Is God Scientifically Explicable?

[dblack]

As a product of the human mind, God is definitely scientifically explicable.

 

[Sallow]

Why so afraid of honest discussion?
Because you lose every time?

There are no lies or deceit from my side....only the claims of such from yours.

You post...I blow your post out of the water...you scream "lies and deceit....mumbling and stumbling...." ...."whatever..."


Grow up.

So, I see you have abandoned any attempt at claiming your fraudulent “quotes” are anything but shameless attempts at furthering your lies and deceit.

Lies and deceit are promoted by many of the Christian creationist ministries. It seems to be a defense mechanism for the science-hating fundamentalists whose gods they feel are under siege by scientific truths.

In the thousands of years that gods of all descriptions and persuasions have been asserted, not a single shred of verifiable evidence has ever been presented to suggest that they do. I would be pleased to see the evidence of your proposed gods, by the way. Just make sure that your evidence is rational, testable and verifiable so we can be sure a supernatural entity was the cause of those elements. Of course you won’t do so. Instead, you will simply scour creationist websites for edited, parsed and manufactured “quotes”. You will make no effort to confirm the accuracy of those “quotes” because in the creationist mindset, lies and deceit are acceptable means to further the religion.
Science is a process of discovery that relies on factual data, physical evidence and evidence is a core component to those disciplines and the tools employed to explore them. The above is in opposition to the claims of theism which offers nothing of substance to support its claims. In fact, the claims of Arks, seas parting, gravity defying, and other supernatural events de jour are in conflict with every known process of nature.

There is a segment of the world (primarily literalist Christians) who will forever insist that evidence for the processes of science do not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

There is another segment of the world that does not care one way or the other.

But the relevant segment of the world consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields.

See... it helps to do more than retreat into the "I can lie for the sake of my religion, safe room. Don't you agree?

You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

Isn't that correct?

Don't you realize that sticking to the truth would support your position?

As it is, your fabrications are evident, and you appear no more than the run-of-the-mill nut job.


Don't be afraid to present your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.



For the record....I never lie.
Ever.

Learn that.

If you never lie, ever..how the heck do you sleep?

Standing up?

 

[Politico]

No.

 

[there4eyeM]

As a product of the human mind, God is definitely scientifically explicable.

There! Someone DID say it!

 

[Montrovant]

1. There are some things in the universe that are not scientifically explicable.
Can anyone argue that this is not true? If so, they would have to argue that they believe that at some future time, science will be able to explain everything.
“Believe” becomes the operative term, and such an explanation nudges science into the realm of faith. And it becomes a religion.




2. Which brings to mind this, from Arthur Conan Doyle: ‘Napoleon's question to the atheistic professors on the starry night as he voyaged to Egypt: "Who was it, gentlemen, who made these stars?" has never been answered. To say that the Universe was made by immutable laws only puts the question one degree further back as to who made the laws. I did not, of course, believe in an anthropomorphic God, but I believed then, as I believe now, in an intelligent Force behind all the operations of Nature--a force so infinitely complex and great that my finite brain could get no further than its existence.” The New Revelation, by Arthur Conan Doyle; Chapter I: The Search Page 1

3. Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

a. Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

b. The Greek philosopher Epicurus: ‘ It is best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’
What if science can never explain certain things?





4. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see.
Ultraviolet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers.
What Wavelength Goes With a Color?

b. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.
Sensitivity of Human Ear
That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!





5. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

a. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.

6. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth?

Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data?





a. “Erasmus Darwin paternal grandfather of Charles Darwin and maternal grandfather of Francis Galton,… proposes that reason is inferior to generation. [It was his] view of deity as a designer that was present in Newton. The "cause of causes" harkens back to the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition of God as the prime mover who sets all things in motion. Generation and reproduction are thus put into the realm of a causality that is willed by a God who is Himself causeless. He believed that the process of evolution was due to "...the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements to by generation to its posterity, world without end." Erasmus Darwin

b. Perhaps claiming that we are abandoning ‘faith’ and engaging ‘reason’ is no more than hubris. Rather, the abandonment is based on not realizing how little we know of the parameters of what we call reality. It may simply a question of God in a form that we can never perceive or comprehend.
Covered in chapter nine of "The Genesis Enigma," Parker.



‘It is best to keep an open mind in the absence of decisive verification.’

Why can't there be anything infinite? More importantly, if we are dismissing the infinite in this discussion, how does that not rule out god?

Also, if we are incapable of understanding a being such as god (which I have argued before must be the case if god exists) why the constant need to try and show god's existence, or follow god's supposed rules?

Maybe it would be better to simply accept humanity's inability to understand a being so beyond our senses and move on.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

At some point you gotta decide to go with an unexplainable, supernatural force that started the whole thing going. Which is as good a definition of God as you can get.

We likely will at some point. We know that a lot of the laws of physics as we understand them break down at the Big Bang, and at certain quantum levels the Uncertainty Principle will limit what we can know. There will be limits to what we can know.

Until then, we keep pushing science. Once you introduce "God" into science, it effectively halts any further research.

Personally, I believe that God wants people to believe in him through faith, which means that you shouldn't expect to get concrete proof of his existence as that would render faith meaningless.

 

[G.T.]

Politicalchic does lie. Often.

Just last week you lied, bud. You misattributed a quote, from an email, adding your own exclamation points and keeping them wrapped withis said quotation marks, so-as to change the actual context of the original quote.

You also lied by omission, but I don't really have to count that to accurately portray you as a liar.

 

[midcan5]

I puzzle over purpose and meaning. Suppose some God exists, so what, what does it matter as suffering, sickness, and evil exist too and how do they explicate a God? Is this God a grand creator who watches the action and cares not about outcome. It would seem so. Consider too then Ivan's question, is all this worth the suffering of a single child?

Ivan's question can be found here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/51207-profound-question.html

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." Marcus Aurelius

 

[PoliticalChic]

I puzzle over purpose and meaning. Suppose some God exists, so what, what does it matter as suffering, sickness, and evil exist too and how do they explicate a God? Is this God a grand creator who watches the action and cares not about outcome. It would seem so. Consider too then Ivan's question, is all this worth the suffering of a single child?

Ivan's question can be found here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/51207-profound-question.html

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." Marcus Aurelius

While I might question a suggestion that God is responsible for all suffering, as long as He has allowed free will, I suggest you question the result in this world without God, and, necessarily, without morality.

Here is my quote from Dostoyevsky:

Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politicalchic does lie. Often.

Just last week you lied, bud. You misattributed a quote, from an email, adding your own exclamation points and keeping them wrapped withis said quotation marks, so-as to change the actual context of the original quote.

You also lied by omission, but I don't really have to count that to accurately portray you as a liar.

It isn't necessary for you to prove you're a fool.

The case is already closed.

 

[G.T.]

God is not the source of Morality, he's a control mechanism created for imposing subjective morality.

 

[G.T.]

Politicalchic does lie. Often.

Just last week you lied, bud. You misattributed a quote, from an email, adding your own exclamation points and keeping them wrapped withis said quotation marks, so-as to change the actual context of the original quote.

You also lied by omission, but I don't really have to count that to accurately portray you as a liar.

It isn't necessary for you to prove you're a fool.

The case is already closed.

Fact is, you're a liar. And it wasn't the first time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politicalchic does lie. Often.

Just last week you lied, bud. You misattributed a quote, from an email, adding your own exclamation points and keeping them wrapped withis said quotation marks, so-as to change the actual context of the original quote.

You also lied by omission, but I don't really have to count that to accurately portray you as a liar.

It isn't necessary for you to prove you're a fool.

The case is already closed.

Fact is, you're a liar. And it wasn't the first time.

The only thing you're correct about is that this is hardly the first time you've been identified as a fool.


And the event will be repeated each and every time you meet someone new.
It's your fate.

 

[G.T.]

Being wrong is your forte, but you try so hard at it we almost can't describe it as a forte. Damn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being wrong is your forte, but you try so hard at it we almost can't describe it as a forte. Damn.

While it may be possible to find some area in which I have been wrong...e.g., the election of Obama....

....labeling you correctly as a fool is not one of them.

 

[G.T.]

Later....the White House emailed Woodward, threatening him....."you'll regret this!" - politicalchic

Actual quote:

"I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

"For the record....I never lie.
Ever.
" - politicalchic

 

[PoliticalChic]

Later....the White House emailed Woodward, threatening him....."you'll regret this!" - politicalchic

Actual quote:

"I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim."

"For the record....I never lie.
Ever.
" - politicalchic

How very easy it is to prove what a dim-wit you are....

Here is the actual vid that accompanied the summary ."you'll regret this!" and appeared with the above.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdfHEdeCC0Q]Woodward: White House Telling Reporters "You Will Regret Doing This" Makes Me "Very Uncomfortable" - YouTube[/ame]

Yes or no: did I provide the vid with the comment?

Only a dim-wit would have been misled, as Woodward was right there with his own words.


So, fool, my editorial comment provided the essence, Woodward the context.


See,....that's why you should have remained in school beyond the fifth grade.




The only lie would be you're denying that you are a fool.

 

[G.T.]

you used quotations. learn what those are for.


might should just neg rep me for exposing you next time, instead of doing a moonwalk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you used quotations. learn what those are for.


might should just neg rep me for exposing you next time, instead of doing a moonwalk.

1. Just as I never lie, I never use the neg function.
As you can see, I have no difficulty in spanking you in public.

Here comes some more.

2. As you are far too stupid to recognize your own motivations, I'll reveal them for you:
Since you are light years behind me both educationally and intellectually, what is left but bogus charges that I lie.

Of course, I don't.

But what is there for a loser like you to try to compete?
Slander.

And now that that attempt has fallen flat, you might actually have to learn to offer obeisance to your betters.

I'll think about whether or not to accept same.

 

[G.T.]

You lied, and you only bloviate your education and intellectuality by trying uber hard on a message board because you're insecure about both, and have inferiority issues.

Either that, or you're a narcissist. Psyche 101, get your edumacation dum dum.





Also - posting in outline form with no follow up essay or composition is....................ghey.