Science Proves God Is Dead!!!

[walkntune]

There is either an inherent capricious nature to the meta-physical, it is directed by an intelligence, or it doesn't exist. I'm in the 'does not exist' camp.

I believe the metaphysics might be a misconception just like God and religion. I believe there is a natural universal force(possibly same cause of gravity) that might effect small bodies of mass as well.Maybe motion has something do do with it as well. Possibly a certain energy substance that makes up all space.

This should have been posted back on my post but I think in reality if Science proved God did not exist, then people would be searching and worshiping all kinds of exterior things and ideas for this force of nature or power or whatever that people sense.Wait, they already do that!!!

[pywakit]

Lol. Yes, perhaps you are right in your first statement. As for the last ... concepts like 'prayer' and 'worship' are alien to me. I couldn't even worship Shakira. And I already talk to myself too much.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Postby Timothy on December 27th, 2009, 2:19 am

Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind?

Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from?

Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be. To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical.

 

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason? If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable? If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears? Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind? To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.

 

Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind?

 

This question is well-constructed meaningless verbage. To begin with, reality exists whether or not I am there to observe it. As an observer, however, if I wish to quantify my observations, I have to have some structural mechanism for doing so. Otherwise each seperate event bears no relationship to another, and I start from scratch each time. I remain hopelessly confused. " ... if existence precedes ... " What existence? Mine? The universe? An acceptance of reality, and an agreed upon language, and definitions allows us to quantify, and communicate the reality. Without it we may as well be mute. It is a nonsensical question.

 

Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from?

 

Another nonsensical question. I'm getting a head-ache.

 

Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are?

 

Because 'not determining' results in total chaos. Communication is impossible because we each have our own definitions of EVERYTHING.

 

To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be.

 

That is an illogical statement on it's face. The two do not follow. It makes a ridiculous claim. No we don't. We just agree on a language so we can understand each other. It has nothing to do with 'deciding how things must be'.

 

To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical.

 

That is incorrect. With out logic and reason we would be incapable of recognizing what IS unreasonable, or illogical.

 

Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason?

 

Logic and reason foster comprehension of the observed reality, and give us a manner in which to express that comprehension, and set agreed upon rules for communication.

 

If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable?

 

Reality is. If you don't like it, don't participate.

 

If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears?

 

Again, reality is. Logic and reason allow us to quantify that reality. A common language in which to express it.

 

Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind?

 

This is silly. It requires a mind to use the tools of logic and reason.

 

To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.

 

Not surprisingly, I am not following the logic here. A does not infer B. A does not imply B. A does not have anything at all to do with B. The universe exists whether or not we are around to observe it. That is called ... reality.

Edited January 1, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[walkntune]

I could be wrong here but it sounds like your rebuttal was within your own realm of logic and reasoning! LOL

 

If your realm of logic and reasoning changes tomorrow, will your reality change with it?

[pywakit]

I could be wrong here but it sounds like your rebuttal was within your own realm of logic and reasoning! LOL

 

If your realm of logic and reasoning changes tomorrow, will your reality change with it?

 

Only my perception if it. Lol. The universe does not exist for my benefit. It just exists. I happen to think it's a beautiful place to be ...

 

One thing that believers just won't accept is this is the only existence they get. What a shame it would be to spend your life worshipping a make-believe idol, when there is so much to learn of the physical universe, and so little time to learn it ....

 

But there is nothing I can say that will open your eyes to the true majesty of existence. Mores the pity.

 

I will go to my death wondering how humans can still believe that some entity built the universe just for us. All 350 billion galaxies and counting. They must really think they are special.

 

Ok. One more attempt.

 

When men wrote the bible, they looked around them and realized how complicated everything was. From the number of droplets in an ocean wave, to a forest with infinite individual needles, to all the biological species ... and of course, to the shining glory of life itself ... MAN.

 

Clearly this was a complex place. Beyond the scope of any man's brain to comprehend. By comparison, the night sky was pretty simple. The 'stars' ( maybe a couple thousand ) were the same ( except for a few wanderers ) every night. Yes, they shifted a little from season to season, but they always returned, and the pattern of lights never changed.

 

Is it any wonder that it took God 6 days to create all the complexity around them, but merely willed the heavens into existence ... instantaneously? Nope. Makes perfect sense. Or it would of then. But considering there must be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 OTHER stars and planets .... at least ... WITH ALL THE SAME COMPLEXITY as ours .... do you think the authors, if they'd known ... would have written it the way they did? I don't think they would have.

 

Seems a little silly, doesn't it? God could have willed ours into existence in .0000000000000000000000000001 seconds with time left over. Lol. Always makes me laugh when believers accuse me of having an ego. I would think it would be impossible to believe that out of so many stars and planets ... out of all the life that must exist throughout the local universe .... just the followers of Jesus were chosen to live in paradise for eternity. Now THAT'S some serious ego.

 

Well, if indoctrination wasn't effective, nobody would do it ....

Edited January 1, 2010 by pywakit

[walkntune]

Only my perception if it. Lol. The universe does not exist for my benefit. It just exists. I happen to think it's a beautiful place to be

 

This was the meaning of that post from Timothy.

 

One thing that believers just won't accept is this is the only existence they get. What a shame it would be to spend your life worshipping a make-believe idol, when there is so much to learn of the physical universe, and so little time to learn it ....

It is all your perception of meaning.Take the story of the guy pushing the rock.

His intentions of pushing the rock was never going to happen but doesn't mean his attempt was meaningless and without it's rewards.Once one understands that what efforts one puts out into the universe mirrors back,chasing after love,joy ,peace etc... might not be such a bad thing?

A true devout spiritual person(not someone religious) wakes up as everyday being an adventure and not stuck in same old ruts and routines but lives with faith in the heart as a child able to let go of all things that will sink them.

Some people may look at spending billions of dollars for a bag of rocks from the moon worthless when we have a starving planet that might benefit more from a different investment of the money. I guess it's all perspective.

But there is nothing I can say that will open your eyes to the true majesty of existence. Mores the pity.

My eyes are actually very open to the majesty of existence and it is found only through awareness and humility to the truth and not from our own methods.Truth can only be seen by faith that it is in front of you.If you have to search for it then you must believe that it is missing or why else would you search?

 

Ok. One more attempt.

 

When men wrote the bible, they looked around them and realized how complicated everything was. From the number of droplets in an ocean wave, to a forest with infinite individual needles, to all the biological species ... and of course, to the shining glory of life itself ... MAN.

 

Clearly this was a complex place. Beyond the scope of any man's brain to comprehend. By comparison, the night sky was pretty simple. The 'stars' ( maybe a couple thousand ) were the same ( except for a few wanderers ) every night. Yes, they shifted a little from season to season, but they always returned, and the pattern of lights never changed.

 

Is it any wonder that it took God 6 days to create all the complexity around them, but merely willed the heavens into existence ... instantaneously? Nope. Makes perfect sense. Or it would of then. But considering there must be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 OTHER stars and planets .... at least ... WITH ALL THE SAME COMPLEXITY as ours .... do you think the authors, if they'd known ... would have written it the way they did? I don't think they would have.

 

Seems a little silly, doesn't it? God could have willed ours into existence in .0000000000000000000000000001 seconds with time left over. Lol. Always makes me laugh when believers accuse me of having an ego. I would think it would be impossible to believe that out of so many stars and planets ... out of all the life that must exist throughout the local universe .... just the followers of Jesus were chosen to live in paradise for eternity. Now THAT'S some serious ego.

 

Well, if indoctrination wasn't effective, nobody would do it ....

 

You are preaching to the choir my friend. I don't think the man is ever going to move the rock! LOL

[pywakit]

walkntune wrote:

 

My eyes are actually very open to the majesty of existence and it is found only through awareness and humility to the truth and not from our own methods.Truth can only be seen by faith that it is in front of you.If you have to search for it then you must believe that it is missing or why else would you search?

 

Yes. I don't doubt for a moment your eyes are open. I wish all believers shared your curiosity. It isn't so much that truth is 'missing'. Physics existed long before Man came along to 'discover' it. As did chemistry and EM. All we are trying to do is understand the truth that is in front of us. Science gives us a very effective manner in which to reveal truths that are already there. Does it have limits? That remains to be seen. So far science has shown that 'truths' which seemed to have no answer before turn out to have very simple answers. In most cases, very beautiful answers.

 

Does the universe care what we do and do not understand? I don't think so, but WE care, and that's all that really matters.

 

Religion is not 'bad' per se, as long as it does not hinder our search for answers. There is nothing good in ignorance other than 'bliss'. Lol.

 

But if 'we' don't try to understand the universe we exist in ... then who? Shall we live our lives out in ignorant bliss, or take the risk we might not like the answer?

 

I say ... take the risk. We can always learn to adapt. We always have.

[Capita]

I thought this film series made some good point of some proof of a higher being not so much the stories of the bible.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p88cM7xdkXY&feature=related

[ydoaPs]

I thought this film series made some good point of some proof of a higher being not so much the stories of the bible.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p88cM7xdkXY&feature=related

I'm not sure what your creationism videos has to do with the thread.

[michel123456]

It reminds that the BBT is a creationist theory introduced by a priest (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ) in 1927. It is quite funny that most of atheists are supporting the BBT instead of fighting it. They haven't even figure it is a creationist theory, and if you tell them (as I do) they will refuse to listen, believing the BBT is "their" materialist theory. It is not. BBT belongs to creatonism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

[pywakit]

Good point Michel.

 

However, I think it is fair to say that science was giving religions around the world cause for grave concern. It was becoming painfully obvious that the Earth was not 'willed' into existence 6-9,000 years ago, as had been the Catholic Church's official position.

 

It was already established that the universe was expanding ( Hubble ), and the 'static' universe was dead.

 

BBT was a great 'fallback' position for the Church ... and they felt, a SAFE new stance to take. As long as it could never be proved that there was anything BEFORE the BB, the Church could now claim that God did it, setting the stage for all that followed.

 

As always, they were a little short-sighted in this ... I think we will be able to prove very soon that THE universe ( not our local one ) is infinite, and eternal. This will be a rather large blow to most religions. And to our egotistical view that the universe was created especially for us.

 

But I don't really care where good ideas come from. I'm just glad they come at all! Lol.

[foodchain]

It reminds that the BBT is a creationist theory introduced by a priest (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ) in 1927. It is quite funny that most of atheists are supporting the BBT instead of fighting it. They haven't even figure it is a creationist theory, and if you tell them (as I do) they will refuse to listen, believing the BBT is "their" materialist theory. It is not. BBT belongs to creatonism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

Planck of the planck constant also believed in god, but his god is not one you will find popularized in any mainstream religion, so for what its worth how do you know what this guy actually thought about when he was forming the idea you claim to be BBT.

 

Also on note science can only currently be materialistic in nature, unless you can find someway to examine some deity of any giving origin myth(there are many) in a lab.

 

I like to frame my religious ideals somewhat like H.P Lovecraft, that I would outwardly think myself agnostic, but for the idea of some ever existing personality that would be a spirit or a soul, I am a highly skeptical atheist as why just humans, and not slugs. Its not a matter of animals rights, its just we are not the only living things. Plus there's that whole matter of evolution to contend with, and trying to square that up with any existing theistic beliefs certainly can cause a lot of trouble not to mention endless displays of logical gymnastics like god time. If you were to take science and try to combine it with modern religion you would end up dealing with nothing more then a highly subjective mess that no longer could be called science, it would be called intelligent design which to date fails to have any scientific validity whatsoever because again you cannot test faith in some laboratory.

 

I guess its just comes down to proof, either you have it or you don't, and I like to side with proof. Take away science, and you really could say the earth is flat, center of a universe created by pink elephants and everything was created yesterday, and dinosaur fossils are actually neat reoccurring rock formations.

 

Most organized religions were created at a time when people literally knew next to nothing about everything. Every major move to improve our understanding away from that has been countered by religions that would seek to keep people in some dark ages state of existence to win favor with an unknown you cant prove outside of personal feelings, and beyond that to simply keep power and the order that creates it.

[phantom]

Also on note science can only currently be materialistic in nature, unless you can find someway to examine some deity of any giving origin myth(there are many) in a lab.

 

Before you can examine God in a test tube you will have to gather sufficient information on God to formulate a hypothesis which can be tested.

The origin of a supreme deity or a set of deities appears to be related to some ‘hallucinatory phenomenon' (term used loosely) similar to NDEs but include some cultural bias. Same deity, different perception.

The ‘hallucinatory phenomenon appears to be related to migraine auras (which can be induced) but also appears to be effected by the earth (position/telluric/ULF currents?) which may explain the facing east.

The ‘hallucination itself is just an enhanced visualization of some subconscious and/or unconscious information, but since it is there and can be sensed it going to be difficult to convince anyone otherwise.

[john5746]

They haven't even figure it is a creationist theory, and if you tell them (as I do) they will refuse to listen, believing the BBT is "their" materialist theory. It is not. BBT belongs to creatonism.

 

yep, once there is sufficient evidence, the source of the theory doesn't matter. There is no Islamic, Christian, Republican, African or Darwin science.

 

Newton may have thought gravity revealed something about god to him. Maybe Einstein was aroused by relativity. These are emotional responses that have nothing to do with the science of the theories.

 

IMO, a static universe could have been poofed into existence just as easily as one that evolves over time.

[Sisyphus]

No, no, no. Believing one thing in common with somebody means you have to believe everything in common. My neighbor and I agree, based on the overwhelming evidence, on which days the garbage gets picked up from the curb. In fact, he figured it out first, and told me when I moved in. He also believes aliens are trying to use mind control rays on him, and hence so do I. Because those are the rules.

[Phi for All]

It reminds that the BBT is a creationist theory introduced by a priest (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ) in 1927. It is quite funny that most of atheists are supporting the BBT instead of fighting it. They haven't even figure it is a creationist theory, and if you tell them (as I do) they will refuse to listen, believing the BBT is "their" materialist theory. It is not. BBT belongs to creatonism.

No way! I refuse to listen, because I believe BBT is *my* materialistic theory!! It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to me!!! [/sarcasm]

 

Do you see how silly that sounds? Do you truly believe science doesn't listen to theories because of their source? They probably scrutinize it even more carefully, expecting it to be flawed, but the mere fact that it has been accepted as theory shows that science has a more open approach than creationism.

 

There have been many scientific advancements made by priests. It's no wonder since they worked very hard to keep the average person ignorant so they could horde knowledge as power.

[vuquta]

Before you can examine God in a test tube you will have to gather sufficient information on God to formulate a hypothesis which can be tested.

The origin of a supreme deity or a set of deities appears to be related to some ‘hallucinatory phenomenon' (term used loosely) similar to NDEs but include some cultural bias. Same deity, different perception.

The ‘hallucinatory phenomenon appears to be related to migraine auras (which can be induced) but also appears to be effected by the earth (position/telluric/ULF currents?) which may explain the facing east.

The ‘hallucination itself is just an enhanced visualization of some subconscious and/or unconscious information, but since it is there and can be sensed it going to be difficult to convince anyone otherwise.

 

It is not that simple. Transcendental numbers are conceived by elements of the finite material universe, ie humans.

Yet, Transcendental numbers cannot be completely described by any method in the finite material universe.

 

So, how does the universe imagine an object that cannot possibly be created in the universe?

[phantom]

So, how does the universe imagine an object that cannot possibly be created in the universe?

 

I don't understand the question. What "object" is not created in the universe?

[vuquta]

I don't understand the question. What "object" is not created in the universe?

Sorry, unclear, transcendental number.

[Sisyphus]

What do you mean by "conceived?" What do you mean by "object?" What do you mean by "created?" What do you mean by "the universe?" What does this have to do with the post you were replying to, or the initial post?

[vuquta]

What do you mean by "conceived?" What do you mean by "object?" What do you mean by "created?" What do you mean by "the universe?" What does this have to do with the post you were replying to, or the initial post?

 

The original post I replied to is:

The origin of a supreme deity or a set of deities appears to be related to some ‘hallucinatory phenomenon'

 

Conceived and created are basically the same and similar to the posters concept of a supreme deity. This deity appears to not be realizable in the finite material universe.

 

So, I brought up the transcendental numbers. The digits of one transcendental number cannot be written down in the finite material universe.

 

Likewise, transcendental numbers are not be realizable in the finite material universe.

 

So, I questioned the hallucinogenic part of the posters conclusion.

 

Finally, the finite material universe is all the matter and energy in the universe.

[Sisyphus]

But you said transcendental numbers can be conceived but not created. Then you say that's the same thing. It all sounds like quibbling with words to me. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This "comes from the universe." You can't write it down in an ordinary base system because it isn't any ratio of whole numbers. So what?

[vuquta]

But you said transcendental numbers can be conceived but not created. Then you say that's the same thing. It all sounds like quibbling with words to me. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This "comes from the universe." You can't write it down in an ordinary base system because it isn't any ratio of whole numbers. So what?

 

But you said transcendental numbers can be conceived but not created.

 

False, I said they cannot be described.

 

Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This "comes from the universe."

Well, in science, I would like you to write down all the digits of Pi to examine them so that I can make sure you are correct.

 

Can you do this?

 

Further, photosynthesis,

 

Energy transfer rates between pigments are very rapid, and charge separation in reaction centers occurs in 3-30 picoseconds

http://photoscience.la.asu.edu/photosyn/education/photointro.html

 

If the plant fails to operate in the pico second range, photosynthesis fails and electron transport is not completed for the photosynthic factory.

 

Now, humans just entered the pico second range in the last decade, but plants have depended on this accuracy for photosynthesis for billions of years.

 

Now, since plants are the most primitive liife on the planet, I am quite sure science can write the recipe book for this sequence of operations.

 

If science cannot do this, then science needs to take its correct role as high priest.

[phantom]

Conceived and created are basically the same and similar to the posters concept of a supreme deity. This deity appears to not be realizable in the finite material universe.

 

If you want God in a bottle it isn’t going to happen anymore than you could put love, hate, or your memory in a bottle and study it. It is observable under certain conditions like those of an NDE:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience

 

Many people have observed this Light at the end of the tunnel which they perceive as “God” or some Creator/Supreme Being, etc. Then:

 

1. All persons having this experience are accurately (considering the conditions) relating their observations.

 

2. What everyone observes under these conditions is actually a hallucination and doesn’t exist. In other words, some common condition underlies the phenomenon and presents itself when appropriately triggered.

 

3. They are all liars.

 

If #1 is true, it doesn’t necessarily hold that this Supreme Being has any influence over things other than your own consciousness. However…

 

So, I questioned the hallucinogenic part of the posters conclusion.

 

There are some aspects of NDEs and related phenomenon, like sounds, which are also part of hallucinatory phenomena, so I used the term loosely.

 

Auditory hallucinations are not NDEs but such hallucinations may be part of a NDE and may be more of a complex phenomenon. In addition one may also encounter various spiritual entities who explain that this Light aka Supreme Being/God/Creator is the beginning and end of all things, so this is where the information comes from.

 

If you could prove the whole thing to be false and strip the entire world of all mention of God, the problem is the phenomenon will resurrect itself and then you will be faced with the same situation just at a later date.

[vuquta]

If you want God in a bottle it isn’t going to happen anymore than you could put love, hate, or your memory in a bottle and study it. It is observable under certain conditions like those of an NDE:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience

 

Many people have observed this Light at the end of the tunnel which they perceive as “God” or some Creator/Supreme Being, etc. Then:

 

1. All persons having this experience are accurately (considering the conditions) relating their observations.

 

2. What everyone observes under these conditions is actually a hallucination and doesn’t exist. In other words, some common condition underlies the phenomenon and presents itself when appropriately triggered.

 

3. They are all liars.

 

If #1 is true, it doesn’t necessarily hold that this Supreme Being has any influence over things other than your own consciousness. However…

 

 

 

There are some aspects of NDEs and related phenomenon, like sounds, which are also part of hallucinatory phenomena, so I used the term loosely.

 

Auditory hallucinations are not NDEs but such hallucinations may be part of a NDE and may be more of a complex phenomenon. In addition one may also encounter various spiritual entities who explain that this Light aka Supreme Being/God/Creator is the beginning and end of all things, so this is where the information comes from.

 

If you could prove the whole thing to be false and strip the entire world of all mention of God, the problem is the phenomenon will resurrect itself and then you will be faced with the same situation just at a later date.

 

I think you missed the point of my post.

 

This problem is not logically decidable.

[Capita]

I'm not sure what your creationism videos has to do with the thread.

Ummm it has to do with the original topic of the thread

 

" Science Proves God Is Dead!!!

I'm not sure if this has been asked before, but I figured it'd be a fun discussion:

 

If science were able to prove beyond a shred of doubt that God (any definition of) and the afterlife did not exist, what affect, if any do you feel that would have on humanity?"