The Only Way God is Real.

The first recorded so called "Matrix Theory" was put forth in the early to mid 1600's by Descarte in his works called Meditations on First Philosophy.

I don't get it. If you're able to believe something that far out... what do you have against Christians? Their story isn't any crazier. Pot meet kettle.

Or is it because it's all sciencey with computers and stuff? That makes it instantly credible I guess. No blind faith involved there at all though, I'm sure.

Science cant be used to reject God. How can it?

Science is a study about "finite". Finite that can be observed.

Science dont know one fact about where finite comes from.

To some scientists finite had a beginning. To others finite have always existed. It seams to me that you have to make a Choice of what you want to beleive.

Only one of the two is true. But you can find scienctific knowledge about boths.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere




Every creation has a creator doesn't mean that creator is intelligent or Devine.

lets take this idea a little further

it appears that just the observation of some sub-atomic particles allows these waves/particles to change their characteristics


so it is with the idea of God, Ghosts, Ghouls.... they are intellectual concepts, with a form of actuality/reality springing from the individual 'creating' these entities out of just thinking them into existance

You can't be serious....

originally posted by: prodiffenon
I love to study patterns: business model patterns; patterns in dreams; patterns in history; patterns of science, etc.

If you study patterns in history, how did you miss patterns about human invention of religion?

originally posted by: prodiffenon
What I have come to believe is that science is a highly structured system of denial about the true nature of the universe and our role in it. Because we live in a somewhat plastic universe (much like modelling clay), the discoveries of science will yield verifiable and repeatable observations and experiments. Science also produces applied technologies as well, which act like lying 'witnesses' to said science.

You started giving definition of religion, highly structured system of denial about the true nature of the universe. Good start...

originally posted by: prodiffenon
Science is an endless self-maintaining and ever forward moving unfolding of a lie that meanders in every conceivable direction except a direction leading to any kind of truth.

Denial... not so healthy...

originally posted by: prodiffenon
This is why I have a difficult time trying to comprehend the wishes of atheists or agnostics to have the truth of any concept of a god validated by science.

It's called evidence, we all should be looking after... and so far not much of evidence for God exist...

originally posted by: prodiffenon
The capacity for people to personally, individually, collectively and globally summon the notion of a god 'sans science' indicates to me that it is a concept more fundamental and subtle than perception, sensation or intellect. Thus, there is a god by virtue of the notion itself, even if only the god of its own notion.

Going back to you not being very observant in history of religion since we invented it. If mass belief makes you feel its true, wonder how many people believe that there is a force in space and Luke is fighting dark force...

originally posted by: prodiffenon
Evolutionary theory attempts to set a beginning to this notion but that is absurd. No one can ever make a statement that Fred Flintstone was the very first Neanderthal to ever conceive of a god; and then it was supposed to spread like what ...a virus from there? And then they attempt to try to map it out using science, which as I stated earlier, I believe is a system of denial.

Only denial there is your denial of observation we all call science... You rather believe....

originally posted by: prodiffenon
So we have the very real, undeniable and persistent notion of a god. Whereupon we hastily run for cover inside the relatively perceived safety and security of the lies of science. Applied technologies are along for the ride as our like-minded beer drinking techno-buddies which validate science as a system for discovering...truth?..but technology is lying to us too!

So good luck validating god using science or technology.

It is imposible to validate God, but belief in god... yes we can validate and follow pattern of that through history. From earlier god and goddeses to this final - all knowing being who cares who we sleep with, what we eat or what we know... (can't know as much as God, can we?)

It is not your post that worries me, as denial is what I know we can all expect from religious people, what surprise me is that you have couple starts for post where you call science a lie, without much of a proof... while doing it on things that science founded... all those lies we enjoy today, like telephone, internet, video...

Interesting denial of reality...

a reply to: SuperFrog

It's called evidence, we all should be looking after... and so far not much of evidence for God exist...

Do you really think science will find God by studing finite?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: SuperFrog

It's called evidence, we all should be looking after... and so far not much of evidence for God exist...

Do you really think science will find God by studing finite?

I am very sure that science will never find God, or gods such as Zeus, Anubis..., or unicorns, medieval dragons, red riding hood and all other folklore tales.... Simple reason - we invented it all...

All we have to study is just history... and so far all points that all religion is - just product of human creativity meant to be used to 'educate' at the time and easily control.

Everything is quite simple...

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: SuperFrog

It's called evidence, we all should be looking after... and so far not much of evidence for God exist...

Do you really think science will find God by studing finite?

Do your really think science will find anything of meaning by ignoring the burden of evidence?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: SuperFrog

It's called evidence, we all should be looking after... and so far not much of evidence for God exist...

Do you really think science will find God by studing finite?

Do your really think science will find anything of meaning by ignoring the burden of evidence?

What evidence and facts have science found that they can prove that there is no God?

They have no evidence. If they did there would not be any more of these topics.

If you have facts that there is no God, show them to us. Or is the non existence of God just based on Your faith?


If there are no fact either way as of today. Both sides of the argument must base their argument on pure faith. Nothing else.

a reply to: spy66

I made no mention of "evidence against god" because there's no more evidence against god than there is against Russel's Teapot, and that's exactly the point. You have no evidence against the little demon who lives in my sock draw, should you take such empty claims seriously? Of course not.

As I said in my initial response:

Do your really think science will find anything of meaning by ignoring the burden of evidence?

Well?

originally posted by: ArtemisE

Just so not to false advertise, I'm a pretty hard core atheist who LOVES the science vs. religion debate.

This kind of thinking is at the heart of the increasing dichotomy seen in the US between religion and science.

There's no reason to debate religion VS science because they deal with different concepts. By saying it's one or another, you create a false separation where there should be none. You can be a theist scientist and actually many are.

The concept of God or the soul are scientifically unprovable and outside of the scope of science. Likewise, religion is about spirituality and morals and not about the laws of the universe.

These 2 worlds are not in competition and to think so is to be part of the problem.

Don't be part of the problem by creating situation were people have to chose between science and personal faith and not both.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Nephalim
I believe in God. always have, always will.

Cool. So...where is this god? What is it? Where does it come from? How does its nature relate to this dimension, or this universe? What are the laws governing its being? Where did those laws come from? What universe did this god originally come from, and where did that universe come from? And last, but not least, where did you get the answers to all of those questions?

It is, of course, your choice as to whether or not you answer.

You ask "where did that universe come from" well, you answer me where THIS universe came from. Because I can't grasp how a universe can happen from a BIG BANG. What went bang? Where did that come from?

It's a toughy... but the more I think about it, the more an intelligent force seems not only logical, but necessary to explain what the heck is going on.

a reply to: ArtemisE

2: double slit electron experiment. The reason electrons act the way they do could be because you wouldn't need to run the program where no one was observing. That's why the electrons don't choose a path untitled some one observes them. There would be no need to run the program for some cave in mars, if no one was looking at or scanning it. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't think you fully understand what the observer effect is.

The "observer" effect happens all the time whether someone is actually observing it or not. For us to observe an electron, a photon has to interact with the electron and our eye. When the photon interacts with the electron, it changes it's behavior. Photons interact with electrons all the time even if that photon doesn't interact with our eye as well. So your example of the cave on mars, the observer effect is in fact still happening, we just aren't there to "observe" it.

It's the whole if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it. We know it still makes a sound, at least if you believe in current physics. Same with the observer effect...it still happens whether the observation from a person, device, or sensor takes place.

In short, photons don't stop interacting with electrons just because our eyes aren't there to sense those photons.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Nephalim
I believe in God. always have, always will.

Cool. So...where is this god? What is it? Where does it come from? How does its nature relate to this dimension, or this universe? What are the laws governing its being? Where did those laws come from? What universe did this god originally come from, and where did that universe come from? And last, but not least, where did you get the answers to all of those questions?

It is, of course, your choice as to whether or not you answer.

You ask "where did that universe come from" well, you answer me where THIS universe came from. Because I can't grasp how a universe can happen from a BIG BANG. What went bang? Where did that come from?

It's a toughy... but the more I think about it, the more an intelligent force seems not only logical, but necessary to explain what the heck is going on.

Your explanation is no better than mine. Which is funny, because I don't have one. Personally, I don't need to know where the universe came from or where it's going in order to make some meaning for my own life. And I appreciate the meaning I contrive far more than any meaning someone wants to cram down my throat or else...

Besides, you didn't answer my questions.

a reply to: ArtemisE

The other exciting bit is matter not existing outside of its superstate apart from conscious observation. How do we know the tree isn't in a superstate in the wilderness with no conscious observers? Or to stretch - how do we know we are not dead or alive? (Schrodinger expanded). We will eventually have to follow the chain out to a cosmic consciousness. One that needs to observe us for us to be out of our superstate

Along with all the fine tuning, and your proclaimed "1s" and "0s" it very much does look like our reality was programmed, so to say...

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
You ask "where did that universe come from" well, you answer me where THIS universe came from. Because I can't grasp how a universe can happen from a BIG BANG. What went bang? Where did that come from?

It's a toughy... but the more I think about it, the more an intelligent force seems not only logical, but necessary to explain what the heck is going on.

Seriously, what planet do you live on?

Not only that you have question - where 'intelligent force' comes from, but most important - as George Carlin used to say:

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is #ed up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of # you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever # things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a #. Doesn't give a #, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

* George Carlin on Religion

Here is video, if you don't like to read...



And finally, Sam Harris has put it nicely...

Just imagine, tsunami that devastated Asia in 2004, every 10 days taking lives only of children under 5...



Yes, it seem like a work of intelligent designer... with bad attitude...

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I disagree completely. I think most religious people believe science and religion are both right. Because they can't deny there micro-wave works and they want to believe there religion is true. If you look at the polls ( which are in no way an exact count) like a little less then half of the population believes evolution is a conspiracy to discredit Jesus. I bet half of all Christians actually believe in the validity of the creation story.

Both worlds are in complete competition because both claim to be selling the truth. While only one is.


Now if you consider the bible a philosophy book. Then they aren't in competition. How ever if you believe the bible is the literal truth then only science or religion is wrong. Aka there was a global food that wiped out all but one family vs. there was a regional flood that seemed global to the anchient a who recorded it.



I just think the religious know there are MAJOR discrepancies in the biblical tales versus what science has found. So they hate debating the topic because the facts are on the side of science. This is a deep seeded belief that people were raised since birth to believe. So they fight to hold onto what they have been taught was the foundation of there life.

Atheists don't need to be insecure about there beliefs because they only believe in proven facts. No faith required. Christians hate things that make them question there faith so they get defensive and attack. Following the conservative play book ( almost all evangelicals are conservative) where you accuse the other side of doing precisely what you are.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
All we have to study is just history...

It is impossible to study history - the only thing that can be examined is what is appearing presently - no one can go back in time - however 'his story' (history) of what may have occurred may be heard, read and believed now.
God is presence but man is lost examining what happens in time - when time is just a word, an idea that appears now.
Nothing can happen outside of presence - presence is that which is the container in which all content appears and disappears.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I disagree completely. I think most religious people believe science and religion are both right. Because they can't deny there micro-wave works and they want to believe there religion is true. If you look at the polls ( which are in no way an exact count) like a little less then half of the population believes evolution is a conspiracy to discredit Jesus. I bet half of all Christians actually believe in the validity of the creation story.

Both worlds are in complete competition because both claim to be selling the truth. While only one is.

These views and polls are only valid for the US.

Almost no one outside the US believes in creationism or denies evolution or read the Bible literally. It's a completely anglo-saxon and protestant issue.

There is no competition between science and religion in the rest of the world. (besides fundamentalism islam)


When the OP states he loves debates between religion and science, he perpetuates this myth that there is a dichotomy and that people have to pick sides.

Y'all are just going around in circles.
Have you ever heard that *the truth is in the eye of the beholder*?
Apply this to the "Is God real Debate. Also keep in mind the findings of the Double Slit Electrons Experiment.
If you look for God you will find Him. Once you do you will need no more proof.
If you're not looking you're not going to find him.
The proof or evidence you have is your experience. You can not use that to prove it to anyone else but it is all the proof you need.
It's basically the same with the double slit experiment.
If you're looking the electrons react. If you're not, they don't.
K.I.S.S.
Quad