Leading Scientists Still Reject God

[Mrpilot007]

Lets consider this. Ask yourself... of all the information and knowledge of facts, etc. that exists in our universe, how much information do you know? Is it possible that God exists in the percentage of information and knowledge that you do not know?

 

[Moonbeam]

If the human mind is capable of collapsing dualism in an ecstatic experience of LOVE, then the God thingi has a psychological meaning and validity. It would mean that God is in here and not outside, naturally, but it would also mean that his essential reality exists, but just not as the ordinary religious conceive it.

It would also of course mean that heaven is now. That also means that those who think heaven is coming or will never be have both missed the boat and their one chance to BE.

Now the evidence there is a psychological God-State is overwhelming particularly so to those who live it.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Oh.. I meant our definition of the Universe has confined us the in macroscopics sense.

"if you think there is something wrong with the current way things are done. Please present your evidence. "

by who? does not compute.

This particular thread straddles the line between the concrete and the existential. "Universal", to me, means all encompassing. Now do you understand how the definition has confined us?

Here's another: Big Bang! What lit the firecracker? Or what exists outside the perpetual expansion and contraction of the universe? Eventually we all come back to faith!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If the human mind is capable of collapsing dualism in an ecstatic experience of LOVE, then the God thingi has a psychological meaning and validity. It would mean that God is in here and not outside, naturally, but it would also mean that his essential reality exists, but just not as the ordinary religious conceive it.

It would also of course mean that heaven is now. That also means that those who think heaven is coming or will never be have both missed the boat and their one chance to BE.

Now the evidence there is a psychological God-State is overwhelming particularly so to those who live it.

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds pretty interesting.

Anyone care to translate?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do you have any evidence for that? If you were living the 12th century, would you have just assumed all the things they didn't know then were unexplainable? Anyway, if these things aren't explainable, what conclusions does that lead you to? How does that distinguish you from an atheist?

Don't take my one sentance as making me the same as an atheist. An atheist by definition disbelieves and denys God. I do not.

I'm not sure atheists would describe life as being an accident or random occurrence.

If atheists don't agree in a random occurance or God, what happened? I am under the belief with the support of my self proclaimed atheist friends that life is a random occurance. I'm not fully informed on things i don't believe in.

Magic suggests supernatural. How do you know anything exists outside the natural world?

Believing in a God is inherently accepting the supernatural, so yes i do. How do i know anything exists?...I don't.
And sorry, no evidence of a judgement day of sorts. I just hope those who are hurtful and disregard the sacredness of life will reap the consequences of their actions. Of course I am very forgiving of those who are not concious of their actions, ie. drugged by another person and commit murder etc. But the greater being will determine our fate.

What is especially ideal about your world?

Justice, post mortem.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Tab
I would describe our coming to exsistance as random. Our lives are essentially meaningless.

I hear what you're saying, but I think random and meaningless are open to a lot of interpretation.

I am guessing you think you don't think your coming into existance is truly random in the sense that you know roughly the events that lead to your birth. There was some causal chain. Even if we don't know what happened before the big bang, you don't know it's random rgiht?

"Meaningless" is a tough one. Some people take that to mean there is no purpose. Others to mean that it has no importance. I think life has importance to each individual.

I'm an atheist but I don't think life is random. I'm thinking there are atheists that think life has meaning. (My life has importance to me. )

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Oh.. I meant our definition of the Universe has confined us the in macroscopics sense.

"if you think there is something wrong with the current way things are done. Please present your evidence. "

by who? does not compute.

This particular thread straddles the line between the concrete and the existential. "Universal", to me, means all encompassing. Now do you understand how the definition has confined us?

Here's another: Big Bang! What lit the firecracker? Or what exists outside the perpetual expansion and contraction of the universe? Eventually we all come back to faith!

Your claim that sceince is somehow infailable, what about it is wrong exactly?

The universe to me, is EVERYTHING.

Thats all of us and God (assuming he exsists)

 

[ExpertNovice]

Out of curiosity, are these scientists "real" scientists or sociologist that are labled scientists when it is convenient.

Perhaps they are not true scientists like those insignificant individuals that we know as Einstein and Hawking. Of course, with their stunted intelligence it is no wonder they believed in God.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Tab
I would describe our coming to exsistance as random. Our lives are essentially meaningless.

I hear what you're saying, but I think random and meaningless are open to a lot of interpretation.

I am guessing you think you don't think your coming into existance is truly random in the sense that you know roughly the events that lead to your birth. There was some causal chain. Even if we don't know what happened before the big bang, you don't know it's random rgiht?

"Meaningless" is a tough one. Some people take that to mean there is no purpose. Others to mean that it has no importance. I think life has importance to each individual.

I'm an atheist but I don't think life is random. I'm thinking there are atheists that think life has meaning. (My life has importance to me. )

It's more of answering of the question, why do we exsist? What is our purpose? Well, beyond our natural desire to live and not die. I'd say there is no purpose, the only reason I continue to live is because I choose to. Other than that, I enjoy life as quite a bit at the moment.

The great thing about life is we get to choose our own purpose, that's what's cool in my opinion. We've got a huge amount of opitions of stuff we can do in our lives.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Don't take my one sentance as making me the same as an atheist. An atheist by definition disbelieves and denys God. I do not.

I wasn't disputing that. I was asking if you had evidence that certain things are unexplainable.

If atheists don't agree in a random occurance or God, what happened?

I am an atheis and I don't know what happened before the Big Bang. But I have no reason to think that it was random or created by a god. What happened? I don't know.

I am under the belief with the support of my self proclaimed atheist friends that life is a random occurance.

I am an atheist. I don't think life is necessarily random. I have no reason to think it is. Again, that depends on what you mean by random though.

Believing in a God is inherently accepting the supernatural, so yes i do. How do i know anything exists?...I don't.

So you don't know anything exists and that leads you to believe that there is something beyond the natural world? I don't see how that follows.

I just hope those who are hurtful and disregard the sacredness of life will reap the consequences of their actions.

Do you believe they will reap consequences? Or do you only hope they will reap consequences?

What is especially ideal about your world?

Justice, post mortem.[/quote]
Gotcha.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tab
You're avoid my previous question. If science can't explain certain things how do you propose we prove this then?

Well, you're right.

It's just the way it is.

I bet if you ask any chrisitian who is solid in there beilefs and ask who created god. The answer will be "He just exsists."

Ask me where the universe came from, I'll say "It just exsists".

Well, you can think that all you want. Are you denying there the possiblity that out of randomness we could have came to such beings as ourselves? What's this energy/spirt/god you talk about?

Science will always be able to describe things, even if crudely...There are a lot of things Science and we as humans will never know. That is the journey of life, knowing the answers will undermine the whole existence. We were created to not know the answers, and it is just the way it is, nothing we can do can change that, all we can do is make the most of our brief time.

energy/spirit/god is a way I recognize the greater being. God, even in the bible is personified, and has been very much so in media and the like. But God is not a physical person. It is an energy or spirit. The only reason i leave God in there is because I do think he created the universe, and is responsible for all morality just the same as the public percieved version does.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Out of curiosity, are these scientists "real" scientists or sociologist that are labled scientists when it is convenient.

Perhaps they are not true scientists like those insignificant individuals that we know as Einstein and Hawking. Of course, with their stunted intelligence it is no wonder they believed in God.

Einstein did NOT beileve in god.

Hawking is a little more iffy...

In any event, while these are two very smart indivuals you will without a doubt see much more colloration with those that have a education to not beileve in God, or at least common religions.

 

[NeenerNeener]

The aspect of science that is fallable, if I get your question, is the human application of it. This is analogous to how religion is fallable because it is the human application of faith in a higher power. We are the weakest link.

If you say that science is infallable, that only means it's your personal paradigm. Essentially perhaps, science is the same thing as your particular universe. Make no mistake, it is your definition of universe that encompasses God. Not mine.

This diversity of opinion turns me on. I'm abandoning cable news forever!!!! ~

 

[NeenerNeener]

"Out of curiosity, are these scientists "real" scientists or sociologist that are labled scientists when it is convenient."

I think some of them are actually lawyers.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tab
You're avoid my previous question. If science can't explain certain things how do you propose we prove this then?

Well, you're right.

It's just the way it is.

I bet if you ask any chrisitian who is solid in there beilefs and ask who created god. The answer will be "He just exsists."

Ask me where the universe came from, I'll say "It just exsists".

Well, you can think that all you want. Are you denying there the possiblity that out of randomness we could have came to such beings as ourselves? What's this energy/spirt/god you talk about?

Science will always be able to describe things, even if crudely...There are a lot of things Science and we as humans will never know. That is the journey of life, knowing the answers will undermine the whole existence. We were created to not know the answers, and it is just the way it is, nothing we can do can change that, all we can do is make the most of our brief time.

energy/spirit/god is a way I recognize the greater being. God, even in the bible is personified, and has been very much so in media and the like. But God is not a physical person. It is an energy or spirit. The only reason i leave God in there is because I do think he created the universe, and is responsible for all morality just the same as the public percieved version does.

Science explains things crudely? How so? I think it does a pretty damned good job at explaining things. At times it's a bit difficult to understand but I think most people can understand a great deal. What answers? The answers to life? Prove to me there are answers to live and this is a journy. You're implying that this is for some kind of purpose when you say journy. Well prove there is a purpose.

Do you beileve that morality is subjective? Do you beileve in absolute truth?

 

[Stunt]

Infohawk, I have no evidence science will not be able to explain the things i have mentioned. If not random, you must not be an Atheist but a Deist, lack of randomness means creationist. Randomness means no external control or purpose. Either way, I think people will reap consequences of their actions, the consequences will be determined by the greater being, so I cannot state how spiteful he will be of those people. I'm sure God and I have moral discrepancies, but assuming he is as compassionate as i think, I believe our mindsets will be similar.

For example homosexual relationships, pre-marital sex, contraception being not sinful; murder, stealing and the like most likely being sinful.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Infohawk, I have no evidence science will not be able to explain the things i have mentioned. If not random, you must not be an Atheist but a Deist, lack of randomness means creationist. Randomness means no external control or purpose. Either way, I think people will reap consequences of their actions, the consequences will be determined by the greater being, so I cannot state how spiteful he will be of those people. I'm sure God and I have moral discrepancies, but assuming he is as compassionate as i think, I believe our mindsets will be similar.

For example homosexual relationships, pre-marital sex, contraception being not sinful; murder, stealing and the like most likely being sinful.

So, if you don't have scienific evidence... Well what evidence do you have if any?

All major religions PUNISH blind followers and reward those who doubted.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
The aspect of science that is fallable, if I get your question, is the human application of it. This is analogous to how religion is fallable because it is the human application of faith in a higher power. We are the weakest link.

If you say that science is infallable, that only means it's your personal paradigm. Essentially perhaps, science is the same thing as your particular universe. Make no mistake, it is your definition of universe that encompasses God. Not mine.

This diversity of opinion turns me on. I'm abandoning cable news forever!!!! ~

I haven't watched Cable TV in in a couple years...

The internet is MUCH more enjoyable, but that's just me.

 

[NeenerNeener]

"All major religions PUNISH blind followers and reward those who doubted."

I don't think I need any kind of evidence to say that statement is overwhelmingling too much of a generalization.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tab
Science explains things crudely? How so? I think it does a pretty damned good job at explaining things. At times it's a bit difficult to understand but I think most people can understand a great deal. What answers? The answers to life? Prove to me there are answers to live and this is a journy. You're implying that this is for some kind of purpose when you say journy. Well prove there is a purpose.

Do you beileve that morality is subjective? Do you beileve in absolute truth?

I think god determines the ultimate/absolute morality, but my morality is subjective, just as some people may think stealing is not immoral, the higher being may disagree.

Crudely...Fluid Dynamics is a good example of this. Scientists have such a difficult time modelling fluids, they cannot theoretically design say a jet turbine engine. They must predict, make a prototype and test the living hell out of the thing. They will create many many prototypes, but they still do not know exactly how fluids move and interact. As scientific models become beter and compensate for natural irregularities, their analysis becomes less crude.

Sidenote:
One thing that always blew my mind is measurement. Say you have a metre stick, and say...that's a metre. Then a more accurate piece of technology comes out (how they know it's more accurate is beyond me) and it says no, it's 1.01 meters. Then they make something new that takes it to the next significant digit and it ends up being 1.008 and so on. If you are on the cutting edge of measurement, how do you know what a real meter is? These are the things that really mess with my mind. Not the existence of God...but little puzzles like that.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Stunt
Infohawk, I have no evidence science will not be able to explain the things i have mentioned. If not random, you must not be an Atheist but a Deist, lack of randomness means creationist. Randomness means no external control or purpose. Either way, I think people will reap consequences of their actions, the consequences will be determined by the greater being, so I cannot state how spiteful he will be of those people. I'm sure God and I have moral discrepancies, but assuming he is as compassionate as i think, I believe our mindsets will be similar.

For example homosexual relationships, pre-marital sex, contraception being not sinful; murder, stealing and the like most likely being sinful.

So, if you don't have scienific evidence... Well what evidence do you have if any?

All major religions PUNISH blind followers and reward those who doubted.

None. Just trust in morality, humanity, and reason.
You expect me to know the friggin answers?...I'm on an internet forum buddy...

The only thing that humbles me is the fact that Science, and Religion can't prove anything either.

 

[NeenerNeener]

"I haven't watched Cable TV in in a couple years... "

Good for you! It hasn't been the same since deregulation here in the states. A little digression here, but, this "liberal media"/"conservative media" is the pucky of the horse. It's a "money media".

However, I must say, what about the John Stewart show?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
"I haven't watched Cable TV in in a couple years... "

Good for you! It hasn't been the same since deregulation here in the states. A little digression here, but, this "liberal media"/"conservative media" is the pucky of the horse. It's a "money media".

However, I must say, what about the John Stewart show?

If I had known Colin Powell was on the John Stewart show, I would have without a doubt watched that!

Too bad I missed it.

I'd agree with that, news corporations aren't really reporting the news anymore. It's more news and entertainment. They would rather talk about things like the BIGGEST MASS MURDERED TO DATE or TODAYS PERVERT... Rather than whats going on in congress or the senate... They could careless if the story is biased for liberals or conservatives it just if people will watch the news but more specifically their news channel.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Stunt
Infohawk, I have no evidence science will not be able to explain the things i have mentioned. If not random, you must not be an Atheist but a Deist, lack of randomness means creationist. Randomness means no external control or purpose. Either way, I think people will reap consequences of their actions, the consequences will be determined by the greater being, so I cannot state how spiteful he will be of those people. I'm sure God and I have moral discrepancies, but assuming he is as compassionate as i think, I believe our mindsets will be similar.

For example homosexual relationships, pre-marital sex, contraception being not sinful; murder, stealing and the like most likely being sinful.

So, if you don't have scienific evidence... Well what evidence do you have if any?

All major religions PUNISH blind followers and reward those who doubted.

None. Just trust in morality, humanity, and reason.
You expect me to know the friggin answers?...I'm on an internet forum buddy...

The only thing that humbles me is the fact that Science, and Religion can't prove anything either.

If you're particapite in a discussion about the nature of religion I would expect you do your best to answer the question asked.

A internet forum is just another forum of communcation, that's it.

Well, you're right you can't REALLY prove ANYTHING....

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Tab
Thats not really a religion at all... It's just some form of personal beilef....

I'd say your a closest "athiest"

Welcome to the world of Agnostics! Religion all has to start somewhere, and if I make my own beliefs so what. I think there are a few critical things that set my views apart from Athiest views.

You're not Agnositic, you beileve in some kind of power/god/spirt. I'd say an Agnostic is someone who beileves that the exsistance of God cannot be proven or doesn't beileve in the typical religions.

So what am I then Tab?...you seem to know the classifications...

Maybe your a Deist?