Higher Intelligence? Maybe. God? No.

They do but it would be deceptive to think that they do so because of their scientific thinking. Indeed, great scientists are substantially more likely to be atheists than most other segments of the population. About 90% percent are.

You have a very distorted notion of how science works. Science is not merely facts but developing structures into which facts are integrated. These structures are theories. No fact is held in isolation without a theoretical background.

It is a duty to laboriously track down every single claim made by every single human being, television commercial and tabloid? Not only this but we have to seriously study them as though they were scientific theories which produce testable predictions? You can’t be serious. Finding every crack pot theory alone would take up your lifetime.

Furthermore, how can a study be justified when there is no indication that a justifiable amount information will be uncovered through a theory. (Hence the absence of research grants for searches for atlantis or the easter bunny.) Most grandiose theories have gaping explanatory shortcomings.

Faith is clearly not evidence of the extentional object of that faith. When a person expresses conviction that Santa Clause brings him presents, we don't infer that Santa exists.

I agree, however, that faith may sometimes be the substance of things hoped for. A freezing child has faith that she will be rescued. Her faith that she will soon be warm is a perception in her brain. She is warm as hypothermia sets in, and that too is only another product of her own mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Originally posted by Xelios
No, it's not. What you are suggesting would be the same as convicting someone of murder simply because one was commited.*

OTOH, what you are suggesting is that while there is a nudger, that nudger is not God.
You're overlooking the fact that until there is a universe there can be nothing in it, therefore whoever started the universe must have existed outside and before the universe.

*The fact that the universe is here does not prove God exists, in fact it does nothing of the sort.*

Well, it proves that something had to have existed.
Your argument appears to be that whatever it was, it isn't God, i.e. it may have looked like God and acted like God, but it wasn't God.

*There could be many reasons why the universe came into being, just as there could be many suspects in a murder case. *

Your analogy doesn't hold water simply because the murder and the murder suspects are on the same existential level.
The universe isn't on the same existential level as anyone in it or anyone outside of it.

*Originally posted by synaesthesia
Biological evolution is a blind, algorithmic process. Why do you think it requires an external agency? *

Biological evolution doesn't even exist except in fantasy.
That is why it would require an external agency.

*Originally posted by Xelios
I am simply stating that it is possible to understand how the universe was created, and it is possible to duplicate this. *

And where exactly would you duplicate this?
Somewhere in the universe?

*Originally posted by esp
If God is the ultimate creator, then he must have created energy.
But the majority of this worlds technology is built on the principal that

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. *

That is a false premise.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
That espesially includes the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is’ where God communicates personally to the human race, if you truly want to come to an honest decision.*

Since there is more than one god, it might be worth spending some time to determine which god wrote that book.

Particularly since the god that wrote that book brags who he is.

---The Supreme Lord said: I am death,... ---
(BG 11.32)

The Bible also says who wrote it.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
(John 11:25, KJV).

Two opposites.

*Originally posted by esp
But logical proof is denied by faith.*

No it isn't.
And God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic, particularly the kind of logic which is based on false premises.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Have you really tried to understand the position of there not being a God?*

People who are successful at understanding the position of there not being a God, are usually considered insane.
Before that, they are considered confused.

*Originally posted by esp
Once your faith is proved, your lottery card is not valid.*

That pretty much proves my point about confusion.
If you had the winning lottery card which you believed was the winning card, would give it to me, instead of throwing it out?
Please?

*Originally posted by synaesthesia
Science is not merely facts but developing structures into which facts are integrated. These structures are theories.*

We understand that.

---theory \The"o*ry\, n.; pl. Theories. [F. th['e]orie, L. theoria, Gr. ? a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See Theater.]
1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates inspeculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation.---

We know that scientists speculate.

*we don't infer that Santa exists.*

Of course, he does.
You can see Santas on every street corner around Christmas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, here goes...

No, what I am suggesting is there may have been something to nudge the universe into existance, but that something does not wait to judge us when we die. In this way, your God differs from the idea of a being with godlike powers.

The attempt to find out what existed before the universe is mute, as there was nothing before it. Time did not exist before the universe began, so it is irrelevant to be wondering what existed before it, as there was no before.

Why not? Is there really anything to suggest our universe is nothing but a bubble inside another?

... and people who are successful at understanding the position of there being a God are considered dillusional.

I'm waiting for the day when you will bring forth some relavent or prooving information rather than just come back with insults and self-ritious statements.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Ok, here goes...

*Originally posted by Xelios
No, what I am suggesting is there may have been something to nudge the universe into existance, but that something does not wait to judge us when we die. In this way, your God differs from the idea of a being with godlike powers.*

If you really believed what you wrote then the term "godlike powers" would mean absolutely nothing to you.

*The attempt to find out what existed before the universe is mute, as there was nothing before it. Time did not exist before the universe began, so it is irrelevant to be wondering what existed before it, as there was no before.*

That's easy to say but is it true?
It is trivially easy to say "five minutes before the universe began."
What is there about the universe that precludes time from preceding it?

*Why not? Is there really anything to suggest our universe is nothing but a bubble inside another?*

Only the meaning of the term "universe."
I assume from your question that when you speak of creating universes, you really mean creating another one, and a small one at that.

*... and people who are successful at understanding the position of there being a God are considered dillusional.*

While that has all the appearance of a snappy comeback, I end up in the position of being considered delusional by someone who is delusional.
That is very scary.

*I'm waiting for the day when you will bring forth some relavent or prooving information rather than just come back with insults and self-ritious statements. *

That's just it.
I haven't been insulting you.
I've been attempting to peel back the layers of science-fiction covering your mind.

 

So is being considered insane by a delusional person such as yourself.

Not correct, but to save another arguement I'll simply change my original statement to this:

No, what I am suggesting is there may have been something to nudge the universe into existance, but that something does not wait to judge us when we die. In this way, your God differs from the idea of a being with much more advanced technology.

Simple, the universe is time, just as it is the three other spacial dimensions. If you believe time existed before the universe then other things could also have, such as matter, which leads into a theory like the one I proposed earlier about a "bubble" universe being created in another.

The term "small" has no bearing at all in this point. If someone (or something) advanced enough did create our universe as a bubble inside theirs they could pick and choose characteristics of the new universe to whatever they liked. Nothing would have to be the same in their universe as in ours. Therefor, in their universe an electron may look as big as our planet to us, but to them it's really the "right" size (extremely small).

And I suppose you think God is not science fiction right? To me he is. Just as my position seems rediculous to you. Some day you have to learn not everyone thinks as you do.

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
So is being considered insane by a delusional person such as yourself.*

Did I ever say that I would consider you insane?

*...much more advanced technology.*

So, this being who nudges the universe into existence has more advanced tednology?
Who would that be?
And what would be the nature of the more advanced technology?

*If you believe time existed before the universe then other things could also have, such as matter, which leads into a theory like the one I proposed earlier about a "bubble" universe being created in another. *

But what if I believe that time could have existed before the universe, but not matter?
What theory would that lead to?

*The term "small" has no bearing at all in this point. If someone (or something) advanced enough did create our universe as a bubble inside theirs they could pick and choose characteristics of the new universe to whatever they liked.*

I'm sure they could.
I'm also sure you won't be one of the beings doing that.

*Nothing would have to be the same in their universe as in ours. Therefor, in their universe an electron may look as big as our planet to us, but to them it's really the "right" size (extremely small).*

Apparently, reality wouldn't have to be the same, either.

*And I suppose you think God is not science fiction right?*

This doesn't prove anything, but I've never seen a Bible for sale in the sci-fi section of a bookstore.

*Just as my position seems rediculous to you.*

It actually doesn't seem ridiculous at all.
Just sad.

*Some day you have to learn not everyone thinks as you do. *

I've known that for years.
Some day you will learn that millions think just like you, thinking "new" thoughts, shattering the barriers between reality and thought.

 

Did I ever say that I would consider you insane?

Let me guess, you're going to tell me I don't understand it? Let me ask you now and save myself a post later, what do I have to do to understand it enough to satisfy you?

Who knows? The more advanced technology would obviously have to be something that can not only influence space itself, but time as well. I won't go into the details of it because I'm sure I'd lose you, but sufficing to say with enough research and study nothing is impossible, not even "nudging" a new universe into existance.

Which ever one you want.

Wow, thank you for the blindingly obvious insight. To reach a technological stage that advanced will take us centuries, if not millenia more of research, but we will get there.

What's sad is that you've been so brainwashed by who knows what to believe in God that you won't even consider anything else.

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
"Did I ever say that I would consider you insane?"*

Thanks for reposting my statement.
No doubt you noticed that I said nothing about me considering you insane.

*Let me guess, you're going to tell me I don't understand it? Let me ask you now and save myself a post later, what do I have to do to understand it enough to satisfy you?*

Nothing.
You'll know you've understood the concept correctly when others consider you insane.

*I won't go into the details of it because I'm sure I'd lose you, but sufficing to say with enough research and study nothing is impossible, not even "nudging" a new universe into existance.*

I'm sure you would lose me, along with your mind.
Science fiction is very appealing, but have you ever noticed that it is fiction?

*Which ever one you want.*

Is that your criterion for choosing your beliefs?

*Wow, thank you for the blindingly obvious insight.*

I'm afraid it isn't quite obvious enough for you.
Allow me to reiterate, you won't be changing the speed of light.

*To reach a technological stage that advanced will take us centuries, if not millenia more of research, but we will get there.*

No one descended from you will be changing the speed of light, either.

*What's sad is that you've been so brainwashed by who knows what to believe in God that you won't even consider anything else. *

I've considered all of it.
I was taught evolution.
I've read more science fiction that you will even be able to.
It just isn't true.
It is fiction, like Star Wars, or Star Trek.

 

I'm not even going to try in this thread anymore. You make absolutly no sense. You think you're way is right, even if you have absolutly nothing supporting it.

You constantly pick apart small trivialities in statements so you can avoid the entire thing. I'm still not sure how you think, but it seems as though you see you have no evidence at all backup up what you believe, so you just say you're right because it's right.

I've tried to keep an open mind, but you obviously have no room left inside your head to fit any other ideas about religion than what you have come up with.

Most of all, you continously take statements (such as the whole changing light thing) and simply saying "No." without anything at all to back it up. Basically, you are all talk. All you seem to do is blow out hot air, which is why I won't bother trying to debate this with you any more because you obviously don't know how to debate.

 

Thank God for minds eh!!!

Love


Jan Ardena.

 

Science and religion are not compatible. Simple as that. Science demands facts and evidence, religion demands faith and trust. They are two completely opposite entities. Thus, one side's arguement will look like nonsense to the other, and vice versa.

I doubt the contrast between the two will ever be solved, unless it is either proven (without a doubt) that God does not exist, or until God decides to drop in again. Either way, we could be waiting a very long time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
Most of all, you continously take statements (such as the whole changing light thing) and simply saying "No." without anything at all to back it up. Basically, you are all talk.*

You claim to be able to change the speed of light, create planets, even universes.
You think that isn't hot air?

 

Once again, I did not claim I could do any of those things.

 

Actually, you're right.

You said the entire human race would be advancing technologically, etc, while I was eating my eggs.
Well, I ate my eggs.
Where are the tremendous advances?

 

And again you are posting more of your nonsense. I'll not dignify that with an answer, because I'm pretty sure if you thought about it hard enough you would realize that my original statement was not meant to be taken completely literally.

 

I draw your attention to my first signature quote

Science and religion are not compatible. Simple as that. Science demands facts and evidence, religion demands faith and trust. They are two completely opposite entities. Thus, one side's arguement will look like nonsense to the other, and vice versa.
(Xelios)

This inferrs the existance of God.
But logical proof is denied by faith.
The two are mutually exclusive, by definition.
We have logical proof and so there can be no faith.


Xelios;

My point exactly.
I just don't seem to be able to get anyone to agree with it in this thread.


Tony1; BTW, Energey can be neither created nor destroyed.

How on earth can you say that this is a false premise? It's the first LAW of thermodynamics (that's scientist speak).

 

Re: I draw your attention to my first signature quote

 

dulce et decorum est

Jan Ardena

 

*Originally posted by Xelios
...you would realize that my original statement was not meant to be taken completely literally. *

Can you let us in one the secret of how they are to be taken then?

You say you can change the characteristics of the universe, the speed of light, etc, and something about me eating my eggs.

The eating eggs part is what? figurative? so is the changing the characteristics of the universe also to be taken figuratively?

*Originally posted by esp
Science demands facts and evidence, religion demands faith and trust. They are two completely opposite entities. Thus, one side's arguement will look like nonsense to the other, and vice versa. *

Science may demand facts and evidence, but rarely gets that.
Similarly, religion may demand faith and trust, but rarely gets that, too.

That's why we have the theory of evolution, i.e. science gone wrong, and why we have something like Catholicism, Islam and others, which is religion gone wrong.

*This inferrs the existance of God.
But logical proof is denied by faith.
The two are mutually exclusive, by definition.
We have logical proof and so there can be no faith. *

Sounds cute but your premise of mutual exclusivity is false.

*Tony1; BTW, Energey can be neither created nor destroyed.

How on earth can you say that this is a false premise? It's the first LAW of thermodynamics (that's scientist speak).*

Actually, it is idiot speak.

The false premise comment was directed to FA_Q2 who said, "Nothing can be created or destroyed."

Your statement isn't much better, though, since you have apparently not heard of E=mc^2.
Apparently, you think the damage caused by nuclear bombs is due to shrapnel.

*The many subjects which I have studied successfully, and include 'A' grades in Historical, Religious ans Scientific areas may not have correctly informed me of the meanings of the words Religion and Science.
I may have forgotten them since the age of fourteen at which point I discovered logical self determination and left my post as a holder of the medal of St. Stephen, or since I last attended work in my role as an electronic and mechatronic engineer with News Corporation; *

Oh oh, you should have paid more attention while you were doing all that.
May I direct you to a guy named Albert Einstein who was doing his thing in the early 20th century.

 

What does this have to do with anything? Energy is not created in a nuclear blast, merely altered. I'm not sure what your implying here... maybe you could clarify a little.

Well... almost true. Virtual particles appear out of nowhere all the time. Space at a ultra-microscopic level are teaming with them. They appear in pairs, one normal matter particle and one antimatter particle. However, they are so short lived (because they annihalate eachother almost instantly) that they can appear from nothing. But, this is a triviality, it really doesn't have anything to do with the general purpose of your arguement. Just thought I'd throw it in though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure. The things I mentioned were meant to be taken as examples. They may or may not happen. My underlying point is that nothing is beyond the scope of science, given enough time.