Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Yes i agree totally. God is the source of everything, so he is the source of you as well. When one looks inside to the source, the base of thought and watch from where they come from, it is seen that it comes from nowhere and disappears to nowhere but it is seen, there is an awareness. That awareness is all knowing, but it has been clouded by education and beliefs. Question all beliefs, not just religion but any belief that is assumed to be true.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Everyone assumes that we are part of reality, that everyone is linked. We are all "aware" - It's what it means to be human. Explain how education and "belief" has clouded this fact.

It's easy to understand what you're talking about, you're simply labelling it God.

You ARE a pantheist:-

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning "all" and θεός (theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.

Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

This is what you are alluding to, the "cosmological" or "binding" force of the universe and beyond, you're just labelling that "GOD".

It's fine to admit you're a pantheist.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I don't recommend questioning all beliefs. I questioned my belief in gravity once, that hurt!

reply to post by randyvs

And when has the earth ever become unfixed or moved from it's orbit? The earth is fixed and never moves from it's orbit.

Actually, the Earths orbit changes on a one hundred thousand year cycle. It's not fixed at all.

As far as the moon giving off it 's own lite ? Seems like a far to obvious mistake to me when the Moon does reflect the light from the sun becoming a nightlite for the world.

Technically that's far from an obvious mistake considering that in biblical times a source of light and a reflected source of light were well known differences and had been known for far longer than that by at least a thousand years.

Really this is all just sillyness.

It's not really silly at all, not when the biblical word of God is claimed to be infallible and written through divine inspiration. If the creator of the universe can't divinely inspire accurate information, then is the bible still the infallible word of God?

reply to post by bogomil


You want me to make an astronomical map, even though that's not what Genesis was meant for us to draw from
it? Forgive me I don't see what my motivation is ?

sirnex
Oh I agree that the word of God should be infallible. In fact for you to say it is fallible to me is an extrordinary claim.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

You want me to make an astronomical map, even though that's not what Genesis was meant for us to draw from
it? Forgive me I don't see what my motivation is ?

If you prefer, you can make a model in your head (if you can visualize it).

I'm not aware of any direct commands concerning making graphic models of genesis 1. Is it unholy to do it?

The motivation is to see if it passes even the slightest reality test. Gensis 1 is THE place in the bible, where time is of no importance and where the text can be directly compared to observable cosmic reality.

Are you suggesting, that observations, possible with the naked eye, without any educational background necessary, must be disregarded if the bible tells something else.

That would be an impressive demonstration of faith. In that case, don't you rely on traffic-lights when crossing a street, but hope for 'god' to guide you safely across?

reply to post by bogomil

The motivation is to see if it passes even the slightest reality test. Gensis 1 is THE place in the bible, where time is of no importance and where the text can be directly compared to observable cosmic reality

Gen 1 verse 14 I think actually gives an account of time not just being something in the mind. It's part of cosmology

" And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years",

reply to post by randyvs

Oh I agree that the word of God should be infallible. In fact for you to say it is fallible to me is an extrordinary claim.

So you don't personally believe the bible to be the divine inspiration of God? Personally I believe the biblical texts are just the written works of various peoples through history without any divine inspiration. We can even see the differences in styles from various books within and in non-canonical biblical texts.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

The motivation is to see if it passes even the slightest reality test. Gensis 1 is THE place in the bible, where time is of no importance and where the text can be directly compared to observable cosmic reality

Gen 1 verse 14 I think actually gives an account of time not just being something in the mind. It's part of cosmology

" And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years",

edit on 8-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Depends on how you look at it I suppose. When I see that text it confirms my suspicion that time is a product of perception. Let there be light to separate the day from the night suggests to me that without this perceptual separation, one would be unable to measure days and years.

reply to post by thedoctorswife


I agree and ponder a lot of the same things you say in your post.
BUT the "how can something come from nothing" argument falls prey to both sides of the fence here.

To say there is a creator is to say that he - IT - she - whatever it may have been - how did it come from nothing?

Then with science how to did the components needed come from nothing?

It's a mind f****


Sometimes I think we are just some form of lab rats, or in a really insane video game with sixteen year olds in some other dimension/universe controlling us ...it would make a lot more sense to me.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by randyvs

 

The reason why scientists would like to remove the idea of "God" from science is because it is unscientific to theorize about something that can neither be confirmed or denied by the scientific method.

If this were true then Evolution couldn't be taught either as it is neither confirmed or denied through Scientific method

You are obviously ignorant of either the scientific method, or you meant that the scientific method cannot prove or disprove ABIOGENESIS, not evolution. The scientific method has PROVEN, time and time again, that evolution is a FACT. We have not, as of yet, proven the theory of Abiogenesis, but there have been very promising supporting studies that give us evidence that Abiogenesis is possible. This has NEVER happened for intelligent design, nor will it ever, because it is a theory that requires FAITH, not REASON based on repeatable experimentation.

For your reference: Abiogenesis Wiki
The part about the Miller-Urey Experiment should be especially interesting if you would like to gain some understanding of how the scientific method has been, and will continue to be used to attempt to explain the really tough questions through reason, not fairy tales.

reply to post by sirnex

So you don't personally believe the bible to be the divine inspiration of God?

Please, sirnex how much sense would it make, for me to believe in a God, who couldn't manage a communication to us, and see to it the message he wanted us to have was there intact ? And for me it will take way more than some simple misgivings. Before you can come close to proving the Bible just by chance survived.
We're very lucky to have it sirnex. No matter what you say, or think, or do.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Uhh,.. gee,... thanks?

Sorry I,... unfortunately,...I cannot see all,... and know all,.. currently... LOL

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?
What facts is that being based on?
I am trying to stay on topic.

Non of you are actually basing any facts that there is no creator. And you cant because no one knows what took place before the so called Big Bang.

Atheists shouldn't be expected to provide evidence; they never made the extrordinary claim despite lack of extraordinary evidence.

So they can make a claim that God dosent exist because; "they" never made the claim?
Good answer, That claim proves a lot about the non existence of a creator.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex

 

So you don't personally believe the bible to be the divine inspiration of God?

Please, sirnex how much sense would it make, for me to believe in a God, who couldn't manage a communication to us, and see to it the message he wanted us to have was there intact ? And for me it will take way more than some simple misgivings. Before you can come close to proving the Bible just by chance survived.
We're very lucky to have it sirnex. No matter what you say, or think, or do.

That's the thing though. I don't think the bible survived by pure chance alone. I firmly believe the bible survived by how recorded history shows how it survived. By the violent elimination of everything that disagreed with the biblical texts and the adoption of other cultural celebrations.

Originally posted by Crayfish

Originally posted by spy66
Ok. with the limits to what we can perceive. How can science tell some that God does not exist?

Science observes that there is no evidence that god exists. Everything that used to be explained by god is now understood or has much more compelling alternative explanations. Such a lack of evidence for god is in itself evidence for the position that god does not exist. This is reinforced by the total lack of any hypothesis for how a sentient deity would come into being.

Now "science" is not represented by the views of any one individual. There may be scientists that can rationalise the existence of a sentient deity somehow (simulated universe theory for example). Those arguments are all disputed and not compelling enough to be accepted by the majority. Therefore the scientific consensus is that all the evidence suggests that god does not exist.

There is even more evidence against the idea of a Christian god, because the bible has made assertions that have subsequently proved to be invalid. According to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes. The Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats' coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

If a source is shown to be untrustworthy then it should not be trusted without question.

Originally posted by spy66
Non of you are actually basing any facts that there is no creator. And you cant because no one knows what took place before the so called Big Bang.

You still seem to be misunderstanding the fact that there was no "before" the big bang. The first time that can be described as "before" anything was one planck time period after the singularity. That singularity was just an edge of the universe along the dimension of time, just like it has a singularity at the edges of the spatial dimensions.

Earlier i said that science can disprove chistian view. But science can not disprove the existence of a creator.

You talk about what was before the Big Bang like you have facts. But you tell me that there is no way i can know because science cant see past the event horizon.

On wikipedia it is also stated that any knowledge about what happened before the Big Bang is nothing but pure speculation.

Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.

Now lets talk about your Planck time. Because you dont know what Planck Time is.

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3]

A Planck Time is not before the Big Bang. It is something that takes place as close to the event after it has taken place as one could possibly measure.

The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.

reply to post by spy66

A Planck Time is not before the Big Bang.

The person didn't say that at all...

This is what the poster had said...

[quoteThe first time that can be described as "before" anything was one planck time period after the singularity.

Please not the word after. You need to learn to read in context. I've noticed that you have a huge lack of knowledge in regards to physics and perhaps this is why you are asking all the wrong questions and making all the wrong conclusions. I suggest you take the time to google many of these concepts you are discussing in this thread. There are plenty of websites out there that explain everything in layman terms, so you don't need to actually understand the math behind any of it... Hope this helps a little!

reply to post by sirnex

That's the thing though. I don't think the bible survived by pure chance alone. I firmly believe the bible survived by how recorded history shows how it survived. By the violent elimination of everything that disagreed with the biblical texts and the adoption of other cultural celebrations.

That's what those who lost the battle want everyone to believe is true. If we decided historical truth that way then the holocaust would never have happened.

reply to post by sirnex

That's the thing though. I don't think the bible survived by pure chance alone.

And niether do I Sir That was sarcasm.
Providence is the term.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex

 

That's the thing though. I don't think the bible survived by pure chance alone.

And niether do I Sir That was sarcasm.
Providence is the term.

I wish we had a [/sarcasm] button-thingie. I get that a lot too on here.