scientific evidence of God

So you have no answers.


And your "proof" has been soundly disproved.

 

Agree.

Agree.

Don't agree. First of all a scientific theory can become a new cargo-cult. It happens when a person doesn't really understand of what is happening but is worshipping science in a BELIEF that it would come to him and save him of any of his troubles. It was not designed as such but is often seen. In the forum as well.

And besides, Once we go outside natural science or come to the limitation of technical means (eyesight, the length of radio wave etc) and once we come to science as modelling and theoretical plan-making we don't have the power of an experiment. And we would have rely upon the limited man's mind only. Thus the practice is approving or disapproving and always changing any theory of the world. It refers to smallest particles that were discovered or to furthest stars and galaxies that are not seen but are somewhat calculated and imagined by scientists. This type of imagination can be checked later with big collider in Europe or a Hubble telescope located in open space. So the experiment is not the essence of science. The essence is a man's mind and thinking ability. This is more powerful thing than an experiment although it can make mistakes. Strictly speaking if it is soon discovered that the sky is made of a solid materials and the surrownding galaxies are just holes in it - I wouldn't be greatly suprised and if\when God returns to the Earth and it would be possible to touch him experimentally that wouldn't be the end of man's science. The end would only come if a man loses his mind.

 

You were doing good until you lost it coming around the final turn and then you just slammed into the wall! LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

That is how this poster does. But don't embarrass him/her too much or you will be "ignored".

 

There is NOTHING I could possibly do or say to embarrass you to the level you have embarrassed yourself here! LOL!!

AboveAlpha

 

Not everyone that has worked for or done work for NASA is on a list. This is just another ruse to try and discredit someone.

 

The God bashers have no shame. They will lie about someone's reputation out of one side of their mouth then castigate Christians for how they sometimes act out of the other side. Hypocrites.

 

It's true, science only deals with what we have good reasons to believe. Anything else, it cannot touch, but if we want to argue that we have a good reason for believing what we believe, we argue, by definition, that we have applied science. We might not be able to tell right away that we have used science, but science is a part of natural philosophy, it is broader than just categorising butterflies in third grade.

 

I have noticed that many atheists cherry pick science. They choose parts that support what they believe and ignore or try and discredit what doesn't support what they believe. That is really a misuse of science. It isn't intended to be used to create an atheist "dogma", yet they hijack it for just this purpose.

 

A deadly diagnosis for all the Internet advances. But a very realistic one.

It was once so why shouldn't it be repeated?

I just want to make a point that if there is a scientific proof of God's non-existence (which can be based on any of current theories) it will not affect the belief of the believer. And even if God himself pops out the skies (sorry for such an exageration) and tells a word in every language simultaneously correcting any of scientific theories this will not be a scientific proof for science. Science and Religion don't oppose each other and cannot substitute each other being to completely different methods of learning about the world. I understand that some of the believers don't need the knowledge of science. If a person feels God so close that he can refuse of food and water then the magic of aspirine wouldn't be that inspiring and the method of cloning would be not challenging but rather scaring from his point of view which is right according to his method and way of living. On the other hand I do respect those atheists who are not trying to fight with God with the knowledge of their scientific field but who don't want to think of God as of an unnecessary part of the universe that they know and work with. A person who imagines a new way in neurology or new idea of how the synthesised chemicals of the body affect the brain really will not be motivated that much to refuse of food just to train his will and to think of his life or a prayer. But I also don't see a problem to combine and to add one type of skills to the other.

 

And you assume such 'proof' to be correct. There are those who disagree with the science and have put forth their own science in refutation. I am engaging in this discussion for discussion's sake. My Belief will not waver but I enjoy the discussion...........usually

 

It will be difficult to explain, but in my point of viewing I did it well and went straight to the finish line just because... there was no turn. IMHO it was you who actually made half of the distance and then went off the road. Of course if there was someone who could arbitrate us and this... Someone would have the knowledge of what was actually right thing we would have a chance to know who was right and who wasn't or maybe we are both wrong.

 

Technically and from a scientific point of view it can be what is called 'correct'. Any of the holy items can be really proved to be false. If it is done then from a scientific view the whole 'theory' is wrong. But would it change your feeling of God if you learn then someone in the past was smart enough to deceive your naive ancestors? Of course, not.

I wonder if anyone of the users here is forced to come here by anything else but the same motivation.

 

odd observation.

Atheists don't need to "cherry pick" science, the way that theists are forced to.
Atheists don't need to prove the existence of god or lack thereof.

Atheists hold that there are rational scientific explanations for all reality.

The fact that atheists also acknowledge we are a long long way from comprehending all of those explanations is yet another scientific given. In fact, the unaswered questions are the primary motivation of our scientific curiosity.

theists on the other hand conveniently believe that all reality can be explained by a supernatural, unobservable sentient entity regardless of the level of our collective knowledge.

 

We will agree to disagree. This is old stuff amply covered ad nauseum over the last week or so. I really don't have the energy for a redux.

I think we know the motivation of some

 

Experimentation is at the heart of science. Might want to look up the scientific method some time.