• 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!

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I affirm that God does suffer as he participates in the ongoing life of the society of being. His sharing in the world’s suffering is the supreme instance of knowing, accepting, and transforming in love the suffering which arises in the world. I am affirming the divine sensitivity. Without it, I can make no sense of the being of God.
I doubt if God has any awareness of the suffering of conscious creatures. Good is good and beautiful.

I reject the Christian view of God as a micromanager of every tiniest detail, and who commits genocide -- and yet this is called a good activity of a good God.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
From my experience studying various topics of science, most scientists assume materialism/physicalism. Thus, their science simply cannot prove God, by definition.

Some scientists want to extend the scope of scientific inquiry to include the social sciences -- basically to include all knowledge, anything knowable. So for them, if they discover "God", they will simply think "it" is a part of the universe.

For example, if they find evidence of intelligent design, they will postulate a teleological principle that guides matter.

But God can only be discerned via philosophy. Revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

It does appesr that your experience with
scientists does not actually involve any experience with,
you know, scientists.

Your outlandish evaluation of the ethos of science
equivalent to saying muscicians dont care if they
are out of tune.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I think there is zero objective and verifiable evidence of any gods therefore god or gods are most certainly not cientific fact.

Your op makes several leaps of faith in order to present a false premise.

Welcome to RF.

It was not such a terrif start, with the first few words that far
disjointed from anything real.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Brian Josephson, a Nobel prizewinner for something called the Josephson Effect re:quantum physics, is 80% sure that the theory of intelligent design has merit.

He didn't explain why and I wouldn't have understood the explanation if he had given it. However, his comment was enough for me to open my mind to the possibility that ID might be more than just creationist baloney.
I can't buy that at all. ID is baloney, and deceitful baloney at that, in my view.

The whole idea of it requires a definition of "design", which is impossible to make without reference to tendentious assumptions about human design. Furthermore it is an antiscientific concept, because the whole purpose of science is the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. Once you start claiming a phenomenon is supernatural in origin, you are claiming you have your "explanation" and we can stop the process of looking for natural explanations. That is anti-science and basically no different from the mediaeval approach of attributing the unknown to the workings of God. Furthermore the origins of ID are in social engineering by the American Religious Right, which does not endow it with a scintillating intellectual pedigree.

Josephson, though a brilliant man, is notorious as an enfant terrible for embracing apparently flaky causes (cold fusion etc). If he wants to defend it, I'll leave him to it.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I can't buy that at all. ID is baloney, and deceitful baloney at that, in my view.
That's what I thought also, but I changed my mind because I respect Brain Josephson's expert opinion. If he's 80% sure, then I'm sure it's not baloney.
Josephson, though a brilliant man, is notorious as an enfant terrible for embracing apparently flaky causes (cold fusion etc). If he wants to defend it, I'll leave him to it.
I've never heard his opinion on cold fusion but his "flakiness' has more to do with his position that mainstream science is biased against paranormal research. I'm of the same opinion. Because of one experience with each, I know that telepathy and precognition exist. So, you can call him flaky and ignore his opinions but I know as fact that Josephson is right on the paranormal bias so I respect his opinions..
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
This excerpt called ‘Science Discovers Intelligent Order’ is taken from page 6 of The Yoga of Jesus by Paramahansa Yogananda.

“The rise of science served to extend the range of nature’s marvels, so that today we have discovered order in the deepest recesses of the atom and among the grandest collection of galaxies,” writes Paul Davies, Ph.D., well-known author and professor of mathematical physics, in Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator (New York: Continuum Publishing, 1994).

Systems theorist Ervin Laszlo reports in The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Boston: Element Books, 1999): “The finetuning of the physical universe to the parameters of life constitutes a series of coincidences – if that is what they are … in which even the slightest departure from the given values would spell the end of life, or, more exactly, create conditions under which life could never have evolved in the first place. If the neutron did not outweigh the proton in the nucleus of the atom, the active lifetime of the Sun and other stars would be reduced to a few hundred years; if the electric charge of electrons and protons did not balance precisely, all configurations of matter would be unstable and the universe would consist of nothing more than radiation and a relatively uniform mixture of gases … If the strong force that binds the particles of a nucleus were merely a fraction weaker than it is, deuteron could not exist and the stars such as the Sun could not shine. And if that force were slightly stronger than it is, the Sun and other active stars would inflate and perhaps explode … The values of the four universal forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the nuclear strong and weak forces) were precisely such that life could evolve in the cosmos.”

Professor Davies estimates that if – as some scientists maintain – there were no inherent guiding intelligence and cosmic evolution were governed only by the chance operation of strictly mechanical laws, “the time required to achieve the level of order we now meet in the universe by purely random processes is of the order of at least 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years – inconceivably longer than the current age of the universe. Citing these calculations, Laszlo wryly observes, “Serendipity of this magnitude strains credibility,” and concludes, “Must we then face the possibility that the universe we witness is the result of purposeful design by an omnipotent master builder?”

In addition, we found god’s existence in our world fifty-five years ago in the Higgs Boson, ‘the God particle,’ which scientists theorize has the ability to ‘end the universe.’ The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics that is continuously emitted by the quantum excitation of the Higg’s energy field, the field of god’s consciousness that holds our reality together. ‘The Higgs field is tied to the origin and fate of the universe.’ Quantum physics proves that reality is altered by our conscious perception of it; science calls this the ‘observation affect’ which shows that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.’ Therefore, all reality is psychic; quantum energy is psyche or ‘soul’ energy; consciousness is the only thing that truly exists.

God is, most basically, consciousness. God is best described as a prism, where a beam of white light (god) goes into the prism and bounces out in a rainbow (the colors being the multiple manifestations of god in material nature). In nature, god, manifests as balance and the cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth.

Humanity must start acknowledging god’s existence. Science can no longer ignore its own research. We are responsible to something greater than us that encompasses and is all of us. Human beings, as we run our civilization, are responsible for making god suffer through every starving child, every bullied teenager, every bomb victim, every mutilated farm animal, every animal test subject, every bird who dies choking on plastic – all the unnecessary grief and pain we cause from phallogocentric global capitalism. We are responsible for the disrespect and misuse of the earth, the home god gave us. We are responsible for the world that we live in as it is us who create it. We must take after god and honor god’s most basic principles of balance/equality and compassion. We must start teaching our children that all reality and experience is sacred. Alfred North Whitehead saw god as inextricably bound up in the world process. He describes god as ‘the great companion, the fellow-sufferer, who understands.’ He states:

‘I affirm that God does suffer as he participates in the ongoing life of the society of being. His sharing in the world’s suffering is the supreme instance of knowing, accepting, and transforming in love the suffering which arises in the world. I am affirming the divine sensitivity. Without it, I can make no sense of the being of God.’ - Karen Armstrong, A History of God, page 384.

What do you think?

So, how do we test for God using the scientific method seeing that God is immaterial:
  1. Define a question
  2. Gather information and resources (observe)
  3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
  4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
  5. Analyze the data
  6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  7. Publish results
  8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Ok, so it seems to this point that what you are saying is that an intelligence of some type is behind the universe.



Where does all this come from? Maybe this intelligence doesn't care about human beings at all. Maybe there was such an intelligence which no longer exists. Even if one was to accept the likelihood of the existence of such an intelligence, doesn't mean man has any additional knowledge about the nature of this intelligence.

I like you’re reasoning and that you are allowing for all possibilities. That’s a very fair and open minded statement. There’s still so much we don’t know yet.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's what I thought also, but I changed my mind because I respect Brain Josephson's expert opinion. If he's 80% sure, then I'm sure it's not baloney.

But you yourself admitted that he is not an expert. His area of expertise is as you admitted quantum mechanics, not biology.

I've never heard his opinion on cold fusion but his "flakiness' has more to do with his position that mainstream science is biased against paranormal research. I'm of the same opinion. Because of one experience with each, I know that telepathy and precognition exist. So, you can call him flaky and ignore his opinions but I know as fact that Josephson is right on the paranormal bias so I respect his opinions..

Actually you believe that telepathy and precognition exist. If you knew you could demonstrate the fact. Do you remember The Amazing Randi's Million Dollar Challenge? Many others thought that they knew as well, but could not perform when steps were taken to prevent cheating.

There is no bias against the paranormal, there is just no reliable evidence for it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So, how do we test for God using the scientific method seeing that God is immaterial:
  1. Define a question
  2. Gather information and resources (observe)
  3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
  4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
  5. Analyze the data
  6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  7. Publish results
  8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Theists tend to hate step four. A proper hypothesis has to have a reasonable test that would refute it. When asked what test would refute their idea a typical response is " Why would I want to do that? ".
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I believe, without a doubt that there is an intelligence far higher than what our minds are capable of fully comprehending. Our unawareness Of our Maker does not mean He does not exist just like the lower kingdoms cannot perceive the higher ones.

So the fact that the stone is unaware of the animal or human kingdoms does not mean they do not exist. Similarly our unawareness Of the kingdoms of God does not mean they do not exist.

The painting is proof of the Painter no matter how insistent the painting may be that there is no painter for it did not paint itself.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe, without a doubt that there is an intelligence far higher than what our minds are capable of fully comprehending. Our unawareness Of our Maker does not mean He does not exist just like the lower kingdoms cannot perceive the higher ones.

So the fact that the stone is unaware of the animal or human kingdoms does not mean they do not exist. Similarly our unawareness Of the kingdoms of God does not mean they do not exist.

The painting is proof of the Painter no matter how insistent the painting may be that there is no painter for it did not paint itself.

A bad example since we know how paintings are made. I do believe this is an example of the Generic Fallacy, though I could be wrong.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I believe, without a doubt that there is an intelligence far higher than what our minds are capable of fully comprehending. Our unawareness Of our Maker does not mean He does not exist just like the lower kingdoms cannot perceive the higher ones.

So the fact that the stone is unaware of the animal or human kingdoms does not mean they do not exist. Similarly our unawareness Of the kingdoms of God does not mean they do not exist.

The painting is proof of the Painter no matter how insistent the painting may be that there is no painter for it did not paint itself.

The title of the thread is 'the existence of God is a SCIENTIFIC fact.' Metaphysics, philosophy, religious belief are not the domain of science.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Theists tend to hate step four. A proper hypothesis has to have a reasonable test that would refute it. When asked what test would refute their idea a typical response is " Why would I want to do that? ".

Not at all. I submit the lives of the Great Educators such as Buddha, Christ, Moses, Zoroaster and so on who effected entire civilizations for thousands of years after Their death.

How did They manage to display such influence without outward power and wealth and despite persecution from the most powerful kings and wealthy despite which Their Cause triumphed all over the world and even thousands of years after Their passing, billions of people model their lives after Them.

I maintain that no human power known to man is able to achieve what These Great Beings have achieved and that it was the power of God which enabled Them to triumph over all the peoples of the world.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
A bad example since we know how paintings are made. I do believe this is an example of the Generic Fallacy, though I could be wrong.

It’s pure and simple very sensible and realistic logic and reason that unawareness Of something does not infer its non existence.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Not at all. I submit the lives of the Great Educators such as Buddha, Christ, Moses, Zoroaster and so on who effected entire civilizations for thousands of years after Their death.

How did They manage to display such influence without outward power and wealth and despite persecution from the most powerful kings and wealthy despite which Their Cause triumphed all over the world and even thousands of years after Their passing, billions of people model their lives after Them.

I maintain that no human power known to man is able to achieve what These Great Beings have achieved and that it was the power of God which enabled Them to triumph over all the peoples of the world.
That is hardly a hypothesis. It is merely hand waving. But tell us, what reasonable test could show you to be wrong?
 
Top