Science fails to exclude God

reply to post by randyvs

to have experienced things

How can I possibly call that subjective.

Because if you experience something it IS subjective by definition??

I'm not attacking you, just stating facts. What you post is speculation until you manage to present objective evidence as back up...until you do, everything you post is equal to people believing in unicorns, Santa, or Yeti.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ok I'm cool X so you guys know I gotta run for a bit k? Be back though.

reply to post by randyvs


I have now reread 'the previous post' and will try to answer it in normalese.

You say, we need to fill the emptiness of cosmos. No objections, if you don't like emptiness. But to fill that emptiness out with a speculated 'god' is just guesssing.

Furthermore you don't seem to distinguish between scientistist etc, saying there IS absolutely NO 'god' at all, and those who say, there's no evidence of a 'god', so the question is open for the duration.

And then ofcourse 'god' needs to be better defined, if 'everybody' are to be included in the argument.

And PS: Quantum-religions are bosh. Quantum-speculations are speculations and MAY be useful later. Or may not.

reply to post by randyvs


Feel free to skidaddle, without being accused of a disappearance act. It's getting night here anyway.

reply to post by randyvs


No scientist using reason and not emotion makes any claim about God at all. Either way. You cant.

What science CAN say is this or that claim is true/untrue in some religious text, but, like you point out, humans wrote those, and disproving and claim or text still says nothing about the existence of God.

I personally think the problem is that;

1) Religious groups have and continue to, seriously negatively impact science. Some go out of their way to impose their religious beliefs upon not only the scientific community but everyone. This is a problem, and trying to force everyone to follow the teachings of YOUR religion can and does piss people off. So a lot of the flak religion gets from scientists is richly deserved.

2) There are lots of "anti- Christians" in many walks of life. These are people who were raised in either a family or culture that imposed upon them Christian beliefs, and when they for whatever reason, decided to reject them, become hostile to Christians and Christianity. You can recognize "anti Christians" as opposed to true Atheists because "Anti Christians" place extraordinary emphasis on their arguments against Christianity.

Certain religious groups have as one of their tenets "persecution." (Jews, Christians) and they never really seem to realize how much their own attitudes towards others, and, in the case of Christians, their sometimes very aggressive efforts to force their beliefs upon everyone, might cause a lot of hostility towards them.

But, as understandable as that hostility is, its emotionalism, not science that would cause someone to argue science says there is no God.

Science does not and can not exclude God.
Are they not looking for the God particle?
It is something scientists have 'Faith' that they will find. They have even named this make believe (tooth fairy), the Higgs Boson!!!!

reply to post by Itisnowagain


"The God Particle"

The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media, after the title of Leon Lederman's book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

While use of this term may have contributed to increased media interest in particle physics and the Large Hadron Collider, many scientists dislike it, since it overstates the particle's importance, not least since its discovery would still leave unanswered questions about the unification of QCD, the Electroweak interaction and gravity, and the ultimate origin of the universe.

In a renaming competition, a jury of physicists chose the name "the champagne bottle boson" as the best popular name.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by randyvs

 

I have now reread 'the previous post' and will try to answer it in normalese.

You say, we need to fill the emptiness of cosmos. No objections, if you don't like emptiness. But to fill that emptiness out with a speculated 'god' is just guesssing.

Furthermore you don't seem to distinguish between scientistist etc, saying there IS absolutely NO 'god' at all, and those who say, there's no evidence of a 'god', so the question is open for the duration.

And then ofcourse 'god' needs to be better defined, if 'everybody' are to be included in the argument.

And PS: Quantum-religions are bosh. Quantum-speculations are speculations and MAY be useful later. Or may not.

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

That's really close to what I thought you would say. Not meaning that what you wrote is typical or predictable by
any means. Just that I see the intelectual nature as something very hard to dismiss, even briefly, when it comes to anything speculative ( I think I said that right).

Feel free to skidaddle, without being accused of a disappearance act. It's getting night here anyway

That's why I said something. I didn't want you guys waiting for a reply without noticing I split or to think I was dodging you.


Awake

So am I understanding what you're saying is the" Higgs Boson "and the "God particle " are one and the same ?

reply to post by randyvs

So am I understanding what you're saying is the" Higgs Boson "and the "God particle " are one and the same ?

I didn't say anything So i'm not sure what your basing your understanding on.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


My bad . Is that what the quote is say then ?

Well, let me reply to this... and speak as a scientist.

Science is not "focused on disproving" any god you care to name.

The study that focuses on deities is called "Philosophy" and the first recorded atheists are Greek philosophers (not Greek scientists.) Socrates (a philosopher, not a scientist) was the person on record to be tried on the charge of atheism -- and yet I don't see you denouncing philosophy:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Meanwhile, Pythagoras (a mathematician) starts a religion:
en.wikipedia.org...

Dolet, a scholar (not a scientist) wrote against theism and was strangled for it... and you blame scientists and not scholars: en.wikipedia.org...

The first open atheist publication was by a philosopher: en.wikipedia.org... He's not a scientist but a philosopher -- and yet you blame the scientists and not the philosophers for this.

The author of the atheistic publication, "Dr. Priestly" was a physician, not a scientist -- yet you blame scientists and not doctors: en.wikipedia.org...

Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Engels -- all philosophers (and not scientists) but you don't seem to think philosophers have anything to do with the argument. Bradlaugh was a politician and was not a scientist -- yet you don't blame politicians. Madeline Murray O'Hair was a lawyer who founded the American Atheist society and brought many lawsuits in the name of atheism -- yet you blame scientists rather than lawyers.

Dawkins and Hawkings are scientists, yes... and Dawkins is actively anti-religion.

Are these the hooks you're hanging your "scientists promoting atheism" on while declaring lawyers, politicians, and philosophers (where the movement actually originates from) innocent? Scientists don't have truth tools that tell them anything about deities -- you can't put them in petrie dishes or analyze them with flame spectroscopy, you can't see them with a telescope, you can't categorize them or record them.

Philosophers, now... they have ways of arguing about deities and questioning truths and have been the ones throughout the centuries who are promoting atheism and the ones who founded the atheistic movement.

AS a scientist I find it interesting that nobody ever attacks the real promoters and founders of the movement. It's as though we're some sort of straw man that's a convenient target -- we're doing strange and not-understandable work (I'm playing with stochastic networks of N-P completeness) and everyone "knows" that it's going to end up disproving various deities. In fact, there are nearly 4,000 books on Amazon and most of them are not by anyone with any degree in science.

I wonder why nobody attacks the REAL target -- the philosophers.

reply to post by Byrd


I respect your opinions sir, but should we be linking Wikipedia?

Anyone can edit the material there.

reply to post by Byrd

The study that focuses on deities is called "Philosophy" and the first recorded atheists are Greek philosophers (not Greek scientists.) Socrates (a philosopher, not a scientist) was the person on record to be tried on the charge of atheism -- and yet I don't see you denouncing philosophy

All right Byrd. I absolutely reject the last part of this section of your response. If I came off in my OP as if I were
denouncing science, I'm sure someone in the crowd I've attracted, would've jumped my excrement right off the bat. I certainly would never even try to sound as if I were bold enough to denounce neither science or philosophy.
I have a high school education Byrd. I can only sit in awe of the brains involved just at this site alone. And am honored by every retort, response, remark short of straight out insults I generate. I'm no ass kisser at the same time but for cry'in out loud Byrd, I know my place all to well, to ever endeavor as such. Remember how I spelled
thermaldynamics ?


I'm in full on defense mode not to be mistaken for attack mode. No gun sling'in here my would be nemesis.


All the same Byrd to the essence of your post all do respect. As I said earlier it's mostly those that are invlved in the fields of brain stem research and cloning that seem to attack and there are many on these boards as well so.
I'm sure you can see where it is I originate such postulations.


Noturtypical

Anyone can edit the material there

The thing about Byrd is he would prolly know if it was wrongly edited.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Byrd

 

I respect your opinions sir, but should we be linking Wikipedia?

Anyone can edit the material there.

They have a system of checks and balances.

The history is actually well known (or was, by people of my generation who got a lot of Greek history and so forth) as are/were the texts. I could, I suppose, cite pages in books that predate the Internet if you like but most folks don't want to wade through a lot of books.

But, if you're curious, you can read for yourself. Project Gutenberg has a whole bookshelf of books on Atheism (click for link to Gutenberg) dated before 1920, where you can read up on this. These are some of the major works before the 20th century and include Meisler (philosopher and not a scientist) and others I mentioned before who weren't scientists. These books and papers are the foundation of atheism.

And, of course, there's the reference list at the end of the Wikipedia article.

Most atheists aren't scientists, by the way.

If you'd like to find out about them and verify for yourself that most atheists aren't scientists, check their organizations out:
atheists.org...
...and of course Wikipedia's list of secular organizations which may or may not be atheist:
en.wikipedia.org...

I encourage folks to check them out.

(should the question occur, I'm actually Wiccan... so... not an atheist.)

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Byrd

 

The study that focuses on deities is called "Philosophy" and the first recorded atheists are Greek philosophers (not Greek scientists.) Socrates (a philosopher, not a scientist) was the person on record to be tried on the charge of atheism -- and yet I don't see you denouncing philosophy

All right Byrd. I absolutely reject the last part of this section of your response. If I came off in my OP as if I were
denouncing science, I'm sure someone in the crowd I've attracted, would've jumped my excrement right off the bat.

Actually, they all hopped in and hammered on scientists and how they were trying things with the "God particle" and so forth.

I certainly would never even try to sound as if I were bold enough to denounce neither science or philosophy. I have a high school education Byrd. I can only sit in awe of the brains involved just at this site alone.

Bah! Your brain's as good as everyone else here, IMHO.

Don't ever imagine that I feel some sort of superiority over folks -- I truly don't. It is very very true that the more education you get, the more you understand how little you know. That's why I hang out here -- I get my ideas challenged and new stuff presented to me that makes me go "wow! I never heard of that!"

Remember how I spelled thermaldynamics ?

Wer dat der wrawng spellin? (actually, nah... I didn't remember. I do remember your energy and determination to learn, though.) And see all the edits here? Guess who can't remember to close all the quotes and has to go back and edit!

As I said earlier it's mostly those that are invlved in the fields of brain stem research and cloning that seem to attack and there are many on these boards as well so.

Could we agree on the idea that a lot of people commenting on science use it to promote atheism or denounce parts of religion that they think is extreme or dangerous?

For instance, I saw (but didn't read) that people were commenting on the study about brain shrinkage and religion. I'm going to assume that a lot of it was people going "Ha! Told you so! Only peabrains believe in religion!" -- true? I just had a look at that report in National Geographic (was too lazy to wade through the permissions to get to the Scientific American study) and it was easy to see that the study on "brain shrinkage" refers to just one area of the brain (not the whole brain) and talks about the effect of stress on that area of the brain. The article didn't go into the fact that brain areas, like muscles, shrink when not being used and that the brain grows when you learn new material (so your brain is growing right now.) That concept would be understood by the scientists reading it, as would the idea that if a person was very religious but in conflict (example: they're gay and driven to seek partners but they're also trying very hard to be a good conservative Christian) that the hippocampus would shrink.

It also shrinks in people with chronic pain.

I think the same thing happens with other stories as well. People who are doing cloning aren't doing it for any religious reason (and, in fact, twins are natural clones. Some species of animals consist entirely of clones (the ones with "virgin birth"; a population of all females and no males. Simply knowing that there's a part of the brain that activates when you "feel religious" doesn't actually denounce a deity. It's just a fact.

But the folks commenting on this are often those who are fed up with being proselytized to and will use this as ammunition.

At least, that's what I observe. Whaddaya think?

The thing about Byrd is he would prolly know if it was wrongly edited.

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

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

Awww!

(err... I should also tell you that the correct pronoun for me is "she.")

reply to post by randyvs

I have to wonder why this is such an obsession with some scientists ? They seem driven/determined that religion
steps on the toes of science.

The vast majority of scientists simply do not care nor conduct their researches in their perspective fields with any deity in mind., be they religious or not.

What reason would a religious meteorologist have for blasting his love for his deity in every scientific journal he get's published in?

Religion being from man

Man is responsible for many things, including belief in deities.

I have no problem with religion being excluded from society. But only if all religion is excluded. Satan worship being amoung them.

I find that rather interesting considering that Jesus preached being tolerant of others. Why are Christians the most intolerant, hypocritical to their faith, religious faction on this planet?

Yet scientists persist and many go off the deep end to endeavor, that God doesn't exist at all.

Pure uneducated bullcrap. The big bang theory was conceived by a priest, the very foundation of modern cosmology. There are plenty of examples of scientists who attempt to explain the worl by including god in their theories.

I think that is an extrordinary claim. I believe anyone making such a claim must first possess full knowledge of the universe. With out it, how can one decide what does and does not exist ?

And yet you claim god does exist. By your own logic, you must be god himself, after all, that is an extraordinary claim.

So science from many directions, is desperate to prove God does not exist and should never be considered apart of any equasion.

Science, namely the scientific method has no bearing or care upon the existence or non existence of those things which cannot be proven to exist or not exist.

Gods existence is simply THE greatest existence.

I disagree. I strongly believe that Odin is THE greatest of all existence. Tried converting the heathen Hindu down the street, but he wouldn't listen... So I burned his heretic arse on a stake.

In fact there simply must be an existence that owns existence.

That language implies the it must be an aware entity that owns existence. Why can not existence simply exist of it's own accord by methods that we are not yet technologically developed enough to understand? You know... sort of how in biblical times the Earth was the center of all creation.

I would rather serve a benevolent, all knowing, righteous, all powerful, loving God.

Yet the bible paints him as a very finicky easily pissed off and jealous being. He even admits to much.

And how far have they come really?

How far have Christians come? Not very much at all to be perfectly honest. They still refuse to follow the teaching of tolerance preached by Christ. They've burned and destroyed countless cultural artifacts and knowledge that is now forever lost simply because it didn't agree with their Christian faith. Hell, the Islams more closely adhere to God than the Christians do and if it weren't for their meticulous record keeping of ancient scientific knowledge, we would probably still be living in the dark ages today. Just goes to show how important those terrorist scum are huh?

Have they come any closer to proving anything about the existance of God being a negative?

They're not trying to.

Many scientists use many avenues trying to prove or at least to make us believe God is a myth.

Those damn archeologists for accurately depicting the birth of Christianity and monotheism in general and the subsequent violent history that gave rise to it's wide spread belief today. I mean, HOW DARE THEY!

I'm o the notion science goes nowhere without God.

Interesting considering science without god and after god has still progressed pretty well without faith in god or factoring god into it's observations of our universe. And to note, it's already been well established for a few decades now that the shroud of Turin is a 15th century forgery, a fake, a fraud, a hoax.

reply to post by sirnex

The vast majority of scientists simply do not care nor conduct their researches in their perspective fields with any deity in mind., be they religious or not.

Do you speak on behalf of the majority of all the scientists?
I just wonder how you know what each one of them believe. Have they told you?
Work is one thing, belief is something else.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Science does not and can not exclude God.
Are they not looking for the God particle?
It is something scientists have 'Faith' that they will find. They have even named this make believe (tooth fairy), the Higgs Boson!!!!

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

Go ye forth and learneth about scientific procedure, before deforming it into thy travesties.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by sirnex

 

The vast majority of scientists simply do not care nor conduct their researches in their perspective fields with any deity in mind., be they religious or not.

Do you speak on behalf of the majority of all the scientists?
I just wonder how you know what each one of them believe. Have they told you?
Work is one thing, belief is something else.

MY answer to that would be, that they (scientists) speak from the systematic methodology which is the basis of scientific procedure.

It's a really weird direction to take, to SPECULATE on the nature of a very well-defined method, and then approach everything from the ignorant fantasies resulting from the speculations. A parallel would be to use the vedas as an expression of christianity (this is an allegory).

Understanding the basics of science/logic isn't a highbrow venture for geniuses. It's quite simple.

reply to post by bogomil


What you are saying is that these scientists have methods to keep them on the scientific path.
Methods are procedures specified for a scientific experiment/field.
Of Course it has nothing to do with God. Its about the science at hand.
But, i bet a lot of these scientist have their own thought, don't you agree?
They must have, since they can argue science contra God. They must know God really well if you ask me. If not they shouldn't be able to argue science compared to God.

As you your self stated. Science covers only the scientific. It does not cover the knowledge about God.
So they must have studied religion to be able to speak about it, and compare it to science. Because they are two totally different things within scientific terms. Well religion/God is not science in your terms.

If what you say is true, then the majority of scientists argue science to something they have no facts about.
They can't have facts about God if they haven't studied or gathered knowledge about God and he's work.