Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: science vs. religion: conflict and the reality of God

  1. #1 science vs. religion: conflict and the reality of God 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Surprisingly interesting question. Obviously there are incompatibilities in methodology, but is this enough to rule out God? Even so, shouldn't science be in more agreement towards there being a creator if not? There's no way of telling if there is a god, but it seems highly unlikely at the same time as evidence seems to point towards a naturalistic universe. However, we don't have many universes to compare to, so how do we know what is naturalistic and what's not?

    Many thoughts spring to mind.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Well if God is omnipotent that would rule out scientific testing. God can't help that he's omnipotent . So that might be a possibility. And God would want us to live in a rational universe, since an irrational one would really suck. So faith goes one way (as it can't be tested) and science another (since it should be tested). They conflict because science cannot verify faith and therefore supports agnosticism as opposed to religion.

    Just trying to get this thread going...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17
    Why would that rule out scientific testing Golkarian? energy is omnipotent yet science manages to prove that alright.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    If you cannot possibly find ANY evidence, -let alone proof- that something exists, no matter how many tests you try out to find it, is that NOT the same thing as saying it DOESN'T exist?

    Your god doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17
    If you cannot possibly find ANY evidence, -let alone proof- that something exists, no matter how many tests you try out to find it, is that NOT the same thing as saying it DOESN'T exist?

    Your god doesn't exist.
    No it's not the same as saying it doesn't exists, that would be saying there is currently no evidence to prove an existence... completely different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?
    Are there any scientific ideas which are fundamentally in conflict with religious ideas?

    Be specific. What religion are you talking about here?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Your god can't be observed in any way. Not by any of our five senses, nor enhanced senses of detection devices we build.
    Doesn't leave any unambiguous proof that could not possibly be fabricated.

    =

    doesn't exist.


    This is entirely aside from disproof of a bunch of attributes given to him that only further disprove the existence of so ludicrous a creature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17
    Your god can't be observed in any way. Not by any of our five senses, nor enhanced senses of detection devices we build.
    Doesn't leave any unambiguous proof that could not possibly be fabricated.

    =

    doesn't exist.


    This is entirely aside from disproof of a bunch of attributes given to him that only further disprove the existence of so ludicrous a creature.
    Your arrogance is astonishing...

    How do you know what my view of God is? also what leads you to assume it has a gender?

    How do you know it cannot be observed or sensed in anyway when you don't even know what it is?

    What makes you think there has been or will ever be a God sensory detection device?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    your blindness is even more astonishing...

    I don't know what your view of a god is. The way you speak of IT leads to the conclusion you believe in some sort of god or other.
    What does that have to do with anything?
    I assign it a male gender for the sake of convenience. I don't really care what gender/lack of your particular fantasy is in any event.

    Your god and all the attributes given to IT have never been observed. Your god is claimed to be 'in heaven' and is not observed there. Your god is claimed to be 'everything' and has not been observed inhabiting anything! Your god that has so many claims made about IT has suddenly in the modern age appeared not to exist at all. Yet was claimed to be so present in the past, when people knew practically nothing of the universe.

    A god sensory detection device would be your eyes, ears, maybe the other 3 senses and certainly more sensitive electronic devices would be more capable than you. Certainly not your particular brain, if you just shut down thinking and believe you 'feel' your god.
    'Interestingly' enough, hubble has not found 'heaven' nor 'hell' for that matter, nor has it found the face of your god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17
    your blindness is even more astonishing...

    I don't know what your view of a god is. The way you speak of IT leads to the conclusion you believe in some sort of god or other.
    What does that have to do with anything?
    I assign it a male gender for the sake of convenience. I don't really care what gender/lack of your particular fantasy is in any event.

    Your god and all the attributes given to IT have never been observed. Your god is claimed to be 'in heaven' and is not observed there. Your god is claimed to be 'everything' and has not been observed inhabiting anything! Your god that has so many claims made about IT has suddenly in the modern age appeared not to exist at all. Yet was claimed to be so present in the past, when people knew practically nothing of the universe.

    A god sensory detection device would be your eyes, ears, maybe the other 3 senses and certainly more sensitive electronic devices would be more capable than you. Certainly not your particular brain, if you just shut down thinking and believe you 'feel' your god.
    'Interestingly' enough, hubble has not found 'heaven' nor 'hell' for that matter, nor has it found the face of your god.
    Well as far as I am aware my eye sight is fine I am certainly in no way blind, this much I do know...

    Of course you have been lead to the conclusion I believe in a God, I more or less told you this myself.

    What does my view of God have to do with anything? well everything... your trying to disprove something you know nothing about, you are simply taking the doubt generated from abrahamic and other religious theories and trying to pass it onto my view of a God.

    No you don't assign it male for the sake of convenience, you assign it these attributes because you are again naively relating to those popular abrahamic religions which have either directly or indirectly stated God is male, why lie?

    So you admit you don't know about my view of God yet you go on to describe it's attributes and where it might be found? Heaven is again an abrahamic concept, I never told you God was in Heaven or that I at all believed he was, your simply stating this in bias.

    It's very possible God inhibits everything, proper observation and scientific judgment have never been made on this so your totally making that up, I dunno where you got your facts from but they are SCIENTIFICALLY wrong...

    Many claims have been made about the God I speak of? sure claims have been made but that is not the point you are making, why? because your derailing your thinking back to the concept of a God that the Bible and other such religions preach, in fact I am positively sure this is the case since your referring to the distant/ancient past. The fact is my view of God is a modern age one, people of the past simply couldn't comprehend anything I would put forward about my beliefs or the theory I have.

    Your finishing statement is nothing but baloney and in no way scientific! it's true that perhaps our senses or machines should be able to detect God if it existed but what if they do? and how do you know they don't? If God existed in everything then how do you know we are not looking at his face every time we look at something? seeing a human-like face functioning from a piece of wood or something is just down right freaky and I am sure we all agree physically impossible but does this mean God cannot exist? of course not.

    I don't just shut down my brain and feel the presence of God like most of the sheeple in this world, you obviously don't know me because if you did you would realize I am so wrapped up in this that I think about it every day trying to prove and disprove my beliefs with decent, educated and scientific questions.

    ahh the cherry on the cake Heaven and Hell, I knew you were talking about the Bible throughout your post, shame you have limited yourself to this book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Critical
    What makes you think there has been or will ever be a God sensory detection device?
    I think his point is without one there's absolutely no reason to believe in a divine being whatsoever--either that or reject the age-of-reason. The burden of proof is entirely on the faithful to proof the existance of things supernatural--hence the god sensory detection device.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17
    I think his point is without one there's absolutely no reason to believe in a divine being whatsoever--either that or reject the age-of-reason. The burden of proof is entirely on the faithful to proof the existance of things supernatural--hence the god sensory detection device.
    Well believe in what you will, it's your choice and until there is sufficient evidence backing a particular side you are free to continue with whatever you choose to believe in.

    I disagree though the burden of proof is on whoever thinks God can be dis-proven by machines or devices, after all it's those who claim this can be done.

    I also didn't say that such a machine doesn't exist or never will, I was simply asking what makes him think this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: science vs. religion: conflict and the reality of God 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?
    Could you explain to me again the connection between God and religion. Somehow I missed that one. It seems wrapped up in the same erroneous conflation of God and eternal life; or the peculiar belief that God would take a direct interest in every individual. Clearly I am missing something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    Ya, Golk. You are missing that the whole thing is nothing more than a fantasy.
    The thread originally talked about a god, which by convention, is the one worshipped all throughout the states like a cancer all throughout the body.

    By CONVENTION that god is referred to as a 'he', when in fact any god should have nothing to do with gender nor human form itself. So, "critical" (which you aren't in the least) DON'T go attributing things to me which I say otherwise. I am hardly LYING. I use "he" as the convention. Not believing in your idiot god in the first place makes the question of gender entirely irrelevant to me.

    Just as I wasn't talking about your eyesight in saying you are blind, you also don't even practice what science is. Otherwise you could not possibly have a 'belief' in your god. Science resides in PROOF. You have NO PROOF of your god, and having some science education you try to cover up the result in claiming your god is entirely beyond observation and thus beyond proof. You are making the most childish of ludicrous claims. BLIND, by choice to science.

    Your god shows itself NOWHERE. The flying spaghetti monster shows itself NOWHERE. Both concepts are furthermore equally ludicrous. Yet you insist on not only believing in one of them, you also try to shove forward your special appeal argument that belies and denies any proof by observation of any type whatsoever. You are no scientist. Don't think or claim you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,261
    In the end we simply have no scientific proof either way. The answer to our existence could be anything from existing by chance, to existing because of a god, to existing as the result of a scientific experiment performed by some kind of higher beings! I certainly hope the first and third possibilities are false because I would feel empty of meaning.
    God is such a beautiful idea, and our many religions has given us so many good values and laws, but I believe we should put good government, human life, and love before our many gods or we may go backwards socially, or even destroy ourselves because of it. I do not think any benevolent god could ever want that to happen. I am not telling you all to be atheists, rather for you to avoid the devil, if you will, in your lives and make smart choices for yourselves and the rest of humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    17
    By CONVENTION that god is referred to as a 'he', when in fact any god should have nothing to do with gender nor human form itself. So, "critical" (which you aren't in the least) DON'T go attributing things to me which I say otherwise. I am hardly LYING. I use "he" as the convention. Not believing in your idiot god in the first place makes the question of gender entirely irrelevant to me.

    Just as I wasn't talking about your eyesight in saying you are blind, you also don't even practice what science is. Otherwise you could not possibly have a 'belief' in your god. Science resides in PROOF. You have NO PROOF of your god, and having some science education you try to cover up the result in claiming your god is entirely beyond observation and thus beyond proof. You are making the most childish of ludicrous claims. BLIND, by choice to science.

    Your god shows itself NOWHERE. The flying spaghetti monster shows itself NOWHERE. Both concepts are furthermore equally ludicrous. Yet you insist on not only believing in one of them, you also try to shove forward your special appeal argument that belies and denies any proof by observation of any type whatsoever. You are no scientist. Don't think or claim you are.
    by convention? I don't think so because this "He" is not an accepted rule and it's on the verge of convention through usage only because this term was coined by a few religions (which also happen to be some of the most popular). Some people (including yourself) would say the same religions have already been dis-proven or completely ludicrous to begin with and I would agree depending on the facts and evidence surrounding that particular religion or set of beliefs, I wouldn't however be so certain to judge those which have some standing or raise valid, proven or uncertain points.

    when in fact any god should have nothing to do with gender nor human form itself
    Then why call it "He"? I am confused :?

    I obviously know you were not talking about my eyesight I was just trying to humor the fact you started with such a useless response, thought I should do the same.

    Hmm I don't practice science because I have belief in something? excuse me but even the greatest scientists known must have belief in they're theories until they either prove them right or they turn out to be wrong, what would make me or the theory of a creator any different? your opinion certainly doesn't change anything.

    I don't know where you get the things you say... it's like you completely make up what you want to hear. When did I say God can never be found? I asked why and how you know this to be true, completely different!

    Well to be honest I haven't made any claims in this thread and if you look at my posts you will see that, perhaps some suggestion for the sake of the conversation but no CLAIMS. You are labeling these suggestions and questions as claims and totally refuting them, fact is I have told you nothing or claimed anything about my concept of God yet you reply with your bias that a creator does not and cannot exist... well here is another fact, not 1 sane scientist would back you up with your refutations based on the current lack of evidence on either side.

    The idea of God and a spaghetti monster being the same is wrong for the monster would need to be a creation of the creator. Since spaghetti is nothing but energy like all matter, flying exists and (existent) monsters would also be made of matter or other form of energy then it is totally plausible and in fact very likely that the creator is able to form a flying spaghetti monster, if energy can take form of all 3 things individually then it's logical to assume the energy could mutate to include the properties of all.

    Please let me be clear on this though, the reason I don't think the flying spaghetti monster exists is because I don't think the creator is that stupid, there is clear intelligence in the universes defined yet most importantly limited, even restricted design which you are refusing to look at or taking for granted. It is scientifically stated that nature is order formed out of chaos, this should show any rational person that a spaghetti monster or any other wacky things would be statistically more likely in this "nature" scenario for there would be nothing in place to stop matter behaving in this manner i.e. effectively saying "no! this is not an accepted energy arrangement of matter", in other words the world would we a really really strange place if nature was in charge.

    I really don't have time just now to write about my concept of God or particular beliefs but I am sure I will when the time comes so the members of this forum can post constructive arguments for or against what I will have said, I am certainly not going to spend that time on you in this thread as you would have nothing to offer other than your petty insults.

    Science doesn't claim God does not or cannot exist, what makes you think you are better?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Critical
    Why would that rule out scientific testing Golkarian? energy is omnipotent yet science manages to prove that alright.
    I don't think energy is omnipotent, if it's omnipotent, how do we manipulate it time after time after time? And how come we can't do everything with energy, I think because energy has limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?
    Are there any scientific ideas which are fundamentally in conflict with religious ideas?

    Be specific. What religion are you talking about here?
    Key word is "if". I'm not expressing any view on the reality of the conflict.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: science vs. religion: conflict and the reality of God 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?
    Could you explain to me again the connection between God and religion. Somehow I missed that one. It seems wrapped up in the same erroneous conflation of God and eternal life; or the peculiar belief that God would take a direct interest in every individual. Clearly I am missing something.
    Perhaps I could rephrase it theism. But another example is a religious text being in conflict with science, and asking whether it rules out that particular god (if the religion has one). So it could be an open ended question (ruling out any god, ruling out a particular god, etc.). I apologize for abstractness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    If you cannot possibly find ANY evidence, -let alone proof- that something exists, no matter how many tests you try out to find it, is that NOT the same thing as saying it DOESN'T exist?

    Your god doesn't exist.
    I think this dismisses my point, which is that even if a God existed it might not be possible to test its existence [see my second post]. Now this might be a contradiction (if God is omnipotent why can't he prove his existence?) but perhaps God is limited by logical constraints only? But this might lead to an idea for testing its existence...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman WisdomSeeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    13
    Let's look at it from a simple perspective. God created man/women to worship him, and other little things. Amongst these other things, he wants us to seek knowledge. Science and God go hand in hand. Except God is the one who made science... The big bang theory for example. I believe it, but I believe in god. Why? Because: “Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth
    Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them
    asunder?” (Quran 21:30)

    This clearly indicates that the universe(heavens and the earth was) joint entity the word used in Arabic is (retq) which is used to refer to different substances that make up a whole. And then god clove them asunder the word used in Arabic is (fataqa) which means to become separated from each other or to separate something by destroying its structure

    If I believed in the big bang, and not in god, then that would be like saying: Hey, there was an explosion in a garage, and the result was a mercedes benz!

    Science, if anything, proves that there is a God. And common sence proves that the Quran is the word of god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian View Post
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?
    Yes and no!
    If S&R negates each other in your sense then everything is provable (Ex Falso Libet)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Critical View Post
    Why would that rule out scientific testing Golkarian? energy is omnipotent yet science manages to prove that alright.
    ?????
    Energy omnipotent?
    Nothing is omnipotent.
    Its a selfcontradictive concept!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei View Post
    If you cannot possibly find ANY evidence, -let alone proof- that something exists, no matter how many tests you try out to find it, is that NOT the same thing as saying it DOESN'T exist?

    Your god doesn't exist.
    Wrong! If god ONLY has the quality of existence then he exists but cannot be shown to exist since he lacks other detectable qualities!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by WisdomSeeker View Post
    Let's look at it from a simple perspective. God created man/women to worship him, and other little things. Amongst these other things, he wants us to seek knowledge. Science and God go hand in hand. Except God is the one who made science... The big bang theory for example. I believe it, but I believe in god. Why? Because: “Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth
    Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them
    asunder?” (Quran 21:30)

    This clearly indicates that the universe(heavens and the earth was) joint entity the word used in Arabic is (retq) which is used to refer to different substances that make up a whole. And then god clove them asunder the word used in Arabic is (fataqa) which means to become separated from each other or to separate something by destroying its structure

    If I believed in the big bang, and not in god, then that would be like saying: Hey, there was an explosion in a garage, and the result was a mercedes benz!

    Science, if anything, proves that there is a God. And common sence proves that the Quran is the word of god.
    Common sense? You mean common moslim sense! Prejudiced is what you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by C_Sensei
    If you cannot possibly find ANY evidence, -let alone proof- that something exists, no matter how many tests you try out to find it, is that NOT the same thing as saying it DOESN'T exist?

    Your god doesn't exist.
    I think this dismisses my point, which is that even if a God existed it might not be possible to test its existence [see my second post]. Now this might be a contradiction (if God is omnipotent why can't he prove his existence?) but perhaps God is limited by logical constraints only? But this might lead to an idea for testing its existence...
    Hey!
    Now Im interested!
    Whats your testing idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Do you think that if religion and science and religion are fundamentally (the ideas not the people) in conflict that this rules out the exsistence of God?
    Are there any scientific ideas which are fundamentally in conflict with religious ideas?

    Be specific. What religion are you talking about here?
    Key word is "if". I'm not expressing any view on the reality of the conflict.
    Hi Liongold
    Maybe Golkarian thinks this way: Science consists of the set of all truths... now suppose there is a religion containing the same set of truths...With an extra statement that science then cannot contain because it already has all truths and cant accept a falsehood.
    Then science and religion perhaps can be in conflict.
    If from the religious point of view the extra statement is true!

    But I think the situation is paradoxical...therefore anything should be provable.
    But IF he really thinks so THEN we are in disagreement SINCE there are no paradoxes.
    Therefore science and religion does not necessarily contradict each other. (QED)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Critical View Post
    your blindness is even more astonishing...

    I don't know what your view of a god is. The way you speak of IT leads to the conclusion you believe in some sort of god or other.
    What does that have to do with anything?
    I assign it a male gender for the sake of convenience. I don't really care what gender/lack of your particular fantasy is in any event.

    Your god and all the attributes given to IT have never been observed. Your god is claimed to be 'in heaven' and is not observed there. Your god is claimed to be 'everything' and has not been observed inhabiting anything! Your god that has so many claims made about IT has suddenly in the modern age appeared not to exist at all. Yet was claimed to be so present in the past, when people knew practically nothing of the universe.

    A god sensory detection device would be your eyes, ears, maybe the other 3 senses and certainly more sensitive electronic devices would be more capable than you. Certainly not your particular brain, if you just shut down thinking and believe you 'feel' your god.
    'Interestingly' enough, hubble has not found 'heaven' nor 'hell' for that matter, nor has it found the face of your god.
    Well as far as I am aware my eye sight is fine I am certainly in no way blind, this much I do know...

    Of course you have been lead to the conclusion I believe in a God, I more or less told you this myself.

    What does my view of God have to do with anything? well everything... your trying to disprove something you know nothing about, you are simply taking the doubt generated from abrahamic and other religious theories and trying to pass it onto my view of a God.

    No you don't assign it male for the sake of convenience, you assign it these attributes because you are again naively relating to those popular abrahamic religions which have either directly or indirectly stated God is male, why lie?

    So you admit you don't know about my view of God yet you go on to describe it's attributes and where it might be found? Heaven is again an abrahamic concept, I never told you God was in Heaven or that I at all believed he was, your simply stating this in bias.

    It's very possible God inhibits everything, proper observation and scientific judgment have never been made on this so your totally making that up, I dunno where you got your facts from but they are SCIENTIFICALLY wrong...

    Many claims have been made about the God I speak of? sure claims have been made but that is not the point you are making, why? because your derailing your thinking back to the concept of a God that the Bible and other such religions preach, in fact I am positively sure this is the case since your referring to the distant/ancient past. The fact is my view of God is a modern age one, people of the past simply couldn't comprehend anything I would put forward about my beliefs or the theory I have.

    Your finishing statement is nothing but baloney and in no way scientific! it's true that perhaps our senses or machines should be able to detect God if it existed but what if they do? and how do you know they don't? If God existed in everything then how do you know we are not looking at his face every time we look at something? seeing a human-like face functioning from a piece of wood or something is just down right freaky and I am sure we all agree physically impossible but does this mean God cannot exist? of course not.

    I don't just shut down my brain and feel the presence of God like most of the sheeple in this world, you obviously don't know me because if you did you would realize I am so wrapped up in this that I think about it every day trying to prove and disprove my beliefs with decent, educated and scientific questions.

    ahh the cherry on the cake Heaven and Hell, I knew you were talking about the Bible throughout your post, shame you have limited yourself to this book.
    Hi! Your opponents seem unable to accept other possible god concepts than Jehovah.
    They are probably stuck in the religious tradition... (Probably reformed xians) ...there your correct. What are you then? A cantorian?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Do you realize you are responding to a post that is over 3 years old? I don't think"Critical" will be replying to your question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •