Science fails to exclude God

Evolution.... funny. Not proof of no existence of God.

Computers evolved in the last 40 years. They had a creator that evolved them. Pretty simple.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Evolution.... funny. Not proof of no existence of God.

Computers evolved in the last 40 years. They had a creator that evolved them. Pretty simple.

edit on 16-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

The spaghetti monster did it. Prove that wrong.

God is a delusion with a claimed existence. Prove the only available evidence wrong ie that he has no existence outside of ideas and notions, imagination.

Evolution....proof that the God of Judeo-Christianity is based on at least one amazingly ignorant, resoundingly refuted, lie (one of very many). The spaghetti monster tells no lies.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Typical atheist. Your arguement is shown to be weak bogus crap. By far the most absured thing some one could dream up. So you pitch a little tantrum and ridicule. Typical epic fail.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
They do refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian image of God due to making the bible obsolete.

Come on now, that is a very silly statement. Now matter how hard science tries it will never make the Bible obsolete. People need to face the fact that the Bible is here to stay, it's not going anywhere. The teachings are to powerful to be destroyed by a few scientist.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein "The World as I See It", Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," - Brian Greene a world-renowned physicist and author of "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality".

I just think it's funny how every time science makes a break through atheist start doing back flips as if that evidence will wipe religion right off the map . To bad such a thing will never happen, no matter what they find.

People also need to realize that science is not against religion, it's the atheist who take the scientific knowledge and then try to produce facts that the evidence disproves the Bible.

I agree with Einstein, how lame.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

People also need to realize that science is not against religion,

I think you've shown hands down that science actually starts with scripture.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


The spaghetti monster did it. Prove that wrong.

God is a delusion with a claimed existence.

"When his mind shall no longer be obscured by matter, and when, by his perfection, he shall have brought himself nearer to God, be will see and comprehend Him."

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.


For you to understand you will have to lose that perverse sense of what you think god is or isnt.

reply to post by Leahn

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Though it sounds like you might be telling the universe what it "must be", via speculation. Do you have anything to show this claim would be more than an opinion? Such as someone observing and having knowledge/evidence of the universe in its entirety. You do realize the part of the universe we do have knowledge of might amount to much less than a pimple on a mountain? That might even be a huge exaggeration.

The energy of the Big Bang can arguably be calculated from the cosmic background radiation, so it is not entirely speculation. They do have some math backing up numbers like the weight of the Universe and its size. Although you are right that what we know of the Universe could be a mere pimple on a mountain, we have no evidence of it so far, present scientific evidence apparently points that to not to be the case, and speculating that "it could be otherwise" is wishful thinking, not how science is done.

It seems you may have misinterpreted my response as somehow being scientific, or that out of necessity it had to be. Neither of those things are true.

Turn of phrase such as "can arguably be"...."not entirely speculation"... don't exactly have the ring of science either, as if to highlight a certain point.

I don't doubt that much good work is being done in this area and many plausible theories are emerging within defined limits set by the facts we can observe. One day it might lead us to the ultimate nature of the universe itself. At the moment it does not.

To be clearer and without speculating I will say that you do not have the facts of the ultimate nature of the universe. Nor do I. This is my point. It is not intended to be speculative, it is a direct and positive statement of fact. If you can demonstrate where this is not so, I will humbly retract.

This may sound unscientific to you, yet the scientists in the relevant fields themselves don't seem to have a problem with it. It seems to be something they admit readily.

Even within this field of science, there is much debate even among people with all sorts of funny letters after their name.

Perhaps you can personally set these people straight about big bangs, black holes etc, I am sure they would appreciate it.

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

aias.us...

www.santilli-foundation.org...

For you to understand you will have to lose that perverse sense of what you think god is or isnt.

Why assume I don't understand more than you? Might be true, might be very untrue. Care to genuinely substantiate such a thing? Facts please.

The term "perverse" seems quite a relative and biased one in this instance. Similar fake morality and bias seemed to be the reasoning behind the inquisition. If you lose your delusion it won't seem perverse or otherwise, simply a fact to which some people assign artificial additional constructs (perverse etc).

God is a delusion with a claimed existence (specifically the Judeo-Christian creation in this instance). All evidence leads to this. I understand your opinion differs, can you disprove my claims with facts?


Sai Baba is also a paranormal deity (people claim he materialized Rolex watches. Quite contemporary and verifiable, unlike claims in a certain book). Perhaps he is responsible for "materialising" creation also in his omnipresent past. Please disprove this.

The spaghetti monster is responsible for creation. Please disprove this.


The spaghetti monster also sent his son Marshall Applewhite to redeem humanity. Please disprove this.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
They do refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian image of God due to making the bible obsolete.

Come on now, that is a very silly statement. Now matter how hard science tries it will never make the Bible obsolete. People need to face the fact that the Bible is here to stay, it's not going anywhere. The teachings are to powerful to be destroyed by a few scientist.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein "The World as I See It", Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," - Brian Greene a world-renowned physicist and author of "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality".

I just think it's funny how every time science makes a break through atheist start doing back flips as if that evidence will wipe religion right off the map

. To bad such a thing will never happen, no matter what they find.

People also need to realize that science is not against religion, it's the atheist who take the scientific knowledge and then try to produce facts that the evidence disproves the Bible.

I agree with Einstein, how lame.

edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

Knowledge disproves the bible. Science doesn't even consider it, it is in another realm. Though not a realm where facts can't reach it. Scientists have their own personal opinions and no more. Unless you can provide links to peer reviewed papers?

I agree with Einstein in many ways, though it is important not to misrepresent him as Christians are prone to do. To say he believed in the notion of God that you propose might be doing just that. Though you probably already knew that.

There may well be a god. The mythical fake one based on known lies in the bible, however, is not he.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


You silly person. Why do you persist with these known lies of the Bible B.S. comments ? Even if there were a single lie in the Bible I asure you it isn't known. Surely you would have flaunted them by now? Bring them please ?

We may agree on one thing. The bible, the Koran and other east indian texts contain much science and truths but most of these books have been poorly translated, perverted by kings throughout centuries to curtail to the kingdoms. the words in the bible have been skewed, and obviously misunderstood aswell as many other gospel that kings decided took keep out of the bible which were considered a little to heavy for the commoner which contained amazing revelations, truths and science. Rosicrucian-ism contains some of this Gnostic information that predated Christianity.

So I am not a believer of the paradigm of the biblical God for it was written to be understood by many and not to be taken too literally.

reply to post by randyvs

Spy
So it would take God to make it an open system.

Yes it would take God to make the system open.

The system is not open because we can not see any other systems at work than what our senses can see, feel or hear. We are bound by the third dimension which we exist in. Not even our awareness is open to the system, that is why people must have faith in what they feel and understand.

If the system was open we wouldn't have had to argue the existence of God.



Why is our awareness not open to the system?

If God is the original "I AM" awareness, and is infinite. Than every one of us must be of the same i am awareness as God.

We don't recognize this because, at birth we are given a name to represent who we are. ( I am: John ) for instant.
Your name represents your physical body and your awareness/mind.

Jesus said, We are all Gods children. But we say; Jesus, You are the only begotten soon of God.
Do you see the difference?

Jesus knew how he was and we knew who he was, but we don't know who We are. We have a conflict of identity.

reply to post by spy66


I think I follow you on that. You are in no way, discounting anything and speaking, of the limited human ability, to see passed the nose on his face, in laymans terms ? Basically.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Knowledge disproves the bible.

What knowledge speaketh thou of?.

And while science may not consider religion, it also doesn't go around trying to disprove it either. Atheist are putting a bad name on science.

I quote Einstein because in all his genius even he had the brains to realize that the universe was most like created by a Supreme Being. I guess you would say his conclusion is illogical.

I just don't understand why atheist continue to go out of their way to try and disprove something they don't even believe in, especially the Bible. That's like me trying to learn french just by staring at it, is such a thing even possible?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

I just don't understand why atheist continue to go out of their way to try and disprove something they don't even believe in, especially the Bible. That's like me trying to learn french just by staring at it, is such a thing even possible? edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

ya, it's called osmosis. i'm doing that with cantonese.




if we can harness all the energy on the earth we would be a TYPE 1, if we can harness the energy from our galaxy we would be TYPE 3.

how long will that take?

errr,...there are 100 billion galaxy's we can see.

then what?

ahhhh, but what about a short cut? doubt it. 1 planet's dynamics vs 1 galaxy vs the universe.

sorry, this is "not smarter than a 5th grader" and if 1 person is alive at the end of time,


that would be sooooooooooo cool!!!

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66

 

I think I follow you on that. You are in no way, discounting anything and speaking, of the limited human ability, to see passed the nose on his face, in laymans terms ? Basically.

edit on 17-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Of course, i can only speak from my limited knowledge as i perceive it.

If what i perceive is true is a debatable matter Because i can not prove anything. Because i can't prove anything my perception will always be challenged by someone else's own perception of what s/he perceives as facts/truth.

Just this is a very good example that the system is a closed system.

The system is closed to what each and everyone's i am function (awareness) perceives.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["Well I'm not a scientist that's for sure but I do know that Creation is made of particles and that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. But I didn't need science to tell me this for it is written right here:

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."]

This is what all theism is about. Why should the bible-version of it be a special proof for the bible's 'truth'?

Quote: ["In the case of Gen 1 and 2 I don't know how one could draw the conclusion that this is a contradiction. If you read both chapters together and in it's entirety you can clearly see that Gen 2 is merely a more detailed account of Genesis 1."]


They tell about two different creation scenarios, with the order of events reversed.

reply to post by Leahn


You wrote:

["33% of the world is nominally Christian, while 19,6% of the world is nominally Muslim, and that does not corroborate with your claim that Islam has overgrown Christianity."]

It would be more convincing, if you addressed what I wrote (14/7 02:39 PM). I said, that Islam has outgrown catholicism, which it has.

Therefore the following quote from you is based on your own mistake, not any of mine

Quote: ["So you're wrong before we even began analyzing the data"]

Quote: [" Now, I have noticed that nowhere in your prized website they cite actual numbers."]

If you go app. 20% down on the page, you'll find a window called 'Basic information on various religions'. It contains the numbers also.

Quote: ["They only deal with percentages. I am always always wary when someone cites statistics like this. Unless the percentage is normalized, it means absolutely nothing."]

I completely agree with you on this general observation.

Quote: ["Your website nowhere cites how they normalized the percentages, and the numbers they cite themselves contradict their own conclusions."]

That information is also available on the same page.

Quote: ["I see no data corroborating the idea that Islam will overtake Christianity in absolute numbers."]

On the simple data, that Islam is growing, and christianity is declining, the present trend will eventually lead to christianity being outnumbered. That's not so difficult to understand.

If this trend changes, the situation will ofcourse be different.

Quote: ["Meanwhile, if you know exactly the study your website is referring to, it might save time."]

I too have tried to find absolutely reliable sources, but it appears, that some kind of lid has been put on such studies the last few years. So the best reference-point is the last available statistical movement.

Quote: ["Up to and until then, I deem your evidence "inconclusive." As soon as the US Center replies to my contact and point me to the study, I will post the link here so we can independently verify the claims."]

Fair enough. And do you remember, WHY this side-tracking started? As a counter-argument to 'safety in numbers'. A regularly recurrent theist bleep argument, that 'truth' is decided by public vote.

reply to post by Leahn


XYZ wrote:

["soil would be ruined for years"]

To which you answered:

["Why? Given the fact that many places (most notably the Nile Delta) rely on local floods to restore its fertility, why would it ruin the soil?"]

Any farmer, even hardly able to read or write, can tell you the same (btw I'm the happy owner of a real farm, and has farmed for some 25 years on rather 'water-sick' ground). The Nile-delta flooding comparison you use doesn't correspond the the alleged biblical flood in effects.

Scientifically a main-reason is, that the (aerobic) bacteria necessary for growing edible food for land-animals, very soon will die from lack of oxygen, and it DOES take years to restore them.

Quote: ["So yeah, science has completely debunked the myth of a global flood"]

From this perspective it has, Though I expect more assumptions to be piled on top of the first ones to cover up for the initial irrationalities.

reply to post by spy66


You wrote:

["From something that cant be created or destroyed, like infinite energy."]

From a logic perspective, this is meaningless. You're just dusting off the regression-argument. Why do you believe it will be true THIS time?

Quote: ["I cant prove it; but finite energy mass cant come from non existing energy."]

As above.

Quote: ["Our universe is not infinite, our universe is formed by the infinite,..."]

That's repeating the design postulate just using other words. As above.

Quote: ["and our universe must exist within the infinite universe. There is no other place our universe or any other universe can be/exist."]

There are some alternative models corresponding slightly better to what we actually do know. E.g. the holographic cosmos.

Quote: ["If our universe exist within the infinite universe, than that makes our existing universe a finite. And our universe will change/expand because of it. Because there is a differential between the two."]

The 'IF's from your earlier assumptions should be sorted out, before you add more 'if's to them.