God and stuff?

[RickD]

why does my rank say "anti-member"?

Murray, I think it's because you've posted 666 times.

AHhahahahahaha, i saw that a week ago......

It is because he has 666 posts. Seriously.

[Danieltwotwenty]

well he is related to the Rockerfellers

[sailornaruto39]

@J

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? Be specific.

Is he not incontrol? Just like how we can change the meaning of words,god can change everything no?
I remeber seeing in a moive called the mokey trials i think. William jenning brayn said "god is in control of natural law, he can change, rearrange, even cancel it".

Code: Select all

On one hand he says science is all we have, and naturalism is the only way. Something doesn't need to be proven scientifically, but God is 'ruled out.'

1.it is all we have

2.uhhh herp derp it is pretty much the only way. Due to how science works.

3.Many things were true before humans were able to prove them. Like the way lighting works. And history shows that science is open to new ways of thinking so long as you go through the scruitnity as any other scientific claim does.

4.God is ruled as you say because again like i said there is nothing to work with, doesn't mean we can't keep trying or ignore him if something comes up, just as of now he isn't a scientifically valid premise to draw from or to.

@danny

And God being beyond the scientific method is irrelevant and besides the point here.

It is very relavant,Know why? Because to prove something scientifically it has to be susceptible to the scientific method. If you mean rule out as in says he is for a fact not true. I'll tell you any one who says that is a fool.
You are blaming a scientist for ruling out something unscientific? When trying to prove something scientifically?
So what you want him to presuppose god exists? Just what exactly do you want him to think? Just as how a scientist can presuppose god didn't do it due to lack of proof in the same way he can presuppose that atoms aren't being pulled by smaller than microspic chariots. If there is no proof for a claim, or any reasonable knowlegde to draw it from,then it practically isn't real/doesn't exist. Why do you only bug at how they rule out god? Or do you?

as an explanation is presupposing the absolute by making such a universal negative judgement.

A basless assertion accepted without proof can just be easily denied.

for this is the product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking.

sweety, i don't think atheists are unquestionoing. I grew up in a modertatly christian home. And i have a grand mother who had the bible so far up her butt my mom was born prasing jesus. I only came across this whole atheist thing last summer to find out why atheists are so mean and upon many things what i got from it is the ability to really understand why i accept the things i do. Today i even reflected to my self how do i know a trashbag was really going where ever the wind was. So before accusing me of being a product of atheists worship(something of the sorts) please run it by me first. As i said, i ain't no atheist.


On a bit more the most important word in science is EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Both things science can do with god so it is none of science's business. Now iam not a major in physics or anything, butt i know what the scientific method is. This definition works best with naturalism because things in science can be used with it.

God: the apparently immaterial, supernatural, and sentient entity that created the universe and everything. <- The most argued for and best know definition.

My god: the being consisting of energy unknown to man; who is either to impotent/incompetent/or inept to know how to safe proof the universe and have everyone happy.

Now with the 2 keywords in what science means does that sound like something it should at the moment waste its time with?

[Proinsias]

Your god sounds a bit rubbish

[sailornaruto39]

Your god sounds a bit rubbish

yeah, i know.
But then again so does the christian one.But is that suppose to make it less true if it is? As the others would say, that is only your opinion.

[Proinsias]

yip, just sharing my opinion

[DannyM]

It is very relavant,Know why? Because to prove something scientifically it has to be susceptible to the scientific method.

Sailor, again you’ve gloriously missed the point. I am acknowledging God is not subject to the scientific method. You are just repeating a truism.

If you mean rule out as in says he is for a fact not true. I'll tell you any one who says that is a fool.

As an explanation, God is indeed ruled out by many scientists. So yes, it really is a fool’s world.

You are blaming a scientist for ruling out something unscientific? When trying to prove something scientifically?

What? Science is agnostic. Being agnostic, science can not make sweeping conclusions; this would go far beyond the scientific method. Science does not rule God in as an ultimate explanation, but it also does not rule God out as an ultimate explanation. It remains agnostic with regards to world-view. Do you see?

So what you want him to presuppose god exists?

Where did I say that? Can’t you see the point? Science makes no claims one way or the other!

Science does indeed presuppose a unity and order for which it cannot account. Naturalism is self-refuting and cannot even account for the basic assumptions of science.

Just what exactly do you want him to think?

What do I want the scientist to think? I couldn’t care less what he ‘thinks’ about world-view. A scientist must do science, and not make ultimate claims beyond his remit.

Just as how a scientist can presuppose god didn't do it due to lack of proof in the same way he can presuppose that atoms aren't being pulled by smaller than microspic chariots. If there is no proof for a claim, or any reasonable knowlegde to draw it from,then it practically isn't real/doesn't exist.

Proof? Reasonable knowledge? Are you sure?

Why do you only bug at how they rule out god? Or do you?

I ain’t ‘buggin’’, man. I’m showing you your mistake.

sweety, i don't think atheists are unquestionoing.

Honey child, I didn’t say atheists were unquestioning. I said that your incoherence is the "product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking".

*rant snipped*

So before accusing me of being a product of atheists worship(something of the sorts) please run it by me first. As i said, i ain't no atheist.

Of course your incoherence is a product of such flawed thinking. Around these parts, my friend, this is not news. Your thinking is fundamentally flawed. You think scientists ought to be making universal claims beyond the remit of science. This one flaw alone of yours is so basic that it has to be pointed out to you for your own benefit.

Oxford will do for these:

Science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Natural Sciences

a branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.
[mass noun] the branch of knowledge which deals with the study of the physical world.

Naturalism

the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted: this romanticized attitude to the world did conflict with his avowed naturalism

(in moral philosophy) the theory that ethical statements can be derived from non-ethical ones.
----------------------------------------------
Naturalism is a world-view, and has nothing to do with the definition of science.

[RickD]

sweety, i don't think atheists are unquestionoing.



Honey child, I didn’t say atheists were unquestioning. I said that your incoherence is the "product of years of unquestioned and fundamentally flawed atheistic thinking".

Honey child

[jlay]

Is he not incontrol? Just like how we can change the meaning of words,god can change everything no?
I remeber seeing in a moive called the mokey trials i think. William jenning brayn said "god is in control of natural law, he can change, rearrange, even cancel it".

Can? The statement, God can do anything, has the word "thing" in it. Your position assumes that God is arbitrary, which is flawed. You are ascribing who you think your god is, to how the Christian God describes Himself. If we just examine the situation from a non-scriptural perspective then we can look for elements that comply with a 'being' required for a creator. Using reasoning and logic we can conclude what traits are necessary for a creator.

Many things were true before humans were able to prove them. Like the way lighting works. And history shows that science is open to new ways of thinking so long as you go through the scruitnity as any other scientific claim does.

So, you conclude that truth is objective?
That's good.

4.God is ruled as you say because again like i said there is nothing to work with, doesn't mean we can't keep trying or ignore him if something comes up, just as of now he isn't a scientifically valid premise to draw from or to.

Do we have repeatable, testable, observable examples of how information is generated? If we see a computer program, can we determine its source? Information is the product of a mind. What you are saying, is that the information that makes up the genetic code (the building blocks of life) can NOT be attributed to a mind, even though scientifically we can test and verify that information generates from minds and abstract thought. Who is being scientific here?

More later.

[sailornaruto39]

@danny:Oh... so we agree that god is outside of science? If all you have a problem is that some people say for a fact that god doesn't exist, then iam cool. @J:

Your position assumes that God is arbitrary

Iam confused by what you mean. Iam saying how he makes the world is abitray, not him

is that the information that makes up the genetic code

Ok i see what you mean,but information is the exchange of knowledge. The information of the genetic code is just the transfering of our knowlegde of that...stuff.
If god doesn't information of Genes would still be there no?

[jlay]

Iam saying how he makes the world is abitray, not him

Exactly, you are saying how He acts is arbitrary. How do you conclude that the Christian god is acting arbitrarily? Don't just say it. Provide an argument with evidence.

Ok i see what you mean,but information is the exchange of knowledge. The information of the genetic code is just the transfering of our knowlegde of that...stuff.
If god doesn't information of Genes would still be there no?

Genetic code is actualy viewed as an information code. If you have any evidence of information being eternal, or any evidence that info self-generates from material, unguided processes, I'm all for seeing it. If I pass on some information to you by email, it doesn't negate the original source of the information. To say the info is just passing on is ignoring the ultimate question.

so we agree that god is outside of science?

Define science.

[sailornaruto39]

Exactly, you are saying how He acts is arbitrary. How do you conclude that the Christian god is acting arbitrarily? Don't just say it. Provide an argument with evidence.

saying otherwise would contradict what he means. Saying he doesn't act abitrary implies that there is something objective that acts independant of god.He wants us to choose yet he has no sense of choice of his own?

Genetic code is actualy viewed as an information code.

I heard from steve hawkings or matt dilinhuny(not saying their word is auto matically right) that just because it is called information doesn't mean someone was sending anything behind it. More so it is personification of cells exchanged dna(information) and giving instructions on how to make cells.

Just because you ask the clouds not to rain doesn't mean they can here you.

If you have any evidence of information being eternal, or any evidence that info self-generates from material, unguided processes

1. never said it was eternal.
2.That can't be adressed either because i don't know if it was intetionally caused or happend naturally.

If I pass on some information to you by email, it doesn't negate the original source of the information.

Yes, i because we have common knowledge enough to know that emails com from people and don't grow on trees.
Your claim assumes that because dna is called information it has to have come from a sentient being. Even if that were that case that would only make calling dna information wrong.Because we don't have any sort of common knowledge to even try to conclude that the being that fits the description of god(or anything sentient) is what made us and the universe. We don't have anything that says that anything sentient is responsible. And even so, if god doesn't exist does that make the knowledge and education about dna non information?

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Just because you ask the clouds not to rain doesn't mean they can here you.

And just because you say God doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn't

What you're continuously missing Sailor is something very simple:

Science is not all we have to depend on, which you've said in past comments. There is a whole study behind our "metaphysical" senses; the mind. Science cannot explain certain things that are metaphysical. This is why we have philosophy and logic to help us reason properly. In fact, without these metaphysical laws, much of scientific law would not be the way it is.

Since we don't have a scientific equation to prove that God exists, then we, like when handling anything else not physical, have to rely on our laws of reason FIRST AND FOREMOST to ENTERTAIN the POSSIBILITY of God.

Start there. You're making a mistake MANY people who don't believe in God make -- they start with science and work backward.

[sailornaruto39]

Just because you ask the clouds not to rain doesn't mean they can here you.

And just because you say God doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn't

What you're continuously missing Sailor is something very simple:

Science is not all we have to depend on, which you've said in past comments. There is a whole study behind our "metaphysical" senses; the mind. Science cannot explain certain things that are metaphysical. This is why we have philosophy and logic to help us reason properly. In fact, without these metaphysical laws, much of scientific law would not be the way it is.

Since we don't have a scientific equation to prove that God exists, then we, like when handling anything else not physical, have to rely on our laws of reason FIRST AND FOREMOST to ENTERTAIN the POSSIBILITY of God.

Start there. You're making a mistake MANY people who don't believe in God make -- they start with science and work backward.

Ok? But that essentially isn't guessing about the unknown and never really having anything to back it up. Using this metaphysics sounds like a 2 way street.
But oh well i guess it is good mental exercise.

[neo-x]

Ok? But that essentially isn't guessing about the unknown and never really having anything to back it up. Using this metaphysics sounds like a 2 way street.
But oh well i guess it is good mental exercise.

who says there is nothing to back it up, the problem is, you're looking for the wrong evidence. I mean, if you are really looking to catch God in a test tube or under a microscope, then thats just .God can't be found by using infra-red. Hope you see the point.