Post Reply
Page 23 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Spirituality in the Scientific World
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 12:56PM #221
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,683


...Just cite one modern physics (scientific) paper in a reputable peer-reviewed "journal of science"that seriously entertains any notion of supernatural beings (spirit beings) and their magic (creation and/or influence thereon), and I'll pubicly eat my hat...


AND you may not use any seasonings with your feast !!~(Google: Scientist God)


www.godandscience.org/apologetics/scienc...


www-mtl.mit.edu/~penfield/pubs/god-scien... ...MIT lecture series


www.dlshq.org/messages/sciblgod.htmPresi... of the New York Academy of Sciences


www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belie... ...
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities,
asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices...The results?


www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/08/p... ...


The big hope for finding the "Higgs boson"
- the particle that confers mass on the rest of matter -
is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, Europe's particle physics laboratory, near Geneva.
By crunching together particles at high speed and energy, the machine is designed to recreate conditions that have not existed since just after the (theoretical) "Big Bang".
"This is a Genesis machine," said theoretical physicist Professor Michio Kaku, of City University in New York.
"This machine will help us to unlock the secret of the origin of the universe."...the so-called "God particle"


en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yann_Martel


...Love is hard to believe, ask any lover.
Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist.
God is hard to believe, ask any believer.
What is your problem with "hard to believe"?...


omdelhi.hubpages.com/hub/Religion-and-Sc... ...
...Religion and science both are important in life.
Over the years, religion has been a code of conduct for life and a body of beliefs and good advice.
Science has helped man to live in modern times and make progressive actions.
Both religion and science thus contribute to the development of mankind.
It is hard to imagine one without the other.
The interconnecting relationship can perfectly be explained by the fact that,
religion is scientific, and
science is religious....


USA News:
The government is losing its gene guru: Dr. Francis Collins,
who helped lead the breakthrough unraveling of the human genetic code
-- and found common ground between the belief in God and science -- is resigning.


www.univforum.org/pdf/why_scientist_God_.... Francis Collins explains!


...“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of SCIENCE becomes convinced that a SPIRIT is manifest in the laws of the universe
—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious FEELING of a special sort,
which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”...Albert Einstein...FROM: "Nobel Scientists and God"


...SEE also: nobelists.net
AND...http://scigod.com/file/SGJ_V1(3).pdf


Scientists searching for a 'God spot' in the brain have found three areas that control religious belief. A study of 40 participants, including Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists,
showed  the same areas lit up when they were asked to ponder religious and moral problems.
MRI scans revealed the regions that were activated are those used every day ....to interpret the feelings and intentions of other people.
...Scientists, philosophers and theologians continue to argue about whether religious belief is a biological or a sociological phenomenon.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-...


'God gene' discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory...
Dr Hamer insisted that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God. He pointed out:
"Religious believers can point to the existence of "god genes" as one more sign of the creator's ingenuity
- a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1476575/...


www.liveleak.com/view?i=543_1223490316
Top Scientists' Comments on Scientific Miracles
...found in the Quran
Category : # Faith and Science #


www.knowledgesutra.com/discuss/tmmmmd-sc...


I Am a Scientist And I Believe In God - ....Believer Scientists
www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edg... ...numerous scientists explain their unproven "BELIEFS"
God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: ....Scientists Take a Leap..Published: January 4, 2005
QUESTION: "What do you BELIEVE is TRUE... even though you cannot PROVE it?"


"The Science of God" by Dr. Gerald L Schroeder
According to physicist Gerald Schroeder,
beneath the harsh and seemingly irreconcilable conflicts which have arisen between believers in science and people of faith,
science has quietly been converging with some essential biblical truths.
In this book, Schroeder demonstrates how some of the latest scientific discoveries actually confirm key verses of the Bible.


A God and scientist joke?


"God and the Scientist"


God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,


"God, we don't need you anymore.
Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing
- in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."


"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.


"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."


"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."


So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.


"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 1:24PM #222
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,395

Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


A God and scientist joke?


"God and the Scientist"


God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,


"God, we don't need you anymore.
Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing
- in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."


"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.


"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."


"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."


So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.


"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."...





Pretty sad story here. Haven't you ever seen people make dirt? If you've ever made compost and added minerals and other substances to it, then you've made your own dirt.


I do it; lots of others do it. We make our own dirt. Try it sometime.


 

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 1:32PM #223
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,395

You have some flaws here. Let me correct them.


Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.


Natural selection isn't really "undirected." That means that natural selection, or even evolution, could be the "designer" you are looking for.


If not that, then "apparent design" itself could be the designer. You are laboring under the notion that a designer must be different from design itself; you should consider that they may be the same thing.


Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.


As noted earlier, ID is not scientific. It does not offer a usable definition of intelligence. Without that definition, there is nothing to work with.


When the ID folks offer up a definition of design that really works, then we'll have a real debate here. 


Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case


I don't think this is true. Intelligent design is looking for some kind of a designer. That makes it basically the same thing as a creator. I think that's why people lump ID and creationism together.


www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php


 





There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 1:38PM #224
REteach
Posts: 14,555

You know, I personally believe there is something called God out there in, through and beyond the universe who crafted and set off the Big Bang.  However, I understand that is a personal belief and should not be taught as science as there is not and never will be proof.  God is by definition supernatural and beyond the testing required for something to be the purview of science.


IMO confusing religion and science only creates bad science and bad religion.


 


combining bad science and bad religion is even worse.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 7:05PM #225
Faustus5
Posts: 2,022

Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.


Nonsense on stilts, as demonstrated by the very words of the movement's leaders themselves:


Philip Johnson:


"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."


"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."


William Dembski:


"[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."


"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."


Paul Nelson:


"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" - but as yet no general theory of biological design."


There's a lot more where that came from.


Also, in the Dover trial, Michael Behe, the only proponent of ID with any significant, credible scientific background, admitted under oath that for intelligent design to count as science, we would have to lower scientific standards so that astrology counted as science.


Intelligent design is not science. It is a political sham to force religion into public schools.


Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:32AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.


Honest critics of intelligent design know their facts.


In the Dover trial, it emerged that the creationist text book Of Pandas and Thumbs was changed after the creationists lost a major battle in court on the grounds that it was a religious doctrine. The change consisted merely of replacing each instance of "creationism" within the text to "intelligent design", their new brand following the lost legal battle.


So, no, you have things backwards: identifying intelligent design as just creationism under another label is not merely a rhetorical strategy on the part of the scientific community, it is a recognition that cynically, even the leaders of the ID movement know they are the same, hence the re-labeling in the pages of their most famous text.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 7:48PM #226
koala972
Posts: 865

Apr 19, 2012 -- 1:24PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


A God and scientist joke?


"God and the Scientist"


God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him,


"God, we don't need you anymore.
Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing
- in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."


"Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.


"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."


"Well, that's very interesting...show Me."


So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.


"No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."...





Pretty sad story here. Haven't you ever seen people make dirt? If you've ever made compost and added minerals and other substances to it, then you've made your own dirt.


I do it; lots of others do it. We make our own dirt. Try it sometime.


 




that's a logical faux pau because if you follow the story it follows that compost and everything it takes to make it also would originate from God, so you still can't have your own dirt.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 8:11PM #227
koala972
Posts: 865

Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:31AM, Blü wrote:


Further, no examinable evidence suggests, let alone demonstrates, that supernatural beings (as described by various theological concepts) or magic (the power to alter reality independently of the rules of physics, in particular by wishing) have objective existence.


If they don't have objective existence then the only thing they can be is imaginary.




You jump from the statement "no examinable evidence suggests" to "therefore they have no objective existance".  Now if you want to infer the latter from the former for reasons such as the most efficient explanation given the former is the latter I won't argue the point.  But logic doesn't dictate or even support such negative inferences.  Since there is no rational way to get from point A to point B in this case what you've said can't be other than a statement of preference.  So if you are going to say this you can't also seriously expect me to accept your claim that you are being rational over my claim that you are merely making a statement of preference. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 8:19PM #228
Blü
Posts: 24,928

Koala


that's a logical faux pau because if you follow the story it follows that compost and everything it takes to make it also would originate from God, so you still can't have your own dirt.


So the god in the story is claiming to have created matter and energy, that is, not to be made of matter / energy itself.


Which means the god in the story is physically non-existent, hence at best imaginary.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 9:38PM #229
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,683

What flavor hat did you eat?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 19, 2012 - 11:01PM #230
Blü
Posts: 24,928

Rgurley


Since none of your links is a peer-reviewed paper taking seriously the idea of supernatural beings in physics, I was going to ask you the same question.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook