Science 'versus' God?

[greenbug]

Prison.. Removing a person from society because their actions threaten the safety and welfare of others.

A child learns morals when they are young from their parents. If some how these principles were not supported and reinforced they are forgotten. We can learn when we are adults but at a slower pace, it is harder to grow the necessary connections with out support.

A jail or prison doesn’t support the mind correctly. We end up spending money from society to support a system or reform that doesn’t work correctly. Personally I think some one who is serving time must earn their keep and repay society at the same time. As well as be taking classes on aspects of their crime, not to learn how to do it better but to understand society and how to better them selves in such an environment.

Some prisoners who do not want to earn their keep, take rehabilitating classes or learn from their mistakes can never be reformed to fit in society and should be given the choice to die or commit. Second time offenders should be given the same opportunities. After this, if more offences are committed, then nothing that can be done for them. At this point if they have spent more then twenty years in jail they should be executed.

I am a liberal at heart but we need to accept our limits. I’m not saying my thoughts on this aren’t open for suggestion or subjective to change, they are. I’m just saying this is the way I currently see things.
Sorry isn’t this off topic?..

[Mikal]

Hi GB...you say your thoughts on this are open for suggestion and subjective to change so lets take the phrase, "to protect society" to a higher level of complexity.

When the highest office in a nation declares war on what is seen as an offending nation, the command that thou shalt not kill becomes now that thou shalt kill. Now with the okay to kill, the regard to protect society is disregarded totally without realizing an offending nation is a politicised notion and its societal mass is quite innocent of the nation idea....

Are we living in a double statement where something as simple as a uniform makes killing okay, makes this kind of violence okay and sees this display of anti-social violent nature as okay and then there is the assurance that one will not be incarcerated for this display.....

At this level the phrase "to protect society" becomes obliterated and then we wonder why it is that humans kill so easily....


Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi Prof,

This is your quote from another thread:

For an atheist like Austin to knock God is a paradox. How do you knock something which to you, doesn't exist. Again you may knock or criticize certain beliefs, people may have regarding God. But to knock God, when you profess not to believe in God, confuses me, because that person who would do that is confused

Of course I am not insulting or knocking God, for he doesn't exist.

Amazingly, I will be proving the non-existence of God right here in this thread, in a periodic series, using science.

YES, you read it right. There are no typos above.

Nor do I 'knock', but only provide sensible logic. 'Knocking' is but a ploy of a recourse for those who can't provide clear detail.

So, be not confused. The hypothesis of God will be shown to be a failure, which necessarily includes 'God', as well; that is, He cannot exist.

Stay tuned.

[Mikal]

God’s existence can be found in clues that the science of quantum physics reveals.

Amit Goswami PHD-Theoretical Quantum Physicist...


Science must be reaching a state of division in how they see things...


Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

I read Amit and have considered it.

As for science, it too, is reaching the absolute fundamental, but in a way not recognizable to religion's 'God'.

[Mikal]

Hi Austin...I believe it is a complete fallacy that God must be attached to a religion or a church. These things are man-made and constructed and it was man who placed God in the details. I also think religion was an Age of learning for mankind and of course with a change in Age those structures are being de-constructed now as we speak....

I like Amit's work and I do believe as he says the clues to God are to be found within quantum physics. So to speak, we should search out the clues, do you not think???


Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yes, Mikal, inquiry is always open to science. That is what they do. They don't halt all inquiry at 'XYZ did it' (i.e., case closed).

And never fear that my disproof of God shall not be complete. I will not be dwelling on or regarding any variances of religious details among the Faiths, but will be disproving the Theity—anyone's. We all know what a Theity is, but I will still put out a definition.

The complete sage will take weeks, maybe months, here. We will, sep by step, arrive at a stable point, then build upon that, etc.

Will put some definitions and identify the problem next time, but this will not yet be the scientific proof portion at all, but preliminaries.

I will even triple prove God's nonexistance, the science portion actually being quite sufficient in and of itself, but, even from again from other angles as well…

[Profpat]

OK Austin, I'm curious to see how with science or logic you are going to disprove God. It has to be succinct however, if it's too wordy I'm not reading it. And no blah, blah, your subjective arguments.

As far as I'm concerned probability theory almost proves the existence of God.

What is the chance of a universe manifesting from essentially nothing. And not just a universe but an ordered and beautiful universe.

What is the chance for life. For all we know this Planet Earth may be it. The only proof and evidence of life in our universe. Sorry no space aliens.

And the diversity of life from a microbe, in which trillions are in/on you now, to a life form as large as the Great Barrier Reef. From under the seas, to in and on the ground, To in the air, everywhere LIFE.

And aware life, intelligent life, life that comes equiped with a moral code and asks the question WHY?

OPEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR MIND AUSTIN!!!!!

Best,

Pat

P.S. Even Darwin had to accept probability of an Intelligent Designer.

[Mikal]

Yes, Mikal, inquiry is always open to science. That is what they do. They don't halt all inquiry at 'XYZ did it' (i.e., case closed).

And never fear that my disproof of God shall not be complete. I will not be dwelling on or regarding any variances of religious details among the Faiths, but will be disproving the Theity—anyone's. We all know what a Theity is, but I will still put out a definition.

The complete sage will take weeks, maybe months, here. We will, sep by step, arrive at a stable point, then build upon that, etc.

Will put some definitions and identify the problem next time, but this will not yet be the scientific proof portion at all, but preliminaries.

I will even triple prove God's nonexistance, the science portion actually being quite sufficient in and of itself, but, even from again from other angles as well…

Hi Austin...although I do not understand your persistence to eliminate God from the equation of creation and life, I will not judge you because I am not here to judge....

The one thing remarkable to me about life is that through mine I began with only faith in God and then went to knowing there is a God which is entirely inwardly experiential and is a far cry from believing in God....

Maybe you have not had an opportunity yet to know this although I wonder when you love why you do not realize that, that beautiful expression comes from a higher and deeper place called God....


Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks, Mikal. I search for truth, wherever it leads. If it leads to God, I would open my arms to Him. There is no hidden agenda driving my search for truth, for that would only distort the quest, as in perhaps some of the religious (not meaning you).


Now, will I be disproving any old God such as the hundreds of ‘sure things’ who have already been abandoned as failures?

No, too easy, plus it’s already been done.


What about new and little known quirky sideline dime-a-dozen gods of crazy cults?

Nope, at least not now.


I will be disproving the Judeo-Christian—Islamic Theity—the Main Man. (Note that Christian is much more than Catholic.)


Will I be seizing upon obviously contradictory and non-rational differences and variances in dogma such as Allah has a direct interest in women’s clothing’ or Jesus did/didn’t have a Divine nature?

No, for the disproof of those aspects of the ‘dogma’ is too easy, for they contradict one another.


And, yes, the hypothesis of this God is indeed open to scientific investigation, as hard as that may be to believe now.


I will focus only on disproving the common bulk of the belief of most of the entire world of what the Theity is, among some of which definitions are:

1) God has mind.

2) God is involved in every happening, every interaction. Nothing goes on all by itself without God.

3) God is everywhere.

(So, ‘anywhere’ of this everywhere is where we may might look.)

4) We are God’s special creation.

5) God listens to our thoughts.

6) God operates from a supernatural dimension.


(I may even go on to disprove any supernatural or nonmaterial effects from anything anywhere. I will also provide disproofs for any impossible and self-contradicting Gods)


Anyone want to contribute more on what a Theity is known to be by common 'knowledge'?


(next time: some more preliminaries about what a belief really is, but not yet will this be the scientific disproof of God.)