View Full Version : Science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of God
Crimson Dynamo
22-03-2010, 10:56 AM
true
True. Just like it can't deny that outside this universe lies another made entirely out of fudge. Just like it can't deny that a small toy rabbit is caught between a rock fourteen miles below the Earth's surface. Just like it can't deny a lot of silly things it's not really up to to deny, really.
Niamh.
22-03-2010, 01:02 PM
So?
Shasown
22-03-2010, 01:03 PM
true
Isnt that why its called Faith?
setanta
22-03-2010, 01:03 PM
For once I agree with you LT. Reading a great book on the whole thing.
Crimson Dynamo
22-03-2010, 01:37 PM
For once I agree with you LT. Reading a great book on the whole thing.
Which one?
setanta
22-03-2010, 02:22 PM
Which one?
The Spiritual Brain.
bananarama
22-03-2010, 05:28 PM
Science can neither confirm or deny the big bang theory of the universe........
To validate the big bang theory they have had to invent forces such as (inflation) imediately after the so called big bang) Dark matter which they canot prove or see.......Dark energy which also is not provable......And now their latest fly in the ointment to keep the big bang theory alive is "Dark flow".......
Which proves one thing for sure about the science of our origin is that in reality they know F all.......Execpt what is in their imagination just as religions do science of the universe live on the theory of dreams and self delusions.....All based on complex mathematics of course just to confuse themselves and other that little bit more........Cherry on the cake so to speak.....:hugesmile:
Tom4784
22-03-2010, 05:33 PM
Exactly nobody knows anything for sure, it's pointless for people to get their knickers in a twist about Religion since it's all about belief then fact.
For me personally I'm quite agnostic.
Crimson Dynamo
22-03-2010, 05:41 PM
there is a lot of faith in science
Captain.Remy
22-03-2010, 05:45 PM
That's pretty much why this debate is an never-ending one: facts vs faith.
Why should fate be seperated from science? Why do we need some sort of insane free will to believe in whatever we want to believe in on the grounds that it's 'faith'? Yeah, screw science, I have great faith that the inside of Jupiter is made of candy floss. Insane, no? Faith allows you to maintain delusions and get away with it.
LT, science is not based on faith. Science is based on accepted, researched fact. If it's not fact, then it's just a theory. There is no faith involved in facts, which is what science is based on. Cross checked, tested, rigorously examined facts.
That's the beauty of science. It doesn't shy away from criticizm, it thrives on it. Heavy handed critique improves science. Not destroy it.
Crimson Dynamo
22-03-2010, 05:57 PM
That's pretty much why this debate is an never-ending one: facts vs faith.
not facts versus faith
information that we have at the moment and faith. there is lots of faith in science and lots of facts in religion. You have fallen into the trap of thinking all religion is faith and all science is fact. not so.
Firewire
22-03-2010, 05:57 PM
Exactly.
Personally I do not believe in God.
But there is no proof that he is real nor is there proof that he isn't.
Exactly.
Personally I do not believe in God.
But there is no proof that he is real nor is there proof that he isn't.
Like there is no proof against the notion that there are breadcrumbs and easter eggs orbiting around Betelgeuse?
Crimson Dynamo
22-03-2010, 06:01 PM
Why should fate be seperated from science? Why do we need some sort of insane free will to believe in whatever we want to believe in on the grounds that it's 'faith'? Yeah, screw science, I have great faith that the inside of Jupiter is made of candy floss. Insane, no? Faith allows you to maintain delusions and get away with it.
LT, science is not based on faith. Science is based on accepted, researched fact. If it's not fact, then it's just a theory. There is no faith involved in facts, which is what science is based on. Cross checked, tested, rigorously examined facts.
That's the beauty of science. It doesn't shy away from criticizm, it thrives on it. Heavy handed critique improves science. Not destroy it.
no one said that science is based on faith?
science is not facts. there are very few facts. science is based on what information we have available. Most of our current scientific "facts" may well be deemed untrue in 200 years time. Cross checked, tested, rigorously examined facts as you call them are just based on the information and understanding we have now. tomorrow it could be superseded.
Captain.Remy
22-03-2010, 06:02 PM
not facts versus faith
information that we have at the moment and faith. there is lots of faith in science and lots of facts in religion. You have fallen into the trap of thinking all religion is faith and all science is fact. not so.
I didn't want to get into a philosophical debate at 7pm after a hard day of work so I made it general. It's the issue that always will be discussed over and over again until the world is over by the scientists and the religious. Science explains a lot of useful things about life but it has its weaknesses too. Science does not influence people's mind, emotions (and wars by the way) Religion does. It's not a "black or white" situation. I don't think I will be alive to see who has the most right, I don't think we will ever know either. Both are right, both are wrong, but to what extent ? Who's right on which part ?
Crimson Dynamo
22-03-2010, 06:05 PM
I didn't want to get into a philosophical debate at 7pm after a hard day of work so I made it general. It's the issue that always will be discussed over and over again until the world is over by the scientists and the religious. Sciences explains a lot of useful things about life but it has its weaknesses too. Science does not influence with people's mind, emotions (and wars by the way) Religion does. It's not a "black or white" situation. I don't think I will be alive to see who has the most right, I don't think we will ever know either. Both are right, both are wrong, but to what extent ? Who's right on which part ?
just why did France play with Scotland tops on?
setanta
22-03-2010, 06:05 PM
Why should fate be seperated from science? Why do we need some sort of insane free will to believe in whatever we want to believe in on the grounds that it's 'faith'? Yeah, screw science, I have great faith that the inside of Jupiter is made of candy floss. Insane, no? Faith allows you to maintain delusions and get away with it.
LT, science is not based on faith. Science is based on accepted, researched fact. If it's not fact, then it's just a theory. There is no faith involved in facts, which is what science is based on. Cross checked, tested, rigorously examined facts.
That's the beauty of science. It doesn't shy away from criticizm, it thrives on it. Heavy handed critique improves science. Not destroy it.
Not entirely true Stu as scientific laws and theories continue to be debated and amended all the time. There's definitely an element of faith involved in some areas of Science and it doesn't have many answers to the eternal mystery of our creation and our hearts, minds and souls.
no one said that science is based on faith?
science is not facts. there are very few facts. science is based on what information we have available. Most of our current scientific "facts" may well be deemed untrue in 200 years time. Cross checked, tested, rigorously examined facts as you call them are just based on the information and understanding we have now. tomorrow it could be superseded.
I agree partly with what your getting at. Of course science is an ever improving venture, but that gives us every reason to support it, rather than suspend it in lieu of the delusion enabler known as faith.
Unfortunately, there is virtually no substance behind what your saying. Your just making blank statements that allow you to believe in things like, say, The Bible, despite all scientific, rational evidence against certain aspects of it.
Which bits of science do you think are possibly untrue and could possibly be amended in the future? Is something we have already discovered and accepted as scientific fact going to suddenly turn out to be bollocks and hey presto, science steps in? Your argument is abstract and ambiguous to say the least, which is a common theme in faith. Less so in science.
Science can only improve. Faith will always be faith.
Captain.Remy
22-03-2010, 06:07 PM
just why did France play with Scotland tops on?
It's not Scotland's, it's ours. Scotland's tops are black and blue. :thumbs:
Not entirely true Stu as scientific laws and theories continue to be debated and amended all the time. There's definitely an element of faith involved in some areas of Science and it doesn't have many answers to the eternal mystery of our creation and our hearts, minds and souls.
Obviously. That's just what science is. An ever improving, ever critical venture into trying to understand. Look how much it has advanced in the last one hundred years alone. We are learning more and more about ourselves and the cosmos we inhabit. That is only going to continue. Whereas you can sit cross legged for eternity trying to figure out your 'soul', an indescribable idea based on nothing more than the lovey dovey, admittedly romantic assumption of 'I reckon I have a soul, I do'.
Science is working on our creation right now, and has been for quiet some time. We know quiet a bit about the mind as it is :wink:.
setanta
22-03-2010, 06:18 PM
Obviously. That's just what science is. An ever improving, ever critical venture into trying to understand. Look how much it has advanced in the last one hundred years alone. We are learning more and more about ourselves and the cosmos we inhabit. That is only going to continue. Whereas you can sit cross legged for eternity trying to figure out your 'soul', an indescribable idea based on nothing more than the lovey dovey, admittedly romantic assumption of 'I reckon I have a soul, I do'.
Science is working on our creation right now, and has been for quiet some time. We know quiet a bit about the mind as it is :wink:.
Not really. And science is very rigid when it concerns certain areas of humanity, focusing on the materialistic and physical rather than trying to explore other avenues of thought. Sometimes scientists can be very arrogant about their assumptions - exhibit A, Richard Dawkins.
I'm not disputing the fact that science has had a profound influence on our lives and how we lead them, but it doesn't hold the answers right now to why we are as we are right now or why we abandoned our basic animal needs and became altruistic/compassionate in nature. I find that whole area so fascinating, as well as psychokinesis, near death experiences and how spirituality came into our lives. They can't explain it yet, or at least when they try to it doesn't really do it for me.
Like there is no proof against the notion that there are breadcrumbs and easter eggs orbiting around Betelgeuse?
Daft example, you easily disprove that
We will never know how the world started, or whether God exists or not in this lifetime.
Patrick
22-03-2010, 06:32 PM
tbh I dont think there is a god it all seems too good to be true.
Half the bollocks they say Jesus did in his time such as miricals and stuff, seem like somthing out of A Harry Potter book.
I do know for sure that there is a after life, weither that is Heaven or somthing else altogether, who knows.
My mums friend was up yesterday and gave my mum and aunt a 'Reading' and she spoke to alot of my mums friends that have died.
It is freaky some of the things people know, like it just goes to show how much the people we knew that have died, are watching down on us.
Not really. And science is very rigid when it concerns certain areas of humanity, focusing on the materialistic and physical rather than trying to explore other avenues of thought.
That's because science concerns itself material and physical. Leave the other avenues to the other schools. It's like wondering why Everton don't play cricket.
but it doesn't hold the answers right now to why we are as we are right now or why we abandoned our basic animal needs and became altruistic/compassionate in nature.
That's not entirely true. There is mounting evolutionary evidence which makes perfect sense to me. In our early state we realized that cooperation and compassion would bring much more enhancement and fruits to our community than agression and conflict. However not all of us are up to this evolved benchmark. Need I remind you that quiet a lot of us are still in full on hunter/gatherer mode. For all talk of altruism and compassion we still wage war with one another. Either way, it's an interesting school of thought that, like the rest of science, will only increase in credibility as time goes by.
psychokinesis, near death experiences and how spirituality came into our lives.
It's pretty easy to see, really. Once upon a time, we had no answers. We were living in an unintellectual time period where the sun rising would marvel us, hence why so many cultures saw the sun as being a god. That's only one example. Thousands more exist.
As for all the paranormal, seemingly bizarre experiences our brains can undergo, there is a mountain of neurological evidence to explain these things. We have huge imaginations built up through evolution. Remember, this did take an insanely long amount of time. Look at our ability to dream. Amazing, right? Because when we dream we believe it's real - within the dream itself of course. That's surely as amazing and seemingly mystifying as anything. Yet dreams are perfectly explainable.
Near death experiences could derive from a number of factors, including but not limited to the huge, huge release of adrenaline, dimethyltryptamine and other neurotransmitters which sends the brain into an utter tailspin - compare it to, say, tripping out [dimethyltryptamine is an incredibly potent psychedelic that occurs naturally in the brain and is widely believed to play a role in near death experience].
Your brain is incredibly powerful and is perfectly capable of facilitating, on it's own, these percieved mystical experiences. Just because it has a scientific basis does not make it any less facinating. I hate the assumption that an atheist mind is robbed of all wonder. The brain is still a wonderful thing capable of wonderful states all on it's own, utilizing scientifically grounded chemicals and reactions to produce these states.
Daft example, you easily disprove that
We will never know how the world started, or whether God exists or not in this lifetime.
How so?
Billions of other examples exist. I love how an abstract, ill defined 'God' could sit outside the perimiter of the universe and the theory gains wide respect and acceptance just because 'god' as been a preserved facet of our culture for millions of years yet suggest to someone that a cardboard box could be floating outside it and they scoff. Why? One hypothesis is equally as absurd as the other. What if God is a box? You can't disprove that, just like ... as you said ... you can't disprove God, right?
It reminds me of that Douglas Adams anecdote of a cult of people who believed snots were demonic, and they prayed and prayed for the coming of 'the great sneeze'. Hey, that's the way our culture could have went. We just picked the man in the sky idea instead. Why is one perceived to be more insane than the other? Because we have been conditioned to accept one, and not the other.
How so?
Billions of other examples exist. I love how an abstract, ill defined 'God' could sit outside the perimiter of the universe yet suggest to someone that a cardboard box could be floating outside it and they scoff. Why? One hypothesis is equally as absurd as the other. What if God is a box? You can't disprove that, just like ... as you said ... you can't disprove God, right?
You can look for Betelgeuse and see if easter eggs and bread crumbs are orbiting it or not, just as you could find the cardboard box.
You don't see God until you die (apparently). So whilst the examples you give are verifiable, God isn't.
setanta
22-03-2010, 06:46 PM
Nope, there's a number of scientists who've stepped away from the materialist side of things and conducted research in different areas, much to the bemusement of the dogmatic system of which they are members of. They're sniggered at but still believe that there are huge amounts of human experience that can't be explained away through the internal mechanics of the mind.
Your theory on the mushrooms and brain synapses leaves me somewhat cold and doesn't explain how our ancestors buried their kin with tools and quite often in a fetal position. And I'm talking thousands of years ago here. That would lead me to believe that even in our primative form, we still acknowledged rebirth or a journey when death comes. That's very interesting to me.
And with near death experiences, patients were able to give detailed accounts of what was going on in the operating theatre while they we heavily sedated and close to death. They could see it all occuring. Mental. I believe that there's others forces at work beyond the merely physical and I applaud any scientists who try to study these areas.
You can look for Betelgeuse and see if easter eggs and bread crumbs are orbiting it or not, just as you could find the cardboard box.
You don't see God until you die (apparently). So whilst the examples you give are verifiable, God isn't.
No, you couldn't find the cardboard box. That's why I chose to put it outside the perimeter of the universe in my theory. We have not yet breached the perimeter of the universe, nor have we even come to a conclusion that there is anything outside it. Try again.
You don't, however, see God until you die. How ****ing convinient! Maybe you see the box when you die?
No, because that's silly :rolleyes:.
No, you couldn't find the cardboard box. That's why I chose to put it outside the perimeter of the universe in my theory. We have not yet breached the perimeter of the universe, nor have we even come to a conclusion that there is anything outside it. Try again.
You don't, however, see God until you die. How ****ing convinient! Maybe you see the box when you die?
No, because that's silly :rolleyes:.
The cardboard box is a material object; God isn't. God is a separate entity to the universe. God isn't a giant man with a long beard and a pair of sandals.
Nope, there's a number of scientists who've stepped away from the materialist side of things and conducted research in different areas, much to the bemusement of the dogmatic system of which they are members of. They're sniggered at but still believe that there are huge amounts of human experience that can't be explained away through the internal mechanics of the mind.
Okay? Choice they made I guess. Fair play. It's a pointless thing to argue.
Your theory on the mushrooms and brain synapses leaves me somewhat cold
The Stoned Ape theory? I never once mentioned it. Different thread in a different time. Who knows. Terrance McKenna could be right, he could be wrong.
doesn't explain how our ancestors buried their kin with tools and quite often in a fetal position. And I'm talking thousands of years ago here. That would lead me to believe that even in our primative form, we still acknowledged rebirth or a journey when death comes. That's very interesting to me.
Why does it need explaining? Why is it interesting? We still have certain bizarre customs today, don't we? Customs don't nessacerily need to arise for any particular reason or have any particular logical backing up. They choose to believe in an afterlife and choose to do with the dead what they did. Some people believe David Koresh is the Christ reborn.
And with near death experiences, patients were able to give detailed accounts of what was going on in the operating theatre while they we heavily sedated and close to death. They could see it all occuring. Mental. I believe that there's others forces at work beyond the merely physical and I applaud any scientists who try to study these areas.
This is not an uncommon occurence. I believe unintended intra-operative awareness is what you are reffering to, and it is by no means a prerequisite to the spiritual. It's very interesting [and often terrifying] stuff all the same, if you fancy looking it up.
The cardboard box is a material object; God isn't. God is a separate entity to the universe. God isn't a giant man with a long beard and a pair of sandals.
Says who, says who, and says who? Are you trying to define what God is now? Okay, the mental image most people have of him is man made, but who is to say what he, she or it is? It could well be a box. That's the crux of my argument. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, sure, but it cant disprove the existence of my box God either. It really shows up what a stupid theory it is, and one often put foward by religionists, to say that 'science cannot disprove the existence of God'.
Science cannot disprove the existence of virtually billions of other things we are capable of conjuring up in our imaginations either, yet this ill defined 'God' figure get's special treatment because throughout the course of human history we have been conditioned to accept him. Or her. Or box.
Shasown
22-03-2010, 07:03 PM
Interesting arguments either way.
Obviously science hasnt advanced sufficiently to explain all the mysteries of life, the human mind etc. etc. etc. So maybe the human intelligence we rely on isnt really that reliable. Saying that customs believing in life after death and god etc can be explained because of fear of death and simply not wanting to believe that living life is all there is to it. One life, no afterlife, no second chance at it, well thats kind of hard to cope with aint it?
I suppose in some cases people will either believe one way or the other, thats not to say atheists wont have a mystical experience and start to believe, or believers in any form of deities have a crisis of faith and stop believing.
The only guaranteed way to find out is by undergoing that experience we call death, if there is something the other side, the believers in one or another faith will have been proved to be at least partly correct. If there isnt then all those who didnt believe in god etc were correct unfortunately they wont be able to say I told you so.
Says who, says who, and says who? Are you trying to define what God is now? Okay, the mental image most people have of him is man made, but who is to say what he, she or it is? It could well be a box. That's the crux of my argument. Science cannot disprove the existence of God, sure, but it cant disprove the existence of my box God either. It really shows up what a stupid theory it is, and one often put foward by religionists, to say that 'science cannot disprove the existence of God'.
Science cannot disprove the existence of virtually billions of other things we are capable of conjuring up in our imaginations either, yet this ill defined 'God' figure get's special treatment because throughout the course of human history we have been conditioned to accept him. Or her. Or box.
Who #1- Basic science. Its a fact that a cardboard box is a material object
Who #2/3- The definition of God. God is just 'there' in no physical form
setanta
22-03-2010, 07:06 PM
I'm talking about Neanderthals here who didn't have a culture as such Stu, and had very short, violent lifespans. How can you explain a primative species like that having such customs, when all they'd be really interested in is shagging, eating and staying alive? It's amazing really.
As for near death experiences I remember reading about one particular person who was dead on the operating table - heartbeat, brain functions all gone and still could give a detailed account as to what had taken place after he/she has been resuscitated. There is no scientific theory that can really explain it in full. The majority of science looks to internalize all these occurrences, rather than look for any exterior influences that may have been present. The book I'm reading is great. Haven't finished it yet so to be continued lol.
Who #1- Basic science. Its a fact that a cardboard box is a material object
Who #2/3- The definition of God. God is just 'there' in no physical form
How do you know that God does not take a physical form? Are you just arguing for the sake of it again? I thought you didn't even believe in God?
Your argument rests defiantly on the fact that God is not a material object. Why? How do you know this for a fact? Because to use the threads argument, an argument you started out defending ... science can't prove that God isn't material, right? :wink:
I'm talking about Neanderthals here who didn't have a culture as such Stu, and had very short, violent lifespans. How can you explain a primative species like that having such customs, when all they'd be really interested in is shagging, eating and staying alive? It's amazing really.
As for near death experiences I remember reading about one particular person who was dead on the operating table - heartbeat, brain functions all gone and still could give a detailed account as to what had taken place after he/she has been resuscitated. There is no scientific theory that can really explain it in full. The majority of science looks to internalize all these occurrences, rather than look for any exterior influences that may have been present. The book I'm reading is great. Haven't finished it yet so to be continued lol.
Yet :). Isn't it funny how these weird experiences are always clouded instances that only happen to a very, very, very small percentage of the population?
Who knows what the brain is capable of. It's endlessly amazing and for me, it's not an automatic prerequisite to the spiritual. I can't really argue beyond that really I guess. You have you views and I have mine.
What's the book called?
setanta
22-03-2010, 07:14 PM
Yet :). Isn't it funny how these weird experiences are always clouded instances that only happen to a very, very, very small percentage of the population?
Who knows what the brain is capable of. It's endlessly amazing and for me, it's not an automatic prerequisite to the spiritual. I can't really argue beyond that really I guess. You have you views and I have mine.
What's the book called?
The Spiritual Brain. Very interesting read. And no, I don't believe that you can internalize everything or reduce it down to the purely physical. We shouldn't be that arrogant or presumptuous about everything - we've fu$ked up in the past and right now by living that way.
How do you know that God does not take a physical form? Are you just arguing for the sake of it again? I thought you didn't even believe in God?
Your argument rests defiantly on the fact that God is not a material object. Why? How do you know this for a fact? Because to use the threads argument, an argument you started out defending ... science can't prove that God isn't material, right? :wink:
I don't believe in God but I have more knowledge to back that up instead of "it just doesn't make sense" (done countless essays on it with all different types of evidence for/against and gaining a better understanding of it all). Its very interesting when you look into it a bit more and definitely makes you think.
And science can't prove that God is material, but if we're going to accept the possibility of a God in the first place then we have to accept the definition, and the definition says he's immaterial. Otherwise if you're going to try and prove he is material then you're not searching for the 'right' God.
Btw you'll know if I'm arguing for the sake of it or not, my points actually have substance other than the other day which was just all tongue in cheek :joker:
The Spiritual Brain. Very interesting read. And no, I don't believe that you can internalize everything or reduce it down to the purely physical. We shouldn't be that arrogant or presumptuous about everything - we've fu$ked up in the past and right now by living that way.
What about the **** ups past, present and no doubt future as a result of belief in the unproveable? It's a see saw argument that's going to go bad for the both of us I reckon. Is it arrogant to deny that a box cou - alright. I think I have made my box point enough :hugesmile:.
I'll definately check out the book though. I'm reading a lot of atheist based stuff right now and I always like to have a balance.
I don't believe in God but I have more knowledge to back that up instead of "it just doesn't make sense" (done countless essays on it with all different types of evidence for/against and gaining a better understanding of it all). Its very interesting when you look into it a bit more and definitely makes you think.
And science can't prove that God is material, but if we're going to accept the possibility of a God in the first place then we have to accept the definition, and the definition says he's immaterial. Otherwise if you're going to try and prove he is material then you're not searching for the 'right' God.
Btw you'll know if I'm arguing for the sake of it or not, my points actually have substance other than the other day which was just all tongue in cheek :joker:
See this just goes around in circles as ultimately your a slave to the theory :laugh2:.
So this time my question is : Which definition says God is immaterial? I wasn't aware the big fella had a definition. You simply can't prove he is not material. Your right though, you can't prove he is material either.
The topic titles argument is becoming more and more banal as we go along.
See this just goes around in circles as ultimately your a slave to the theory :laugh2:.
So this time my question is : Which definition says God is immaterial? I wasn't aware the big fella had a definition. You simply can't prove he is not material. Your right though, you can't prove he is material either.
The topic titles argument is becoming more and more banal as we go along.
Definitions that I've worked from in the past generally point in the same direction. Some theodicies etc.
I think to properly look at the two, you need to isolate them both because they just end up falling back on one another and you get nowhere. Reminds me of when you're a kid and you call someone something, only for them to reply "I know you are so what am I?" Religion essentially opens up a whole minefield for philosophy so its hard to argue when religion is involved, and the dreaded "God works in mysterious ways".
To sum up a Facebook group, Christianity: One womans lie about having an affair that got out of hand.
Definitions that I've worked from in the past generally point in the same direction. Some theodicies etc.
I think to properly look at the two, you need to isolate them both because they just end up falling back on one another and you get nowhere. Reminds me of when you're a kid and you call someone something, only for them to reply "I know you are so what am I?" Religion essentially opens up a whole minefield for philosophy so its hard to argue when religion is involved, and the dreaded "God works in mysterious ways".
To sum up a Facebook group, Christianity: One womans lie about having an affair that got out of hand.
No definition or proof for what god is exists. I think I will rest on that comftorably.
That Facebook group is bang on the money, I reckon :blush:.
setanta
22-03-2010, 07:36 PM
What about the **** ups past, present and no doubt future as a result of belief in the unproveable? It's a see saw argument that's going to go bad for the both of us I reckon. Is it arrogant to deny that a box cou - alright. I think I have made my box point enough :hugesmile:.
I'll definately check out the book though. I'm reading a lot of atheist based stuff right now and I always like to have a balance.
.
That's what I mean : it's all about striking a balance and not discounting any theory or train of thought, which most scientists sometimes do. They're very rigid in their ways of thinking, you know? That's why I like to read spiritual stuff too because I believe that there's things out there that we're unaware of and it would be silly to place all your bets on one particular way of thinking, which includes dogmatic science or organized religion lol. They all f£ck up.
I'll sum my thoughts up by talking about my rabbit. Is he inferior in mentality to me? Yes.. well maybe. Is he capable of logical or rational thought? No. Is his main priority just to survive? Yes. When he comes jumping beside me looking for hugs and cuddles do I believe that there's more to it than just a need for warmth and that he loves me? Yes, I do. And how do I know this.... I don't, I just feel it, and it's the same with life and spirituality. Some things can't be explained or internalized. Call it intuition, call it stupidity, but it's how I feel, and until it's completely disproven I will continue to do so. I doubt that made any fecking sense lol.
Shasown
22-03-2010, 07:39 PM
Just throw this thought in:
If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical. Whatever it was started everything in motion technically is god.
setanta
22-03-2010, 07:40 PM
Just throw this thought in:
If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical. Whatever it was started everything in motion technically is god.
I've always thought that. Physical can't explain everything baby.
Shasown
22-03-2010, 07:51 PM
I've always thought that. Physical can't explain everything baby.
Yep and going by the science's own laws, back to an singularity of infinite density before what we consider as time existed, something kick started it.
Just throw this thought in:
If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical. Whatever it was started everything in motion technically is god.
Thats only assuming the universe actually had a beginning to start with. Our minds can't comprehend that the universe might have always just been here.
Shasown
22-03-2010, 08:01 PM
Thats only assuming the universe actually had a beginning to start with. Our minds can't comprehend that the universe might have always just been here.
No I have no problem understanding that concept, it was always there as one small infinitismal point of pure condensed energy, that was always there as a single point of pure condensed energy and it would have always been a single point of pure condenced energy unless something created a change in its state and the big bang started. Some external force, catalyst call it what you want, umm I know lets call it God, for want of a better word, God doesnt have to be an omnipowerful all knowing all loving being does he?
You see if it was an infinite singularity containing all energy/matter then something other than energy/matter would have had to create the effect, if it wasnt an infinite singularity of energy/matter then it had a beginning and if it had a beginning it had a creating force or creator - God.
God doesnt have to be as is defined in any of the religions in existance, having been in existance or even that will come into existance.
Thats only assuming the universe actually had a beginning to start with. Our minds can't comprehend that the universe might have always just been here.
True. Or the multiverse theory could apply.
Either way, if some intelligence exists, I believe it to be an unconcious one. I'm not sure. You talk about your rabbit Setanta [you should be a veggie after saying something like that, surely?], but how do you explain this? :
I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.
David Attenborough.
Your standpoint is admirable, really, but most of these 'feelings' you experience are the result of neurological firings made possible through millions of years of evolution. We didn't need nor do we need a God to breath love into is. We created it all on our own. We give meaning to our instinctual tendancies because we are emotional creatures.
And if your not going to place your bet on just science, place it on the box god, because hey - the universe could be a practice in absurdity.
[Note to self : Stop reading Robert Rankin].
No I have no problem understanding that concept, it was always there as one small infinitismal point of pure condensed energy, that was always there as a single point of pure condensed energy and it would have always been a single point of pure condenced energy unless something created a change in its state and the big bang started. Some external force, catalyst call it what you want, umm I know lets call it God, for want of a better word, God doesnt have to be an omnipowerful all knowing all loving being does he?
You see if it was an infinite singularity containing all energy/matter then something other than energy/matter would have had to create the effect, if it wasnt an infinite singularity of energy/matter then it had a beginning and if it had a beginning it had a creating force or creator - God.
God doesnt have to be as is defined in any of the religions in existance, having been in existance or even that will come into existance.
Some theories state it has always simply been in its current state and there was no start of the universe. Makes sense if you accept time is man made.
Shasown
22-03-2010, 08:21 PM
Some theories state it has always simply been in its current state and there was no start of the universe. Makes sense if you accept time is man made.
The concept we understand or call time is man made, it is simply a way to place ourselves relatively to each other and everything around us.
Mind you so is the concept we call God.
setanta
22-03-2010, 08:40 PM
True. Or the multiverse theory could apply.
Either way, if some intelligence exists, I believe it to be an unconcious one. I'm not sure. You talk about your rabbit Setanta [you should be a veggie after saying something like that, surely?], but how do you explain this? :
].
But that's the whole thing: I can't rationalize it. It was just a silly example in my own life to show that there's something connecting us all beyond the physical. That's what I think anyway.
setanta
22-03-2010, 08:41 PM
The concept we understand or call time is man made, it is simply a way to place ourselves relatively to each other and everything around us.
Mind you so is the concept we call God.
Very well put. It also shackles us in a way.
It's dizzying, really. I think part of the problem is I want a definate belief system so I can stop all this stuff as a hobby and get onto other things, but the more your read the more there is to read.
I was almost trapped into virtually each one of the major world religions at least once over the past few years, simply because I wanted a stable base.
They are all bullshit of course. It's not that easy.
Shasown
23-03-2010, 12:37 AM
But that's the whole thing: I can't rationalize it. It was just a silly example in my own life to show that there's something connecting us all beyond the physical. That's what I think anyway.
At the moment you dont have to either rationalise it, or conceptionalise it, look up genetic memory, then collective/universal consciousness. We are all connected just depends which idea is more digestable/agreeable.
It's dizzying, really. I think part of the problem is I want a definate belief system so I can stop all this stuff as a hobby and get onto other things, but the more your read the more there is to read.
I was almost trapped into virtually each one of the major world religions at least once over the past few years, simply because I wanted a stable base.
They are all bullshit of course. It's not that easy.
Thats easy decide what you like, what sits with you, and discard everything else, you will find some christian, some islamic and some buddhist tenets sort of all slip together, as to the end result, well you as an individual live in your own reality, so the meaning of life will be as individual to you as your reality, in my eyes I dont think people should say he/she is a ... (insert an organised religion) unless of course as an example: he is a free thinking ... muslim, catholic etc
No one has ever met a Catholic who totally follows the dictates of the church throughout their life. I have a lot more experience than a lot of people in that aspect and I know it just doesnt happen. Even his Most Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI supported a regime that to some would be abhorrent, he was a member of hitler jugend - hitler youth, does that make him any less correct in his views now?
Just as the various branches of any religion take what they want and emphasise what they feel they need to, so do individuals, you can shop for a ready made solution, doesnt really matter what you follow so long as there is some agreement between the person and the religion, otherwise it can become intolerable to fight against your own conscience, principles and beliefs.
Or you can become more eclectic and in a way design your own religion/beliefs, just be yourself, you will always be guided to knowledge, if that is what you seek, or a decent pub, if thats what you seek, such is life.
I hope that makes sense, if it doesnt dont worry, I was guided to my local tonight, and the guinness was well good.
No definition or proof for what god is exists. I think I will rest on that comftorably.
That Facebook group is bang on the money, I reckon :blush:.
A few Bible quotes describing God
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god.htm
Crimson Dynamo
23-03-2010, 10:52 AM
It's dizzying, really. I think part of the problem is I want a definate belief system so I can stop all this stuff as a hobby and get onto other things, but the more your read the more there is to read.
I was almost trapped into virtually each one of the major world religions at least once over the past few years, simply because I wanted a stable base.
They are all bullshit of course. It's not that easy.
if you have not already I think you would genuinely love The Brothers Karamazov
by Dostoyevsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov
A few Bible quotes describing God
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-definition-god.htm
Does everyone believe in The Bible? No. Come on man, you can't use The Bible of all books to try and define what god is. Fookin hell. There is no universally accepted definition of god. He wouldn't be much of a mystery, otherwise.
if you have not already I think you would genuinely love The Brothers Karamazov
by Dostoyevsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov
Aye it's great :blush:.
Crimson Dynamo
23-03-2010, 11:35 AM
You cant not believe in the Bible as it is there in front of you. The Bible is 66 books, found in most good bookstores. In terms of historical manuscripts it is pretty much the best, by miles, we have.
Does everyone believe in The Bible? No. Come on man, you can't use The Bible of all books to try and define what god is. Fookin hell. There is no universally accepted definition of god. He wouldn't be much of a mystery, otherwise.
Aye it's great :blush:.
Most of what we know about religion comes from the bible. If you're going to reject one bit, you have to reject the lot. You can't just pick and choose which bits are relevant and which bits aren't just to suit your own argument.
Most of what we know about religion comes from the bible. If you're going to reject one bit, you have to reject the lot. You can't just pick and choose which bits are relevant and which bits aren't just to suit your own argument.
Who said I was talking about picking and choosing bits from The Bible?
All I am saying is there is no definition for God. There's just not. It's a pointless argument. It's something the world will never know nor never agree on. God could be anything or anyone. It's pointless trying to define it.
Who said I was talking about picking and choosing bits from The Bible?
All I am saying is there is no definition for God. There's just not. It's a pointless argument. It's something the world will never know nor never agree on. God could be anything or anyone. It's pointless trying to define it.
The Bible does give definitions of God, its just that they're varying and open to massive fundamental flaws, thats what all of the confusion is over, not the definitions themselves.
Shasown
23-03-2010, 05:03 PM
Most of what we know about religion comes from the bible. If you're going to reject one bit, you have to reject the lot. You can't just pick and choose which bits are relevant and which bits aren't just to suit your own argument.
No thats just not true, most of what you know about the Christian religion you have gleamed from the bible, unfortunately the Christian bible bears little knowledge of other religions, and would simply be used as a doorstep by some other religions.
I take it you have not even heard of the Tripitaka( tipitaka in parli) or the Sutras(Buddhism) The Tanach/Tanech (Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim) of the Jews. The Suhuf Ibrahim, the Qu'ran, Injil Zabur and Tawrat of Islam. The Vedas, Upanishads, Manusmriti, Srimad Bhagvatam, Bhagwad Geeta (Hindu). The Guru Granth Sahib of the Seikhs. Some great reads there, lots of wisdom, i can recommend them.
As for picking and choosing which bits of the bible are relevant, isnt that why the Proddy one has 66 books and the papist one has 72 books. Eastern Greek Orthodox Bibles have even more.
.
No thats just not true, most of what you know about the Christian religion you have gleamed from the bible, unfortunately the Christian bible bears little knowledge of other religions, and would simply be used as a doorstep by some other religions.
I take it you have not even heard of the Tripitaka( tipitaka in parli) or the Sutras(Buddhism) The Tanach/Tanech (Torah, the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim) of the Jews. The Suhuf Ibrahim, the Qu'ran, Injil Zabur and Tawrat of Islam. The Vedas, Upanishads, Manusmriti, Srimad Bhagvatam, Bhagwad Geeta (Hindu). The Guru Granth Sahib of the Seikhs. Some great reads there, lots of wisdom, i can recommend them.
As for picking and choosing which bits of the bible are relevant, isnt that why the Proddy one has 66 books and the papist one has 72 books. Eastern Greek Orthodox Bibles have even more.
My understanding of this thread is that of the Christian God, so other religions are irrelevant. Of course the Christian Bible isn't going to reference other religions! Its also a well known fact that Protestantism is selective Catholicism dating back to Henry VIII, thats why there are differences in the two books. Christianity derives from the Bible, without it Christianity probably wouldn't exist. Of course there are things to do with the religion outside of that, but the vast majority is in the Bible, or a lot of things which is used as 'evidence' is somehow tied in with the Bible. Its completely silly to dismiss it.
FYI, yes I have heard of the other scriptures you have mentioned.
Shasown
23-03-2010, 05:42 PM
My understanding of this thread is that of the Christian God, so other religions are irrelevant. Of course the Christian Bible isn't going to reference other religions! Its also a well known fact that Protestantism is selective Catholicism dating back to Henry VIII, thats why there are differences in the two books. Christianity derives from the Bible, without it Christianity probably wouldn't exist. Of course there are things to do with the religion outside of that, but the vast majority is in the Bible, or a lot of things which is used as 'evidence' is somehow tied in with the Bible. Its completely silly to dismiss it.
FYI, yes I have heard of the other scriptures you have mentioned.
The title of the thread and the discussion contained therein actually do not in any way limit it only to the Christian view of God. Unless of course you are actually reading a different thread than the rest of us.
It may be well known but that doesnt make it true, thats Anglicanism, the protestant Reformation was started in Europe by Martin Luther, in 1517, 12 years before Henry's split with Rome
If you want to call the bible evidence as to the proof of the existance of God, on you go but I do pity any defendant on trial when you are a jury member.
Incidentally scrolling back through the thread it was actually you who brought up the Bible itself and started to limit the discussion to the Christian view of God in post #57
The title of the thread and the discussion contained therein actually do not in any way limit it only to the Christian view of God. Unless of course you are actually reading a different thread than the rest of us.
If you want to call the bible evidence as to the proof of the existance of God, on you go but I do pity any defendant on trial when you are a jury member.
Incidentally scrolling back through the thread it was actually you who brought up the Bible itself and started to limit the discussion to the Christian view of God in post #57
On a British forum, I think its fair to assume we're on about the Christian God. The bible definition is the closest we get to defining God, you can't disprove something you don't know the definition of, hence I brought the Bible into it.
I'm not using the Bible as proof for the existence of God, merely a description. I also don't believe in God so its kind of hard to argue against your own beliefs, but its always good for people to see the opposing arguments.
Shasown
23-03-2010, 05:59 PM
On a British forum, I think its fair to assume we're on about the Christian God. The bible definition is the closest we get to defining God, you can't disprove something you don't know the definition of, hence I brought the Bible into it.
I'm not using the Bible as proof for the existence of God, merely a description. I also don't believe in God so its kind of hard to argue against your own beliefs, but its always good for people to see the opposing arguments.
I would have thought reading the actual thread would have removed the need to make assumptions like that.
Theres an old saying may help you in life: Assumption is the mother of all **** ups
I would have thought reading the actual thread would have removed the need to make assumptions like that.
Theres an old saying may help you in life: Assumption is the mother of all **** ups
Nowhere in the thread does it say the thread is about all religion and all gods. Looks like you're just making assumptions too ;)
Shasown
23-03-2010, 06:06 PM
Read through the thread and explain where the thread is limited to the Christian view of God, in fact if you do read through it you will find the views are definately not of the christian view of god, simply the existance, proven or disproven though science.
I didn't say it was limited, that was my own interpretation of it and thats the point I was putting across. The other posts are very general, not including any other religions which doesn't make it ridiculous just to stick to the Christian view of God.
... and people call me picky in arguments.
Shasown
23-03-2010, 06:31 PM
Could I refer you to post #59, then your response in #61 Judas asked if everyone believed in the bible, your response was
Most of what we know about religion comes from the bible. If you're going to reject one bit, you have to reject the lot. You can't just pick and choose which bits are relevant and which bits aren't just to suit your own argument
Total pap there are many forms of religion and each have their own definations of God, you however decide to limit the definations of God to what you are familiar with and assume everyone has the same restricted knowledge.
Hence the correction I introduced.
Could I refer you to post #59, then your response in #61 Judas asked if everyone believed in the bible, your response was
Total pap there are many forms of religion and each have their own definations of God, you however decide to limit the definations of God to what you are familiar with and assume everyone has the same restricted knowledge.
Hence the correction I introduced.
oh god, so now you're trawling back through the thread and picking up on everything to try and attempt to prove me wrong on a pure pedantic level. In the context its quite clear I meant about Christianity, not religion as a whole. Thats 2 completely different kettle of fish. But 2 religions can't co-exist if one is right and they're all separate. So you have to isolate each one anyway.
Please enlighten me, what knowledge of Christianity do we have that doesn't in some way tie into the Bible?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.