|
Evidence For God?
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 0:03 AM | Message # 16 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Sodr, the problem is that you are acting as if the bible and science are apples to oranges. The bible and science explore the same domains. The reason scientists can explore science without consulting the bible is because very few things told in the bible are actually historically or scientifically true or relevant and none can be proven. Scientist like Richard Dawkins, however, promote studying the bible from a literary standpoint. Consulting the bible for science, because of it's lack of any scientific evidence other than artifacts from other people who worshipped the bible many years ago and the dead sea scrolls, however, is pointless and extraneous. That is why religious pseudo-science is pushed out of schools. It is not scientifically supported by evidence and no paper on ID or any other religious claim in science clothing is going to fail the peer review unless a group of theological scientists peer review each other's papers and even if that happened, the actual scientific community will refute them and make sure that they are no longer accepted within thei community and they will lose their peer review privileges. That is why science is open minded but religion is biased and people who are religious only hear one side of the story while people who keep educated on science approach everything with a much more open mind.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 0:15 AM | Message # 17 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
And btw, ecumenical councils, from my understanding, only deal with how a specific denomination of the Christian church interprets the scripture and how that effects their understanding of the world. They do not actually take scientific discoveries into account unless they seem to possibly coincide with their religion. You would have been better off bringing up the pope's scientific advisor, especially considering the current advisor believes in evolution, but the pope disagrees with him anyways, so that's a bit null.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 8:06 AM | Message # 18 |
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (sodr2) scientists explore different domains, but these domains have to be SCIENTIFIC....they dont explore the Bible when they are trying to figure out the origins of life that is STUPID in the same way Christians dont explore the quran when trying to figure out the word of God, that is STUPID...and again you have a compilation of books composing the Bible, so for eg. the life of Jesus, we have the gospels each with a different way of telling it scientists actually study the bible and other religious texts archaeologists are scientists too. A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. And the ORIGIN OF LIFE as in described in the bible has nothing to do whit the natural world the bible is is not a scientific treatise and it was never meant to be one only fundamentalists think the bible is a scientific treatise ask the head of the Catholic Churches astronomy department for example he even gave an interview to Bill Maher in Maher's documentary Religulous explaining why the Bible is not a scientific treatise.
|
|
|
|
| s0dr2 |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 9:46 AM | Message # 19 |
OGs
Posts: 2772
|
im not sure where this is going... all i know is that the authors of the Bible did not intend to determine science, and its main purpose is to teach about salvation...anything else not concerning salvation is for science to discover Quote (eboyd) That is why religious pseudo-science is pushed out of schools.
okay... your point?
Quote (eboyd) That is why science is open minded but religion is biased and people who are religious only hear one side of the story while people who keep educated on science approach everything with a much more open mind.
they hear "one side of the story" when it comes to God's word...what would be the point if a Christian considered Muhammad's message that Jesus is not God? if i refuse to accept his message, i am biased??
but i dont see a problem with simply reading about different religions
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 1:00 PM | Message # 20 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
If you don't consider the possibility of Muhammad's word being true and you accept the bible and/or some of or all of the teachings of Christianity as fact, then yes, you are biased. And if religion isn't trying to act as science, then why does it insist on explaining things like "God created the earth in 6 days and slept on the 7th", "the world was flooded for 40 days and 40 nights" or "a tree on a mountain top can be seen from any point on the earth" which is clearly a scientific realm and, in fact, goes directly against science. That is why religion DOES interfere with science. Additionally, teaching salvation interferes with science, because science has come so close to proving that the universe is completely sustainable void of any supreme being, so therefore the likelihood that one exists is so miniscule that it is absurd. Therefore, by science's logic, salvation through God cannot exist because God cannot exist, so to believe in salvation is to go against science.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| s0dr2 |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 3:35 PM | Message # 21 |
|
OGs
Posts: 2772
|
Quote (eboyd) Additionally, teaching salvation interferes with science, because science has come so close to proving that the universe is completely sustainable void of any supreme being, so therefore the likelihood that one exists is so miniscule that it is absurd.
whoa whoa whoa...are you telling me that there is evidence that GOD does NOT exist? intrigue me you cannot detect God with scientific tools, he is beyond that
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Saturday, 24/Oct/09, 7:13 PM | Message # 22 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
See, that's the problem. People who follow religions seem to be so convinced that the origins of the universe are unprovable. That is the only way that you can sustain the God hypothesis. In doing that you are putting an unnecessary limit on science. We are one month away from the reopening of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the world's largest particle accelerator particle which, in theory, will create a miniature black hole, reproducing the effects that created the big bang, and unveil the Higgs Boson, the only remaining unobserved subatomic particle in the universe, which is rumored to be the particle that gave mass to all other particles and disappeared from existence shortly after, most likely due either to the mass transfer or particle annihilation from coming in contact with an anti-particle. Due to this theory, the Higgs Boson is being called the "God Particle" because of it's theoretical creation of all of the initial mass in the universe. The experiment at CERN will be followed by an experiment in a lateral particle accelerator which will find the properties of the Higgs Boson. We will then be able to make more conclusive findings and this will all be carried out in the next few years. The LHC at CERN opens back up next month and the experiment will likely be carried out shortly thereafter. As for life on earth, evolution is a PROVEN FACT and abiogenesis (the theory that demonstrates how amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, could have and almost certainly did come into existence naturally due to the existence of naturally self replicating molecules. It is evidence that life can come from non-life naturally) is not too far off from being a proven fact. Just give it a few more years (that's how evolution came to be known as a fact in the 1870's in the scientific community -- time passed and more tests were taken to replicate the previous tests). And finally, with the big bang being in the process of being tested, we must ask what came before it? The issue is that the laws of physics break down at the Planck Wall (a fraction of a second after the big bang) and there are theories as to everything that happened prior to that. It is a possibility that the laws of physics in our universe were literally defined by the big bang. The many theories that explain what happened prior to the big bang that make the big bang work include string theory (M-Theory is the currently most accepted string theory and it is the very first "theory of everything" as it is being called because it will unlock the remaining mysteries of the beginning of the universe), multiverse theory (which may actually coincide with string theory. There are also several multiverse theories like the theory of bubble universes), etc. As for the beginning of time, there are different theories here too. Some people are saying that time is simply a concept that is contingent on consciousness (in other words, time only exists because life exists and living creatures perceive it), others say that time is eternal, as are the matter and energy in our universe, but I'd say that the most reliable theory is that time relies on the existence of matter and energy and without them it does not exist. This is based on Einstein's concept of "spacetime" which is based on general relativity (E=MC^2). The idea is that time did not exist until matter and energy came to exist. The way that they came to exist is still up for debate, but one of the ideas that is being thrown around is that the first law of thermodynamics (aka the law of conservation of energy/mass, which states that energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed) may actually be false. That which we perceive as "nothing" may in fact actually be an energy creating hot bed in which energy pops in and out of existence and in certain cases remains in existence and over time it builds up and within the energy, subatomic particles known as photons come into existence and simultaneously collide with anti-photons and annihilate. Some, due to the electromagnetic force and particle asymmetry, continue to exist as matter (though not massive) and over time they build up. After an unknown amount of time the mass built up into a singularity the cause the big bang. The theory that states that time is eternal shows that what we know as "nothing" is actually energy in which subatomic particles pop in and out of existence by colliding with anti-particles and annihilating. This is observable in space even today and it leads us right back to what I was just describing. This is all very complex and confusing and there are a plethora of theories, but it provides evidence that shows us that God is unnecessary, and actually counterproductive/counterintuitive, for the existence and sustenance of the universe. So for a final, more simplified argument that is less scientific and more philosophical, I ask you to be unbiased in answering this question logically in your mind and then tell me what your mind logically comes up with and why. If we use the idea of Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually true), what would you say makes the best sense: an elementary (basic) particle eternally existing, constantly evolving and creating other particles to become more complex, eventually leading to the current state of the universe, or an eternal and infinitely complex supreme being that is out of the bounds of that which is natural (which, btw, is a contradictory concept because anything outside of the bounds of that which is natural is something that doesn't exist. "Natural" is a term that refers to that which exists) that, using his/her/it's immaterial existence, created all that was material in nature and governs over his/her/it's creation? Once you decide which makes the most sense using Occam's Razor, tell me what you chose and why and don't use the usual "because the bible says so" cop-out. I've spent far too much time explaining this to you for that or any sort of subject change. And btw, here are some sources for you if you would like to study this for yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time". Any of the books in which Einstein's theories were explained. Any college cosmology text book. Etc.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| s0dr2 |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 12:34 PM | Message # 23 |
|
OGs
Posts: 2772
|
Quote (eboyd) We are one month away from the reopening of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the world's largest particle accelerator particle which, in theory, will create a miniature black hole, reproducing the effects that created the big bang, and unveil the Higgs Boson, the only remaining unobserved subatomic particle in the universe, which is rumored to be the particle that gave mass to all other particles and disappeared from existence shortly after, most likely due either to the mass transfer or particle annihilation from coming in contact with an anti-particle. Due to this theory, the Higgs Boson is being called the "God Particle" because of it's theoretical creation of all of the initial mass in the universe. The experiment at CERN will be followed by an experiment in a lateral particle accelerator which will find the properties of the Higgs Boson. We will then be able to make more conclusive findings and this will all be carried out in the next few years. The LHC at CERN opens back up next month and the experiment will likely be carried out shortly thereafter.
an elementary particle.... Quote (eboyd) As for life on earth, evolution is a PROVEN FACT and abiogenesis (the theory that demonstrates how amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, could have and almost certainly did come into existence naturally due to the existence of naturally self replicating molecules. It is evidence that life can come from non-life naturally) is not too far off from being a proven fact. Just give it a few more years (that's how evolution came to be known as a fact in the 1870's in the scientific community -- time passed and more tests were taken to replicate the previous tests).
evolution and abiogenesis..... Quote (eboyd) And finally, with the big bang being in the process of being tested, we must ask what came before it? The issue is that the laws of physics break down at the Planck Wall (a fraction of a second after the big bang) and there are theories as to everything that happened prior to that. It is a possibility that the laws of physics in our universe were literally defined by the big bang. The many theories that explain what happened prior to the big bang that make the big bang work include string theory (M-Theory is the currently most accepted string theory and it is the very first "theory of everything" as it is being called because it will unlock the remaining mysteries of the beginning of the universe), multiverse theory (which may actually coincide with string theory. There are also several multiverse theories like the theory of bubble universes), etc. As for the beginning of time, there are different theories here too. Some people are saying that time is simply a concept that is contingent on consciousness (in other words, time only exists because life exists and living creatures perceive it), others say that time is eternal, as are the matter and energy in our universe, but I'd say that the most reliable theory is that time relies on the existence of matter and energy and without them it does not exist. This is based on Einstein's concept of "spacetime" which is based on general relativity (E=MC^2). The idea is that time did not exist until matter and energy came to exist. The way that they came to exist is still up for debate, but one of the ideas that is being thrown around is that the first law of thermodynamics (aka the law of conservation of energy/mass, which states that energy and mass cannot be created nor destroyed) may actually be false. That which we perceive as "nothing" may in fact actually be an energy creating hot bed in which energy pops in and out of existence and in certain cases remains in existence and over time it builds up and within the energy, subatomic particles known as photons come into existence and simultaneously collide with anti-photons and annihilate. Some, due to the electromagnetic force and particle asymmetry, continue to exist as matter (though not massive) and over time they build up. After an unknown amount of time the mass built up into a singularity the cause the big bang. The theory that states that time is eternal shows that what we know as "nothing" is actually energy in which subatomic particles pop in and out of existence by colliding with anti-particles and annihilating. This is observable in space even today and it leads us right back to what I was just describing.
theories as to what happened before the big bang... this is evidence that God doesn't exist? sure it may be evidence that God is not necessary, but you could say the same thing when a surgeon performs an operation and say there was no need of divine intervention (although i believe there is) Quote (eboyd) If we use the idea of Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually true), what would you say makes the best sense: an elementary (basic) particle eternally existing, constantly evolving and creating other particles to become more complex, eventually leading to the current state of the universe, or an eternal and infinitely complex supreme being that is out of the bounds of that which is natural (which, btw, is a contradictory concept because anything outside of the bounds of that which is natural is something that doesn't exist. "Natural" is a term that refers to that which exists) that, using his/her/it's immaterial existence, created all that was material in nature and governs over his/her/it's creation?
id like to buy a vowel: why not choose both? why not God being the author of evolution or the big bang? Added (25/Oct/09, 12:34 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
btw gotta give you props on that thesis lol... i checked google to see if there was any cut and paste involved 
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain
Message edited by sodr2 - Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 12:36 PM
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 3:55 PM | Message # 24 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
There definitely wasn't any cut and paste  but it was based on what I've learned through personal studying. And I think you are confusing evidence with proof. Proof is absolutely conclusive evidence which is irrefutable. No reputable scientist claims proof in any situation. That is a claim made by theologians. "Proof" is a concept that is unachievable just as the concept of "perfection". Evidence, on the other hand, is data or other types of physical records that lend credibility to a specific hypothesis or theory. There are, however, different levels of evidence that make them closer or further from absolute proofs than others. Within what I presented there are varying degrees of evidence and I will be the first to admit that some of them are supported by very little evidence at the moment. The one specifically that I presented that lacks a preponderance of evidence was the multiverse theory. There has been no observable evidence of any parallel universe existing, only theoretical evidence. The God hypothesis, however, has ZERO conclusive evidence lending the hypothesis credence. Therefore, not only does theism/deism bear the burden of proof due to the fact that they are making the claim, and that already lends credibility to the opposition, but the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, thought not absolutely conclusive, lends further credence to those opposing the claim. And if that doesn't push further in the direction of atheism already, the fact that you disregarded half of what I stated about the lack of necessity for God. What I said was that not only do we have sufficient evidence to believe that God is not necessary in the universe, but he/she/it is also counterintuitive and counterproductive to what science has theorized. For that reason, the ONLY TWO logically supported beliefs are agnosticism and agnostic atheism.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 6:47 PM | Message # 25 |
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
split 
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 7:00 PM | Message # 26 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Lol!
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| ilikebacon3000 |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 7:02 PM | Message # 27 |
Emcees
Posts: 3979
|
I am just lost.
This debate has gone way too deep for me to catch up on.
I might jump on it later but right now I only read about half of the first page and Erik is right about people needing a catalyst to help them out.
If it werent for my english teacher, RHHF, and NDE stories, I would have NEVER looked into things on my own. I would have felt too isolated.
Life's a bitch and I'm just along for the ride.
|
|
|
|
| Uncharted |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 7:05 PM | Message # 28 |
Emcees
Posts: 4766
|
wow many threads do we have that got this same topic? lol
....
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Sunday, 25/Oct/09, 8:06 PM | Message # 29 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (sodr2) this is evidence that God doesn't exist? sure it may be evidence that God is not necessary, but you could say the same thing when a surgeon performs an operation and say there was no need of divine intervention (although i believe there is) necessity is a must when ones not active then he is absolute if God is not necessary then he is absolute his just a void in time in space he simply does not exist if he's not active something that's not active does not exist
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Monday, 26/Oct/09, 0:49 AM | Message # 30 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
How it feels to wake up. It amuses me that religious folks think they have the correct answers for existence.....somehow they have the answers, yet reputable scientists who are brilliant men who have studied rigorously for years with PHDs and decades of endless work in their specific subjects, are wrong. Explain me that. What, these scientists are just too stupid to understand God? They just don't get it and the average Joe does? Or is that the devil's got them? Give me a break. I think it's clear who is more credible.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
