The Miracle of Life: God was not Born, He has Always Existed

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we don't know yet.

i'm just setting a theme for this response


[

Originally posted by holidaystar1
Ah madness, now your getting somewhere, these emboldened answers lean toward truth.

but not grammar.

Science will never in our lifetimes be able to answer these question's because there is not enough time to measure the shift's and you know it.

well, i don't know about your lifetime, but, at the rate it's going, science will answer these questions in MY lifetime.

So all you claim science provide's is just hope for answers to these theory's, and you know in your life time, they will never be proven.

no, science provides a METHOD which we can use to answer the questions.
and nothing is ever "proven" in science. i'm aware that, in all likelihood, we'll answer these questions before i die.

At least all these science heads had brain's enough to realize that the real arrogance in science would be to ignore the perfection in design and described by the physical laws the universe displays.

well, if the universe wasn't the way it was we wouldn't be here to observe that it is...
there's really no design, it's just an illusion of design. just like when you see a cloud that looks like an elephant.

external source
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.” (Paul Davies)

are you going to try to out-scientist me? because you'll lose if you're planning on that. atheism has 90% of the national academy of science and 80% of the royal society AND we have einstein (don't act like he's not a secular jew, he is)

but your own quote kills itself...
"the impression of design is overwhelming"
emphasis added.
it's an impression.
now, i just want to point out something, this guy can't explain why the laws of the universe are the way they are so he's saying "goddunit" which is not scientific.

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (George Greenstein)

again, he's lapsing into the sloth that is "goddunit"

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

but.... science isn't common sense.
the earth is moving in a straight line around the sun! that's truth AND it's not common sense.

and your answer begs the question

The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. (Fred Hoyle)

now you're presenting another logical fallacy the argument from authority

are you aware that for every single scientist you're bringing up i could bring up 8 or 9 that disagree?

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Robert Jastrow)

alright, this guy isn't even presenting an argument.

No worries, you and dawkin's will have your day too, when it is time.

yeah... because the atheists just have dawkins...
and einstein
and sagan
and watson
and crick
and curie
and russel
and hawking

those are just the famous names....
but the argument from authority still doesn't work, especially when the authority presented isn't actually the authority....

You don't have Einstien either...

external sorce
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I have an even greater list of the most profound scientist whom ever lived I could share with you, but there really is no point. Your eye's are still glued shut.
And there will be no answer's to your universal theories in the next foreseeable millennia, to attain accurate measurements to prove anything significant will take light years, all the rest is just speculation, and or wishfull thinking, but do dream on...

According to other sources, Einstein WAS an athiest. Like other physicists, he uses the word "god" in a different sense than the theists do.

So using Einstein as proof that scientists believe in god is inaccurate and misleading.

Quotes of Einstein's:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

According to Dawkins, Einstein was "repeatedly indignant at the suggestion that he was a theist."

Einstein was properly a pantheist. Pantheists do not believe in a supernatural god but use that word as a synonym for nature, or the universe, or for the physical laws that govern it. When he spoke of god, he used the word as shorthand for the underlying science of the universe -- god is easier to say than theory of relativity, or unified field theory.

Just because someone uses the word god does not mean they are using it in the religious and theist context. That is wishful thinking, a projection upon someone that has great authority, in order to twist his words to suit their own purposes.

Einstein did not believe in the Christian god. Nor the Islamic one, the Jewish one, the Zoroastrian one, or the Inca ones. He believed in the laws of physics, which he used the word god to stand in for.


[edit for really bad syntax. whoops]

[edit on 7-6-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

holidaystar1, you completely missed the point. THE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

that was the central point, and then the secondary point was that you were misusing the logical fallacy when bringing up religious scientists because they are far outnumbered by their non-religious counterparts (8 to 1)

MajorMalfunction, what Einstein believed is of little consequence to me. Even if the 122 billion humans of world history were atheists, I would still believe in God. In other words, I have a personal relationship with God.

Love and Blessings.

Originally posted by GreatTech
In other words, I have a personal relationship with God.

translation: i make the arrogant assumption that i know something that you could never know without my experience.

tech, your "personal relationship with god" is far from proof of anything. are you aware that there are neo-odinists out there who claim to have a personal relationship with thor? so personal that they call thor a drinking buddy

When we start attacking each others belief systems things get messy

-

There was nothing of any value in this post, no offence to anyone who contributed but these kind of conversations have been going on at ATS for ages now, and really your wasting finger/keystrokes arguing these kind of topics.

What we live in is so expansive that we can't even begin to cover it, regardless of the GOD question.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

translation: i make the arrogant assumption that i know something that you could never know without my experience.

I am sorry that I came across as a little arrogant in my most recent reply. Anybody can have a personal relationship with God.

Love and Blessings.

Hey madness, it is proof that TECH believes in something. As simple as that. I happen to believe that to. It is proof HE believes.

God Bless

After viewing many religious threads, I have come to these conclusions:

1. Until theists can come up with a viable argument to 'physically/tangibly' prove that God exists, there is NO point in playing the same old record on the turntable.

2. Belief in itself, is not a tangible thing.

3. Constructive debating/arguing with a non-theist about the above 2 points will not sway staunch non-theists when the subject of 'belief' or any such 'holy' book is used as reference.

4. Proposed biblical subjugations via these holy books, for the purpose of eliciting guilt responses of non-theists, only broaden and highten taut responses from non-theists to prove conclusion #2.

5. The discussion of religion must be appoached with 'Caution'.







[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by TheDuckster]