosophy of Religion class in college...

EERRR, needless to say I am a pagan and believe more in a universal higher power then in any "He." I do enjoy studying different the belief systems stemming from different cultures. Fascinating stuff. I especially enjoy "The Relationship of Psychotherapy to Sacred Tradition," by A.C. Robin Skynner. ;)

First of all, nowhere has anyone here stated that matter does not currently exist. The problem inherent in this theory is that it seems to imply that matter has always existed which is inconsistent with what science so confidently affirms when they state that the earth and the universe (along with the matter from which they are composed) are X number of years old and in fact did have a beginning point. In order for something to have a measurable age, it must have had a point at which it began to exist which science indeed states that it does. It's also at odds with the observable natural progression within the universe to proceed from order to disorder, not the other way around. Physical objects degrade and decay into their basic components; they don't naturally combine from their basic components into something more complex without some type of outside force arranging them in that manner. For example, I have yet to see clay form itself into a pot or metal spontaneously form itself into a sword, although I have seen pots crumble and become dirt again and metal become rust.
Matter and energy are different forms of the same thing? While I can think of examples of matter becoming energy, although not without some residual residue, I'd be interested in an example of the opposite occurring (pure energy spontaneously becoming matter) without some form of outside manipulation and even then I can't think of one.




It seems to me that most of your objections are based on how humans interpret God's wishes and what they decide to do or not do and then blame on God than you do with the possible existence of God himself. In other words, your objections are more based on human behavior than anything else. Lack of human understanding and their general bad behavior is hardly sufficient reason to discount the existence of God. Neither is the evil that humans do and then blame on God. Surrender reason for fear? I'm hardly fearful and I have yet to surrender my reason. I can well see where you may come to the conclusion that faith in a higher power is based on fear given what you've already said, but that is far from the main message of the Bible, nor does faith demand that you give up your reason. You may believe that my faith in a supreme being that I call God is unreasonable, but that does not prove it to be so; it's a matter of your opinion and I probably come up with as many reasons to believe that a higher power exists as you can to discount them, the question of where matter came from being just one of them.

No input on the religion part of this thread, but for interest sake

E = m c^2

Any time we add energy to an object, as kinetic energy or potential energy (eg by compressing a spring), it gains mass. Usually the extra mass is very small compared to the total mass, given the ratio from the equation.

I'm guessing it depends on your definition of outside manipulation, which can also be applied to matter converting to energy for stable matter, given both of your examples are not changing the matter, simply arranging it differently.

Measurable examples appear at the atomic level where energy to mass ratio's favor energy. For example, High energy collisions in accelerators often convert energy into matter, resulting in equal numbers of particles and anti-particles.

Ok you crazy people. I'm sorry I started this thread :lol:

And Kevin, stop being so smart. It's too enticing.

Yes, but inherent in this formula is the assumption that there is mass/matter from which the energy can be extracted (you get energy from mass x velocity squared..the energy comes from the mass and velocity of the matter, not the other way around) which brings us back to the original question of where that mass (matter) came from. Unless, of course, we wish to begin asserting that there was a collision of sufficient amounts of energy as in your accelerator example (randomly, of course) to form all the matter that is within the known universe. Even within accelerators, there is matter already there.




Actually, the word Pneuma is used in the Bible 384 times. Of those 384 times, its translation in context was "spirit" 375 times (from the context used, a part of the person separate and distinct from the body and mind), breath 3 times, wind twice and spiritual once. The Greeks had more specific words that they used when referring to wind (anemos) and breath (pnoe or pneo) when that was the meaning that they wished to convey. The word, even used in context is more descriptive than definitive and so does not necessarily mean that they believed that spirit and wind were the same thing, especially given that they had distinct words for both but that some of its properties might be similar. As I said before, observing one thing while forming the concept of another does not make them equivalent in nature or properties.

First of all if e=mc^2 than mc^2 = e and mass could have come from energy.

Secondly Trying to disprove God by disscussing Xianity assumes that Xianity is the one true religon, But if there is no God then there is no one true religon.
You really have to discuss each and every belief system that there is.danny