I think there was actually a thread about that somewhere if you want to go dig it up (assuming you have new information to add to the table :thumbsup:)
My view on my this thread just keeps cycling back through the same information:
If were are to assume that there are angels, then we have to assume we, too, have spirituality. That is the level, then, that a "spirit" would communicate on. But, in another sense, if you assume there are angels, then something must have created them, unless you want to buy in to some kind of spiritual evolution or something, like some new agers do. If we are to assume then, for sake of argument, that angels do exist, and that they also have a creator, we would have to assume that the same being created our spirituality, and, thus, everything that would come along with that, primarily meaning everything, at which point the creator would be called "god". And if this god were to create everything, he or she would have no chains to our rules, and thus be able to change them or go beyond them at anytime he/she so wishes. So, this god could command the angel to appear to deliver some kind of divine message, and then take whatever necessary steps he or she so chooses to keep that creature from being defined quantitatively.
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
one question.
what are you, a wiccan or something?
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
umm thats not what i said still. those are my concepts in your view. dont do that, it makes you sound invalid.
Vague terms are not scientific- we want strict words, answers, and facts here. Or maybe I missed something, could you re-explain it?
well u didnt read my other post where i define faith did u? thats what ive been saying too, glad we agree.
Sorry, I just got in to this discussion so I probably missed it If you want or wouldn't mind, could you put a link to it?
but this doesnt mean the earths date at this moment is wrong, it only supplies me with evidence that the scientists are right. defined radioactivity to a scientist wont make them change their mind. they already knew this as i did too, but they gave their explanation which is correct compared to any other alternatives.
Yes, it could very well mean that! Those materials have always had motion, have always been radioactive- therefore you could extract a date as far back as 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 years if you want since energy (and through extension, matter) is eternally self-existent and neither is destroyed or created.
read my other post, but taking books from the bible, and comparing it with historical events that happened in the same era, conclude the age of the earth according to the bible.
Which require additional doctrinal theories, which would be adding more faith to it. I'm talking about the bare bones- it never literally says how old it thinks the earth is.
And why does anyone who disagrees with scientists' view of the age of the earth have to be religious or believe dates based on events in the Bible? That seems kind of like stereotyping to me.
Quote from "applesoffury" »
i wish i really new all the workings of determining the actual age of the earth, i dont know because im neither geologist or astronomer. but i am certain the people doing this work are more than qualified.
umm putting words in my mouth? dont get angry now...
Nope, I just repeated your concepts in clearer words.
i never said science is perfect, i never said calculations are perfect, and i never said gravity never existed until newton, i never said much of that.
The gravity part was an analogy to let you understand what I was gleaning from your post. As for the rest, you were saying that science is proven as being more correct than religion, which is also not provable. They both have their errors and their rights, and that's what I'm trying to say.
half-life of carbon, 5730 yrs to be close to exact. and i said that carbon dating has alot of guess work, but i also said it points us to the correct time frame, which you cannont argue is wrong.
Nope, I can't, but I also cannot say it is accurate, because I was not alive at the same time as that animal was alive, and so I don't have a reference. I can say that the numbers the scientist got were close to what that particular scientist is biased to believe (bias in this instance as just inclined to believe, not negatively used.) I can say his readings were accurate as to what he was expecting, but I can't say it's truth.
they use a system of dating earth sediments as well as celestial bodies to date the earth at billions of yrs old.
Sediments have naturally occuring radioactive levels (everything has some level of radioactivity, because radioactivity is just particle motion.) Using carbon dating based on sediments is a bad choice. They aren't radioactive based on historic moments, they are radioactive because scientifically every substance must have moving particles (since we have no yet been able to achieve perfect absolute zero.) My dad is a Reactor Supervisor for Exelon/Peco Nuclear Power. Your call.
the bibles date is much off.
The Bible doesn't say "And the Lord thy God sayeth unto thee, "The Earth is 14,000 years old", so I'm guessing you just mean seven-day Creationists who do not accept the Day Age theories or Theistic Evolutionary theories.
and you still dont understand scientific methods to conduct experiments and research.
It is my understanding that a phenomena is observed, a hypothesis is made to explain the phenomena, experimenting is pursued to gather evidence to support the hypothesis, and then, when adequate information is gathered, it is presented as theory. It is then repeated many times for accuracy. The problems happen when incorrect data type is gathered, incorrect quanitity is measured, incorrect sensations are experienced, etc., and then the data is still passed off as theory. And that's why it's theory and not fact. However, educationary systems these days have established scientific dogma where no new ideas are accepted unless they promote the default education.
you keep saying humans have errors, which they do, but when the same experiment is repeated numerous times by more than one person, those errors get corrected, and the result is pretty accurate.
Yes! That's what I mean! We can get close, but never, ever perfect, and so you will always need a measure of faith in those calculations to be true.
your a computer programmer, im a science major. your call.
I'm not pretending to know more than you, I might (and probably) not- all I'm offering is reasoning, not more facts than have already been presented. JavaScript isn't that hard to learn, and it's barely a programming language- you should try it. You can make all kinds of nifty things with it, like games and such, besides its more tedious and boring applications in modern web development
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?
First, you have to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. However, you cannot, because scientifically speaking, even though you have yet to see a God, that does not mean one does not exist. By your definition of science, gravity did not "exist" until Newton applied principles to it.
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.
There is intelligence in religion and intelligence in science. In both areas, people work with the observed phenomena and make decisions based on those with intelligence. Just because someone sees the world through different eyes than you and senses/observes things in a different way from you does not make them unintelligent.
so you believe the earth is only around 2000-3000 years old? well im sorry but thats very untrue.
Give me the methods that they're dating the earth with and then I'll reason with you.
since when has 1 = 2 ? never.
<script type="text/javascript">
var one = 1;
var two = 2;
one = two;
document.write(one);
</script>
Welcome to the world of simple programming.
numbers are always true and always correct.
Numbers are always correct in perspective. Humans make errors and often come out with the wrong numbers. Humans make programs that have incorrect strings (which are recognized by computers as binary, which are numbers) which lead to glitches, which happens in every program, because humans are not perfect, and no matter how many times you write a large program, you will never have the simplest, most compact, and perfect program.
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.
Radio-carbon dating is only precise within the last 5,000 years since carbon cannot hold enough radiation to last more than that- something that is non-carbon, like uranium or plutonium, hold it for much longer. When scientists get output in billions of years, it's simply because they've up'ed the ratio variable based on what they think sounds correct. This is a very simple way of explaining it:
5,000 * 1 = normal ratio
5,000 * (age of strata fossil was found in, which in most cases is pre-dated in many years) = new ratio
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.
applesoffury is stupid enough to take the calculations of a HUMAN who is IMPERFECT as perfect law. Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
you have the wrong definition of intelligence. is what im talking about.
Intelligence is just the ability to manipulate objects or information in a way that is logical. Anyone that believes anything uses intelligence to reason through their teachings, scriptures, manifestos, laws, etc.
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.
See the paragraph state earlier. No, wait, here it is:
Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
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
Yep- I never disputed that numbers are perfect. They are what they are- they are their own definition and, thus, are infallible by themselves. Just as an apple is by its own definition an apple. What we're arguing here is that the HUMANS who calculate or make formulas or programs (which are just formulas put together to achieve higher-end results) are ERROR PRONE. Humans are not perfect, therefore, no matter how many times a given problem is re-analyzed, you are taking faith in that program's programmer or that scientists calculations as perfect and accurate. Numbers are perfect, calculations by humans are, by extension, error-prone.
im sorry but im clearly less ignorant than both of you combined. sorry if you take that into offense.
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.
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.
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.
Really? So you don't believe in evolution, then? Because for you to be a real, Bible-believing Christian, believing in evolution would contradict the Creation in Genesis 1-2, which in turn would destroy the credibility (from a religious integrity standpoint) of the rest of the Old Testament and its multiple prophecies for the birth and life of the true Christ, which in turn would undermine the whole point of Christianity.
That is, assuming you are one of those Theistic Evolutionists/Christians. But you could have perfectly logical reasoning for thinking that they can coincide, and I would be very interested to read your thought process, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I myself am still trying to discern my own beliefs on these things and if you can offer me some good information I would greatly appreciate it. We can continue this in a PM if you want.
and example of an extreme condition is the mass extinction of dinosaurs, only the small mammals survived and evolved quickly to deal with their new environment.
You just negated this:
and that evolution takes from thousands to millions of years.
and carbon dating is pretty damn accurate, since it has to do with molecules of carbon 12 and 14 in a subject, which can only be affected by time or natural catastrophic disaster such as a world ending meteor or nuclear bomb.
Carbon dating is terrible- it's based on variables that are based on years (in conjunction with radioactive half-lives) produced by the strata dates, which are bad for basing ages of fossils on because strata is never in the same place- it buckles and flows and warps over itself all the time.
and you dont seem to understand extinction as a subject of evolution, called population mechanics and natural selection...
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
leave the science to scientists; deism is a philosophy based on religion.
Science requires faith in facts establishes by patterns and then woven together with theories. Atheism was ruled a religion by definition by the Supreme Court.
re·li·gion //dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R01/R0180400"">http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R01/R0180400" target="_blank">//cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif"">http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" /> Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7.religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8.Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. —Idiom9.get religion, Informal. a.to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b.to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re-re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn--ion; cf. rely]
Religion is any stance on the existence of a god, be that negative or positive. Therefore, since you believe there is no god, you are, by definition, an Atheist, and Atheism is a religion. You are religious.
And since all of them believe in some form of angel, and nearly every religion has some parallel of an angel, that makes me believe that there has to be something akin to what people would consider an "angel" in existence, maybe somewhere back in history, and since then it's just been covered with myth and legend.
Well, if the whole religious verbal joust doesn't fall in here, it will else where. Might as well keep it contained :thumbsup:
(Unless you meant something completely different from that- then I'm sorry for my misinterpretation.)
I think there was actually a thread about that somewhere if you want to go dig it up (assuming you have new information to add to the table :thumbsup:)
Oh, okay, my misunderstanding.
It's all too similar and related to be talked about separately.
No, Wiccans are like Witches. Were you being sarcastic?
Vague terms are not scientific- we want strict words, answers, and facts here. Or maybe I missed something, could you re-explain it?
Sorry, I just got in to this discussion so I probably missed it
Yes, it could very well mean that! Those materials have always had motion, have always been radioactive- therefore you could extract a date as far back as 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 years if you want since energy (and through extension, matter) is eternally self-existent and neither is destroyed or created.
Which require additional doctrinal theories, which would be adding more faith to it. I'm talking about the bare bones- it never literally says how old it thinks the earth is.
And why does anyone who disagrees with scientists' view of the age of the earth have to be religious or believe dates based on events in the Bible? That seems kind of like stereotyping to me.
DING DING DING! Survey says: faith!
Nope, I just repeated your concepts in clearer words.
The gravity part was an analogy to let you understand what I was gleaning from your post. As for the rest, you were saying that science is proven as being more correct than religion, which is also not provable. They both have their errors and their rights, and that's what I'm trying to say.
Nope, I can't, but I also cannot say it is accurate, because I was not alive at the same time as that animal was alive, and so I don't have a reference. I can say that the numbers the scientist got were close to what that particular scientist is biased to believe (bias in this instance as just inclined to believe, not negatively used.) I can say his readings were accurate as to what he was expecting, but I can't say it's truth.
Sediments have naturally occuring radioactive levels (everything has some level of radioactivity, because radioactivity is just particle motion.) Using carbon dating based on sediments is a bad choice. They aren't radioactive based on historic moments, they are radioactive because scientifically every substance must have moving particles (since we have no yet been able to achieve perfect absolute zero.) My dad is a Reactor Supervisor for Exelon/Peco Nuclear Power. Your call.
The Bible doesn't say "And the Lord thy God sayeth unto thee, "The Earth is 14,000 years old", so I'm guessing you just mean seven-day Creationists who do not accept the Day Age theories or Theistic Evolutionary theories.
It is my understanding that a phenomena is observed, a hypothesis is made to explain the phenomena, experimenting is pursued to gather evidence to support the hypothesis, and then, when adequate information is gathered, it is presented as theory. It is then repeated many times for accuracy. The problems happen when incorrect data type is gathered, incorrect quanitity is measured, incorrect sensations are experienced, etc., and then the data is still passed off as theory. And that's why it's theory and not fact. However, educationary systems these days have established scientific dogma where no new ideas are accepted unless they promote the default education.
Yes! That's what I mean! We can get close, but never, ever perfect, and so you will always need a measure of faith in those calculations to be true.
I'm not pretending to know more than you, I might (and probably) not- all I'm offering is reasoning, not more facts than have already been presented. JavaScript isn't that hard to learn, and it's barely a programming language- you should try it. You can make all kinds of nifty things with it, like games and such, besides its more tedious and boring applications in modern web development
First, you have to say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. However, you cannot, because scientifically speaking, even though you have yet to see a God, that does not mean one does not exist. By your definition of science, gravity did not "exist" until Newton applied principles to it.
There is intelligence in religion and intelligence in science. In both areas, people work with the observed phenomena and make decisions based on those with intelligence. Just because someone sees the world through different eyes than you and senses/observes things in a different way from you does not make them unintelligent.
Give me the methods that they're dating the earth with and then I'll reason with you.
<script type="text/javascript">
var one = 1;
var two = 2;
one = two;
document.write(one);
</script>
Welcome to the world of simple programming.
Numbers are always correct in perspective. Humans make errors and often come out with the wrong numbers. Humans make programs that have incorrect strings (which are recognized by computers as binary, which are numbers) which lead to glitches, which happens in every program, because humans are not perfect, and no matter how many times you write a large program, you will never have the simplest, most compact, and perfect program.
Radio-carbon dating is only precise within the last 5,000 years since carbon cannot hold enough radiation to last more than that- something that is non-carbon, like uranium or plutonium, hold it for much longer. When scientists get output in billions of years, it's simply because they've up'ed the ratio variable based on what they think sounds correct. This is a very simple way of explaining it:
5,000 * 1 = normal ratio
5,000 * (age of strata fossil was found in, which in most cases is pre-dated in many years) = new ratio
applesoffury is stupid enough to take the calculations of a HUMAN who is IMPERFECT as perfect law. Sure, they may test something thousands of times (which they actually don't in most cases- for instance, when a new element is discovered, the initial experiment is only repeated a few times, and then is passed off as a new element), but look at something like a computer game- they're pre-tested by hundreds of beta testers. We have perfect games now! Wait a minute- that tree has a rock in its third branch! That's an error. Error can be decreased, but never eliminated with large-scale experiments. Eventually you will reach the point of diminishing return and simply pass of the best results you could get.
Intelligence is just the ability to manipulate objects or information in a way that is logical. Anyone that believes anything uses intelligence to reason through their teachings, scriptures, manifestos, laws, etc.
See the paragraph state earlier. No, wait, here it is:
Yep- I never disputed that numbers are perfect. They are what they are- they are their own definition and, thus, are infallible by themselves. Just as an apple is by its own definition an apple. What we're arguing here is that the HUMANS who calculate or make formulas or programs (which are just formulas put together to achieve higher-end results) are ERROR PRONE. Humans are not perfect, therefore, no matter how many times a given problem is re-analyzed, you are taking faith in that program's programmer or that scientists calculations as perfect and accurate. Numbers are perfect, calculations by humans are, by extension, error-prone.
And that was arrogant, but no, I took no offense.
Case and point- humans are not perfect, therefore their programs, manufactured instruments, calculations, and perceived data can easily be wrong.
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.
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.
That is, assuming you are one of those Theistic Evolutionists/Christians. But you could have perfectly logical reasoning for thinking that they can coincide, and I would be very interested to read your thought process, if you wouldn't mind sharing. I myself am still trying to discern my own beliefs on these things and if you can offer me some good information I would greatly appreciate it. We can continue this in a PM if you want.
You just negated this:
Carbon dating is terrible- it's based on variables that are based on years (in conjunction with radioactive half-lives) produced by the strata dates, which are bad for basing ages of fossils on because strata is never in the same place- it buckles and flows and warps over itself all the time.
Extinction is a prime example of why evolution is stupid. If everything was evolving to live with the enviroment, then nothing would ever go extinct- everything would be perfect.
Science requires faith in facts establishes by patterns and then woven together with theories. Atheism was ruled a religion by definition by the Supreme Court.
re·li·gion
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely
—Related formsre·li·gion·less, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Religion is any stance on the existence of a god, be that negative or positive. Therefore, since you believe there is no god, you are, by definition, an Atheist, and Atheism is a religion. You are religious.