Originally posted by RegretEternal from Man's perspective is easy, Man's existence is and was preceded by God's and God will not end prior to Man, if he ever did end, a concept that I do not believe in.
Bare in mind that there are different ways of understanding what man is in alot of religons they talk about how mankind existed before they were created on Earth. Also in the Bible they talk about Melchizedek a man who has no beginning or end. If god is infinite that means everything else is infinite as well. Man also does not have a beginning or end.
Originally posted by Regret
This then leads to a very philosophical question. Is infinity real, or is the beginning and end merely beyond our comprehension?
Infinity could be defined as the absence of nothing. Human beings are not capable of comprehending nothing therefore this could be seen as a way in which human beings comprehend infinity
Originally posted by Regret
If we cannot comprehend the span from the beginning to the end of something, is eternal, or without beginning and end, an accurate statement? I believe such is so. Is something eternal from God's perspective? I do not know, such would definitely be beyond Man's current ability to comprehend. Given the perspective of Man's relation to God as Mormons view it, such is entirely possible though, and is also entirely probable.
Yes but this is why the science of meditation exists. The purpose of it is to expand how we think not just to think in a "rational" way but to try and find a highier way of thinking.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is still based on observations, not simple credulity. The best model is used until disproven or replaced with a better model.
Ironically, it was a priest who proposed this possibility, so originally, it was based on ''simple'' credulity. On the same principle the idea of God appeared to begin with.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessA priest/astrophysicist whose theoretical assertions had basis in scientific observations and principles. 😐
Ironically, it was a priest who proposed this possibility, so originally, it was based on ''simple'' credulity. On the same principle the idea of God appeared to begin with.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is still based on observations, not simple credulity. The best model is used until disproven or replaced with a better model.
I would rather rely on Self Evident Observations than Blind Faith.
I have nothing against people beleiving in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as a personal philosophy/religion. When it is simply a personal beleif and a way of life, they do NOT have to prove anything to us who do not beleive.
When it is strictly personal beleif, a Christian or any religious person does NOT owe us an explanation for their beleifs. None what-so-ever.
However, when a Christian or any religious person tell you or myself that we, in fact, beleive the WRONG things, that we are sinners, that we will end up in Hell.....that we need to change our lives, change who we are, and beleive what they beleive....THEN and only THEN do we have the absolute right to demand proof for thier assertions.
Since not one Christian has succeeded in supplying undeniable PROOF for thier assertions, we Atheists and Agnostics have every right to critisize, disregard, and/or disbeleive thier stances, since they insisted on us changing ours.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A priest/astrophysicist whose theoretical assertions had basis in scientific observations and principles. 😐
Ancients used both science and religion incorprated.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I would rather rely on Self Evident Observations than Blind Faith.I have nothing against people beleiving in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as a personal philosophy/religion. When it is simply a personal beleif and a way of life, they do [b]NOT
have to prove anything to us who do not beleive.When it is strictly personal beleif, a Christian or any religious person does NOT owe us an explanation for their beleifs. None what-so-ever.
However, when a Christian or any religious person tell you or myself that we, in fact, beleive the WRONG things, that we are sinners, that we will end up in Hell.....that we need to change our lives, change who we are, and beleive what they beleive....THEN and only THEN do we have the absolute right to demand proof for thier assertions.
Since not one Christian has succeeded in supplying undeniable PROOF for thier assertions, we Atheists and Agnostics have every right to critisize, disregard, and/or disbeleive thier stances, since they insisted on us changing ours. [/B]
Not just Christians or religious people, I tend to be sceptical to anyone who claims they have found ''the truth'' regarding such.
I find it more apropriate to get in line with people who are ''searching'' rather than who have ''found'.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessWhile it's always fascinating to hear things about the ancient world I already know... how is that relevant to an assessment of god based on modern scientific principle as the thread is geared towards. 😬
So did the idea of God when it was first created. It was in the line with the basic scientific observations of the time.Ancients used both science and religion incorprated.
The null hypothesis is assumed unless the alternative hypothesis shows significance.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While it's always fascinating to hear things about the ancient world I already know... how is that relevant to an assessment of god based on modern scientific principle as the thread is geared towards. 😬
In a simple sense that science does not contradict God. It never has (hence the referance to the ancients), and it may not for a very long time.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not just Christians or religious people, I tend to be sceptical to anyone who claims they have found ''the truth'' regarding such.I find it more apropriate to get in line with people who are ''searching'' rather than who have ''found'.
Fair Enough Lil B...
But I couldn't care less what anyone beleives. That's thier right. As long as they do not try to insist MY beleifs as totally incorrect and/or immoral, then I have no problem.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In a simple sense that science does not contradict God. It never has (hence the referance to the ancients), and it may not for a very long time.
I beg to differ Lil B...
Although science does not contradict or disprove the existance of a possible Creator, it DOES very much contradict ChristianJudeo perception of God, and almost ALL perceptions of God that every mythology in history has presented.
Yes, but basically science does not have to contradict god for an atheist (or agnostic) stance to be "correct" from a scientific standpoint. Ha is rejected and Ho accepted if Ha does not show significance. Conclusion of no effect (i.e. god) is drawn (atheist), under the condition that one accepts there is always a possibility of type II error. Alternatively one can conclude there is insufficient data (agnostic). But a positive conclusion (theist) is inaccurate, scientifically at least.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Fair Enough Lil B...But I couldn't care less what anyone beleives. That's thier right. As long as they do not try to insist MY beleifs as totally incorrect and/or immoral, then I have no problem.
I beg to differ Lil B...
Although science does not contradict or disprove the existance of a possible Creator, it DOES very much contradict ChristianJudeo perception of God, and almost ALL perceptions of God that every mythology in history has presented.
In what way does it disprove Judeo-Christian, or even mythical perceptions of God?
It disproves, clearly the religious books, religious stories, and incoherent dates / science, but it most certainly does not contradict their perception of God.
Particularly since a lot of Abrahamic religious people claim they do not see these stories as literal.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, but basically science does not have to contradict god for an atheist (or agnostic) stance to be "correct" from a scientific standpoint. Ha is rejected and Ho accepted if Ha does not show significance. Conclusion is drawn, under the condition that one accepts there is always a possibility of type II error.
Ofcourse not. Simple Logic and Reasoning contradicts the existance of mainstream God just as easily !
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In what way does it disprove Judeo-Christian, or even mythical perceptions of God?
I didn't say disprove. I said Contradicts.
There are many logical and scientific contradictions against the existance of the popular notion of God.
I made too many threads about this already Lil B, so I refuse to go into detail now, and keep arguing in circles.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It disproves, clearly the religious books, religious stories, and incoherent dates / science, but it most certainly does not contradict their perception of God.
The modern concepts are God are BASED on these religious books, religious stories, traditions, etc.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Particularly since a lot of Abrahamic religious people claim they do not see these stories as literal.
Doesn't matter. If that is the case, then they lack basis for thier beleifs, and only beleive our of personal reasoning.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, but basically science does not have to contradict god for an atheist (or agnostic) stance to be "correct" from a scientific standpoint. Ha is rejected and Ho accepted if Ha does not show significance. Conclusion of no effect (i.e. god) is drawn (atheist), under the condition that one accepts there is always a possibility of type II error. Alternatively one can conclude there is insufficient data (agnostic). But a positive conclusion (theist) is inaccurate, scientifically at least.
Yes, but you are going to back to Agnostic, Atheist Thist type argumet.
Science by itself does not contradict God. it does not search, to contradict God, but marely works with it.
It is people who disbelieve in God, which use science to disprove what they believe does not exist.
As science, and all that it has shown us, it does not disprove God. What people do with the information, how they use, or atempt to use it, is a different matter all together.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessI don't think you got my point exactly. As Ush has been saying, science does not need to disprove god for the atheist/agnostic standpoint to be the scientifically correct one. The premise of science is that one must prove the effect as significant. Not the converse.
Yes, but you are going to back to Agnostic, Atheist Thist type argumet.
Science by itself does not contradict God. it does not search, to contradict God, but marely works with it.It is people who disbelieve in God, which use science to disprove what they believe does not exist.
As science, and all that it has shown us, it does not disprove God. What people do with the information, how they use, or atempt to use it, is a different matter all together.
From a science standpoint those who believe in god have to prove god if they assert it as true. The burden of providing proof positive is on the one who asserts the claim of an effect.
Asking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed.