Science 'versus' God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Mikal,

You brought up Hoyle's fine-tuning and these kind of guys before and I refuted it, even in particular Hoyle's Carbon fine-tuning argument for Carbon. Times change, new info comes in, and did. Review the fine-tuning disproof and cite why I am wrong in particular for each or any part. Same with the rest of the disproofs. Just having someone say words doesn't do anything, some very old words at that. I might as well just 'proclaim' a multiverse, too.

[Profpat]

Austin;

As I pointed out to you before, the greatest minds that walked the planet Earth, all of them seekers of truth, believed in God.

Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Our Founding Fathers, Darwin, Einstein, all believed in God for a very good reason. I hope you become aware of their insight. It is self evident.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Prof, They did the best they could with the information they had. Einstein's God didn't play dice, but Deities did; Darwin, although once a divinity student lost faith; he also showed that the immutability of the species was not true; the founding fathers disowned the Theity; Newton, although just plain weird, showed that no guiding hand supported motion, since what was in motion stayed in motion; Einstein had us look high and low, finding no Theity or Deity anywhere (he believed only in Spinoza's god of pantheism that was a tautology with nature, G=N); Aristotle erred in many areas by guessing wrong what science would find out.

Votes based on no facts don't count any more now that the Earth being flat or being in the center of all (which Galileo showed to be false, obtaining house arrest).


Mikal,

Show those quoters the new info on fine-tuning and get back to me; their quotes preceded it. If I could change my view based on new information, so could they.

Now, how was the 'ethical center' located not to be in the brain? The proof please.

Is it that the brain does nothing (prove) or that there is a soul (prove). Or just that someone said it with no proof?

Let's face it: faith is the belief in the invisible unknown, as even admitted by believers. Then, amazingly, umpteen further levels of beliefs are then heaped upon it. This belief is not reasonable, but ever explainable by natural selection inducing beliefs in nature spirits. The mythic age is ending. The invisible flying spaghetti monster is dead.

[melanie]

Illusions 'appear' within the 'real' apparently, we know this and can observe that proof in a magicians magic trick.

So, the question is, is the 'illusion' appearing within the real--real or unreal??

When we understand that analogy we will come to know that all there is is this self-shining self-evident raw seeing/perception truth.

All else is just an irrelevant lie/belief.

[Profpat]

Austin;

All I can do is to hope that one day you too will become Enlightened like the one's I mentioned and comprehend the self evident truth.

Best,

Pat

P.S. It helps to have an open mind.
P.P.S. I believe the most recent evidence science has to offer is that the universe is a CREATED universe.

[Vanamali]

Why should one bring two different things together? Science is that method of explaining the events and phenomena which can be observed directly or indirectly by human beings whereas God is an abstract concept created by the human mind. It is absolutely wrong and senseless to think such a thing. Won't it mean that God also faces the fate similar to the the materialistic beings in the universe? It makes no sense to categorize God similar to a material in the universe.

[jamison2000e]

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guideline." - Bertrand Russell.

Lloyd

Perhaps this will happen around the same time some now unnecessary instinctive drives come under control and too fade away.

[Profpat]

Hi Vanamali;

Welcome to the Toequest Forum. I hope you find your visits both enjoyable and rewarding.

I agree with what you are saying; in that the Title to this thread is Science 'versus' God. I don't believe that is the case, rather it's science vs organized religion. I have no problem with God but do have some with organized religion. I guess I agree with much of the wisdom that Thomas Payne had regarding the topic:

In his seminal work: The Age of Reason Payne wrote:

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
"But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Islam], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
"I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."

[Mikal]

Prof, They did the best they could with the information they had. Einstein's God didn't play dice, but Deities did; Darwin, although once a divinity student lost faith; he also showed that the immutability of the species was not true; the founding fathers disowned the Theity; Newton, although just plain weird, showed that no guiding hand supported motion, since what was in motion stayed in motion; Einstein had us look high and low, finding no Theity or Deity anywhere (he believed only in Spinoza's god of pantheism that was a tautology with nature, G=N); Aristotle erred in many areas by guessing wrong what science would find out.

Votes based on no facts don't count any more now that the Earth being flat or being in the center of all (which Galileo showed to be false, obtaining house arrest).


Mikal,

Show those quoters the new info on fine-tuning and get back to me; their quotes preceded it. If I could change my view based on new information, so could they.

Now, how was the 'ethical center' located not to be in the brain? The proof please.

Is it that the brain does nothing (prove) or that there is a soul (prove). Or just that someone said it with no proof?

Let's face it: faith is the belief in the invisible unknown, as even admitted by believers. Then, amazingly, umpteen further levels of beliefs are then heaped upon it. This belief is not reasonable, but ever explainable by natural selection inducing beliefs in nature spirits. The mythic age is ending. The invisible flying spaghetti monster is dead.

Man throughout the whole of history has been capable of moral struggle. Before Darwin made man an animal man was always seen as dominated by his human nature and a moral sense.


All early human history was replete with unanalyzed and unformulated moral struggles. Concretely we mean personal morality, courage, industriousness, self-control, prudence and temperance.

The words (right/wrong/duty) and languages presuppose that man has the power of reflection and abstraction.

Morality in a narrow sense is conscious obedience to moral law.
Morality in a larger sense is a conscious struggle to acquire an inner ethical center.

Reflections of morality in Nature
Ants and Bees>Industriousness
Camels and Birds>Prudence, the camel fills himself with water to last for many desert days. Birds build their nest with remarkable ingenuity and pains, out of the reach of invaders.
Lions> courage, a mother will attack a predator and lure it away from young cubs.

There may be said to be five stages in the history of moral guidance; guidance by instinct, by custom, by law and precept, by conscience and by insight.

Our conscience and our insight have their roots far back in the past.


Mikal

[jamison2000e]

Sorry guys, but only a-theism has the true capacity to see the whole moral truth___Fact, not opinion... Fact, and not opinion, comes from one's natural moral innate sense of universal justice, by the aggregate of all statistical numbers' functions...

Beliefs/opinions can never be mathematically just, as they're always differentiations...

Lloyd

Dam opinions, what exactly are opinions? A search for truth maybe, some good, some bad, some shared, many destine for frailer, conflict, some used as or becoming actual facts? Is religion an opinion or how about what your doctor tells you to do? What would the world be like without opinions?