Science fails to exclude God

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by spy66

 

I just have to add one more thing. If you think something can come from nothing. Then why can't religion be right when God create from nothing?

Have you taken the time to watch the video I posted earlier about the concept of nothing? What we're starting to understand in the world of physics is that a state of absolute nothing just isn't possible, reality for some reason forbids absolute nothingness from existing. Only problem with that is... why?

Why would one religious concept be anymore correct than any other? Why just one god and not twelve thousand gods?

I am going to watch your video, because i am very interested in this topic, as you might have noticed by now.
Its just that i also have kids and a wife, so i can't just go at it.

Why would one religious concept be anymore correct than any other?

To understand this i must go into the concept of dimensions. There can only be one dimension that is infinite, so there can only be one over all creating dimension that dominates all others. All the other dimensions must exist within the infinite dimension, and must be created/formed by the infinite dimension. Because there is no other dimensions present to create/form them.

The infinite dimension must be a constant. It can not change physically on its own, because its as large as it can become, and as small as it can become at the same time. This brings up the question about awareness. The infinite must have awareness to be able to make changes. Because there are no other force present to make the infinite create smaller dimensions. Like ours for instant.

The infinite can not create anything that is larger than it self, so a few scientific concepts/theories can be weeded out. The infinite can't expand, so the only option is to compress. And for a dimension that is a constant to be able to do that there must be a will to do so.

When it comes to our universe. The only thing we can observe is what ever exists within it. There is no way we can see the edge of our universe, Because we can not see the infinite. We can't observe the beginning from our time "2011" to the infinite. Or from position 1 to position 0. The distance from the infinite to the singularity can be measured by the expansion time the singularity takes to become what it used to be "infinite".
In other words our universe is expanding back to what it used to be.

One more thing. I hope you understand why the infinite must have compressed. Because it answers your question about nothingness. Our dimension is a compressed mass of energies. That means pressure. There is more compressed energy in our universe than the infinite. That is why our universe expands. It also explains the thermodynamics. Pressure/heat always move towards a aria with less pressure.

reply to post by spy66

I am going to watch your video, because i am very interested in this topic, as you might have noticed by now.

It's an extremely interesting video! They also have a first part entitled 'everything'.

Its just that i also have kids and a wife, so i can't just go at it.

I have three kids and a wife too. Just send the kids to their rooms to do homework after school and send the wife into the kitchen where women belong lol.

To understand this i must go into the concept of dimensions. There can only be one dimension that is infinite, so there can only be one over all creating dimension that dominates all others.

I'm not following how dimensions have any role in a creator entity.

All the other dimensions must exist within the infinite dimension, and must be created/formed by the infinite dimension. Because there is no other dimensions present to create/form them.

Do you know exactly what a dimension is, or do you believe dimensions are separate 'spaces' that things can exist within separately from existing in other dimensions?

The infinite dimension must be a constant. It can not change physically on its own, because its as large as it can become, and as small as it can become at the same time.

I see no reason to assume such an absolutist statement without the slightest hint of observational evidence that it *must* be so.

This brings up the question about awareness. The infinite must have awareness to be able to make changes. Because there are no other force present to make the infinite create smaller dimensions. Like ours for instant.

Why exactly must it have awareness?

The infinite can't expand, so the only option is to compress.

Compression is an outside force upon something. If there is nothing larger than infinite, then how exactly is infinite being compressed?

And for a dimension that is a constant to be able to do that there must be a will to do so.

This is faulty logic. You state that this infinite dimension is constant and unchanging and yet you then give it properties that allow for change to be enacted upon it, thus making it not a constant unchanging infinite dimension at all.

In other words our universe is expanding back to what it used to be.

The universe is not expanding at all. The apparent expansion idea came about from observing supernova, had we observed quasars first, such a concept wouldn't be viewed as valid. Currently we're attempting to make observations of quasars fit with the expansion model of the universe rather than realizing that the model is inaccurate as observations show.

One more thing. I hope you understand why the infinite must have compressed.

An infinite something can not be compressed as that implies something larger than what is viewed as infinite outside of it in order to compress it. Compression is an outside force acting upon something.

Because it answers your question about nothingness. Our dimension is a compressed mass of energies. That means pressure. There is more compressed energy in our universe than the infinite. That is why our universe expands. It also explains the thermodynamics. Pressure/heat always move towards a aria with less pressure.

I didn't have any question about nothingness...

You asked a question and I posted a video that answers your question.

OP:

No where in a Science book will you see a claim that 'God does not exist'. You will see Scientific theories that do not include God however. Science isn't concerned with matters of faith. Additionally your use of logic is faulty. Argumentum ad populum: the truth is not democratic, or just because God is popular doesn't make it so. 100% of the world population could believe in leprechauns, it doesn't mean they exist. More faulty logic, Science isn't making an extraordinary claim about God, even an inferred claim due to Scientific theories favoring things that are not God. Science cannot disprove God. Science cannot disprove leprechauns either.......guess what, it doesn't mean leprechauns exist. If you wan't Science to embrace your faith then you need some evidence. Start by following The Scientific Method, if you can complete this and show existence of a God I'm sure a lot of Scientists will jump ship, heck who wouldn't want to go to Heaven?. Just so you know what Science, and The Scientific Method are:

-Data collection.
-Hypothesis.
-Testing.
-Theory.
-Debate.

reply to post by randyvs


You can't prove a negative.. It is on you to prove there is a god.

reply to post by ufoman99


I don't think you understand anything about the OP. Do a critique on your own post in comparison with the points you specify? I don't even know that most scientists are even on any ship for instance.


Aceto

You can't prove a negative.. It is on you to prove there is a god.

This is information?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ufoman99

 

I don't even know that most scientists are even on any ship for instance.

edit on 9-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Funny, you seem to think Scientists are on the no God ship from your original post:

'Yet scientists persist and many go off the deep end to endeavor, that God doesn't exist at all. I think that is an
extrordinary claim.'

reply to post by ufoman99


You find fault with the statement? Nothing but truth there and I'll back it all up. Many in noway implys all. Or science as a whole. Also what I think on that truth has no bearing on that truth.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ufoman99

 

Also what I think on that truth has no bearing on that truth.

edit on 9-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

I think I'll leave it at that. Good day.

Everybody up. Look what just came in with a new member. Mitchl61. Synchronicity ?
Forgive me, but does this suggest to anyone else that science dosn't know squat of what it claims to know?
At least about the universe?

If you are a true scientist, how can you respect religion and their god or gods?

Let's state the facts, due to religion, many scientists were treated like criminals or witches even. Some of them were brutally killed for their beliefs. Religion probably detered progress accusing some great discoveries as false or calling some inventions as the devil's work.

For Example, who is the father of modern science? Did you say Galileo? Well, how did he spend his Golden years of his life due to religion?

reply to post by blackrain17


The bottom of pg 15 with you.

Oh more harping about poor Galileo ?

Never a word about what Christ went through ?

At least no one can hurt poor Galileo now? He's dead !

reply to post by randyvs


Well I guess you can say the same about Jesus. No one can hurt him anymore, he's also dead.

reply to post by sirnex


Yes i know what a dimension is. If i ask you to do this: Take a white sheet of paper and draw a black dot in the center.

How many different dimensions do you see after you have made that dot?
You should see two different dimensions. But your probably only thought to observe 1. The dot.

If i ask you: Is the dot that you made bigger than the white sheet of paper?

If the white sheet of paper represent infinite. Can you make your dot bigger then the white sheet of paper?

If the white sheet of paper didn't exist could you still make your dot (your dimension)?

If you wanted the white sheet of paper to create the dot it self. How long would you have to wait for the dot to appear?

If the white sheet of paper next step is to make a dot( a new dimension); What would it have to do?

Could the dot just randomly appear all by it self without your help?

What does by "your" help imply?
To understand that you have to imagine that you are the white sheet of paper. Because you can not exist beyond it. You either have to be the white sheet of paper, or on it. To be able to create the dot.

You can use these methods to help you out. It at least makes things easier for me to put things into perspective.

Everything you draw or observe will be on the white sheet of paper. You would not be bale to draw or observe anything beyond it.

Originally posted by blackrain17
If you are a true scientist, how can you respect religion and their god or gods?

Let's state the facts, due to religion, many scientists were treated like criminals or witches even. Some of them were brutally killed for their beliefs. Religion probably detered progress accusing some great discoveries as false or calling some inventions as the devil's work.

For Example, who is the father of modern science? Did you say Galileo? Well, how did he spend his Golden years of his life due to religion?

Are you blaming religion, or the people who practice religion?

There is a big difference you know.

Science is not only used for good purposes either. I hardly doubt that all the weapons of mass destruction are created by priests.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by blackrain17
If you are a true scientist, how can you respect religion and their god or gods?

Let's state the facts, due to religion, many scientists were treated like criminals or witches even. Some of them were brutally killed for their beliefs. Religion probably detered progress accusing some great discoveries as false or calling some inventions as the devil's work.

For Example, who is the father of modern science? Did you say Galileo? Well, how did he spend his Golden years of his life due to religion?

Are you blaming religion, or the people who practice religion?

There is a big difference you know.

Science is not only used for good purposes either. I hardly doubt that all the weapons of mass destruction are created by priests.

You are comparing apples and oranges. If you give it some thought, there is no logic to your argument. In history, there's NEVER been a science organization that crucified religious believers. But often times, religious believers condemned scientists.

Also, I bring up Galileo because after all, he is the Father of Modern Science and he was punished for telling the truth. Can you imagine, if the scientists were the ones that crucified Jesus? Or science organizations that have pedophiles?

Am I blaming religion? Without religion, would there be religious believers?

reply to post by blackrain17

Am I blaming religion? Without religion, would there be religious believers?

Let me ask you this. Is there any way you can rid your self of what people want to believe?

You seam just as violent in you jester as religious believers were, if you ask me.

reply to post by spy66

Could the dot just randomly appear all by it self without your help?

What does by "your" help imply?
To understand that you have to imagine that you are the white sheet of paper. Because you can not exist beyond it. You either have to be the white sheet of paper, or on it. To be able to create the dot.

Why are you arbitrarily assuming an intelligent entity exists?

Is there a storm god?

Are you blaming religion, or the people who practice religion?

There is a big difference you know.

And if the messages within the religion clearly state certain unethical acts... is it wrong for the practitioners of that religion to follow the word of their deity?

reply to post by sirnex

Why are you arbitrarily assuming an intelligent entity exists?

I explained why.

Is there a storm God?
I am not saying there is one, You dont understand the concept. because you dont know how to use it.
I said it was a concept i use.

And if the messages within the religion clearly state certain unethical acts... is it wrong for the practitioners of that religion to follow the word of their deity?

That is a call that has to be made by the user. Most often these calls are based on moral values. Not morality.
Religion is created by human inspiration, and i have a impression they contradict each other in many cases. And often moral values contradict moral actions.

Originally posted by eccentriclady
reply to post by randyvs

 

Originally, religion and science were polar opposites. As the centuries pass and scientists learn more, it seems to me, that religion and science are becoming closer to each other and in time, although perhaps not in my life time, science will prove the basis of religion to be true.

jesus said we all have the abilties he had, metaphysics anyone?

When this happens, I don't know where it will leave those who are passionate about one religion, as I believe it will be proven there is one god only and he is the creator! Perhaps not in the way we understand that statement now! lol

So proving god is exists, will lead to more wars, as each religion will insist it is their own god that exists

Stick with the metaphysics. It may POSSIBLY be a way.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by blackrain17

 

Am I blaming religion? Without religion, would there be religious believers?

Let me ask you this. Is there any way you can rid your self of what people want to believe?

You seam just as violent in you jester as religious believers were, if you ask me.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

There is a difference between believing in religion and believing in science. There is evidence in science. In religion it's just blind faith.

I'm just as violent? Do not compare me to the blood thirsty warmongers that made Christianity what they are today.

You are the type that will argue for days about 2 + 2 being 5. Well for the last time 2 + 2 is 4 not 5. Whether your religion says it's 5, the correct answer is 4.