Science fails to exclude God

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil

 

From Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu ofcourse. Where else?

Evidence ?

Not in this case. I tried my hand at your method. It's called humour amongst non-believers; you are maybe familiar with the concept?

But if you're interested, it's not difficult to demonstrate, that this variety of a theist 'answer' has a higher reality-probability than yours. You just have to re-read the science-oriented part of this thread, and when you have understood it, I will return with further information.

edit on 12-7-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation, syntax

So more trolling then. I thought so.

If presenting legitimate and autonomous competing religious claims to your model (using the same procedure as you do) is 'trolling', then I'm afraid that your religious exclusivity has reached proportions of monomania.

You not only try to give exclusive 'answers' and create your own version of truth/reality-seeking procedure, you also discard competition through the use of forum-tactical maneuvers.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Where did everything come from then ? If God didn't make it?

I don't know.

The fact that you claim to know, without allowing any possibility that you could be mistaken is something nobody else should take seriously.

And what evidence can you produce to prove what he is saying is false? I guess everything you say is fact, despite not having the answer. If you don't have the answer yourself how can you say someone is wrong? And don't give me that you don't have to prove anything crap because as I said before, that is the biggest fallacy of all time.

edit on 12-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

There are 'gods' and then there are 'gods' (and their associated doctrines etc). Some are absurd, some more realistic.

In the present case genesis 1 is quite clear: We are supposed to live ín a geocentric cosmos, according to it. Do your truth-criteria include such a conclusion as 'true'? Please explain.

reply to post by dusty1


My arguments on the flying spaghetti monster are based on standard theist faith-procedure: It's true, because it's true.

Introducing pseudo-arguments by using twisted versions of science and logic doesn't add credibility, but rather the impression of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Quote concerning TFSM: ["I'll exclude it right now."]

Why? It follows theist procedure of self-proclaimed 'truth'.

Qoute: ["These are reactionary, satirical arguments. Nothing more."]

I'm opposing a 2.000 year old completely outdated world-view (from it's 'answers' to it's methodology), ......and my example of misapplied 'pseudo-logic' is reactionary?

Quote: [" You know it, and I know it."]

Sure. I know it; it's questionable what YOU know about its use in the present context.

Quote: ["How many Pastafarians put their faith in, and are willing to die for their belief in a flying spaghetti monster?

ZERO."]

If there's safety in numbers, Islam will soon be THE truth. It has already outgrown catholicism and will probably outgrow all the christianities together in a few generations (based on present statistical trends).

If there's no safety in numbers, your argument is worthless.

Quote: ["Intelligent design is evident in our daily life."]

Only for those, who already have decided on an answer before using observational facts and a rational methodology.

Quote: ["Besides, the rule of this universe is this, life can only come from existing life."]

And that (questionable) claim, points directly to .......Brahma?

Quote: ["As long as Science has concepts like Dark Energy and Dark Matter, it will always fail to exclude God."]

You may benefit from reading all the thread from the start. This is ONLY an issue for the thread-author, who has created false categories around his/her religious position and the preachings of same. It would certainly be a big step forward on this thread, if theists here would observe, what the thread in reality is about instead of relating to what it's SAID to be about.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Now, where are your verifiable claims to God's existence that would make my stance unfounded or unreasonable.? I feel that belief in the Christian God is both unfounded and illogical and not worth entertaining even as a notion....

It is normal to hate what you dont understand. Dont worry this is beyond human understanding. It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion as his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought penetrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the Divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Very sensible, but only useful in the context of functional syncretism. Not a fake-syncretism, where the various components need cosmetic betterments to fit together.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

From biology we have DNA and the genetic code with its inherent language convention. Where did this digital
information come from? Our universal experience is that digital codes are the products of intelligence. The fact
that the blueprints for every living creature are encoded in their DNA is compelling evidence that they were initially created by an intelligent agent. This is strong scientific evidence supporting creation.


Noooooo not the God of the Gaps in refutation. Pathetic.

edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You're using the same regressive argumentation as most missionary theists. If there is a knowledge-gap in the objective, rational reasoning chain, you declare yourself 'right' by filling it. This should have gone through to you by now.

This is why the relatively more correct answer: 'Brahma' supercedes your claims. Hindus not only have the same burning faith in their answer, they have some small evidence from elsewhere supporting their claims.

I repeat: On your theist terms of procedure, BRAHMA is a better answer. Woden as a runner-up, while Jahveh is low on the list of credible 'creators' or even as existing.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

From biology we have DNA and the genetic code with its inherent language convention. Where did this digital
information come from? Our universal experience is that digital codes are the products of intelligence. The fact
that the blueprints for every living creature are encoded in their DNA is compelling evidence that they were initially created by an intelligent agent. This is strong scientific evidence supporting creation.


Noooooo not the God of the Gaps in refutation. Pathetic.

edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

First of all, DNA isn't digital. Secondly, you're using the god of the gaps again

Also, here's the definition of digital: LINK

Just because we don't (yet) know how DNA came to be in the first place, doesn't mean you can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god). Yet you continue to do just that...over and over and over again.

And lastly, you claim DNA is evidence for intelligence. Care to present some objective evidence why that is, and why a creator is absolutely required? The old "scientists can't explain that...ergo god did it" answer is not the answer by the way, that would be another example of "god of the gaps"

So no, you haven't presented the slightest bit of scientific evidence to support any of your claims...

edit on 13-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

There's not even any need for the 'objectivity' necessary in scientific procedure to back-track a theistic 'design' claim. Plain logic alone discredits any theist postulates in that direction.

Causality, as mankind knows it, breaks down beyond event-horizon. Anything 'out there' must have unknown causality-chains, which no-one knows. Maybe there ISN'T causality beyond event-horizon. It's just guesses as most of the time.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

but you're welcome to present objective proof that a creator figure and not natural physical/biological/chemical forces are responsible.

And where did those forces come from? They surely didn't design themselves, something had to design them in order for them to exist. If you can prove where these forces come from without making a hypothesis then I might believe you.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by MrXYZ

but you're welcome to present objective proof that a creator figure and not natural physical/biological/chemical forces are responsible.

And where did those forces come from? They surely didn't design themselves, something had to design them in order for them to exist. If you can prove where these forces come from without making a hypothesis then I might believe you.

edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

The scientific/logical procedure is to search for answers to such questions. Not to invent answers.

In any case there are several competing theist bids for such answers. Brahma is the best one available on the market presently (to my knowledge). Please notice the forrmulation:"The BEST" one available.

Kindly drop any christian inclinations and become a hindu, unless you (according to theist argumentation-method) can DISPROVE this claim.

So science, has absolutely no freaken clue, about existence or how we got here ? If there is a creator or not ?
Why mankind exists ? In fact, I think it's fair to say, that aside from explaining some of the machanics of design. Science and atheism are still pretty much infantile in their combined knowledge. A few hundred years
of science says absolutely nothing to me, in the face of scripture. Some of which may reach as for back as
previous worlds.

I got a say, I'm happy I know Christ.

You guys just want to wear the Daddy pants.

Originally posted by bogomil

In the present case genesis 1 is quite clear: We are supposed to live ín a geocentric cosmos, according to it. Do your truth-criteria include such a conclusion as 'true'? Please explain.

I don't believe this and to my knowledge no one teaches such a thing. Where did this idea come from? I've never heard of such a thing.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


It dosn't. He's full of crap. Careful Bog you're gonna hyperextend you're rotocuff.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

In the present case genesis 1 is quite clear: We are supposed to live ín a geocentric cosmos, according to it. Do your truth-criteria include such a conclusion as 'true'? Please explain.

I don't believe this and to my knowledge no one teaches such a thing. Where did this idea come from? I've never heard of such a thing.

Count it as a blessing, that no-one teaches this anymore. But that's actually what genesis 1 says.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

It dosn't. He's full of crap. Careful Bog you're gonna hyperextend you're rotocuff.

Earlier on this thread you have refused to discuss genesis 1, with the 'explanation' that it probably isn't meant to be discussed. Have you changed your mind on that point?

I ofcourse take it for granted, that you HAVE read genesis 1, though possibly not from a scientific perspective. It (as a doctrinal cornerstone) gives literalist christianity a very bad name.

Your flattering comments concerning my competence and character are besides the point, and are not necessary for any funtional relating to topic.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

In the present case genesis 1 is quite clear: We are supposed to live ín a geocentric cosmos, according to it. Do your truth-criteria include such a conclusion as 'true'? Please explain.

I don't believe this and to my knowledge no one teaches such a thing. Where did this idea come from? I've never heard of such a thing.

Count it as a blessing, that no-one teaches this anymore. But that's actually what genesis 1 says.

I take it you have your own interpretation of what Gen.1 means. Go ahead and share it. No since in me trying to guess. Although I have a feeling of what you might say, I'm interested in what your take on this is.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by MrXYZ

but you're welcome to present objective proof that a creator figure and not natural physical/biological/chemical forces are responsible.

And where did those forces come from? They surely didn't design themselves, something had to design them in order for them to exist. If you can prove where these forces come from without making a hypothesis then I might believe you.

edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

To paraphrase what you just said: "Science can't explain this...ergo god did."

Again, look up god of the gaps, because you just presented an other example of it...

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil

In the present case genesis 1 is quite clear: We are supposed to live ín a geocentric cosmos, according to it. Do your truth-criteria include such a conclusion as 'true'? Please explain.

I don't believe this and to my knowledge no one teaches such a thing. Where did this idea come from? I've never heard of such a thing.

Count it as a blessing, that no-one teaches this anymore. But that's actually what genesis 1 says.

I take it you have your own interpretation of what Gen.1 means. Go ahead and share it. No since in me trying to guess. Although I have a feeling of what you might say, I'm interested in what your take on this is.

I'm quite the literalist on it. The key-words are 'firmament' for all celestial bodies except earth, and 'under' the firmament for earth.

Obviously someting moves around something in a astronomical context, and the firmament and earth being seperated positions, you can try to work out the options of moon, sun, planets and stars in their relative movements to each other and to earth.

reply to post by randyvs

So science, has absolutely no freaken clue, about existence or how we got here ? If there is a creator or not ?
Why mankind exists ? In fact, I think it's fair to say, that aside from explaining some of the machanics of design. Science and atheism are still pretty much infantile in their combined knowledge. A few hundred years
of science says absolutely nothing to me, in the face of scripture. Some of which may reach as for back as
previous worlds.

I got a say, I'm happy I know Christ.

You guys just want to wear the Daddy pants.

Thank you for presenting yet another stellar example of god of the gaps

And yes, there's stuff science can't explain (yet). Just like science couldn't explain meteorites a few hundred years ago. Nowadays we can explain it, just like a ton of other stuff we couldn't previously explain. And guess what, "god" was never the answer. So far, everything we can explain is fully explained through physical/biological/chemical forces.

Religious believers on the other hand don't seem to be able to cope with "not knowing", so they make up stuff, or believe in made up stuff to fill that gap in knowledge you can't cope with. At least scientists are humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers...beats making stuff up every single time.

Your attempt at claiming YOUR religion is true knowledge is beyond laughable...at least in the 21st century.

Originally posted by bogomil
If there's safety in numbers, Islam will soon be THE truth. It has already outgrown catholicism and will probably outgrow all the christianities together in a few generations (based on present statistical trends).

Present statistical trends show that Islam will never outgrow Christianity, without resorting to genocide. While people tend to be mislead when they hear that Islam has a greater proportional growth than Christianity into believing that Islam is growing faster than Christianity, the truth is that there are so much more Christians than Muslims in the world that a smaller percentage increase still results into a faster growth.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by MrXYZ

but you're welcome to present objective proof that a creator figure and not natural physical/biological/chemical forces are responsible.

And where did those forces come from? They surely didn't design themselves, something had to design them in order for them to exist. If you can prove where these forces come from without making a hypothesis then I might believe you.

edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

To paraphrase what you just said: "Science can't explain this...ergo god did."

Again, look up god of the gaps, because you just presented an other example of it...

Sounds that like science has alot of gaps to fill. If that is the case, then why would I listen to anything they say?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Simple natural forces that were designed and put in place by God.



If God didn't do it ? Then how did everything get here X ?

1) Prove that god put in place those forces. Until you present objective evidence, all you do is preaching. That's your right of course, but it makes you look silly if you try to pass it off as truth

2) Your question reminds me of Bill O'Reilly when he asked "how did the tides get here?", "how did the moon get here?", and "why does only earth have a moon?" (when in reality there's planets with waaaay more moons than us). God of the gaps. Science doesn't have an answer yet, so you fill a gap in knowledge with god...again. Just like cavemen did when they saw meteorites