Jump to content
Science Forums

New forum for science/religion debates


Allen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Of course it is impossible to prove there is no god {despite Cricks 'last' experiment} or science would have done so, nor has anyone proven god to exist to the satisfaction of science as far as I know. Perhaps we should start with what one would think god is, then at least we would have some sort of definition or concept for those that think it's 'obvious' that there is no god to hammer away on??

 

I would suggest that the concept of god by the monotheistic masters and sages suggest that creator and creation are one in the same... ie. god is all, is everywhere, creates etc etc . This would be in contrast to some of the older traditions where god sort of shot a billiard ball on the endless table of life and the balls are still knocking each other around untill he returns some day to straighten everyone out and judge them. In other words, I would argue that God and the unified field are the same, or perhaps the UF is one of many fields in god or some such thing. This would explain why science is just know touching on god.

 

DAK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest twistedlink

How can you disprove or even prove something that isnt there?

 

1.if its not there you cant disprove it as theres always the "what if"

2.Bit weird this but some people believe we might be in a matrix (not controlled by computers but-yeah)

 

etc etc

 

Please note that most of the arguments FOR god is psychology, and philosiphy which is opinionated, most of the answers FOR science are experiments and facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter which one there's proof for, most scientist still wouldn't believe in God if they saw a dead man come back to life. And there are no comepletely solid proofs for any of their theories either.

And if something isn't there, there are some cases you can prove it, just not too many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Please note that most of the arguments FOR god is psychology, and philosiphy which is opinionated, most of the answers FOR science are experiments and facts.>

 

I would alter the above a bit and say that science is 'objective' facts. Science [modern, of course it's been addressed by some of the greats in history] until now had not addressed conciousness itself. The next step in physics is pointing rather bluntly to conciousness. Since 'scientific facts' are separated out and observed BY the conciousness, the fact that none of them address the conciousness itself doesnt mean there is nothing there. It's just that it can't be separated out on the intellectual level {proven}... so??? That doesn't mean there's nothing there, which seems to be many scientist's implication.

 

DAK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...