God vs Science

not neccessarily..there are many particles that need to be found ..one thing for sure though..you don't see electricity until you switch on that light bulb do you..something from nothing?The unseen we don't believe in..the light bulb..the seen?

" he" huh ? ( yawn )

The question is, where did the particle's reaction come from? If you keep thinking backwards there is a cause to everything. What is beyond the universe? How does everything happen so perfectly within it? There's too much organization and purpose for a higher being to be absent from it all.

Just because it isn't in line with the literal "7 day" tale in the Christian Bible, doesn't mean there isn't God, Yahweh, Allah, or any other higher being behind it.

I also agree with Malathion's comment on the common genderization of God. Isn't God a supreme being, meaning beyond human/animalistic gender? If not, who's to say (beside extremely patriarchal religious writings) that God is male? Why not female? Or androgynous?

It's something to think about. :)

Well, if the universe couldn't arise on it's own -- they how did God get here? What created God? If He (or It) could theortically create Itself -- that creates its own problems because the very act of self-creation pre-supposes both a) consciouness with which to decide to take action and b) some kind of matter or energy with which to start from. You can't really ever get to true zero. There always has to be something there to begin with, right?

The great equalizer of science and religion seems to be "What happened before the beginning of everything?" Answers to both the creation of the universe to the creation of God seems equally impossible. Both depend on "something" arising out of "nothing."

But more imporantly....what's happening with Heidi and Spencer on "The Hills"???

the main problem is the answer to your questions of what was before lies in the Unknown territories..and to be able to understand the unknown you need to know its language .Most people fear the unknown because of the fact they know nothing about it..but if you take the time and do the research..there are many doors that open up this subject even further..why would you want to know what is beyond the universe when we are trying to understand this one ...and yes where are Heidi and spencer today?

What created God? No answer.

so I guess that might define
why God is God.

I am the Alpha and the Omega....pretty hefty claim...but if you are God, you
don't have to prove yourself
to anyone...nor abide by their presuppositions, which would probably make the presupposing angry, and that anger just might express itself in things like a complete and utter denial of Your existence.

oh well, let them worry about Heidi and Spencer....their loss

and we continue to ask what is wrong with people...

The idea of god is too tangible and unknown, you just have to take your own stance on the matter, this will prove it no more than any other findings and people will still argue the matter for as long as we exist.

Malathion, there is a slight problem with your argument. If your saying there is a cause for everything, then it goes without saying that something must have caused god, therefore, something must have been before god and something before that etc, etc. The 'cosmological argument' for the existence of god has been discredited I'm afraid.

I disagree I think this and the big bang theory in general is the closest thing to proof that their is a god.

why is there a need to prove GOD's existence? isnt part of the whole business of theology, the 'fact' that there are unprovables? there will always be that argument from any numbers of religious institutions.

each person creates their own GOD, universe and reality. what is the 'objectivity' (no such thing) of science gonna add to this....

(yawn is right)

42

huh ? unless me yawning after saying " 'he' huh ? " is an argument moly , i haven't really said anything have i ? tell me if i'm wrong . and isn't it the "ontological" argument you're referring to ( the one made most famous by st. augustine in "the city of god" ) which , i think , went like " that than which none greater may be conceived must be god " - so much for "first causes" i guess . personally , i don't "leap" anywhere i can't be sure of not landing on BS ( not for me "the leap of faith " ) - i'm a freethinker BTW , and i really wouldn't be too amazed to find that a jabberwocky miracled the MULTI-verse into existence . hold up - it was st. anselm who came up with the ontological bit - i just wiki-d it - but , anyhoo , it really doesn't matter does it ?

i agree with VSiskos

deep thoughts

THIS WON'T CHANGE THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THE IGNORANT PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF A "GOD". THEY WILL COME UP ANOTHER LOOP HOLE THAT KEEPS REALITY OUT OF THEIR LIVES. SORRY, BUT SANTA IS MADE UP TOO.

but couldnt the particle be explained as god, isnt all creation in whatever exsistence is, god?

yea i have to agree with nomatic even if he/she does capitalize EVERYTHING. the fact is this is a relatively useless scientific experiment when the majority of the world, heck the majority of the US, is still uneducated superstitious sheep. Haiti just overthrew it's government, cancer rates are rising because the EPA is controlled by the chemical companies and we (the US) are a full blown corporate empire that is crushing the majority of the world, and a growing number of our own citizens, in violent poverty. WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE STARTED!

mmm, leave a person's religion alone unless they attempt to force it on someone else. then strike them hard if they do.

everyone made good solid points, i guess we will have to wait and see. after a year we might think differently. btw malathion, it was Anselm.

good point jh64487

why does everyone concern themselves with the most stupid question, does god exist? If indeed we are capable of finding the most elementary particle, then it will be for humanity to use. It doesn't matter whether god exists or not. There is nothing to prove. We are human beings(animals) in a physical world. No matter how you put it, we will never transcend beyond what we can perceive with our senses, whether a god or a mathematical equation gave them to us. If we do find "the first particle," anything and everything that will follow will be a product of humanity, NOT of ANY god or perfect being. We constructed fairy tales for thousands and thousands of years, isn't it time to evolve?

Some thirty plus years ago, having an uncle as well as a third-cousin working in CERN, I met a great many nuclear physicists. Already then, they were saying that the only explanation for certain phenomena was God, that the Indians (from India) had described particle physics a few thousand years ago, and that someday one will find the God particle.

God is my cousin, God is your ousin too, God is beyond you ad I and yet God is non-existant, God is........

I think only antagonistic atheists with the loosest understanding of science will embrace this as their ultimate trump card in their ongoing crusade against theists.

I question the whole soon proof will be found notion. That smells a bit fishy and not a little too biased and non-scientific.

Something extraordinary has been discovered by a Mr. Greg Braden, a former geologist. It's referred to as the ''God Code'', a genetic signature that is allegedly divine.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indiv...

Mobius2012, the video you linked to is ultra-short and has nothing to do with a Mr. Greg Braden nor the "God Code". Here is the description of the video you linked to:

Description: Can You Handle the Truth? Sunday's 1pm PST on IE's 1050-AM & Live Streaming Audio, Internet TV and Archived Podcast @ KCAARADIO . COM with your Hosts Craig & Dolphinbrain. Transmitting Live and Direct from the upper level of the Carousel Mall in San bernardino, California.

Currently looking for Sponsers if you would like to Advertise your Products or Services on our program please
email: Craig McElvany - destination2012@aol . com


????

And here is the link to that video:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indiv...

In case you wish to go there and drop a comment, provided you're registered with Myspace. :)

Vierotchka- Thank you sweetheart, i was in a rush. I Appreciate that very much. Spasiba' :)

I wouldn't say it is either foolish or silly. It takes a leap of faith to believe something that cannot be proved or disproved. Belief is admission of ignorance - one either knows or one doesn't know, one only believes when one doesn't know. Even if something does actually exist, to believe it is to believe a lie, because without direct experience, one cannot know. Buddha himself refused to talk about God - he said that anything he might say about God can only be a lie. On the other hand, Buddha gave people techniques through which they could reach personal experience of the existence or non-existence of God. That was intellectually and spiritually honest.

It's foolish of us to be in awe of creation and not the Creator. It's silly of us to dismiss the existence of the Creator solely because we only see the evidence of the created. I understand that Faith and rationalism cannot frolic together hand in hand, but we are blindly predetermining reality and prematurely concluding the totality of existence based on the discovery of one facet comprised in the infinitude of reality.

and he titled those steps the ''8 fold path''. Siddharta can also be quoted as saying that the way is between both opposite extremes, concluding that matter and anti-matter or rather rationalism and Belief (Blind Faith) are insubstantial and not worth defending because Mara creates ''illusion'', and who are we to determine what is real and definite.

Vierotchka- I agree with you, but maybe you misconstrued my point. I'm not deeming the discoveries of Quantum Mechanics or Astro-Physics as being Foolish or silly, I deem the premature conclusion that a creative intelligent force doesn't exist solely based on the discovery of 1 aspect of reality as being both silly and foolish when there are many, yet to be discovered. Hypothetically speaking, the next big discovery will alter our perception of reality, and the validation of the existence of ''GOD'' due to future discoveries or the disproving is irrelevant, what is important is that we identify what we discover and catalogue these discoveries as fragments of the truth as are the multitudinous concepts of religion as opposed to establishing them as irrefutable Axioms. Theories were meant to be disproved.

Mobius, I thought you might find this interesting... something I posted in my blog last June:

http://tinyurl.com/5gao54

:)

I've already seen the video, it's on my myspace page honey www.myspace.com/avison67 I was actually in Russia in mid June.. but do you see my point?

I've always wondered why the question is God vs. science. These are age old questions I doubt will be proven during the human life span either way. If there is a God controlling this mind boggling universe, who are we to question how it's being done. On the other hand, if it's just a scientific phenomenon it doesn't really prove there is no God. We've discovered complexities in everything here on earth that we didn't understand years ago and we still don't understand them completely.

Thank You Chique

Mobius, my point was that I had posted this very same video on my blog last June - that is what I thought you'd find interesting. :)

Mobius...

www.myspace.com/avison67

Invalid Friend ID.
This user has either cancelled their membership, or their account has been deleted.

:(

I wanted to send you a friend request...