Science fails to exclude God

I have my own concept of God(Supreme deity) and I support most science. What's funny is all this uproar on God, religion, and science.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
I have my own concept of God(Supreme deity) and I support most science. What's funny is all this uproar on God, religion, and science.

Well what do you mean uproar ? In fact what do I mean, what do you mean ?

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

 

Spy66, now that I understand your line of thinking a little more, there is not much there that I would argue with. Even if I might disagree on some things, at least it appears you have explored the subject rather than just become another deluded follower of man made superstitious nonsense. No doubt it is a deeply personal thing, as it should be, I suppose.

Dosn't stop others, from treating it like a doormat, or toilet paper either. To belittle, mock, insult or attack anyone for their beliefs ? Is the same thing as racism. The No.1 toy for atheists is their insults. I'm sure that if any one of them ever tried to get thru one page without an insult ? You'd prolly see words like unicorn, or spaghetti, popping up in the middle of sentences. Completely unrelated to any of the text in which it occurred.

edit on 8-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I disagree completely. You might have misunderstood that paragraph. When the delusion you support affects others either directly or indirectly and you make bogus claims that science somehow supports your fictitious beliefs, they deserve to be challenged strongly. In this sense unicorns and spaghetti monsters are just as valid and real. I wouldn't give it the same importance as a doormat. Doormats are definitely real.

reply to post by randyvs


Just everyone debating God this and God that! It's crazy! Think about it. How can we have freedom of religion and still fill like we have to debate everyone?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


WELL ! I am very insulted.

Manof God

Yeah , that's why I joke around so much I guess.

Like now.

To belittle, mock, insult or attack anyone for their beliefs ? Is the same thing as racism.

Nope, religion is more like a political opinion, not race. When you brought it up, be prepared to defend it in a debate.

Originally posted by Maslo

To belittle, mock, insult or attack anyone for their beliefs ? Is the same thing as racism.

Nope, religion is more like a political opinion, not race. When you brought it up, be prepared to defend it in a debate.

I realize that. Do you realize the difference between a belief and a religion ?

What you believe in your heart is the color of your soul. I think it's a lot like racism and consede that it's not the same thing as racism.

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

 

WELL ! I am very insulted.

I doubt that Randy. If only your biblical version of God had your sense of humour (and was real), he would be far more likeable.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

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

 

WELL ! I am very insulted.

I doubt that Randy. If only your biblical version of God had your sense of humour (and was real), he would be far more likeable.

Ah!
Now, I have rules about compliments partner. They must be delivered with a backhand.

But you're right, I wasn't insulted. You know what Cog ? Of course you've made good points in this thread, but for me ? The only unreal thing about God, is all seen through your eyes and your posts and others. Never, mine own. That bothers me.

Science and religious nutter fail to prove of a god, should be the title.
I bet you a billion dollars that science will fail to ever prove the existence of, or include any such thing as a god.

Originally posted by meathed
Science and religious nutter fail to prove of a god, should be the title.
I bet you a billion dollars that science will fail to ever prove the existence of, or include any such thing as a god.

If God exists science should be able to prove it one day.
Just not yet.

Mmm that was probably phrased wrong; God will prove to science that he exists one day

Originally posted by meathed
Science and religious nutter fail to prove of a god, should be the title.
I bet you a billion dollars that science will fail to ever prove the existence of, or include any such thing as a god.

That's quite a concatenation of bombastic b.s. you managed to drop on us. Looking forword to your next syllable. Rest up before you drop in again and you might be able to go a whole paragraph.



Click-( you tube link ) underneath the vid.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

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

 

WELL ! I am very insulted.

I doubt that Randy. If only your biblical version of God had your sense of humour (and was real), he would be far more likeable.

Ah!

Now, I have rules about compliments partner. They must be delivered with a backhand.

But you're right, I wasn't insulted. You know what Cog ? Of course you've made good points in this thread, but for me ? The only unreal thing about God, is all seen through your eyes and your posts and others. Never, mine own. That bothers me.

edit on 8-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I am not saying there is no God. Though the popular biblical Judeo Christian idea of God is ridiculous. He is as real as Lord Valdermort, though far more unpleasant (note the lack of references to small white horned ponies and pasta dishes ).

Though it is funny that a notion (biblical God) that ignorantly flies in the face of the most basic science, is being held up as somehow supported by it.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

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

 

WELL ! I am very insulted.

I doubt that Randy. If only your biblical version of God had your sense of humour (and was real), he would be far more likeable.

Ah!

Now, I have rules about compliments partner. They must be delivered with a backhand.

But you're right, I wasn't insulted. You know what Cog ? Of course you've made good points in this thread, but for me ? The only unreal thing about God, is all seen through your eyes and your posts and others. Never, mine own. That bothers me.

edit on 8-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I am not saying there is no God. Though the popular biblical Judeo Christian idea of God is ridiculous. He is as real as Lord Valdermort, though far more unpleasant (note the lack of references to small white horned ponies and pasta dishes

).

Though it is funny that a notion (biblical God) that ignorantly flies in the face of the most basic science, is being held up as somehow supported by it.

edit on 8-8-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

That's another oddity about these discussions. I know you possess at least, your share of intelligence if not more. I take it your view of me, is that I at least possess, some form of untrained intelligence. As a sense of humor is said to be a sign of some intel.. W/E ( I hate trying to talk about myself so bare with me )

I can't for the life of me, underatand how someone can say the things you say, about the Bible. I've come to you better thru this posted piece. So now I take you more seriously than I did during it's course. My first reaction to
members that come off saying things like, " The God of the Bible is ridiculous " is like, why waste my time with
this person ? Who just wants to make me feel stupid, for what I know and believe subjectively. I hate the little game of insulting each other.

Anyway, while I still can't understand why, you say things the way you do. I can no longer tell my self you don't actually believe what you're saying. That is what you think. Believe it or not knowing that makes a difference.

So tell me, how in the hell, do two adults, of at least my level of intelligence, come away from the same book,
with two such vastly different opinions, of that book and what it has recorded about God ?

I hope this is legible.

reply to post by randyvs

So tell me, how in the hell, do two adults, of at least my level of intelligence, come away from the same book,
with two such vastly different opinions, of that book and what it has recorded about God ?

It can be easily explained why hardly any of us share the same view about what is recorded about God in scriptures.

If we all read from the same book, we view the content of that book differently. Non of share the same mind set. Therefore we draw different conclusions about its content.

There is a saying which i often use, because its often very true;

Not everyone understands the content of what they read. But everyone believes that they do.

This applies to both religion and science.


I can give you a example of how easy it is to view different options by just reading one sentence.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

If i asked: Can earth exist if you read this sentence?

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by randyvs

 

So tell me, how in the hell, do two adults, of at least my level of intelligence, come away from the same book,
with two such vastly different opinions, of that book and what it has recorded about God ?

It can be easily explained why hardly any of us share the same view about what is recorded about God in scriptures.

If we all read from the same book, we view the content of that book differently. Non of share the same mind set. Therefore we draw different conclusions about its content.

There is a saying which i often use, because its often very true;

Not everyone understands the content of what they read. But everyone believes that they do.

This applies to both religion and science.


I can give you a example of how easy it is to view different options by just reading one sentence.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

If i asked: Can earth exist if you read this sentence?

We both know that my reading of the sentence, dosn't void the planet we both inhabit.

The sentence for me, simply describes the earth at the time the author wants to begin. Before the earth was formed. So yes, the earth can exist if I read that sentence. Although the sentence is in discript of the time before
the earth was in existence.

I realize what you are getting at of course. But we are talking about two universally different critiques here.
I've never found anything in the Bible, that I can't rationalise and understand if I try. Nor has anyone else. The answer may not come for years, but it always does.

I think the problem with this thread is with the definition of God? Why would someone even try to disprove something that you can't even define. For Christian Sun worship, would a scientist try to disprove the Sun or Saturn for the Jews? I call my God the all and everything. It is one with everything and everything is a part. How can you disprove All. Any other god is less than since it is not all. For some people, they may choose their cat as God. As for the Bible, that is easy to disprove. Just start at the beginning.

reply to post by randyvs

The sentence for me, simply describes the earth at the time the author wants to begin. Before the earth was formed. So yes, the earth can exist if I read that sentence.

I see. You have chosen to interpret formed and void as being physical. That is based on knowledge or as i like to call it the rumor that goes around.

How would you interpret/describe creation in genesis chap.1 if you interpret form and void describing earth as being non physical/non existing? But rather a thought at that stage.

Would that change anything? Like, make a radical change in how religion/God might be viewed differently?

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
I think the problem with this thread is with the definition of God? Why would someone even try to disprove something that you can't even define. For Christian Sun worship, would a scientist try to disprove the Sun or Saturn for the Jews? I call my God the all and everything. It is one with everything and everything is a part. How can you disprove All. Any other god is less than since it is not all. For some people, they may choose their cat as God. As for the Bible, that is easy to disprove. Just start at the beginning.

Ok your a pantheist and your definition of God is better than the Bible. You call your God, " the all and everything and it " and that makes your God better than
any other God and he can't be disproven. And the Bible is easy to disprove ?

So you ready to back that up ? Please disprove away. I endulge you in ernest.

SpY
Just a heads partner. Falling falling fall;ling asleee.....p nini.:

reply to post by spy66


I can't even begin to see why it would have to change anything, Because it is clearly written.

In the " beginning", notice the quotation marks. Now is someone being quoted here ? Or is it in quotations as in "for the lack of a better word" ? Then we clearly read that

God.

Very important at this point not to get confused, as the author is writting about THE God of these things he is about to be given credit for creating.
Not just the God of a desert wandering, sun stroked, hallucinating chosen people dreamed up in their travels.

created the heavens and the earth.

What I just read, was a statement, at the very beginning of this book, that I am reading from, about what God has declared the " beginning ". This tells us so much IMO. Like mankind is only capable of understanding things that happened from this point on. This is the beginnig of things we can understand.

I hope you can also see by this, why I have such a problem with the redundant question," Then who made God? " as if it's a real toe jammer. Total ignorance. Just makes me want to vomit. I digress.

It is a statement at the beginning about the beginning and it is all on it's own. (Declaritive only)

Second verse now we begin, indiscript of the first declaritive verse. ( Declaritive in descript )

And the earth WAS without form.

Shall I continue ?