Science fails to exclude God

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maymunah
reply to post by randyvs
 


Oh wow, really great topic.


To me this is where I see Science not only separate itself from God but ultimately oppose God. I know many many people have trouble swallowing this and will debate and argue and end up defending science with every breath of knowledge they have in them (as I've witnessed this on numerous and countless occasions pertaining to this very topic) but in the end...we are all left with a choice, either the beliefs and theories science has given, or the belief and "theory" God has given. There is no way in the world a God fearing person can accept science without ultimately disproving God. Our knowledge of God strictly comes from the Bible and Quran (depending on said persons religion)

Really Science is a religion of it's own, people claim it's based on facts, but where are these facts coming from? Men. Yet they will claim the Bible is based on men so it can't be held as a fact...this is always struck me as odd.


It's mainly the theist mindsets creating these black/white enforced scenarios. Anyone using rational reasoning don't. And it's actually a bit amusing to be put into a box of your construction, based on your guesses.

For every theist extravagant incompetence in dishing out the absurd, the world will be one step closer to being rid of missionaries.




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Everything science has elaborated up to now in this Universe is anything but random. If that is not evidence then please don't even expect a response from me.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



But I WOULD like to see something apart from christian propaganda.


I'm a Christian, with a Christian worldview.

Christ is center in my life, and always will be.

Why do I need to prepare my opinions and thoughts so they please YOU?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Why do people blame there pain on God? Do they forget Satan exists?


Satan doesn't tell them how to live their life. Satan doesn't care how they live their life as long as they don"t live it for Christ.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Reading this thread and the comments, you can clearly see the problems. Science and religion are equally guilty of being stubborn and narcissistic.

I have faith in a GOD. Key word faith, not a guaranteeith, but faith.

With that said, people go overboard on both ends with a furious plea of words to try and dismiss the other.
Yet these same brilliant minds already know this, obviously they know by standing on equal ground and working together there is no winner.

So until both sides decide that winning should not be a factor, you will continue to see what you see today.

This world would be a better place if both would come together for real, not a cosemtic fake joint worksmanship, but a true pact with each other.

But even though I have faith, I don't hate on those who don't because I know how they feel, life just destroys you sometimes and it seems like we are just insignificant specks of dusts.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JAGx1981
 



Science and religion are equally guilty of being stubborn and narcissistic.


WRONG.

Men are guilty of being stubborn and narcissistic.

A good scientist will be humble, honest and willing to improve theory based on new evidence. Science's advantage is that it changes in light of evidence, or improves a theory if a new theory is more coherent, or mathematically accurates. Science keeps an open-mind, is always willing to listen to new theories.

Religion has set up the answers already, and many Preists find it very hard to update their beliefs, many young-earth creationists still insist the Earth is 6000 years, Many preists still preach hellfire, despite their ignorance of what occurs when the body ceases.

Religion is revealed wisdom. Wisdom that has to be verbally conjured "GOD is love" "God hates gays".

Who's being honest here? Whos being humble?
edit on 5/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
First, your all CAPS blinded me. Second, you clearly stated a good scientist stays humble, and then use the ''man'' angle of flaw. So basically your being biased because your stating all scientist are humble with authority like you know every scientists on the face of the Earth is humble and full of pearls of wisdom.

There are just as many ignorant scientists as religious leaders, but don't state something like you know for sure. At the most just state it as a opinion, cause you don't know.

So I'm not wrong, not every scientists is brilliant and right all the time and not stubborn. Thats all I have to say cause I already know where you are starting to try to get into.

It don't work with me, I frankly just don't care what any of you people believe.

I know not one person on Earth knows everything and no one is flawless and thats the only answer I really need.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil
 



But I WOULD like to see something apart from christian propaganda.


I'm a Christian, with a Christian worldview.

Christ is center in my life, and always will be.

Why do I need to prepare my opinions and thoughts so they please YOU?



You don't have to do anything to please me. I expressed a wish, not an order.

I said christian PROPAGANDA. There may be some points in christianity, or for that sake in yor attitudes, which is not propaganda. I do on occasion have contact with christians, who are rational, sane and rather balanced, and they communicate fine. Also on religion.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by The GUT
 

You wrote:
["That's right. But most of 'em only made it to the first cut as far as likely candidates are concerned."]

That's politics for you. It's not always the best man winning, it's the most ruthless.

Quote: ["So glad to see you contemplating God, though, bogomil."]

What a jolly euphemism. What I actually am doing is to examine the 'god' concept. When I contemplate, it's in one of the heathen and undoubtly sinful ways from the east.

Heheh. Glad to see you still got game.


But, as far as ruthlessness, bogomil; take a closer look at that eastern hoo-hah both philosophically and the behind the scenes lives of them there Yogis...Now that's a blackened kettle calling the pot black.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


You wrote:

["But, as far as ruthlessness, bogomil; take a closer look at that eastern hoo-hah both philosophically and the behind the scenes lives of them there Yogis...Now that's a blackened kettle calling the pot black"]

That's one of the reasons, I don't want to be involved in religion. While an individual search (for whatever...), seeking inspiration where it's found, is fine with me.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I am very impressed ( not that it matters to anyone but me ) with the civility and decorum in this thread. I want
everyone who has posted to know I appreciate every single one. I'm truly astonished at what I woke up to here.
I've read each one and now will go back and try to give some intelligent retorts. I'm a slow poke and suffer from
a lack of academia and those skills that a proper education provide. So please bare with me . If I fail to respond to one of your posts and you really want a response. I feel honored. So wave a flag or shake your booty, get my attention. U2U W/E.K ? Thank you you all. I was getting really disappointed never really pulling off a thread that the mods didn't have to watch over and intervene. No one likes to get Modsmacked.


Bogomil
Thank you so much for turning down the volume a bit. I know you to be more then capable of superior posting to this forum. Without all the ( what could be taken as disrespect ) rederick if you will. I don't want to be to warm and fuzzy but I'm happy you're posting in this thread.

Mr. X
Excellent points you've made as always.

Noturtypical
I like your retort to TDKRL. Good solid Christendom.
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


bogomil



You mean, YOU have one confused book, proclaiming itself true (and with that wonderful logic christians have....that ofcourse MAKES it true), in contrast to all the real knowledge in the world and that would give a 50/50 chance of who is 'right'


No, I said what I meant and meant what I said.
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Itsnowagain



There are all sorts of 'things' to be experienced in this 'world'. Science is a 'thing' the same as any 'other' thing.


Excellent 1
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


That sounds very exciting indeed. The physics part being very intimidating. Never the less consider me there to have a look see. Thank you for posting and sharing.
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Mr X



Science also fails to exclude elves, unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, and that god with the elephant head.


Oh no it dosn't. come on now.

I think when one considers the research in such fields as brain stem, cloning. Science seeks very much to eliminate any consideration to God. Science seems all to quick to judge, the one greatest scientist,
of whom, if we still had a relationship with. There upon being no need for proof. Would be the greatest oracle man could ever imagine. Is it so hard to imagine, a relationship with the creator of the universe, being the very thing we are missing in this existence ? Think of how far mankind would be towards filling the emptiness of the cosmos (which I believe we're made for us to adventure in) if we had not lost a relationship with the source of all knowledge? We never got the chance thanks to the adversary. But God has provided a way that we can still have it all back. Jesus Christ was sent that we might have life and have it more abundantly. Just what does everyone think that means? To think only monitarily about such a statement to me not only misses the mark, it is the ultimate ignorance and highly assinine. Think of all the trial and error and man hours of failed hypothoses that would be saved, if we could simply, go to the source of all knowledge and ask ? How do we go about this or that ?
Bing! Answer. Thank you Lord. Carry on. Science looking for a missing link ? Well that's one we seem to be missing the most if you ask me. Our link to our heavenly Father. Whatever his personality traits may be.
If we could just get over ourselves.
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I imagine the beauty of world balanced by the advisement of God. Therefore I seek.

Randyvious
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Bogomil
Thank you so much for turning down the volume a bit. I know you to be more then capable of superior posting to this forum. Without all the ( what could be taken as disrespect ) rederick if you will. I don't want to be to warm and fuzzy but I'm happy you're posting in this thread."]


Thanks for your civil answer.

I hope, that the following comments are comprehensible.

Eventually (but 'eventually' can be far out on the human horizon, e.g."I think, therefore I am" or 'how do we know, what we know') everything is a self-cointained 'bubble'. Hence my own philosophical scepticism.

But some of the 'bubbles' are very small, only encompassing a few subjective preferences or assumptions, which nonetheless are presented as big inclusive 'truths' (which falsely suggests 'objectivity'). This, often invasive, presentation, is backed up by more assumptions on top of the original ones, guesses and even lies in the form of twisting material, as e.g. in the case of misapplied science used for 'proving' some theist postulates.

I usually start my participation on a thread based on a 'bubble' claiming ultimate, absolute 'truth', in a rather harsh, sharp and demanding way. No nonsense about possessing ultimate 'truth' without communicable evidence and no nonsense of trespassing into other 'bubbles', which on their own terms functions far, far better (e.g. into the 'bubble' of science/logic which DOES describe its territory in a way superior to any other known method).

Making such boundaries clear and respected sometimes takes a lot of mudthrowing (some people never learn) and has made me impopular in the most extreme end of the theist group on ATS, who imo will use any means to further their own cause; even intellectual dishonesty and a excessive use of character defamation (I don't mind defamations, but posts completely without any other material are worthless).

I do not have a position of gnostic (=absolute) anti-theism, I operate similar to the agnostic atheists here. And once reciprocial acceptance of agnostic (non-absolute) positions are reached, I can be almost housebroken.

(Though in an academic context the positions can be more accentuated, but are on the other hand regulated by 'rules' diminishing frothing around the mouth).

So not as a 'command' to you, but as a suggestion: Starting with simplistic black/white positions is waving a red flag; and notice: Refraining from black/white positions is NOT automatically leading to wishy-washy anything-goes relativism as some theists suggest.

PS Even the value of 'subjective' vs. 'objective' can be debated, but only clearly defined and as a specific issue.

edit on 6-6-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Well, I understand house broken.
Just kidding. I think part of what you're saying is you don't like pulling punches because you experience the same thing that I do. From the opposite end of the spectrum. Also that the lack of the objective, can't be replaced by anything subjective. Yet what is subjective to you can be objective to me. Not being just in my mind. If I saw what I saw with someone else isn't that objective for me and subjective for you ? If the other person describes exactly what happened, as I do for the rest of their days. Or do we both become encapsulated
in a subjective bubble of our own ? Not being able to reach the rest of the world that now, only sees the possibility, of the colorful world we now see, from the bubble, through us ? Your world being black and white ?Ours in the bubble being full of the spectrum?

Isn't the fact that life is such a massively bitchen thing that one must consider the intelligence involved in consciousness.

I wonder if you could just for a moment, speak in plain terms, to what I wrote in my previous post ? Speculatively of course. Just be speculative and add to it, speak to it in whatever way? You people ( not sure my self what I mean by that ) never seem to leave the ready made, cyborg persona the world greeted you with from the beginning. Man can not simply be just a fleshy machine, when science it self is on tthe verge of proving that consciousness can fall through matter. The soul is the consciousness and I believe certain knowledge can obscure that fact to the point where one can become lost. I'm simply waiting for science to come full circle.as
I know it will.
edit on 6-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


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



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





Is it so hard to imagine, a relationship with the creator of the universe, being the very thing we are missing in this existence ? Think of how far mankind would be towards filling the emptiness of the cosmos (which I believe we're made for us to adventure in) if we had not lost a relationship with the source of all knowledge?


Now you are just preaching


Until you present objective evidence of god's existence, all you're doing is speculating. And why are we missing that deity? I'm an atheist, always was one...yet I don't feel an emptiness or that something is "missing".



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





Yet what is subjective to you can be objective to me.


No it can't...just like a dead corpse can't be alive, or you hungry at the same time as full.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
 





Yet what is subjective to you can be objective to me.


No it can't...just like a dead corpse can't be alive, or you hungry at the same time as full.


Certainly the vid in the OP speaks to the first part of your retort. I know you're an atheist X and I thought I was clear I'm not impressed at all by that. You only speak from a completely closed mind. Or so it seems. One of the first rules of science is an open mind. I know brain spillage should always be avoided and so should cliche's.
edit on 6-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





One of the first rules of science is an open mind.


That doesn't mean you can just make stuff up!! In the absence of objective evidence, believing in something is nothing put pure baseless speculation...which is what religion is.

And talking about closed minds: You are the one who states a conclusion without objective evidence as back up. You are so inflexible, that nothing will change your mind, even if there's ZERO real evidence to support your claim. That's the very definition of ignorance



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Yet what is subjective to you can be objective to me."]

Only if you completely redefine 'objective procedure' from its standard defintiion. Objectivity isn't a sophisticated form of subjectivity. Up until the epistemological perspective-level 'subjective' is for individuals or groups, 'objective' independent of individuals or groups.

If you wish to go epistemological together with me, I'm game.

Quote: ["If I saw what I saw with someone else isn't that objective for me and subjective for you ? If the other person describes exactly what happened, as I do for the rest of their days. Or do we both become encapsulated "]

That's consensus. Objectivity isn't decided by majority vote.

Quote: ["Isn't the fact that life is such a massively bitchen thing that one must consider the intelligence involved in consciousness."]

Being a metaphysicist/mystic this certainly appeals to me. But there are NO objective indications anywhere (ofcourse disregarding self-proving claims), which give more than optional fingerpointings.

Quote: ["I wonder if you could just for a moment, speak in plain terms, to what I wrote in my previous post"]

(Self-irony): I BELIEVED, that I speak in plain terms. I'll try, ofcourse.

Quote: ["You people ( not sure my self what I mean by that ) never seem to leave the ready made, cyborg persona the world greeted you with from the beginning. Man can not simply be just a fleshy machine, when science it self is on tthe verge of proving that consciousness can fall through matter."]

Do you think, I'm a reductionist, empirical materialist scientist with an 'absolute' atheism? Not a chance, Dude.

Quote: ["The soul is the consciousness and I believe certain knowledge can obscure that fact to the point where one can become lost."]

Before I can even consider this, you'll have to define the separate parts of the sentence, and after that explain how you arrive to your conclusion. Not necessarily explain scientifically. Just explain.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Is it so ignorant I wonder, to have experienced things I have no proof of, other than someone else giving the same exact account? How can I possibly call that subjective. Please try to steer away from anything suggestive of me lying. It should be obvious I wouldn't do that. Or I'd have all kinds of wild crap for you.

Bogomil
Ok I have to skidaddle for a bit just so you guys know.
edit on 6-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join