Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Likewise, it takes only one observation that there is a God for His/Her existence to be proven true. But, in fact, many have made the same observation so there is confirmation of that first observation.
Where is this "observation", known only to you, that has eluded all the great theologians of history? Why do you keep insisting that a premise is "proven true" by the mere statement of one person that he has observed this phenomenon? What kind of logic is that?
Every dream I had last night is "proven true" by the observation of one person, me.
I've never understood the evolution/science vs religion mentality. The concept of evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of a non physical universe, other dimensions, or other realms of existence (in fact, certain scientific studies have validated such possibilities).
We are three-dimensional, physical creatures who are for the most part firmly locked into our reality, and are absolutely unable to detect or understand the possibility of anything beyond our three dimensional, physical reality. Personally, I see traditional religion and traditional science to be profoundly limiting and prone to creating zealots who will not open their mind to any alternate possibility. They both breed closed minds. To put all eggs in either basket, in my opinion, would be a bit daft and quite self-limiting.
Science keeps plodding along, and it IS interesting in the micro... but not in the macro. An existence devoid of anything beyond what science indicates would be dreadful and boring. Truthfully, if that's all there is to our existence, I'll feel shortchanged. I'll want a refund.
Hmmm... interesting perspective. You relegate scientific discovery to "micro" only. Perhaps you like that absurd Christian acceptance of "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution"? This does speak to a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms and outcome of evolutionary adaptation to a potential new positive genotype by the species.
There's nothing "traditional" about science, as it is, by definition, too new, and is also simply a now carefully-defined process (to catch the fakers and the highly biased) for asking and clarifying unanswered questions about our universe, including how we got here. It takes time, but it's rate of accomplishment is growing exponentially.
So. You stated: "An existence devoid of anything beyond what science indicates would be dreadful and boring"
An existence devoid of everything except accurately and truthfully answered questions? Also, don't assume scientists or atheists or Buddhists or Shintoists or Muslims to be heartless, spitirually bereft automatons who are incapable of enjoying a sunset or a pair of playful sea otters ("awwwww!") or the beauty in a butterfly's wings.
We (I) just attribute it to something other than you, and IMHO, I'm also right about it. My enjoyment does not mandate giving an ancient God all the credit, plus it's enabled me, as a biologist and evolutionist, to understand how the butterfly REALLY got such beautiful patterns, and why. Therefore, science has enabled, rather than stunted, me.
Science is truly making macro steps in understanding, and each independent branch now happily feeds on the useful discoveries of other unrelated branches. Geologists find the new tools in DNA mapping of simple lichen evolution on old rocks precisely useful in dating large-scale geological events. Flip-side: new seismic techniques, coupled with amzing new computing power, serve to identify underground geology that ties in with past unobservable or verifiable speculation about the age of a protruding rock group and it's encapsulated fossils. New isotopic nuclear studies clarifies or sharpens existing dating techniques. Knowledge advances, sharpens and clarifies.
We've launched several spectacular new satellites to search within and outside of our own solar system, and to find out the possible genesis of planets other than our own. New on-board X-Ray Fluorescence studies done from a Mars orbiter has shown us amazing new things about that planet's origins and early history, even under it's surface. "Micro"? Uninteresting? "Boring"? Really?
And on and on it goes. Medicine's spectacular advances are only"micro"? They've only had a "micro" effect on us? Think Black Plague then, and if it happened now. Think viral vaccines. Think artificial prostheses. Think neuro-surgery. Rechargeable lithium-Ion batteries with their on-board micro-circuitry (yes, even in that rechargeable Li Ion AA battery you use), which will power our lives in the very near future? My God, my head's crowded with thousands of amazing finds that directly affect our (your) quality of life, our longevity and our free time. And you think of it as "plodding" and "uninteresting in the macro"?
Honest Question: do you live alone in a log cabin in the Rockies, and only eat lichen and dead racoons?
Wow. I guess some folks really do have their heads firmly and happily in the sand. Of course, to constantly question and review things, and then accept the newer, better findings, will tend to move you quickly away from any mostly-ancient belief systems that require a static position on everything! Complete with threats of personal eternal punishment if you dare to question. Quite the system they cleverly set up to gain and maintain their strangle=hold of power and wealth, huh?
I'm beginning to think that there may be two genetically determined and intellectually independent sub-species of man on earth right now:
the IDT*rs and IC**rs
_______________________________________________
* The Intransigent Dogmo-Theists, happy to remain static in time and knowledge, or...
** The Insatiably Curious, unhappy to remain static, and open to new ideas.
To wit: homo semi-sapiens and h. progressus.
Pick your personality!
Last edited by rifleman; 11-24-2009 at 02:47 AM..
Reason: typoz
Where is this "observation", known only to you, that has eluded all the great theologians of history? Why do you keep insisting that a premise is "proven true" by the mere statement of one person that he has observed this phenomenon? What kind of logic is that?
The first observation was made thousands of years ago, eh? And thousands, perhaps millions, of people have made confirming observations ever since. When did you wake up?
I have provided plenty of logic, but as I said, if your reasons to not believe in God are moral, then there is nothing else to say.
The first observation was made thousands of years ago, eh? And thousands, perhaps millions, of people have made confirming observations ever since. When did you wake up?
I have provided plenty of logic, but as I said, if your reasons to not believe in God are moral, then there is nothing else to say.
Cheers.
I will refer you to two things that are proven to exist because they were observed.
1. A Universe that did not require a creator in order to exist.
2. A Supercreator, who created God, because nothing can exist without a creator.
The first observation of both were made thousands of years ago, and millions of people have made confirming observatins since.
If two people make conflicting and contradictory observations, are they both proven true? Of course not. The one that you believe is thereby proven "true", and all who do not agree with your choice are proven "silly".
Likewise, it takes only one observation that there is a God for His/Her existence to be proven true. But, in fact, many have made the same observation so there is confirmation of that first observation. And this makes the weight of the arguments against God's existence very feeble, and as I said, mostly moral in nature.
i don't think that your analogy holds in this particular instance. in this case, the observations made by many people are not capable of being proven, so we relay on eye-witness testimony.
in your example of the utah physicists and their falsified claims, the observations were specifically capable of being proven over and over in a controlled manner. not so with religious/spiritual testimonies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Other scientists had to take them at their word until experiments could be run to replicate their results. When no other experiments proved their initial experiment correct, then their results were disqualified by other scientists.
there is currently no objective way to prove that God exists in a scientific manner.
i am of the belief that it was set up this way on purpose, and that we are never going to be able to prove it to anyone but ourselves––which really equates to faith, not knowledge––until such a time as God comes down and reveals Himself to everyone personally (or something else of that magnitude happens).
until then, we are forced to accept or deny the believers' claims based entirely upon their eye witness statements and nothing more, because we cannot recreate an experiment that will give us empirical results.
When a delusion experienced by millions of people it does not make the delusion real. Religion is based on faith and science on reality. Religion lost when the scientific method was developed.
Hmmm... interesting perspective. You relegate scientific discovery to "micro" only. Perhaps you like that absurd Christian acceptance of "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution"? This does speak to a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms and outcome of evolutionary adaptation to a potential new positive genotype by the species.
There's nothing "traditional" about science, as it is, by definition, too new, and is also simply a now carefully-defined process (to catch the fakers and the highly biased) for asking and clarifying unanswered questions about our universe, including how we got here. It takes time, but it's rate of accomplishment is growing exponentially.
So. You stated: "An existence devoid of anything beyond what science indicates would be dreadful and boring"
An existence devoid of everything except accurately and truthfully answered questions? Also, don't assume scientists or atheists or Buddhists or Shintoists or Muslims to be heartless, spitirually bereft automatons who are incapable of enjoying a sunset or a pair of playful sea otters ("awwwww!") or the beauty in a butterfly's wings.
We (I) just attribute it to something other than you, and IMHO, I'm also right about it. My enjoyment does not mandate giving an ancient God all the credit, plus it's enabled me, as a biologist and evolutionist, to understand how the butterfly REALLY got such beautiful patterns, and why. Therefore, science has enabled, rather than stunted, me.
Science is truly making macro steps in understanding, and each independent branch now happily feeds on the useful discoveries of other unrelated branches. Geologists find the new tools in DNA mapping of simple lichen evolution on old rocks precisely useful in dating large-scale geological events. Flip-side: new seismic techniques, coupled with amzing new computing power, serve to identify underground geology that ties in with past unobservable or verifiable speculation about the age of a protruding rock group and it's encapsulated fossils. New isotopic nuclear studies clarifies or sharpens existing dating techniques. Knowledge advances, sharpens and clarifies.
We've launched several spectacular new satellites to search within and outside of our own solar system, and to find out the possible genesis of planets other than our own. New on-board X-Ray Fluorescence studies done from a Mars orbiter has shown us amazing new things about that planet's origins and early history, even under it's surface. "Micro"? Uninteresting? "Boring"? Really?
And on and on it goes. Medicine's spectacular advances are only"micro"? They've only had a "micro" effect on us? Think Black Plague then, and if it happened now. Think viral vaccines. Think artificial prostheses. Think neuro-surgery. Rechargeable lithium-Ion batteries with their on-board micro-circuitry (yes, even in that rechargeable Li Ion AA battery you use), which will power our lives in the very near future? My God, my head's crowded with thousands of amazing finds that directly affect our (your) quality of life, our longevity and our free time. And you think of it as "plodding" and "uninteresting in the macro"?
Honest Question: do you live alone in a log cabin in the Rockies, and only eat lichen and dead racoons?
Wow. I guess some folks really do have their heads firmly and happily in the sand. Of course, to constantly question and review things, and then accept the newer, better findings, will tend to move you quickly away from any mostly-ancient belief systems that require a static position on everything! Complete with threats of personal eternal punishment if you dare to question. Quite the system they cleverly set up to gain and maintain their strangle=hold of power and wealth, huh?
I'm beginning to think that there may be two genetically determined and intellectually independent sub-species of man on earth right now:
the IDT*rs and IC**rs
_______________________________________________
* The Intransigent Dogmo-Theists, happy to remain static in time and knowledge, or...
** The Insatiably Curious, unhappy to remain static, and open to new ideas.
To wit: homo semi-sapiens and h. progressus.
Pick your personality!
Okay, let me ask you this. If there were a creator of this world or universe or whatever else is out there, do you think this being or entity would be so stupid as to not understand the basic mechanics of evolution?
Did the hammer build the house or was it the person wielding the hammer? For all we know, evolution is just a 'hammer.' Or maybe not. The ONLY thing I'm advocating is not making a conclusion about something we cannot know. This is something we cannot know at this point in our development. I know it's hurtful to our species' pride, but that's the way it is right now. Again: we don't know everything. I think it's about like preschoolers discussing string theory.
As for the boring thing. It depends on one's personality, but for me, the imagination far surpasses the plodding mechanics of reality. Without that imagination, there would be no scientific innovation. The real innovators in any field are those who thought beyond their norms. They did not accept the flavor of the month philosophy or accepted norm. They questioned EVERYTHING. Da Vinci comes to mind. The speed of thought will never be surpassed.
I question religion; I question spirituality; I question scientific CONJECTURE; I question reality itself. That's just the way it is with me. I'm not going to accept anything you (general you here) have to tell me just because you say it's so.
Sorry, again, if 75 years is all there is to eternity, yes, I do find it quite boring. Actually a rip-off. I'm a gambler as all of us are. I'm gambling (because I don't know) concerning what is beyond life. Because of this, I find most folks to be way too hung up on this life. I'm all for living life, but I've wagered that more awaits. If I win my gamble, well, we can further discuss it then. If I lose... I'm no worse off that the next guy.
Are observations evidence?? Science is, supposedly, based upon observation.
I honestly wasn't aware that anyone has even claimed to have observed these things happening (petite woman speaking in a dark, deep, angry voice and someone spinning their head around 360 degrees). I've seen this stuff in movies, of course.
these days with cloning gentic enginering we could make a person with Human genetic engineering has the potential to change human beings' appearance, adaptability, intelligence, character, and behavior. It may potentially be used in creating more dramatic changes in humans.There are many unresolved ethical issues and concerns surrounding this technology, and it remains a controversial topic. I mean if we create a person through are we not playing god
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Door # 1, or Door # 2.... tick tock tick tock....
