Can science prove God ?

[Sensei]

39 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't think holding down the shift key when I type the letter g is particularly taxing, so it doesn't matter.

..it does matter if you write "Volodya" or "volodya"..

..because it tells your attitude toward mass murderer..

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Sensei

[TheVat]

God, as a monotheistic being, is capitalized for the same reason Allah is.  It's being used as a proper name.  If I refer to a "god" that could be any from a vast range of supernatural entities, and so it's a common noun.  Grark, the god of rotten cashews.  The god of small things.  Children of a lesser god.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

Personally I write God, rather than god, when referring to a supreme god, regardless of which religion, if any in particular and of course regardless of whether He/She exists as I certainly cannot know. (there is an underlying assumption on my  part that if He/She exists it's the same One for all people and all religions regardless of the belief details that a religion might have ) 

I would mostly use god rather than God when referring to lesser gods, but not for the purpose of denying or belittling someone's God. But if it was a religion with multiple gods I might capitalize any where that was their custom.

I see no reason to change that.

Similar I think to what I now see the TheVat just posted.

[mar_mar]

I found such opinion

As atheists, we can remove all capitalization or the common noun usage since that is only being done out of reverence. We should still capitalize proper noun usage. “The Christian god” is common noun usage. Other example:

* Jesus spoke to God.
* Jesus spoke to his god.
* I do not believe in any gods.
* I do not believe in a god.
* I do no...

 

I thought atheists don't believe in any god. If I'm confident that there's no place for God in my life, no grammar would stop me from writing in my own manner. If disrespect someone's name i write it with a small letter.

[mar_mar]

And God is not a proper name!

Tetragrammaton

the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah.

 

 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

And God is not a proper name!

 

It is if people use it that way.  Using an upper case G is using it that way.  You are wasting our time.  

And I sense Dimreepr is itching to post the Jehovah scene from Life of Brian.

 

[mar_mar]

33 minutes ago, TheVat said:

It is if people use it that way.  Using an upper case G is using it that way.  You are wasting our time.  

 

 

When it's convenient you follow the rules, and when inconvenient - you don't. It's not honest.

Face it.

There are various names of God, many of which enumerate the various qualities of a Supreme Being. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I personally write God with a capital because ai think when having a discussion with a religious person it is antagonistic to write God without capitalizing.

For me it’s a form of Pascal’s wager

[Trurl]

I think the scientist’s view determines rather he proves if God does or does not exist to himself.

Before the 20th century science and religion were on the same page. Scientists were only explaining what God created for us.

Some scientists see the work of God in a mathematical series. Other scientists need more evidence. In fact they dedicate their lives to it. Why do we want more knowledge and discoveries? It is to create and unlock mysteries. But for what reason are we doing this? Technology doesn’t always equal improvement. And what are we doing with all this knowledge? Finding better ways to kill each other?

Whatever you believe is a personal choice. Science can’t answer such questions. That is why we seek God.

 

[iNow]

God of the gaps.

 

Confused about something? That’s okay, Goddidit!

Cant answer a question? That’s okay, Goddidit!

Want your version of reality to feel more valid? That’s okay, Goddidit!

 

Science closes more of those gaps everyday, and the spaces where “That’s okay, Goddidit!” remains in any way viable or satisfying continue shrinking toward zero.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

It is if people use it that way.  Using an upper case G is using it that way.  You are wasting our time.  

And I sense Dimreepr is itching to post the Jehovah scene from Life of Brian.

 

Let it be a lesson, from the book of Reg...

 

This lesson is from the book of Dennis.

 

20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Because those who put their personal integrity on a pedestal and refuse to just 'act the part' once in a while tend to run into issues both at home and at work.

Are you 7?

Your confusing fake with communal integration, to fake is to cheat your fellowship (see above).

Age isn't an analog of wisdom, but it does get used as an insult, by the befuddled elderly... 🙄

Edited December 18, 2023 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

Before the 20th century science and religion were on the same page. Scientists were only explaining what God created for us.

Or the church was so powerful that acquiescence meant you could continue doing science, as long as you lied about your findings and your beliefs. It's hard to do science from the dungeon, or when you're dead. Ask Galileo about not being Catholic in 17th century Italy.

So other than being diametrically opposed, yeah, same page.

[sethoflagos]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your confusing fake with communal integration, to fake is to cheat your fellowship (see above).

My usage of the term is clear enough. You don't get to redefine it.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Age isn't an analog of wisdom, but it does get used as an insult, by the befuddled elderly... 🙄

Asking loaded questions ('have you stopped beating your wife?' being an infamous example) is not a mark of wisdom. It is a mark of petty spitefulness. As is having a dig at my age.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 12/17/2023 at 4:22 PM, TheVat said:

It is if people use it that way.  Using an upper case G is using it that way.  You are wasting our time.  

And I sense Dimreepr is itching to post the Jehovah scene from Life of Brian.

 

I see you capitalized Brian... (everyone has to believe in something...I believe I'll have another beer...)

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

My usage of the term is clear enough. You don't get to redefine it.

Asking loaded questions ('have you stopped beating your wife?' being an infamous example) is not a mark of wisdom. It is a mark of petty spitefulness. As is having a dig at my age.

You should read again, when did I ask a loaded question? Or redefine a term?

It's remarkably easy to offend people with a joke, especially when they don't understand it:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

― Omar Khayyám

 

 

 

 

[mar_mar]

Saying God is the name is restriction. What if science to one's question "who am I", asked : you are John, David, Alison, Sarah, Robert, that your entity is your name. I hope, that somewhere in a mind there's a glimpse that you are not your name, not your gender, not your profession, not your knowledge, achievements, expectations and desires. And not all that complicated thinking constructions. And I don't depreciate the thought. (Though what is thought and where it comes from) I think simplicity is far more hard obtained state of mind, or consciousness, which heads towards understanding one's core.

Ones I looked in the eyes of a child. The baby didn't cry, or smile, just sat in a stroller. But I thought at that moment, that the universe looked at me. And such a sight have only babies.

And when you know your core, you know everything.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Saying God is the name is restriction. What if science to one's question "who am I", asked : you are John, David, Alison, Sarah, Robert, that your entity is your name. I hope, that somewhere in a mind there's a glimpse that you are not your name, not your gender, not your profession, not your knowledge, achievements, expectations and desires. And not all that complicated thinking constructions. And I don't depreciate the thought. (Though what is thought and where it comes from) I think simplicity is far more hard obtained state of mind, or consciousness, which heads towards understanding one's core.

Ones I looked in the eyes of a child. The baby didn't cry, or smile, just sat in a stroller. But I thought at that moment, that the universe looked at me. And such a sight have only babies.

And when you know your core, you know everything.

You don't need god to know the shape of one's soul, you just need to be brutally honest with yourself; confessions need no outside observer.

[mar_mar]

It's the second time you mentioned the "need of God". This is so incorrectly, that I even don't know what to say. Looks like people "need God, that's why they created Him". God is not about the "need". For me God Is. That's all, without context. "Need" is wrong word.The words  "to seek, to come" could describe the attitude.

And I absolutely agree with honesty with oneself. The thing is: what is it the self? And brutally seems a bit superficial word. What is the brutal honesty? Is it about realizing every of your faults? Have you ever done something that you are ashamed of and for which you cannot forgive yourself? Forgiving is very important thing. If you can't forgive yourself, you can't forgive another person. Once I asked a friend of mine, who learnt theology, is there forgiveness for murders, for serial killers? And he answered yes, Christ Has forgiveness for everyone, who sincerely repented.

...Yes, brutal honesty.

One comes to God, when life happens, when you helpless, and when you have something, that is impossible to tell  anybody, except God.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You don't need god to know the shape of one's soul

No, God enlights your soul, for you to see who you are.

Edited December 21, 2023 by mar_mar

[iNow]

Yawn

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It's the second time you mentioned the "need of God". This is so incorrectly, that I even don't know what to say. Looks like people "need God, that's why they created Him". God is not about the "need". For me God Is. That's all, without context. "Need" is wrong word.The words  "to seek, to come" could describe the attitude.

And I absolutely agree with honesty with oneself. The thing is: what is it the self? And brutally seems a bit superficial word. What is the brutal honesty? Is it about realizing every of your faults? Have you ever done something that you are ashamed of and for which you cannot forgive yourself? Forgiving is very important thing. If you can't forgive yourself, you can't forgive another person. Once I asked a friend of mine, who learnt theology, is there forgiveness for murders, for serial killers? And he answered yes, Christ Has forgiveness for everyone, who sincerely repented.

...Yes, brutal honesty.

One comes to God, when life happens, when you helpless, and when you have something, that is impossible to tell  anybody, except God.

No, God enlights your soul, for you to see who you are.

Good post but wrong thread. That one's more for the "Can Religion Make Claims Without Evidence?" thread.

I think we can all agree religion wins that one as well. Science kind of tilts it's own playing field against itself...at least the good scientists do so.

 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, mar_mar said:

It's the second time you mentioned the "need of God". This is so incorrectly, that I even don't know what to say. Looks like people "need God, that's why they created Him". God is not about the "need". For me God Is. That's all, without context. "Need" is wrong word.The words  "to seek, to come" could describe the attitude.

For you, but you don’t speak for others. Others are not wrong simply because their view differs from yours.

[mar_mar]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think we can all agree religion wins that one as well. Science kind of tilts it's own playing field against itself...at least the good scientists do so.

Perhaps. Maybe I've hasted with conclusions. Do you think, those, who believe need God? If yes, what does this mean?

What sence do you put in the word to need? Needing of what?

[SeniorCitizen007]

Ley lines have been described as "The mind of God".

I know of a line of 5 churches in England that hang like leaves on a tree on the line. The North and South points of the church buildings alternate along the line. The churches were built over a period of 800 years. The builders of the churches were not aware of the line ... something  acted upon their decisions to build the churches where they are.

There is also a Bronze Age burial mound around which 24 village churches are arranged in pairs. A line from one through the mound goes to another on the other side. The mound was excavated in 1926 ... and they found a single burial ... of a woman who had an artificial deformation of her skull similar to that found amongst the Egyptians at the time she was buried.   

Ley lines are not restricted to religious sites ... modern constructions (road junctions, for instance) are on Ley lines. Again the builders were not aware they were building so as to create lines. The accuracy is not approximate ... the constructions are precisely on the lines.

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by SeniorCitizen007

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, SeniorCitizen007 said:

The builders of the churches were not aware of the line

Is your knowledge of this based on interviews with them that you read? Can you please share the details with us?

5 hours ago, SeniorCitizen007 said:

The accuracy is not approximate ... the constructions are precisely on the lines.

How precise are the lines? Can you please share with us the measurements that were made?

[TheVat]

The study of alignments of random points in a plane seeks to discover subsets of points that occupy an approximately straight line within a larger set of points that are randomly placed in a planar region. Studies have shown that such near-alignments occur by chance with greater frequency than one might intuitively expect....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignments_of_random_points