That's the problem of the context in which we frame understanding,we use the reference of space time and matter to try to comprehend this notion of a "God".

Without 4 Dimensional reality there is no "where" so as such the term "nowhere" could not apply either nor "some thing/nothing".

Interesting analogy, close i suppose but not quite.

Surely laws of this existence would only apply in concordance to all within it?......this is why i would propose Relativity and Quantum theories break down at the extreme limits of their tenure and then tend toward infinity.

Within their domain they work extremely well...with the exception of the problem of Gravity...outwith that they don't apply.....is "God" outwith an anthropomorphic sense of interaction imposed through humanity's perception and behaviour models?

Bearing in mind that non-logical human beings would have as little hope of defining the undefinable or its method, reason or lack of therin as great minds such as Sagan or Hawkings or Schrodinger giving the confindment of all beings within a 4D bubble and all perception based on that reality.

Perhaps we are not equipped with tools to measure and quantify it and can never be if it exists.

If we conclude that the human ability to conceive the higher complexities is inadequate, then we have no business pondering our origin at all or existence in general, in favor of a god or not. Because the whole idea of a god may be a false notion, just as doubting one through science might be a false notion. If we first assume that we are cognitively incapable of finding out or knowing, then it is something that we can't even speak on in any metaphysical sense, because there would be nothing in favor of either assumption, a complete nonsum.

Thus the most pragmatic pathway is the answer. Continue science because it betters and empowers our subjective lives, and continue to assume that god doesn't exist because if we consider the opposite possibility, then we open the door for the deterioration of science -that being due to consideration without evidence.

If you believe this then you are sadly and utterly mistaken. Just as any responsible scientist, Hawking has taken a position of agnosticism towards the notion of a God, however, he and Sagan have both been quoted specifically stating that our universe is, in it's current state, exactly how scientists would expect it to be void of a God which leads us to believe that both Sagan and Hawking lean more towards the side of atheism. You will also find that 90% of the most intellectual people on this planet, especially when speaking of scientists, are atheist.

There's no way to prove or disprove "divine intervention" but the likelihood of it existing is astronomically low, so much so that it is absurd to even ponder about it. And if God did give precedence to those that worship him, why is it that every study we've ever done on prayer (most of which have been done by Christian scientists) has shown that prayer has little to no effect?

The problem is that with every bit of evidence we dig up, theists claim "oh, that's only part of God's process". The biggest reason God counteracts scientific reasoning is this: if our current best explanation says that the universe is eternal and the theistic approach is that God is eternal, what is more logical; believing in the most crude form of existence being eternal and slowly gaining complexity or the most complex form of existence having always existed and creating everything else? #1 is, by far, the more logical conclusion given the current state of science and philosophy.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

About 75% are atheist and another 15 or so consider themselves agnostics which means they either are truly agnostics or they are atheists as well (which is likely the majority). Here's one source of info:

http://www.funadvice.com/q....ligence

Lol it was pertinent to our conversation and you initially brought it up haha! Look back to the last page and you'll see.

Yes, but when we find that we are on a planet that is suspended in space we don't assume it is because a giant invisible hand is holding it up either. For the same reason we do not assume that a God exists. It is not provable and scientifically illogical.

Sodr, what is the point of prayer? Is it not to give praise to God and ask him to help?

Yes. Believe it or not, at one point in time Christianity and Islam were the driving forces behind science. This is irrelevant, however. Using this as an argument is an appeal to authority.

There are many theories, the eternal universe being the most plausible as it is the only one that doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. Here's an article per your request:

http://theeternaluniverse.blogspot.com/

Hawking is one of the scientists who believes that the universe may have come to exist somehow, but his ideas on this are radical and unpopular among the scientific community as the first law of thermodynamics is still very popular.

What I presented is exactly what underlies the majority of the most respected theories in cosmology.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Added (19/Jan/10, 6:20 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
jeez my post looks a little overweight when i quote too many sentences

"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

saying there is evidence against God is nonsensical. that's just like claiming to have evidence against bigfoot. you can't have evidence for a negative. you either have evidence that bigfoot exists or you don't. much evidence for bigfoot has been fabricated and thus falsified. same for God. so yes, i don't assume a God/Gods exist(s) because of that.

so you are saying God did nothing because he knew he was being tested? what these CHRISTIAN scientists do is not specifically create an environment to test His power, but rather they take an already existing situation (such as a person who has cancer and is being prayed over) and test it. would it not be cruel of God not to answer those prayers just because he knows he's being tested? the person who is dying of cancer is still sincerely being prayed for. the testing should be irrelevant or else prayer cannot be assumed to actually work.

haha lol

surely, but they are accounted for by other theories. for example, the theory of general relativity cannot account for Newtonian gravity so an exception is made and it is called the theory of special relativity. other exceptions, which i am sure you are probably referring to, that have not yet been explained often get explained many years later. it is ignorant to assume anything is unexplainable, however.

that blog was just an example of someone who is presenting a theory of an eternal universe. i couldn't find any peer reviewed documents on such a theory in my quick google search the other day. trust me though, it would be irrational, with the current scientific consensus on the laws of conservation of mass and energy, to theorize a universe that isn't eternal without first challenging the laws of conservation of mass and energy themselves.

i can see why you would assume this and you are correct, but an argument from authority isn't necessarily fallacious. for example, when someone has done extensive research on something and a conclusion rests weightily on that persons research, the appeal to authority isn't actually fallacious. for example, when i use Newton or Einstein's research to provide evidence to you that gravity exists, that could actually be considered an appeal to authority, but it isn't fallacious because their research actually shows that, beyond a preponderance of evidence, gravity actually does exist.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

do you know what perpetual motion is? the first law states roughly that a perpetual motion machine is a physical impossibility. this means that the amount of energy you put in to work a machine always results in loss or maintenance of energy. you cannot produce extra energy through work or any other means. energy is the means by which work is done and not the other way around. this means that it is physically impossible to increase the amount of energy in the universe, hence, it is physically impossible to create energy and God would have to violate the laws of physics in order to do so. for this purpose, science and God are in conflict until someone provides evidence showing that the first law of thermodynamics is false.

i'll address the rest later.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

they wanted to prove God to the skeptics. is it not the prerogative of a Christian to teach people of the will of God? if they can prove prayer works to people who are all about science they can win over converts. it isn't "un-Christian" to test God when you are only testing him to prove his existence to people that don't believe. this is his will according to the bible.

that wouldn't be reliable at all.

ok, but you would think that there would at least be a noticeable difference between the people who were prayed over and those that weren't.

ok, but they still want to live as much as they can while they can, do they not?

why would it be wrong? why would they think it to be wrong? they know that they want to prove their God to the world. this is a way to do it.

ok, that's fine, but out of hundreds of people you would think that he would answer a large majority of those prayers.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

-----------

ahaaaaaa, i see where youre coming from... but the studies you're talking about, how can they conclude that prayer is generally useless? i mean, unless they conduct some sort of massive study over several, several years, examining everyone in the world who has any sort of affliction who prays, i dont see how anyone could possibly conclude that

but lets say that imaginary study was conducted and showed that 95% of prayers werent "answered" or even rebuffed... that would still mean nothing... in prayer, we must be have persistence (ie never giving up on God if there's a delay) and faith (ie knowing that God is capable/willing to help us)... if it is not His will, then our prayers will be answered in a better and greater way

FIN

like i said, couldnt God have 1) created energy, THEN 2) made this law?

and btw, if we grant that God created everything, what's so illogical about Him simply manipulating the laws He created? lets say (yes i know i gave this ex before) God created Adam in his mid 20's and put him in a room of scientists, then believers....the scientists will say, "we conclude he is 20 years old," the religious people will say "we believe he is 1 second old"....then we send these results to some twit like you who will say "science and God are in conflict"...is he right?

Added (25/Jan/10, 5:13 Pm)
---------------------------------------------

If shit doesn't work it simply doesn't work

FIN !!

Hence the medieval ages , hence religious genocides you don't see the problem in this line ? how this leads to blind faith and blind faith leads to extremism ? ,

I knew you would see it my way

But we're talking about people who actually have a standard of evidence someone needs to meet before believing what they are told

My point was they pray to continue living. Does God not answer at least some of those peoples' prayers in that regard?

It works just like any such study would work. They take a sample group (usually several hundred people) which they use to represent everyone. They then give a percentage which shows approximately what the study should show on a mass scale.

Do you think they just said one prayer and went on with their lives? Besides, we're talking about people who have a possibility of serious complications, even death here. They don't exactly have a huge window of time.

Lol you have a misunderstanding of what a law is. You make it seem as though it is something tangible. Laws are simply concepts that explain natural phenomena. Laws aren't created (the concepts behind them are, but their physical operations aren't), they exist, simple and plain. And even if they were, thinking God created them is illogical to virtual impossibility and so to believe this to be true is irrational thought.

We cannot presuppose god in this argument. If he exists anything is possible. If he doesn't (which is more than likely true), science more than likely holds the right answers.

The problem with this is that it is completely hypothetical. The person who believes in God would be right in such a weird situation, but that still doesn't change the fact that it would be illogical to believe such a thing.

I'm not I_Guy, but I can say that for most of my life, as a Christian up until recently, I did and I still do frequently. However, Occam's Razor tells me that it is pointless to go believing it.

I try to eliminate irrational thought. Agnostic atheism is the most rational belief.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0