Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Reply to topic
McCulloch
First Post
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:27 pm  Scientific search for what is God. Reply with quote

JP Cusick wrote:
I agree that the Big-Bang gives us very little insight into what is God, and the creation event is only a physical reality with very little to teach about the spiritual side.

It would be better if modern science would search to discover what is God but the people are so intimidated by the reality of God that science can not even talk about it let alone do the research.

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.


What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 101: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:56 am
Reply

Like this post
paarsurrey1 wrote:

Science fails in Religion miserably due to its obvious inherent defects.


We could really use your help in this thread:

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33355

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 102: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:58 pm
Reply

Like this post
Its a meaningless prospect to assume an objective search for a God..........

Why would I say that and how can say that with confidence?

Well let's assume that in the scientific natural world view that anything that would counter the laws of physics might garner out attention........such as the growth of a severed limb on a human instaneously........or someone walking on water.........or any other supernatural act that is often claimed as a miracle in the Biblical sense.

Then assume that these miracles can occur as a result of people praying to a conscious entity they claim as supernatural.........and ultimately a personal God....perhaps even the personal God of the Bible.

If the above occurred it would certainly attract further observation and speculation as to what is going on and the source of that.......but even if that source was to be claimed as a God...............how do we know it is such an entity and not a super race of beings or a technological application by beings far advanced from us.........or that this God is a simulation along with our whole universe by some super programmer being?

We don't know.....because ultimate objectivity....ultimate reality............or who or what is behind the curtain can never be known because one can always say.......well if that is God how are we so sure there isn't a God that created it? and so forth and so on....

Reality could have one onion layer after the other to peel away and we may never find the end of it..........

So in our situation it is best to use the scientific method to build working models that are both consistent and predictable within our own reality as best as we can and accept that until such evidence demonstrates that there is something beyond our own reality ...........as in the speculation of a multiverse for instance... might end up being an indication of a reality beyond our own universe.

But to claim a conscious being is an all powerful eternal God is in impossibility to know for sure................even for that very proclaimed God itself!

Example.............God says I'm eternal.........

Well how long is eternity?

Forever without an end?

Okay then for a God to claim that it would have to go to the end of eternity....then look back and say..........I've existed for all eternity so that proves I'm eternal.......but a God could never do that because you can't get to the end of eternity to ever claim that.........there could always be some time in the future of eternity where this God would come to an end and it would never know that.

Eternity like ultimate objective reality ends up being the same claim.....no way to validate any of it or the God who claims that...........only to accept what we can deal with now as best as possible until we can stretch our reality horizon further at some later point if that is even possible.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 103: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:51 am
Reply
Re: Scientific search for what is God.

Like this post (1): Monta
PghPanther wrote:

Its a meaningless prospect to assume an objective search for a God.

Then do not do an objective search.

Religion has forever been telling people to get away from the idols (the objects) and seek God where God can be found.

Science is the one demanding that God must be put under a microscope or in front of a telescope or else God can not be real, and that is how science completely misses out on the search.

Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

Science is the one with the prejudice and personal feelings of denying the existence of God without any facts or research.

To find the truth then science needs religion to do the job right.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 104: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:00 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 102 by PghPanther]

This post explains exactly why science is useless in relation to such ideas of GOD and why the demand for burden of proof in relation to such ideas is a fallacy.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 105: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:11 am
Reply
Re: Scientific search for what is God.

Like this post
[Replying to post 103 by JP Cusick]

Quote:
Science is the one demanding that God must be put under a microscope or in front of a telescope or else God can not be real, and that is how science completely misses out on the search.


You are incorrect. Science is not demanding anything. Atheist skeptics/anti-theists are, and in that they are conflating science with philosophy and theistic ideas and adding unnecessary confusion into the mix.

Indeed, scientific instruments (microscope, telescope) are able to help show the evidence of intelligent mindful creativity but personal individual interpretation is another thing entirely.

Quote:
Science is the one with the prejudice and personal feelings of denying the existence of God without any facts or research.


Again, you are incorrect. Science is just a process used by consciousness to explore the environment in which it finds itself.

The prejudice and personal feelings are not the fault of science nor are these emotional expressions to be sourced in science. There are no facts or research that I am aware of which - if science were applied - would uncover the existence of GOD. If you know of any, please share.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 106: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:24 am
Reply

Like this post
I think these guys are on the right track. First a person must get past their own intellectual dishonesty before a search can even begin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 107: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:34 am
Reply
Re: Scientific search for what is God.

Like this post
William wrote:

There are no facts or research that I am aware of which - if science were applied - would uncover the existence of GOD. If you know of any, please share.

The point is that modern secular science is inadequate for the task - no one is denying that.

Modern secular science has created boundaries and walls as like hiding under a rock to keep science from ever finding anything that might rock their boat - or that might remove the rock they hide under.

Science would have to make some severe improvements in order to do the job.

And it is meaningless to say that it is the Atheist scientist or secular science and not science itself.

My view is that in some ways science has already found God in significant ways, as like finding the creation of the universe just 14 billion years ago is thereby proof of the creation. And evolution is proof of an active God and of intelligent design as that is factual proof indeed. And the planet earth spinning around perfectly at high speed being held by invisible force is distinct proof for the reality of God. Science is just too blind to see its own discoveries.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 108: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:28 am
Reply
Re: Scientific search for what is God.

Like this post (1): JP Cusick
[Replying to post 107 by JP Cusick]

Quote:
Science is just too blind to see its own discoveries.


My point was that science is a process, and as such, cannot see anything.

What you are saying is that secular scientists are interpreting what is observed and discovered without finding it necessary to acknowledge any possibility of a creator being involved in the formation of the universe and life on earth.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 109: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:45 pm
Reply
Re: Scientific search for what is God.

Like this post
JP Cusick wrote:

PghPanther wrote:

Its a meaningless prospect to assume an objective search for a God.

Then do not do an objective search.

Religion has forever been telling people to get away from the idols (the objects) and seek God where God can be found.

Science is the one demanding that God must be put under a microscope or in front of a telescope or else God can not be real, and that is how science completely misses out on the search.

Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

Science is the one with the prejudice and personal feelings of denying the existence of God without any facts or research.

To find the truth then science needs religion to do the job right.


Then what remains is a subject experience............and there are far too many of them conflicting with each other to ever come to a conclusion that one is right and the others are wrong...........as a result we have a plurality of truth claims with each person confident theirs is correct and others are headed to hell........

Could you imagine if the laws of gravity were subject to interpretation?

Reality would be insane in that case.....

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 110: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:23 pm
Reply
Re: Scientific search for what is God.

Like this post
PghPanther wrote:

Then what remains is a subject experience............and there are far too many of them conflicting with each other to ever come to a conclusion that one is right and the others are wrong...........as a result we have a plurality of truth claims with each person confident theirs is correct and others are headed to hell........

You might want to broaden your horizon to see a better picture of things.

There is no reason why it has to be God as an idol or else God by every person's interpretation, or else there is no God at all.

And why would you include hell? I know that there is no hell, and we are not taking about science trying to search for heaven or for hell or for the crucifixion - to search for God only means searching for God - and figure out any particulars after finding the focal point.

PghPanther wrote:

Could you imagine if the laws of gravity were subject to interpretation?

Reality would be insane in that case.....

That is not accurate.

There are at least two (2) versions of gravity, being Newton or Einstein version, and there are significant differences as in Newton said that gravity pulls inward while Einstein said that gravity pushes inward (falls) which is contradictory versions of gravity.

And there is nothing wrong that I know of in having different interpretations of gravity or of a super nova or of Black Holes, because having different versions is part of the process.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version