It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science fails to exclude God

page: 15
29
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.


Is this to be understood, that you are smugly theist-conceited about the periods, when one of the christianities had so much violence-created power, that it could destroy knowledge challenging its own myths. South-america, the easter island, celtic lore, gnostic texts; and not forgetting censorship on academic research.

And recently when the publication of the Nag Hammadi texts was delayed.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

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)


Not time itself as a subject for examination, but time being an important factor in making information less reliable.. E.g. historical claims.

Cosmos hasn't changed much the last two thousand years. It's possible to compare it with genesis 1.

But if you don't want to give the bible a reality-check, what's left of your mythodology? Folklore and subjective feelings of "this feels about right"?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

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

Try to get a grip on the gnostic and agnostic positions. If you even can't understand these VERY basic concepts, it's meaningless to jump into the complexities of advanced physics.

There's nothing wrong with being uninformed on certain subjects (I am rather short on biology myself), but putting on a facade of pseudo-knowledge is waste of time. Learn the basics before you go on.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pop_science
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.


The 'something from nothing' is in itself, as a technical process of something happening, not any problem.

It's what 'ignited' it, the intent/motive, being the tricky part.
edit on 9-6-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





The 'something from nothing' is in itself, as a technical process of something happening, not any problem
.

Would you care to explain what you mean here with something that makes sense?

How can the something from "nothing" be a technical process?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


or in the words of Mr. Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["How can the something from "nothing" be a technical process?"]

Have you considered the suggestions of learning the basics of science? Otherwise any explanations will be wasted.

But to put it simply: 0 = (-a) + a = 0 (Only the cosmic 'equation' has more than two components).



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


Well according to legend, god came after nothing. He wasn't created by a super god, and super god wasn't created by a super super god etc etc. How can you believe that logic, that we couldn't come from nothing, but god has always been? Why couldn't it be that we have always been?

Man I just read that, and it sounds stupid. Let me try harder. People that believe in god refuse to believe that we came about by accident. We were created by god, and that is that.

When asked who created god, the answer is nothing, go always was. Why? How is it logical to believe that god always was, and not that the universe always was?
edit on Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:24:04 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


During many religious debates I ask religious people the same thing, and I am usually just met with this look as if to say "ahh you just don't get it". But I do get it, I get it more than they think, God is a paradox in its own right. The notion that things cannot just be that everything must have a beginning. Yet God is just some how void from this. God doesn't have a beginning and just is? That makes no sense, for if that were true then surely everything just is, the space in which god operated just is and always has been. It is absolutely mind boggling and amazing to think about and I'm not sure our brains are programmed to know/find the answer.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Thank you Awake and aware for labelling me a 'pantheist'.
This is the label that makes you feel comfortable, it is a label that you have written out and put on a box and put me in. I don't mind it if you like labels.
However i do not label myself as anything, because i know i am not a 'thing'.

Education has taught you that everything needs a label. Labels make people secure in the knowledge that 'now it has a label i know what it is i am talking about'. Labels make you 'think' you know something.
Knowing the name of something, is only knowing the name of something, it tells you nothing of the substance.
Labels are no more than assumptions.
Some build their entire lives on assumptions.

Everytime we assume, we build untrue images in our heads called beliefs. We unconsciously gather these beliefs and build an untrue world. The world that is built up inside the head is not the real world, it is built in the shadows of the mind.
Look out the eyes and listen with the ears and stop listening to the images built in the head. The mind is a system that can and is used against you. Watch the mind and see if what it tells you is true? Can the mind be trusted? Does it make you feel secure or does it terrify you? Or both?
edit on 9-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Originally, religion and science were polar opposites. As the centuries pass and scientists learn more, it seems to me, that religion and science are becoming closer to each other and in time, although perhaps not in my life time, science will prove the basis of religion to be true.

jesus said we all have the abilties he had, metaphysics anyone?

When this happens, I don't know where it will leave those who are passionate about one religion, as I believe it will be proven there is one god only and he is the creator! Perhaps not in the way we understand that statement now! lol

So proving god is exists, will lead to more wars, as each religion will insist it is their own god that exists



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
 





The 'something from nothing' is in itself, as a technical process of something happening, not any problem
.

Would you care to explain what you mean here with something that makes sense?

How can the something from "nothing" be a technical process?


Watch this documentary in full.



It details our attempt to understand what "nothing" is, everything from lack of some thing to absolute nothingness and how particles can arise from seemingly nowhere.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.


Welcome to the modern age. Unless you have any evidence whatsoever that every single archeologist living today is in on some conspiracy to lie about humanities past and that every student of archeology and history take some secret oath to uphold this lie upon completion of their studies... Then it's blatantly obvious that the victors write the history is a myth.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["How can the something from "nothing" be a technical process?"]

Have you considered the suggestions of learning the basics of science? Otherwise any explanations will be wasted.

But to put it simply: 0 = (-a) + a = 0 (Only the cosmic 'equation' has more than two components).




Well the thing is. Your equation is wrong. At least if i am to consider all the other things you have been mentioning.

0 can never = -A + A physically, only on paper.

Just like -A + A never can = 0 physically.

What ever energy mass A is, Its energy mass will never = 0 (as in nothing)

A = A this the only reasonable answer.

Why?

Because energy can not be created or destroyed. But it can be compressed.

Just like the energy mass that makes up a rock never ever can disappear/become non existent.
A rock is a compressed energy mass by the way. Some are even more compressed then others.

If you take the total energy mass of our universe at present time (all that is solid and emitted) and weigh it. It will = the energy mass/weight of the singularity when it was formed.

In other words A = A or A = a. Since A only can create a dimension smaller then it self.

I just have to add one more thing. If you think something can come from nothing. Then why can't religion be right when God create from nothing?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Good post OP, and as a rational thinker myself, i am often floored at the skeptics/atheists arrogance and passion on this issue. All the Hawkins clap trap and other atheist nonsense trying to make out that its actually a belief in god that is creating the problem!
( its an absurd shame they arent skeptical about the harm government and large institutions cause! Seems like certain nitwits fell asleep in history class )

If you want to intellectually destroy any atheist's or skeptic's position on this matter, or any metaphysical topic that they usually tend to scoff at like remote viewing, ET life, 911 being an inside job etc etc just ask them my golden question:

HOW MUCH OF THE UNIVERSE CAN YOU PROVE AS UTTERLY TRUE AS A PERCENTAGE?

whatever their answer will expose the arrogance and ignorance i find in most self-described atheists/skeptics/academics/scientists

TRUE scientists are open minded and intelligent because to be at the leading wave of innovation and learning that is the mindset you must adopt. That is why I differentiate between true scientists who are the pioneers of breakthroughs in all fields, and the elitist establishment, defending the epic harm and suffering their institutions cause mainly because of their heads being stuck up a certain place



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
The unknown, the un-nameable, the void, infinity....People are less inclined to invade each others lives or to kill each other for such labels.

No, but instead they'll come up with other "ideals" to kill each other over (As Jung put it, "You can take away a man's gods, but only to give him others in return."), and have even less scruples in doing so because there's no point at which they get afraid of God and say "Maybe this is a bit excessive".

Hence WWI, WWII. Approximately 9 million and 60 million dead, respectively. Wars which were fought over "ideals", not God.

I will never tire of pointing this out when people associate religion and barbarism in a manner that implies that without religion there would be less barbarism, something that history has shown to be false, a history everybody with a high school education knows and yet for some reason many choose to ignore when debating.

For my part, I do not deny that much blood has been shed for religion. I am only putting the proper weight on the other side of the scale. That weight just happens to be heavier. Oops.

So I've said my piece. Carry on everybody.


edit on 9-6-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atione
HOW MUCH OF THE UNIVERSE CAN YOU PROVE AS UTTERLY TRUE AS A PERCENTAGE?

In terms of proving to the satisfaction of a rational individual I'd say that science is about 85% of the way to understanding the whole of the universe. Of course there could be some big bogeymen in that 15% we don't understand but it's very unlikely that god is one of them.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Science is about proof, religion is about belief.

The very nature of the two is so different that it becomes useless to compare them. Science can however turn belief into proof. It can describe natural processes and create understanding of how and why the universe works. Belief and proof are two separate concepts that spiral on forever. We ask questions, have beliefs about the answers and test our hypothesis. When answers are found, we look to the next questions and continue the cycle, thus generating knowledge as we go.

On the other hand, science can't stop belief, because one can always believe that god is around the next corner, that the next uncharted territory will reveal gods signature. Therefore I don't understand why scientists bother to convince others. Instead, we should stick to our areas of expertise and focus on our research data. One can not expect to conceive a model of a phenomena and expect everyone to follow it. Some will always stick to their beliefs, just as some still deny evolution today. Of course it is frustrating, still belief is what triggers our imagination and makes us seek answers.

If we some day actually explain the entire universe, everything in it as well as mastering it completely, we ourself will be all-knowing. Then we don't have to look further than into a mirror to find god. Until then, belief will exist, and the search for knowledge (science) will exist.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



I just have to add one more thing. If you think something can come from nothing. Then why can't religion be right when God create from nothing?


Have you taken the time to watch the video I posted earlier about the concept of nothing? What we're starting to understand in the world of physics is that a state of absolute nothing just isn't possible, reality for some reason forbids absolute nothingness from existing. Only problem with that is... why?

Why would one religious concept be anymore correct than any other? Why just one god and not twelve thousand gods?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Sorry I couldn't read all the answers, I stopped after 3-4 pages of them; people are quite passionate about this topic.

My personal opinion is quite the contrary as the OP; it's always the religion who has a problem with science; all the way since the beginning of it. I've never heard of scientists persecuting believers, only the other way around. In the eyes of the religion all the science do is to doubt the word of God; I mean, why do you need to know how the world came to be; doesn't the Bible say clearly it was created in 6 days? How dare the science verify the God's words?

The science has nothing to fear from God; would He decide to materialize tomorrow in a blaze of light, the scientists would probably try to explain the phenomena in simple terms, and if not, they will politely ask for a sample of His divine being to study it. Is the religion who fear the science, because, as we can easily see, the more we discover about the world around us, the less we believe in the old legend of an all-mighty Father-Creator of humanity.

I am not a believer, nor do I specifically oppose religion; it that's what makes you happy, then go for it. But I think that the science is the result of our natural need to understand and to know, as long as the religion is a form of constraining the knowledge in a narrow, improbable frame, where all things have only one cause. By their nature those two things are opposite. But the fact is that in 10 thousand years from now, the bible won't be more relevant to the humanity than are now the ancient egyptians texts; but the atom structure or the movement of the stars will remain the same.

I'm not a scientist either, but if I would be one, yes, I would try to challenge the organization who convicted Galileo Galilei for only telling a truth not mentioned in the bible, and generally delayed the development of humanity for hundreds of years.

I don't think real science failed to exclude God; the science only tries to figure out how things works. They just didn't found any God anywhere, yet, so nothing to explain so far.


edit on 9-6-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ss301
 





or in the words of Mr. Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."


How smart can he be to sit in judgement of God as if there's nothing to fear ? Total egomaniac.
It's called, "The Wrath of God " and we're not supposed to want anything to do with it.

Whitehat

Your post ignores the fact that the OP differentiates between belief in a supreme being, Creator, God and "religion".
For instance "the Catholic church" or "the Morman church" examples of man made religions that have nothing to
do with following Christ. The unmerciful renderings of catholosism thru the ages are hardly anything thing close
to what Christ taught. Yet these pedophiles and boy lovers are worshipped by millions around the world. Looks more like Satan worship to me. The vicar of Christ . Please. The Mormans, Jehovahs witness, Penticostals. Cults ! All of them. Religion = money.

Christ had 12 apostles. Not millions that he used to live in luxery by soaking them once a week. Why would the founder of any church deserve to live better than kings? When Christ was put to death in the worst way? No my man I'm right there with you when it comes to religion. Bah !
edit on 9-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join