Science 'versus' God?

[N0B0DY]

Pretty good explanation, Lloyd, but if I'm not mistaken the point is that god is in the test tube because god is both the test tube and the FPS as well as its functioning. Perhaps similar to anthropomorphic pantheism.

[dleviwing]

I don’t care how passionate one may believe in a creator or how much dope induced illusion inspire them. BELIEF IS NOT SCIENCE so don’t imply you are talking science unless you have the EVIDENCE to support what you say.

NO EVIDENCE – NO SCIENCE. Is it really that difficult to comprehend the difference between methodology (science) and theology (religion)? You CAN’T MIX THEM!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'm not trying to change your mind, because I know that is impossible. I am just trying to make you and others understand that there are those of us who look deeper into the makeup of reality. We are not believers in a God sitting on a cloud passing judgement. We are believers that the fundamental substance of the Universe is a God wavelength. This God is not thinking laudy-da thoughts, but is expressing itself through 'Creation'. "God/Universe", is "Aware".

Been there, done that...

When you add "god", you simply add the confusion of illusion. Lose the illusions/dillusions, and find the science, and true spirit of self-scientific-awareness...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

They're not being mixed is the point, guys, they are being equated. So the evidence of science is the evidence of god because the interpretation of the evidence is being anthropomorphicized. The functioning observed in science is the functioning of god, the stuff of the universe is the stuff of god's body, the laws of science are the laws of god, etc..

You don't have to believe it, but I think it helps to understand the correlation of god being within all people and all people being within god...all people being within the universe and the universe being within all people.

[N0B0DY]

"When you add "god", you simply add the confusion of illusion. Lose the illusions/dillusions, and find the science, and true spirit of self-scientific-awareness..."

To be fair, Lloyd, there has been much confusion without invoking god as well. Scientists have to trying to discern the exact properties of the universe for hundreds of years, with increasing confusion the more one uncovers. To the point of learning that the more one learns, the more one learns that there is much more to learn.

Your brain, and its functioning, can be a gleam within a larger system of intelligent functioning; and that larger system can be yet another gleam comaparitive to a yet larger-scaled system, correct?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I didn't start this thread, RP did. I'm only showing the illusions/dillusions of the non-existing, other than the self-deluded spiritual ego...

Just as Dave stated; "BELIEF IS NOT SCIENCE so don’t imply you are talking science unless you have the EVIDENCE to support what you say.

NO EVIDENCE – NO SCIENCE. Is it really that difficult to comprehend the difference between methodology (science) and theology (religion)? You CAN’T MIX THEM!" I concur...

Lloyd

"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.

p.s.
old post: "God", as religion and most interpret it, is mathematically and logically impossible, and provably so... Any single state mechanics is a mathematical impossible, and since most interpret "god" as an absolute "One" state, {a single state mathematical system___"One"} this mono-state mechanics is an absolute mathematical and logical impossibility. Sorry, just the logical and mathematical facts... My mother lost this argument way back in 1962, and there's a hundred other ways to logically and mathematically prove the above point...

"One minus the many, is absolutely impossible. One plus the many, is the highest probability, of the highest possibility, thus the only possibility___and the real universe, we actually live in..." me

One universe, that is, of many parts... The parts create the whole, the whole doesn't create the parts... The whole is the parts... No dillusions___Just science...

The word "god" implies nothing but illusion, Nobody... No science, just illusion... Science requires___No illusion... So, we have nothing but a battle between illusion and fact... I'll take the facts, thanks...

[N0B0DY]

"God", as religion and most interpret it, is mathematically and logically impossible, and provably so..."

As it is interpreted, Lloyd, that being the operative word. Then, if interpreted scientifically in an unorthodox fashion, it should then be mathematically and logically consistent with scientific interpretations of the universe.

Science is knowledge, but believing that you know and actually knowing are two different states of intelligence. Scientists have been arguing over base concepts for years, Lloyd, so there seems to be no orthodox gathering of scienitifc reasoning evident.

[dleviwing]

They're not being mixed is the point, guys, they are being equated. So the evidence of science is the evidence of god because the interpretation of the evidence is being anthropomorphicized. The functioning observed in science is the functioning of god, the stuff of the universe is the stuff of god's body, the laws of science are the laws of god, etc..

This simply tells me you either do not fully comprehend what science means or you are part of the religious groups that are attempting to render science meaningless. Science and religion can function side by side but never within each other unless empirical evidence is provided for the existence of a god or deity; it IS that simple.

[N0B0DY]

As an aside, Lloyd, to follow you logic, using the term universe (one versus) may be a misnomer, given that the one whole is an impossibility, correct?

[N0B0DY]

"This simply tells me you either do not fully comprehend what science means or you are part of the religious groups that are attempting to render science meaningless. Science and religion can function side by side but never within each other unless empirical evidence is provided for the existence of a god or deity; it IS that simple."

Is it possible that you have missed the point of there not being any difference between the two when interpreted in a particular fashion, Dave?

I once asked an atheist, of the strictest kind, would you concede that god exists if god were to be the universe exactly as it is observed?

Do you see that there is no difference, Dave? Calling lightning a lightning god is just lightning being called a lightning god. The evidence for that god is lightning, and the same applies to the universe that is merely called god. It can be called whatever one wishes, but ask yourself why it is called "universe."

If the universe, in its entirety, can function exactly as you function by sharing information within a prescribed system, could the universe function as you do on a larger scale?