Scientists attempt to disprove God’s existence

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:40 am

It's not so much credence in the bible...I'm certain that many of the stories in it are based on actual events. There probably was some sort of flood, accounts of which may be exaggerated through the process by which stories become myth/legend (this is from a secular point of view; for a believer "myth" or "legend" is probably not applicable to stories from their own faith). And I think most people believe there a man named Jesus was born, lived, and died, and so on. It is the spiritual part (the God part, if you will) that some people (such as myself) just don't believe. Not that that means non-believers are insulting anyone, or that there aren't good applicable parts of the bible, it's just that the religion is not something they believe. So credence may not be black or white.

Trying to prove or disprove God's existence just seems kind of...well, silly. Because if you believe, you believe, and if you don't, you don't. It's just personal choice, and it's unlikely someone is going to argue you out of your belief. I don't believe, and I don't want a study "proving" God doesn't exist, and nor do I want a religious doctrine saying science doesn't exist in any meaningful way, either ("meaningful" meaning that it can be reliably used to find out facts about our world).

Post by **Zephalephelah** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:10 am

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

For the believer, prove of God would be to give knowledge, which would remove freewill, which would remove salvation. I think I'll take belief

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:04 am

But I think that a very important freewill would still exist: the will to choose whether or not to follow God. According to the beliefs of many, Satan chose otherwise, even though he was absolutely positive that God existed. This is where I come in. Although I've met a few Christians in my life who believe in a God I can respect, I would ignore the God that I've most often heard about if I learned for a fact that he is the real thing. I do not agree with various things he does, the way he runs things, would not love such a being, and would definitely not obey many of his laws. My freewill is still intact. I'd be in the eternal fires of Hell, and though I would not exactly look forward to that prospect, my dread of it would not make me love that God.

Post by **Zephalephelah** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:19 am

Yeah, well I don’t think anyone should be forced to love someone out of fear. I don’t think love will ever work that way. You can torture me until I say I love or hate something, but I’m only saying it because you’re pulling my fingernails out, not because I really believe it. I think that Christian-based religions focus too much on eternal damnation, and personally I don’t believe in it for humans as a general rule. Look, the Bible says that people will go to hell exactly once. The rest of the time it is talking about fallen angels. It’s just like the Lucifer thing. People say it so much you’d think it was in there 400 times. It’s exactly once. I think that only one classification of people go to hell for eternity, and that would be those who live in the 3rd age when Christ is King on earth & when Satan is loosed after the thousand years, they *STILL* join him.

But you see, all the time that Christ was King, they *KNEW* he was here. For me, infinite freewill is only allowable through faith. Because then one can doubt and then believe and then doubt over & over again, and that’s okay, because that’s what faith is. You *hope* for what you cannot see. So there is doubt. It’s almost like God’s a theory. No one can go back to see Jesus & watch him make wine out of water. No one can watch God create the universe. No one can watch the big bang or the dinosaurs die from an asteroid. We make decisions to believe. But if God could prove himself to people & converse with them, then we would be like Satan and we would have exactly 1 choice to make. If we failed God after that, we would lose our salvation, because we KNEW him and still we sinned. Then we would have to repent and it would be the 1st age all over again, the Old Covenant, the Old Testament. I think that’s the issue with Satan, he’s just not going to repent. Too much pride. It’s like GoodWill Hunting where the kid said he’d tell his dad to use the wrench, because (*&@ $(@. I think it’s the same thing. I think God would forgive him too, if Satan meant it. It’s really strange to think about. Sometimes I even feel sorry for Satan, because he won’t change.

There are 3 ages. One of knowledge, which begins with Adam and Eve. The 2nd age, which begins with Jesus Christ and freewill through faith. The 3rd age, which begins with the Book of Revelation, lasts a thousand years with unprecedented peace and then, well I don’t know what then, probably being kings ourselves, a new universe, eternal life.

Theological Crony · Post by **Theological Crony** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:46 pm

Fist, you are a genius.

Zeph, I personally believe science is proof of God's existence. Look at the complexity of a banana, for instance. No, that's not a joke. After coming to terms with the banana, expand your awareness to all things in the universe, the complexity that involves each, how all things interact, probability matrices, etc. etc. In that context, EVERYTHING is a miracle. I wouldn't feel very comfortable living in a world where such miracles did'nt have someone to take credit for them. Thus, since we certainly aren't responsible, I gotta pin this one on God. I view science as our method of uncovering the secrets of God's creation, our need to comprehend his greater wonders. On that level, I wonder if God approves......

Post by **caamora** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:33 pm

Ok, I am going to say it again.

Everybody keeps on saying that science proves things. It is not sciences job to prove or disprove anything. Just because there is evidence that supports a theory does not make it "proof" or "fact". It also does not disprove other theories.

Science is a tool - a very helpful tool - that allows humans to understand their world a little better. It is not always right - it is not always wrong. What is thought of as supporting evidence today may well not be supported tomorrow due to other discovered evidence.

I say this because scientists do not know everything there is to know in this world. Fossil records are good evidence but they do not tell the whole story - Why? Because we do not know the whole story.

It seems that some people are forgetting that this world is not black and white (science or christianity). It is a mixture of grey areas. This happens to be one of the greyest!

BTW, hold your first born in your arms and tell me you don't believe in miracles!

Post by **dANdeLION** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:35 pm

But, why does everybody use the term "Scientifically proven fact" then? I'm soooo confused......

Post by **caamora** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:37 pm

That is what is known as a "fallacy." A fallacy is an error in reasoning. You will find that the word "proven" is mostly used in advertising.

And, btw, read my signature!

Post by **dANdeLION** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:51 pm

caamora wrote:BTW, hold your first born in your arms and tell me you don't believe in miracles!

I remember doing this, and thinking very much the same thing. Then he started crying LOUDLY for three hours straight (from 3 to 6 a.m.)......what a way to start a life!

Post by **danlo** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:03 pm

dAN wrote:But, why does everybody use the term "Scientifically proven fact"?

Cause we're idiots?

Post by **dANdeLION** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:06 pm

Very Good! And what weighs the same as an idiot?

Post by **danlo** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:14 pm

A Henway?

Post by **caamora** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:50 pm

A duck!

Post by **dANdeLION** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:59 pm

caamora wrote:A duck!

YES!!!

Post by **danlo** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:35 pm

"AFLAC!!!"

Post by **[Syl]** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:51 pm

If science doesn't prove anything (and God refuses to offer proof), then nothing can be proven. Everything is gray, everything is relative. We really don't work like that, though. If we did, forensic science would be useless, just to name one example.

Post by **Zephalephelah** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:38 am

Caer Sylvanus wrote:If science doesn't prove anything (and God refuses to offer proof), then nothing can be proven. Everything is gray, everything is relative. We really don't work like that, though. If we did, forensic science would be useless, just to name one example.

That's very interesting.

Let me offer you my opinion.
If you believe it, then it is a fact.

Post by **caamora** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:46 am

If science doesn't prove anything (and God refuses to offer proof), then nothing can be proven. Everything is gray, everything is relative. We really don't work like that, though. If we did, forensic science would be useless, just to name one example.

Syl, correction: It's not that we don't work like that, but we don't like to work like that. For the most part, we are much more comfortable with black and white because then we know what to expect - it gives us security in our world. Grey areas are just that - grey. We cannot see a definite answer and that bothers us. We like everything to be neat and clean. We want answers. Science gives us probable answers. But what is today's truth may be tomorrow's myth. Today's oxygen may be tomorrow's phlogystin.

Forensic science is fairly accurate but it is not exact because we, as humans, are fallible. I do not doubt the accuracy of science, per se. But, I keep an open mind because who know what will be discovered tomorrow.

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:50 am

Some people are comfortable with black and white.

Zeph, could you clarify your "if you believe it, it's a fact" statement?

Post by **caamora** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:56 am

I would like to see that, Lord Foul!

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Scientists attempt to disprove God’s existence