If God doesn't exist...

[IsaacNewton]

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Believe to science, not to holy books!

Universe was created by Gamma Rays and Heavy Metal!!!!

Oh yeah!!!!! Now that's an answer I just might believe.

******ROFLMAO*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.

You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....

You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[The Professor]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

When you say there is a difference between science and religion, you just might be right in most cases, but not all. It all depends on how you define the terms. Personally, I don't see I conflict and I will do my best to explain why.

I think it is insanity to assume that God created the universe and then left it to chance to determine how His creation would function. When “things” were created, the creation was complete. Each thing had its specific and unchanging characteristics, purpose and destiny. The metallic chemical element we call lead always behaves as it was designed. Among other qualities, pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water. I prefer to refer to the inherent qualities of things as their nature. This nature is constant and predictable for the world could not function otherwise. In essence, nature is the way God does things and science is the study of nature; therefore, science is nothing more than the study of the way God does things.

Man has identified and even sent rockets past planets that were unknown a mere two hundred years ago. Using stem cells he has regrown a severed human finger complete with a perfectly formed nail; using recombinant DNA he has create life forms which had never before existed. But every scientific principle exploited by humankind has always existed just waiting to be discovered.
There is no conflict between science and religion; they are merely different words used to describe the same thing: how God does things

For the record, my idea of God is not an anthropomorphic being. I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. Although I will not go into great detail at this time (maybe later), my basic conception of God is an eternal, creative and sustaining force, a power which acts with absolute certainty and infallibility.

Do I believe in a type of existence beyond physical death? Yes, but it is based upon scientific principles which are, of course, consistent with my idea of God.

 

[anwin]

Hi Professor,

I agree entirely with your post no 44.

Thanks for that.

Best Wishes.

anwin

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"......and science holds the answer to all questions....."

Our current level of science do not hold the answers to all questions!!
(OP fail)

That is difference between science and religion. Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

Religions are arrogant, heavy-handed, and over assuming.

Yet science has a better description of reality than religion. Why is that so?

When you say there is a difference between science and religion, you just might be right in most cases, but not all. It all depends on how you define the terms. Personally, I don't see I conflict and I will do my best to explain why.

I think it is insanity to assume that God created the universe and then left it to chance to determine how His creation would function. When “things” were created, the creation was complete. Each thing had its specific and unchanging characteristics, purpose and destiny. The metallic chemical element we call lead always behaves as it was designed. Among other qualities, pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water. I prefer to refer to the inherent qualities of things as their nature. This nature is constant and predictable for the world could not function otherwise. In essence, nature is the way God does things and science is the study of nature; therefore, science is nothing more than the study of the way God does things.

Man has identified and even sent rockets past planets that were unknown a mere two hundred years ago. Using stem cells he has regrown a severed human finger complete with a perfectly formed nail; using recombinant DNA he has create life forms which had never before existed. But every scientific principle exploited by humankind has always existed just waiting to be discovered.
There is no conflict between science and religion; they are merely different words used to describe the same thing: how God does things

For the record, my idea of God is not an anthropomorphic being. I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. Although I will not go into great detail at this time (maybe later), my basic conception of God is an eternal, creative and sustaining force, a power which acts with absolute certainty and infallibility.

Do I believe in a type of existence beyond physical death? Yes, but it is based upon scientific principles which are, of course, consistent with my idea of God.

Sounds like a fellow pantheist.

*****HAPPY SMILE*****

 

[Muhammed]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang theory is incorrect?

OR

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to this universe?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Muhammed]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang theory is incorrect?

OR

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to this universe?

Yes and No.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

Why do you presume that the universe was "kick started" in the first place?

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang theory is incorrect?

OR

Are you suggesting that Newton's laws of motion don't apply to this universe?

Yes and No.

Are those answers to the respective questions in sequence or a none answer? Please expound.

*****SMILE*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.

You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....

You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You are looking for the gibberish forum.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.

You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....

You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You are looking for the gibberish forum.

As I suggested perhaps you're asking the wrong questions or, as appears more likely, you're incapable of processing the answer provided.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.

You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....

You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You are looking for the gibberish forum.

As I suggested perhaps you're asking the wrong questions or, as appears more likely, you're incapable of processing the answer provided.

*****CHUCKLE*****

LOL Whatever makes you feel good.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So this thread taken over by those that can't form a coherent argument.

Needs to be moved to flamer forum.

You've been provided with coherent answers. They're just not the answers you wish to hear... However your responses to questions asked of you are notably lacking.....

You're questions on the other hand have been answered. Just look around you and the proof is there..... Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You are looking for the gibberish forum.

As I suggested perhaps you're asking the wrong questions or, as appears more likely, you're incapable of processing the answer provided.

*****CHUCKLE*****

LOL Whatever makes you feel good.

(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Gospel of St Thomas

I don't have time to look up Hindu, Buddhist, and other passages.

However I feel fine and to quote Dark Fury...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[there4eyeM]

Anywhere is somewhere, but anything that is everywhere is nowhere.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Anywhere is somewhere, but anything that is everywhere is nowhere.

Really????? That's somewhat profound. So since the universe is everywhere that means it's really nowhere... Which makes you where?

*****CHUCKLE*****





I'll see if you've replied tomorrow because right now I need to go somewhere.

 

[there4eyeM]

If God were to exist, that's where I'd be.

 

[Skull Pilot]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Just because we might not know all the answers to the beginning of the universe does not mean that a god was responsible

In fact I believe there are many things in this universe that we will never understand simply because our minds are incapable of it much like my dog is incapable of doing algebra

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.

The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone. Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.

And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.

The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades.

The existence of God, or several gods can not be proven, at least not to everyone. Though to me, God proved Himself long ago, just depends on what you consider proof, I guess.

And, If and when God does decide to prove Himself to the world, most won't believe it.

The difference between science and religion is, science can be disproven, most gods cannot.

"Much like the theory of evolution has been mostly disproven over the last couple of decades."

Wow, Rick Perry is that you?

Evolution is accepted as fact by science, it has been for nearly a century. Those who need to believe in an invisible dad who lives in the sky and has magical powers won't accept fact which is ok. You like to live in fantasy knock yourself out. The rest of us rely on fact and evidence. However don't make statements like this that are simply untrue. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'not known and can never be known'. Relativity is a 'theory' but talk to any scientist and they know it is fact. Science simply has an honest way of viewing reality and doesn't hold to dogma like religion. You can prove any 'theory' is not correct? Get to it. Scientist do just that, they have an idea then set about challenging that idea to see if it holds up to minute detailed scrutiny. People who believe in 'gods' don't seek proof and never change their beliefs no matter what evidence comes to light.

I'm guessing you think the Earth is what, 6,000 years old? Rather than the 4.5 billion years old we know it to be?

Stick to chants and idols, leave reality to those who spend their lives studying it.