Questions and Statements about God...

[John Prewett]

A major breakthrough for me, before Jesus made a beleiver out of me,... was when I realized "science" does not have it all figured out. That there is mystery in the world.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

A major breakthrough for me, before Jesus made a beleiver out of me,... was when I realized "science" does not have it all figured out. That there is mystery in the world.

Science has never made this claim. Your Jesus myth has. It's it's been proven wrong on these forums time and time again only to be met with straw man arguments.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

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 There has been new evidence that dismisses outdated theories but only adds to the old evidence to give a clearer picture.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.

Lighten up, life ain't that serious

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Lighten up, life ain't that serious

Great argument bro. I thought we we're having a discussion here.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Great argument bro. I thought we we're having a discussion here.

Oh my bad, I thought you took my original comment and went all hard ass serious with it. You've been kind of saying everything I already understand.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Oh my bad, I thought you took my original comment and went all hard ass serious with it. You've been kind of saying everything I already understand.

So stating that science is God and me showing the reasons why it's not is me being serious right? Of course im serious. Why wouldn't i be in a discussion. If we we're telling jokes back and forth then i would be joking.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

So stating that science is God and me showing the reasons why it's not is me being serious right? Of course i'm serious. Why wouldn't i be in a discussion. If we we're telling jokes back and forth then i would be joking.

Are seriously saying you don't see how science has become the new "god"?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Are seriously saying you don't see how science has become the new "god"?

Yes. You asked i answered. I do think that products of science have been worshiped.

 

[alissowack]

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.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't analyze things. I'm saying that science isn't meant to analyze "everything". It's kind of like this thread. You think that I'm offering something that "works" when I'm not. You are breaking down what I have to say; getting to a hypothesis and you found nothing. That's good you found nothing. B.A. was the only one who has come close (I may even say on point) to what I was trying to get to while everyone else is wrecking their brains trying to offer a defense for why science is not God...or some immortal being.

There is always times in my posting where frustration sets in, but this was not one of those threads to be disappointed about. Sometimes I make good threads, sometimes I don't.

 

[fiat_money]

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.

If anything, learning of the scientific method made me more open to theories of the supernatural. As a child, when I first heard "God is everywhere, but you can't see him" and "you can feel God's love", I thought "This is bullshit."; since I didn't really comprehend invisibility and love has never been one of my emotions. But around eight or so, when I learned that air is was not an absence of matter yet it was not visible, I considered that "God" and other supernatural beings could be the same. Of course, later I realized that was not the case, by realizing the inherent faults of proving nonexistence and that the abstract claim is not the status quo. Reading the Christian bible and other religious mythology texts, and learning of the history of humanity's superstition only further strengthened my position.

Still, calling them "theories" is much better than calling them "bullshit"; which I believe they are. So I guess I see them as "bullshit theories".

A notable improvement, thanks to science.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I'm not saying that people shouldn't analyze things. I'm saying that science isn't meant to analyze "everything". It's kind of like this thread. You think that I'm offering something that "works" when I'm not. You are breaking down what I have to say; getting to a hypothesis and you found nothing. That's good you found nothing. B.A. was the only one who has come close (I may even say on point) to what I was trying to get to while everyone else is wrecking their brains trying to offer a defense for why science is not God...or some immortal being.

There is always times in my posting where frustration sets in, but this was not one of those threads to be disappointed about. Sometimes I make good threads, sometimes I don't.

BA is on your side of the argument, so i don't see how him agreeing with you means anything. Only evidence can support you which is what science is about. That evidence can be scrutinized and analyzed whether you want that to occur or not. You can't say everything isn't meant to be analyzed because that is the very nature of what we do. We analyze everything around us and make the decision of what our next function will be.

 

[alissowack]

BA is on your side of the argument, so i don't see how him agreeing with you means anything. Only evidence can support you which is what science is about. That evidence can be scrutinized and analyzed whether you want that to occur or not. You can't say everything isn't meant to be analyzed because that is the very nature of what we do. We analyze everything around us and make the decision of what our next function will be.

I'm sure she doesn't agree with the ridiculousness of religion. But, she (and B.A. is...) is the only one looking at the parallels of science and God. God and science are both looked to for the answers for why we exist; why we are who we are. Both require some devotion to the cause; that in the spirit of science and God, we serve. Sure, the way both go about it are different.

Again, I'm not offering something that works or is applicable and that is what you want. You want the truth. I want your trust. We went through this in your "the Bible fits everything" thread. Truth and trustworthiness....

 

[alissowack]

If anything, learning of the scientific method made me more open to theories of the supernatural. As a child, when I first heard "God is everywhere, but you can't see him" and "you can feel God's love", I thought "This is bullshit."; since I didn't really comprehend invisibility and love has never been one of my emotions. But around eight or so, when I learned that air is was not an absence of matter yet it was not visible, I considered that "God" and other supernatural beings could be the same. Of course, later I realized that was not the case, by realizing the inherent faults of proving nonexistence and that the abstract claim is not the status quo. Reading the Christian bible and other religious mythology texts, and learning of the history of humanity's superstition only further strengthened my position.

Still, calling them "theories" is much better than calling them "bullshit"; which I believe they are. So I guess I see them as "bullshit theories".

A notable improvement, thanks to science.

When I put this thread together, it wasn't to show that it works; that "science is God" is something that can be tested for truth. The "God is everywhere" stuff was of interest as well, but I find that even if it was found to be true, it serves no purpose other than it being a fact. It doesn't mean that God can be trusted. I can put on a show and present the "magic" associated with God, but that don't mean I'm an honest person; that I am a trustworthy person. If anything, I may be using this "magic" for my own selfish motives. I don't have to love anybody in doing it.

Now with science, it presents the same thing. Science has proven things to be true. But, does this make a scientist an honest, loving, and trustworthy person by default; that somehow his or her actions as a person is justified...that the only way a person can be respected if they become a scientist? That same question can be asked about the religious.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I'm sure she doesn't agree with the ridiculousness of religion. But, she (and B.A. is...) is the only one looking at the parallels of what science and God. God and science are both looked to for the answers for why we exist; why we are who we are. Both require some devotion to the cause; that in the spirit of science and God, we serve. Sure, the way both go about it are different.

Again, I'm not offering something that works or is applicable and that is what you want. You want the truth. I want your trust. We went through this in your "the Bible fits everything" thread. Truth and trustworthiness....

Glad to know that BA is a female. It adds diversity to the discussion. I want something applicable yes. If that doesn't exist then what's your point? If you want to force science into a box of worship then good luck with that but, I'm not eating what your serving up. When i created the "Is the Universe God?" thread. I used actual evidence to show that we do indeed come from the universe and the universe provides everything that we know. I also offered the fact that curious people, applied names to things that they did not understand, but that's philosophy not science because they never tested their theories.

If you're asking me whether science has made the religious concept of God unnecessary, then i would agree. If you're asking me whether science is becoming the new God, then no i can't agree because that's not the nature of science. Also the Universe would hold that crown and science would be a tool to observe that new found God. The devotion to science is only with the path to educating oneself in order to practice science. Trustworthiness is in the evidence and it's ability to reproduce a close enough response to prove it accurate.

I can agree in part with the fact that science creates products that are worshiped, but the people who do that are foolish. Only a few members of science are searching for God in science and I'm sure that they are more religious then not if they will keep looking when evidence continuously points the fact that God doesn't fit any equation. You can blame science for peoples religious tendencies. Also they aren't looking for God necessarily but the beginning of things which can be traced as has been traced through scientific testing. The understanding that you receive from a discovery may make some create cults around a particular truth but that is science. That is religion. Maybe you should rephrase your statement.

The goal of science is to understand how things work. After that, you're welcome seek your own truth.

 

[alissowack]

Glad to know that BA is a female. It adds diversity to the discussion. I want something applicable yes. If that doesn't exist then what's your point? If you want to force science into a box of worship then good luck with that but, I'm not eating what your serving up. When i created the "Is the Universe God?" thread. I used actual evidence to show that we do indeed come from the universe and the universe provides everything that we know. I also offered the fact that curious people, applied names to things that they did not understand, but that's philosophy not science because they never tested their theories.

If you're asking me whether science has made the religious concept of God unnecessary, then i would agree. If you're asking me whether science is becoming the new God, then no i can't agree because that's not the nature of science. Also the Universe would hold that crown and science would be a tool to observe that new found God. The devotion to science is only with the path to educating oneself in order to practice science. Trustworthiness is in the evidence and it's ability to reproduce a close enough response to prove it accurate.

I can agree in part with the fact that science creates products that are worshiped, but the people who do that are foolish. Only a few members of science are searching for God in science and I'm sure that they are more religious then not if they will keep looking when evidence continuously points the fact that God doesn't fit any equation. You can blame science for peoples religious tendencies. Also they aren't looking for God necessarily but the beginning of things which can be traced as has been traced through scientific testing. The understanding that you receive from a discovery may make some create cults around a particular truth but that is science. That is religion. Maybe you should rephrase your statement.

The goal of science is to understand how things work. After that, you're welcome seek your own truth.

My intentions are not to re-invent science to be God. I'm not trying to get it published or accepted in the science community. It's not that serious. But, I see that you think of my thread as a threat...assuming I am trying to force someone to accept this. If anything, you are proving my point about trust. You can offer evidence, but it doesn't mean I should believe you...or trust you as a person. Being a scientist doesn't make you an honest, loving, and trustworthy person. All being a scientist means that he or she can do their job. I could hypothetically present the "magic" associated with God, but it doesn't mean you can trust me. You don't know me to say you can trust me.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

There goes Al, still acting as if no one questions science and that once something is said it sticks and that's it. Still not able to understand the concept that thousands of very smart people scrutinize and test each others work everytime even the smallest amount of info is released.

 

[alissowack]

There goes Al, still acting as if no one questions science and that once something is said it sticks and that's it. Still not able to understand the concept that thousands of very smart people scrutinize and test each others work everytime even the smallest amount of info is released.

I'm not saying that questions can't be asked or that anything can't be analyzed and scrutinized. But, being a scientist doesn't make you a good person. It just means that scientists knows how to do their job. But there are those who, because they are scientists, think that I (or anybody else for that matter) should trust them as a person. I could offer "proof", but it don't make me a saint.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

I'm not saying that questions can't be asked or that anything can't be analyzed and scrutinized. But, being a scientist doesn't make you a good person. It just means that scientists knows how to do their job. But there are those who, because they are scientists, think that I (or anybody else for that matter) should trust them as a person. I could offer "proof", but it don't make me a saint.

Where are the scientist that act and think like this?

You are so lost it aint even funny.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

My intentions are not to re-invent science to be God. I'm not trying to get it published or accepted in the science community. It's not that serious. But, I see that you think of my thread as a threat...assuming I am trying to force someone to accept this. If anything, you are proving my point about trust. You can offer evidence, but it doesn't mean I should believe you...or trust you as a person. Being a scientist doesn't make you an honest, loving, and trustworthy person. All being a scientist means that he or she can do their job. I could hypothetically present the "magic" associated with God, but it doesn't mean you can trust me. You don't know me to say you can trust me.

I don't see you as a threat. I see this as a discussion. Stop taking it so personal. Why are you and BA telling me not to be so serious? That's really condescending. Is this some sort of defensive maneuver? I've said this to you before but here it goes again. Separate the man from the method and analyze the latter. If you don't trust the evidence, then become a scientist and challenge that evidence yourself. There are many types of scientist btw so even if you wanted to as you claim your not doing, you can't typecast scientist into a position. Science is not infallible and it doesn't claim to be. Man makes that claim.

 

[fiat_money]

When I put this thread together, it wasn't to show that it works; that "science is God" is something that can be tested for truth. The "God is everywhere" stuff was of interest as well, but I find that even if it was found to be true, it serves no purpose other than it being a fact. It doesn't mean that God can be trusted. I can put on a show and present the "magic" associated with God, but that don't mean I'm an honest person; that I am a trustworthy person. If anything, I may be using this "magic" for my own selfish motives. I don't have to love anybody in doing it.

Now with science, it presents the same thing. Science has proven things to be true. But, does this make a scientist an honest, loving, and trustworthy person by default; that somehow his or her actions as a person is justified...that the only way a person can be respected if they become a scientist? That same question can be asked about the religious.

I don't care if someone is "trustworthy" or "loving", because I neither trust nor love people. I just care about who's correct; an honest scientist could be wrong about the mechanics of an observed process, while a dishonest scientist could be correct about the same thing. What will ultimately determine things is which scientist's work can hold up to scrutiny or be replicated by others. And even then, I will not accept it without scrutinizing it myself. Their personalities, character, or motives are irrelevant.