Science 'versus' God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Prof, old buddy,

Does it make you feel good or superior when you attack a person's faith Austin?

We are getting bogged down here by the presumptions of bad content that isn’t even happening, nor will it be. Some may cry and some may be happy and enlightened. The truth just is; it isn’t out to hurt anyone.


So I have Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein on my side, and you have Dumbkins.

Einstein's position has both pro and con votes. Anyway, it’s not really a matter of votes. If it was, the Earth might have still been flat with the sun going around it. There’s no need to burn idea holders at the stake anymore. Ideas can be freely explored now.

Getting upset or gathering votes doesn’t really address the testing of a theory. Only evidence counts.


Hi Mel, you dancing jiterbug lady,

Also if you say science will disprove god, then why haven't they done it by now?

They did; that’s what I’ll be presenting.


I thought of another attribute of the common Theity:

7) God places a soul in every human. Naturally this soul is invisible, but, amazingly, that does not exclude it from science.

This notion of soul ranges from a little spark which is the same for all to a complete duplication of the brain and its memories, learnings and associations that makes us unique as a self. If the soul can do it all, though, we might wonder about nature’s huge biological investment in a brain which wouldn’t even be needed.

We are not concerned here, however, about the exact scope of the soul. The core belief is just that there is a soul in only us particular mammals that are of the sapiens variety.

[labelwench]

From the point of view of an observer, this "trailer" is getting longer than the proposed presentation.

Or perhaps, Austin and all of the others are giving us a demonstration of "eternity", which for some may begin to feel like "purgatory", whereby we can also revisit the concept of Satan?

Regards all,
Labelwench

P.S.- Send me a PM when it finally gets to "Show Time". My goodness! I wouldn't want to miss the premiere event of the millinium!

[austintorn@aol.com]

this "trailer" is getting longer than the proposed presentation

It is only fair of me to address any sidelines now rather than all at once later on… Posters don't usually like their rsponses to be ignored.

Should I prolong the scientific proof of God’s nonexistance as in Tina’s ‘Root of Evil’ thread so that various sidelines can help lay a foundation for science and education? Not that she did this unnessarily, as we saw and will see.

Well, yes and no, for the prolonging is not just a ploy to add suspense, although it does initiate creative thinking for all, the best source and experience being worked through by one’s self rather than just flatly put forth by another with the preliminary studies that attend, but also necesarily to help us all get through things that would only always come up later anyway. Better to gradually resolve and achieve some consistency and agreement little by little than leaping way ahead without showing the steps.

Anyway, I’m thinking weeks rather than years. The 'Root of Evil' thread was a different case for different reasons.

I already know the analysis of the scientific proof, so I'm not really just waiting and hoping for a solution to appear. Plus, in the meanwhile, other proofs are arising, too—and so the more the better.

[labelwench]

Thank you for your response, Austin.

There are many other threads of interest. When you do get around to making your case, be there any substance found, then shall the universe resound, of that have no doubt, hence now, 'tis off and about.

Regards,

Labelwench

[melanie]

I already know the analysis of the scientific proof, so I'm not really just waiting and hoping for a solution to appear. Plus, in the meanwhile, other proofs are arising, too—and so the more the better.

But even if you already know the analysis of the scientific proof... how could you prove that?

And if there are other proofs arising, then that is just like being at the fair-ground where these rides aren't working anymore.
So let's have fun in the hall of mirrors instead

[melanie]

Better to gradually resolve and achieve some consistency and agreement little by little than leaping way ahead without showing the steps.

I think that is exactly what this forum is all about austin.

Posters are showing the way with their little baby steps, i hear the pitter patter of tiny feet expressed on this thread don't you?

Eventually the tiny feet will grow into a big toed foot.

Remember there was only one set of footprints in the sand.

[austintorn@aol.com]

So let's have fun in the hall of mirrors instead

Yes, the fun is an attractive point. You are quite a fun person.


I think that is exactly what this forum is all about austin. Eventually the tiny feet will grow into a big toed foot


That's a good one; right on!


Well, it's on to the old eyeball…

[austintorn@aol.com]

as a result of blind chance or necessity.

Prof, Revisiting a sideline to address this, the Intelligent Design of ‘Creation Science’ and ‘Irreducible Complexity’…

About "chance"…
(it is not correct to suppose that chance
is the alternative to Intelligent Design)…

It proclaimed, “I am the God of Intelligent Design. I was discerned when the Creationists noted an inexplicable complexity in Nature and so promulgated the theory that Nature must have a Grand Designer, for how could it have come about merely by chance?”

I replied, “You’re right about chance, but wrong about chance, for very little greatness, if any, comes about by mere chance, especially not some giant leap in one bound up the sheer cliff side of Richard Dawkins’ Mt. Improbable—to find on top the great complexity of something like the eye that you show; however, it is an error to suppose that Chance is the alternative to Intelligent Design. Natural Selection is the means of your Design; it, unlike a one-shot chance, is a cumulative effect that winds and climbs slowly and gently around the other side of Mt, Improbable to eventually arrive at the great height of complexity from which we can view the beautiful sights through the eye.”

“But the widespread Watchtower publications always say that biological designs were created by Me instead of by chance! Just look at these eyeballs and the optic system hanging behind them! How could that come about by chance?”

“You, like your followers, may listen, but do not hear. IDers deceive by this approach, whether they mean to or not. Chance is not the opposite of Nature’s design; the Evolution of the Species through gradual Natural Selection is the path to complexity. A flatworm has an optical system that only senses light and dark, but it sees no image; Nautilus has a ‘pinhole camera’ eye about as good as half a human eye, that sees but very blurry shapes; these are examples of vision at intermediate stages. ‘Rome’ can not be built in a day by chance—chance is not a likely designer at all! Really now, could a 747 be assembled by a hurricane blowing through Boeing’s warehouse of complete parts?”

“No, quite unlikely—that’s why we misleadingly use this 747 argument as a contrast to ID. So, then, Chance and Intelligent Design are not the two candidate solutions to the riddle posed by the Improbable? It’s not like a jackpot or nothing?”

“Your ID ideas persist, as all repetitions do, but, again, Chance, for one, is not a solution to the highly improbable Nature, and no sane anti-creationist or scientist ever said that it was. Intelligent Design is not a solution either—because it raises a bigger question than it solves, as You will see in a short while.”

“I’ll be darned. Natural selection is a good answer; it is a long and summative process, one which breaks the problem of improbability into small pieces, each of which is only slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so—the product of all of which would be far beyond the reach of chance. The Creationists have been looking only at the end product, thinking it a single event, not even understanding the power of accumulation. They didn’t know much else, not having any other ideas at all, so they outright claimed that God did it, namely Me.”

“You see the light of the accumulative power and elegance of Evolution.”

“But what is to become of Me? I only “exist” through the speculations of these Creationists. In fact, the improbability of Me is so HIGH, so much more so, compared to that of “simple” Nature, that My origin…”

“…is a near-infinitely LARGER problem for the Creationists, the kind that they love to hate, that is, You can therefore only be explained by a higher Intelligent Designer. Far from terminating the regress, You’ve aggravated it with a vengeance that is way beyond repair—as beyond as could ever be yonder of!”

With that, the poor Guy faded toward oblivion, which, remarkably, which was the very place I was visiting, and thus he soon reappeared, but in another guise:

“Hello, Austin, I am the God of Irreducible Complexity.”

“That you are—and so it shall become your downfall.”

“Eh?”

“Your believers have given You new clothes: Intelligent Design is falsely based on Irreducible Complexity now—I recognize You as the God of ID.”

“That I am is what I really am now.”

“Well, Darwin said long ago that his theory would break down if Irreducible Complexity were shown to be true, and, yet, no proposal or test has ever stood up to analysis.”

“Yet, here I am, alive by mere possibility, Myself indeed irreducibly complex—the be all and end all—the Prime Maker. I keep tabs on every form and particle of the Universe and its constituents that I designed. Simple I am NOT. Yes, I am an extremely complex system, yet I have no parts, for then My parts would be even more absolute than Me!”

“If you existed you would surely be very very very complex, and irreducibly so…”

“…so…”

“…so, by the Creationist Theory, You cannot be explained except by a larger ID.”

“I’m falling…”

“…into the hole that they dug for you.”



(Chance and Intelligent Design are not the two candidate solutions to the riddle posed by the Improbable)

Mario Beauregard and his co-author also attempted this "chance" business:

EVEN BEFORE WE REACH THE table of contents, the book has run afoul of reason, casting serious doubts upon the intellectual honesty of its authors.

The first sentence on the inside flap of the dust-jacket synopsis asks "Do religious experiences come from God, or are they merely the random firing of neurons in the brain?" Of course, confined strictly to those two options, one may even feel compelled to choose the former--but clearly the cards have been stacked. That neurons must fire in patterns seems intuitive.

But to present this as necessarily the product of God's divine will demands quite a bit of justification. The question is also eerily similar to the equally misrepresentative question often posed by Intelligent Design advocates: "Was life designed, or is it the product of mere random chance?" Available biographical information about the authors reveals this similarity as no coincidence ...

[melanie]

You're a fun person too austin .. in fact everyone is fun .. i am going to be an extremely loving person from now on.

Guess what. i've had another epiphany, it keeps on happening to me,
each one being bigger and better than the last one,
it's like there is no end to this ladder upwards .. that leads to nowhere.
Stairway to heaven i think it's called.

So yes, This conception never gives birth to anything less that itself.

Everyone is magnificent, if only they'd believe that.

Don't believe anything else just believe that you are magnificent, cos that's all that matters really.

[michael turner]

Hi Prof,

diatribe

Nope, wrong again, not a tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation, broadside, fulmination, or a condemnation, but a regular normal scientific analysis of the hypothesis of God.


as a result of blind chance or necessity.

We may visit the ID God as a sideline to clear up this misconception of the Creationist’s shady approaches like this.


you have Dumbkins.

Who’s that dumb guy?


attack a person's faith

I only search for truth.


So go ahead prove to me that God isn't good or loving

OK, if you wish, I’ll do a short sideline on that aspect.


knows you CAN"T disprove God,

Yes, it was thought that until recently.


only you and Hoyle believe in an eternal universe.

Not me, for indeed the universe was created when you say. Only the potential whence it came was eternal.


Though something or someone must be eternal to create our awesome universe.

True, a something.


Hi Mel,

Which alternative best fits the evidence?

I can do a sideline on the probability analysis to evaluate if God and not God is on an even footing. Note: it is far from 50-50.


people, animals, plants, trees, in every aspect of nature.

Yes, nature is nature.


I agree Austin. The ''Religions God'' is a pseudo God made up by the mind of imagination.

Yes, and that is another kind of great proof that we have also much examined and concluded, but mine will be the scientific evidence of no God.


Hi Dip,

Hi Austin, somehow you do not come across as the atheist type.

I like to write of magical happenings, but I know that they are made up and just stories. Also I enjoy life a lot.


Hello Caramel horse,

“Hey, lately I am talking to horses! Anyway, Caramel, the only mammals that have religion are the humans.”

A lovely conversation man and woman,
In the bible, God reveals a few attributes about God.
In Genesis, God says let us create man in our image, and then he creates man and woman.
For the Human race to continue, a child needs to be produced. So the minimum size of a family unit to continue to exist from generation to generation is Three.

In the new testament gosples, Jesus states to be
baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We are also taught that God's nature is 100% love and the Holy Spirit person of God is our comforter.
If you haven't understood yet, God is Love and God is his own family unit. In our human family unit, the mother plays the role as the image of the Holy Spirit, love and comfort to the family. A man and a woman each individually play all three roles, child, spouse, parent of the image of God.
The bible says that everything, the universe, was created was created by and through Christ, Jesus.
If Jesus created the universe, did he infuse the image of a family unit at all levels?
We as scientists have found one universe with three dimensions of space.
We as scientists have found elements
- naturally come in three forms, solid, liquid, gas
- are a composition of three descrete units, protons, neutrons, electrons
- the protons and neutrons can be broken down further into three quarks each.
At each level of discovery, we find a relationship of three that allows life to exist.
On Earth, in order to live, we need food, water, air.
Water, which naturally comes in solid, liquid, gas, and Christ used water for baptizism, in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

So did God create the universe, is there evidence? Yes.
And I believe it leads the way to the Theory of Everything.

Here, I believe is God's framework to the theory
One universe of three dimensions in which time, space and gravity ( three actions) are actions of matter, (stored energy) naturally decaying via the gravitational wave, create space.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Turner