If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (genesis, church, beliefs)
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.
No, observation does not . If science had developed before religion, religion would likely have never existed, as religion developed as a way for pre-scientific peoples to cope with unexplainable things about their existence , from death to birth to earthquakes to disease to drought and so on . Had these things been understood scientifically before religion, no such thing would have come about as a means for trying to understand the universe .
No, observation does not . If science had developed before religion, religion would likely have never existed, as religion developed as a way for pre-scientific peoples to cope with unexplainable things about their existence , from death to birth to earthquakes to disease to drought and so on . Had these things been understood scientifically before religion, no such thing would have come about as a means for trying to understand the universe .
no, that is flat out wrong. Observations point to something. In fact, so much so that its a waste of time to claim "not something".
Come on, try actually reading what he says. He is saying that YOU have renamed what we already had a name for - God - long before science reared its head in rebellion to autocratic religious authority, not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
If science had developed before religion, religion would likely have never existed, as religion developed as a way for pre-scientific peoples to cope with unexplainable things about their existence , from death to birth to earthquakes to disease to drought and so on . Had these things been understood scientifically before religion, no such thing would have come about as a means for trying to understand the universe .
This completely ignores the fact that science has done nothing to alter the status of our reality relative to us and still cannot tell us what it IS or why it is. They just renamed it, Told us to accept we don't know, but it isn't God. Get a clue.
this completely ignores the fact that science has done nothing to alter the status of our reality relative to us and still cannot tell us what it is or why it is. They just renamed it, told us to accept we don't know, but it isn't god. Get a clue.
What a silly post . And predictably , completely irrelevant, meaningless , inaccurate and unprovable .
Last edited by wallflash; 05-23-2016 at 05:26 PM..
Then give CONCRETE examples of this something . Until you can you are just making baseless claims .
simple dude. look at the biosphere as a cell. We are part of that biosphere. Then "space is something" and "gravity waves" moving through it. it clearly shows that it is far more reasonable to call this region of space"alive' then to try and claim it is not.
that is just basic college science stuff.
How you feel about it is irrelevant to that claim.
simple dude. look at the biosphere as a cell. We are part of that biosphere. Then "space is something" and "gravity waves" moving through it. it clearly shows that it is far more reasonable to call this region of space"alive' then to try and claim it is not.
that is just basic college science stuff.
How you feel about it is irrelevant to that claim.
Even if this is admitted to, and I'm not going to bother debating a pointless point , it doesn't equate with there being " something" beyond the natural physical realm . What you describe would be part of the natural universe , not something spiritual or metaphysical , which is what SB was referring to .
Come on, try actually reading what he says. He is saying that YOU have renamed what we already had a name for - God - long before science reared its head in rebellion to autocratic religious authority, not the other way around.
Except that the term God was used in the typical majority sense of something supernatural , and so when it was found that the supernatural was not needed to explain the universe the term associated with the supernatural was correctly changed to a more accurate term .
That the early scientists were hindered by an inability to conceive how things could work without God does not bind us to continue on in their error . In order for the proto-science of the early religious scientists to become a truly scientific endeavor the quasi science of the early religiously minded scientists had to be abandoned and left behind . And true science is much the better for it .
Last edited by wallflash; 05-23-2016 at 06:30 PM..
That last one is what we're talking about here, and really encompasses the others. God is, in the minds of most American, goodness, itself. It isn't that God has goodness, but rather that God is goodness.
another lovely favorite from recovery programs is:
GOD = Good Orderly Direction
Come on, try actually reading what he says. He is saying that YOU have renamed what we already had a name for - God - long before science reared its head in rebellion to autocratic religious authority, not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Except that the term God was used in the typical majority sense of something supernatural , and so when it was found that the supernatural was not needed to explain the universe the term associated with the supernatural was correctly changed to a more accurate term .
Wrong. There was no such distinction between natural and supernatural. That is a creation of the scientists who feared religious persecution. The distinction remains an artificial one to this day. There is no such thing as the supernatural, just what we do not currently understand, as it always was.
Quote:
That the early scientists were hindered by an inability to conceive how things could work without God does not bind us to continue on in their error . In order for the proto-science of the early religious scientists to become a truly scientific endeavor the quasi science of the early religiously minded scientists had to be abandoned and left behind . And true science is much the better for it .
Only in your unsupportable and unsupported opinion since we STILL do not have a clue WHAT our reality is or WHY it is and "We do not know" is NOT a basis for ANY such definitive assertions. Get a clue.
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.
