Allen Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 If you're interested in debates between science and religion, you are invited to participate in my new forum :The Science & Religion Debate" Edit: Link removed by Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Soliciting members to sign up in another forum without asking us first is a violation of our site rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAK Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 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 More sharing options...
Allen Posted June 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 >>Soliciting members to sign up in another forum without asking us first is a violation of our site rules. Ops... I apologize! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest twistedlink Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 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 More sharing options...
blazer2000x Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 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 More sharing options...
DAK Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 <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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts