Does science encompass God?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer 1. What the hell? Your statement only applies between you and him? You made statements, and I responded to them. 2. Look, you demand atoms must be created. We ask you what created your creator and you tell us about string theory / you don't have the answer. Apply that to atoms. You're making no sense with this added creator step.

Off Topic
#1
N/A

#2
On Topic
Subject #1 : Creator's origin
I have Already answered to that subject #1.

Subject #2 : Atom's origin
This is the subject you question. That is why I write it (again).
According to the Science :
- an atom possesses No ability of self-creation

I am Not interested whether you understand it, or disagree with.
I hope there are some Volcanvo members that help you with that issue.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Vacuum Listen guys, the universe having a beginning or an origin is just a concept. Why does it even have to be true?

I disagree.
It sounds like Leibnitz theory.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Rainbow I disagree. It sounds like Leibnitz theory.

Disagree? This is identical to an atheist arguing with a theist. Prove that the universe has an origin.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Rainbow #2 On Topic Subject #1 : Creator's origin I have Already answered to that subject #1. Subject #2 : Atom's origin This is the subject you question. That is why I write it (again). According to the Science : - an atom possesses No ability of self-creation

No, Rainbow, that's not the "subject" of my post. Read it again...

"Look, you demand atoms must be created. We ask you what created your creator and you tell us about string theory / you don't have the answer. Apply that to atoms. You're making no sense with this added creator step."

I highlighted what you seemed to have missed. I wasn't asking you any questions in that post, I was showing you why you don't make sense.

Quote by: Rainbow I am Not interested whether you understand it, or disagree with.

Super awesome view to take in a debate!

[spectre]

Sure, the different cultural interpretations of God come into question, but no one has even raised the question of which kind of God. So I will. Is God being encompassed here of a pre-personal, personal or transpersonal understanding?

Provong the non-existence of gods is unnecessary. We can infer it from the lack of credible evidence supporting the notions that specific gods exist. No one has ever disproven leprechauns, any of the Greek or Roman gods or that breaking a mirror causes bad luck. Does anyone seriously consider it possible than Zeus exists or that the Pharohs were gods? The civilizations that sustained belief in the ancient gods fell apart and their gods with them. I see no reason to think that won't occur again in the future with modern religions.

This is a pre-personal interpretation of God. A necessary stage in human development, where myth is necessary for the cultivation of personal identity, spiritually and culturally. How ever it only ever seems that a pre-personal God is being bashed around here. Evident in using "The Bible" as evidence.

And what's up with rational people taking trans-rational level science (string theory) and applying it to disprove a pre-rational God? This is all over the place, but at the same time I guess it makes sense.

pre-rational God = magical/mythical, fictious needed in a level of development to understand imagination and form concrete operational thinking.

rational God = "God is dead" god as mythical being is dead, and at this point the word becomes synonymous among rationalists as the personal understanding to the impersonal, so that the self-aware can find their finite place in the nature of existance.

trans-rational God = the trans-personal self becomes aware of their place in the finite, or has personal understanding, and thus seeks abstract reasoning of formal operational cognition or higher in taking their role forward in the world. The self-aware also realises if ones self is finite, that their Self is infinite. Self again, referent to God, God referent to self and all else, inclusive of infinite non-existence (existence and not existing, not being seperate).

So yes, one is ghosts, goblins, bearded man in clouds.
Then next is cold, rational, almost atheistic.
The transrational goes one step further.

For the record to both you theist and atheist pups, I'm an Integral-Existentialist, if any of you wondered my orientation on belief.

[spectre]

Another note on this:

We can infer it from the lack of credible evidence supporting the notions that specific gods exist. No one has ever disproven leprechauns, any of the Greek or Roman gods or that breaking a mirror causes bad luck.

This is bad rationalisation. Inference is not evidence, I may be inclined to agree with your stance, but for arguments sake this is a weak angle to take.

[Jack]

Quote by: spectre Another note on this: This is bad rationalisation. Inference is not evidence, I may be inclined to agree with your stance, but for arguments sake this is a weak angle to take.

Inference is not absolute evidence, but it is a valid means of forming a conclusion. I know that falling off a thousand foot high cliff onto the rocks below will kill me. I don't have to see anyone else fall of a cliff, I don't have to fall off my self. I infer, based on what I am aware of regarding physics (especially gravity), that I will die if I fall off that cliff, to a degree of certainty that I can safely accept as confirmed. It's not necessary for me to be 100% absolute in my disbelief in your god or anyone else's. A preponderance of inferences are sufficient grounds to dismiss an unsupported conjecture. And without belief in the validity of religion, that's all religion really is, unsupported conjecture.

[spectre]

that's all religion really is, unsupported conjecture.

Blanket statement, it doesnt confront any specific level of rationality.

Falling off a cliff, that is trialed, tested and proven, that isn't inference at all. Such an explanation is taking inference and trying to spin it as non-testing of the already proven. That isn't an inference at all.

Anyone who knows anything about critical thinking processes knows how to spot a fallacey, and that is one of the fundamental text-book examples.

I'm inclined to go to a forum, with validity, moderators who can differentiate between fallacey and validity, and an (at least) modern level of thought, if not post-modern.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Vacuum Disagree? This is identical to an atheist arguing with a theist. Prove that the universe has an origin.

(According to Science) an atom possesses No ability to create itself. Therefore, it Had to be created.
Determination :
- the Universe Must have its point of Origin

Exceptions :
- Science is baloney

Example.
Look into a mirror.
You are getting older, and you are not ?
We are built of the same atoms that the Universe is formed of.
That means, if the Universe is not limitless. Otherwise, we would not be able to perform simple mathematical equations.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, Rainbow, that's not the "subject" of my post. Read it again... "Look, you demand atoms must be created. We ask you what created your creator and you tell us about string theory / you don't have the answer. Apply that to atoms. You're making no sense with this added creator step." I highlighted what you seemed to have missed. I wasn't asking you any questions in that post, I was showing you why you don't make sense. Super awesome view to take in a debate!

Wrong assumption.

The whole case - the whole issue is based on, that Creator Needs to exist in the Universe we live-in, is wrong.
How do you know that ?
Have you ever considered that Creator made an atom and is not interested in the Universe we live-in any longer ? and the rest is up to us (alone) ?
Creator had a good time. That is all. A very simple and/or prosaic explanation. No supernatural and/or magical and/or unique, etc. required.
That is us - Mankind who developed a sort of fantastic story on Creator.

Do you know how to operate a computer ?
How do you know Creator is familiar with computer, as well ?
You assume that. And that is an error in process of analyzing a data.
That what this thread is all about : (a quite similar) assumption.

Example :
UFO objects present unique flying ability.
That means, a technology UFO is in possession of, differs to Homo Sappiens one. And nothing more.
We have no clue who they are, in reality, especially since they visit and/or conduct some research within Earth environment, and not any other way around.

I suggest you to re-think the assumption this thread's subject is based on.
Do you believe that I fail to answer the points raised ?
Think again, then.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Rainbow (According to Science) an atom possesses No ability to create itself. Therefore, it Had to be created. Determination : - the Universe Must have its point of Origin Exceptions : - Science is baloney Example. Look into a mirror. You are getting older, and you are not ? We are built of the same atoms that the Universe is formed of. That means, if the Universe is not limitless. Otherwise, we would not be able to perform simple mathematical equations.

So who is to be absolutely sure that atom hasn't existed for eternity, much like many believe God has always been? For me this has always been a topic that will probably always be unresolved. We are like ants trying to understand something so distant, so large, so immense and so incredible we will omly have bits and pieces of the truth: kind of like the blind men trying to fathom an elephant only they would have much more of a clue.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Ken Carman So who is to be absolutely sure that atom hasn't existed for eternity, much like many believe God has always been ? For me this has always been a topic that will probably always be unresolved. We are like ants trying to understand something so distant, so large, so immense and so incredible we will omly have bits and pieces of the truth: kind of like the blind men trying to fathom an elephant only they would have much more of a clue.

I agree
That is why I (always) raise the same question :
- an atom's source and/or origin

[gallo]

Quote by: spectre Blanket statement, it doesnt [sic] confront any specific level of rationality.

Should I ask for my money back since none of my philosophy teachers ever mentioned specific levels of rationality? What, exactly, does that mean. Why not apply those standards to religion. What are the "specific levels of rationality" that various religions "confront?" What does it mean to "confront any specific level level of rationality?"

Falling off a cliff, that is trialed, tested and proven, that isn't inference at all.

So falling off of a cliff somehow confronts a specific level of rationality? Please explain.

Such an explanation is taking inference and trying to spin it as non-testing of the already proven. That isn't an inference at all.

What has been proven? The mythology of religion? Please present your proof.

Anyone who knows anything about critical thinking processes knows how to spot a fallacey [sic], and that is one of the fundamental text-book examples.

What text book are you talking about? And certainly, anyone with critical thinking abilities can recognize what a load of meaningless cr[i]]/i]ap you are dishing out. You offer no answers or counter arguments with any meaning. Just vague generalities with the intention of pretending that you can actually think. And yet, the evidence so far only shows that your opinion of yourself may be inflated. Try to say something meaningful that actually adds to the discussion.

I'm inclined to go to a forum, with validity, moderators who can differentiate between fallacey [sic] and validity, and an (at least) modern level of thought, if not post-modern.

Please do. How can we miss you if you don't go away?