Does God exist?

[C1ay]

If we assume...

 

Why assume anything? Isn't "we don't know" a good enough answer when we don't know the answer about something? Why make up an answer? Science is about knowledge and no knowledge is acquired by simply making up an answer.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

If we assume...

 

We make an *** out of you and me. "***/u/me" Never assume anything, especially if it's important. :shrug:

[Overdog]

...We do not fully comprehend the universe, and yet we don't argue that it doesn't exist. If we assume God is the stuff of the universe and the forces that organize it, we are studying God when we study the universe. What is the difference?

 

The difference is that you are making a claim about the universe, with no evidence to support it. It's not "us" arguing that God doesn't exist, it is you arguing that God does exist, and that you have some special knowledge about god's nature, ie; that god IS nature.

[Pyrotex]

did you or did you not hear about it yes or no!?

...personally i don't think it's possible to calculate and like modest said if you asked nasa they would just lie.

I'm NASA -- in the sense that I have worked here at the Johnson Space Center for space-related projects for 30 years. I did a LOT of computer simulation during those years.

 

Yes, I have heard of that urban legend.

 

Yes, it IS possible to simulate the movement of the planets backwards in time. It's been done.

 

No, it is NOT possible to "detect" a "missing period of time" from such a simulation. Anybody with any training in computer programming would see immediately that that is silly.

 

The NASA organization does not respond to such questions as it would be a waste of their time. As a matter of policy, the NASA organization only responds to questions concerning their policies, their projects and their scientific findings.

[Pyrotex]

...However, I think saying God is the stuff of the universe and the organizing force of it, and scientifically studying that, will lead to a better understanding of reality. ....

I got it that YOU believe that.

 

Many others over the last two centuries have had similar opinions. Countless amateur and professional scientists have attempted to better understand reality by studying God as the "stuff" of the universe. And vice versa. They have attempted to better understand God by studying the universe -- and have attempted to better understand the universe (reality) by studying God.

 

So far, nobody has learned anything about either God or the universe with this approach. Look at the enormous body of knowledge and technology that we have discovered by assuming that Evolution was the organizing force behind the animals and plants around us. Phenomenal!

 

But, try to name even ONE demonstratable fact about God that we have learned from studying the universe.

 

Or, try to name even ONE demonstratable fact about the universe that we have learned from studying God.

 

It's been done, Nutronjon. It's been done and it hasn't worked at all.

[Boerseun]

Nutronjon, if you propose God to be the "organizing force behind the universe", then you've got a God of very limited powers, not the amazing uber-God proposed by the Bible/Torah/Quran.

 

This God you propose, is set in his ways. An apple always falls downwards. A planet revolves around its axis according to certain rules and laws. That planet orbits its star according to certain rules and laws. Chemical reactions happen in laboratories on that planet in 100% predictable ways. If you throw oxygen and hydrogen together (a small selection of the "stuff of the universe") and light a match, you get water. Every time. Oxygen and hydrogen binds according to set laws and principles, each and every time, in the same ratio, the same way, the universe over. Those laws, rules and principles that I'm alluding to, is the "Organizing Force Behind the Universe". And they don't change. They don't decide one day to change so that the Red Sea can split apart for a bunch of Jews to mosey on through.

 

If God is indeed the "Organizing Force Behind the Universe", then he's no god at all - he holds no surprise as a sentient being - all his actions are fully predictable. What kind of a God is that?

 

I suspect you didn't quite think through the ramifications of assigning God to be nothing more than Laws of Nature.

[nutronjon]

I got it that YOU believe that.

 

Many others over the last two centuries have had similar opinions. Countless amateur and professional scientists have attempted to better understand reality by studying God as the "stuff" of the universe. And vice versa. They have attempted to better understand God by studying the universe -- and have attempted to better understand the universe (reality) by studying God.

 

So far, nobody has learned anything about either God or the universe with this approach. Look at the enormous body of knowledge and technology that we have discovered by assuming that Evolution was the organizing force behind the animals and plants around us. Phenomenal!

 

But, try to name even ONE demonstratable fact about God that we have learned from studying the universe.

 

Or, try to name even ONE demonstratable fact about the universe that we have learned from studying God.

 

It's been done, Nutronjon. It's been done and it hasn't worked at all.

 

 

Huh? Are you suggesting understanding evolution is not part of understanding God? Are you saying understanding atom particles is not learning of God? How can that be when they are both the same thing?

[nutronjon]

Boerseun,

Hot damn, you finally got what I am saying. It is amazing I had to say the same things so many times, before it was understood. God, does not do things on a whim, everything happens for a reason. Burning candles, saying prayers, making donations to the church, etc. will not change the the cosequences of what we do. Morality is based on cause and effect, and as Cicero said, what happens is the result of what we do, and there is nothing that can change that.

[C1ay]

God, does not do things on a whim, everything happens for a reason.

 

What part of proving claims around here do you not understand. There is zero evidence that any god exists and zero evidence for any driving force. If you're going to make such claims you need to support them according to the rules of the forum.

[Pyrotex]

Huh? Are you suggesting understanding evolution is not part of understanding God? Are you saying understanding atom particles is not learning of God? How can that be when they are both the same thing?

Huh? It's just a word game to you? Are you saying understanding atomic particles is not learning of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How can you speak such sacrilege and heresy, when they are both the same thing?

 

Touche.

 

Get real, Nutron. Understanding atomic particles never taught anyone anything about the properties of any deity. If you think so, then name it. Go for it. The ball is in your court. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Specifically--exactly--WHAT does that tell us about the property of any deity you choose to name?

 

Don't say another word until you answer that question.

[nutronjon]

Huh? It's just a word game to you? Are you saying understanding atomic particles is not learning of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? How can you speak such sacrilege and heresy, when they are both the same thing?

 

Touche.

 

Get real, Nutron. Understanding atomic particles never taught anyone anything about the properties of any deity. If you think so, then name it. Go for it. The ball is in your court. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Specifically--exactly--WHAT does that tell us about the property of any deity you choose to name?

 

Don't say another word until you answer that question.

 

Yes, I guess it is a word game for me, and a very important one. God and time are both abstracts, not concrete realities. Well, in the sense that we can consider God is, the stuff of the universe and the organizing forces, this makes God concrete and something we can study with science. However, what the objection to God seems to be, is it leaves room for all the abstracts, those things that can only be inferred and not proven beyond a doubt. I asked what is the difference between being materialistic and insisting there is no God, and being spiritualistic assuming there is a God. Then while walking, I realized the difference is, when we speak of God, we inject ourselves into an understanding of God. We do not inject ourselves into an understanding of science. Myself, and others, are concerned that science without God leads to what happened in Germany during the second world war, and the US, given its forcus on military conquest and condoning the most inhumane treatment of humanes in favor of its military goals. I will give me life to say that.

 

Now if you want to say God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is fine with me, but I have gone to that site and find it very offensive. In the country where I live, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I believe both are very important.

 

What I am suppose to name, beyond the stuff of the universe and the forces that organize it? What can I say, other than science is the way to study it? What is there to prove? I have asked this before. What do I need to prove? Eisentien and I share an understanding of God, and you all are rejecting that, and keep arguing with me there is no proof of a God. Back to the word game I guess? :)

 

PS I will probably be banned soon anyway, and then you all can claim your win. Like if you can't win with reason, win with power right? I have been penalized for Preaching/Proselytizing, and I preach about democracy and morality all the time. That is the purpose behind my post and my sense of purpose in life. :shrug: Give me liberty or give me death.

[Overdog]

Yes, I guess it is a word game for me, and a very important one. God and time are both abstracts, not concrete realities. Well, in the sense that we can consider God is, the stuff of the universe and the organizing forces, this makes God concrete and something we can study with science. However, what the objection to God seems to be, is it leaves room for all the abstracts, those things that can only be inferred and not proven beyond a doubt. I asked what is the difference between being materialistic and insisting there is no God, and being spiritualistic assuming there is a God. Then while walking, I realized the difference is, when we speak of God, we inject ourselves into an understanding of God. We do not inject ourselves into an understanding of science. Myself, and others, are concerned that science without God leads to what happened in Germany during the second world war, and the US, given its forcus on military conquest and condoning the most inhumane treatment of humanes in favor of its military goals. I will give me life to say that.

 

Now if you want to say God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is fine with me, but I have gone to that site and find it very offensive. In the country where I live, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I believe both are very important.

 

What I am suppose to name, beyond the stuff of the universe and the forces that organize it? What can I say, other than science is the way to study it? What is there to prove? I have asked this before. What do I need to prove? Eisentien and I share an understanding of God, and you all are rejecting that, and keep arguing with me there is no proof of a God. Back to the word game I guess? :)

 

PS I will probably be banned soon anyway, and then you all can claim your win. Like if you can't win with reason, win with power right? I have been penalized for Preaching/Proselytizing, and I preach about democracy and morality all the time. That is the purpose behind my post and my sense of purpose in life. :shrug: Give me liberty or give me death.

 

Well if all your doing is playing a word game then you are being inconsiderate and wasting everyone's time. Perhaps you should be banned. We've tried reasoning with you, but you have ignored all well-reasoned arguments, and continued with your preaching as though we weren't even here...

[nutronjon]

Things are either physical or unknowable. The people of Athens loved to ask the impossible to answer questions, and dare to answer them.

 

We are where Athens was when Socrates was given the choice to stop questioning the God's and take back what he was saying or drink the hemlock. As we know, he chose to drink the hemlock. That is exactly where I stand. I will not stop my argument because those in position of power can ban me from the forum if I do not.

 

God as the physical elements of the universe is knowable through science. There is also an unknowable accept to God, and that is all our arguments about him. These are things we can not know at this time, and may never be able to know, but as it was important in Athens to discuss such things, so is it important to discuss them today. Here is where freedom of speech and tolerance is essential. It is curious to me, that we are developing a greater tolerance of all difference, except this one of God. When it comes to thoughts about God, there is a very passionate and strong intolerance. We are where Athens was when Socrates was ordered to drink the hemlock, only now it is the people who are intolerant of any concept of God who are in power, instead of the ones who defend the gods. This may be very smart, but it is unwise.

[nutronjon]

Well if all your doing is playing a word game then you are being inconsiderate and wasting everyone's time. Perhaps you should be banned. We've tried reasoning with you, but you have ignored all well-reasoned arguments, and continued with your preaching as though we weren't even here...

 

This is the most serious word game of our times. I know I am not the only one who has spoken in favor of accepting there is a God, and that we can not know all there is to know, and if there is any justification at all to banning me, the theology forum should be removed, because of the complete intolerance of me argument. It is like quick sand that can only kill those who do not agree with this those in power. This is the flip side of past religious intolerance, when it was the non believers driven out of the colony. It is the karma of the past, and just as lacking in wisdom.

[Overdog]

This is the most serious word game of our times.

 

I'm outta here....

[Galapagos]

Yes, I guess it is a word game for me, and a very important one. God and time are both abstracts, not concrete realities.

Time is a demonstrable property of the universe, "God" is something you simply keep asserting is real without evidence.

 

 

 

Well, in the sense that we can consider God is, the stuff of the universe and the organizing forces, this makes God concrete and something we can study with science.

You haven't even shown that any deities actually exist, let alone that they can be studied or measured in any way. No offense, but it seems like you just write stuff that you think will sound profound or mystical.

 

However, what the objection to God seems to be, is it leaves room for all the abstracts, those things that can only be inferred and not proven beyond a doubt. I asked what is the difference between being materialistic and insisting there is no God, and being spiritualistic assuming there is a God.

No one is insisting or assuming anything but yourself. There are no signs of design, purpose, or beneficence in the properties/nature of our universe. You've shown none, and neither has anyone else. The difference between having a natural world view and a supernatural one, is that those with a naturalistic world view don't need to pretend to know things that they do not know.

 

Then while walking, I realized the difference is, when we speak of God, we inject ourselves into an understanding of God. We do not inject ourselves into an understanding of science.

This just sounds like spiritual, ambiguous garbage. Completely vacuous, and a waste of everyones time. Not sure what you mean, and no, this is not an invitation for you to expound, because I'm not interested. I just wanted to point out how you sound to someone rational.

 

 

Myself, and others, are concerned that science without God leads to what happened in Germany during the second world war, and the US, given its forcus on military conquest and condoning the most inhumane treatment of humanes in favor of its military goals. I will give me life to say that.

Like who, Ben Stein from the evolution denial film "Expelled"? That's the only place where i have ever seen anyone claim that "Science leads to the holocaust" or whatever.

Strange coincidence that you have supported both "What The Bleep Do We Know" and the ideas from the film "Expelled" on these forums, which are both severely distorted and obscurantist religious propaganda.

 

Now if you want to say God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is fine with me, but I have gone to that site and find it very offensive. In the country where I live, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I believe both are very important.

Yes, and people are free to worship The Flying Spaghetti Monster when they please. That's what freedom means. Freedom also means that if someone joins Hypography and incessantly posts about how The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mystical property of the universe, the admins can freely ban them if they don't shape up.

What I am suppose to name, beyond the stuff of the universe and the forces that organize it? What can I say, other than science is the way to study it?

What is there to prove? I have asked this before. What do I need to prove? Eisentien and I share an understanding of God, and you all are rejecting that, and keep arguing with me there is no proof of a God. Back to the word game I guess? :)

Who cares what Einstein believed. You still haven't provided any sound reasoning or evidence for your assertions.

PS I will probably be banned soon anyway, and then you all can claim your win. Like if you can't win with reason, win with power right? I have been penalized for Preaching/Proselytizing, and I preach about democracy and morality all the time. That is the purpose behind my post and my sense of purpose in life. :shrug: Give me liberty or give me death.

If you are penalized, it will be for repeatedly ignoring the rule that requires you to support your claims. No one is going to 'win' anything, you will just be mistaken, and then possibly banned.

Everyone would benefit from your trying to observe, and read more instead of insisting that you already have everything figured out, but perhaps this isn't the right forum for you.

Here is an article about order rising from randomness by theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman:

The Third Culture - Chapter 20

This is what an honest inquiry into questions about complexity looks like. What you are doing is not scientific, and it is not productive.

[Buffy]

This is the most serious word game of our times. I know I am not the only one who has spoken in favor of accepting there is a God, and that we can not know all there is to know, and if there is any justification at all to banning me, the theology forum should be removed, because of the complete intolerance of me argument. It is like quick sand that can only kill those who do not agree with this those in power. This is the flip side of past religious intolerance, when it was the non believers driven out of the colony. It is the karma of the past, and just as lacking in wisdom.

Just to be clear, "Theology" is the study of religious beliefs as a social, anthropological and philosophical context, and thus is "scientific" under the general umbrella of social studies.

 

You're free to use the word however it is you wish, but you should not expect other people to simply accept your definition.

 

Claiming that you are the only one who has spoken in favor of accepting that there is a God in this forum is not true. Many of us here do accept that there is a God but we do not demand that other people accept that. To insist that that is the only way to avoid the accusation of religious intolerance is itself intolerant.

 

While there are a few here who are intolerant of religious beliefs, many here do have religious beliefs and are tolerated quite nicely. The difference is that they do not seek to impose their religious beliefs on others.

 

This happens to be just as offensive to people who have religious beliefs that are different from yours as it is to those who have no religious beliefs, so it's not a matter of "religious intolerance," it's a matter of good manners.

 

Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability, :)

Buffy