Saying that we don't know isn't proving anything. To disprove something, you will need to bring forth evidence which is clearly incompatible with the current theory.
And we cannot absolutely prove that God does or does not exist. Therefore the existence of God(s) hasn't been disproven and he/she/it could very well exist.
The problem (yes, I say problem) here is that everyone is trying to prove God exists by scientific means. For some people this works (I.E. Deists), but realistically, if you're talking about a "spiritual" one, than you cannot prove a spiritual being exists by scientific means. Science only measures and calculates phenomena that are of this world/universe/etc. A God would supercede the limits and substance of his/her/its creations- it would have to or it wouldn't be God, it would be the product of its own power, which doesn't make sense (although it could still be possible since a God would not operate on our limited logic.) Therefore, this God-life/God-conscience would 1) not be made of matter, since that is a property of his creations and 2) would not be able to be studied scientifically because science requires matter or physically-logical patterns/numbers to work with, which a God would supercede because that is part of his creation.
Don't know if anyone could follow that, I kind of started to confuse myself after a while and I think I started rambling in circles. Anyway, I could be wrong, but that's what makes sense to me, and it's what I think I now believe.
Edit--
And furthermore my thoughts on science requiring faith:
You must have faith that the facts you are provided or discover on your own are valid and accurate.
You must have faith your or someone else's calculations are correct.
You must have faith that the information used is the most up-to-date.
You must have faith that no guess-work was done, which is frequent in the scientific process (rounding numbers, guessing color shades, etc.)
Edit--
And just as a disclaimer- I'm not saying all science is wrong and I'm not saying God does or does not exist- I was simply explaining, from my limited understanding, that science does require faith in the above items, and that God could very well exist since humans (obviously) do not know everything and since if you are talking about a purely spiritual God, he/she/it/they cannot be described/measured/calculated/etc. by scientific means, since the creator will supercede the creation.
Edit--
AND I'm also not saying that (a) God(s) would have/has to be spiritual and that Deists are wrong. I took no stance on the essence of (a) God(s), if he/she/it/they do/does exist, I only offered my understanding/reasoning as to the fact that God can exist, but might well not. Therefore, anyone who believes anything about God (in reference to existence) is taking faith in their own measurements (or non-measurements), and all people have faith in something.
The problem (yes, I say problem) here is that everyone is trying to prove God exists by scientific means. For some people this works (I.E. Deists), but realistically, if you're talking about a "spiritual" one, than you cannot prove a spiritual being exists by scientific means.
That's your opinion. You cannot be like "deists think this" and then add "realistically...". You're basically just stating your opinion, disagreeing with the fact that God scientifically exists.
Quote from "Magistrate" »
Science only measures and calculates phenomena that are of this world/universe/etc.
Science measures and calculates what it can. The definitions such as "universe" are biased and unclear.
I mean, we used to think the world was flat!
Quote from "Magistrate" »
A God would supercede the limits and substance of his/her/its creations- it would have to or it wouldn't be God, it would be the product of its own power, which doesn't make sense (although it could still be possible since a God would not operate on our limited logic.)
How does that not make sense. Go watch "13th floor", a world inside a world inside a world, all created by, creating, humans. I think it's very well possible.
The Bible says that God made humans from his own image. This suggestes that God and humans are somewhat close, and while mostly I don't follow the Bible too closely, this may explain many things. Perhaps what some call "God" is simple a human (wow, scary thought, huh?) that generated the world through technology above ours. The specifics of this are not known.
No need to imagine that the author, if existant, is something that we cannot undestand at all.
Quote from "Magistrate" »
Therefore, this God-life/God-conscience would 1) not be made of matter, since that is a property of his creations
That doesn't work at all. He could very well be made of matter, just be outside of our little crystal ball.
That's your opinion. You cannot be like "deists think this" and then add "realistically...". You're basically just stating your opinion, disagreeing with the fact that God scientifically exists.
Science measures and calculates what it can. The definitions such as "universe" are biased and unclear.
I mean, we used to think the world was flat!
How does that not make sense. Go watch "13th floor", a world inside a world inside a world, all created by, creating, humans. I think it's very well possible.
The Bible says that God made humans from his own image. This suggestes that God and humans are somewhat close, and while mostly I don't follow the Bible too closely, this may explain many things. Perhaps what some call "God" is simple a human (wow, scary thought, huh?) that generated the world through technology above ours. The specifics of this are not known.
No need to imagine that the author, if existant, is something that we cannot undestand at all.
That doesn't work at all. He could very well be made of matter, just be outside of our little crystal ball.
Sorry, I'm not sure if I got that last part in on time, if I did not, I'm sorry. I didn't say God had to be spiritual. I didn't say God had to be as you've described him/her/it. I was just saying that a spiritual God, who cannot ever be measured by scientific means, cannot be proven or disproven. What you're saying (I think) is that God is a human overlording other humans, which I didn't say was incorrect or correct and I didn't offer reasoning on it.
In reference to the definition of the universe, I meant basically anything that is scientifically measurable and is observable by humans or machines made by humans to enhance senses.
However, if you think about it- what created that superhuman? Did it create itself? Was it eternally existant? Is there someone or something bigger than it? What is its world like if it is indeed measurable scientifically?
The Bible says that God made humans from his own image. This suggestes that God and humans are somewhat close, and while mostly I don't follow the Bible too closely, this may explain many things. Perhaps what some call "God" is simple a human (wow, scary thought, huh?) that generated the world through technology above ours. The specifics of this are not known.
Most modern Church doctrine (not that I believe it) says that this simply means that humans, like God, are created with emotions, free will, wants, and needs. It never said that it had to be physical. BUT if you continue along that line and simply define a human by their minds (which contain those three attributes), God could be considered 'human', except that the Bible also frequently states that God is perfect in judgment, wisdom, intelligence, etc. and that humans are not (hence the fall of humanity by man's own actions.) Just depends on your opinion about the scriptures.
most church doctrine are written by men. and then the ones that werent agreed upon, were discarded.
and science requires no faith, numbers are perfect. you either set to approve or disapprove someone elses theory. intelligence is the opposite of faith.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Everything requires faith, either if your belief is by numerical value, or if it is in puffy pink unicorns in the sky. Interestingly, Einstein seems to have died a bit crazy because of his inability to re-write the newer quantum theories.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
most church doctrine are written by men. and then the ones that werent agreed upon, were discarded.
and science requires no faith, numbers are perfect. you either set to approve or disapprove someone elses theory. intelligence is the opposite of faith.
Can you prove that those doctrines written by men were not inspired by a god? if you cant then that means he might exist and people have faith in him...and from many standpoints that would be an intelligent thing to do
Intelligence-The ability to learn or understand
Faith-unquestioning belief
To say that intelligence is the opposite of faith to try to imply religion is stupid is incredibly arrogant and rude and unintelligent. Faith even by definition is not opposite and in context faith is built around a bases of something to believe in, something that was learned and understood.
You have an "unquestioning belief" in numbers.
And no numbers dont prove a thing, carbon dating is horrid as magistrate pointed out so inquisitively and numbers aren't proof of evolution ( not that i am specifically even against evolution unlike all the religion haters). The only time numbers can prove something is with faith. You have faith that these numbers are telling you the truth and that there are no other variables in the equation that you are missing. You have faith in the numbers to provide proof to you that many others might not agree with. Im obviously not talking about simple addition, you have a FAITH in numbers because as to what you refer there are different opinions and that not everyone would agree with you that what you say is fact therefore your numbers might be wrong, but you decide to believe anyway regardless of what someone else would say. Relatively speaking everyone has faith
Those definitions came from "Websters New World Dictionary" 2003
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Dude, seriously? Calculations can be wrong, programs can have incorrect variables, a missed number here or there, a slip of the finger when dusty a bone- there's so many ways the scientific method can go wrong that it almost is blind faith. It does require faith; to discount that is just to be ignorant- sorry if that offends you, but at the moment this logic seems so black and white to me that I'd have to say your blind.
Case and point- humans are not perfect, therefore their programs, manufactured instruments, calculations, and perceived data can easily be wrong.
Dude, seriously? Calculations can be wrong, programs can have incorrect variables, a missed number here or there, a slip of the finger when dusty a bone- there's so many ways the scientific method can go wrong that it almost is blind faith. It does require faith; to discount that is just to be ignorant- sorry if that offends you, but at the moment this logic seems so black and white to me that I'd have to say your blind.
Case and point- humans are not perfect, therefore their programs, manufactured instruments, calculations, and perceived data can easily be wrong.
Exactly, but he has a faith that those calculations are correct so in reality he is contradicting himself big time
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Can you prove that those doctrines written by men were not inspired by a god? if you cant then that means he might exist and people have faith in him...and from many standpoints that would be an intelligent thing to do
Intelligence-The ability to learn or understand
Faith-unquestioning belief
To say that intelligence is the opposite of faith to try to imply religion is stupid is incredibly arrogant and rude and unintelligent. Faith even by definition is not opposite and in context faith is built around a bases of something to believe in, something that was learned and understood.
you have an "unquestioning belief" in numbers.
And no numbers dont prove a thing, carbon dating is horrid as magistrate pointed out so inquisitively and numbers aren't proof of evolution ( not that i am specifically even against evolution unlike all the religion haters). The only time numbers can prove something is with faith. You have faith that these numbers are telling you the truth and that there are no other variables in the equation that you are missing. You have faith in the numbers to provide proof to you that many others might not agree with. Im obviously not talking about simple addition, you have a FAITH in numbers because as to what you refer there are different opinions and that not everyone would agree with you that what you say is fact therefore your numbers might be wrong, but you decide to believe anyway regardless of what someone else would say. Relatively speaking everyone has faith
Those definitions came from "Websters New World Dictionary" 2003
the books of the bible are written by men, and decided by men to be included in the bible. now why would men want to exclude certain books, that were also 'inspired' by God?
to say intelligence is opposite of faith is to say that religion is unaffected by science and vice versa. how is this rude? maybe you should go read your dictionary some more.
so you believe the earth is only around 2000-3000 years old? well im sorry but thats very untrue.
since when has 1 = 2 ? never. numbers are always true and always correct. radio-carbon dating is precise enough to point out a period of time in the earths history. not exact, but close enough to have a general theory. magistrate thinks scientists are stupid enough to only take one sample from one strata, and only complete one experiment, which is so untrue that an analogy to religion would be like saying God is the son of Jesus.
you have the wrong definition of intelligence.
the skilled use of reason
is what im talking about.
Dude, seriously? Calculations can be wrong, programs can have incorrect variables, a missed number here or there, a slip of the finger when dusty a bone- there's so many ways the scientific method can go wrong that it almost is blind faith. It does require faith; to discount that is just to be ignorant- sorry if that offends you, but at the moment this logic seems so black and white to me that I'd have to say your blind.
Case and point- humans are not perfect, therefore their programs, manufactured instruments, calculations, and perceived data can easily be wrong.
dude seriously not everyone is as dumb as you think. when it comes to life changing theories in science, they do thousands of the same experiment over and over. but im not even talking about calculations, im purely speaking of numbers. like 1, 2, 3, 4. which are perfect. science requires no faith when you have procedures.
im sorry but im clearly less ignorant than both of you combined. sorry if you take that into offense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The primary problem with the scientific method is that it cannot be applied to all situations. It is a system designed to work around many different problems within the physical realm, and certainly aren't designed to explain any number of different things that simply are beyond the scope of numerical values. Aside from that, it isn't as though mathematics is fool proof or that human beings with calculators are infallible. One thing I find interesting is that human beings generally don't look at some of the more powerful mechanics of the mind itself. The mind is divided into two sections: Conscious and Subconscious. If you believe in your infinite wisdom that the conscious mind is all that powerful try to do this little experiment. In a 1 minute time frame, count the number of times you blink, your heart beats, and you breath (In the same minute). If there are any of you out there that can then serious props. That is the most basic, simplistically surface level thing going on and you'd be hard pressed to do it consciously, subconscious on the other hand is doing all that plus regulating the 500 different functions that your liver does for instance. It is unfathomable the amount of calculations you do beneath the surface, and in the performance on the physical level of sports you call it being "In the Zone". It's also a way of relinquishing conscious activity and allowing subconscious overide to take place. Said all that to say this, subconscious is that aspect that I believe is your connection to a higher force (whatever you deem that to be) Conscious mind is merely you and your perception of the world that is merely your ego.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
the books of the bible are written by men, and decided by men to be included in the bible. now why would men want to exclude certain books, that were also 'inspired' by God?
to say intelligence is opposite of faith is to say that religion is unaffected by science and vice versa. how is this rude? maybe you should go read your dictionary some more.
so you believe the earth is only around 2000-3000 years old? well im sorry but thats very untrue.
since when has 1 = 2 ? never. numbers are always true and always correct. radio-carbon dating is precise enough to point out a period of time in the earths history. not exact, but close enough to have a general theory. magistrate thinks scientists are stupid enough to only take one sample from one strata, and only complete one experiment, which is so untrue that an analogy to religion would be like saying God is the son of Jesus.
you have the wrong definition of intelligence. is what im talking about.
dude seriously not everyone is as dumb as you think. when it comes to life changing theories in science, they do thousands of the same experiment over and over. but im not even talking about calculations, im purely speaking of numbers. like 1, 2, 3, 4. which are perfect.
Certain books didn't make it in because it was very clear that those books were not inspired if the others were. One book would contradict the historical content of possibly 4 other books. Maybe you should get your nose out of a dictionary and go look up what these books are before you try to act like you know what your talking about.
And i understand your number thing, but the extent to which they can teach us is debatable and a matter of faith. No my definition wasn't wrong lmfao its in the dictionary in front of me with over 2.5 million copies in circulation as of 2005. Faith by definition is more mundane in appearence than what it actually requires.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The primary problem with the scientific method is that it cannot be applied to all situations. It is a system designed to work around many different problems within the physical realm, and certainly aren't designed to explain any number of different things that simply are beyond the scope of numerical values. Aside from that, it isn't as though mathematics is fool proof or that human beings with calculators are infallible. One thing I find interesting is that human beings generally don't look at some of the more powerful mechanics of the mind itself. The mind is divided into two sections: Conscious and Subconscious. If you believe in your infinite wisdom that the conscious mind is all that powerful try to do this little experiment. In a 1 minute time frame, count the number of times you blink, your heart beats, and you breath (In the same minute). If there are any of you out there that can then serious props. That is the most basic, simplistically surface level thing going on and you'd be hard pressed to do it consciously, subconscious on the other hand is doing all that plus regulating the 500 different functions that your liver does for instance. It is unfathomable the amount of calculations you do beneath the surface, and in the performance on the physical level of sports you call it being "In the Zone". It's also a way of relinquishing conscious activity and allowing subconscious overide to take place. Said all that to say this, subconscious is that aspect that I believe is your connection to a higher force (whatever you deem that to be) Conscious mind is merely you and your perception of the world that is merely your ego.
apply the scientific method to your own experiment and it will be done.
now u said you have background in science, and i am appalled that you didnt explain the human mind as something more than that, it is truely amazing what the human mind can will unto the body in certain times. the human body is also something really amazing and something i hope to understand someday. but this ahs nothing to do with what i said about numbers.
Certain books didn't make it in because it was very clear that those books were not inspired if the others were. One book would contradict the historical content of possibly 4 other books. Maybe you should get your nose out of a dictionary and go look up what these books are before you try to act like you know what your talking about.
And i understand your number thing, but the extent to which they can teach us is debatable and a matter of faith. No my definition wasn't wrong lmfao its in the dictionary in front of me with over 2.5 million copies in circulation as of 2005. Faith by definition is more mundane in appearence than what it actually requires.
and who has the authority to decide whether or not a book is 'inspired'? when some of the same apostles wrote them as the ones in the bible?
your argument is flawed with many fallacies. i said it was the wrong definition, as in there are other definitions of the same word. silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The human mind is something we use less than 10% of and generally more like 5%. It is your ego and your sense that the conscious mind is ultimately more powerful than the real force behind it that keeps you from making leaps within understanding. Meditation is a method of balancing out the two hemispheres, as people are with only a few fleeting moments of exception left or right brain controlled. You are a text book case of left brain thinking, for which I can find little logical doubt. That, in and of itself, leaves the other half largely falling short of anything near full capacity. You can base your arguments on whatever you like but the fact of the matter is your view point is severely limiting. I would know, I've thought about the question from both sides of the fence, something you might want to try some time. If you'd like you can try applying the scientific method to my little experiment and see how far you get. As far as my explanation of the mind, I doubt anyone on here wants to read pages and pages of information about the intricate workings of the mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
apply the scientific method to your own experiment and it will be done.
now u said you have background in science, and i am appalled that you didnt explain the human mind as something more than that, it is truely amazing what the human mind can will unto the body in certain times. the human body is also something really amazing and something i hope to understand someday. but this ahs nothing to do with what i said about numbers.
and who has the authority to decide whether or not a book is 'inspired'? when some of the same apostles wrote them as the ones in the bible?
your argument is flawed with many fallacies. i said it was the wrong definition, as in there are other definitions of the same word. silly.
it wasn't really a flaw, i didn't say that it was right that those books were not in there i merely stated some of the reasons why certain books were excluded because i've read a few of them and can understand how they contradict common truths of that time. And several of them were not from the same apostles, more were not than were from them. If the books were inspired then obviously the ones puting it together would be inspired to decide. Its all a matter of relativity and a faith that there was a divine hand involved in its creation. To argue that certain books didn't make it because they just didn't want them there and they should not have the authority to do so is like leaving a (6/8) fraction unsimplified. Why dont we just get into the whole "the bible was written by man so it is flawed" argument so that i can say " it could have been inspired by God, its a matter of faith" Its all the same argument, and one you can't prove or disprove.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Dude, seriously? Calculations can be wrong, programs can have incorrect variables, a missed number here or there, a slip of the finger when dusty a bone- there's so many ways the scientific method can go wrong that it almost is blind faith. It does require faith; to discount that is just to be ignorant- sorry if that offends you, but at the moment this logic seems so black and white to me that I'd have to say your blind.
Case and point- humans are not perfect, therefore their programs, manufactured instruments, calculations, and perceived data can easily be wrong.
the calculations being wrong are human error... if everything is put in correctly the answer is correct.
The human mind is something we use less than 10% of and generally more like 5%. It is your ego and your sense that the conscious mind is ultimately more powerful than the real force behind it that keeps you from making leaps within understanding. Meditation is a method of balancing out the two hemispheres, as people are with only a few fleeting moments of exception left or right brain controlled. You are a text book case of left brain thinking, for which I can find little logical doubt. That, in and of itself, leaves the other half largely falling short of anything near full capacity. You can base your arguments on whatever you like but the fact of the matter is your view point is severely limiting. I would know, I've thought about the question from both sides of the fence, something you might want to try some time. If you'd like you can try applying the scientific method to my little experiment and see how far you get. As far as my explanation of the mind, I doubt anyone on here wants to read pages and pages of information about the intricate workings of the mind.
oh but i love sports and art and music, maybe i have a severed corpus callosum?. as much as i love science and biology, i know little about psychology but i did take the intro class in college. it doesnt interest me is all i can say. did u even read any of my posts, i am a Christian. now go and see who is truly limited, you who opposes order and fact, supplying arguments about how scientists are ignorant, dumb, and incautious, while i say that science is something that can only be more accurate and give you examples that fall on deaf ears.
hr 64 bpm, breathes 5, blinks 1. done.
it wasn't really a flaw, i didn't say that it was right that those books were not in there i merely stated some of the reasons why certain books were excluded because i've read a few of them and can understand how they contradict common truths of that time. And several of them were not from the same apostles, more were not than were from them. If the books were inspired then obviously the ones puting it together would be inspired to decide. Its all a matter of relativity and a faith that there was a divine hand involved in its creation. To argue that certain books didn't make it because they just didn't want them there and they should not have the authority to do so is like leaving a (6/8) fraction unsimplified. Why dont we just get into the whole "the bible was written by man so it is flawed" argument so that i can say " it could have been inspired by God, its a matter of faith" Its all the same argument, and one you can't prove or disprove.
the lost gospel of peter was not included. and yes, alot of the rejected books are under suspicion, but you must remember that according to you, and me, humans are flawed, so to say there was divine intervention is contradictory. and yes, it is all a matter of faith. i have that faith, but i do not 'know'. i 'know' of science and math. and the latter is true 100% of the time whether you like it or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
the calculations being wrong are human error... if everything is put in correctly the answer is correct.
if, its always an if. theres no point to even putting in an if on this one because it is out of reach, the human error will always be there so that will always be a factoring part of the equation, it is almost as absolute as the numbers themselves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
if, its always an if. theres no point to even putting in an if on this one because it is out of reach, the human error will always be there so that will always be a factoring part of the equation, it is almost as absolute as the numbers themselves.
there you go again putting down scholars. not everyone is you i presume, not everyone balances equations wrong and makes those simple mistakes.
these people who do those calculation in sciences name, are learned people, and i repeat, people, as in more than 1. who do the same equation so many times that all errors in calculation are found, and corrected. the only error that can remain is instrument, and rounding errors, which we can say here that it is irreverent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Blinked once in a minute. . . that's rather odd methinks. 5 breaths is rather slow but alright we can buy that. Did you use any devices to accomplish said goal? Or were you just counting in your head . . If you used anything other than your conscious mind you missed the point of the excercise entirely. I could care less if you claim to be Christian or not, it doesn't mean that you have a balanced perspective. I have read yours as well as other posts and quite frankly you tend to make quite a few assumptions about things yourself. I trust science to do quite a lot, hence most of my education is actually involved within science you know like Biology, Chemistry, Anatomy and Physiology, Conceptual Physics. Did I mention I was the only person in years my teacher had seen to ace the biology final? No, ya know why? It really doesn't make a bit of difference in the scheme of things does it? If I were to take everything I know and put it into a box it wouldn't even compare to 1% of the total of human knowledge. If I were to take another box and fit all of the information human beings as a collective whole contained it would comprise less than 1% of the total information out there. If I were to make a diagram of a pie chart there would be this very tiny sliver that would be "All of human knowledge". There would be a little tiny portion that would be titled "What we know we don't know" And then finally the other 99% of the chart would be "What we don't know we don't know." I would say to anyone scientist or otherwise that says they have the answers and that no one else can logically be right to be an arrogant fool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem (yes, I say problem) here is that everyone is trying to prove God exists by scientific means. For some people this works (I.E. Deists), but realistically, if you're talking about a "spiritual" one, than you cannot prove a spiritual being exists by scientific means. Science only measures and calculates phenomena that are of this world/universe/etc. A God would supercede the limits and substance of his/her/its creations- it would have to or it wouldn't be God, it would be the product of its own power, which doesn't make sense (although it could still be possible since a God would not operate on our limited logic.) Therefore, this God-life/God-conscience would 1) not be made of matter, since that is a property of his creations and 2) would not be able to be studied scientifically because science requires matter or physically-logical patterns/numbers to work with, which a God would supercede because that is part of his creation.
Don't know if anyone could follow that, I kind of started to confuse myself after a while and I think I started rambling in circles. Anyway, I could be wrong, but that's what makes sense to me, and it's what I think I now believe.
Edit--
And furthermore my thoughts on science requiring faith:
And just as a disclaimer- I'm not saying all science is wrong and I'm not saying God does or does not exist- I was simply explaining, from my limited understanding, that science does require faith in the above items, and that God could very well exist since humans (obviously) do not know everything and since if you are talking about a purely spiritual God, he/she/it/they cannot be described/measured/calculated/etc. by scientific means, since the creator will supercede the creation.
Edit--
AND I'm also not saying that (a) God(s) would have/has to be spiritual and that Deists are wrong. I took no stance on the essence of (a) God(s), if he/she/it/they do/does exist, I only offered my understanding/reasoning as to the fact that God can exist, but might well not. Therefore, anyone who believes anything about God (in reference to existence) is taking faith in their own measurements (or non-measurements), and all people have faith in something.
Science measures and calculates what it can. The definitions such as "universe" are biased and unclear.
I mean, we used to think the world was flat!
How does that not make sense. Go watch "13th floor", a world inside a world inside a world, all created by, creating, humans. I think it's very well possible.
The Bible says that God made humans from his own image. This suggestes that God and humans are somewhat close, and while mostly I don't follow the Bible too closely, this may explain many things. Perhaps what some call "God" is simple a human (wow, scary thought, huh?) that generated the world through technology above ours. The specifics of this are not known.
No need to imagine that the author, if existant, is something that we cannot undestand at all.
That doesn't work at all. He could very well be made of matter, just be outside of our little crystal ball.
Sorry, I'm not sure if I got that last part in on time, if I did not, I'm sorry. I didn't say God had to be spiritual. I didn't say God had to be as you've described him/her/it. I was just saying that a spiritual God, who cannot ever be measured by scientific means, cannot be proven or disproven. What you're saying (I think) is that God is a human overlording other humans, which I didn't say was incorrect or correct and I didn't offer reasoning on it.
In reference to the definition of the universe, I meant basically anything that is scientifically measurable and is observable by humans or machines made by humans to enhance senses.
However, if you think about it- what created that superhuman? Did it create itself? Was it eternally existant? Is there someone or something bigger than it? What is its world like if it is indeed measurable scientifically?
Most modern Church doctrine (not that I believe it) says that this simply means that humans, like God, are created with emotions, free will, wants, and needs. It never said that it had to be physical. BUT if you continue along that line and simply define a human by their minds (which contain those three attributes), God could be considered 'human', except that the Bible also frequently states that God is perfect in judgment, wisdom, intelligence, etc. and that humans are not (hence the fall of humanity by man's own actions.) Just depends on your opinion about the scriptures.
and science requires no faith, numbers are perfect. you either set to approve or disapprove someone elses theory. intelligence is the opposite of faith.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
numbers have proof.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Can you prove that those doctrines written by men were not inspired by a god? if you cant then that means he might exist and people have faith in him...and from many standpoints that would be an intelligent thing to do
Intelligence-The ability to learn or understand
Faith-unquestioning belief
To say that intelligence is the opposite of faith to try to imply religion is stupid is incredibly arrogant and rude and unintelligent. Faith even by definition is not opposite and in context faith is built around a bases of something to believe in, something that was learned and understood.
You have an "unquestioning belief" in numbers.
And no numbers dont prove a thing, carbon dating is horrid as magistrate pointed out so inquisitively and numbers aren't proof of evolution ( not that i am specifically even against evolution unlike all the religion haters). The only time numbers can prove something is with faith. You have faith that these numbers are telling you the truth and that there are no other variables in the equation that you are missing. You have faith in the numbers to provide proof to you that many others might not agree with. Im obviously not talking about simple addition, you have a FAITH in numbers because as to what you refer there are different opinions and that not everyone would agree with you that what you say is fact therefore your numbers might be wrong, but you decide to believe anyway regardless of what someone else would say. Relatively speaking everyone has faith
Those definitions came from "Websters New World Dictionary" 2003
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Case and point- humans are not perfect, therefore their programs, manufactured instruments, calculations, and perceived data can easily be wrong.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
to say intelligence is opposite of faith is to say that religion is unaffected by science and vice versa. how is this rude? maybe you should go read your dictionary some more.
so you believe the earth is only around 2000-3000 years old? well im sorry but thats very untrue.
since when has 1 = 2 ? never. numbers are always true and always correct. radio-carbon dating is precise enough to point out a period of time in the earths history. not exact, but close enough to have a general theory. magistrate thinks scientists are stupid enough to only take one sample from one strata, and only complete one experiment, which is so untrue that an analogy to religion would be like saying God is the son of Jesus.
you have the wrong definition of intelligence. is what im talking about.
dude seriously not everyone is as dumb as you think. when it comes to life changing theories in science, they do thousands of the same experiment over and over. but im not even talking about calculations, im purely speaking of numbers. like 1, 2, 3, 4. which are perfect. science requires no faith when you have procedures.
im sorry but im clearly less ignorant than both of you combined. sorry if you take that into offense.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
Certain books didn't make it in because it was very clear that those books were not inspired if the others were. One book would contradict the historical content of possibly 4 other books. Maybe you should get your nose out of a dictionary and go look up what these books are before you try to act like you know what your talking about.
And i understand your number thing, but the extent to which they can teach us is debatable and a matter of faith. No my definition wasn't wrong lmfao its in the dictionary in front of me with over 2.5 million copies in circulation as of 2005. Faith by definition is more mundane in appearence than what it actually requires.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
now u said you have background in science, and i am appalled that you didnt explain the human mind as something more than that, it is truely amazing what the human mind can will unto the body in certain times. the human body is also something really amazing and something i hope to understand someday. but this ahs nothing to do with what i said about numbers.
and who has the authority to decide whether or not a book is 'inspired'? when some of the same apostles wrote them as the ones in the bible?
your argument is flawed with many fallacies. i said it was the wrong definition, as in there are other definitions of the same word. silly.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
the calculations being wrong are human error... if everything is put in correctly the answer is correct.
gamma11 > east
hr 64 bpm, breathes 5, blinks 1. done. the lost gospel of peter was not included. and yes, alot of the rejected books are under suspicion, but you must remember that according to you, and me, humans are flawed, so to say there was divine intervention is contradictory. and yes, it is all a matter of faith. i have that faith, but i do not 'know'. i 'know' of science and math. and the latter is true 100% of the time whether you like it or not.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
these people who do those calculation in sciences name, are learned people, and i repeat, people, as in more than 1. who do the same equation so many times that all errors in calculation are found, and corrected. the only error that can remain is instrument, and rounding errors, which we can say here that it is irreverent.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Nothing happens to you, but everything happens for you.