Post by iris89 on Dec 6, 2009 20:28:40 GMT -5
The Existence of God
INTRODUCTION:
The fact that Science NOW has no way to "detect" God does not mean such does not exist. The arrogance of science in effect proclaiming because it cannot detect God or prove God exists, that He doesn't, is simply an acknowledgment of how little man yet understands. If we simply go back about 200 years man had no way to prove that DNA existed, what gravity was (Oops that one is still a bit of an unknown, but it exists), etc.
Really, saying God violates the Laws of Physics could well expose how little man knows about such "laws", not that God does not exist.
But what exactly makes the existence of an eternal All-powerful God as grand creator and originator of all this so improbable as to butt heads with "honest" (key word) science? Simply because he is beyond the reach of observation by our scientific instruments? Or because you can't invent a satisfactory scientific theory explaining his existence based on our level of understanding?
Is that really good scientific deduction to think our infinitely inferior (in comparison to God's) knowledge of science should be able to detect or otherwise explain the Almighty God with such crude methods?
And to the contrary, unless you are willing to accept a boatload very unscientific beliefs, such as something spontaneously comes from nothing, intelligence comes from unintelligence, order comes from chaos, life springs from non-life, matter improves itself, random forces do useful work without intelligent control, species do not always reproduce their own kinds but occasionally different kinds, random mutations are beneficial instead of harmful, along with a litany of other outrageous things which contradict even the most fundamental scientific principles at practically every turn, the belief in a God is the only reasonable explanation, and it is actually the positions of atheists and evolutionists which is what really butts heads with "genuine" (key word again) science.
OBJECTIVITY VS. SUBJECTIVITY:
Science deals with objective reality. God is subjective. Science deals with the laws of physics - God breaks the laws of physics. Science deals with observation. God cannot be observed. Science deals with time and space - God exists outside of time and space, but can invade our time and space from time to time. You can counter every physical scientific test I propose with creative explanations of why it won't work. Your God is everything it needs to be to counter any skeptical claims against it, and yet to you this most improbable being is the best explanation of how life came about.
The fact that Science NOW has no way to "detect" God does not mean such does not exist. The arrogance of science in effect proclaiming because it cannot detect God or prove God exists, that He doesn't, is simply an acknowledgment of how little man yet understands.
The fact that science admits it does not know everything is its humility, not its arrogance. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science, that is the claim religion makes, which is its arrogance. Additionally, many scientists believe in God (Francis Collins comes to mind).
GOD (YHWH) EXIST OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE:
God exists outside of time and space, but can invade our time and space from time to time.
But again, what else should one logically expect for such an eternal all-powerful being but to somehow exist on a higher plain beyond the time and space of our physical universe?
You can counter every physical scientific test I propose with creative explanations of why it won't work. Your God is everything it needs to be to counter any skeptical claims against it, and yet to you this most improbable being is the best explanation of how life came about.
But that's the whole point, the "honest" (key word again) evaluations of any physical scientific test I've ever seen supports the existence of intelligent design and purposeful creation, not the other way around. And the incredible improbabilities lay with the tenets of atheistic-Darwinian evolution.
I believe in God in large part because of "genuine" (key word once again) science, not instead of it.
Science deals with objective reality as previously mentioned; whereas, God is subjective. Science deals with the laws of physics - God breaks the laws of physics. Science deals with observation. God cannot be observed. Science deals with time and space - God exists outside of time and space, but can invade our time and space from time to time. You can counter every physical scientific test I propose with creative explanations of why it won't work. Your God is everything it needs to be to counter any skeptical claims against it, and yet to you this most improbable being is the best explanation of how life came about.
Clarifying question: Aren't all those distinctions - the very definition of something "Supernatural"? It appears to me that if they were met by any means (puzzled look), wouldn't that be a proof, the item in question wasn't God!?
The whole problem with the origins of life is that we start out with the problem of trying to explaining a statistical improbability. Believers though want to postulate something even more improbable to explain this, and this is where you butt heads with science, and reasonably so.
Yet at the same time what many professed proponents of science will hold is that a God didn't cause these beginnings, yet ultimately we don't know how they came about.
But what exactly makes the existence of an eternal All-powerful God as grand creator and originator of all this so improbable as to butt heads with "honest" (key word) science?
Simply because he is beyond the reach of observation by our scientific instruments? Or because you can't invent a satisfactory scientific theory explaining his existence based on our level of understanding?
While I realize that many humans today may think quite highly of our scientific accomplishments to the unfortunate point of arrogance and smugness, please keep in mind who you are talking about here.
Do you logically expect a supreme being of such an immeasurably high order who is timeless, powerful and intelligent enough to create all this to be something simplistic (in comparison) like a planet, a star, some nebula, comet, meteorite etc. that you can see, or hear on a optical or radio telescope, analyze on a spectrograph, capture as a lab sample for study, contrive a theoretical model of his essence, draw up a explanatory mathematical formula explaining him, or some other ridiculous expectation?
Is that really good scientific deduction to think our infinitely inferior (in comparison to God's) knowledge of science should be able to detect or otherwise explain the Almighty God (YHWH) with such crude methods?
And to the contrary, unless you are willing to accept a boatload of very unscientific beliefs, such as something spontaneously comes from nothing, intelligence comes from unintelligence, order comes from chaos, life springs from non-life, matter improves itself, random forces do useful work without intelligent control, species do not always reproduce their own kinds but occasionally different kinds, random mutations are beneficial instead of harmful, along with a litany of other outrageous things which contradict even the most fundamental scientific principles at practically every turn, the belief in a God is the only reasonable explanation, and it is actually the positions of atheists and evolutionists which is what really butts heads with "genuine" (key word again) science.
In fact it's a gross insult to it.
Science doesn't say we got here by random chance, and the statistically improbable happens all the time.
Unless one subscribes to such unscientific absurdities as I listed earlier, I would say that God is quite "objective" as the only possible explanation for all
that exist.
BREAKDOWN OF ALL KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS:
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the universe began, said: "In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down." So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual-miraculous-events to take place when it
befits his purpose.-Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15. [source - Against the Laws of Nature? In “The Bible, God's Word Or Man's,” Chap. 6, P. 73]
CONCLUSION:
Questions that need to be defined and answered:
[1] Additional dimensions beyond the familiar three of our physical space?
[2] Black holes of virtually infinite densities causing the fabric of space to
become so distorted that time itself stands still?
[3] Under certain conditions time itself would run backward instead of forward?
[4] Should the Bible speak of YHWH (Jehovah) in same or similar mythological Pagan ways as "the great God of the Ju Ju religion is described as one among a pantheon of gods and goddesses called , "orishas," along with the gatekeeper god "Legba" ruling, warring and co-habituating over various domains and aspects of nature, then your point would be valid in that both beliefs have
equal legitimacy.
But the truth is they do not, nor is it even remotely similar to the Bible's testimony about the Almighty God (YHWH).
Reality - Professor Hawkins states that "the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature." So that "under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down?"
I myself have personally heard scientists speak of the possible existence of other dimensions, parallel universes, worm holes, extraterrestrial beings of much greater age than humanity who have now evolved beyond the need of material bodies to that of pure energy and thought, etc.
To learn more, check out the following:
[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum
[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam
[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All
[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
INTRODUCTION:
The fact that Science NOW has no way to "detect" God does not mean such does not exist. The arrogance of science in effect proclaiming because it cannot detect God or prove God exists, that He doesn't, is simply an acknowledgment of how little man yet understands. If we simply go back about 200 years man had no way to prove that DNA existed, what gravity was (Oops that one is still a bit of an unknown, but it exists), etc.
Really, saying God violates the Laws of Physics could well expose how little man knows about such "laws", not that God does not exist.
But what exactly makes the existence of an eternal All-powerful God as grand creator and originator of all this so improbable as to butt heads with "honest" (key word) science? Simply because he is beyond the reach of observation by our scientific instruments? Or because you can't invent a satisfactory scientific theory explaining his existence based on our level of understanding?
Is that really good scientific deduction to think our infinitely inferior (in comparison to God's) knowledge of science should be able to detect or otherwise explain the Almighty God with such crude methods?
And to the contrary, unless you are willing to accept a boatload very unscientific beliefs, such as something spontaneously comes from nothing, intelligence comes from unintelligence, order comes from chaos, life springs from non-life, matter improves itself, random forces do useful work without intelligent control, species do not always reproduce their own kinds but occasionally different kinds, random mutations are beneficial instead of harmful, along with a litany of other outrageous things which contradict even the most fundamental scientific principles at practically every turn, the belief in a God is the only reasonable explanation, and it is actually the positions of atheists and evolutionists which is what really butts heads with "genuine" (key word again) science.
OBJECTIVITY VS. SUBJECTIVITY:
Science deals with objective reality. God is subjective. Science deals with the laws of physics - God breaks the laws of physics. Science deals with observation. God cannot be observed. Science deals with time and space - God exists outside of time and space, but can invade our time and space from time to time. You can counter every physical scientific test I propose with creative explanations of why it won't work. Your God is everything it needs to be to counter any skeptical claims against it, and yet to you this most improbable being is the best explanation of how life came about.
The fact that Science NOW has no way to "detect" God does not mean such does not exist. The arrogance of science in effect proclaiming because it cannot detect God or prove God exists, that He doesn't, is simply an acknowledgment of how little man yet understands.
The fact that science admits it does not know everything is its humility, not its arrogance. There is no such thing as absolute truth in science, that is the claim religion makes, which is its arrogance. Additionally, many scientists believe in God (Francis Collins comes to mind).
GOD (YHWH) EXIST OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE:
God exists outside of time and space, but can invade our time and space from time to time.
But again, what else should one logically expect for such an eternal all-powerful being but to somehow exist on a higher plain beyond the time and space of our physical universe?
You can counter every physical scientific test I propose with creative explanations of why it won't work. Your God is everything it needs to be to counter any skeptical claims against it, and yet to you this most improbable being is the best explanation of how life came about.
But that's the whole point, the "honest" (key word again) evaluations of any physical scientific test I've ever seen supports the existence of intelligent design and purposeful creation, not the other way around. And the incredible improbabilities lay with the tenets of atheistic-Darwinian evolution.
I believe in God in large part because of "genuine" (key word once again) science, not instead of it.
Science deals with objective reality as previously mentioned; whereas, God is subjective. Science deals with the laws of physics - God breaks the laws of physics. Science deals with observation. God cannot be observed. Science deals with time and space - God exists outside of time and space, but can invade our time and space from time to time. You can counter every physical scientific test I propose with creative explanations of why it won't work. Your God is everything it needs to be to counter any skeptical claims against it, and yet to you this most improbable being is the best explanation of how life came about.
Clarifying question: Aren't all those distinctions - the very definition of something "Supernatural"? It appears to me that if they were met by any means (puzzled look), wouldn't that be a proof, the item in question wasn't God!?
The whole problem with the origins of life is that we start out with the problem of trying to explaining a statistical improbability. Believers though want to postulate something even more improbable to explain this, and this is where you butt heads with science, and reasonably so.
Yet at the same time what many professed proponents of science will hold is that a God didn't cause these beginnings, yet ultimately we don't know how they came about.
But what exactly makes the existence of an eternal All-powerful God as grand creator and originator of all this so improbable as to butt heads with "honest" (key word) science?
Simply because he is beyond the reach of observation by our scientific instruments? Or because you can't invent a satisfactory scientific theory explaining his existence based on our level of understanding?
While I realize that many humans today may think quite highly of our scientific accomplishments to the unfortunate point of arrogance and smugness, please keep in mind who you are talking about here.
Do you logically expect a supreme being of such an immeasurably high order who is timeless, powerful and intelligent enough to create all this to be something simplistic (in comparison) like a planet, a star, some nebula, comet, meteorite etc. that you can see, or hear on a optical or radio telescope, analyze on a spectrograph, capture as a lab sample for study, contrive a theoretical model of his essence, draw up a explanatory mathematical formula explaining him, or some other ridiculous expectation?
Is that really good scientific deduction to think our infinitely inferior (in comparison to God's) knowledge of science should be able to detect or otherwise explain the Almighty God (YHWH) with such crude methods?
And to the contrary, unless you are willing to accept a boatload of very unscientific beliefs, such as something spontaneously comes from nothing, intelligence comes from unintelligence, order comes from chaos, life springs from non-life, matter improves itself, random forces do useful work without intelligent control, species do not always reproduce their own kinds but occasionally different kinds, random mutations are beneficial instead of harmful, along with a litany of other outrageous things which contradict even the most fundamental scientific principles at practically every turn, the belief in a God is the only reasonable explanation, and it is actually the positions of atheists and evolutionists which is what really butts heads with "genuine" (key word again) science.
In fact it's a gross insult to it.
Science doesn't say we got here by random chance, and the statistically improbable happens all the time.
Unless one subscribes to such unscientific absurdities as I listed earlier, I would say that God is quite "objective" as the only possible explanation for all
that exist.
BREAKDOWN OF ALL KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS:
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the universe began, said: "In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down." So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual-miraculous-events to take place when it
befits his purpose.-Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15. [source - Against the Laws of Nature? In “The Bible, God's Word Or Man's,” Chap. 6, P. 73]
CONCLUSION:
Questions that need to be defined and answered:
[1] Additional dimensions beyond the familiar three of our physical space?
[2] Black holes of virtually infinite densities causing the fabric of space to
become so distorted that time itself stands still?
[3] Under certain conditions time itself would run backward instead of forward?
[4] Should the Bible speak of YHWH (Jehovah) in same or similar mythological Pagan ways as "the great God of the Ju Ju religion is described as one among a pantheon of gods and goddesses called , "orishas," along with the gatekeeper god "Legba" ruling, warring and co-habituating over various domains and aspects of nature, then your point would be valid in that both beliefs have
equal legitimacy.
But the truth is they do not, nor is it even remotely similar to the Bible's testimony about the Almighty God (YHWH).
Reality - Professor Hawkins states that "the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature." So that "under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down?"
I myself have personally heard scientists speak of the possible existence of other dimensions, parallel universes, worm holes, extraterrestrial beings of much greater age than humanity who have now evolved beyond the need of material bodies to that of pure energy and thought, etc.
To learn more, check out the following:
[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum
[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam
[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All
[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89