Scientific Reasoning Confirms God's Existence.....

[Zhavric]

Quote by: The_Genius ...but apparently I'm outnumberd...

While argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, you may want to examine why you are outnumbered in this debate...

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric While argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, you may want to examine why you are outnumbered in this debate...

Because there is only a select few of "true believers".
why?
Because that is how god created the universe.

[Osborn F Enready]

And people wonder why sane(non-religious, or privately religious) people are getting near pushing for declaring seriously and outgoing religious folks insane.......

I have no problem with religion when it stays personal, but what GOOD can come from arguing amongst man over unproveable, subjective biased material such as religion, beyond friendly conversation between voluntary participants.

If you "believe" you regularly talk to supernatural beings, and you think supernatural beings directly affect your physical life, and you allow this concept to trump well established realities of the natural world (which sceince merely explains, not created).............. you are likely the product of brainwashing, and your sanity should be seriously questioned. You could be not only a danger to yourself, but as witnessed by other religious wingnuts in political office, (Bush, Amidine-jihad) a danger to others.

Religion is behind MOST of the "evil" on this planet, if there is such a thing as "evil".

Science was "rational mans" attempt to save us from our own extinction from our own foolishly ignorant and subjective beliefs, or I should say, it could be best viewed that way in the history books once these extroverted religious morons create the next 1000 year war.

I don't see any science that says "god" is impossible.

I see a lot of science that says "god" is impropable.

Why is this so offensive?

Why must it cross over into politics, law, society and culture?

What do the religious fear?

You all have the "answer" to who wins in your little theories of religion, correct?

So stop fighting and be sure that in the end you will win by natural means. Test your faith by NOT attempting to be a sheperd to your brothers, and instead be a leader by example of NOT pushing religion onto others, confident that the war of religion is not worth fighting because the true faith will bear true in the end no matter what, right?

Science, is a tool for what is within the natural world.
Gods and religions are "theories" of beyond the natural world.

Why do these two get confused so often? Brainwashing, Dogma, Indoctrination and Authoritarianism.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Os I don't see any science that says "god" is impossible. I see a lot of science that says "god" is impropable.

The problem is that there are many not-so-smart people that don't realize that "improbable" is not the same as "impossible".

And there are also many not-so-smart people that don't realize that "improbable" is not the same as "100% possible".

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai The problem is that there are many not-so-smart people that don't realize that "improbable" is not the same as "impossible". And there are also many not-so-smart people that don't realize that "improbable" is not the same as "100% possible".

I'd concern yourself far more with the people who ignore evidence & existing knowledge and call impossible things "possible" with "goddidit" as their only justification.

Quote by: Os Science, is a tool for what is within the natural world. Gods and religions are "theories" of beyond the natural world.

Are you familiar with the term NOMA and Richard Dawkins' objection to it? Wiki sums it up nicely...

In his book Rocks of Ages Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion" [34] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap...

...Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion is critical of Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria as Dawkins argues that the concept cannot be used to defend theologians from criticism. Dawkins presents that "the God Hypothesis", which he defines as "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" is a scientific hypothesis about the universe and one that should be treated with as much skepticism as any other theory.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z I'd concern yourself far more with the people who ignore evidence & existing knowledge and call impossible things "possible" with "goddidit" as their only justification.

Grow up and knock it off.

Take it to another thread and stop squawking in this one, parrot.

I'm losing patience.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai The problem is that there are many not-so-smart people that don't realize that "improbable" is not the same as "impossible". And there are also many not-so-smart people that don't realize that "improbable" is not the same as "100% possible".

Quote by: Fonceai Grow up and knock it off. Take it to another thread and stop squawking in this one, parrot. I'm losing patience.

Apparently, it's okay for you to make snide comments, but not okay for me to answer them? I recommend you calm down and stop breaking volconvo.com rules.

Do you have any rebuttal to my assertion?

[Fonceai]

It wasn't a snide comment at all.

I was responding to Osborn, not you. And was in no way condescending to him. If it was, he would tell me.

The parrot comment is mildly insulting, but hardly a violation of rules... not compared to the crap that others post regularly.

And your "assertion" has no bearing in this thread.

Unless you feel a pressing immaturity that requires you to get the last word, drop it and take it somewhere else, or get on topic.

[Eclipse]

Quote by: Eclipse Have you ignored our posts entirely?

Over reaction is a bitch. I take that back. Rough week. No hard feelings were intended, you are swamped after all :)

...and my post was incoherent at best. *takes a deep breath* Okay, let's see what we have today in the depths of the volcano.

[Eclipse]

Nope, nothing worthwhile left to chew on.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the excerpts from the Quran about the creation that, when not seperated from the rest, do NOT follow what is known about the Universe.

I believe the attempts at throwing science from the Quran and the real world and comparing them with a positive result is simply the result of a lack of comparing; a lack of digging deeper.

It's like going to the north, picking out an iceberg and saying, yeah, we can fit that there iceberg in this here big boat. Then you go and try it and realize that there is ten times the iceberg hidden under the waters.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai It wasn't a snide comment at all. I was responding to Osborn, not you. And was in no way condescending to him. If it was, he would tell me. The parrot comment is mildly insulting, but hardly a violation of rules... not compared to the crap that others post regularly. And your "assertion" has no bearing in this thread. Unless you feel a pressing immaturity that requires you to get the last word, drop it and take it somewhere else, or get on topic.

If you're done trolling, sure.

Eclipse, would you care to clarify your point?

[Eclipse]

Certainly.

Quote by: The_Genius Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together(as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surat al-Anbiya, 30)

Quote by: Eclipse Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see is firmly established on the throne (of authority). He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law)! Each one runs (its course) for a term appointed. He doth regulate all affairs, explaining the signs in detail, that ye may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.

The Sun runs a course.:rolleyes: As also stated here, the heavens were raised. From the earth? Sounds like there was no Big Bang theory embedded in this at all. Isn't there a similiar Greek/other ancient myth? One where sky was seperated from earth? These could just as well be modern translations in order to fit the Quran in its modern niche.

Quote by: Eclipse And it is He who spread out the earth, and set thereon mountains standing firm and (flowing) rivers: and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two: He draweth the night as a veil o'er the Day. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who consider! And in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand!

Here's some more. Mountains were not placed, they were formed. Same with rivers. Spread out the earth?

Quote by: The_Genius We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Surat al-Anbiya, 30)

Quote by: Eclipse Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man from sounding clay from mud molded into shape; when I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit fall ye down in obeisance unto him.

Unless we are left out of the first "every living thing" and we really are just some new creation [from mud], this is contradictory.

My point is that when you leave out the whole Quranic creation story and focus on bits and pieces that can be fitted into modern scientific view (which I'm not too confident that every muslim has always believed throughout their history) then you can kind of squeeze something in. When you look at more excerpts [like these] these translations into miraculous scientific truths become quite distorted. Unless of course the translation is wrong, or I am mistaken about my view on what these stories actually say. That's what I'm waiting to here back on. This is, after all, another attempt to glorify the Quran.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why must it cross over into politics, law, society and culture?.... So stop fighting and be sure that in the end you will win by natural means. Test your faith by NOT attempting to be a sheperd to your brothers, and instead be a leader by example of NOT pushing religion onto others, confident that the war of religion is not worth fighting because the true faith will bear true in the end no matter what, right? Science, is a tool for what is within the natural world. Gods and religions are "theories" of beyond the natural world. Why do these two get confused so often? Brainwashing, Dogma, Indoctrination and Authoritarianism.

A question for which I have an anwer- why ideas of God cross into politics.

First let me say, I agree with what you say here, except.... We need a concept of God, because that lifts us to our highest ideals. Only a God can be conscious of everything, and therefore, have right judgement. This God may not actually exist, except in our imaginations. However, we are as good as our imagination, so when we contempt what such a God would be like, our own thoughts are lifted. Adversely, if we compare ourselves to animals and believe in the dog eat dog realm of our existence, we lower our potential to that level. By believing in something better than ourselves we are lifted.

The problem with religions is the attempt to define this God and using mythology to explain this God, and the people taking this too literally. The Greek goddess and gods were archetypes of ourselves. The brought out the best in us. They give us the thoughts upon which we built our civilization. I hold they are very valuable, however, I think of them as concepts, not supernatural beings. We need the gods, but perhaps should not be too sure of what we think we know.

[Athena]

Quote by: Eclipse Nope, nothing worthwhile left to chew on. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the excerpts from the Quran about the creation that, when not seperated from the rest, do NOT follow what is known about the Universe. I believe the attempts at throwing science from the Quran and the real world and comparing them with a positive result is simply the result of a lack of comparing; a lack of digging deeper. It's like going to the north, picking out an iceberg and saying, yeah, we can fit that there iceberg in this here big boat. Then you go and try it and realize that there is ten times the iceberg hidden under the waters.

Claims that the Quran is more scientific are justified, because the Arabs were far more concerned with math and a scientific point of view, than Christians who got all tangled up with mysticism, and obmitted math and science completely from their theology. It was may understanding Islam is not a religion of miracles, but I think someone started a thread about miracles in the Quran. I am learning Islam contains more superstition than I thought it did, but will stand on the belief it is also more scientific than Christianity.

[Eclipse]

Quote by: Athena ...but will stand on the belief it is also more scientific than Christianity.

Yes, it may be so. The_Genius is trying to argue reason for God's existence via the Quran so that's what I'm arguing; the Quran is dubitable.

[Jagged]

Fine. Both evolutionists and theists believe there was a beginning. Nothing to something. Evolutionists just don't believe their was some "being" with a possible personality that we can still talk to nowadays "did" it, although they do believe that some neutral chain of events caused it. Big difference there.

[gallo]

Quote by: Jagged Both evolutionists and theists believe there was a beginning. Nothing to something.

Not really. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. An evolutionist is one who accepts the theories of biological evolution. No matter what you believe about the origin of the universe, it doesn't exclude the acceptance of evolutionary biology. I have known lots of theists who were evolutionary biologists.

Moreover, not even cosmologists claim that the universe arose from nothing. While there is some effort to speculate about the origin of the universe, it is never "nothing." Creation "ex nihilo" is a religious idea.

Quote by: Jagged Evolutionists just don't believe their was some "being" with a possible personality that we can still talk to nowadays "did" it, although they do believe that some neutral chain of events caused it.

Actually not true, in that some evolutionists do believe that there is some "being" that is responsible.

Quote by: Jagged Big difference there.

I see that you have little understanding of either theology or evolutionary biology.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: The_Genius Roger Penrose concluded that the universe could not have been created by chance.

Then I conclude the universe is not intelligently designed.

[Masoom]

Quote by: Zhavric While argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, you may want to examine why you are outnumbered in this debate...

Out numbered!! wow lolll. Most members here posting are athiests what do u expect.

[rez]

Quote by: Masoom Out numbered!! wow lolll. Most members here posting are athiests what do u expect.

WHY, he asked. Your english is not that good man.