I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . . (page 7)

OnTheWayOut

I only read the opening post. I don't want to get caught up in the usual back-and-forth.

While I agree with the opening post, many will say that man's sciences are loaded with theories that are greatly wrong- Perry comes to mind.

They will totally ignore solid evidences. Basically, the Bible says.... so that is true and all else is false. That's what they actually believe.

Religion can roll out "spin" on why God won't lift a finger in many important areas, but each of us can use our own brain to see that "spin" is all it is. God really didn't do anything for innocent children throughout historical disasters and terriblel lives.

Deep down, I don't think most "believers" believe anymore that man is less than 10,000 years old nor do they deep down doubt that life evolved from lower life forms.

OnTheWayOut

Alrighty, I took a look. Got up to this post on page 2:

Well, we will agree to disagree on there being evidence for God. Certainly there are some who see and/or possess overwhelmingly compelling evidence FOR God. Some who do not. Sometimes this depends upon what a person is willing to accept AS evidence, and sometimes that depends upon what a person WANTS to see... or not see. But you and I have been down that road many times.

But yes, of course that person was wrong, and I think realized that quite quickly. I am sure that there are others who make such claims, until they try to prove their claim, at least.

I think it would be best to treat all such "proofs" this person is referring to as equal. Joseph Smith's golden tablets and ability to decipher Egyptian heieroglyphics and Muhammad and that guy that said the world would end last year. And when I say equal, I mean that these are all to be treated as cons or delusions. It is not an insult. If Jesus wants COFTY or OTWO to accept something, he can call us himself. The personal evidences of others that remain private are not proofs.

If Jesus wants someone's private revelations and conversations with him to become some kind of proof, then let the non-scientist carry back some real evidence. The cure for cancer, a way to feed all those Ethiopians. Or I might even accept someone like The Amazing Randi to come up with a way to accept someone's personal revelations.

The rest of the pages seem like the stuff I expected them to be. So subject any proof of God to The Amazing Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. Until it passes the challenge, I toss them in with cheats, fakes, deluded people.

tec

That person wasn't speaking of proofs... although that person had referred to an atheist who had previously said he/she could prove that God does not exist.

Peace,

tammy

nicolaou

Without addressing your arguments Tammy, would just like to say that your writing style is a LOT easier to digest in this topic. For that at least, thank you.

Nic'

tec

I'm not sure how to respond, I am not doing anything different. But if you are finding something easier to digest, then I am glad.

Peace,

tammy

KateWild

Adam, yes well done Rocks have sub-atomic particles. The rest of your post changed the subject.

Getting back to rocks and atoms. Adam, it is divine the way electron's move around the whole structure and each atom has vibrational, and rotational uniform movements too. All the sub orbitals of each atom s,p,d,f have rigid positons that dertermine the electron configuration of a particular rock depending on the elements that make up the rock.

The rock is inanimate to the human eye, but is in a constant state of flux. The rotational and vibrational movements going on keep the rock a solid object, this is a symphony of movement. It's divine and spiritual.

I don't know why I rambled on about that. cantleave and bohm are probably the few atheists who grasp my point. Adam, I don't think you really know anything about Shrodinger's wave equation. You can't learn about it on google. Well not in a few days anyway.

Sam xx

prologos

the 2 negatives in the topic make a positive, but- we are waiting to do it.

really we can only research the works of the "divine". although the book by Roger Penrose I am reading right now, deals extensively with the pre-big bang conditions, the possibility that information passed through it, if not observed, yet quantified.

Kate, where do you stop at describing features of creation as divine, the quark level? the energy level of photons that come out of the rock atoms as the electron clouds change orbits? the 5 minute pulsation of the sun?

Every entity has an "Eigenschwingung" and it is a divine experience to perceive it, if it is in symphony, wether electromagnetic or acoustic.

The experience is divine, but does that alone prove creation?

we have benefit concerts to feed the children, like pictured above.

"We are the world--"

DeWandelaar

Let me say this... let us first try to understand fysical evidence. If we, as humans, are able to understand all these evidences we finally may begin to try to understand "invisible" things :P

KateWild

prologs,

I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. God and evolution are compatible IMO. I don't know what you mean by the quark level. I am a Chemical analyst, I am talking about physical chemistry. I am not a physicist, although we had to read physicists books for phys chem lectures.

the energy level of photons that come out of the rock atoms as the electron clouds change orbits?-prologs

prologs, I am afraid this is not what I was talking about. I am sorry I cannot enter into a science conversation with you as I don't have that kind of knowledge. Please read my post again and what you don't understand I can explain in more detail at a level that we are both familiar with.

Sam xx

glenster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfRkcJ0BLS0

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

Share this