Is Science finally giving God credit!! (believing, evidence, morality, Creator)

[Radek]

Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds

Actually, I threw this that out there just to see if you guys would even take the words of non-Christians. So, your all saying "Even famous scientist are not educated enough, to figure out that it wasn't a big bang"!!!Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

1. Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
   In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
2. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
   Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Darwin believed in God. Doesn't mean he can't have an alternate theory about how the world started.

And yeah, the day someone presents an unbiased list, is the day I'll take notice.

[accelerator]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Why should we accept something as scientifically plausible that, as you have admitted, we do not have evidence for?” .

I remember.. once I dreamed.. I was alone.. walking through some dark woods.. I walked on until I arrived at a clearing. In the centre of the clearing their was a deep pool of water.. with a huge.. and very old.. beech tree growing out from the center of it..... There was no island of land there.. just the solitary giant tree.. rising grandly out of the water.

I walked along until I reached the edge of the pool.. and looked down into the deep crystal clear water. Below I could make out the vast roots of this ancient tree.. descending far into the depths. As I was gazing into the still water I felt overcome by a sense of peace.. and was moved so much by the beauty of what I saw.. it gave me a sensation of something awe-sum...... something, hard to put into words.

Of course I can never prove it.. but it really happed to me.. I know.. because I remember it so clearly.. and I remember it much better than many things that happened to me in "real life".

Then again..

Do we have any hard evidence that gravitational fields exist.. apart from that we witness their activity.. ?

Don’t we prove a person is either dead.. or alive.. based on any life-giving activity that we can detect.. ?

Is then.. activity.. proof enough.. ?

-
“When your forefathers put me to the proof;
They examined me, they also saw my activity.”
Psalms 95:9
-

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

But what we call "nature" is what we observe. .

Speaking for myself.. I observe an underlying wholeness.. by which means.. all visible things.. seem to be inter-connected.. including ourselves.. ?

And I’m sure.. that others observe this too..

-
"Nick Herbert, a physicist who heads the C-Life Institute, suggests that we have merely discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation. An invisible wholeness unites the objects that are given birth in the universe, and it is this wholeness that we have stumbled into through modern experimental methods. Herbert alludes to the words of the poet Charles Williams: "Separation without separateness, reality without rift."

"The interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world is obvious in Bell's Theorem. Human consciousness and the physical world cannot be regarded as distinct, separate entities. What we call physical reality, the external world, is shaped - to some extent - by human thought. The lesson is clear; we cannot separate our own existence from that of the world outside. We are intimately associated, not only with the earth we inhabit, but with the farthest reaches of the cosmos."

-

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Using science to prove something outside of "nature" or the "natural realm" is not fruitful. The only way science will ever prove that there is a God is if that God exists within some sort of "natural" realm….

Could we understand.. "natural realm” to mean..

“The source and limit and the constitution of all things".. ?

Or could we understand it to mean.. a manifestion of the supreme spirit.. in our hearts and minds.. ? (as in being a humanist).. meaning.. the spirit of loving kindness.. righteousness.. justice.. wisdom.. peace.. freedom and truth.

Do some of us sense the spirit of God within our selves.. ?

If not.. then how else could we go about knowingly defining it.. ?

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

but that is met head on with accusations that God does not exist within the realm of the "natural" but the "supernatural." .

If I hear people say such strange things.. I might simply ask them..

Is this the way the scriptures define God.. REALLY.. ?

If they say yes.. then they are obviously lying.. because the bible actually teaches otherwise.

There is no evidence to support this idea in any scripture..

That is.. unless one – mistakenly - confuses mythology with a history.



Anyway.. why think so divisively.. in the first place.. ?

God.. man.. the universe.. the heart.. and mind.

Is this what we experience.. ?

That everything seems to exist in separate bits.

-
“The distinction between natural and supernatural, in fact, broke down; and when it had done so, the burden of intolerable strangeness which this universe imposes on us by dividing it into two halves and encouraging the mind never to think of both in the same context. What price we may have paid for this comfort in the way of false security and accepted confusion of the thought is another matter.” - C.S. Lewis
-

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Therefore, belief and faith are the only things that can put some sort of context around a God, NOT science. Therefore God IS NOT something that should be scientifically mentioned. .

Nevertheless.. Thomas Aquinas.. (who was secretly an alchemist).. doesn’t seem to share this opinion..

Science.. given its widest definition.. simply means.. knowledge.

---
“Concerning Those Who Know Not And Deny This Science

This glorious science of God and doctrine of the saints and secret of the philosophers and medicine of the physicians fools despise, for what it is they know not. These will not have the blessing and it shall be far from them, nor does such science suit the unskilled, for everyone who is ignorant of it is its enemy, and not without cause. For the mockery of science is the cause of ignorance, and lettuces are not to be given to asses, for thistles suffice them, nor is the children's bread to be set before the dogs to eat, nor are pearls to be cast before swine, and such mockers are not partakers in this noble science; for he would be a breaker of the heavenly seal who should make the secrets of this science known to the unworthy; nor shall the spirit of this wisdom enter into a gross body, nor can the fool see it on account of the perversity of his reason. For the wise have not spoken to the foolish, seeing that he that speaks with a fool speaks with one that is asleep. If I were to unriddle all things as they,are, there would be no further place for prudence, for the fool would be made equal to the wise; nor would any mortal under the sphere of the moon bewail in stepmotherly poverty the pangs of hunger, for in this science the number of fools is infinite.”

Extract from - Aurora Consurgens
-

Anyway.. can’t the idea of God.. and Nature.. be seen as.. some how.. compatible.. ?

If not.. what’s the difference.. ?


And having thus spoken..

Accelerator makes great hast.. and dives into his fox-hole..

To prepare for incoming.. =:-0

[my54ford]

read this book if you get the chance. I know the guy that wrote it. Top notch Engineer and a brainiac if there ever was one.
Science of the Soul: Scientific Evidence of Human Souls

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Sorry . . . non sequitor.

Where is the non sequitir?

You stated and i quote:

we have no real disagreement . . . except about the innocence and lack of harm in offhandedly dismissing the idea of God because of the ridiculous and varied descriptions and interpretations of what God is in the myriad mythologies and dictionary definitions.

Please explain yourself

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

We know quite a bit. You and I are here because of God's scientifically discovered "laws" of physics, genetics, chemistry, evolution, etc.

True but of course both you and i know that the word law isn't accurate. There is no judge or force actively preventing things from flying off the earth. It is simply the pattern that we see.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

One little mistake . . . do you really evaluate an entire intellect on the basis of one or a few opinions?

Plus the fact that the rest of the book wasn't that good. Still, its hard for me not to think foul play in this situation. I mean its just hard to believe that an 80 year old theologian would use a fallacy discredited centuries ago unless he planned on converting foolish people.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

And as I said, you are disputing definitions and descriptions not the phenomenon itself . . . which is indisputable . . . we are here after all and our lives are subject to the "laws" of God (Whatever definition or descriptions you use).

Yes, semantics once again. Read above for the comment on "laws"

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The tragedy of human nature is the ascription of laws to God that are not observable or testable . . . simply human creations to control the behavior of others. However, if the existence of "nature" is more explicable than the existence of a God . . . other than semantically . . . I'm all ears (and eyes).

Nope, you wont see me argue this. Nature we see or infer, god we don't. Nature as in objective observable reality and logic are assumed to exist and be valid.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Agreed. And this "nature" that is being observed is what, again

Wasn't that just answered?

-What is this?
-A giraffe
-whats a giraffe?
-that thing there
-whats that?
-A giraffe................

Again, nature is a broad term referring to the observable phenomena in the universe(ie everything and anything that we can sense or infer)

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

. . . if not the God responsible for our very existence?

In the ridiculously extreme broad term yes

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

"There might not be" . . . are you serious? Aren't we irrefutable proof of it?

Of what? all that we know is that we exist.

Questions like "why do we exist?" might not even apply in a probabilistic universe.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is something we seek to understand that is all-encompassing and controlling of our very existence ( you call it "nature") whose "laws" we cannot violate . . . but which is otherwise unknowable . . . except as it presents itself to our senses and instruments and reveals its "laws" and processes. Seems pretty "God-like" to me.

Again, law is not an accurate decription:

Originally Posted by wiki

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.

Pretty god-like only happens because of the word law which implies some hierarchy of authority.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I do not the deny the semantics charge . . . but that is ultimately the point. Tell me how a God WOULDN'T apply to everything and anything?

would, could and does are different words. Since you yourself acknowledge that you have changed the definition of god to one that applies to anything then i can't argue that.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If there were no such examples (which you know full well there are . . . just a ploy to distract and try to discredit) . . .

I'm honestly telling you that there aren't. People who make this claim often make the error of taking the opinions of a scientist as science. An atheist science might write a book and give his reasons for there not being a god while a christian scientist will give out reasons why there is in a magazine but what they are doing is engaging in philosophy and not science. Simple as that

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

what is causing is all the controversy? And this means what, exactly? It differs from events occurring through God's processes, how?

How can they reject a science that is explaining how their God operates and what God's laws are? I can certainly see them rejecting a science that rejects God entirely

Again, science takes no stance on this. Tentative is the keyword here which best describes science.

The controversy is caused by those whose philosophical construct rely on assuming a reality not backed up by the evidence. Creationists and the like don't reject evolution because it rejects the idea of god(because evolution doesn't) they reject it because they are sure that their god(as opposed to your definition) actually poofed the universe into existence as it is now less than 10 thousand years ago.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

. . . but not the former. Making people happy is useless?

In this context yes. More precisely it causes more problems than it fixes and it is in no way related to the constant search for truth that science strives for

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Interesting view. I believe you can reject on either of those grounds . .

Why the former? Where is the logic in that?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

. that's the point. those are descriptions (opinions) that are attributed but unobservable or testable. Neither rejection requires rejecting the existence of God.

again with the switching of meanings. Fine:

"God" as in the invisible unfalsifiable deity that is different for everyone can be rejected on the grounds of no positive objective evidence.


"God" as in potentially every word in the English dictionary cannot be rejected

[Haaziq]

Originally Posted by my54ford

read this book if you get the chance. I know the guy that wrote it. Top notch Engineer and a brainiac if there ever was one.
Science of the Soul: Scientific Evidence of Human Souls

I looked that guy's bio and automatically knew that the book would be biased because he is religious. For a theory to be plausible in science, there must be observable evidence of it. I highly doubt anybody could give me observable evidence of a human soul.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

Please explain yourself

Dismissing a Christian God or a Muslim God or the Greek Gods or . . . whatever is acceptable . . . but foolish and no part of a scientist's role. The " innocence, etc." refers to the pretense that the general scientific denial or ignoring of God isn't perceived by the public at large to be a generic repudiation of the very concept of a creator, period . . . which is NOT scientific. The overall impact is what is problematic . . . not what any individual scientist does or does not believe.

True but of course both you and i know that the word law isn't accurate. There is no judge or force actively preventing things from flying off the earth. It is simply the pattern that we see.

That is why it is in quotes . . . but gravity is generally believed to be a "force" (deformation of spacetime) actively preventing things from flying off the earth. It is the last unidentified force that is the target of quantum gravity theories.

Nope, you wont see me argue this. Nature we see or infer, god we don't. Nature as in objective observable reality and logic are assumed to exist and be valid.

And you determined that this "nature" you see is NOT God, how?

Again, nature is a broad term referring to the observable phenomena in the universe(ie everything and anything that we can sense or infer)

And this cannot be God because?

In the ridiculously extreme broad term yes

Agreed.

Of what? all that we know is that we exist.

Questions like "why do we exist?" might not even apply in a probabilistic universe.

We exist because God ("nature") exists and created us (whether probabilistically or not).

Again, law is not an accurate decription:
Pretty god-like only happens because of the word law which implies some hierarchy of authority.

If the universe is pure consciousness (God) then all its features would be parameters of the field established by that consciousness (consciousness cannot exist without a field . . . neither can the universe). Our inability to measure consciousness places beyond investigation all questions of whether or not that consciousness "willed" the "laws" that seem to govern or establish the parameters of the field or not. So it is appropriate to consider them as parameters and not "laws" in the absence of any investigation of their true nature. [quote]

would, could and does are different words. Since you yourself acknowledge that you have changed the definition of god to one that applies to anything then i can't argue that.

I have said it applies to anything that "nature" can be applied to.

I'm honestly telling you that there aren't. People who make this claim often make the error of taking the opinions of a scientist as science. An atheist science might write a book and give his reasons for there not being a god while a christian scientist will give out reasons why there is in a magazine but what they are doing is engaging in philosophy and not science. Simple as that

See above where I talk about the general impact on society vis-a-vis individual scientists.

The controversy is caused by those whose philosophical construct rely on assuming a reality not backed up by the evidence. Creationists and the like don't reject evolution because it rejects the idea of god(because evolution doesn't) they reject it because they are sure that their god(as opposed to your definition) actually poofed the universe into existence as it is now less than 10 thousand years ago.

Creationists and the Discovery Institute are religionists . . . not supporters of the generic creator God. They are rightly condemned and ridiculed. The existence of a creator is not.

In this context yes. More precisely it causes more problems than it fixes and it is in no way related to the constant search for truth that science strives for.

Happy people, supporting a science that does not denigrate the generic idea of a creator . . . while providing clear and accurate knowledge about the universe using the scientific method would "create more problems than it fixes" and would in no way be related to the constant search for truth? I don't see it.

"God" as in the invisible unfalsifiable deity that is different for everyone can be rejected on the grounds of no positive objective evidence.

But a generic creator possessing all the known characteristics of "nature" that can also be believed to have individual descriptions of characteristics that are not testable and are as varied as humanity in general cannot be.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Dismissing a Christian God or a Muslim God or the Greek Gods or . . . whatever is acceptable . . . but foolish and no part of a scientist's role.

I'm sorry why is it foolish? they are being dismissed on the grounds that they lack the caliber of evidence that science demands.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The " innocence, etc." refers to the pretense that the general scientific denial or ignoring of God isn't perceived by the public at large to be a generic repudiation of the very concept of a creator, period . . . which is NOT scientific. The overall impact is what is problematic . . . not what any individual scientist does or does not believe.

Horsecrap, not referring to god is not the same as denying its existence. If they want to take it that way then fine but god is an unknown and making theories around something that is unobservable is just an act of mental masturbation for scientists

I'm seeing this switching back and forth between definitions. When deity god is dismissed you switch to broad definition god. When broad definition god is not argued against, you switch back to deity god and make it look as if they are the same. We could try the same with the words "fairies or "orange pandas" and it would be the same.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

That is why it is in quotes . . . but gravity is generally believed to be a "force" (deformation of spacetime) actively preventing things from flying off the earth. It is the last unidentified force that is the target of quantum gravity theories.

Yes i'm aware we don't know much about gravity. Your point?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

And you determined that this "nature" you see is NOT God, how? And this cannot be God because? Agreed. We exist because God ("nature") exists and created us (whether probabilistically or not).

See semantics again, broad term god is not being argued by me here

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If the universe is pure consciousness (God) then all its features would be parameters of the field established by that consciousness (consciousness cannot exist without a field . . . neither can the universe).
Our inability to measure consciousness places beyond investigation all questions of whether or not that consciousness "willed" the "laws" that seem to govern or establish the parameters of the field or not. So it is appropriate to consider them as parameters and not "laws" in the absence of any investigation of their true nature.

ignoring the conciousness comment fam, notice the "IF" right at the beginning. Heck even if you remove it, it still doesn't change the fact that we dont know

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have said it applies to anything that "nature" can be applied to. See above where I talk about the general impact on society vis-a-vis individual scientists.

S_E_M_A_N_T_I_C_S. Changing the definition of "poor" to "enlightened" would solve poverty in the same way that calling everything god will solve whatever the hell you are trying to propose

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Creationists and the Discovery Institute are religionists . . . not supporters of the generic creator God.

Which goes back to what i said. Unless everyone supported in the generic creator god this just causes trouble

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

They are rightly condemned and ridiculed. The existence of a creator is not.

Do you think im not aware of this? they are ridiculed for their lies, not the belief in a god

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Happy people, supporting a science that does not denigrate the generic idea of a creator . . . while providing clear and accurate knowledge about the universe using the scientific method would "create more problems than it fixes" and would in no way be related to the constant search for truth? I don't see it.

Again, where does science denigrate the idea of a creator? What you are doing is literally forcing the word god where you see fit and switching between meanings every 2 seconds confusing everyone else.

Someone being happy or sad has nothing to do with a scientific investigation.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

But a generic creator possessing all the known characteristics of "nature" that can also be believed to have individual descriptions of characteristics that are not testable and are as varied as humanity in general cannot be.

And now we are merging deity god with broad term god. Why don't we call nature "nature" and let those with faith add all the characteristics to their god that they like.

Even better, lets change the meaning of sad to "amused", pain to "strong tickling" and suffering to "gas" thereby eliminating most problems in our society

[GCSTroop]

Coos,

I agree. It seems he can't make a solid definition of what "God" is. I'm sitting here wondering if he's referring to Spinoza and Einstein's God but then he makes remarks so that I can't tell if he's referring to a personified deity. The second you challenge something in one of the two he jumps ship and swims to the other one.

So... for now I'm just frustrated because I hate arguing with those who continue to abandon their sinking ships.

For the record, if someone wants to call "nature" a "God" then on a limited circumstance I'll accept that. The terms of that acceptance are that "nature" has no cognition, it does not watch out for us, it doesn't exist outside of realm of space and time, it only constitutes everything that is in this universe and potentially other universes. It doesn't have foresight, it can't see, it is merely just a chain of events within matter.

In essence, if you want to call matter "God" then by all means go ahead. Stop trying to invoke "God" with a classical definition and twist the meaning around so you can just point a finger and say "See! You do believe in God!" No, I don't believe in any God in the classical sense.

With that being said, I am now going to go and worship the little toy truck sitting on my desk since it is after all a product of nucleosynthesis and thus a part of nature, or in this case, "God".

[coosjoaquin]

Thats pretty much the way i feel, there is also that idea that somehow not invoking god whenever a theory is made somehow constitutes the same as an active denial of any possibility of it.

weird stuff

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by Haaziq

I looked that guy's bio and automatically knew that the book would be biased because he is religious. For a theory to be plausible in science, there must be observable evidence of it. I highly doubt anybody could give me observable evidence of a human soul.

You automatically assume that because he went to a school with a religous name he's slanted????? You should read it ... but I should warn you it has some big words in it and no pictures..........