Science fails to exclude God

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

You wrote (on 'official' logic):

["And where can I find the so-called "official one"?"]

Wiki has an excellent little article on inductive (and deductive) logic. I can find it for you, if you can't find it yourself (no offence, it's genuine offer of help, not patronizing).

Man, people quote Wiki like it's the Bible. Don't you know I could login right now and change the text to anything I want to? As long as it sounds reasonable, it would never be removed. I respect Wiki but the information there is just to untrustworthy. Point me to book or something other than Wiki.

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

Then I could suggest, that you just write 'inductive deductive logic' in a search-machine and find a trustworthy source.

I'll definitely not insist in Wiki, partly because I have the same reservations as you. I just mentioned it, because the article is written in a language accessible for laymen such as e.g. me.

Peopling of the Earth - Adam
50. Did the human race begin with one man only?

"No; he whom you call Adam was neither the first nor the only man who peopled the earth."

51. Is it possible to know at what period Adam lived?

"About the period which you assign to him, that is to say, about 4000 years before Christ."

The man of whom, under the name of Adam, tradition has preserved the memory, was one of those who, in some one of the countries of the globe, survived one of the great cataclysms which at various epochs have changed its surface, and who became the founder of one of the races that people the earth at the present day. The laws of nature render it impossible that the amount of progress which we know to have been accomplished by the human race of our planet long before the time of Christ could have been accomplished so rapidly as must have been the case if it had only been in existence upon the globe since the period assigned as the date of Adam. The opinion most consonant with reason is that which regards the story of Adam as a myth, or as an allegory personifying the earliest ages of the world Diversity of Human Races.

www.spiritwritings.com...

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by randyvs

 

As a matter of fact many scientists believe in God and have their own religions.

Yeah, must be real then.

I knew you'd come around.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

You wrote (on 'official' logic):

["And where can I find the so-called "official one"?"]

Wiki has an excellent little article on inductive (and deductive) logic. I can find it for you, if you can't find it yourself (no offence, it's genuine offer of help, not patronizing).

Man, people quote Wiki like it's the Bible. Don't you know I could login right now and change the text to anything I want to? As long as it sounds reasonable, it would never be removed. I respect Wiki but the information there is just to untrustworthy. Point me to book or something other than Wiki.

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

Then I could suggest, that you just write 'inductive deductive logic' in a search-machine and find a trustworthy source.

I'll definitely not insist in Wiki, partly because I have the same reservations as you. I just mentioned it, because the article is written in a language accessible for laymen such as e.g. me.

After further study of this I would have to say that both logics appear to be flawed, since neither one can ever provide solid proof or even led to facts, it appears to me that in the end everything is still theory. Naturally I can't accept theory as fact, and neither can you.

What's your take on this statement?

"These two methods of reasoning have a very different "feel" to them when you're conducting research. Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses. Even though a particular study may look like it's purely deductive (e.g., an experiment designed to test the hypothesized effects of some treatment on some outcome), most social research involves both inductive and deductive reasoning processes at some time in the project. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we could assemble the two graphs above into a single circular one that continually cycles from theories down to observations and back up again to theories. Even in the most constrained experiment, the researchers may observe patterns in the data that lead them to develop new theories. " www.socialresearchmethods.net...

S4U because now my brain hurts.

The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it


Link

reply to post by Tiger5

Why engage with the Atheist's posturings?

Did I engage them? No! But it is fun showing that their disbelief is the most asinine thing going by far.
Atheism is weak. Sorry, but it really is.



Vjr

the burden of proof is on you. the bible is false until you can show us your religion is the correct one. btw you may want to talk to the jews before you talk to atheists.

As I've already stated this is just completely backwards. Scripture is the long held truth and trumps you by thousands of years. The burden of proof is yours.


Real

Keep in mind that atheists have had just as long as theists to try and prove that God does or doesn't exist. In all that time atheist have only be able attract a very small group so what does that tell you?

In fact a recent gallup poll provides that 92% of america believe in a supreme being. Atheism is weak.

A lot of what you are saying makes sense. I need to point out to some of my fellow ats brethren that calling the notion of God always being "stupid" is nonsense because God is holy and transcends what our finite human minds perceive as probable. In addition, God did seek vengeance on those who opposed him, but that was his right! God can do whatever he wants; he is the creator. Far be it from me to criticize the Lord on anything he chooses to do; we should really do is focus on his mercy that has been documented all through the Bible, even in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by disasternaut
A lot of what you are saying makes sense. I need to point out to some of my fellow ats brethren that calling the notion of God always being "stupid" is nonsense because God is holy and transcends what our finite human minds perceive as probable. In addition, God did seek vengeance on those who opposed him, but that was his right! God can do whatever he wants; he is the creator. Far be it from me to criticize the Lord on anything he chooses to do; we should really do is focus on his mercy that has been documented all through the Bible, even in the Old Testament.

Some damn good advice. And a perfect post.

Cogito
You've been reduced to blowing smoke signals. You and Bog and X all the same, can't betaken seriously.

ps. So Einstien was a creationist now ?

Pantheism yes.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["After further study of this I would have to say that both logics appear to be flawed, since neither one can ever provide solid proof or even led to facts, it appears to me that in the end everything is still theory. Naturally I can't accept theory as fact, and neither can you"]

Eventually that is true. But it doesn't mean, that we are doomed to an existence in relativistic total uncertainty/confusion. What we know of cosmic existence very strongly indicates, that it starts from and functions through interaction. I.e. things exist, because other things exist and dynamics comes from these things relating to each other.

So a kind of 'reality' is possible, because when in interaction/relating it is as 'real', as you can get it, though it formally would be called a 'relative reality'. Inside the normal cosmic situation, gravity, electromagnetism and the two other forces and space/time and matter/energy make a quite convincing claim for 'reality'.

And maybe all existence-levels are relativistic realities like this, or maybe there is an ultimate reality somewhere. Like e.g. similar to a theist concept.

I notice, that you have chosen a source concerning social 'soft' science. In the soft sciences inductive reasoning is the most common method (the complexity is too high to use deduction), while deduction is a must in hard sciences, as soon as the hypothesis level is reached. The soft sciences can thus never be precise, only arrive at approximations and averages.

Sorry if this got too philosophical and technical, but it's a very common theist reaction to mix logic methods, when they introduce rational elements into speculations on 'god', reality, cosmos etc. And while it can appear high-brow and un-necessarily academic to insist on proper methodology, it is after all demonstrated to be functional (and the opposite to be dysfunctional).

As you have been forthcoming through this latest communication, I will try to return your courtesy. I'm not an atheist at all, in the strict definition. I am a metaphysicist, actually SOMEWHAT having the same direction as theists.

So I would be very glad, if science eventually could find evidence for something trans-cosmic (or 'super-natural') and even make out the details. I'm just not so impatient, that I throw out the useful tool of rational reasoning and invent metaphysical postulates in the meantime.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by disasternaut
A lot of what you are saying makes sense. I need to point out to some of my fellow ats brethren that calling the notion of God always being "stupid" is nonsense because God is holy and transcends what our finite human minds perceive as probable. In addition, God did seek vengeance on those who opposed him, but that was his right! God can do whatever he wants; he is the creator. Far be it from me to criticize the Lord on anything he chooses to do; we should really do is focus on his mercy that has been documented all through the Bible, even in the Old Testament.

Some damn good advice. And a perfect post.

Cogito
You've been reduced to blowing smoke signals. You and Bog and X all the same, can't betaken seriously.

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

ps. So Einstien was a creationist now ?

Pantheism yes.

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

Calling the NOTION of a 'god' stupid shouldn't be part of a rational approach to theism. The 'agnostic' position is best applied there (you may remember, I've mentioned this some dozen times in my terrible egghead lingo).

But to turn it around and dish out expressions like 'holy', 'transcendental' and doctrines from the (imo) bondage S-M version of theism IS plain irrational, when it's presented as a 'gnostic' position.

This whole thread has been an intellectual scam from the start. Presenting an propagandistically exaggerated 'bad guy', ....the 'gnostic-positioned' scientist/atheist, .....and as a 'defense' against such christian-persecution-types introduce the pseudo-scientific 'gnostic' argument of the shroud is intellectual dishonesty.

Your reaction to such criticism, as examplified in this

Quote: ["Cogito You've been reduced to blowing smoke signals. You and Bog and X all the same, can't betaken seriously"]

...is similarly irrational. You promote yourself to referee, and expect everyone to go along with your self-proclaimed premises and your recurrent insinuations of who are the 'winners', 'loosers' etc.

reply to post by bogomil

We know, that the wave/particle somehow has existence beyond the presently observable cosmos, but what the existence is, we don't know.

We also don't know, if this trans-cosmic existence is an absolute vacuum, or a relative vacuum, though it's reasonable to suppose that it's relative.

Yes, and i said earlier the exact same thing. You are trying to measure the distance from your location "1" to location Zero "0". There is no way you and your scientific friends will ever be able to do that.

Mathematically: How far is it from 1 to 0 (the end)?

You say its relative to suppose that a absolute vacuum or a relative vacuum exists.

Why do you accuse me for speculating with logic when you are doing the same thing?

An absolute vacuum can exist in our universe but space is still measurable regardless of whether atoms or anything exists within the defined space or vacuum. What this means is "Nothing is impossible" within our scope of the word.
The new "Theory" is that there are multiple universes that exist outside of our own that also possibly linked.

Even the new theories suggest that something was before creation.
scienceline.org...

This now also begs the question about scienctific observation because of "Nothing" which can't exist points to the scientific measure where as zero = nothing. If this is true then zero can't exist and therefore must be excluded from all the equations and numbering systems we use. It would jump from -1 to +1 or part there of. eg: -0.infinite zero 1 to +0.infinite zero 1 you need to remember I use infinite as science hasn't discovered how far we go down in size from Atoms, strings are just theory at this stage. Until it is finally discovered we can only speculate on how many zeros sit after the point before the 1. Hope you can grasp that concept.

reply to post by bogomil

...is similarly irrational. You promote yourself to referee, and expect everyone to go along with your self-proclaimed premises and your recurrent insinuations of who are the 'winners', 'loosers' etc.

You're right, I apologise.


Spy

Mathematically: How far is it from 1 to 0 (the end)?

It is the end. If we look at the ( 1 ) in terms of walking off the edge of a cliff and( 0 ) the fall ? There is no distance between (1) and (0).

No ? Just say'n.

Spy

Mathematically: How far is it from 1 to 0 (the end)?

It is the end. If we look at the ( 1 ) in terms of walking off the edge of a cliff and( 0 ) the fall ? There is no distance between (1) and (0).

No ? Just say'n.

If you stand on the edge (1) you are not falling, so there has to be a distance, and that is the distance you have to take to step of the edge. But, what if the edge (1) is expanding, wouldn't you have to move after it and faster than the expansion to reach the edge and jump of?

Lets make it more difficult:

What if you where to measure the distance from your location/home (1) to the edge of our universe (0). Would you be able to measure the distance? Would you be able to ever locate the expanding particle wave that is furthest from you location?
If you do: how would you know it was the one furthest from your location?

Or lets say you where to locate the void/density that separates our universe from its expanding end. Would you be able to observe the void/density of our universe to the infinite back ground.

The only way to observe our whole universe is from position 0. From position 0 you will always know the exact distance to the nearest particle wave expanding from our universe.

The only one who can do that is the one who is located at position 0. And that sure ain't us.

reply to post by spy66


I agree with you .

I was just trying to show an example where there would be no distance between (1) and (0).
Say, the point where the edge of a rock cliff face, meets off the cliff. I realise someone standing on the face would
have totravel some distance.


There can be no distance between the cliff and off the cliff. Because the nothingness of off the cliff, meets the face of the cliff. This really dosn't refute anything you're saying tho. I thought I had some direction there for a moment but..... IDK.

reply to post by randyvs


I know

One more thing; Did you know that we can mathematically determine where and how many branches,leaves flowers a specific tree/plant/flower will have in its life time?

I think that is a very good example that plants must be a design. A plant will not change its course/design unless the seed is manipulated by a scientist. That means a scientist must alter the mathematical design by adding a different mathematical ratio to be able to change its structure.

reply to post by spy66


You wrote:

["Yes, and i said earlier the exact same thing. You are trying to measure the distance from your location "1" to location Zero "0". There is no way you and your scientific friends will ever be able to do that."]

Presently not in a standard empirical scientific way, no. But that's what I'm saying also. Are you now resorting to filling knowledge gaps with theist speculations?

Quote: ["Mathematically: How far is it from 1 to 0 (the end)?"]

Unless one uses irrational or imaginary numbers (as they are defined in mathematics, where they exist and are functional, and not to be confused with other uses of the concepts irrational or imaginary), it is 1.

Quote: [" You say its relative to suppose that a absolute vacuum or a relative vacuum exists."]

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Could you please rephrase it, before I answer.

Quote: [" Why do you accuse me for speculating with logic when you are doing the same thing?"]

'Accusing'? I put up the options we have to 'bridge' cosmos to something else, and known science, which only indicates that there is 'something else' (or an extension of how we understand cosmos), can't be used to say what this 'something else' is (based on faster than light quantum entaglement). So there's logic left, and the option of logic falls short, not EXACTLY the same way as in the case of science, but from a similar reason. The 'environment' we have build logic from, changes when event horizon is transgressed.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by randyvs

 

As a matter of fact many scientists believe in God and have their own religions.

Yeah, must be real then.

I knew you'd come around.

Nice one.

People who dont want to believe in God usually are the people who blamed god for their ugly looks, lack of friends, money, or real joy. To get back at their twisted version of God they deny him...lol

Believers: Know this is the time. There will many people who boast about their ignorance. Your job is not to convert them. Worry about yourself.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

People who dont want to believe in God usually are the people who blamed god for their ugly looks, lack of friends, money, or real joy.

How can you blame something on someone you don't believe in?? You make absolutely no sense

PS: I also don't blame unicorns for stuff...