There is science that prove God exists
I didn't call you anything, HEL. I just gave you the opportunity to prove you and boy did you ever hit a grandslam doing it, too.
You didn't get called anything, you happily showed us, troll.
I think that we need to get back to the point that we're all in search of truth. The fact is that we have only had modern science for a little over 400 years, and it's incredible what we've accomplished in that time. I find it amazing that it was only 66 years from us first taking flight, to us landing on the moon. We are a clever species, and we should be proud of being able to change our mind when we learned that we've been wrong about things. I have always said that a wise person is always trying to prove themselves wrong, not prove themselves right. I have made an interesting observation when I talk to people about God; no one can seem to agree on what it is. The usual definition is God being the word we use to describe all that there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be, and interestingly, this is the same definition as the cosmos itself. After spending the last 4 years studying evolution, astronomy, physics, and my current project of 'trying' to understand quantum mechanics, I have found that there are so many things that we, humans, have discovered that are not common knowledge. The more I've learned, the more I come to appreciate how little my previous understanding of god was, especially growing up a JW. Just listening to scientists explain things to me wasn't enough; I needed to learn the math, look through a telescope, and be put in my place over and over again. If there is one thing I have noticed, it's that the universe works in a bottom up way, and not a top down kind of way. This is difficult concept for people because we treat our society in a top down fashion. The leaders do what leaders do, and everything is described as trickling down. Kids learn from people smarter than them, but we forget that those kids eventually come of age, and surpass the teachers, and become the pioneers on the frontier of discovery and broaden our understanding of the world we live in. I feel that we're all describing the same thing, but some of us need to assign a personality to the to the natural laws of the universe. Like Nicola Tesla once said: "What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics". This is a common thing for humans to do because most people think emotionally, and we need to be emotionally attached to something. Ancient, and especially primitive cultures were polytheistic because they needed multiple gods to describe the different things that we don't understand. They were essentially individualized personality traits of their one god, but that was too difficult to explain to people with little to no education, therefore, a new name and face was given to the single personality traits. God of war, God of love, God of fertility, God of thunder..... Father, Son, Holy Spirit..... All one, but all different. We are basically doing the same thing now. Chemistry, Biology, Geology, and all other personality traits (if you will) of the universe. Who's to say that these things can't be quantified into one theory of everything? We have different tools to work with to uncover the greatest mysteries of the universe than people did hundreds and even thousands of years ago. We continue to refine our understanding. Example: The earth was flat, then it was circle, then it was a sphere, and now we can measure with such accuracy to know that the earth isn't even a sphere, it's more pear shaped. We never needed to explain what time is because everybody knows what it is, and is already intimately acquainted with it, as Isaac Newton said. Little did he know that we can describe time, and it's wrapped up in a beautiful 4-dimensional package with space, and time is relative to your speed and mass across the fabric of space. Again, we are all looking to understand the universe we live in, and we need to live with a sense of purpose. I find purpose by doing my best to make the world a better place, and live a life of altruism. I do it because I feel that it's the best way for our species to live a happy and fulfilling life here, and I am proud that I don't do good things because I feel like I need to impress anyone. We're all in this together, and we need to push each other forward, not pull each other along.
If there is a God it's totally aloof, non-communicative, non-intervening. Not the slightest bit of evidence it notices us or cares. And if it is watching us, it has no morality since it does nothing to stop evil and suffering. So it may as well not exist.
God is irrelevant, as Buddhism teaches.
OnTheWayOut Back up a bit. So science can say that what caused the formation was always there but I can't say God has always been there? Maybe God created God. You never know.
No. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot say that science doesn't have an answer then you don't have an answer. Or your answer can apply to the mass/energy of the universe without God's existence.
I know it's useless arguing with you. You just know, you just accept the myth, you just refuse to ponder other possibilities.
Go to Wiki: "Turtles all the way down."
It's funny how creationists will point to the universe and say "something must have created all of this - it's too perfect".
And yet they believe in something that's supposed to be the most awesome thing. A being that is perfect in every way. Has no flaws, knows the future, is all powerful, can create other things, etc, etc, etc.
Yet this marvel was somehow not created, but always existed.
Even my son at 8 years old asked Mormons who approached us in a parking lot "Who created God then"?
jws: "--Yet this marvel was somehow not created, but always existed.
not talking about any particular "god", but rather about the possibility, the conditions of operation for a creative agent:-- you can not pick up a book on cosmology that does not come to terms with the fact that there are conditions that preceded the beginning of our universe, and perhaps are still filling it with more [dark]energy. These conditions demand the existence of time, and the possibility of a creator at work. undetectable on our side of the arrow of time. or?
prologs I think you are grossly misrepresenting--or misinterpreting--what is in cosmology books.
you can not pick up a book on cosmology that does not come to terms with the fact that there are conditions that preceded the beginning of our universe,
I have read a few books on cosmology and never read anything that presented conditions preceding the beginning of the (classical) universe as "fact." There are plenty of mathematical models that allow for various conditions before the Big Bang, but none of them are called fact. At this point, all pre-Big-Bang cosmology is speculative.
and perhaps are still filling it with more [dark]energy.
What book says this? I've never read a cosmology or physics book that said new energy was coming into the universe. Energy in the universe is balanced, and no new energy is being added. If it were, it would be all over the news.
These conditions demand the existence of time, and the possibility of a creator at work.
These conditions, if they existed (and I think they likely did), would demand that time exist before the Big Bang, but you're trying to attach "the possibility of a creator" to "conditions demand," and that is incorrect. At most, one could say it's possible for a creator to have been at work, but that is true whatever the conditions--or even if there were no conditions before the Big Bang.
The Laws of Physics explain the orbits of the planets. It's also possible that Moon Fairies push the moon around its orbit while the planets follow Newtonian physics. "Possible" is not an impressive claim, especially when there's no reason to think it's the case.
A Ha: "What book says this? I've never read a cosmology or physics book that said new energy was coming into the universe. Energy in the universe is balanced, and no new energy is being added. If it were, it would be all over the news.
Currently reading Sean Carroll " from eternity to here" and he, quoting old sources, explains, how dark energy is an inherent property of space, and the added space of the expanding universe increases the energy content of the universe. This explains the accelerated expansion of the universe, that normally would experience a gradual slow down, if the energy content of the universe were constant. that dark energy is thought to be a possible feature of the pre-beginning condition too. or?
A Ha: "--a creator to have been at work, but that is true whatever the conditions--or even if there were no conditions before the Big Bang.
It is interesting that these thinkers, Penrose among them, concede that there is time , fluctuations, conditions before our beginning, so at least that would give a creator something to work with, even if he had to create that too. Point is, it is there, not accessible to us, not beyond the realm of probabilities.
Moon fairies as straw men?