12 of 28
12
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 27 April 2013 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 166 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6021
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 27 April 2013 01:22 PM
Write4U - 27 April 2013 05:01 AM

Thunder and lightning are not made by a god. Never has, never will.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t410-thunder-lightning-proof-of-god?highlight=thunder

Plants cannot absorb nitrogen directly out of the atmosphere, so guess what? They get their “nitrogen-fix” through lightning turning nitrogen and oxygen with some ammonia, which can then dissolve into the falling rain and becomes just the very best fertiliser. This requires intense heat from lightning (5 times hotter than the surface of the Sun). Also, with the help of nitrogen-fixing specialist bacteria.
Evolutionists, I defy you to explain how that all came about, perfectly in the first instance …or no life could be sustained on the Earth! These are non-living things and energy forces and elements that don’t evolve through “natural selection”. They have no mind or ongoing regenerated life of their own.

It did not come about perfectly in the first instance at all. In the first instance there was a purely chaotic inflationary epoch, during which a few elements were born by sheer accident. There is no precision involved in creating elements, only raw dynamic energy. It’s not that hard. We are now making new unnatural elements, can you believe it?

Super novas are not made by a god, never have, never will.

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/cosmologicalconstant.html

But how was the expansion rate finely tuned to 1 to 122 ? only its fine tuning makes it possible our universe to exist…...

Whatever rate there was, it was not a chosen rate, it was an accidental rate. You will admit there has to be at least one rate (out of an infinity of rates).   
1:1222 was the accidental rate then, no? Answer me this. Was the speed of light chosen by god or is it an inherent ability of a particle? Does god make a particle travel at SOL when it has no restmass and at subluminal speeds when a particle does have restmass? Or are these the universal laws which describe the potential abilities of a particle. If God has no restmass does it travel at SOL?

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/cosmologicalconstant.html
The speed of a type Ia supernovae is also easily deduced from its spectrum. The speed and distance measurements are then used to measure the expansion rate of the Universe. From observations in the late 1990’s of distant type Ia supernovae, astronomers concluded that the expansion rate of the Universe was increases – the Universe was accelerating!

The Cosmological Constant Problem
    The cosmological constant L, which is not usually part of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model but can be included, produces a rather unusual effect on cosmology. It yields a “negative pressure” causing a gravitational repulsion that drives matter apart at increasing rates. The data from type Ia supernova observations suggest the existence of a cosmological constant.
    Theorists have been reluctant to introduce a cosmological constant in the theory because of a fine-tuning problem. It turns out that if L is non-zero then it should have a natural value that would cause a very rapid expansion and very dramatic cooling of the Universe. The current measured temperature of the Universe is 2.725 degrees Kelvin. Although extremely cold by human standards (just a few degrees above absolute zero), if L is present, it must be about 10122 times smaller than the natural value to agree with this temperature measurement. How could L be set to such a small value with such precision? This is known as the cosmological constant problem. Its solution had been to assume that L was exactly zero. Type Ia supernova measurements thus created a fine-tuning problem for cosmology.

What potential value would you prefer over that which became reality?

You don’t understand the concept of “potential”. It is Potential, the inherent but latent (spiritual) quality or excellence and functional abilities (force) of a thing that you identify as God, a living entity.

The Universe was not made by a god, never has, never will.

i see. A car was made by a intelligent being. A airplaine, much more complex, was made by a intelligent being. The universe, much much more complex, and finely tuned to permit life on earth, was a lucky accident ? Please explain what is rational to believe that.

A car was made by man for man. The universe was not made by God for God. You say it was made by God for man. And that is hubris.

The assumption of a sentient intelligent construct, existing in a vacuum

Where do i make the assertion God existed in a vacuum ?

Where does God exist again? I see two possible states, inside the Universe (matter/energy) or outside the universe (vacuum). So which is it?

, but being causal to the universe without a single clue as to how this construct could possibly exist is not reasonable,

Just because our mind is too limited to understand God, and its eternal existence, to believe in his existence is not reasonable ? Does that mean, that every cause, that we cannot explain, becomes not reasonable ? and that reasoning should be reasonable, why ?

Because wishful musings do not govern the universe. If we are too limited to understand then science is the only way to approach the subject, verify everything before you accept a proposition. You propose a God. Where is your proof that the wonderful ways Potential may become reality are the willful expressions of a motivated mind. An energetic sentient Mind, or a pseudo-intelligent (mathematical and chemical) Natural function how expressions of matter and energy are made explicate in this universe?

unless one discards all knowledge we have of how things work

please present therefore something, that came into existence from absolutely nothing.

POTENTIAL , I urge you to study the definitions of Potential in great depth. It is one the most profound terms in abstract reasoning.

and assume that god is not bound by any constants and that would be even more incredible.

So why is there something, rather than nothing ? what caused the universe into existence ? nothing ?

It is inevitable that there is something rather than nothing. Existence is a self caused causation. It is point where the argument becomes circular and cannot be further reduced by introducing intent. 

Tell me how god manages to exist outside reality, yet have influence on reality?

Who told you that God exists outside of reality ? If he is the essence of reality ?

That argument makes god a result, not a causal agent.

A man with a white beard sitting on a golden throne high up in the sky

Thats not what we xtians believe. Thats folklore.

Really, have you looked at the illustrations in the old scriptures as written and illustrated by monks from divine inspiration. But unintentionally you have revealed the great divide that exists among dogmatic religions.

You still have not answered if you believe Xenu is real. Scientology does.  Who is right? Your proof lies only in the amount of faith you have but faith is not proof of anything except imagination.

, with little winged people circling happily to the tune of a long golden trumpet? So far the only picture I see is a God in Man’s image.  That is of course physically impossible. So paint me a picture of god, anyway you like. I’ll get it, even the most abstract representation. Have faith in me. I am real and I can think!

God is spirit, a bodyless mind.

  How does it convert energy into thought?

Define god and specifically how it is able to “think” as an individual observer

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Those abstract moral concepts can exist without the invocation of an intentional supernatural entity.

So far everything I have heard about a (any) god is unreasonable in its very conception, IMO.

please present a better explanation for our existence.

.
It was inevitable in this universe.

But we have not a single piece of evidence of God, except scripture

no kidding…... open your eyes….

And see what?    The awesome destructive force of a super-nova?  The empty space encircling an ever larger and hungrier black hole?  The 7 day slow death after being bitten by a Komodo dragon? I am presenting the other side of “awesome beauty” here. 

The more I see of both beauty and sheer horror, the more it becomes clear that the universe functions without emotion whatever.
Even if quantum was the very thought process of god, it would be impersonal, implacable and certainly not particularly interested in mankind.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 167 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 27 April 2013 03:59 PM

It did not come about perfectly in the first instance at all. In the first instance there was a purely chaotic inflationary epoch, during which a few elements were born by sheer accident.

Sure. Like Carbon, essential for life ?

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=66

Astronomer Fred Hoyle reports that his atheism was shaken by his own discovery that in the stars, carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen. If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible. “Would you not say to yourself . . . ‘Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule’ ? Of course you would. . . . The carbon atom is a fix.

We are now making new unnatural elements, can you believe it?

yeah, sure i can. Thats called intelligent design..kkkk

 

Whatever rate there was, it was not a chosen rate, it was an accidental rate.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

“Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad consisting of 100 marksmen. You hear the command to fire and the crashing roar of the rifles. You then realize you are still alive, and that not a single bullet found its mark. How are you to react to this rather unlikely event?”

‘Of course you do not observe that you are dead, because if you were dead, you would not be able to observe that fact!’ However, this does not stop you from being amazed and surprised by the fact that you did survive against overwhelming odds. Moreover, you would try to deduce the reason for this unlikely event, which was too improbable to happen by chance. Surely, the best explanation is that there was some plan among the marksmen to miss you on purpose. In other words, you are probably alive for a very definite reason, not because of some random, unlikely, freak accident.”

“So we should conclude the same with the cosmos. It is natural for us to ask why we escaped the firing squad. Because it is so unlikely that this amazing universe with its precariously balanced constants could have come about by sheer accident, it is likely that there was some purpose in mind, before or during its creation. And the mind in question belongs to God.”

You don’t understand the concept of “potential”. It is Potential, the inherent but latent (spiritual) quality or excellence and functional abilities (force) of a thing that you identify as God, a living entity.

The Universe was not made by a god, never has, never will.

i see. A car was made by a intelligent being. A airplaine, much more complex, was made by a intelligent being. The universe, much much more complex, and finely tuned to permit life on earth, was a lucky accident ? Please explain what is rational to believe that.
A car was made by man for man. The universe was not made by God for God. You say it was made by God for man. And that is hubris.

who told you the universe was not made for god ?

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Where does God exist again? I see two possible states, inside the Universe (matter/energy) or outside the universe (vacuum). So which is it?

God as creator of space, matter , and time, is not bent to either of them.

, but being causal to the universe without a single clue as to how this construct could possibly exist is not reasonable,

Because wishful musings do not govern the universe. If we are too limited to understand then science is the only way to approach the subject, verify everything before you accept a proposition.

thats called verificationism.

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss.htm

Bruce R. Reichenbach commented back in 1972: “The era is past when all metaphysical statements or arguments can simply be dismissed as silly or senseless, since they do not meet a preestablished criterion of verifiability.

So thats a self defeating position.

But:

Why should human inquiry of truth be reduced to matters of material reality ? How do you want to classify matters of beauty, ethics, morals, metaphysics, and religion ?

Furthermore :

if God should revela himself to us, how should or would that be ?

http://carm.org/expect-evidence-from-transcendent-god

since a Transcendent God would exist outside the universe and not be dependent on it, it is logical to expect that such evidence for God’s existence would share transcendent characteristics. In other words, they would exhibit qualities of a Personal Being who is independent from the physical universe.

I propose that if the Transcendent Christian God exists and if he were to enter into our material world, then any manifestation of him would have to be within the following criteria.

Self-revelation - The Christian, Transcendent God could only be known through a decision on his part to reveal himself to us, since he exists outside of our material world. Also, his self-revelation would not be subject to the demands of his creation to “show himself” since it would be self-revelation, not external coercion.
Authoritative - Such self-revelation would necessarily be authoritative in that what the Transcendent God would reveal about himself would be true, right, good, absolute, etc., and would be based on his transcendent nature. Furthermore, his self-revelation would not be self-contradictory, nor would it be the subject of human approval for its validity since this would be subjecting the transcendent to the non-transcendent which is a category mistake.
Miraculous - Any self-revelation of the Christian Theistic, Transcendent God would be miraculous by definition and could not be explained by merely materialistic based hypothesis.

please present therefore something, that came into existence from absolutely nothing.

POTENTIAL , I urge you to study the definitions of Potential in great depth. It is one the most profound terms in abstract reasoning.

absolute nothing has no potentials, since it is by definition the absence of any thing.

It is inevitable that there is something rather than nothing.

why ?

Existence is a self caused causation.

Something , that does not exist, cannot cause itself into being.

You still have not answered if you believe Xenu is real. Scientology does.  Who is right? Your proof lies only in the amount of faith you have but faith is not proof of anything except imagination.

my faith is based on revelation through scripture, natural revelation , and personal experience.

  How does it convert energy into thought?

you mean , how does it convert thought into energy ? i don’t know.

Define god and specifically how it is able to “think” as an individual observer

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Those abstract moral concepts can exist without the invocation of an intentional supernatural entity.

thats not a abstract moral concept, but how i imagine, God is.

So far everything I have heard about a (any) god is unreasonable in its very conception, IMO.

please present a better explanation for our existence.
It was inevitable in this universe.

why ? could the sun not be more distant from the earth ? and so the moon ? could the earth rotation not be faster ? the crust of the earth be thicker ?

But we have not a single piece of evidence of God, except scripture

no kidding…... open your eyes….

And see what?


Romans 1.19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 09:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 168 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6021
Joined  2009-02-26

Adonai,
absolute nothing has no potentials, since it is by definition the absence of any thing.

If there is absolutely nothing, god does not exist either.  But even a virtual singularity is something. OTOH you propose that in the absence of all things, there rises God in all his glory to create something?

W4U,
It is inevitable that there is something rather than nothing.

why ?

Because the absence of something may well create a dynamic imbalance.  And that is sufficient.

Existence is a self caused causation.

Something, that does not exist, cannot cause itself into being.

Yes, Potential can.
By definition: Potential, that which may become REALITY.

You still have not answered if you believe Xenu is real. Scientology does.  Who is right? Your proof lies only in the amount of faith you have but faith is not proof of anything except imagination.

my faith is based on revelation through scripture, natural revelation , and personal experience.

No, you can’t get away with that now.
You claim atheists are wrong.  Apply the same judgment to other religions. Again I ask I Xenu a viable God?

How does it convert energy into thought?

you mean , how does it convert thought into energy ? i don’t know.

Of course you would not know from your viewpoint. But thinking requires energy, unless you now wish to add yet another physically impossible attribute to your “spiritual” being which can dwell in the absence of anything and does not use energy to produce change, but is able to create almost infinite energy. Remarkable.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 10:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 169 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6021
Joined  2009-02-26

Sorry, your firing squad analogy is silly.

Sure. Like Carbon, essential for life ?

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=66

Astronomer Fred Hoyle reports that his atheism was shaken by his own discovery that in the stars, carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen. If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible. “Would you not say to yourself . . . ‘Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule’ ? Of course you would. . . . The carbon atom is a fix.

No I would not say that. Carbon has the ability for extraordinary configurations which might well duplicate the fractal nature of the universe.

You say God needed to fix his own errors or just keeps making new stuff when needed or wanted. I get it, God needed a buckyball. 

We are now making new unnatural elements, can you believe it?

yeah, sure i can. That’s called intelligent design..kkkk

NO, it is NOT irreducible complexity, it is the mathematical potential of certain environmental conditions which make the formation of elements possible. In the lab we are able to duplicate some of the processes and thereby provide proof or falsify the processes required as predicted in theory.

From Wiki,

Carbon (from Latin: carbo “coal”) is the chemical element with symbol C and atomic number 6. As a member of group 14 on the periodic table, it is nonmetallic and tetravalent—making four electrons available to form covalent chemical bonds. There are three naturally occurring isotopes, with 12C and 13C being stable, while 14C is radioactive, decaying with a half-life of about 5,730 years.[11 Carbon is one of the few elements known since antiquity.[12]
Carbon forms more compounds than any other element, with almost ten million pure organic compounds described to date, which in turn are a tiny fraction of such compounds that are theoretically possible under standard conditions
.

.
A fix???  Yes, we know that God knew right away the universe needed a fix after he had created it?  Yes we know the universe needed a fix just like we know the name of the guy who lived 12 trillion years ago and populated the earth in some bizarre ritual at the foot of a mountain and the use of nuclear explosions, or something like that….............kkkkk.

Adonai, I am not trying to disparage the intent of people spreading the Gospel. As a Humanist I often voice my “recommendations” for a solution to societal problems.

I also understand the concept of “vagueness” when dealing with fundamental causal forces and their expression in reality. I also understand the philosophy of a causality, order, motive.  And that is precisely why I object to the absolute certainty with which you adhere to your “god of the gaps” in reference to science and the scientific method.

The argument you present have been debunked over and over again.
But allow me to ask you why theists seem to need that supernatural authority in order for the universe to function and its implications for life. Is the impact of belief necessary to the universe, or is it necessary to humans, because we are special.  EGO.

[ Edited: 28 April 2013 01:21 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 03:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 170 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 27 April 2013 09:59 PM

Adonai,
absolute nothing has no potentials, since it is by definition the absence of any thing.

If there is absolutely nothing, god does not exist either.

You came up with the POTENTIAL thing…..

I have never made the assertion, that something could arise from absolutely nothing. You did…...

But even a virtual singularity is something. OTOH you propose that in the absence of all things, there rises God in all his glory to create something?

No. You should read my answers better. I believe in eternal God, without beginning, without a end.

W4U,
It is inevitable that there is something rather than nothing. Why?

Because the absence of something may well create a dynamic imbalance.  And that is sufficient.

The dynamic imbalance out of absolutely nothing is not possible, since nothing can arise from absolutely nothing. Its the absence of any thing.

Existence is a self caused causation.

Something, that does not exist, cannot cause itself into being.

Yes, Potential can.
By definition: Potential, that which may become REALITY.

No kidding. Are you aware about the nonsense you assert here ? Do you know what absolutely nothing means ? Maibe you should think better about it.

You still have not answered if you believe Xenu is real. Scientology does.  Who is right? Your proof lies only in the amount of faith you have but faith is not proof of anything except imagination.

my faith is based on revelation through scripture, natural revelation , and personal experience.

No, you can’t get away with that now.
You claim atheists are wrong.  Apply the same judgment to other religions. Again I ask I Xenu a viable God?

Maibe. It depends on the avalable evidence.

How does it convert energy into thought?

you mean , how does it convert thought into energy ? i don’t know.

Of course you would not know from your viewpoint. But thinking requires energy, unless you now wish to add yet another physically impossible attribute to your “spiritual” being which can dwell in the absence of anything and does not use energy to produce change, but is able to create almost infinite energy. Remarkable.

I don’t think a spiritual being needs energy to think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 03:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 171 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 27 April 2013 10:54 PM

Sorry, your firing squad analogy is silly.

No, its not silly. It makes perfectly sense. We should wonder why over 120 fine tune constants in the universe are all tuned to permit life . That demands for a explanation.

I also understand the concept of “vagueness” when dealing with fundamental causal forces and their expression in reality. I also understand the philosophy of a causality, order, motive.  And that is precisely why I object to the absolute certainty with which you adhere to your “god of the gaps” in reference to science and the scientific method.

I am frequently acused to propose the God of the Gaps. Unfortunately for proponents of atheism, my arguments are mostly based on what we do know. When a naturalist world view falls short, a theistic world view is a obvious alternative, since there are only two alternatives. the A- theistic view, and the theistic view. The atheisitic world view falls short to provide consistent answers to all relevant questions about origins. True, we still do not know a lot of things. But we do know as well a lot of things. Research about how life emerged has shown in the last 60 years that all naturalistic answers fall short of presenting a consistent explanation about how life emerged on earth.

The argument you present have been debunked over and over again.
But allow me to ask you why theists seem to need that supernatural authority in order for the universe to function and its implications for life.

Because chance, or physical necessity, cannot account for the existence of the universe, its fine tuning for life, the arise of life, its biodiversity, and features of human beings, like its self consciousness, sex, speech hability etc. Theism can.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 172 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6021
Joined  2009-02-26

Yes, theists have all the answers to all of existence.  Science knows nothing and have it all wrong. Don’t they know god did it. We are here and alive, is that not enough proof of god’s love?  See I can easily talk the talk and it doesn’t mean a thing.

“God did it?  Blasphemy, Xenu did it!”, Scientology has all the answers to all the questions too. It is so difficult to pick a good scientific religion. Who to believe? In the absence of scientific certainty, we’re just gonna have to pick a god and stick with that one. At least then we will have all the same answers to all the questions. And no more protestants or catholics or any of those “foreign philosophies” these people don’t know anything, just like those scientists.

Your God does not exist, neither does Xenu, nor does Zeus, nor any of the mythological symbolic beings, which do not explain anything about the universe. They are mental constructs, wishful or fearful dreaming.

[ Edited: 28 April 2013 04:54 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 05:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 173 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 28 April 2013 04:27 AM

Yes, theists have all the answers to all of existence.

i have not said that.

Science knows nothing and have it all wrong.

I did not say that. And neither is there a competition between science and theism. There are just two diverging world views. One that asserts, God is not necessary. While the other does.

“God did it?  Blasphemy, Xenu did it!”, Scientology has all the answers to all the questions too. It is so difficult to pick a good scientific religion. Who to believe? In the absence of scientific certainty, we’re just gonna have to pick a god and stick with that one.

Theism and science do not need to exclude each other. Science can lead to theism as the best explanation for our existence. Anything wrong with that ?

Your God does not exists

How do you KNOW ? thats not much more than wishful thinking. Scientific evidence tells another thing in my view…...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 174 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6021
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 28 April 2013 05:19 AM
Write4U - 28 April 2013 04:27 AM

Yes, theists have all the answers to all of existence.

i have not said that.

Yes, because you don’t need to prove anything you say. And requiring proof is not called verificationism, that is a theist debate term. It is called science.

Science knows nothing and have it all wrong.

I did not say that. And neither is there a competition between science and theism. There are just two diverging world views. One that asserts, God is not necessary. While the other does.

When the diverging views seek to solve the riddle of existence and support two completely incompatible viewpoints, one must be wrong.  In science you don’t get to pick a divergent viewpoint without proof. In theism?  Just look around and see the divergence among theist scripture. And each adherent is absolutely certain their “knowledge” of their god is infallible.
God is necessary for what?

“God did it?  Blasphemy, Xenu did it!”, Scientology has all the answers to all the questions too. It is so difficult to pick a good scientific religion. Who to believe? In the absence of scientific certainty, we’re just gonna have to pick a god and stick with that one.

Theism and science do not need to exclude each other. Science can lead to theism as the best explanation for our existence. Anything wrong with that ?

No, nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately for theism, science has shown that scripture is wrong in so many areas that scripture cannot be held as reliable scientific support for the proposition of a SCRIPTURAL GOD. And if it was not for secular law, scientists would still be burned at the stake. Look up Hypatia as a small early example of theist acceptance of science in a world full of magic and demon posession.  Have you ever stopped to think about the hubris of an exorcism?  Shaman anyone?

http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/533/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world

I know that you did not introduce the word Potential into this discussion of god, I did. But Potential as the precursor to reality is a supportable proposition in science. Check out David Bohm. 

Your God does not exists

How do you KNOW ? thats not much more than wishful thinking. Scientific evidence tells another thing in my view…...

I KNOW god does not exist by the same standard (wishful thinking) that allows you to KNOW that god does exist. Lack of evidence.
However, I KNOW for sure that scripture is definitely not scientific evidence of anything except human imagination.

[ Edited: 28 April 2013 04:25 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 175 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Romans 1.19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

The Bible is not an authoritative source and it doesn’t prove anything.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 176 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7665
Joined  2008-04-11
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 28 April 2013 05:16 PM

Romans 1.19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

The Bible is not an authoritative source and it doesn’t prove anything.

But the bible says it is THE authoritative source…. oh wait….we’re going in circles of certainty here.. shut eye

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 177 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

When the diverging views seek to solve the riddle of existence and support two completely incompatible viewpoints, one must be wrong.  In science you don’t get to pick a divergent viewpoint without proof. In theism?  Just look around and see the divergence among theist scripture. And each adherent is absolutely certain their “knowledge” of their god is infallible.

YOu keep making the same mistake. Trying to compare science with theism. They are two different things. The debate is here about if God exists, or not. We have not come yet to the matter, if it is the God of the bible, or a other God.

God is necessary for what?

As soon, as you can provide good positive evidence for philosophical naturalism, you can cancel God out of the equation. So far, you have not.

No, nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately for theism, science has shown that scripture is wrong in so many areas

I don’t think so.

And if it was not for secular law, scientists would still be burned at the stake. Look up Hypatia as a small early example of theist acceptance of science in a world full of magic and demon posession.  Have you ever stopped to think about the hubris of an exorcism?  Shaman anyone?

It seems you have not studied history of science.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t343-the-impact-of-christianity

Kennedy and Newcombe also argue that science has it roots in Christianity. They point out that other world religions may express a worldview of fatalism (everything is fatalistically determined) or of illusion (that the physical world is an illusion). Science could not have arisen from these worldviews.Christianity on the other hand, is based on the notion that there exists a rational God who is the source of rational truth. This, they argue, gave rise to the possibility of scientific laws.
Evidence for this view is that nearly all the founders of modern science were Christians. These include men such as Keppler, Boyle, Pascal, Pasteur, Newton, etc.

Check out David Bohm. 

Id rather like to see what you do understand with it.

Your God does not exists

How do you KNOW ? thats not much more than wishful thinking. Scientific evidence tells another thing in my view…...

I KNOW god does not exist by the same standard (wishful thinking) that allows you to KNOW that god does exist.


I have not made this assertion. I just believe in Gods existence…...

However, I KNOW for sure that scripture is definitely not scientific evidence of anything except human imagination.

The bible is not a scientific book. But if you search for scientific evidence for Gods existence, just look around you. Whatever you see, is hardly the product of chance, of physical necessity. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a intelligent creator. But when your wish God not to exist is predominant, your mind and thinking is darkened, and you interprete everything to fit your preconveived world view.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 178 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7547
Joined  2007-03-02

The idea of a deity is a human concept.  Pick up any religious mythological text and you can see it is nothing but tribalism, a purely human concept.  These human concepts go as far back as the Greeks and the Egyptians, to the first time humans became superstitious.  There isn’t a historical Jesus as depicted in the Bile and to call him the son of God is to create a human concept.  Every motif- creation to miraculous birth to resurrection- is within virtually every human culture.  This is not evidence of any deity, but rather evidence that humans are very creative in creating god concepts.

However, the sun does exist and many a human culture has made the sun a deity.  This is called animism.  Once humans humanized the gods, it became anthropomorphism.  These ideas concerning a deity often die when a society stops believing in said deity or deities though.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 179 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:08 PM

The idea of a deity is a human concept.

Might be. What is a better alternative with more explanatory power to a powerful creator, God . for our universe, and us ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 April 2013 07:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 180 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7547
Joined  2007-03-02
Adonai888 - 28 April 2013 07:10 PM
Mriana - 28 April 2013 07:08 PM

The idea of a deity is a human concept.

Might be. What is a better alternative with more explanatory power to a powerful creator, God . for our universe, and us ?

The only answer is that humans created god.  There is no other answer, esp given that the universe is made up of atoms that bonded together.  The psychology of belief makes it clear that people choose to believe in Casper the Holy Ghost even when science shows no evidence of a deity.  They want something to cling to, something to fill in the holes, even live in the holes, refusing to climb out of the holes, because it’s so much easier to cling to an invisible friend than to face reality head on.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
12 of 28
12