Science taking over gods domain

reply to post by gravytrain


I'm sorry, but I would have refuse such a tempting offer, merely because of the attitude you put down on the table. You're just as arrogant, stubborn, and ignorant as the people you are trying to "awaken". Indeed you are awake, but what is the sense if you can't even open your eyes? It is imminent you instruct yourself, rather than others, to open your mind and lay down your destructive criticisms and insulting behavior.

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

Both quotes are--believe it or not--from the Bible, as again proves it has its uses. I do wish you well.

Hey, hey!!!

This is a discussion about whether humans creating life is compatible with religion or not. It started out that way, and has now turned into a bout of personal attacks.

Shihulud does not believe in God. He has every right to feel that way, as much as I have a right to believe in my God. Remember that he has more evidence supporting his scientific ideas than we do supporting the existence of God. His beliefs are based of fact, whereas ours are based on faith from our own personal experiences.

Lets keep this to a discussion on the compatibility of science and religion, rather than attacking each other's personal beliefs.

I think that man has a lot to larn befour hes reaches god stats, Crating life is a stap but he has a long way to go

So your god is NOT any of the religiously prescribed gods?

In my belief, it is the same God. My understanding is personal, and different to those prescribed by the various religions.

I believe that we are all limited in our understanding of God. Each religion preaches their understanding. Even each person within each religion has their own ideas.

It must be so, since our belief in God comes from personal experiences, not from what we have been told.

As Godknown has suggested, religion is much like science.

Everything about scientific knowledge is challenged, and accepted as truth when there are no contradictions.

Similarly, every aspect in one's faith should be ruthlessly challenged, because only when one can reconcile one's faith with the facts, can one really say that their faith has any meaning.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
reply to post by shihulud

 

Like you said 'what if' can include everything. What if you are deluded and your god doesn't exist and science is correct? Also even if your god or any god for that matter did exist I haven't needed them up till now so I wouldn't need them anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'science is correct' here. There are many Bible believing scientists, so I think you're skewing that quite a bit.

What I mean is that there is a natural explaination for everything without the need for a creator deity. Also it makes no difference whether scientists believe in the bible or not because it is not belief that is true but facts and evidence that can be proven

How do you know you haven't needed Him? Did you Create yourself? Where will you go when you Expire?

I think I would know if I needed a deity. My parents created me and I will go nowhere when I die as again there is no evidence or facts that prove anything other (belief is not truth)

'What if' you're right and I'm wrong? Then no skin off my hide. The question is, What if the Bible is your Creators message to you and you refuse to accept it's free offer of Forgiveness. Not a very good bet in my opinion!

Thats your opinion, I see nothing to be forgiven for so yes I refuse to accept the biblical offer.


G

Originally posted by gravytrain
reply to post by shihulud

 

Gosh the ignorance..IT HURTS my brain..jeese and this is suppose to be the 21st century? gad dang it.....
...Wake up.

[edit on 10/28/2007 by gravytrain]

You are entitled to your opinion and your offer of answering all my questions I will happily decline as I am quite capable of finding answers for myself without having to resort to mythical faith based conclusions. It would seem that your ego is much larger than mine (which is usually the case with people who think they know everything i.e God did it) but until there is some proof other than personal belief, which I DO know has a strong effect - why not they are personal after all, then I will continue to have 'faith' in scientific method and discovery.

Your personal belief is just that.

YOURS

G

Originally posted by Saurus

So your god is NOT any of the religiously prescribed gods?

In my belief, it is the same God. My understanding is personal, and different to those prescribed by the various religions.

I believe that we are all limited in our understanding of God. Each religion preaches their understanding. Even each person within each religion has their own ideas.

It must be so, since our belief in God comes from personal experiences, not from what we have been told.

I can totally agree with that but then how would you define your god and how it fits within our universe. Do you prescribe to a more christian philosophy or some other or do you have your own views of what this god is?

Everything about scientific knowledge is challenged, and accepted as truth when there are no contradictions.

Similarly, every aspect in one's faith should be ruthlessly challenged, because only when one can reconcile one's faith with the facts, can one really say that their faith has any meaning.

Well said, I also think that all things should be challenged whether it goes against the majority or not - the whole point I think is to get at the truth, we as humans have always strived to understand the universe around us but belief in something is not the same as the truth of something.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
I can totally agree with that but then how would you define your god and how it fits within our universe. Do you prescribe to a more christian philosophy or some other or do you have your own views of what this god is?

I have been thinking all day about how to answer this question. I need more time...

Well said, I also think that all things should be challenged whether it goes against the majority or not - the whole point I think is to get at the truth, we as humans have always strived to understand the universe around us...

As my signature goes:
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things. "
~ René Descartes

...but belief in something is not the same as the truth of something.

But often it is...

I don't know you, but I know you will think about what I have said here. This fact is a truth based on small personal experiences that I have had in this short forum discussion. I have no proof, and I would not be able to convince another scientifically, and yet, it is a truth. There is no explanation, and you do not have to think about it, but you will. It is my faith in your mind. This faith is based on very little, and yet it is all powerful, and it is a truth.

I do not know you, and I do not know your nature, and yet my faith has proved correct. My faith has given me a truth where no scientific knowledge could prove that you would think about what I said.

In this example, faith is more powerful than scientific proof. And it gave a truth.

Likewise, I do not know God's nature, but my belief in God is founded on a similar principle. My faith in you is based on a few minutes of distant communication, whereas my faith in God is founded on a lifetime of experiences.

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by shihulud
...but belief in something is not the same as the truth of something.

But often it is...

When your working with facts and evidence yes but when the unknown (faith in gods etc) comes into it then it is not true. You can't state things are the truth when they are unknown. Its OK to believe but it cant be stated as true.

I don't know you, but I know you will think about what I have said here. This fact is a truth based on small personal experiences that I have had in this short forum discussion. I have no proof, and I would not be able to convince another scientifically, and yet, it is a truth. There is no explanation, and you do not have to think about it, but you will. It is my faith in your mind. This faith is based on very little, and yet it is all powerful, and it is a truth.

Thats all very well but if I say that I have a conviction that beer elves created your god, is my faith in these beer elves just as powerful as your faith in an unknown god?

I do not know you, and I do not know your nature, and yet my faith has proved correct. My faith has given me a truth where no scientific knowledge could prove that you would think about what I said.

As has my 'faith' that gods do not exist. I have had powerful spiritual experiences that could have been considered 'in the presence of a deity' but my knowledge has proven correct in that there were no deities present.

In this example, faith is more powerful than scientific proof. And it gave a truth.

Likewise, I do not know God's nature, but my belief in God is founded on a similar principle. My faith in you is based on a few minutes of distant communication, whereas my faith in God is founded on a lifetime of experiences.

Granted faith is a powerful thing but in no way should it be considered the truth. Just the same as I believe certain things that are unknown I know that I might be wrong, just as I know I might be wrong when it comes to there being a deity (not afraid to admit it) although my experience and knowledge of the surrounding universe puts paid to notion that these religious gods are real.


G

As has my 'faith' that gods do not exist.

I am struggling to answer your question (where you asked me to define my god)...

May I ask you the same question? You have used the word 'gods' in your sentence. Could you define the word 'gods'?

Here is a example of where scientific fact is horribly flawed, and where they have used philosophy to prove scientific fact:

In choosing the big bang theory, scientists said:

1. Assume that there is no god.
2. Then, the big bang model is the best model to choose above the others.
3. Because we have a model which explains everything, there is no God.

Circular logic - horribly flawed!

What I am talking about is discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Saurus]

Originally posted by Saurus

As has my 'faith' that gods do not exist.

I am struggling to answer your question (where you asked me to define my god)...

May I ask you the same question? You have used the word 'gods' in your sentence. Could you define the word 'gods'?

By gods I mean divine entities, unknown all omniwhatever's, universe creators. You know all the attributes that religious people ascribe to their deity of choice. The entities that are the answer to all unknown questions.

Originally posted by Saurus
Here is a example of where scientific fact is horribly flawed, and where they have used philosophy to prove scientific fact:

In choosing the big bang theory, scientists said:

1. Assume that there is no god.
2. Then, the big bang model is the best model to choose above the others.
3. Because we have a model which explains everything, there is no God.

Circular logic - horribly flawed!

What I am talking about is discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Saurus]

However the big bang theory does have some merit (although I have to disagree with your 1st assumption that there is no god - the big bang theory does not disprove the existance of a deity) What the big bang theory does is explain the formation of the universe as the evidence predicts. Its quite hard to say exactly as we cant go back and see for sure. However it does disprove the way the bible states the universe was created therefore I assume that the bible is wrong and consequently the biblical god must also be wrong.


G

Originally posted by Saurus
Here is a example of where scientific fact is horribly flawed, and where they have used philosophy to prove scientific fact:

In choosing the big bang theory, scientists said:

1. Assume that there is no god.
2. Then, the big bang model is the best model to choose above the others.
3. Because we have a model which explains everything, there is no God.

Circular logic - horribly flawed!

Sorry, Saurus, but this was not the case. Indeed, many scientists of the time when BB theory was gaining credibility questioned it because they thought it was religiously motivated.

Further, LeMaitre, who was important in its early stages, was a catholic preist.

You seem to have a pretty poor view of how scientists work. The BB theory gained credibility because it was able to make numerous predictions, many of which have since been confirmed. The BB theory doesn't come close to 'explain[ing] everything'.

You seem to have a pretty poor view of how scientists work.

I am a scientist, and have been for many years. How will a personal attack on me help you to put your point across?

The point was that scientists have used a philosophical assumption to develop a model which is accepted as fact at the moment.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Saurus]

Originally posted by Saurus
I am a scientist, and have been for many years. How will a personal attack on me help you to put your point across?

The point was that scientists have used a philosophical assumption to develop a model which is accepted as fact at the moment.

I don't actually think that was a personal attack. It was an observation. And I still stand by it.

I'm surprised you don't at least know the history of BB theory. Moreover, you should know that science makes use of methodological naturalism, which has nothing to say about gods et al one way or t'other.

Did you read the other thread?

And?

So, Ellis thinks only philosophical assumptions remove the idea of the earth at the centre of the universe.

What does that have to do with a catholic priest presenting one of the earliest form of the BB theory?

If you can't see that this theory does not deny god, or make any such assumption, then I can't help you. Many people see this as the action of a god, that's not science of course.

Originally posted by melatonin
What does that have to do with a catholic priest presenting one of the earliest form of the BB theory?

Nothing! The debate so far has been on faith vs scientific fact, and has nothing to the origins of the big bang theory.

I'm surprised you don't at least know the history of BB theory.

and

If you can't see that this theory does not deny god, or make any such assumption, then I can't help you.

You have no idea of what I know or don't know, or what I can or can't see.

I stated an opinion that has not been argued yet. Your responses:
1. You seem to have a pretty poor view of how scientists work.
2. I'm surprised you don't at least know the history of BB theory.
3. If you can't see that this theory does not deny god, or make any such assumption, then I can't help you.
are based on your opinion of my statement. How can you deduce these things based on your opinion. What if I am right? We don't know yet, since this point has not been argued yet!!!

Up to know, every opinion presented in this thread has been argued until a consensus has been reached. And now you come in to the argument using illogical statements like these above (illogical, since you cannot possibly know what I know or don't know, or what I can or can't see) based on your opinion alone, stating these things because my opinion is different to yours.

I'm sorry, but it is your approach that is unscientific, not mine. And I don't see why you can't argue the facts and opinions without having a go at me in every single post.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Saurus]

Originally posted by Saurus
Here is a example of where scientific fact is horribly flawed, and where they have used philosophy to prove scientific fact:

In choosing the big bang theory, scientists said:

1. Assume that there is no god.
2. Then, the big bang model is the best model to choose above the others.
3. Because we have a model which explains everything, there is no God.

Circular logic - horribly flawed!

Look, this is just clearly wrong. You can squeel and squirm, but it is just plain wrong.

It is wrong, firstly, because there is no assumption about the existence or not of gods/godesses/invisible unicorns in the theory. Indeed, one of the original earliest BB theories was from a priest, who I assume accepts the existence of god when he's doing his hail mary's.

Secondly, the BB theory does not explain everything. It solely attempts to explain the development of the universe from after Planck time to today. I don't accept that is everything in numerous ways (e.g., it doesn't explain the development of life on earth, or what came before planck time).

Thirdly, many people with a faith actually readily accept BB theory. Moreover, many scientists who accept it have a faith.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. It is your logic that needs assessing methinks.

Cheers.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by melatonin]

Shihulud responded by saying:

Originally posted by shihulud
However it does disprove the way the bible states the universe was created therefore I assume that the bible is wrong and consequently the biblical god must also be wrong.

This statement is the reason I said what I did. This is a common opinion held by many non-believers.

If you can't see that this theory does not deny god, or make any such assumption...

I agree with you. As you will recall, I have been arguing in the entire thread that scientific fact does not deny God. I have been on your side the entire time...

I don't believe that the story of the creation should be taken literally. I don't believe that flaws in the bible disprove the existence of God either. I believe that the bible was written as a collection of various people's personal experiences with God.





[edit on 1-11-2007 by Saurus]