I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . .

by nicolaou 185 Replies latest members adult

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    they may embrace those feelings of what is unknown, accept that science for what it can provide in that moment in time and live quite harmoniously within the framework of both.-sammie

    I would say that is a bit like me, the unknown has a mysteriousness about it. Science takes me so far on a sub-atomic level, then the mystery and the unknown constitute a type of relgious emotion in me. I am a deeply spiritual person.

    Kate xx

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    You, like alot of believers, simply WANT there to be an Intelligent Designer, plain and simple, but oddly enough, cannot explain how the Universe would operate any differently if there weren't.-Adam

    This doesn't make sense at all. You are wrong about me. Your point is not relevant. Why do you need me to tell you what the world would look like without God? I don't care about that. You are going on about nonsense Adam.

    Kate xx

  • cofty
    cofty

    People with intuition - people with a belief in crystals - perhaps they feel and see and are joined to the earth in ways that science simply cannot know.

    If crystals have any value, beyond their incredible beauty and symmetry, it would be trivially easy to prove it.

    Science is not "harsh", it opens up a universe of wonders that are available to all, not just those who pretend to be special.

    "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    Kate, I don't always agree with Adam but his comment does make sense and his point is relevant. The answer to your last question is that he is simply trying to get you thinking in regions you may not have travelled to before.

    Instead of slapping it down as nonsense why not try answering the question?

    x

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    If crystals have any value, beyond their incredible beauty and symmetry, it would be trivially easy to prove it.-cofty

    They teach us lots about sub-atomic particles, and how the formation occurs over millions of years, from graphite to diamond as an example. The difference is huge in physical appearance. The nature of sub-atomic particles moving is mystical. The end product is pretty. That is the value, and I have proved it.

    Kate xx

  • prologos
    prologos

    The universe could operate without the maker intervening after it's beginning, if her instructions could get through the big bang.

    Roger Penrose, using accepted science loudly proclaims that such information (not divine ones) indeed came from the pre-big bang eon.

    So while the universe looks like self-creating to our probing, give the the pen in Penrose time.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Instead of slapping it down as nonsense why not try answering the question?-nic

    I can't see how it is relevant, tell me nic

    It should be a question for both believers and atheists such as......What the would the world look like with/without God?

    My point is he is closed minded and dogmatic, he is trying to prove something to me, I am only voicing my opinion. The question is bias.

  • redvip2000
    redvip2000

    "Positve and negative forces in sub-atomic particles move in a spiritually, magical way in a solid"

    This type of nonsense is pretty much the same old "since we can't explain it, we'll just say God did it". It is as silly as saying that a rainbow is a sign from God, simply because you can't explain how a rainbow happens.

    There is nothing spiritual or magical about sub-atomic particles move. They simply follow natural law, they don't have a mind of their own or have free will to do whatever they please. This idiotic concept is usually advanced by some who desperately try to find a reason to justify the existence of a creator.

    The spin of a particle has some hidden variables which humans have not been able to explain. These hidden variables cause it to move randomly sometimes. It his evidence that God exists? No. It is evidence that we as humans still don't know everything about sub-atomic particles. And we shouldn't make the same old tired mistake of using the God excuse to explain what we still cannot explain.

  • prologos
    prologos

    The other, newer, but tireing mistake that is made is:

    We now have discovered how it (the quarks for example) work, therefore they made themselfs out of energy that made itself., therfore:

    we can proclaim, There is no creator.(of the gaps at least).

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    The spin of a particle has some hidden variables which humans have not been able to explain.-redvip

    Wow very interesting. Give me the example you are refering to. Was it an electron, proton, neutron or the whole atom? It is my understanding the rotational and vibrational movements are uniform. Which element contained the the hidden anomolies?

    I am willing to read 10 pages of a universty study and wade through lots of other information, if you can answer the simple questions above to back up your point. Very interesting redvip

    Thanks Kate xx

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit