check the thread "is science arrogant?" where we ware discussing this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?
- Thread starter Road Warrior
- Start date
check the thread "is science arrogant?" where we ware discussing this.
jasonwill2
Well-Known Member
It is presumptions to think that of all the planets with life that can read and write, that ours is the only one that got the answers, adn that our planet is the sole reason for the Universe when other planets are out there.
God gives us no holy books because that would make figuring out the truth to easy... and god is a tester... not a giver. We must work for it like we work for everything else
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Do you have no issue with Quran? Please
It is not a difficult question.
Next we could go to the Word revealed on Jesus or Moses; with whom you have some issue as you stated. Is it OK?
jasonwill2
Well-Known Member
I have a problem with ALL books that claim to be wriiten or inspired by God(s), or act as a guide or mankind.
God(s) do not write the books, and even if they told those men what to write who is to say that the men didn't change what they didn't like? You cannot trust someone who hands you a book and then says that they dictated for God(s). You can only take their word on it that x thing told them, and that's not enough.
This goes for the Torah, The Christian Bible, The Qua-ran, the Book of Law (by Alister Crowley), and the Al Jilwah or any other similar book.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The one true Creator God sent no book bound in covers in the physical sense.
Azihayya
Dragon Wizard
The answer to this question seems like an easy one to me;
but the factors involved may be open for interpretation.
Can a figmentive creator who exists beyond our dimension ever be proven by Science?
No; Science is very clearly based upon the Scientific Method,
and therefore, can not prove something which provides no evidence.
( unless there is evidence of this God, who speaks to people or created the world )
An other-wordly God must be proven or disproved with Philosophy.
However, I for one believe in telepathy,
which is one explanation for God
that can be proven by Science.
but the factors involved may be open for interpretation.
Can a figmentive creator who exists beyond our dimension ever be proven by Science?
No; Science is very clearly based upon the Scientific Method,
and therefore, can not prove something which provides no evidence.
( unless there is evidence of this God, who speaks to people or created the world )
An other-wordly God must be proven or disproved with Philosophy.
However, I for one believe in telepathy,
which is one explanation for God
that can be proven by Science.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Why do you assume such a creator could provide no evidence? I suggest that anything which exists must potentially have evidence for that existence by definition. You might claim that we as human beings are incapable of observing that evidence (though that in itself is unproven), but that would be a failure of humans, not science in principal.
"Give me a lever long enough and somewhere to stand and I can move the Earth"; Archimedes couldn't actually do this of course, but the (scientific) principal of levers would still apply.
To be honest, before you even start talking about the existence of a creator existing beyond our dimension, you need to establish what "our dimension" means and how anything can exist "beyond" it.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Do elaborate.
A Troubled Man
Active Member
Science has not shown telepathy to have a shred of evidence or has shown the brain is able to work that way.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
He only reveals the Word to help humans to bring them back when they go astray from the purpose of human life.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Dawkins describes the bible and it's contents as nonsense.
Dawkins has said he would like to see religion destroyed.
There is probably little difference between Dawkins and Clines lack of belief. The main difference between them will be how they can express that publicly.
Dawkins as a scientist with a public image where everything he says is scrutinised. Dawkins has to leave the door of possibility open because if he didn't his scientific approach may come into question. Austin Cline as a blogger does not have the same limitations on his freedom of expression.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
How does Dawkins and his blind-faithed followers intend to accomplish their agenda of destroying religion? Did Dawkins vent to express his mind on it? Please
Last edited:
MD
qualiaphile
Science is a very broad term and it is impossible to prove God through observational science for now. But there seems to be exceptions, mathematicians. In fact at the National Academy of Sciences, mathematicians were the highest percent of people who believed in a God. The overall percent is still low (only 15%) but it's an interesting observation nonetheless.
Now I'm not sure if they meant a personal God or impersonal God but I would be willing to bet that the majority of mathematicians see order in the universe. This order can be viewed as God or a spirit or wtv. It stands in stark contrast to the views of most biologists, who tend to be rabid materialist atheists. Physicists tend to be agnostic generally speaking.
Another interesting finding is that the majority of MDs believe in God, suggesting that it's not higher education which may erode belief, but the culture within which that education is pursued.
Now I'm not sure if they meant a personal God or impersonal God but I would be willing to bet that the majority of mathematicians see order in the universe. This order can be viewed as God or a spirit or wtv. It stands in stark contrast to the views of most biologists, who tend to be rabid materialist atheists. Physicists tend to be agnostic generally speaking.
Another interesting finding is that the majority of MDs believe in God, suggesting that it's not higher education which may erode belief, but the culture within which that education is pursued.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Fashioner is one of the attributes of the one true creator God:
He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online
It is He who put the things in order and in systems; if things would have not been in order or in systems, I think, there would have been no science.
He is Allah, the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online
It is He who put the things in order and in systems; if things would have not been in order or in systems, I think, there would have been no science.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
That would be useless, since the order of the universe already has a name: mathematics.
MD
qualiaphile
There's a difference between believing the universe has built in order or not. If the universe has order built into it, that would suggest that these laws existed from the time of its conception. If the universe is chaotic by definition it means that these laws came about with time and stuck around till now.
Sagan and Einstein were pantheists, believers of an impersonal God because they believed these laws were built in from conception. They believed that these laws were in a sense God, although a very different definition from what most Abrahamic religious folks believe God to be.
Anyways, my view is that mathematics, consciousness and material reality are the three main components of the universe and as such would suggest there's a lot more to reality than rabid materialists seem to arrogantly believe.
Sagan and Einstein were pantheists, believers of an impersonal God because they believed these laws were built in from conception. They believed that these laws were in a sense God, although a very different definition from what most Abrahamic religious folks believe God to be.
Anyways, my view is that mathematics, consciousness and material reality are the three main components of the universe and as such would suggest there's a lot more to reality than rabid materialists seem to arrogantly believe.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
How do you verify that any of this is true?
If you cannot verify it, all this is mere delusion.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Don't you see any order and or system in the universe?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I can understand why someone would see these laws as God. What i don't understand though is why one would think it is arrogant not to think of them as being God.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
On the scale of the solar system, precious little. Our planet's orbit intersects those of numerous asteroids and comets, some of which have hit earth with catastrophic results in the past and others of which are likely to do so in the future. If this is a divinely imposed "order and or system", it's a pretty incompetent one.