Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

I am sick and tired of listening to all of the crap I read on here between "Blind Faith" Christians and "Blind Excuse" Atheists. I think it's about time that we discuss the most common misconceptions about religion from a scientific point of view.

 

I think the best place to start is God. Is it proven that a supreme being exists? Yes. Here's the scientific explanation:

 

In any scientific experiment, you have independent and dependent variables. The independent variable must always be controlled. Why? Because in nature, there are no measurable independent variables. Everything that occurs is dependent upon something else. But the scientific method teaches us that there must be an independent variable from which dependent variables rely on. If science is in fact valid, there must be a single independent variable in nature on which every other variable relies. Furthermore, this independent variable cannot simply be spontaneous, it must be controlled (consciously). This single independent variable on which all other dependent variables rely is in fact the supreme being; whether you call him God, Allah, Iova, etc.

 

In a nutshell, if all physical laws are dependent upon other laws, then there must be a conscious being who enforces these laws. To dispute this is to dispute the science itself.

Edited by Versa-Tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are going, except that there are such things as "Universal Constants". While not "variable" they are independent.

 

Avagadro's number (6.023e23) would be the first one to mind.

 

However, I would think in a purely physical world (ie no God), everything would have to be measurable and quantifiable.

 

Another universal constant, pi, is measurable, but not quantifiable (no last digit in the decimal).

 

I'll do some more thinking and get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can you prove it?

 

If you're going to ask a question, it's helpful to know who you're asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not nearly so mathematically inclined as some here but I do know from some things that I've seen and read that we now know the possibility that the evolution could give rise to an organism so complex as a human being is something like 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillon. That's a lot of zero's. Now I am by no means dismissing evolution and I think it is theory that explains a lot of how our world came to be. But it's also a theory with a great many holes and if we really followed it to the letter the theory would dictate that life would denegrate to lesser and lesser degrees of sophistication in accordance with the theory. But it doesn't, instead life has flourished. I know that when pinned down and point blank asked about how life started leading evolutionarly biologist Richard Dawkins said that "aliens did it." I think some of us have probably seen that interview in "Expelled" with Ben Stein. Yes aliens came here and started life on this planet and of course those aliens had to come about and get super advanced by some process of evolution. I remember as I watched that Ben Stein asked him (Dawkins) what he would say if he died and God came to him saying "What have you been doing? Why have you denied me?" and Dawkins responded by saying he would ask God why he went through such great lengths to conceal himself. I couldn't help but wonder if he would ask the aliens the same thing.

Edited by BlackHorse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'm not nearly so mathematically inclined as some here but I do know from some things that I've seen and read that we now know the possibility that the evolution could give rise to an organism so complex as a human being is something like 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillon. That's a lot of zero's. Now I am by no means dismissing evolution and I think it is theory that explains a lot of how our world came to be. But it's also a theory with a great many holes and if we really followed it to the letter the theory would dictate that life would denegrate to lesser and lesser degrees of sophistication in accordance with the theory. But it doesn't, instead life has flourished. I know that when pinned down and point blank asked about how life started leading evolutionarly biologist Richard Dawkins said that "aliens did it." I think some of us have probably seen that interview in "Expelled" with Ben Stein. Yes aliens came here and started life on this planet and of course those aliens had to come about and get super advanced by some process of evolution. I remember as I watched that Ben Stein asked him (Dawkins) what he would say if he died and God came to him saying "What have you been doing? Why have you denied me?" and Dawkins responded by saying he would ask God why he went through such great lengths to conceal himself. I couldn't help but wonder if he would ask the aliens the same thing.
I believe that evolution is a valid scientific belief that has more than scientific evidence behind it. That said, I've never believed that a belief in God and belief in science were mutually exclusive. Darwin may have had his doubts about God's existence, but Einstein had a belief in God. Einstein's view of God may not have been like mine or yours are today, but he didn't act like God didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand where you are going, except that there are such things as "Universal Constants". While not "variable" they are independent.

 

Avagadro's number (6.023e23) would be the first one to mind.

 

However, I would think in a purely physical world (ie no God), everything would have to be measurable and quantifiable.

 

Another universal constant, pi, is measurable, but not quantifiable (no last digit in the decimal).

 

I'll do some more thinking and get back.

Yes, this is true. Mole and Pi are constant. But numbers are entirely virtual. I'm talking about physical variables here. Edited by Versa-Tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that evolution is a valid scientific belief that has more than scientific evidence behind it. That said, I've never believed that a belief in God and belief in science were mutually exclusive. Darwin may have had his doubts about God's existence, but Einstein had a belief in God. Einstein's view of God may not have been like mine or yours are today, but he didn't act like God didn't exist.
Darwin's theories presented more questions than answers. Darwin also had no concept of what a cell really was. That said, science proves the existence of a supreme being. Edited by Versa-Tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intriguing topic. :)

 

I like many of your answers above, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

 

It's funny how many often try to fall back on science to disprove the existence of God even though, through your fabulous statements above, science keeps pointing that way. I don't understand why more people don't believe that the two can (and do) coexist.

 

But as far as empirical evidence, I believe it's scientifically irresponsible to say that one can prove God's existence that way because, by nature alone, God would be above our sciences. However, I read somewhere that it's more correct to say that it's impossible to disprove God's existence by science for the same reasons. Beyond that, we have to go to personal evidence...

 

... and in deference to the OP, I'll pause there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, this is true. Mole and Pi are constant. But numbers are entirely virtual. I'm talking about physical variables here.

 

Well it's been pretty well established by the scientific community (including Einstein) that the universe had a definitive beginning.

 

While this does not conclusively prove the existence of God, it DOES prove that something came before science. Einstein referred to it as "the presence of a superior reasoning power."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the topic from a purely philosophical point of view you begin to understand how arrogant the athiest point of view can be. It's like saying "I don't believe in God becuase he will not submit himself to my scientific observation for study, . . . . which I wouldn't know about, understand or have without Him."

Edited by BlackHorse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it's been pretty well established by the scientific community (including Einstein) that the universe had a definitive beginning.

 

While this does not conclusively prove the existence of God, it DOES prove that something came before science. Einstein referred to it as "the presence of a superior reasoning power."

Indeed. Einstein understood that while science can explain universal phenomena, the universe is still far more advanced than our scientific understanding of it. To try and believe that our existence came to be by completely unconscious means, when it has taken us thousands of years as conscious beings to begin to understand the true nature of such, is practically an infinitely improbable conclusion.

 

If you were to randomly find a machine hundreds of years ahead of our technological abilities lying in the middle of the desert, would you be able to conclude that the machine just randomly assembled itself from the elements?

 

But as far as empirical evidence, I believe it's scientifically irresponsible to say that one can prove God's existence that way because, by nature alone, God would be above our sciences. However, I read somewhere that it's more correct to say that it's impossible to disprove God's existence by science for the same reasons. Beyond that, we have to go to personal evidence...

 

... and in deference to the OP, I'll pause there. :)

This is a common misconception. God is a greek word. It is actually an incorrect title (slang if you would) that only came into use [as a monotheistic title] in the roman era. The original translation of god is actually "am", as in "I am existence itself, universally". If god is existence entirely, to deny god is to deny the universe. It is only by flawed human nature that we try to imagine god as a greater version of ourselves. If one is to open his mind to the possibility that god is an entirely different type of entity, it all makes a lot more sense. In essence, if god does exist, nature is god. Edited by Versa-Tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a common misconception. God is a greek word. It is actually an incorrect title (slang if you would) that only came into use [as a monotheistic title] in the roman era. The original translation of god is actually "am", as in "I am existence itself, universally".

 

We can use "YHVH Elohim" if you wish. :)

 

If god is existence entirely, to deny god is to deny the universe. It is only by flawed human nature that we try to imagine god as a greater version of ourselves. If one is to open his mind to the possibility that god is an entirely different type of entity, it all makes a lot more sense. In essence, if god does exist, nature is god.

 

This is where I subscribe. To try to humanize Him who created all things would be insulting to Him and self-aggrandizing to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I subscribe. To try to humanize Him who created all things would be insulting to Him and self-aggrandizing to us.

 

Yeah, you don't want to insult nature after all. It'll wipe you out with a tsunami or hurricane as revenge. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you don't want to insult nature after all. It'll wipe you out with a tsunami or hurricane as revenge. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, I'll insult nature, especially the bird who craps on my freshly washed car. Just not the One who created it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite on this one, lolol.

 

I think that God is not subjective. Where the atheists get ya everytime is by picking a religion; any religion, then picking it apart. You see, religions are created by man, and by what they think. Mans views always end up being flawed as science progresses. The atheists point at the descrepencys and conclude that since there are obvious flaws, therefore the whole premise is faulty. What then ends up happening is ---------->the other person debates the issue from soley their religious factional position, which is absolutely a losing proposition.

 

The point is this----------->atheists open the debate by stating there is no God, and insist we prove it. That gives them 50% of probabilty that they are correct. If we responded that there is a God, put in the science that is offered here, we would then get 50% of what was left, and put them on the defensive, cause actually we probably got 55% to their 45%. But we don't do that!!!!!!!! We consistently debate from our own religious beliefs, which are created by men/women. By taking what we know as they are our own beliefs, we concede much more than we gain.

 

Remember, you need not debate the merits of Catholicism, or the Koran, you need only to debate the existance of a Supreme Being, and what His/Her name is ends up being a mute point!!!

 

Understand that countless wars have been fought in one religious entitys name or the other. In fact, we are in engaged in one now. I don't think that any Supreme Being had that in mind, do you? That should tell all of us that debating from our personal religious perspective is a losing proposition. Rather, we should debate from the existance of one, and not which sect He/She belongs to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is this----------->atheists open the debate by stating there is no God, and insist we prove it. That gives them 50% of probabilty that they are correct. If we responded that there is a God, put in the science that is offered here, we would then get 50% of what was left, and put them on the defensive, cause actually we probably got 55% to their 45%.
I agree with this mostly. However I think the balance of proof is closer to 95/5 in favor of the existence of a supreme being.

 

I have personally seen the incorruptable (sp?) bodies inside the Vatican. In case you are not familiar with these, I'll explain. There are dozens of bodies lying in plain sight (many others below in the catacombs) that haven't changed composition at all since their deaths. Some are hundreds of years old, others thousands. They appear to be asleep. Some even have perspiration on the skin which fails to evaporate. They're not just in the vatican either (sorry catholics), many others with the same phenomena are spread across the world at various centers of religious worship. What do these bodies have in common? They were all once people that devoted their lives to a supreme being. Most of them performed miracles in the name of a supreme being during their lives. All of them are reported to have performed miracles after natural death and before they were dug up and discovered to be incorruptable. The craziest part of this is that these people weren't simply laid to rest for public viewing (as they are today) when they died. They were buried for decades (some for centuries) before they were dug up and discovered to be this way. This rules out any possibility of human interference.

 

There are no other cases in which any material on this planet has been found to defy oxidation, let alone an organic compound that defies all forms of physical decomposition. I truthfully didn't believe it until I saw it myself.

Edited by Versa-Tech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in: Quantum Physics.

 

Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.

The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.

The movement of these particles is inherently random.

It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other is.

The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.

Edited by mettech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not there are higher species is not relevent to a discussion of religion. Religion uses the unknown for their own selfish purposes. Every religion is riddled with lies. A religion sets out a list of "truths", many based on moral axioms. Once they get you to believe that they are honest, they veer off to the supernatural. They make up fantastic stories. Science is not like that. In science, things are disproven and discarded. In religion, you either believe or you do not. It is all or nothing. You are discouraged from participating in discussions like this one. Jehova's Witnesses are told to shun anyone who has left the faith. That is because they are afraid that they will convince others. Science is looking for the god particle. It does not demand that you have faith and believe everything that they say. Science is honest. Religion is dis-honest and cunning.

 

Nobody knows what is out there. Maybe some day we will. Religions claim that they do know. If God wanted us to understand what he is, he would show himself. If he exists, obviously, he wants to remain anonimous. Maybe he planted all of these foolish religions so that science would stop seeking the truth. When you are accustomed to being the king of the hill, it would be a great shock to discover another species which is to you as you are to a cockroach. Maybe that is what is going on. There are an infinite number of possible scenarios. Religions are just guessing. Athiests are just as stupid. Athiesm is just another religion. An athiest "believes" that there is no god. I don't believe anything. Belief is religion. To believe means that no proof will cause you to change your mind. If your mind does change, then you did not really believe.

Edited by Trimdingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I'll bite on this one, lolol.

 

I think that God is not subjective. Where the atheists get ya everytime is by picking a religion; any religion, then picking it apart. You see, religions are created by man, and by what they think. Mans views always end up being flawed as science progresses. The atheists point at the descrepencys and conclude that since there are obvious flaws, therefore the whole premise is faulty. What then ends up happening is ---------->the other person debates the issue from soley their religious factional position, which is absolutely a losing proposition.

 

The point is this----------->atheists open the debate by stating there is no God, and insist we prove it. That gives them 50% of probabilty that they are correct. If we responded that there is a God, put in the science that is offered here, we would then get 50% of what was left, and put them on the defensive, cause actually we probably got 55% to their 45%. But we don't do that!!!!!!!! We consistently debate from our own religious beliefs, which are created by men/women. By taking what we know as they are our own beliefs, we concede much more than we gain.

 

Remember, you need not debate the merits of Catholicism, or the Koran, you need only to debate the existance of a Supreme Being, and what His/Her name is ends up being a mute point!!!

 

Understand that countless wars have been fought in one religious entitys name or the other. In fact, we are in engaged in one now. I don't think that any Supreme Being had that in mind, do you? That should tell all of us that debating from our personal religious perspective is a losing proposition. Rather, we should debate from the existance of one, and not which sect He/She belongs to.

I have a question. Why is it that the majority of people say we are fighting a religious war? IMHO, just because we were attacked by religious fanatics doesn't mean we are in a religious war. The idiots attacked us here because of THEIR religious belief that we are infidels. We retaliated to protect our country and to defend the ones who were killed by the idiots.

 

Yes I am a Christian and No I do not agree with the muslim belief system. But I would not condone this country for attacking another country because of religious beliefs.

 

Furthermore, I will not debate the existence of a "Supreme Being". I will debate the existence of the "Lord" that is mentioned in the date of the signing of the Constitution and the "God" or "God Almighty" that is mentioned in the preambles of all 50 States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question. Why is it that the majority of people say we are fighting a religious war? IMHO, just because we were attacked by religious fanatics doesn't mean we are in a religious war. The idiots attacked us here because of THEIR religious belief that we are infidels. We retaliated to protect our country and to defend the ones who were killed by the idiots.

 

Yes I am a Christian and No I do not agree with the muslim belief system. But I would not condone this country for attacking another country because of religious beliefs.

 

Furthermore, I will not debate the existence of a "Supreme Being". I will debate the existence of the "Lord" that is mentioned in the date of the signing of the Constitution and the "God" or "God Almighty" that is mentioned in the preambles of all 50 States.

 

I don't think that the war is religious. Many tools are used to fight a war. One is propaganda. The people we are fighting were living under dictators. Over half of them were not happy with their situation. Therefore, instead of just wiping out everybody, we offer to free them. We get them to fight on our side. A good defense against this tactic is for the enemy to use religion. Make the people believe that we are evil and must be destroyed, and that Allah commands it.

 

People over here are also being controlled by religion. Back in the latter days of the Roman Empire, it was allowed to prevent civil war and rebellion. To-day, it is obsolete.

Edited by Trimdingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be⋅lief

   /bɪˈlif/

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

fact

   /fækt/

–noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

—Idioms

6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.

7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.

8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

 

 

two definitions from dictionary.com just thought some might read it and get it, but i suspect not.

fact:

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

belief

a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

maybe by separating these two it will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One fact is mostly true:

 

Most people "know" that their God is better than their neighbors god. Just ask them

 

Even if they both believe in the same God :hysterical: .

 

 

George Carlin

Edited by mettech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, I will not debate the existence of a "Supreme Being". I will debate the existence of the "Lord" that is mentioned in the date of the signing of the Constitution and the "God" or "God Almighty" that is mentioned in the preambles of all 50 States.
I don't care what you call him, but if it involves ancient history lessons, save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that the religious just got a dose of reality. They are probably holed up somewhere praying it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×