Theistic Scientists

[Unity+]

Fortunately, cunning linguist that I am, I also speak iNowvajo! He's saying, "Iggy, you loveable knucklehead, like many things, there are multiple ways to show how something is, at the same time, like AND unlike something else. It all depends on the context. Gods and dragons ARE equivalent IF you're talking about the evidence used to support their existence, or how we can't make either appear at will. And they are NOT equivalent IF you're talking about how popular they are, or how many heads they have, or how corn-intolerant they are. So let's agree to bury the hatchet somewhere far away from either of our enormous heads and agree that we're on the same page technically." *

I don't see how a dragon in some sense can be on the same level as a higher being because a dragon has a supposed biological sense to it. Therefore, if there were to be evidence of a dragon, it would have to be from...wait for it...biological aspects.

[Phi for All]

I don't see how a dragon in some sense can be on the same level as a higher being because a dragon has a supposed biological sense to it. Therefore, if there were to be evidence of a dragon, it would have to be from...wait for it...biological aspects.

 

"Same level"? Please, no more vague and arguable definitions of equivalency, I beg you! Let's use the contextual framework that makes the most sense here.

 

As for the biological aspect, can't it be argued that "Let Us make man in Our own image" and pregnifying a virgin heavily imply some biological aspects for God? Even burning bushes are... wait for it... biological.

[Unity+]

 

"Same level"? Please, no more vague and arguable definitions of equivalency, I beg you! Let's use the contextual framework that makes the most sense here.

 

As for the biological aspect, can't it be argued that "Let Us make man in Our own image" and pregnifying a virgin heavily imply some biological aspects for God? Even burning bushes are... wait for it... biological.

But God wasn't the burning bush, he was talking from the burning bush. This does not mean he was the burning bush.

[iNow]

And now we're back to arguing over whether Harry Potter wears boxers or briefs... Whether unicorns are pink or if they are purple. Good times.

[iNow]

I don't see how a dragon in some sense can be on the same level as a higher being...

Isn't this similar to arguing that you don't see how the Hulk could be considered as strong as He-Man? Do you understand the comparison I'm making and why it applies?

[pears]

Yay the discussion has descended into a circus again. Just as it was starting to get back on track. Oh well.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yay the discussion has descended into a circus again. Just as it was starting to get back on track. Oh well.

 

There was someone who actually saw God and gave evidence by referral to this contact by accurate description. Is this not evidence enough, to confirm existence of a superior being.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Endy0816]

 

There was someone who actually saw God and gave evidence by referral to this contact by accurate description. Is this not evidence enough, to confirm existence of a superior being.

 

 

Which deity would that be? Odin, FSM, Hadad, Arma...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

Which deity would that be? Odin, FSM, Hadad, Arma...

 

I am not familiar with these Names ?

 

But I was thinking of . " The God of Abraham and the Jews "

Edited September 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

 

There was someone who actually saw God and gave evidence by referral to this contact by accurate description. Is this not evidence enough, to confirm existence of a superior being.

 

 

Any chance you can direct us to that description?

[Phi for All]

 

There was someone who actually saw God and gave evidence by referral to this contact by accurate description. Is this not evidence enough, to confirm existence of a superior being.

 

OMFSM, can you actually be serious?! Are you saying I could describe Thor accurately, right down to the innumerable weathered scars around the whitened knuckles gripping his mighty, thunderous hammer and the beetled brow frosted with the rime of Asgard air... and that would confirm he exists? We wouldn't need priests, then, just good writers.

 

This thread is still about theistic scientists, right? Not theists who think rigor in science isn't important?

[overtone]

It's still true, and has been all along, that the intellectually sophisticated kinds of folks we might expect to see overrepresented among "scientists" and the the like have conceptions of deity available to them that do not compare with dragons and such.

 

This is so even within the Western standard monotheisms that have bred in their nether swamps so many avatars of grumpy old men smiting the kids who walk on their grass.

[WWLabRat]

It's still true, and has been all along, that the intellectually sophisticated kinds of folks we might expect to see overrepresented among "scientists" and the the like have conceptions of deity available to them that do not compare with dragons and such.

 

This is so even within the Western standard monotheisms that have bred in their nether swamps so many avatars of grumpy old men smiting the kids who walk on their grass.

 

The only "deity" that could possibly be real, in the physical, measurable since, is money. "The Almighty Dollar" as it were. If you don't believe me, look at how highly a single dollar is sought after. In this sense, by dollar I mean any monetary currency. Entire civilizations function because of the constant moving of currency. People worship money as they would any other deity. People go to casinos and sit in front of a slot machine (or confessional) to pay their dues and hope they come out of it in the positive with more than what they went in. Entire corporations seek to appease their wallets by gouging prices on things that most people find they cannot do without. Sacrifices are made to the dollar by having to buy up land and other assets so that the company can expand. Wars have been fought over money, it makes the world go round (not in the physical sense, mind you, but in the sense that it helps society to continue functioning in its current capacity), and, unlike any deity out there, it is physical. Money can be measured. Its influence is observable on any scale. Even Amish people (who could equate to Atheists in this scenario) trade money with locals to purchase seeds, land, and feed for livestock. Some Amish even will sell their goods to locals (which the ones I used to live down from had amazing strawberries).

[iNow]

That could make an interesting discussion. Maybe it could be split off (Mr. "can we please get back on topic people!")?

[TrappedLight]

 

Based on all the scientific theories we have, the "fine-tuned" universe and design of the Universe...

 

Yes I believe the same. I believe there is a superintelligence which is neither aware of itself nor sentient, nor does it care for our doings.

[WWLabRat]

 

Yes I believe the same. I believe there is a superintelligence which is neither aware of itself nor sentient, nor does it care for our doings.

Wouldn't it be a bit difficult for something that was Intelligent, to say nothing of "superintelligence" to not be self-aware or sentient?

[TrappedLight]

Wouldn't it be a bit difficult for something that was Intelligent, to say nothing of "superintelligence" to not be self-aware or sentient?

 

 

I don't think so. I think the illusion is that humans think themselves superior because we are aware of our environment, yet we would be like gods if we had awareness of everything happening, just not of ourselves.

Perhaps the superintelligence is just like a programming, only aware of parameters that have been written into it.

[WWLabRat]

What you're talking about isn't self aware, it's omnipotence.

[TrappedLight]

What you're talking about isn't self aware, it's omnipotence.

 

Omnipotence is a word to describe an unlimited power. The superintelligence I speak about cannot change the laws of physics at will.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TrappedLight

[WWLabRat]

Sorry, wrong word. I meant "omniscience".

[TrappedLight]

Sorry, wrong word. I meant "omniscience".

 

 

Yes, one feature of my superintellect is that it is omniscient.

In a way, the superintellect would be analogous to quantum fields, which harbour all the information about the vacuum.

Perhaps even better described in a Bohmian interpretation, where somehow everything in our universe is determined.

Determined by a quantum field of information [math]\Psi[/math]

I can make a better case for the existence of alien space craft visiting the Earth than can be made for god, God and Dragons are equivalent in one undeniable way... the amount of evidence for their existence, to show I am wrong you must show evidence for one the other doesn't have and yes dragons have books that say they are real, most of them date back a few centuries but they are there... oops, so does the written evidence for god...

 

 

Hello Moon, nice to see you again!

 

Yes, as you know, I am very much an avid investigator of UFO's. Being one of many to witness three UFO's above our house over a decade ago, I can sure make a better case for UFO's as well than God.

 

I think the problem of God is that when the noun is mentioned, we immediately think of religion. I don't wish to upset anyone in saying this, but religion is the reason why rational-minded people do not usually entertain the idea of a God. If religion could be ignored, we might find answers which are more scientifically-closer to the identity of a God.

[Phi for All]

The only "deity" that could possibly be real, in the physical, measurable since, is money.

That could make an interesting discussion. Maybe it could be split off (Mr. "can we please get back on topic people!")?

 

If no one responds to this, we could give WWLabRat a shot at a better intro and his own title....

 

These aren't the topics you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

[Unity+]

 

If no one responds to this, we could give WWLabRat a shot at a better intro and his own title....

 

These aren't the topics you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

I simply stopped trying because we clearly can never stay on the same topic.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

Any chance you can direct us to that description?

 

Well it is a fairly long ,drawn out event that is within the sphere of the Israel's nationhood. They appeared to find themselves as slaves to the Egyptians some 3500 years ago. One of their members Moses , came across a Bush ,that was on fire, but did not burn. God spoke to him out of the fire. This was the start of a long line of CONTACT . It is contained in the Book of EXODUS. . ISRAELs' left Egypt ( by an Exodus ) for where they are today ( bar a small interruption) that continues to this day. The experience ends with a visit ,by an actual Jew , who had seen the God of the Israels', Face to Face with pretty rigorous personal evidence. The sort of evidence that is hard to refute.

 

ps. the book of Exodus is second 1 Genesis, 2 Exodus in the Israel Talmud [5 books] or Christian Bible

They made a film of it . called 10 commandments by Cecil B DeMILLS

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LKUpWvnubU

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1LKUpWvnubU&ei=9-RDUuC1MMKG4gSe1oHYBQ&usg=AFQjCNHJgitFOuSbXEO10xdYjilVYn8myA&bvm=bv.53217764,d.bGE

 

Wikapedia Ref https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Ten_Commandments_(1956_film)&ei=HudDUu7aDOXd4QSPy4G4BA&usg=AFQjCNGMLlNmQSy2_ld-wEFfvZZwlJwTzw&bvm=bv.53217764,d.bGE

 

 

OMFSM, can you actually be serious?! Are you saying I could describe Thor accurately, right down to the innumerable weathered scars around the whitened knuckles gripping his mighty, thunderous hammer and the beetled brow frosted with the rime of Asgard air... and that would confirm he exists? We wouldn't need priests, then, just good writers.

 

This thread is still about theistic scientists, right? Not theists who think rigor in science isn't important?

 

What does OMFSM mean ?

 

No. Not like your descriptions of Thor . These sort of descriptions are more thorough than the sort you describe ! The priests were not needed. just Rigor of Science ( Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusions and Publicity )

Edited September 26, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[WWLabRat]

 

Well it is a fairly long ,drawn out event that is within the sphere of the Israel's nationhood. They appeared to find themselves as slaves to the Egyptians some 3500 years ago. One of their members Moses , came across a Bush ,that was on fire, but did not burn. God spoke to him out of the fire. This was the start of a long line of CONTACT . It is contained in the Book of EXODUS. . ISRAELs' left Egypt ( by an Exodus ) for where they are today ( bar a small interruption) that continues to this day. The experience ends with a visit ,by an actual Jew , who had seen the God of the Israels', Face to Face with pretty rigorous personal evidence. The sort of evidence that is hard to refute.

 

ps. the book of Exodus is second 1 Genesis, 2 Exodus in the Israel Talmud [5 books] or Christian Bible

They made a film of it . called 10 commandments

 

 

What does OMFSM mean ?

 

No. Not like your descriptions of Thor . These sort of descriptions are more thorough than the sort you describe ! The priests were not needed. just Rigor of Science ( Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusions and Publicity )

 

A few things. First, the bible is not a book written directly by the hands of a deity. It was written by man after generations (many generations, in fact) of stories being passed down by the Hebrews by word of mouth. Thus, since it is fallible, it cannot be taken as absolute Truth in its form. Second, in regards to the burning bush... It is not said, in Exodus, whether the bush was alive or dead already. If it were alive, it's very much possible that an oil or other alcohol had been soaking in it's roots. As time went on, it would have made it possible, assuming the fumes from the oil hadn't dissipated, to burn the bush without the plant actually being consumed. Second, the only person who could attest to whether the bush had been consumed or not would have been Moses. He was the only one who climbed the mountain to observe it. Even his brother Aaron, who was his second in command, had not seen it. In fact, according to scripture, Moses wasn't even allowed to look at the bush per Yahweh's command. He was told to remove his sandals and hide his face. If he were to follow this command, he would not have seen it, so even this "eyewitness" account is inaccurate at best. Still further. it is said that one cannot see God and live. This is dogmatic law and as such, for it to be true, Moses would have died there on Mount Sinai.

 

Also, the burning bush wasn't the start of contact. Contact was first established in the Garden of Eden where God first created the birds of the air, the beasts of the land and the fish of the sea. At this time He created man in his image, later to steal a rib to create woman. In Genesis, God is in constant contact with Adam (First man) and Eve (First woman) as well as Adam's descendants, even going so far as to say that God walked with Cain after he killed his brother Abel. There was a break in communication leading up to the burning bush, or at least this is what's assumed between all the "begat"-s between Adam and Moses.