Does God exist?

[nutronjon]

I like the last one best, because it basically says the same thing I am saying.

 

Synopsis

Since 2000, America’s most ambitious young evangelicals have been making their way to Patrick Henry College, a small Christian school just outside the nation’s capital. Most of them are homeschoolers whose idealism and discipline put the average American teenager to shame. And God’s Harvard grooms these students to be the elite of tomorrow, dispatching them to the front lines of politics, entertainment, and science, to wage the battle to take back a godless nation. Hanna Rosin spent a year and a half embedded at the college, following the students from the campus to the White House, Congress, conservative think tanks, Hollywood, and other centers of influence. Her account captures this nerve center of the evangelical movement at a moment of maximum influence and also of crisis, as it struggles to avoid the temptations of modern life and still remake the world in its own image.

God's Harvard:A Christian College on a Mission to Save America by Hanna Rosin from Harcourt Trade Publishers

The truth about modern physics, man, and God

Latest News

From the B.C. Catholic

 

Book review

By C.S. MORRISSEY

 

Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century, Institute for Advanced Physics Press, 2004.

 

Truth cannot contradict truth. Pope John Paul II made a special point of proclaiming how the truths known by faith and reason are not at odds.

 

In a new book that takes up this great papal theme, Catholic physicist Anthony Rizzi shows how all advances in modern physics, like quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity, are eminently compatible with the philosophical and theological wisdom of the Catholic Church.

 

Many popular writers are fond of misinterpreting modern physics in order to make extravagant claims: that nothing is real until we observe it; that nothing is ever certain; that everything is relative to the observer; that the mathematical necessity of other universes has been proved; and that we humans mostly consist of the empty space of atoms.

 

With the perspective of a physics insider, Rizzi shows all such claims to be nonsense. They result from science overstepping its bounds and doing bad philosophy. Moreover, as a practising Catholic, Rizzi reconciles, in the best Thomist tradition, the discoveries of modern physics with the metaphysical wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

He exposes the philosophical contradictions implicit in the scientism prevalent today. As Tom Wolfe recently described this corrosive cultural prejudice, "We now live in an age in which science is a court from which there is no appeal."

 

Rizzi, however, has the requisite credentials to make the appeal. Rizzi's claim to physics fame is that in 1997 he gave the first satisfactory definition of angular momentum, something that Einstein's general theory of relativity lacked. Today he continues to research general relativity and gravity waves at the California Institute of Technology's Louisiana Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO).

 

The truth about modern physics, man, and God | Redeemer Pacific College - A Canadian Catholic College

 

Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.

 

Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.

 

Some scientists say simply that science and religion are two separate realms, "nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it in his book "Rocks of Ages" (Ballantine, 1999). In Dr. Gould's view, science speaks with authority in the realm of "what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)" and religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html

[nutronjon]

I woke this morning thinking about the charge of just playing a word game, and that a Hellenistic explanation of God is, "in the beginning is logos (the word)". That means, in the beginning is the reason for all things. Now adding to this the that Jesus is the word, would be deifying the thought. But there is no deity to what I am saying. Some scientist a A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete? express this thought well. Kauffman says, "The schism between science can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from the supernatural, theirstic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceasless creatitity in the natural universe." This is talk of a diety, but a different way of understanding the meaning to word "God". Everything I have said is about a different way of understanding the meaning of the word "God", and this problem was caused by the religions that separated God from nature in the first place. I am in agreement with opposing the superstitious religions that separated logos from nature, but sure can not understands the attacks on what I am saying.

 

One scientist A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete? argues science does end the belief in God, and it is obvious this scientist holds a Christian understanding of God. All the arguements against what I have said, are based on a Christian understanding of God, so I have said there is an assumption made that is not accurate. I do not write of anything like a Christian God. I am not writing of a deity. I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

 

This has very important political consequences. It means preventing tyranny and having better justice. If anyone would attempt to discuss this political aspect with me, beginning with questions instead of attacks, perhaps we could clear up this understanding.

[REASON]

I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

 

See if what works?

[Pyrotex]

Nutronjon,

 

the horse is dead. It's been dead a long, long time.

 

Stop beating it. You are wasting bandwidth and every one's time.

[C1ay]

I do not write of anything like a Christian God. I am not writing of a deity. I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

 

Why? What purpose is served in giving yet another definition to the term God when it already has so many others? For those that do believe in the Christian deity or others this would seem to be more of a hindering obfuscation to progress instead of an aid. If you are not writing of a deity why use the term God at all?

[nutronjon]

Why? What purpose is served in giving yet another definition to the term God when it already has so many others? For those that do believe in the Christian deity or others this would seem to be more of a hindering obfuscation to progress instead of an aid. If you are not writing of a deity why use the term God at all?

 

What does this sentence say?

 

"The schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe." Stuart Kauffman.

 

Is there anything offensive about that sentence? Would it be a good thing to end superstition and religious conflicts? Might science be helpful in this goal?

[nutronjon]

See if what works?

 

See if reason works. I can't say more than this about what I mean, because I am on the verge of being banned, and I am being so badly misinterpreted, it is very risky for me to say anything at all. I really think, considering the intolerance ri accepting the existance of God, the question about if God exist should have never been allowed in the first place, and the theology forum should not be a trap for those of us who want in favor of accepting the existence of God. How dumb to invite people to argue the existence of God and then penalize them for making the argument. I think this is very mean spirited.

[C1ay]

Is there anything offensive about that sentence? Would it be a good thing to end superstition and religious conflicts? Might science be helpful in this goal?

 

I see no advantage in attempting to redefine a term, god, that already carries so much baggage. Nature is nature and I get no argument on that from even the most devoted theists. I do not need to convince them that nature exists and that it is in man's best interest to study nature. They already agree with that. They just need to be freed from unfounded beliefs in the supernatural.

[Galapagos]

I see no advantage in attempting to redefine a term, god, that already carries so much baggage. Nature is nature and I get no argument on that from even the most devoted theists. I do not need to convince them that nature exists and that it is in man's best interest to study nature. They already agree with that. They just need to be freed from unfounded beliefs in the supernatural.

 

I agree with you C1ay, I don't believe anything could be gained by a re-definition, and I think it could do harm in giving people the wrong idea about what is, and what is not reasonable to assert or believe.

 

Is there anything offensive about that sentence? Would it be a good thing to end superstition and religious conflicts? Might science be helpful in this goal?

 

 

Stuart Kaufmann actually brought this up during his talk at Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0, and was criticized by a few in the audience about it. He is an atheist, and said he wasn't interested in digging his heels in the ground about the issue(using "the God word"). It was simply intended as a suggestion in the brainstorming of solutions to possible social/political problems regarding science, religion, philosophy, and society.

An interesting idea to consider; a use of poetic fluff to bridge the gap between the scientific and majority religious communities(talking on a global, multi-cultural level here). I however do not think the possible benefits(if any) would outweigh the certain abuse and misunderstanding of the concession.

[REASON]

I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

 

See if what works?

 

See if reason works.

 

You know, I'm sensing from this that what you are trying to promote here is not really that science should actually adopt the notion that Nature is God because it is scientifically valid, but that doing so might lead people away from the traditional supernatural orientation of god toward one that is more accepting of science, reason, and a rational understanding of the natural universe, without having to give up a sense of god completely. Sort of like a ploy designed to transform a common mindset and worldview that favors spirituality and mysticism.

 

I don't believe this is the responsibility of science whatsoever. Science must remain dedicated to producing empirical results or explanations that can be tested, verified, or falsified if it is to preserve its integrity. If the scientific community were to suddenly decide to classify all of nature "God," no matter what the intentions in doing so, the insuing scrutiny as to how they arrived at such a conclusion would be ceaseless, particularly because there would be no way to demonstrate any findings to the ravenous public. It would be an incredible blow to the integrity of scientific research, and their failure would only serve to inspire the supernatural religious zealots.

 

Reason can only overcome religious mysticism if it is promoted and spread throughout society in a mannor that it is likely to be accepted. False notions have to be challenged and rejected for reason to prevail. Intellectuals have to take on the responsibilty of questioning religious dogma and its unfounded premises when it invades the public arena, and science can help in this endeavor simply by doing what it already does. Promoting an unfounded premise that "nature is god" does not fit this prescription, and is in itself, indefensible and unreasonable.

 

But if what I described in my first paragraph at least somewhat exemplifies your intentions, then while I would probably say they are misguided, I would also probably agree that they are generally honorable.

[Pyrotex]

See if reason works. I can't say more than this about what I mean, because I am on the verge of being banned, and I am being so badly misinterpreted....

But you are NOT advocating "reason" Nutronjon.

You are advocating "wishful thinking" and "self-delusion".

You are advocating "play-pretend".

 

And you are NOT misinterpreted. We understand your point of view all too well.

 

It is you who does not understand "reason".

[Buffy]

I can't say more than this about what I mean, because I am on the verge of being banned, and I am being so badly misinterpreted, it is very risky for me to say anything at all.

I find it odd that you keep saying this, while you have ignored my last several posts that directly address why you are getting the reaction you have been.

 

You may wish to go back and read them and try to respond.

 

You could still be a very well accepted member of this forum and you might want to think about how you can do that.

...the question about if God exist should have never been allowed in the first place, and the theology forum should not be a trap for those of us who want in favor of accepting the existence of God. How dumb to invite people to argue the existence of God and then penalize them for making the argument. I think this is very mean spirited.

What is incredibly ironic about your proposition here, is that this topic was created by Jim Colyer, who is a deeply religious person. If you want to call him someone who was spitefully trying to create a "trap for those of us who want in favor of accepting the existence of God," you'll find no support for your statement.

 

You may choose to have a personal belief in your interpretation that Jim Colyer hates religious people, however if you demand that others accept it as a fact, then you will meet with a great deal of resistance when you do so.

 

That is the essential element of the problem you're having here.

 

I have tried to convey this to you in my posts and PMs to you, and your continued refusal to acknowledge them leads many to assume that your purpose here is to bait and harass people into saying negative things about religion so that you can claim you and all people with religious beliefs are being persecuted by this site, which is itself pretty "mean-spirited."

 

You may wish to work to defuse that interpretation if it is invalid, and if you do so successfully, you may find yourself widely accepted here as a contributing member of this forum.

 

The most common of all antagonisms arises from a man's taking a seat beside you on the train, a seat to which he is completely entitled,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Nutron, there's no profit in defining or redefining the term "God".

 

Matter of fact, consider the following:

 

There are 6,500,000,000 people in the world. Every single one of them has an idea of whether God exists or not. And if you were to ask for a definition of the term "God", and what that 6,5 billion people understood the term to mean to them, you'll get 6,500,000,000 unique and individual responses.

 

Your interpretation of what God is, and whether he exists or not, is one of them. Your opinion is unique to yourself. And 6,499,999,999 other people on this planet have a different idea.

 

This thread is not about definitions. This thread is simply "whether" he exists, not "what" he is, or can be defined as. And for that, there can be only two answers. Yes or no.

 

And currently, at this moment in time, there are no credible evidence of any kind that god does, indeed, exist. Regardless of your definition of the term. There are, however, plenty evidence that Nature exist. You can simply open your eyes and look around, after all. But then again, Nature isn't God. Nature is nature, and is testable, following certain laws that we have discovered and described by taking little bits of Nature to the microscope. Give us a piece of God and we can do the same. You're confusing the matter here by trying to substitute God for Nature. God isn't Nature. To the best of my knowledge, most theists hold that God created Nature. Which places your definition diametrically opposed to most of that other 6,5 billion people I've mentioned above. Which means we're not talking about the same God. Which means there's no point in your participation in this thread - you're talking about a God that exists in the mind of only 0.000001% of the population. We're talking about the other one. The Big Guy in the Sky as defined by almost 70% of the World Population.

 

Get that?

[modest]

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.

 

I am on the verge of being banned, and I am being so badly misinterpreted, it is very risky for me to say anything at all.

 

Nutronjon, You are not a martyr. You are not being persecuted and I'd like to repeat what others have told you in this thread in the past:

 

Oh get over yourself

... Rather than dealing directly with criticism and taking responsibility for one's claims, you decide to instead shift the argument

 

Get over it. People get infractions when they don't follow the rules. You are neither special for breaking the rules nor special for being asked to follow them. Most people who get an infraction immediately see the problem and adjust their posting to keep with the rules and continue being a valued member of the forum. To help you do this, I'm going to take the time to show you the problem and how to fix it.

 

You can either be mature and follow my advice and stop with the tantrum, OR you can continue with your self-fulfilling prophecy of annoying everyone and getting yourself banned if you think that will prove something. It is entirely up to you. If you want to stay here and have a reasoned discussion in line with the rules then you should get right to that.

 

The rules for the theology forum are here.

 

There is no preaching and no proselytizing (proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion)

 

These are examples of what NOT to do:

 

It means accepting there is a God

, that we can not know, because we can not directly experience this God.

 

Come on, get a grip on what you are doing when insist on the polar argument of God, instead of accepting the abstract concept of God and then arguing the nature of this God. Stoopppp! reforecing ignorance

 

You are agruing the superstitious notion of God is the right one. Just for fun try,

"yes, there is a God, now let's see what we can know of this God"

and proceed with science.

 

Telling people that they should accept your god is preaching - it's against the rules. These three examples represent a larger pattern of you doing this. I do not need you to explain these quotes. I don't want to hear that we are taking you out of context or misunderstanding you or misrepresenting what you've done. I don't want to hear that other people are getting away with preaching. Just continue with your argument without preaching or proselytizing - that's all this rule requires.

 

The other rule you're having trouble with is backing up claims. If you can't support a claim, then don't make it. You've claimed again and again that there is a god - you've been unable to support that. If you wish to avoid this problem then simply say "I believe there is a god".

 

Have you noticed I've never claimed there is NO god? I've said that I'm an atheist and I see no evidence of god, etc. But, I would never claim there is no god because I cannot support that. It's a site rule, you need to follow it. That's all there is to it.

 

To sum up: rather than saying "there is a god and we all need to accept that there's a god", try saying "I believe there's a god and accepting that has helped me by _____"

 

You do not need to respond to this nutronjon. I offer it as advice and warning for both you and everyone else taking part in Hypo's theological discussions.

 

~modest

[nutronjon]

You know, I'm sensing from this that what you are trying to promote here is not really that science should actually adopt the notion that Nature is God because it is scientifically valid, but that doing so might lead people away from the traditional supernatural orientation of god toward one that is more accepting of science, reason, and a rational understanding of the natural universe, without having to give up a sense of god completely. Sort of like a ploy designed to transform a common mindset and worldview that favors spirituality and mysticism.

 

I don't believe this is the responsibility of science whatsoever. Science must remain dedicated to producing empirical results or explanations that can be tested, verified, or falsified if it is to preserve its integrity. If the scientific community were to suddenly decide to classify all of nature "God," no matter what the intentions in doing so, the insuing scrutiny as to how they arrived at such a conclusion would be ceaseless, particularly because there would be no way to demonstrate any findings to the ravenous public. It would be an incredible blow to the integrity of scientific research, and their failure would only serve to inspire the supernatural religious zealots.

 

Reason can only overcome religious mysticism if it is promoted and spread throughout society in a mannor that it is likely to be accepted. False notions have to be challenged and rejected for reason to prevail. Intellectuals have to take on the responsibilty of questioning religious dogma and its unfounded premises when it invades the public arena, and science can help in this endeavor simply by doing what it already does. Promoting an unfounded premise that "nature is god" does not fit this prescription, and is in itself, indefensible and unreasonable.

 

But if what I described in my first paragraph at least somewhat exemplifies your intentions, then while I would probably say they are misguided, I would also probably agree that they are generally honorable.

 

I can't believe my eyes:eek: Someone understands what I am saying? Only I do not see tolerance of the word God as a ploy. I think there are serious questions we need to ask, and I am sincerely hoping this discussion will evolve into those questions. But until there is tolerance of the word God, and as long as I in danger of being banned, I am frozen on this one issue.

 

People literate in philosophy should have no problem with thinking of God and nature as the same thing, because it is fundamental to democracy. And scientist are moving in this direction. I have given one link for this and am waiting for a friend to send me another link. The argument I want to see is why not consider God and nature as the same thing? Mankind did not always make this separation. Christianity created this separation, and I don't know why everyone has to buy into it. All the atheist have bought into the Christian God, and this pisses me off for a few reasons. Christianity stold all the good stuff, and gave it a Christian interpretation, and atheist have bought into this. Irrational emotion I guess, but that pisses me off.

 

Why would it be a blow to science to consider God and nature as the same thing? It would be a terrible blow to Christiantiy, but to science? I think this concern is just a prejudice that can be over come, because the reasoning is sound.

 

Please, understand, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, what I am saying of God and nature was not considered a ploy. It was not considered a threat to science at all, but only a threat to fundamental Christianity and folks like the Puritans, who did not believe in equality. The King of England thought the colonist to be misdirected, but not the most important people in the new United States. Get, there is a political significant factor to this debate. It is not just about God and religion, but also politics. I write not to defend a God or those who believe in a God, but to defend democracy with liberty.

[Boerseun]

I write not to defend a God or those who believe in a God, but to defend democracy with liberty.

Once again, I fail to see how you connect the dots here. Are you actually reading the responses to your posts, or are you just skimming the titles?

 

How does the existence/non-existence of God plug in to "democracy"?

 

It would also profit you to keep in mind that:

a) Hypo is a Science site, and

:phones: Science is not a democracy.

 

Also, Liberties are all good and fine, when bound by rules. Liberty not bound by any rules is simply anarchism.

 

I personally think that you're plucking terms out of thin air of which you have no particular understanding. God is not "Democracy", God is not "Nature". If you really, really believe that those terms are interchangeable, then you are a pantheist wanting to live in a theocracy.

 

Or, put another way, you might be an Afghani hippy.

[REASON]

Why would it be a blow to science to consider God and nature as the same thing? It would be a terrible blow to Christiantiy, but to science? I think this concern is just a prejudice that can be over come, because the reasoning is sound.

 

Nutron,

 

Please focus on the part of my post below. This explains why adopting the idea of "Nature as God" would be a blow to science and why it is unreasonable.

 

 

I don't believe this is the responsibility of science whatsoever. Science must remain dedicated to producing empirical results or explanations that can be tested, verified, or falsified if it is to preserve its integrity. If the scientific community were to suddenly decide to classify all of nature "God," no matter what the intentions in doing so, the insuing scrutiny as to how they arrived at such a conclusion would be ceaseless, particularly because there would be no way to demonstrate any findings to the ravenous public. It would be an incredible blow to the integrity of scientific research, and their failure would only serve to inspire the supernatural religious zealots.

 

Reason can only overcome religious mysticism if it is promoted and spread throughout society in a mannor that it is likely to be accepted. False notions have to be challenged and rejected for reason to prevail. Intellectuals have to take on the responsibilty of questioning religious dogma and its unfounded premises when it invades the public arena, and science can help in this endeavor simply by doing what it already does. Promoting an unfounded premise that "nature is god" does not fit this prescription, and is in itself, indefensible and unreasonable.

 

 

I must say it has become quite tiresome to have to continue explaining this.

 

Simply stated, this notion cannot be scientific because it cannot be proven. There is no theory, no facts, and no evidence. Only opinions. And you know what they say about those (or maybe you don't :phones:).