Questions and Statements about God...

[fiat_money]

Worshiping doesn't necessarily apply to the "supernatural". I will admit that the thread does invite a claim, but I meant it more for something to think about; not to prove that science is a supernatural being. Science for some is not just a way to explain life...it is life; that without it, everything is "dead". But it's no different from someone say that God is life and that without God that everything is dead.

Science is merely system/process/tool humans use to understand/explain things, everything would not be "dead" without it because life predates humans. So even if someone were to believe that without the proposed supernatural being, "God", everything would be "dead"; this potential commonality is not shared by science.

So it is different, since one is just a baseless claim, while the other is a false claim.

 

[Huruma]

Science depends on critical thinking, empirical testing and open-mindedness. Religion depends on faith. Science is flexible, ideas are accepted and rejected all the time (scientists make a living discrediting the theories of other scientists) whereas religious beliefs are canonical. By definition, there's no reasoning with faith.

That said, religious beliefs are still useful in providing people with a sense of hope, purpose, support etc. Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions probably cause far more suffering than they relieve.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Science depends on critical thinking, empirical testing and open-mindedness. Religion depends on faith. Science is flexible, ideas are accepted and rejected all the time (scientists make a living discrediting the theories of other scientists) whereas religious beliefs are canonical. By definition, there's no reasoning with faith.

That said, religious beliefs are still useful in providing people with a sense of hope, purpose, support etc. Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions probably cause far more suffering than they relieve.

Yes!

Co-Sign this statement

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Is the Universe in choas or is it in perfect design?...answer that question truthfully and the answer to the "TS" question becomes clear.

I've posited that a perceived order came from chaos but it is all still chaos with elements only playing their position tentatively.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Lol... Reaching.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Science had to become the 'next' god, it seemed to provide more stability, more answers, more personal interactions and so forth.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Science had to become the 'next' god, it seemed to provide more stability, more answers, more personal interactions and so forth.

It is the the products that were created from the discoveries that were found using the scientific method that you are referring to. science aided in the creation of the TV but it is the TV that people worship (or mere commonly, the internet) but not literally. It's more of a passing admiration of the product that provides a service until that service and product becomes passe. You can't apply science to your own definition.

 

[toktaylor]

I've posited that a perceived order came from chaos but it is all still chaos with elements only playing their position tentatively.

when u have too many coincidences...it usually is not

 

[alissowack]

No, science can change at any time. It gives us the understanding at the present time. Most theories end up sticking and are 100% accurate. However a huge breakthrough can take place and change a number of proposed theories.

And @ the bolded..... what?

What I mean by the bolded is this...science no doubt has a great influence in the way we see and explain the things of the world so much so that we virtually can't dismiss it. But how far are we willing to go with it. Will we make science out to be more than what it is? Will science have so much "power" that it no longer explains. Will science "rule" as well; that scientist will play the role that religion plays of being divine and telling people what they should or shouldn't do...or what people should believe?

 

[alissowack]

Science is merely system/process/tool humans use to understand/explain things, everything would not be "dead" without it because life predates humans. So even if someone were to believe that without the proposed supernatural being, "God", everything would be "dead"; this potential commonality is not shared by science.

So it is different, since one is just a baseless claim, while the other is a false claim.

I don't mean death in the physical sense. I mean it to say the all of the influences of science would have no meaning if science didn't say it was. Gravity may have already existed, but for science to say it is a lot more "authoritative" than just some uneducated person saying it is. To you, God doesn't exist because science says so...or I should say scientists said so.

 

[alissowack]

Lol... Reaching.

That's a nice pic. Maybe it is reaching. But my intentions was not to re-invent science to be God; just to get people's heads thinking...or not.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

It is the the products that were created from the discoveries that were found using the scientific method that you are referring to. science aided in the creation of the TV but it is the TV that people worship (or mere commonly, the internet) but not literally. It's more of a passing admiration of the product that provides a service until that service and product becomes passe. You can't apply science to your own definition.

Oh alright if everyone is going to get all technical and shit....

Back in the day before science and it's "scientific methods" became a solid plan in mans mind, most people just listened to the priests and took their word for it and for the most part agreed the priests were the middle men between god and man. But after some time the people started seeing and taking note that these priests seemed to be doing all the things they told the people not to do because it wouldn't allow god to come close to them and they'd probably go to hell. So the people thought, "hmmmm, god must not be close to them either and we should seek to find god ourselves, and we shall do this through studying his creation", thus the scientific method was planted, incubated and born and they called what they did "science". Science replaced for most what was formally called god, as this method gave them more answers, is was more stable, allowed for more actual personal interaction and so forth.

 

[fiat_money]

I don't mean death in the physical sense. I mean it to say the all of the influences of science would have no meaning if science didn't say it was. Gravity may have already existed, but for science to say it is a lot more "authoritative" than just some uneducated person saying it is. To you, God doesn't exist because science says so...or I should say scientists said so.

Not quite, the reason things determined or discovered by using the scientific method have influence is because they are replicable/observable/calculable by others. Scientific theories and even laws aren't just accepted at "face value", they are tested repeatedly by others to further substantiate or disprove them. Even I've observed the values of gravity to be correct by using an Atwood machine, therefore if someone told me the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth was 49m/s^2, I wouldn't believe them, regardless their education. So any "influence" isn't there simply because an individual states something, but because many verified the same thing.

And to me, "God" does not exist because I do not believe the theory. I didn't believe in "God" before I knew the definition of "science". In fact, I've never believed in anything "supernatural"; ghosts, demons, poltergeists, "monsters under the bed", "Bloody Mary", spirits, souls, etc.

"God" simply happens to be one of many things I don't believe in.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

What I mean by the bolded is this...science no doubt has a great influence in the way we see and explain the things of the world so much so that we virtually can't dismiss it. But how far are we willing to go with it. Will we make science out to be more than what it is? Will science have so much "power" that it no longer explains. Will science "rule" as well; that scientist will play the role that religion plays of being divine and telling people what they should or shouldn't do...or what people should believe?

To the average person who has no interest in it yes. To someone who enjoys science no. I don't know about guys like FIAT and Ktulu, but I actually like to read how they have come to conclusion they have and from that I can judge on whether or not it seems right. If it seems somewhat off or I spot something wrong in it, I don't take much interest in it because I know within a week another well respected group of scientists will come out and tell the world it's wrong and it will be revised.

 

[alissowack]

Not quite, the reason things determined or discovered by using the scientific method have influence is because they are replicable/observable/calculable by others. Scientific theories and even laws aren't just accepted at "face value", they are tested repeatedly by others to further substantiate or disprove them. Even I've observed the values of gravity to be correct by using an Atwood machine, therefore if someone told me the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth was 49m/s^2, I wouldn't believe them, regardless their education. So any "influence" isn't there simply because an individual states something, but because many verified the same thing.

And to me, "God" does not exist because I do not believe the theory. I didn't believe in "God" before I knew the definition of "science". In fact, I've never believed in anything "supernatural"; ghosts, demons, poltergeists, "monsters under the bed", "Bloody Mary", spirits, souls, etc.

"God" simply happens to be one of many things I don't believe in.

Science is a motivator, however. It has strengthen your reliance on it for everything you believe to be trivial...such as God's existence. Maybe it is the "believer's" fault for trying to turn the Genesis story into a testable theory, but to think that beliefs are "theorized" really misses the point. What some people think is that because the theory is tested and proven false, that someone should stop believing; that hopes and desires must pass the test in order to be pursued.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

when u have too many coincidences...it usually is not

What exactly is a coincidence? That doesn't help your argument. Nothing that you think is a coincidence is exactly that. You may do the same thing over and over but it's never done exactly the same way. Your perception may fool you to think that it's exactly the same. It's like twins. They may look alike but there are enough minute differences that will tell you that they are different that you may not be aware of if your not looking for it.

Also notice all of the variants that have been created via evolution. If we were perfect, they why don't we have the strength of monkeys along with the ability to swim to the lowest depths of the ocean. We gave up a lot in order to gain our brain power but we learned how to adapt by mimicking the skills of other animals. We created machines that create similar patterns but and objects but they each decay it a very similar yet unique way depending on external forces. The very chaos that i speak of is the chaos of forces fighting one another to remain in top positron through reaction and adaptation to other forces.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Science is a motivator, however. It has strengthen your reliance on it for everything you believe to be trivial...such as God's existence. Maybe it is the "believer's" fault for trying to turn the Genesis story into a testable theory, but to think that beliefs are "theorized" really misses the point. What some people think is that because the theory is tested and proven false, that someone should stop believing; that hopes and desires must pass the test in order to be pursued.

How you you try to do such a thing when it's a natural human inclination to do such things. A baby will hold it's hand under a flame and figure not to do it again once it feels the pain. A person with pain receptor problems will not no the difference but will be injured far worse. There is nothing on this planet that we do not test in order to adapt to survive. To tell people not to analyze something is very disturbing to me. Btw the point that you speak of is a point created by a person so another person has every right to offer a challenge. If your point doesn't hold up on it's own then you need to reevaluate your theory.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

That's a nice pic. Maybe it is reaching. But my intentions was not to re-invent science to be God; just to get people's heads thinking...or not.

Sounds more like you want us to think like you which must be frustrating when that doesn't work out like you planned. Also, you didn't put a question mark so you made an assertion that "science is God" which purport to create your own statement of truth which we should all discuss as if it's actually the truth. That's a fallacious argument your offering us homey.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Oh alright if everyone is going to get all technical and shit....

Back in the day before science and it's "scientific methods" became a solid plan in mans mind, most people just listened to the priests and took their word for it and for the most part agreed the priests were the middle men between god and man. But after some time the people started seeing and taking note that these priests seemed to be doing all the things they told the people not to do because it wouldn't allow god to come close to them and they'd probably go to hell. So the people thought, "hmmmm, god must not be close to them either and we should seek to find god ourselves, and we shall do this through studying his creation", thus the scientific method was planted, incubated and born and they called what they did "science". Science replaced for most what was formally called god, as this method gave them more answers, is was more stable, allowed for more actual personal interaction and so forth.

Science is to go beyond the filter and look at the actual phenomenon, test it, study it and see what can be done to manipulate it. I can only help to be technical when that is the only definition that applies to a process. You can name it anything but the process of theorizing, hypothesizing and testing for results will remain. Science is good at letting in new theories that weren't be analyzed in the first place because you may discover something that you weren't looking for. The problem you face is not admitting that with all the evidence of humanity that we have, people went crazy with their theories and made up stories. In science that theory deserves scrutiny and if fallible it is dismissed. If you can't let go of that theory once dismissed, then you are the fool. The stories that are created in science for instance of how the dinosaurs may have lived is based off of evidence such as plants found, skeletons, and even bacteria. If you are fortunate enough to find the dung of the animal and wise enough to learn how to extract DNA from the bones then you have a greater abundance of evidence to tell about the animals nature and it's evolutionary process. The position of the skeletons and the area they were found in can also be used to create an argument. There has been new evidence that dismisses outdated theories but only adds to the old evidence to give a clearer picture. For example we recently learned that velocaraptors had feathers.

There have been attempts to make science into a religion but those attempts are scrutinized and don't hold up because they always add ridiculous overtones of religion and wild theories that they tell you you shouldn't test. An example of this is Scientology which is openly scorned by scientist. Scientology is not a science it's a religion based off of discoveries found and science and a bunch of bullshit added on top.

 

[kids in america_]

literal, first off we must understand it was made for spirit beings to dwell, they want be killed in the lake of fire, just tormented..this is why the scriptures gave us an example on how that will work w/the rich man wanting a drop of water on his tongue but the other person stated there was a gulf between them & they couldn't enter over into it nor anyone from there will be able to enter on the other side of the Kingdom... everything will be in the Kingdom which will be established on earth... this is why Christ stated in Matthew the difference between the least side of the Kingdom & the Great side of the Kingdom...
your right a lake is a body of water, I'm thinking (just my thoughts here) it will expand as big as a lake would but will have fire instead of water since after we've been changed into spirit beings (be it good or bad) there will be no more sea.

How can spirit beings be tormented by physical fire?