Science and God

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Mindship
1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?
2. If so, how?
3. If not, why?

Stumbling blocks:
a) Is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof?
b) Can God be operationally defined?

Specifically, I'm asking: If empirical proof is sought, but "God" is generally seen as Spirit (ie, nonempirical), how do we reconcile? Can this be reconciled?

And if it can't be reconciled, which better reflects Occam's Razor:
I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.
II - God can't be scientifically tested for. Period. His existence is still open, and will always be open, to question.

Templares
I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.

Janus Marius
Originally posted by Mindship
1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?
2. If so, how?
3. If not, why?

Stumbling blocks:
a) Is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof?
b) Can God be operationally defined?

Specifically, I'm asking: If empirical proof is sought, but "God" is generally seen as Spirit (ie, nonempirical), how do we reconcile? Can this be reconciled?

And if it can't be reconciled, which better reflects Occam's Razor:
I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.
II - God can't be scientifically tested for. Period. His existence is still open, and will always be open, to question.

The scientific method is only as limited as the tools it relies on. A hundred years ago we couldn't have made half of the discoveries on things we now use today widespread (Such as computers, cellphones, surgery, etc.). The slim possibility exists that... IF God exists AND we find tools capable of discerning his existance, THEN science can answer the questions about him to an extent.

And really, the idea that God is "spirit" and that spirit is beyond empirical means is really begging for proof. The term spirit is just a definition of something that may or may not exist. The word "Glok" could be used to define a special rock that grows on Venus that, when rubbed against human skin, melts it. Then again, maybe the term and the idea remain, but the rock does not exist in reality. The term becomes useless. Or has it always been useless?

The big problem with defining God is he's supernatural by definition. By placing him in this real of above and beyond what is nature, by definition God must be beyond empirical proof or natural means. Somehow, he must exist outside of nature. But how can anything that's outside of nature be observed within it? I don't rightly know.

I suspect that the terms "supernatural" is a shoe-in for things that cannot be explain by conventional scientific methods and proofs. If you showed a tv to Michaelangelo, he'd swear it was supernatural. Same with a walkie talkie to Napolean Bonaparte. Perhaps what we deem as supernatural about God is simply just out of our grasp at this point. Or perhaps he doesn't exist as a consciousness as we perceive. Perhaps creation has no need of a god and we create him mentally out of our own insecurities like Freud suggested.

And lastly, I feel that Option II is the best course to take.

Captain Falcon
What is the scientific evidence for a religion being true. For god being true. For Creationism. There is a creator, and there was a beginning but there is no way of knowing what it is or how or why. Atleast the big bang was based on fact of the universe.

Janus Marius
Originally posted by Captain Falcon
What is the scientific evidence for a religion being true. For god being true. For Creationism. There is a creator, and there was a beginning but there is no way of knowing what it is or how or why. Atleast the big bang was based on fact of the universe.

Don't be foolish, Falcon. The whole point of this thread is that the validity of the scientific method for being able to determine a supernatural being is in question. Address is like an adult and stop trying to push off your anti-Creationist agenda. While I do agree with you that Creationism and ID are foolish concepts to hold as "valid" and "sound", at the same time you run off at the mouth and make it a worse mess than it already needs to be.

And I doubt you know which "fact" the Big Bang is based on. Don't go spouting off Big Bang as the ultimate truth, because no real scientist argues that.

Captain Falcon
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Don't be foolish, Falcon. The whole point of this thread is that the validity of the scientific method for being able to determine a supernatural being is in question. Address is like an adult and stop trying to push off your anti-Creationist agenda. While I do agree with you that Creationism and ID are foolish concepts to hold as "valid" and "sound", at the same time you run off at the mouth and make it a worse mess than it already needs to be.

And I doubt you know which "fact" the Big Bang is based on. Don't go spouting off Big Bang as the ultimate truth, because no real scientist argues that. well, the universe is expanding which is a discovery from scientists, so the theory is "the big bang" then again, it's not very conclusive and real I know. Then again, that's not why we're here. :! *shuts up*

Mindship
Originally posted by Janus Marius
The scientific method is only as limited as the tools it relies on... The slim possibility exists that... IF God exists AND we find tools capable of discerning his existance, THEN science can answer the questions about him to an extent.

Is it just the matter of the tools? What about the data collected? Always empirical? My feeling is, tools and data should always reflect the domain being studied. By this is all moot. We will know the proper set of tools to use and data to collect once we define what we're looking for.

The big problem with defining God is he's supernatural by definition. By placing him in this real of above and beyond what is nature, by definition God must be beyond empirical proof or natural means. Somehow, he must exist outside of nature. But how can anything that's outside of nature be observed within it? I don't rightly know.

Spirit, supernature, transempirica; we can call it Level III, a nice neutral term (though Glok wasn't bad). The task: do we define it in such a way that we Can test for it (ie, empirically)? Is that being fair to the phenomenon? Or--while applying strict scientific method-- do we expand the boundaries of what's considered proper scientific tools and proper scientific evidence?

Perhaps what we deem as supernatural about God is simply just out of our grasp at this point. Or perhaps he doesn't exist as a consciousness as we perceive. Perhaps creation has no need of a god and we create him mentally out of our own insecurities like Freud suggested.

That's why we need Science...applied common sense.

Janus Marius
I think the greatest challenge to proving the phenomenon is identifying its nature. You can bring things to the table that you believe God had a hand in (whether it be experiences, miracles, prophecies or even just matter from creation itself), but you can't isolate God from what is nature's own operating procedure. Like I said, IF God is supernatural, THEN it would be difficult to pin him down inside of nature. For the same reasons, ghosts are not really proven or disproven by science- there is simply a lack of evidence either way. And it's far harder to disprove something than it is to prove its existance.

Hence, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

However... IF God is not really above and beyond nature but is somehow within it and can be defined by observations IN nature, THEN it stands to reason that God can be divined. But how? That's another question. Four hundred years ago you couldn't so much as imagine the concept of quantam physics, yet today we dabble in it all the time. It may come to be that we as human beings acquire technology so advanced that we can start solidifying stances on things. I think basically at this point that it's premature to say that we can divine his existance or discount it at this point- we do not possess the means to detect him properly... should he exist.

Evil Dead
depends on one's definiton of god. If one is to believe that it is the Jewish/Christian god........should be simple to prove it scientificly. The very basis of their definition of god is that god can easily interact with our physical world, from it's very creation to the end of time. If something interacts with our physical world, it can be detected.......leaving data to be researched, tested, and retested via the scientific method. Just because the last 4,000 or so years these groups have claimed their god exists yet it has yet to be detected doesn't mean that it won't in the future..............ofcourse 4,000 years of leaving no evidence certainly does not bode well for it's probability. In the last 4,000 years it has left the exact same amount of evidence for it's existence as the easter bunny......

PuffyCheese
God isn't a math problem we can figure out. Or a science project. So no, I don't think you can scientifically test for God.

Mindship
Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think the greatest challenge to proving the phenomenon is identifying its nature.

In the mystical literature (eg, Kabbalah, Zen Buddhism, etc), God is said to be both immanent (in nature) and transcendent (beyond nature). As you pointed out, if we try and identify His immanence, how do we distinguish it from "nature's own operating procedure?" Will that require a tech so advanced we can't even imagine it? If we go for His transcendence, well, then, are we back at square one, no matter how advanced our (physics-based) technology?

Evil Dead: it does not bode well for the Big Bearded White Guy.

Evil Dead
It's not a matter for thought. Anything in this universe that interacts with the physical world can be detected. If something can be detected, it can be recorded. If something can be recorded, it can be researched. There is no room for opinion on the matter......the matter does not deal will opinions...

Janus Marius
Originally posted by Evil Dead
It's not a matter for thought. Anything in this universe that interacts with the physical world can be detected. If something can be detected, it can be recorded. If something can be recorded, it can be researched. There is no room for opinion on the matter......the matter does not deal will opinions...

Yes, we can detect things in the physical world that interact with other things... to a degree that our knowledge and tools allow us. There's still some problems in quantum physics where subatomic particles are seemingly random and independent of cause and effect (Though I believe it's because we can't examine anything much more elusive than subatomic particles that could be EFFECTING them, nor could we observe the neccessary changes at that point). And again, if God operates less directly like it says in say, the Bible and more subtlely (Like God basically enforces the seemingly nature laws of the world), he would be impossible to detect outside of nature itself.

Evil Dead
we're not really talking about the sub-atomic world here........the bible as you just referenced has god parting an entire sea.....has god causing plagues........has god speaking in loud booming voices which are easily recordable by even the worst of the recording technology we have today.

There are many claims of god's interactions with the physical world......referred to as miracles. All of these claims could be easy to gather data from and research.............except for the fact that none of these supposed interactions happen anymore. I guess god died 5,000 years ago.......or never existed at all.

Kind of like some kid talking about how good he is at basketball. He's the best. He's played for years, never missed a shot. Finally you corner him on a court and challenge him and he says, "I don't feel like playing ball anymore for the rest of my life". Those are Christians. Alot of talk about all these huge miracles that supposedly happened........challenge them and it's , "god doesn't feel like playing ball anymore for the rest of his life".

Shakyamunison
^There is more then just the god of the bible. That god is limited.

Janus Marius
Actually, my reference to the Bible was because God in there regularly interacts with the world and is detectable. But I don't really give that a whole lot of credit. What I was hinting at was that God may be indistinguishable from nature because he operates solely through it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Actually, my reference to the Bible was because God in there regularly interacts with the world and is detectable. But I don't really give that a whole lot of credit. What I was hinting at was that God may be indistinguishable from nature because he operates solely through it.

What if nature is God?

Janus Marius
That's what I'm implying. See, when people think of God, they think anthropocentrically, and they expect God to be human, with a unique personality and form. However, I gravitate towards the idea that nature as it's bound is god. God is not really "supernatural", but rather "all natural". In this sense, god is not all-powerful and unlimited, but rather the definer of everything. The first mover, the enforcer of natural laws, and perhaps - in the most subtle way possible- the guiding force behind all things.

I say this because the old world view of god as trascendant of nature does not make sense. Even outside of this planet, things operate under rules. You don't go into space and suddenly chemical reactions cease to be. There's still light, and gravity. There IS order throughout all things. So IF God existed, THEN I would argue that God is not a singular being but the very centerpiece of nature itself.

Mindship
Originally posted by Janus Marius
...but the very centerpiece of nature itself.

Nicely phrased.

Sounds like you appreciate some form of pantheism as a possible means toward empirical validation, whereas biblical God is outside/separate and beyond. The perennial philosophy says both (sans anthropomorphism), and the final frontier for exploring both His Immanence and Transcendence is consciousness.

Consciousness (in broadest terms) is itself a bugaboo from a scientific-empirical POV. We can correlate behavior and physiological processes, but it is immediately real only subjectively.

That takes one helluva sense of humor. Ergo: God must exist.

Janus Marius
Yeah consciousness and the mind works fits for strict empircism.

Btw, who was it who said "God is in the details"?

The Omega

Janus Marius
Well, God may very well be supernatural, but we could never determine that IF it was indeed the case. We could only detect God if he were to interact with nature (assuming he does). Now, the problem with that it thus:

- How can you tell what is God and what isn't? It's not like everything he does has a "God stamp" on it.

- How can you separate what is natural from what is God's will, since IF God exists, THEN it stands to reason that he set natural laws into motion. (Or if he didn't, he isn't the absolute player on the field. If God is victim to the natural order and rules of existance, he would not really be God, but just a being of another nature and perhaps some incredible power.)

- Granted, I prefer the scientific and rational approach to any claims on the existance of God, which is why I pass of any religious doctrines as pure myth. An account in an old book that has been retranslated for two millenia does not prove God any more than the guy at the corner store telling me he found Mother Mary in his peanutbutter and jelly. SO my next question is: Since we can't rely on scriptures and doctrines to prove God, how can we apply those traits to a neutral God? The OT God is petty and vengeful, NT God is loving and compassionate. Both of these particular instances support the idea that God is unique, that he is an entity, and that he has emotions and whims. But from where I'm sitting, this is human arrogance; God could exist as an intangible ribbon wrapping through each molecule in the galaxy, moving them in accord with some kind of will that is impossible to discern. Yes, I understand that this is a wild claim and that's why it's not a scientific claim; it's a philosophic suggestion. IF God were in such a form, THEN you could never reach him. He's indistinguishable from nature. You could take it a step further I suppose, and suggest that God is not supernatural, nor is he all-powerful; he simply is what is and makes the center hold.

And I missed this on the first posting: God being a unique human like individual is misleading...

The Omega

Shakyamunison

The Omega
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have hit on what I believe. God is the universe and more and therefore, we cannot be separated from God and God does not need worship. You don't even have to call God "God". You could call God the natural laws a nature.

But then it seems your concept of a deity is not even conscious??
Why then even consider it?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The Omega
But then it seems your concept of a deity is not even conscious??
Why then even consider it?

I don't... As a Buddhist I referee to this as the mystic law. However, the mystic law, by its self, does not lead to happiness. I talk about God on this forum because most people would not understand me. I apologize to people like yourself who can understand.

The Omega

Shakyamunison

The Omega
I know there are two schools, hinayana(?) and mahayana(?)... And well, should I ever leave my stance as an atheist I'd go Buddhist smile

Do you see Buddha as a god?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by The Omega
I know there are two schools, hinayana(?) and mahayana(?)... And well, should I ever leave my stance as an atheist I'd go Buddhist smile

Do you see Buddha as a god?

No. Buddha was just a man. We all can have what Buddha had, we do not have to wait.

debbiejo
Aren't ya gonna post the chanting spam??? roll eyes (sarcastic)

I do believe there is an intelligence of some kind working in all things at a creative level that can be accessed.

peejayd
* there are things even science can't explain... that's why they have "THEORIES"... God is beyond science...

* let's say for example, the Big Bang theory... which tells us that the universe began by an explosion of a certain atom... that of which got many flaws...

* if it's true, where did that certain atom came from? and if everything else came from an explosion, how come everything here on earth seemed to be well-placed and in order?

* i believe there is a Supreme Being that created the universe... He is God Almighty... and He is beyond science... wink

debbiejo
^ And beyond literature....ie.Bible......... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Bardock42
Originally posted by peejayd
* there are things even science can't explain... that's why they have "THEORIES"... God is beyond science...

* let's say for example, the Big Bang theory... which tells us that the universe began by an explosion of a certain atom... that of which got many flaws...

* if it's true, where did that certain atom came from? and if everything else came from an explosion, how come everything here on earth seemed to be well-placed and in order?

* i believe there is a Supreme Being that created the universe... He is God Almighty... and He is beyond science... wink

How do things on Earth seem to be well placed or in order?

peejayd
* the earth is so well-placed and in order, that it is so impossible to believe that this is a result of an accidental explosion as the Big Bang theory... trees, plants, animals, humans, the atmosphere, etc...

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by peejayd
* the earth is so well-placed and in order, that it is so impossible to believe that this is a result of an accidental explosion as the Big Bang theory... trees, plants, animals, humans, the atmosphere, etc...

Or maybe we should turn our thinking around. Maybe everything is here because this planet just happens to be in the right place. As large as the universe is, every possibility could be in place many thousands of times each.

Janus Marius
Originally posted by peejayd
* there are things even science can't explain... that's why they have "THEORIES"... God is beyond science...

Oh yes... Because bolding "theories" means that scientists are amatuers. And your horribly edited and revised copy of the Bible is somehow better. I guess the scientists were just using flimsy "theories" when they made that computer you're using, huh?



I like how religious people and Creationists always cite Big Bang, like it's the centerpiece of all science. Hell, most scientists aren't even keen on the diea- it's simply put forth with the evidence we have at the time being. It's most likely incorrect, but with the present information, it's what science has come up with. Now, everytime I see someone argue "Oh Big Bang has problems", I want them to tell me exactly what those problems are. And try and be as specific as possible, please. No scripture.



You obviously don't understand the theory you're questioning. I hope you didn't judge the entire theory based on the entire paragraph they have in your high school science book. That'd be arguing from ignorance.



Good for you. Blind faith is what makes terrorists fly planes into buildings, makes armies embark on crusades, and lead to religious persecution on all sides for the last four thousand years are so.

In the meantime, the rest of us will be moving into the future and exploring the world and discovering things about it instead of clinging to a book and chanting, hoping that we can "will" things the way we want to.



Again, you don't understand the theory. And even then, no one is claiming Big Bang theory = absolute truth. That's the domain of Christians to make absolute claims like that.

"zomg teh bibul = absolute truth".

Seriously.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Mindship
1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?
2. If so, how?
3. If not, why?



The problem with this is how do you define god, there are many views on what is god. My personally belief is that God is the highest level of consciousness

Evil Dead
wow......

you base your argument on one celestial body where chemicals come together to allow life to form and live, and disregard the other hundred or so celestial bodies that we know of and about where it did not?

Here.......9 planets alone in our solar system, not counting the many, many more moons.

Mercury ---- didn't happen
Venus -----didn't happen
Earth ---- happened
Mars ----didn't happen
Jupiter ---- didn't happen
Saturn ----- didn't happen
Uranus ----- didn't happen
Neptune ---- didn't happen
Pluto ---- didn't happen

with just those primary celestial bodies........your hypothesis holds only 11% true..........much smaller if we were to factor in the what, the 137 known moons........ all contain mixtures of gases if in the right combination can allow for life, all have mass...if great enough can retain these gases to form an atmosphere........

so......1 out of 144 celestial bodies in our solar system alone..........that's less than 1%.......yeah, valid argument buddy. I guess if I throw 144 dice, it is devine intervention that causes one of them to land on the number five........not pure chance and probability. And we're only talking about our solar system.......not even getting into the infinite solar sytems throughout the rest of the universe...

peejayd
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Oh yes... Because bolding "theories" means that scientists are amatuers. And your horribly edited and revised copy of the Bible is somehow better. I guess the scientists were just using flimsy "theories" when they made that computer you're using, huh?

* and because it is edited and revised, you just tend to badmouth it? nice tactic... since you think technology is great, why not use it to find the truth of the "edited and revised"? why not search for the original manuscript... it might gain you self-respect, rather than concurring stupid ideas... wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I like how religious people and Creationists always cite Big Bang, like it's the centerpiece of all science. Hell, most scientists aren't even keen on the diea- it's simply put forth with the evidence we have at the time being. It's most likely incorrect, but with the present information, it's what science has come up with. Now, everytime I see someone argue "Oh Big Bang has problems", I want them to tell me exactly what those problems are. And try and be as specific as possible, please. No scripture.

* because when it comes to the creation, Big Bang is the best theory they can think of... face it, dude... science can't explain it... better yet, what's YOUR theory of the creation? confused

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You obviously don't understand the theory you're questioning. I hope you didn't judge the entire theory based on the entire paragraph they have in your high school science book. That'd be arguing from ignorance.

* ignorance will be manifested when someone argued and professed it was not the centerpiece of all science... if it's not the centerpiece, why argue? hurts your scientific pride? stick out tongue

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Good for you. Blind faith is what makes terrorists fly planes into buildings, makes armies embark on crusades, and lead to religious persecution on all sides for the last four thousand years are so.

* and never will i do that... that's not faith, that's stupidity... believing in God does not tell you to kill someone or kill yourself... give Bible readers some rationality... you're too one-sided... wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
In the meantime, the rest of us will be moving into the future and exploring the world and discovering things about it instead of clinging to a book and chanting, hoping that we can "will" things the way we want to.

* good luck... laughing

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Again, you don't understand the theory. And even then, no one is claiming Big Bang theory = absolute truth. That's the domain of Christians to make absolute claims like that.

"zomg teh bibul = absolute truth".

Seriously.

* and you do? i just said it was a theory... it can never be a fact because you will never be able to explain the creation scientifically... if you can, then prove it... if you step on the Big Bang area, wow nice one! you are NOT in the centerpiece of all science... laughing

peejayd
Originally posted by Evil Dead
wow......

you base your argument on one celestial body where chemicals come together to allow life to form and live, and disregard the other hundred or so celestial bodies that we know of and about where it did not?

Here.......9 planets alone in our solar system, not counting the many, many more moons.

Mercury ---- didn't happen
Venus -----didn't happen
Earth ---- happened
Mars ----didn't happen
Jupiter ---- didn't happen
Saturn ----- didn't happen
Uranus ----- didn't happen
Neptune ---- didn't happen
Pluto ---- didn't happen

with just those primary celestial bodies........your hypothesis holds only 11% true..........much smaller if we were to factor in the what, the 137 known moons........ all contain mixtures of gases if in the right combination can allow for life, all have mass...if great enough can retain these gases to form an atmosphere........

so......1 out of 144 celestial bodies in our solar system alone..........that's less than 1%.......yeah, valid argument buddy. I guess if I throw 144 dice, it is devine intervention that causes one of them to land on the number five........not pure chance and probability. And we're only talking about our solar system.......not even getting into the infinite solar sytems throughout the rest of the universe...

* yet we are placed in a planet that can nurture life... there is a reason for that... and it's not accidental... wink

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by peejayd
* yet we are placed in a planet that can nurture life... there is a reason for that... and it's not accidental... wink

Correction, we believe there is a reason it has never been proven that there is one.

Janus Marius
Originally posted by peejayd
* and because it is edited and revised, you just tend to badmouth it? nice tactic... since you think technology is great, why not use it to find the truth of the "edited and revised"? why not search for the original manuscript... it might gain you self-respect, rather than concurring stupid ideas... wink

It's official - you're ignorant. You don't even question the validity of the book you are basing your entire lifestyle and belief system around. t's cute though that you poo-poo science, which is the cumulated efforts of people who made the vehicles you ride in, the refridgerator that keeps your food cold, the medicines you take, the computer you use.

Hey, I have an idea... why don't you ask God to provide entertainment and bash your computer in with your Bible? Have God provide the electricity in your house. Hey, next time you get hurt, just pray and don't put anything on it. Yeah, faith > science every time.



... You don't get it, do you? Science isn't trying to make any absolute claims- it works with what information we have. Science says that because of microwaves and other phenomena in space, it's possible that space is expanding, and has always done so, perhaps starting from a single cluster of matter and energy in the beginning. You have a two thousand year old edited, revised, and retranslated book that claims God made it in six days. Who's being more foolish here? Oh, that would be you.



Lovely misdirection. But unfortunately, you can't attack my reason. Probably because you aren't used to thinking for yourself.



You missed the point- blind faith blinds you. That's why it's blind faith. You can't see reason and other viewpoints other than what you're spoonfed. That's blind faith. YOU have blind faith. And you prove it post after post.



...Says the person benefitting from science at every turn. Why aren't you out in the wild living on the earth with no science to help you and reading your bible while God protects you? Don't you have enough faith that you can live without science-made things if God is so great? Or are you a hypocrite and a fool? I suspect the latter.



You aren't even making sense. Fool.



Yes, because if I drew thirteen cards from two decks, and then sat there and said "Wow, there's no way I could have drawn these cards randomly. They MUST have been made to be this way." That'd be the answer, huh?

Evil Dead
um, we live soly because our planet can nurture life........

out of 144 chances in our solar system alone.....our planet is the one that can nurture life....... that's 1 out of 144 chances.........I refer back to my dice analogy. If you believe god made this planet, all elements contained therein to support life..............why did it take him 144 tries to get the combination right? Doesn't sound too supreme if you ask me.......looks like he could do it once. If your next argument is that he only intended to do it once, it is moot as the same elements that exist here that allows for life exist on all of the other celestial bodies......in different random combinations......if god only wanted life here, made those elements to support it........they would not exist on other planets/moons.

now if you somehow show that humans were here on Earth.......and the elements that allow for life changed to do so around humans, to support human life..........then you sir have a valid argument for god. Then you are left with the problem of explaining why life exists on the planet that has nothing to do with human survival......some even highly toxic.....causing death........the exact opposite of the very purpose your god would have created it for, the survival of human life.

sorry.....you lose. If this was 400 a.d. and all we knew about was the Earth, your statement may hold validity in the face of ignorance about the rest of our universe.......but it's not. We do know about a small percentage of our universe, it directly contradicts your statements. We know what allows for life on Earth......and find it everywhere in different combinations throughout our solar system. Just imagine if we were to know of our entire galaxy.......... that would put god's success rate down considerably below his current 0.01 batting average.......and that's assuming we were to find several more life sustaining planets.

Evil Dead
ps. science does not rule out the possibility of a greater intelligence at work............it does however rule out the god of Christianity/Judiism/Islam..

It does so by ruling out the creation myths, etc. attributed to "it" which define "it".........

most men of science, myself included, fully believe in a greater intelligence at work. Everything starts from something........it's just that we aren't egocentric enough to pretend we can understand this "intelligence" or "god"........ we can only attempt to explain the processes through which the universe works today, regardless of how it came to be.

you brought up a valid point about the big bang theory earlier. Where did the first energy come from that facillitated the big bang? Notice scientists never claim to know..........when we don't know something we simply say, "I dunno......I can only tell you what happened afterward as a result of it"........we don't just make stuff up out of our ass and say, "um....some invisible guy made it.....and he's watching me right now.......and he's judging me......".........

Mindship
Originally posted by Evil Dead
you brought up a valid point about the big bang theory earlier. Where did the first energy come from that facillitated the big bang? Notice scientists never claim to know

My understanding is: the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation in a larger/higher space, not entirely unlike how virtual particles arise from quantum flcutuations in our space. Supposedly, that higher space is a "false vacuum" a symmetrical but inherently unstable condition which seeks stability through asymmetry...kinda like a pencil, viewed from above, balanced on its point. The pencil falling over = Big Bang.

At least, this is what I'm able to make of it.

And yes, this is currently theory. But it is a theory which, hypothetically, can be tested for, given equipment which can generate energies far beyond our current capability.

peejayd
Originally posted by Janus Marius
It's official - you're ignorant. You don't even question the validity of the book you are basing your entire lifestyle and belief system around. t's cute though that you poo-poo science, which is the cumulated efforts of people who made the vehicles you ride in, the refridgerator that keeps your food cold, the medicines you take, the computer you use.

* i'm not berating science, mr.hater... there are areas of science that coincides with the Bible... but sadly, some areas does not coincide, worse, they contradict the Bible... i'm not ignorant, you're just a hater... wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Hey, I have an idea... why don't you ask God to provide entertainment and bash your computer in with your Bible? Have God provide the electricity in your house. Hey, next time you get hurt, just pray and don't put anything on it. Yeah, faith > science every time.

* yet a simple stroke, a blood clot in your brain can kill an unprepared person in just minutes... science > faith all the way... confused

Originally posted by Janus Marius
... You don't get it, do you? Science isn't trying to make any absolute claims- it works with what information we have. Science says that because of microwaves and other phenomena in space, it's possible that space is expanding, and has always done so, perhaps starting from a single cluster of matter and energy in the beginning. You have a two thousand year old edited, revised, and retranslated book that claims God made it in six days. Who's being more foolish here? Oh, that would be you.

* you don't get it... the way you put science to that pedestal is ridiculous... you don't even sound so sure in your scientific statements... confused

* a hater like you won't understand that the creation in the Bible in 6 days was not a 24-hour day... now, it's official - you are really ignorant of the Bible you are badmouthing the whole time... wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Lovely misdirection. But unfortunately, you can't attack my reason. Probably because you aren't used to thinking for yourself.

* my argument is valid... if it's not the centerpiece of all science, why care to argue? i'm still convinced, it's your scientific pride... stick out tongue

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You missed the point- blind faith blinds you. That's why it's blind faith. You can't see reason and other viewpoints other than what you're spoonfed. That's blind faith. YOU have blind faith. And you prove it post after post.

* nope... you proved to be nothing more than a hater who does not even know how to raise a sound and valid argument... the way i see it, you always attack the person, not his argument... yes, and did i say you're a hater? wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
...Says the person benefitting from science at every turn. Why aren't you out in the wild living on the earth with no science to help you and reading your bible while God protects you? Don't you have enough faith that you can live without science-made things if God is so great? Or are you a hypocrite and a fool? I suspect the latter.

* who made you, your parents? who made you parents? your parents' parents... and so on... who made the very first human? care to answer what science taught you? you really are blinded by false science... wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You aren't even making sense. Fool.

* and you can't scientifically explain the creation... plain and simple... wink

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Yes, because if I drew thirteen cards from two decks, and then sat there and said "Wow, there's no way I could have drawn these cards randomly. They MUST have been made to be this way." That'd be the answer, huh?

* and everything was an accident? the environment? the people? the animals? all accident? gee-weez... comparing the creation to a deck of cards was very clever of you... laughing

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
My understanding is: the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation in a larger/higher space, not entirely unlike how virtual particles arise from quantum flcutuations in our space. Supposedly, that higher space is a "false vacuum" a symmetrical but inherently unstable condition which seeks stability through asymmetry...kinda like a pencil, viewed from above, balanced on its point. The pencil falling over = Big Bang.

At least, this is what I'm able to make of it.

And yes, this is currently theory. But it is a theory which, hypothetically, can be tested for, given equipment which can generate energies far beyond our current capability.

Interesting theory... How dose a false vacuum differ from a true vacuum?

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Interesting theory... How dose a false vacuum differ from a true vacuum?

I was just about to ask that, is it a vacuum not occupied by celestial bodies?

Bierbommetje
Originally posted by Mindship
1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?


Well, this is not exactly scientific, nor is it really theoratical, but this video proves God excists.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...265716&pl=true

SURELY THIS CAN'T BE COINCIDENCE???

If you don't feel like watching the video, just pick up a banana and hold it in your hand, and you will see the light. I'm already totally converted.

Anyway, I'm off to church, ciao

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Bierbommetje
Well, this is not exactly scientific, nor is it really theoratical, but this video proves God excists.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...265716&pl=true

SURELY THIS CAN'T BE COINCIDENCE???

If you don't feel like watching the video, just pick up a banana and hold it in your hand, and you will see the light. I'm already totally converted.

Anyway, I'm off to church, ciao

It doesn't work but I think I know what video it is.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Bierbommetje
Well, this is not exactly scientific, nor is it really theoratical, but this video proves God excists.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...265716&pl=true

SURELY THIS CAN'T BE COINCIDENCE???

If you don't feel like watching the video, just pick up a banana and hold it in your hand, and you will see the light. I'm already totally converted.

Anyway, I'm off to church, ciao

This is what I get when I go to that link.

Does that prove god? eek!

BTW would you like to buy a bridge for $300?

debbiejo
Originally posted by peejayd
* yet we are placed in a planet that can nurture life... there is a reason for that... and it's not accidental... wink But, this is not the only solar system. Their are billions of galaxies with suns to sustain life.

Yep
That is only YOUR denominations teaching...It's all interpretation you know.
Don't assume that people that disagree with you do not know the bible.....Many of used to be Christians.

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Interesting theory... How dose a false vacuum differ from a true vacuum?

I could say "different energy states," but that's really meaningless. This is why I included the analogy of the pencil.

If you could balance a pencil upright on its point, and look straight down on it, you'd see the pencil as a circle, symmetrical in all directions. But, on its point, the pencil is highly unstable; conditions could change at any instant. When the pencil does fall over (ala Big Bang), symmetry is broken. But the pencil is in a much more stable condition, this being a true vacuum.

Of course, our spacetime could still be like a false vacuum to a "truer" vacuum. If so, there could be another Big Pencil ready to fall.

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
But, this is not the only solar system. Their are billions of galaxies with suns to sustain life.

* yet, is there any? confused


Originally posted by debbiejo
That is only YOUR denominations teaching...It's all interpretation you know.

* then we should not interpret... just read... wink

Originally posted by debbiejo
Don't assume that people that disagree with you do not know the bible.....Many of used to be Christians.

* nope, i'm not assuming... true Christians will never say things like that... wink

Alliance
How about this...

I dont want to read through all of this thread. I'm a biologist in training (i.e. I'm studying molecular biology in college) If someone wants to ask an intelligent question of me, I'd be happy to help answer it. Ecology/evolution is not by specialty, but I know my stuff. I find the biggest problem is that people misunderstadns science. Maybe I can help!

Oh, and the false vacuum theory is a good one, I read about it a few years back. Cool stuff!

Storm
Originally posted by peejayd
* nope, i'm not assuming... true Christians will never say things like that... wink
The No True Scotsman Fallacy. The term Christian is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

Mindship
Originally posted by Storm
The No True Scotsman Fallacy. The term Christian is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

Although the details of worship vary, is not the common thread of every Christian the belief that Christ (hence, "Christian"wink is the savior/messiah of humankind?

Also, responding to prior posts: to doubt that life may exist elsewhere simply because it hasn't been found yet is, IMO, somewhat naive. On Earth, we now know that life is not the fragile phenomena we once thought. It is, instead, extremely tenacious, and given the slightest chance to thrive, will. To believe that Earth is the only Bio-Oasis out of the vastness of the universe strikes me as not wanting/unable to look beyond the tip of one's nose, either because inferential reasoning skills are lacking, or, more likely, there is fear of upsetting the applecart of another, incompatible belief system.

'Tis good ancient mariners did not conclude there is no land beyond the sea simply because it hadn't been found yet. With open minds and brave hearts, they wondered, they ventured, they found.

Evil Dead
wow......both of these statements were made by the same person....





I've read the bible a few times. Exactly where does it discuss "a day" being longer than 24 hours? Chapter/verse please.......

the book was written by man, standing on the earth. The definition of "day" is the amount of time it takes the earth to rotate on it's axis once..........which is 24 hourse.........



so nothing is worse than contradicting the bible? You do realize that according to the creation myth in the bible, we are all clones...right? Adam was made first. God then took a rib of Adam to create Eve. Each cell within Adam contains the same DNA sequence, including his rib......which means Eve was created as an exact duplicate of Adam. ......a clone. That means that all humans alive today would have the same DNA sequence......we would all be identical clones. get your head out of your ass kid.


why do you keep using the word, "hater"? Are you a 12 year old girl, mistakenly believing she is in an aol chatroom? sorry sweetie....adults here........enough of the "hater", "roxorz" and "omg" crap.

ps. you still haven't replied to my last post that I called your bull shit out in.........

Shakyamunison
^ We need a clean up on isle 7, there's blood all over the place. laughing

debbiejo
How can you be sure there is not?


Everything you read is open to interpretation. That's why we have all the 100's of denominations all pointing their fingers at each other saying YOUR WRONG and WE'RE RIGHT......What should be done is looking not in the bible, but looking into how the bible came to be, and what were the circumstances at the time, what and are the similarities to earlier writings by other groups...Then go back to the bible and see it for what it is and what you can gleen from it...

Evil Dead
interesting......but further explanation please. I am by no means an expert on this subject. Please explain what you mean by larger/higher space. I understand what you are saying otherwise.......but it would all still come back to the very first spark of energy ever in existence in this universe or another which caused this universe........had to come about somehow. Perhaps that is what you are trying to explain to me......dumb it up for me a bit. I see no way in any scenerio energy could be spontaniously created.....I'm not one of those nutjobs quick to throw around the "g" word but I do believe there are things that humans could not possibly explain given our level of intelligence relevance to the processes of the entire universe or whatever larger space encompassing it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Evil Dead
interesting......but further explanation please. I am by no means an expert on this subject. Please explain what you mean by larger/higher space. I understand what you are saying otherwise.......but it would all still come back to the very first spark of energy ever in existence in this universe or another which caused this universe........had to come about somehow. Perhaps that is what you are trying to explain to me......dumb it up for me a bit. I see no way in any scenerio energy could be spontaniously created.....I'm not one of those nutjobs quick to throw around the "g" word but I do believe there are things that humans could not possibly explain given our level of intelligence relevance to the processes of the entire universe or whatever larger space encompassing it.

I can help you out with one thought; consider the idea that there is no creation, everything has always existed, kind of like the oscillating universe. Now, the "larger/higher space" is something I would like to know more about.

Evil Dead
everything always existing......I can't buy that. It makes no logical sense based soly on what we humans have observed in the past few millenia. That's not to say it's not true if given an oscillating universe theory or another akin to it which allows for larger universes to exist outside of this one.....it could have completely alien systems, laws and interactions between energy, matter and anti-matter. Thinking about that too long would just give you a head ache.

we view and experience time/space as linear.......makes it incredibly difficult to ever try to come to a rational explanation of something existing as circular. Then again.....our intelligence could be way down the meter in terms of all existence. Us attempting to explain this seemingly contradictory occurance to how we view/experience our universe would be like asking an ant to explain the laws of thermodynamics, complete with working models.........which is why I always go back to the last line of my last post in this thread......somethings we humans are just not capable of answering do to our intelligence and our place relevant to the rest of existence if this were to be true.

debbiejo
But it could be true considering everything even here on earth is circular also......Everything seem to run in cycles.....seasons, biological, plants, births, solar system...all cyclical in nature. Things seem to go round and repeat.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Evil Dead
everything always existing......I can't buy that. It makes no logical sense based soly on what we humans have observed in the past few millenia. That's not to say it's not true if given an oscillating universe theory or another akin to it which allows for larger universes to exist outside of this one.....it could have completely alien systems, laws and interactions between energy, matter and anti-matter. Thinking about that too long would just give you a head ache.

we view and experience time/space as linear.......makes it incredibly difficult to ever try to come to a rational explanation of something existing as circular. Then again.....our intelligence could be way down the meter in terms of all existence. Us attempting to explain this seemingly contradictory occurance to how we view/experience our universe would be like asking an ant to explain the laws of thermodynamics, complete with working models.........which is why I always go back to the last line of my last post in this thread......somethings we humans are just not capable of answering do to our intelligence and our place relevant to the rest of existence if this were to be true.

I'm not talking about steady state. I'm talking about big bang going to big crunch on and on for ever into the past and into the future.

debbiejo
You're talking about dimensional things arent you?.......

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
You're talking about dimensional things arent you?.......

No, I'm talking about nothingness. eek!

Mindship
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
-- Sir Arthur Eddington

A few things to address...
1. The idea that Something Always Was, as opposed to Something Coming Into Being.
Whatever the "ultimate ground of being" is (energy, consciousness, void, God, left-over potato salad, all/none of the above), it is by definition Infinite: infinite in all and any way. It has to be, because if it isn't, if there is something beyond it, than That Totality is what's infinite. Even if there is an infinite regression, then That is our Infinite Ground: infinite in space and time...which means no beginning. The advantage to this is that it fits perfectly with Occam's Razor: Something That Always Was is a simpler proposition than Something Coming Into Being, because we don't have to explain any creation.
2. Since we are 3-dimensional beings, it is impossible for us to visualize a "higher space." We can understand it mathematically, but not via a sensory metaphor, at least not w/o distortion in one or more dimensions.
For example: we can draw a cube (a 3D figure) on paper but with distortion in that 3rd dimension because the paper is a 2D surface (the 3rd dimension has been collapsed, so to speak). We can draw a 4D cube (a tesseract) on paper, but now we get distortion in 2 dimensions. We can even make a 3D model of a tesseract, but this still leaves us with distortion in 1 dimension. There's no way around it: the best we can do is make models with some measure of distortion. So when scientists try to understand higher spaces, they reason through metaphor, often scaling down a dimension or two.
3. A "false vacuum" (higher space) is thus best understood through metaphor. I refer to the Big Pencil falling down, going Boom, as one of my faves.


Sorry if I wasn't more clear. This is because 1) my own understanding of this stuff is hardly expert level; and 2) I'm in a rush at the moment. I also wanna address the Oscillating Universe idea, but in that thread.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Mindship
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
-- Sir Arthur Eddington

A few things to address...
1. The idea that Something Always Was, as opposed to Something Coming Into Being.
Whatever the "ultimate ground of being" is (energy, consciousness, void, God, left-over potato salad, all/none of the above), it is by definition Infinite: infinite in all and any way. It has to be, because if it isn't, if there is something beyond it, than That Totality is what's infinite. Even if there is an infinite regression, then That is our Infinite Ground: infinite in space and time...which means no beginning. The advantage to this is that it fits perfectly with Occam's Razor: Something That Always Was is a simpler proposition than Something Coming Into Being, because we don't have to explain any creation.
2. Since we are 3-dimensional beings, it is impossible for us to visualize a "higher space." We can understand it mathematically, but not via a sensory metaphor, at least not w/o distortion in one or more dimensions.
For example: we can draw a cube (a 3D figure) on paper but with distortion in that 3rd dimension because the paper is a 2D surface (the 3rd dimension has been collapsed, so to speak). We can draw a 4D cube (a tesseract) on paper, but now we get distortion in 2 dimensions. We can even make a 3D model of a tesseract, but this still leaves us with distortion in 1 dimension. There's no way around it: the best we can do is make models with some measure of distortion. So when scientists try to understand higher spaces, they reason through metaphor, often scaling down a dimension or two.
3. A "false vacuum" (higher space) is thus best understood through metaphor. I refer to the Big Pencil falling down, going Boom, as one of my faves.




Don't we exsit in a 4 dimensional world,this sounds like my theory.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Don't we exsit in a 4 dimensional world,this sounds like my theory.

According to String theory, there is between 10 and 14 dimensions.

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
According to String theory, there is between 10 and 14 dimensions.

Like 4 wasn't hard enough. Sheesh.

debbiejo
How can anyone be sure when you're talking about dimensions anyway. There could even be dimensions within dimensions.... huh reading

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
How can anyone be sure when you're talking about dimensions anyway. There could even be dimensions within dimensions.... huh reading

Look it up... laughing

The Omega
Physicist work with 4 dimensions, three spatial (left-right, up-down, back-forth) and time. String-theorists speculate that there may be some 7 extra tiny curled-up dimensions, which are so small they do not interact with ordinary matter at all.
Problem - string-theory is a hypothesis, it's not falsiable!

Big bang: The biggest problem for us, is understanding that TIME started with Big Bang. There is no BEFORE, hence no casual relations (cause always preceeds effect), because there is no time.
If we wait long enough the improbable will happen.
If we wait forever the impossible will happen.
You have to time...
Quantum-mechanics dictates, that you're allowed to violate energy-conservation laws (you may create energy from nothing), as long as you do it within a very short time-span. (the virtual particle pairs that are constanly jumping into existence and vanishing again in vacuum, and as far as I remember, the particles that carry the weak nuclear force).
You have no time before Big Bang...

So a quatum-mechanical fluctuation... smile) Big Bang.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by The Omega
Physicist work with 4 dimensions, three spatial (left-right, up-down, back-forth) and time. String-theorists speculate that there may be some 7 extra tiny curled-up dimensions, which are so small they do not interact with ordinary matter at all.
Problem - string-theory is a hypothesis, it's not falsiable!

Big bang: The biggest problem for us, is understanding that TIME started with Big Bang. There is no BEFORE, hence no casual relations (cause always preceeds effect), because there is no time.
If we wait long enough the improbable will happen.
If we wait forever the impossible will happen.
You have to time...
Quantum-mechanics dictates, that you're allowed to violate energy-conservation laws (you may create energy from nothing), as long as you do it within a very short time-span. (the virtual particle pairs that are constanly jumping into existence and vanishing again in vacuum, and as far as I remember, the particles that carry the weak nuclear force).
You have no time before Big Bang...

So a quatum-mechanical fluctuation... smile) Big Bang.

But the energy-matter conservation law is broken in singularities.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can help you out with one thought; consider the idea that there is no creation, everything has always existed, kind of like the oscillating universe. Now, the "larger/higher space" is something I would like to know more about.
Were on the same page I see. laughing

My theory is that GOD/Highest dimension breaks down into simpler froms forming lesser conscious and dimensions.

Sorry for double post.

Mindship
Quantum fluctuations as fractals, universes within universes.

And if there is a God, then this whole fractal organization is just the hardware of infinity. The software is the Consciousness which transcends but includes it.

Is That aspect of God forever beyond Science?

debbiejo
Cool! cool

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
Cool! cool

cool (fractal sunglasses)

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Mindship
Quantum fluctuations as fractals, universes within universes.

And if there is a God, then this whole fractal organization is just the hardware of infinity. The software is the Consciousness which transcends but includes it.

Is That aspect of God forever beyond Science?

Science is simply to know, if we somehow transcend 4d perspective then we could know.

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
Everything you read is open to interpretation. That's why we have all the 100's of denominations all pointing their fingers at each other saying YOUR WRONG and WE'RE RIGHT......What should be done is looking not in the bible, but looking into how the bible came to be, and what were the circumstances at the time, what and are the similarities to earlier writings by other groups...Then go back to the bible and see it for what it is and what you can gleen from it...

* done that... even in the earliest of those writings contains almost the same spirit of the Bible we use today... wink

* what varies is the interpretations of different denominations of religion... so i say, we should just read and not interpret... wink

Alliance
According to my most recent reading on sting theory...Our universe has 9 dimentions (1st time and then 8 space), but 11 are possible (1st time and 10 space).

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by peejayd
* done that... even in the earliest of those writings contains almost the same spirit of the Bible we use today... wink

* what varies is the interpretations of different denominations of religion... so i say, we should just read and not interpret... wink

Peejay the bible is 66 books 39 of those books originated from the Jewish religion, which refutes Christ as the messiah so how is the bible a valid book when it contradicts it's self horribly?

peejayd
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Peejay the bible is 66 books 39 of those books originated from the Jewish religion, which refutes Christ as the messiah so how is the bible a valid book when it contradicts it's self horribly?

* where in the Bible that refutes Christ as the Messiah? confused

debbiejo
Jesus was never thought to be divine until that blasted council of Nicea....get it, got it, good! reading

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
Jesus was never thought to be divine until that blasted council of Nicea....get it, got it, good! reading

* yes... for the Catholics... wink

* for the Christians...

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God , and eternal life."
I John 5:20

* Christ is a true God... wink

Alliance
No wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by peejayd


Yes I agree, however, I am a true God and you are also a true God.

debbiejo
Yes, and don't forget about all the editing done in the bible.........And I'm also god!!!

Before there was anything "I AM"...........We all were! We were IMO apart of the source of energy that split off to create what is now before us...All living things have energy, all things are connected at the sub particle level (visible and invisible), and all things act and react to each other. We affect each other...We should take responsibility for that.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes I agree, however, I am a true God and you are also a true God.

Hooray for humanism!

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
...We affect each other...We should take responsibility for that.

Responsibility?! Dear lass, we don't even wanna take responsibility for ourselves. That's why we sue McDonald's cuz "They made me fat!"

Responsibility: longest 4-letter word in the American language.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
Responsibility?! Dear lass, we don't even wanna take responsibility for ourselves. That's why we sue McDonald's cuz "They made me fat!"

Responsibility: longest 4-letter word in the American language.

What is funny; the only way to true personal power is through self responsibility. So, we run from the only way to self power , and then complain because we are powerless in our lives. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is funny; the only way to true personal power is through self responsibility. So, we run from the only way to self power , and then complain because we are powerless in our lives. roll eyes (sarcastic)

True enough, sir. Sadly, true enough.

Alliance
Do I smell a spiderman quote....?

Only it should have a first part.

"Through great responsiblilty, comes great power"
Parker: "With great power, comes great responsibility"

Therefore, once you start becoming accountable, you are on a never ending path to power, unless you become less responsible along the way.

peejayd
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many , and lords many,)"
I Corinthians 8:5

* there are many gods... wink

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High ."
Psalms 82:6

* the children of God are called "gods"... wink

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came , and the scripture cannot be broken;"
John 10:34-35

* people unto whom the word of God came are called "gods"... wink

"God that made the world and all things therein , seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;"
Acts 17:24

* but our Creator is God the Father...

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ."
John 3:18

* and His only begotten Son, Christ is also a God... wink

Alliance
or we can just be humanist and say that man is the ultimate unto himself...

Yes. That's better.

willRules
In my opinion I think science and religion go hand in hand. In fact recent scientific discoveries are starting to support the idea that God created the Earth (And also many recent discoveries suggest that man may have never evolved from ape)

I believe that God created everything and I am a born again Christian. I believe that science tends to ask how and religion asks why when it comes to these many different subjects in our life. They can sometimes conflict with and sometimes help each other.

Many people use different theories to convey the idea that only one can be right, but I disagree. I believe everything the Bible says to be true (In my opinion some is literal and some of it is to be interpreted but thats a different subject smile ) I also believe that whatever true scientific theories exist in the world can work with other faiths.

The Omega
Originally posted by willRules
In my opinion I think science and religion go hand in hand. In fact recent scientific discoveries are starting to support the idea that God created the Earth (And also many recent discoveries suggest that man may have never evolved from ape)

Which recent scinetific discoveries? Who made them? Where have they been published?

willRules
Originally posted by The Omega
Which recent scinetific discoveries? Who made them? Where have they been published?


sorry I don't know the sources they came from, it was on a documentary I watched recently. sad

It was quite interesting though, it was fairly unbiased and tiptoed around the sensitive subjects between religion and science. There was a talk on how a scientist in America discovered that the genetic traits shared between man and ape were a lot less than originally intended and that if there was any connection it was more likely that man and ape are distant cousins smile

Alliance
Its good that you keep your faith flexible enough to work with science.

I would also question the validity of that study. The human genome was done in 2003 and the Chimp one had a rough draft that same year. If you cant tell us anything about this? Where did you see the documentary? In what month? On what channel/program? Who narrated it? Who did it feature? Was this study published and if so where? Any of this would be helpful.

peejayd
* evolution... humans came from apes... how come there are still apes now? aren't they supposed to evolve into humans?

Alliance
they are not transformers. Evoloution is commonly misunderstood as having a direction. Some aspect of evolution involve a similar process where species as a whole develop new general characteristics, but that doesn't quite describe speciation (the development of a new species).

Long story short, humans and apes (most recently chimps) shared a common ancestor. Two groups of this ancestor then evolved along different paths (likely through sexual segregation, mutation, all the usual culprits), one becoming modern humans (through various other species adn sub-species) and one becoming modern chimps (likely throuhg a similar process, but I don't know off hand). It is exceeedingly unlikely that this common ancestor was any more similar to a chimp than to a human. Both species evolved after the speciation event. its a common misperception to see one evolving from the other.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by peejayd
* evolution... humans came from apes... how come there are still apes now? aren't they supposed to evolve into humans?

It's like a tree pee jay, each said organism branched off in a seperate direction to fit their enviorment via natural selection of survival traits. well that's the theory.

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by peejayd
* where in the Bible that refutes Christ as the Messiah? confused

Where was Ezekiel to announce his coming, when was he a king with the government on his shoulders, etc read the bible .


Originally posted by peejayd
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many , and lords many,)"
I Corinthians 8:5

* there are many gods... wink

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High ."
Psalms 82:6

* the children of God are called "gods"... wink

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came , and the scripture cannot be broken;"
John 10:34-35

* people unto whom the word of God came are called "gods"... wink

"God that made the world and all things therein , seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;"
Acts 17:24

* but our Creator is God the Father...

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ."
John 3:18

* and His only begotten Son, Christ is also a God... wink

Try quoting the old testament.

lord xyz
Originally posted by peejayd
* evolution... humans came from apes... how come there are still apes now? aren't they supposed to evolve into humans? they are beatufully adapted to there environment. They don't need to evolve.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by peejayd
* evolution... humans came from apes... how come there are still apes now? aren't they supposed to evolve into humans?

Humans did not evolve from apes; humans are apes. We are Hominids, and Hominids are a type of ape.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Alliance
Thats correct. But ape is such a general word.

And nice tree analogy Blue. Always describes evolution so well.

peejayd
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Where was Ezekiel to announce his coming, when was he a king with the government on his shoulders, etc read the bible .

Try quoting the old testament.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting ."
Micah 5:2

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6

* is this enough? wink

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by peejayd
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting ."
Micah 5:2

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6

* is this enough? wink

When did Jesus have the government on his shoulders, he was not a king at all.

And again where was Ezekiel???

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
When did Jesus have the government on his shoulders, he was not a king at all.

And again where was Ezekiel???

Don't ask a blind person the color of the sky. People believe because they wish to believe and facts will not over come blind faith.

debbiejo
So he's his own father........lol........How can a person do that?......OH oh, I know....All things are possible with god........

And as for Prince of Peace.......He could of been until the church interfered with his teachings....

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
So he's his own father........lol........How can a person do that?......OH oh, I know....All things are possible with god........

And as for Prince of Peace.......He could of been until the church interfered with his teachings....

Male child from a virgin birth = not possible.
Jesus was his own father = not possible.
Jesus resurrection = misunderstood - reincarnation.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Mindship
1. Can Science, theoretically, be used to prove the existence of God?
2. If so, how?
3. If not, why?

Stumbling blocks:
a) Is Science defined by Method or by nature of proof?
b) Can God be operationally defined?

Specifically, I'm asking: If empirical proof is sought, but "God" is generally seen as Spirit (ie, nonempirical), how do we reconcile? Can this be reconciled?

And if it can't be reconciled, which better reflects Occam's Razor:
I - God can't be scientifically tested for, ergo He doesn't exist.
II - God can't be scientifically tested for. Period. His existence is still open, and will always be open, to question.

Because my outlook on the God and Science is different, half of this question does not apply.

As far as ''God'' goes for me - it is everything. It isn't ''a particular thing/being'' its everything...and such includes science.

Thus, science is God and God is Science. How do you prove everything...and more importantly why prove everything?

Why 'prove' God at all?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because my outlook on the God and Science is different, half of this question does not apply.

As far as ''God'' goes for me - it is everything. It isn't ''a particular thing/being'' its everything...and such includes science.

Thus, science is God and God is Science. How do you prove everything...and more importantly why prove everything?

I'm not alone in the world. That is exactly how I feel about God. Lets form our own religion. Happy Dance laughing

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Because my outlook on the God and Science is different, half of this question does not apply.

As far as ''God'' goes for me - it is everything. It isn't ''a particular thing/being'' its everything...and such includes science.

Thus, science is God and God is Science. How do you prove everything...and more importantly why prove everything?

Why 'prove' God at all?

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
This pretty much sums up how I feel.

No way, you are not allowed in my new religion. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Blue nocturne
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No way, you are not allowed in my new religion. roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing

Alliance
and the fact that its so easy to make up a religion makes religions seem so....hmmmm...fake? happy

peejayd
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
When did Jesus have the government on his shoulders, he was not a king at all.

And again where was Ezekiel???

* why do you keep asking for prophet Ezekiel? confused

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
John 18:36-37

* Christ's kingdom is not of this world... wink

Alliance
too bad were here...now... confused

debbiejo
My kingdoms not of this world either..

Alliance
nor mine no expression

If your kingdom is here, you're likely too powerful to be browsing KMC. I think most of us are off in fantasylands....

Jonathan Mark
My Kingdom is my mind an the fiction series I am writing...

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
...I think most of us are off in fantasylands....

rolling on floor laughing

Alliance
My land is Star Wars... rolling on floor laughing ...and political idealism.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
My Kingdom is my mind an the fiction series I am writing...

Have you been published before?

Jonathan Mark
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you been published before?
I'm only 16 so no and I'm not even finished... however my mother is a writer and she has been published. So really I'm sort of following in her footsteps.

Alliance
cool! big grin

Jonathan Mark
Originally posted by Alliance
cool! big grin
Thanks cool

Storm
Back on track please.

Lord Urizen
Why should it be one of the other ?

Religious people tend to ward off science as blasphemy and #$ like that, but many scientists still are open to the possibility of God's existance.

That's the difference between most Religious people and scientists.

Religious people are closed off to other possibilities, while scientists are more realistic about the fact that no one know everything and only want to find more answers.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.