God is not with us.

[countrybumpkin]

And yes TAWS , you are indeed right on that . It will go on till the end of time and we'll never know for sure. In my opinion organized religion is just something to give hope to the hopeless , community to the lost and a guide in how we should try and get along in the world. I hold more belief in the purely spiritual side of it all than the rest of it , but I also think that we are on our own down here and no one ' has a plan for our lives' . Sometimes life is rough , but there is always beauty and greatness in the world , it's up to us to be able to see ' the forest for the trees'.

 

[lawyerguy]

Country bumpkin,

You have very interesting thoughts. And it is true. You can call the robber's bluff. So you do have a third option with the robber. But I think that only further proves my point. You have more options with the robber than you do with God. You cannot call God's "bluff" so to speak. That is God does not "bluff" according to most religions. If God says he will condemn you to damnation, then that is what he will do. So you have MORE free will with the robber than with God. Thank you for pointing that out.

Like most people I do not think it is possible to definitvely proove that God exists or doesn't exist.

However, one can show that certain versions of God, (Ie the God of Christianity, Islam. judaism) are logically inconsistent. When one is asserting any claim, philosophical, scientiffic, or theological, internal consistency is one of the first things you check for to determine the validity of the claim. If a theory or claim is not even internally consistent with its own premises, then the overal validity of the theory/claim is cast in doubt.

For example, most mainstream religions claim that God is both All knowing, and grants us free will. I take these claims at face value. They have not shown any evidence of these claims but, for arguments sake, I take these claims as granted. From my earlier example I show that it is internally inconsistent for God be all knowing AND for human beings to have free will.

The debate between atheists and theists will go on and on with no resolution. The problem is that atheists do not accept faith as a valid means to knowledge while many thesists argue that logic is insufficient to explain everything. So you have a stand off.

However, when theists try to argue God's existence through Logic, one can engage in some meaningful discussion on the subject because at that point, both parties will have agreed that logic can serve the purpose of proving, or disproving God's existence. And it is at that level that we can have a discourse on the subject.

You are right that science has not explained everything. However, as J pointed out, just because science hasn't explained everything it does not follow that God is the explanation for everything science has yet to explain. It simply means more work is needed. Science is not a set of any particular theories. Science is a process. It is a method of discerning truth from untruth.

It is true that science is sometimes in error. However to cast any scientific theory as "wrong" is not to understand science.
Imagine a scientist looking at an object at 2x resolution. The scientist is only able to make out the vaguest outlines of the object and pencils in this description into his journal. Later, a second scientist comes alongs with 4x resolution and has the capability to present a clearer picture of the object. The first scientist wasn't "wrong" in any real sense of the word. He was actually correct, given the level of technology he had to deal with. The second scientist merely improved upon the work of the first scientist. That's how science works. Theories are built upon other theories so that mankind can have a greater view of the truth.


Another thing to note is that scientific theories have only been corrected by other scientiffic theories. Never has religious theory ever been proven to trump scientiffic theory. From the germ theory of disease, to the sun centered theory of the solar system, it has always been science that has proven religious theory to be wrong. Not the other way around.

Here is a good illustration of the difference between the scientiffic vantage point and the supernatural vantage point.

500 years a go a scientist and a priest go to see a patient. The patient is rambling strange words and talking to himself. The priest says "do you see that? We've never seen anything like that before in this community. It is totally unexplained. It must be the work of the devil"...the scientists says "I grant you, that we have yet to have the ability to explain it. But give me some time, and I will provide you will a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena that doesn't involve God or the devil.

500 years later we now know that mental illness is not caused by "Demons" or Satan.

The point is that there has always been and there will always will be phenomena for which we have no present explantion. However history tells us time and time again, that the causes of these unexplained phenomena have always invariably have had naturalistic causes..

Sorry for the long post..

 

[MaGuS]

First off, I respect everyones opinion on this forum.

My opinion is that science is a highly limited field in which it is only capable of proving things which are measurable and in the physical world using physical concepts. Thus, science has an arduous time trying to understand spiritual ramifications and because the spiritual goes beyond the physical, science can not measure it and begins to disqualify it.

It's all IMHO.

 

[lawyerguy]

Hi Mcgus,

I agree with your statement. Science does deal with the physical world. But there are two statements that must be made on that point

1) Religionists have yet to prove that there is anything beyond the physical world. So if Science deals with the physical world and religionists have not proven that there is anything beyond the physical world, then, for all practical purposes, science does cover all existence.

2) Religion doesn't just limit itself to the "spiritual world". Religion makes a lot of claims that affect the physical world. Christians claim that the red sea parted. THey claimed jesus walked on water. These are empirical claims. The laws of physics dictate that these things are impossible.

It is true that science says nothing about whether or not murder is right or wrong.

Science DOES have something to say, however, about Jesus walking on water to the extent that such an event would break all known laws of physics.

 

[racheH]

i would like some evidence that god exists?? there is scientific proof that the universe was created by the big bang, and Humanity was created in a small pool of ooze..

I'm afraid there isn't. There is evidence that makes the theory valid, but not proof of it. According to Bexi's link, scientists are agreed that 'beyond reasonable doubt', the Universe did not always exist. However, theists and atheists tend to agree on that anyway. Personally, I don’t think the Big Bang theory or evolution contradicts religion. Only organised religion.

Like jesuschristschild, one of the reasons I’m a theist is that I’ve had certain experiences which were not things that could have been my imagination, because I wasn’t the only one to witness the affects - just the only one to have expected and so understand them… but anyone can say that. I happened to first try Christianity because of other people’s stories, but not everyone will see that sort of thing as evidence, so as you specifically expressed a wish for evidence (so no one can accuse me of preaching any more than they could Bexi for her ‘big bang’ link :wink , I’ll tell you where to start. Google the words ‘prophetic accuracy’. Many results will show you sites from Evangelical fundamentalists, but don’t let that put you off. Many sceptics, including top mathematicians, have set out with the intention of proving the prophecies of the Torah inaccurate, EDIT: or coincidental END EDIT, and it’s these people’s testimony that is most… interesting.

I like countrybumpkin's point that most people don't really understand the theories they believe in. I'm guilty of it myself. :? I don't really understand why some scientists are convinced of the physical impossiblilty that our perceived three dimensions are all there are, but because I saw it on TV I can only assume that they've got it right. This reminded me of when I and others have confidently stated that there is no evidence for God, when we hadn't actually checked up on this for ourselves. It's much easier to believe what you're told, but personal research is a real eye-opener. We assume that if there were evidence for supernatural things, we would have been informed of it at some point in our lives. But why would we be? We (might) only live once, so I don't think we can afford to assume things like that.

 

[MaGuS]

Personally, I believe that if you became as enlightened as Jesus, you literally would walk on water.

 

[lawyerguy]

My sister has a PHd in astrophysics/astronomy and she teaches physics in college so she explains to me a lot of the theories. She deals with a lot of issues that deal with the origins of the universe. That's possibly why I am interested in these issues.

I do agree with Rachel in her request that everyone should research these issues for themselves. One should not simply take claims at face value. Scientists do not even take claims of other scientists at face value. Before any theory or claim becomes accepted within the scientiffic community, the theory or claim is subject to strict scrutiny by other scientists, all around the world. The scientist proposing the theory must show strong empirical or experimental evidence of his theory. And other scientists must be able to replicate that experiment or verify his evidence. Further, if ANY scientist, anywhere in the world, is able to come up with a single experiment or empirical discovery that contradicts the proposed theory, then the theory falls.

For example, if any geologist were to find the remains of a human being anywhere in the world that can be dated to the time of the dinosaurs, that discovery would invalidate the theory of evolution by itself. It is a testament to the theory of evolution that, in all of the 120 years since it was developed by Darwin, every empirical discovery and every biological experiment that have been conducted since that time has confirmed his theory.

If you wish to learn more about scientiffic theories and the evidence upon which they are based all you have to do is to speak with a any scientist. they'll be happy to explain the theories to you and provide you with the evidence.

 

[MaGuS]

In conjunction to what was stated above... let us not forget that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

[countrybumpkin]

As far as " The Big Bang " theory goes , has anyone ever considered the possibility that were a 'supreme being' to exert his/her inconceivable will in an effort at creating a universe , it might occur in'a big bang'? Just a thought.....

 

[lawyerguy]

Country bumpkin,

I had a long, well thought out response to your statement about the supreme being causing the big bang but my computer froze on me before I could press submit.

the short response to your suggestion is that the main tenet of science is that natural phenomena have natural causes (ie not supernatural ones). This postulate is supported by the concept of Occam's Razor. (the simplest explanation is the explanation most likely to be true). So scientists would probably consider the possibility of there being a supreme cause to the big bang, but since it involves a multitude of unproven assumptions, other theories involving mathematical probabilities are more likely.


Taws.

Recent scientiffic advancements have discovered the following.

As we discovered in the 20th century, the Universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have; however, Newtonian physics does not control the Universe; quantum mechanics does. We now know that the Universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process.


The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the theory that the Universe itself may be just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of nothing, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our Universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our Universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy. And, there is excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support this.

- lifted the preceding from a science magazine.

In response to your why questions...I will quote the famous beer commercial. why ask why?

Sometimes things just are. We have a hard time accepting the possibility that things have no reason. But there really is no logical reason why things have to have an "ultimate" reason. We all wish there was an ultimate reason. But wishing does not make things so.

 

[SPECTACULAR]

Wow, you've been talking pretty much while i was reading that site.
Well, actually i kept reading and reading but there's lots of:

So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is

"We don't know" answer comes every time a critical question is asked. that made me wondering why do you believe in this? and what makes it special or reasonable than the existance of God?
anyway, let's say that you believe it and believe in it. and let's accept that there was a big explosion that made the universe (I still can't get it though, what kind of explosion that makes trees and seas :?: ), and let's say there is a black hole which started the hole universe. After all of that, that big explosion must be started by someone. Someone did explode it. because it would be so unreasonable if you tell me that the world trade centers have exploded and fallen all by themselves. Osama Bin laden did that job for them. So, that explosion was started by someone, who is that? You still think god isn't up there working?

Now, I want to know who gave people the idea that god loves everyone and he's everyone's saviour? God actually is everyone's saviour, unless mistakes are being made by that person and he/she doesn't apologise to god because he did broke the rule and made the misatke. Parents and grandparents are partly responsible for the misery that their sons and daughter have. The story of father Adam and Mother Eve is the biggest proof. the human kind was living in Eden and their father was told not to eat from a special tree for some reason or another. He broke the rule and ate the apple and made god angry. see, god loved the human kind. but all other generations got affected by their father's mistake. Do you know what Eden is? we were kicked out of the PERFECT place out there because we ate an apple when we aren't supposed to.

All i'm saying is god isn't everybody saviour. and he told us that many times. DO NOT COMMIT SINS. and if you do, you're on your own. Now, how's that fair while everybody makes mistakes all the time? God gave everybody the chance to apologise to him and to everybody relevant. for example, we didn't say that god failed to protect HITLER when he died. maybe he asked god to live for more days because he didn't complete what he wanted. why didn't anyone cry over him? Because we all know that he is an evil person who diserves death and god shouldn't save him. (If you think Hitler was a good guy, just imagine someone evil and accept my apology :lol: ). Now, i'm not saying everybody who asked god for help and didn't get response that he is a bad man/woman who disereves death. No. I'm just saying that sins separate people from god. One can't keep doing wrong things and then ask god to help him/her when he/she has a problem. you forgot god yesterday, he'll forget you tomorrow. All these things has been said by god and people have signed a contract on that either they want or don't.

I'll be back. I gotta get ready for a job interview. Wish me luck regardless of what i believe in!
btw lawyerguy, you are dangerous. 8)

 

[Bexi]

Good Luck Spectacular xxx Hope ur God is with you

 

[MarCPatt]

Let me tell you about myself first and foremost. I went to a private school for the first 12 years of my life. I went from preschool through 6th grade.

I used to be the kid who tried to do everything right and live by the word of god. I never cussed, i listened to country music for god sake. I had goals I had motivation. I was going to go somewhere, I was going to be something.

Now, here I am going into 12th grade. I have no motivation I've seen all my friends fall into drug use and I followed them for many months. Marijuana was the drug of choice. I quit, they still do it to this day.

I listen to metal/black metal right now. I don't care about ANYBODY but me, my friends and my family. Thats it. In these last 5 to 6 years in my life I have fallen from grace if you will. I have found that there is no god. Judging by the shithole we call earth, if there is a god it would be Satan. Thousands of people die every day and for what? nothing. Thousands of starving african children die every day. The entire country is infested with aids and other diseases.

How can you still say god exists and loves you. It's obviously not true. The middle east is for the most part a war zone where many have died for lost causes. There will not be peace in any of our life times. Peace in the middle east is a lost cause.

For the religious types that life there lives and base their morals on a false leap of faith. Don't worry about hell for you may very well be in hell and simply not realize it.

I used to see the world the same way you do, and at times I still fall into that pattern of thinking. Believe me, I had a bad life. I had a taste of what is like to have a foot in the grave, what is like to have no hope for a better tomorrow. But with time, and thanks a lot to my husband, I began to see beyond what is in front of me, what I see in T.V., beyond the pain that other humans cause me, and realized that there is a God. This life is not paradize, as you mentioned. It is not ment to be a paradize. I kind of see life like a test, a test to help us choose which path to take; God or noGod. God does not want us to be forced to be with him, to love him, to be kind, etc. But by not choosing God, you choose the opposite of what he stands for. A lot of the problems that we see in the world, are actually men made. Yes, it is true that nature causes problems, too, but do you think people do not have anything to do with the problems caused by nature? Or maybe just God getting too upset because he sees that too many have chosen to forever be away from him?

Well, I can go on and on and in circles talking about this topic, and you will still never believe. The bible does say to not put your trust in men, put it in God only. Your salvation is in your own hands, not mine, not those of thers. You need to find out for yourself what is it that you need to do to find what you are missing.

Just remember, that just because you fell from grace, messed up, it doesnt mean that you will not be forgiven.

 

[ColdFury]

if the big bang theory happened, how did the first piece of matter come into being..correct me if im wrong, but isnt one of the laws of the universe that matter cannot be created nor detroyed. where did the first molecule come from?

Vacuum fluctations. Conservation of matter and energy only apply on long enough time-scales.