Science=God, God=Science

reply to post by ObservingTheWorld

Okay, let's agree that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Fine. We take that as a fact of faith. Now here is where you need to do a little 'open minded' thinking.

Wait..."open minded thinking" is only required AFTER pretending "god created..." is a fact?

Until you or someone else proves god's existence in the first place, everything else is nothing but a god of the gaps argument. We DON'T KNOW how it all started, so by claiming "god did it", you are essentially filling a gap in knowledge with MAGIC.

And just fyi, the "god did it" track record is pretty horrible. They said he's responsible for plagues, we now know that's complete and utter nonsense. And the same goes for comets being a sign of god, floods created by god, or that silly Genesis account that's demonstrably wrong.

reply to post by Barcs


I guess you are right. I guess I didn't say it right.

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
Here goes. Science=God, God=Science. Now what do I mean by this? I would like to go at this from a religious angle. Science people, please just watch for a few.

Okay, let's agree that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Fine. We take that as a fact of faith. Now here is where you need to do a little 'open minded' thinking. It all begins with that word - "created". So the question now is 'did God just slap some rocks together and pull a giraffe out of the ground by it's ears, or, did God set the Universe in motion based on a specific set of rules and organization?"

Now, moving on to just one aspect of the Universe we live in. Gravity. Gravity is a well known fact. It exists. It is measurable. Even though we don't really understand the force behind gravity, there is no denying its affects. So, if gravity is a constant in our Universe, and the Universe was created by God, does it not stand to reason that God then created gravity?

So to expand that argument out, God did not haphazardly throw the cosmos together with little or no understanding of how it all worked. He did so with a precise and exacting set of rules. The rules we know today as science. Science shows the miracle behind Gods all knowing ways.

Almost done. First we need to travel back a few hundred years. Back to when the Sun orbited the Earth. Back to when to knowing the workings of the human body was heresy. Back to when religion was 'more correct' than science. We know today how the solar system works, even though there was a time religion said otherwise. We now have medicine when at one time it was the work of the devil.

What I am trying to say is that by denying science you deny God and the order upon which he created the Universe. Just because you don't see how science works with God's word it doesn't mean they are incompatible. Unless you still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, then maybe, just maybe, there could have been a big bang. Remember, just because a scientific theory does not fit in with your current religious view does not make it untrue, it just may mean that you need understand that God knew what He was doing when He created us all.

Please let me know your views on Science and God.

Phi 1.618 The Golden Ratio

Its in you. Its in plants. Its in animals. Its in insects. Its in the Great Pyramids. Its in space. I bet 100 bucks its in heaven

reply to post by ImNotHuman


How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

So..... Science is the method, and Religion is the act. Is that about right.....

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImNotHuman

 

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

There is rules to follow when the "natural forces" create and its phi (or math in general) and that proves that it had to be some kind of intellegence behind the creation. The natural forces IS "God" and because the "natural forces" follow these priciples of phi it is intellegent

(if a 2 yr old draws is he just scribbling or is he drawing something that you can decipher w/e it might be)

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

Originally posted by ImNotHuman

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImNotHuman

 

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

There is rules to follow when the "natural forces" create and its phi (or math in general) and that proves that it had to be some kind of intellegence behind the creation. The natural forces IS "God" and because the "natural forces" follow these priciples of phi it is intellegent

(if a 2 yr old draws is he just scribbling or is he drawing something that you can decipher w/e it might be)

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

Now you're using the argument from complexity. Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's intelligence required. In the desert, sand dunes show patterns...but guess what, they're not the product of intelligence.

So no, mathematical ratios don't prove intelligence

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

That's circular reasoning

You can't state that "god did it all" and justify it with "god did it all"

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImNotHuman

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImNotHuman

 

How on earth is a mathematical ratio proof of a creator? It could be just as well caused by natural forces...

There is rules to follow when the "natural forces" create and its phi (or math in general) and that proves that it had to be some kind of intellegence behind the creation. The natural forces IS "God" and because the "natural forces" follow these priciples of phi it is intellegent

(if a 2 yr old draws is he just scribbling or is he drawing something that you can decipher w/e it might be)

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

Now you're using the argument from complexity. Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's intelligence required. In the desert, sand dunes show patterns...but guess what, they're not the product of intelligence.

So no, mathematical ratios don't prove intelligence

and because its (natural forces you say) everywhere and god is everywhere and God is all then it is "God" who created it all and put these laws (phi) in motion

That's circular reasoning

You can't state that "god did it all" and justify it with "god did it all"

edit on 16-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

The patterns in the deserts are natural. The wind which blows its sand and it gives us oxygen to breathe is natural. The planet that its wind blows in and we call home is natural. The galaxy that spirals in the universe is natural.

All of these natural occurences is proof of intellegence because if it wasnt an intellegent design behind it it would be random and then we wouldnt be here. If it were "random natural"(not following rules to creation ie golden ratio) would mean its a 50/50 chance of success and failure and this place is obvioulsly successive place with no failures.

your thinking natural like it has no rules to how it works and it obvioulsy does. this "natural" way of creating successful creations is the proof of intellegence because everything is food or energy for something else. everything helps the next thing in some kind of way. thats not random

we are here today because something happened that caused the next thing. and if it were random with no intellegence behind it WE wouldnt be able to follow the random events that happened.

reply to post by ImNotHuman

All of these natural occurences is proof of intellegence because if it wasnt an intellegent design behind it it would be random and then we wouldnt be here. If it were "random natural"(not following rules to creation ie golden ratio) would mean its a 50/50 chance of success and failure and this place is obvioulsly successive place with no failures.

That's nonsense...

Again, you are using the argument from complexity....a very common argumentative fallacy. Just because something is ordered or shows a pattern doesn't mean intelligence is required. So on one hand you admit the patterns in the sand are the result of the natural wind...yet then you take the HUGE leap of faith and basically claim the wind is a result of physical forces that are obviously created by intelligence. Where's the proof? You're simply ignoring the fact that a natural pattern I named didn't require intelligence. So if that one didn't require intelligence, how can you then simply claim the physics behind it are the result of intelligence???

And just fyi, very rarely something has a 50/50 chance of happening. Not sure what you mean by "failure" because we are just the product of past events...hell, for that species that was hoping for earth being a helium planet, earth is a massive failure

Where's your positive proof that patterns require intelligence?

reply to post by MrXYZ


Im saying anything natural is the product of the intellegent design because "Naturally" everything natural follows a guided set of rules which makes its outcome the way it is. It Naturally occurred because those occrrences are natural. This natural way IS the intellegence behind it. Evolution its self is natural because it naturally happens.

Originally posted by ImNotHuman
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Im saying anything natural is the product of the intellegent design because "Naturally" everything natural follows a guided set of rules which makes its outcome the way it is. It Naturally occurred because those occrrences are natural. This natural way IS the intellegence behind it. Evolution its self is natural because it naturally happens.

You can't just claim "natural" suddenly requires intelligence as a prerequisite. Where's your proof? You're simply making a claim...and then use that as "proof".

Again, what's your proof that "natural" automatically requires intelligence?

Biggest conspiracy known to man is that when you are told what you are inhaling and exhaling is oxygen... This ["Oxygen"] is god.

Consciousness, our ability to be aware. We tend to think it comes from us... but the argument is that if we are separated from this for 4 minutes... what's the first think you lose? Consciousness. Therefore consciousness does not come from you, it is a gift from god.