Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by hansda, Mar 14, 2012.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The EM field exerts its potential everywhere.
Science covers all science.
Curiosity is omnipresent in science.
I went looking for the roots of this notion of God, thinking maybe it was Augustine or Aquinas who first started waxing categorically on what it might mean to be Supreme Commander of the Universe. I came across this list from St John of Damascus, which trumps yours to smithereens:
Betcha can't say that with your mouth full.
Yes it does, I called Gravity God, and then explained how Gravity became God in science. Totally relevant, and on topic, and also covered your post.
The axiom of choice.
All information is encoded in the expansion of any random real.
Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc. Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time. This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’ God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless. An example of our restricted insight, for me, was demonstrated by Professor Stephen Hawking in his latest publication, one of the greatest thinkers of our time appears to be incapable of envisaging a dimension which exists ‘independently’ of space-time. You cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.
I can.. very easily. I can see all particles from the first to the last, and time, and space, and the Universe, and the Muti-verse. I can even see nothing. I can see the electrons, the photons, the photon holes, colour, reflection, refraction, Gravity, Magnetism. The only things I cannot see are DNA reconstruction, and how the periodic table works. But I can write a computer program for the periodic table. And I have some idea how DNA uses pressure to create shapes. Oh yeah, and I can see Dark Matter as well. I can see quantum experiments as well, like the two slit experiment, and action at a distance.
F = m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub] g† / 4πr² = ( m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub] / 4r² ) × ( g / π )
g ≡ God, per Pincho
π ≡ God, per ughaibu
F[sub]God[/sub] = ( m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub] / 4r² ) × ( God / God )
And they just SAY you can't write an equation for God.
† g is normalized here for omnipotence per post #23
‡ a curious sense of omnipotence may arise by placing God in subscript.
£ Qabalists, Deists, Unitarians, etc., may interpret God's relation to Unity.
‼ Atheists observe that God cancels.
Aqueous, that is awesome. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well the point is that God is imaginary, and Gravity formula is imaginary. This is the real Gravity formula...
F=G -M1 -M2 /(r^2)
This is energy...
E = -mc2
And these are mistakes because Newton used the word Attraction which looks like this...
Attraction = -A
F=G -AM1 -AM2 /(r^2)
So whenever a scientist creates his formula, he is thinking attraction, but not putting it in the formula, which completely gets rid of the Big Bang, and replaces it with infinite space time.
Omnipotent means , which has maximum(unlimited or infinite) potent and which can not be changed by other forces or energies .
But there is observer in Physics/Science .
That means particle photon is everywhere .
So, should we consider that ; " particle photon is omnipresent "?
If there can be some-potent , some-scient , some-presence ; then why there can not be omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent .
"Has science killed God or has it just revealed that He wasnt there to being with?"
- Contact [movie 1997]
There can, but no indications suggesting that this is the case have survived the rational scepticism of freethought - hence the ommision of such a thing from our ontologies.
Discoveries of Science are still happenning . There can not be put any limit to the Discovery of Science .
Do you mean to say , we should personify the Universe ?
If we consider only our Universe is existing , then :
omnipresence is that presence , which is existing throughout the universe .
omnipotence is that potent , which has maximum potential in the universe .
omniscient is that science , which has knowledge of everything in the universe .
How long Science should remain silent to examine the omni aspect of existence ?
These are 'Questions of Science' , to know the omni aspect of Existence .
GOD is the name given to the reality of 'omnipotent , omniscient and omnipresent' . What is this reality ?
Are you just defining the word 'God' that way for the sake of discussion? Or are you claiming to actually know that God is those things? If the latter, how is it that you know it?
How is science relevant to questions about God?
Whatever corresponds to our concept of God if we've defined the word 'God' to mean those things.
Probably nothing in actual reality.
This isn't a god thread, we have hundreds of those.
Science seems to largely be a matter of observing things in detail, classifying them in various ways, reducing systems to component parts, and then elucidating causal interactions in terms of inductively derived causal regularities.
I'm not sure how science could apply to a hypothetical being that doesn't behave in accordance with causal regularities, that supposedly isn't present in our space-time universe at all, and hence isn't observable by any extensions of our human senses.
Separate names with a comma.