If God doesn't exist...

[cnm]

I'll remember that next time I'm taking a theoretical physics class.

Nah, you've ignored it and forgotten it already.

 

[cnm]

"Science" is supposed to be repeatable, also.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA, either.
Do you think if he had an electron microscope, and could see a DNA helix, he would have have tried to pass off his rotten bag of goods called 'evolution'?

Well he knew creationism didn't fit the evidence.

 

[amrchaos]

... I am amused by those who think that God is a bearded white man sitting on a throne somewhere in outer space. ...

...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

Damn - my dog is a liar.

what kick started the universe?

Gravity.

Gravity? Gravityis a reaction - not th Action.

You want to hear something strange.

We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
.
Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!

...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*****

Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.

Genesis starts with God creating light. That is the primary description given to God.

Now where does it say in Genesis that God created space, time(God created the the sun and moon to keep time), energy or even the natural laws? It does not.

So what do we have? You are assigning traits to God that may not exist in God. You are assuming. Whatever created those things could be something else unrelated to the God of Genesis.

You have to prove that these other things are the same as the God of Genesis before claiming that the God of Genesis created those things.

Until then, it seems like you are arguing Polytheism and assume Monotheism to make things simple for yourself.

Something created space, time, energy, natural laws ... out of nothing. Energy builded matter. Matter started to live. So life itselve is maybe the message behind creation.

Yes, I think it is simple to assume some things started, but aren't you interested in the questions of what and how?

 

[amrchaos]

...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*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

...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*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?

More like
I don't know what started the universe.
I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
I decided to call the thing which started the universe God.

I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..

It is nothing but a label for a definition.

By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'. Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".

But then again do you call it God because you don't know, or do you call it God out of convenience for an argument?

If I was going to use the label God, then out of convenience.

Unfortunately, too many people use that word for different meanings. It would not be useful if people keep misunderstanding what I meant.

 

[hortysir]

"Science" is supposed to be repeatable, also.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA, either.
Do you think if he had an electron microscope, and could see a DNA helix, he would have have tried to pass off his rotten bag of goods called 'evolution'?

Well he knew creationism didn't fit the evidence.

Yet, still, had no explanation for the Cambrian explosion

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I'm not the one that brought up the Big Bang or Evolution and claimed they were true or false in science. You presumed I did and then asked if I saw these things occur. I explained to you how science approached these theories.

However you seem quite positive about the answers science comes up with without actually having been there.

Not my fault you do not understand what science is, as was evident in your follow up. You called it a religion when it does not have the characteristics or properties to be a religion. Science does not teach discipline in behavior. Science does not teach how to deal with others or how to value oneself. Science does not teach how to apply science for the betterment of society. Religion does, not science.

I assure you that I understand science quite well... Most likely better than you if this conversation is any indication of your knowledge on the subject.

You did set yourself for a fail(presuming answers I didn't give. Assuming you can't prove things you can't see) and totally failed in the follow up (assuming I practice science as a religion.

From my perspective you practice it like an Orthodox Jew or Orthodox Catholic. Blindly following whatever is put in front of you and not questioning what's said.

When the truth is you use religion to explain your science. ) That can be seen as projection on your part. You really failed twice.

Really????? Obviously you fail to see the perspective I'm looking at it from. Even though I stated earlier in the conversation what my practicing beliefs are. I would say that's the biggest fail on your part.

Also, anyone can give a critique of their or another culture. However, I am not too sure which culture you are referring to.

Right now? YOURS.

You start with perhaps, so I think this is an assumption on your part.
But what you say next makes little sense and is not what is described in Genesis

The firmament is a PHYSICAL barrier that separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the Sky. The stars are fixed lights in the firmament. There is no need to hand wave or assume, it is described in Genesis and it doe not exist.

You're the one that brought up Genesis and the firmament. I'm only making a suggestion that it and your unexplainably kick started universe might have something in common..... Call it a joke at your expense.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

Probably the same thing that gives you the ability to discern that there's such a thing as God.

I see God every time I open my eyes.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yes, in the one cubic foot of space that is your own skull. If that's what gets you through the day go with it. The masses generally do as well because it is soothing to a mind that sees a dangerous world and a life that will come to an end.

Some of us require evidence of reality, rather than 'gut feeling'. Beauty is not evidence of any 'god'.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?

You haven't been paying very close attention to what I've been posting have you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

More like
I don't know what started the universe.
I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
I decided to call the thing which started the universe God.

I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..

It is nothing but a label for a definition.

By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'. Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".

Fail.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And yet in it's arrogance science created a creation theology to deny that some higher power might exist.

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
― Anne Lamott

And you're doing a fine job of it.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?

Scientists are more creative than that in verifying events.

A Science Odyssey People and Discoveries Penzias and Wilson discover cosmic microwave radiation

When they began to use it as a telescope they found there was a background "noise" (like static in a radio). This annoyance was a uniform signal in the microwave range, seeming to come from all directions. Everyone assumed it came from the telescope itself, which was not unusual. It hadn't interfered with the Echo system but Penzias and Wilson had to get rid of it to make the observations they planned. They checked everything to rule out the source of the excess radiation. They pointed the antenna right at New York City -- it wasn't urban interference. It wasn't radiation from our galaxy or extraterrestrial radio sources. It wasn't even the pigeons living in the big, horn-shaped antenna. Penzias and Wilson kicked them out and swept out all their droppings. The source remained the same through four seasons, so it couldn't have come from the solar system or even from a 1962 above-ground nuclear test, because in a year that fallout would have shown a decrease. They had to conclude it was not the machine and it was not random noise causing the radiation.

Penzias and Wilson began looking for theoretical explanations. Around the same time, Robert Dicke (1916�1997) at nearby Princeton University had been pursuing theories about the big bang. He had elaborated on existing theory to suggest that if there had been a big bang, the residue of the explosion should by now take the form of a low-level background radiation throughout the universe. Dicke was looking for evidence of this theory when Penzias and Wilson got in touch with his lab. He shared his theoretical work with them, even as he resignedly said to his fellow-researchers, "We've been scooped."

So they saw background radiation that 'might' be left over from the big bang 'in theory' was supposed to have occurred......

Your point?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yes, in the one cubic foot of space that is your own skull. If that's what gets you through the day go with it. The masses generally do as well because it is soothing to a mind that sees a dangerous world and a life that will come to an end.

Some of us require evidence of reality, rather than 'gut feeling'. Beauty is not evidence of any 'god'.

I only displayed of the more... what men and women call... pleasant aspects of God.

Would you like to see some of what men, and women, call the unpleasant aspects of God?

I saw some in the rest of the religion, and theology, sections of this forum.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'm not sure of the details, but I am pretty sure that Trump had something to do with the beginning of the universe.

 

[hortysir]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

Is "something from nothing" a repeatable scientific process?

 

[hortysir]

I'm not sure of the details, but I am pretty sure that Trump had something to do with the beginning of the universe.

Just his hair was there

 

[Damaged Eagle]

... We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

Nothing started the universe because there was nothing before not even a before.

It did have a beginning. Something from nothing notates a starting point.

So now your scientific creation theory/theology doesn't have to follow the laws of physics?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

God's already provided proof enough to me that God exists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Yes, in the one cubic foot of space that is your own skull. If that's what gets you through the day go with it. The masses generally do as well because it is soothing to a mind that sees a dangerous world and a life that will come to an end.

Some of us require evidence of reality, rather than 'gut feeling'. Beauty is not evidence of any 'god'.

I only displayed of the more... what men and women call... pleasant aspects of God.

Would you like to see some of what men, and women, call the unpleasant aspects of God?

I saw some in the rest of the religion, and theology, sections of this forum.

*****SMILE*****

Nah we've all seen it, you have your abosolute, go with it.