Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer is this correct one.
Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm") and to a rational getting to know this superior being with the use of modern scientific methods. This key turned out to be the "theory of everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see the web page named "dipolar_gravity.htm"). It is because of this "theory of everything", that I managed to determine where, when, and how the self- evolution of God took place. Outcomes of this determination are described in item #B1 of the web page "evolution.htm" - about problems of natural evolution. It is also because of this "theory of everything", that I managed to formulate several formal scientific proofs for the existence of God, immortal soul, other world, etc. These formal proofs are described: in item #B3 of the web page "god.htm" - about secular and scientific understanding of God (see in there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of God"), in item #C1.1 of the web page "nirvana.htm" - about the totaliztic nirvana (see in there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of eternal human soul"), in item #D3 of the web page "dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see in there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of the counter- world"), and in several further totaliztic web pages (see the web page named "totalizm.htm"). Only because of findings of this "theory of everything" I was also able to indicate to other people an entire wealth of empirical evidence for the existence of God, which (the scientific evidence) so-far was either overlooked, or intentionally ignored by the official human science. (Descriptions of this empirical evidence are provided in items #F1 to #F3 of the totaliztic web page "bible.htm" - about the Bible authorised by God Himself.)
When formulating these formal scientific proofs for the existence of God, and while researching God with scientific methods, I had numerous opportunities to have a close look at what would happen if all people unanimously recognised my proofs and rapidly started to believe (as strongly as I do) that God in fact does exist. A positive consequence of such a rapid converting of all atheists into the belief in God would be, of course, that almost instantly all people would begin to act morally. Means, that would disappear: crime, lies, cheating, killing, exploitation, wars, etc., etc. However, in the present situation of our civilisation, when people still just only "worship God" instead of researching Him and instead of obeying laws that He established, various undesirable consequences of such unanimous belief in God would also appear. Namely, almost completely would then diminish the accumulation of knowledge and the human motivation to investigate the universe. After all, in present circumstances, for so- called "typical bread eaters" the consequence of being sure that God does exist is to loose the motivations for investigating and for analysing the world around us. For every question about anything, for these ones who strongly believe in God is just a single reply, namely "because God created it so and He controls it in just such a manner". Believers in God notoriously keep ignoring the well-known principle that "God helps only those people who help themselves", and that by failing to act even saints get nowhere. In order to summarise the above, "typical consequences of increasing the faith in God in present circumstances are: an increase in morality of people, which is accompanied by the simultaneous decrease in knowledge, disappearance of scientific research, and the lack of motivation for creative searches".
Of course, if these are us who put ourselves in the position of God, we would NOT like the situation when all people believe in Us and all people worship Us, when all people act morally, but simultaneously the progress of knowledge and technology rapidly falls down. After all, in such a situation the human civilisation would never advance to a higher level of development. So in our interest as God, would lie finding a way to inspire in people somehow the creative searches and the increase in their knowledge. As it turns out, this way depends on persuading some people into the so-called "atheism". Atheists from the very definition are forced to find out which mechanisms hide behind events around them. After all, they negate God as the source of these mechanisms. As such, the "atheism" is the propelling force for the progress of knowledge and for the technical development of our civilisation. Unfortunately, the "atheism" has this drawback, that it causes also a moral decadency. This is because without believing in the existence of God and without believing in the existence of eternal soul, atheists try to gain from the life as much as they only can for as little as they manage to get away with. But since the morality stands on their way, then to hell with the morality. In order to summarise the above, "typical consequence of "atheism" is the increase of knowledge and the fast technical progress, which, however, is accompanied by the simultaneous drop in the level of morality amongst people".
Each one amongst two situations on the Earth described before has its drawbacks. Namely, if all people are believers in God, then the science, progress, and motivations of people to improve their situation would diminish on the Earth, while the average level of morality would increase. In turn, if all people on the Earth were atheists, then the science and technology would bloom, while the morality would fell down. The main reason is, that when something undesirable affects believers in God, these typically state that this is the "God's will" and do NOTHING to improve their situation. In turn when something undesirable affects atheists, then they try to determine what are reasons for this and then they fight with it. So what God should do in order to make the humanity to stay on the path of morality, but simultaneously people keep motivations to continue research, progress, and improvement of their situations. Well, on the present level of human awareness, the only choice is that "a correct balance between the number of people who believe in God, and the number of atheists, must be maintained on the Earth". Expressing this in other words, if someone puts himself into the position of God (means speaking scientifically - if someone would "simulate the situation of God") then he would discover easily that God to the same degree is interested in a correctly balanced propagation amongst present people both the "atheism" as well as the "belief in God". In turn the best evidence for this interest of God in a balanced propagation of both, atheism and the belief in God, is the so-called "free will" of people, and also the so-called "canon of ambiguity" which God displays in everything that He does. The "free will" which God gave to all people causes that each one of us has the right to interpret everything on any way that he or she wishes. In turn the "canon of ambiguity", which is embedded into every action of God, depends on such doing everything God decides to do, that every person can interpret later this God's action according to his or her own view of the world and according to his or her personal philosophy - means in any way that a given person wishes to interpret it. (Please notice that descriptions of the "canon of ambiguity" are provided in subsection JB7.4 from volume 7 of monograph [1/4] ?available free of charge from the totaliztic web page named "xext_1_4.htm".)
Unfortunately, the maintenance of the correct balance on the Earth between the number of atheists and the number of believers in God, is immensely difficult. After all, people display so-called "sheep mentality". Furthermore, on the Earth works inertia, fashion, tradition, etc. Therefore, every now and again this healthy balance becomes disturbed. So what God does in such cases. Well, he must take various corrective measures. What these measures are we already saw in the period of medieval times, and we also are starting to see it in the present time. After all, similarly like previously this happened already once near the end of antiquity, just recently again the disturbance of this healthy balance took place. In the result of this disturbed balance, the number of atheists grew to the level that it endangers the moral progress of humanity. So God again must intervene, and in fact He already intervenes. But He cannot appear openly in the sky and start to electrocute atheists with lightnings. After all this would destroy the "free will" of people - and thus would force every atheists to become a believer in God. In the result another fall down of progress in lifting knowledge and technology would take place in the future of the Earth. Therefore God have chosen another method for restoration of the balance. It is based on an old finding which is excellently expressed by the proverb which states that "there are no atheists amongst frightened". This method represents only a slight modification of the method that God already used once on the humanity during medieval times. In a short run it is going to turn very painful for individual people. But on a long run it is going to turn very beneficial for the entire human civilisation. The totaliztic web page named
...
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, > whether we have eternal soul,
I am not interested in those.
what is the goal of our existence, what
> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, > etc., etc.
Those are the impotant questions.
> I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of > questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and > others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I > managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also > identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer > is this correct one.
You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
> Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to > the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm")
The scientific understanding of God is "That isnt a question that can be meaningfully asked or tested".
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
One fine day in alt.atheism, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist,
I'm one of those who doesn't bother, given the lack of evidence available. Why did you cross post this into alt.atheism? Trolling?
-- Uncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Convicted by Earthquack.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: ...
> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
... Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is it from the time when your personal definition of what science should do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and also do answer, these type of questions. What even more important, my answers to these questions are based on scientifically verifiable evidence and on logical deductions. If you do not believe, then have a look at other threads that I am authorising, e.g. at the threads:
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:55:04 -0700 (PDT), janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: >... >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. >... >Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is
Where did you demonstrate there was anything to have questions about, in the real world outside your religion, moron?
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. > ... > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is > it from the time when your personal definition of what science should > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and > also do answer, these type of questions.
Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God? How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those results?
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: > ...> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions.
> ... > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific".
Think on this: You have in front of you two statues. One of them is regarded by the makers of the statue as holy - they sincerely believe that the divine is present in it - the other is an art work that no living person regards as holy. What scientific principle would you employ to distinguish the divine statue from the non divine statue.
> Is > it from the time when your personal definition of what science should > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and > also do answer, these type of questions.
Or you could be delusional.
> What even more important, my > answers to these questions are based on scientifically verifiable > evidence and on logical deductions. If you do not believe, then have a > look at other threads that I am authorising, e.g. at the threads:
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, > whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what > awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, > etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of > questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and > others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I > managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also > identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer > is this correct one.
> Probably I am the only researcher on the Earth who have found a key to > the scientific understanding of God (see the web page named "god.htm") > and to a rational getting to know this superior being with the use of > modern scientific methods. This key turned out to be the "theory of > everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see the web page > named "dipolar_gravity.htm"). It is because of this "theory of > everything", that I managed to determine where, when, and how the self- > evolution of God took place. Outcomes of this determination are > described in item #B1 of the web page "evolution.htm" - about problems > of natural evolution. It is also because of this "theory of > everything", that I managed to formulate several formal scientific > proofs for the existence of God, immortal soul, other world, etc. > These formal proofs are described: in item #B3 of the web page > "god.htm" - about secular and scientific understanding of God (see in > there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of God"), in item > #C1.1 of the web page "nirvana.htm" - about the totaliztic nirvana > (see in there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of > eternal human soul"), in item #D3 of the web page > "dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (see in > there the "formal scientific proof for the existence of the counter- > world"), and in several further totaliztic web pages (see the web page > named "totalizm.htm"). Only because of findings of this "theory of > everything" I was also able to indicate to other people an entire > wealth of empirical evidence for the existence of God, which (the > scientific evidence) so-far was either overlooked, or intentionally > ignored by the official human science. (Descriptions of this empirical > evidence are provided in items #F1 to #F3 of the totaliztic web page > "bible.htm" - about the Bible authorised by God Himself.)
> When formulating these formal scientific proofs for the existence of > God, and while researching God with scientific methods, I had numerous > opportunities to have a close look at what would happen if all people > unanimously recognised my proofs and rapidly started to believe (as > strongly as I do) that God in fact does exist. A positive consequence > of such a rapid converting of all atheists into the belief in God > would be, of course, that almost instantly all people would begin to > act morally. Means, that would disappear: crime, lies, cheating, > killing, exploitation, wars, etc., etc. However, in the present > situation of our civilisation, when people still just only "worship > God" instead of researching Him and instead of obeying laws that He > established, various undesirable consequences of such unanimous belief > in God would also appear. Namely, almost completely would then > diminish the accumulation of knowledge and the human motivation to > investigate the universe. After all, in present circumstances, for so- > called "typical bread eaters" the consequence of being sure that God > does exist is to loose the motivations for investigating and for > analysing the world around us. For every question about anything, for > these ones who strongly believe in God is just a single reply, namely > "because God created it so and He controls it in just such a manner". > Believers in God notoriously keep ignoring the well-known principle > that "God helps only those people who help themselves", and that by > failing to act even saints get nowhere. In order to summarise the > above, "typical consequences of increasing the faith in God in present > circumstances are: an increase in morality of people, which is > accompanied by the simultaneous decrease in knowledge, disappearance > of scientific research, and the lack of motivation for creative > searches".
> Of course, if these are us who put ourselves in the position of God, > we would NOT like the situation when all people believe in Us and all > people worship Us, when all people act morally, but simultaneously the > progress of knowledge and technology rapidly falls down. After all, in > such a situation the human civilisation would never advance to a > higher level of development. So in our interest as God, would lie > finding a way to inspire in people somehow the creative searches and > the increase in their knowledge. As it turns out, this way depends on > persuading some people into the so-called "atheism". Atheists from the > very definition are forced to find out which mechanisms hide behind > events around them. After all, they negate God as the source of these > mechanisms. As such, the "atheism" is the propelling force for the > progress of knowledge and for the technical development of our > civilisation. Unfortunately, the "atheism" has this drawback, that it > causes also a moral decadency. This is because without believing in > the existence of God and without believing in the existence of eternal > soul, atheists try to gain from the life as much as they only can for > as little as they manage to get away with. But since the morality > stands on their way, then to hell with the morality. In order to > summarise the above, "typical consequence of "atheism" is the increase > of knowledge and the fast technical progress, which, however, is > accompanied by the simultaneous drop in the level of morality amongst > people".
> Each one amongst two situations on the Earth described before has its > drawbacks. Namely, if all people are believers in God, then the > science, progress, and motivations of people to improve their > situation would diminish on the Earth, while the average level of > morality would increase. In turn, if all people on the Earth were > atheists, then the science and technology would bloom, while the > morality would fell down. The main reason is, that when something > undesirable affects believers in God, these typically state that this > is the "God's will" and do NOTHING to improve their situation. In turn > when something undesirable affects atheists, then they try to > determine what are reasons for this and then they fight with it. So > what God should do in order to make the humanity to stay on the path > of morality, but simultaneously people keep motivations to continue > research, progress, and improvement of their situations. Well, on the > present level of human awareness, the only choice is that "a correct > balance between the number of people who believe in God, and the > number of atheists, must be maintained on the Earth". Expressing this > in other words, if someone puts himself into the position of God > (means speaking scientifically - if someone would "simulate the > situation of God") then he would discover easily that God to the same > degree is interested in a correctly balanced propagation amongst > present people both the "atheism" as well as the "belief in God". In > turn the best evidence for this interest of God in a balanced > propagation of both, atheism and the belief in God, is the so-called > "free will" of people, and also the so-called "canon of ambiguity" > which God displays in everything that He does. The "free will" which > God gave to all people causes that each one of us has the right to > interpret everything on any way that he or she wishes. In turn the > "canon of ambiguity", which is embedded into every action of God, > depends on such doing everything God decides to do, that every person > can interpret later this God's action according to his or her own view > of the world and according to his or her personal philosophy - means > in any way that a given person wishes to interpret it. (Please notice > that descriptions of the "canon of ambiguity" are provided in > subsection JB7.4 from volume 7 of monograph [1/4] ?available free of > charge from the totaliztic web page named "xext_1_4.htm".)
> Unfortunately, the maintenance of the correct balance on the Earth > between the number of atheists and the number of believers in God, is > immensely difficult. After all, people display so-called "sheep > mentality". Furthermore, on the Earth works inertia, fashion, > tradition, etc. Therefore, every now and again this healthy balance > becomes disturbed. So what God does in such cases. Well, he must take > various corrective measures. What these measures are we already saw in > the period of medieval times, and we also are starting to see it in > the present time. After all, similarly like previously this happened > already once near the end of antiquity, just recently again the > disturbance of this healthy balance took place. In the result of this > disturbed balance, the number of atheists grew to the level that it > endangers the moral progress of humanity. So God again must intervene, > and in fact He already intervenes. But He cannot appear openly in the > sky and start to electrocute atheists with lightnings. After all this > would destroy the "free will" of people - and thus would force every > atheists to become a believer in God. In the result another fall down > of progress in lifting knowledge and technology would take place in > the future of the Earth. Therefore God have chosen another method for > restoration of the balance. It is based on an old finding which is > excellently expressed by the proverb which states that "there are no > atheists
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> So here it is, the formal proof for the existence of God > completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic: > Theorem: > "God does exist".
First problem: you have not defined God. Presumably it's the eternal mind/spirit that created the universe - but there are many variations on the idea so it good to say up front which version you are pushing for.
> Basis propositions: > (1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
> codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes > are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent > beings.
That contains several diverse assumptions that are not obviously true. I know something of codes and I think you may be equivocating on "language". Shannon was a communications Engineer who was interested in quantifying information content in coding schemes etc and I dont think there is much meaning behind the statement "all codes are versions of languages" unless you are simply declaring them equivalent for the purposes of discussion. You make it sound profound. Also since the theory of evolution through natural selection was published over 150 years ago we know that many apparently designed systems can arise without the intervention of a designer.
So you are off to a very poor start.
> (2) The creation of a single "language of genetic > programming" which would be capable to program and to express with > genetic codes all attributes for the huge number and variety of living > creatures that populate the Earth, required the work of either > superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of > God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human- > like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to > these of humans.
Why not natural selection in a soup of complex molecules doing what comes naturally? Anyhow you are just asserting this is true without justifying it.
I think there is little point in going on.
The logic of a proof can be perfect but the conclusion can be false - it all depends on the truth of your assumptions. (1) All cats are green (2) I am a cat. Conclusion: I am green.
Perfectly valid and wrong. Your proof suffers the same problem "garbage in, garbage out"
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:32 -0700 (PDT), janpa...@gmail.com wrote: >Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, >whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what >awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, >etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of >questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and >others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist,
Sorry sunshine, but *creation scientists*, don't actually count as "scientists".
I have read some bollocks, in my time, but you are setting new standards.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
| > On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: | > ... | >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. | > ... | > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is | > it from the time when your personal definition of what science should | > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific | > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and | > also do answer, these type of questions. | | Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, | predicted, and repeated. | | Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God? | How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those | results?
Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can be tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
adman wrote: > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com... > | janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > | > On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: > | > ... > | >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. > | > ... > | > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is > | > it from the time when your personal definition of what science should > | > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific > | > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and > | > also do answer, these type of questions. > | > | Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, > | predicted, and repeated. > | > | Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God? > | How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those > | results?
> Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can be > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
How is that an answer? Are you saying that those steps cannot be applied to God?
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
In the unlikely event that I ever find myself in need of the opinion of a complete and utter imbecile, you'll be the first person I ask, IBen. Until then, shut the fuck up.
>When you say you'll <PLONK> someone, that >usually means you'll become obsessed with him
Says the trolling lunatic who's so obsessed with me that he even stole my name.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, > whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what > awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, > etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of > questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and > others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I > managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also > identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer > is this correct one.
IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
| > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message | > news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com... | > | janpa...@gmail.com wrote: | > | > On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: | > | > ... | > | >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. | > | > ... | > | > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". Is | > | > it from the time when your personal definition of what science should | > | > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific | > | > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and | > | > also do answer, these type of questions. | > | | > | Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, | > | predicted, and repeated. | > | | > | Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God? | > | How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those | > | results? | > | > Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can be | > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated. | | How is that an answer? Are you saying that those steps cannot be | applied to God?
No those steps cannot be applied to God
But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted, and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:510c60e8-6685-4ad0-8bdc-d1b109dd4b01@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, >> whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what >> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, >> etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of >> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and >> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I >> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also >> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer >> is this correct one.
> IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
> | > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message > | >news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com... > | > | janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > | > | > On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: > | > | > ... > | > | >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. > | > | > ... > | > | > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". > Is > | > | > it from the time when your personal definition of what science > should > | > | > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific > | > | > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and > | > | > also do answer, these type of questions. > | > | > | > | Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, > | > | predicted, and repeated. > | > | > | > | Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test > God? > | > | How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat > those > | > | results? > | > > | > Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can > be > | > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated. > | > | How is that an answer? Are you saying that those steps cannot be > | applied to God?
> No those steps cannot be applied to God
> But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
> So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that > created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted, > and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
WTF do you think the CMB is evidence for? Red shift anyone? Have you worked out yet how the Colorado River cut meanders in the GC in 10,000 years? Have you worked out how an ice dam collapse sent water south over rising ground for about 700 miles before it cut a canyon in solid rock? The words motes and beams seem aposite.
Subject: Re: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:46:51 -0500, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that >created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted, >and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be >tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
1) The BB was predicted.
2) Evidence for the BB was predicted, searched for and found.
3) Observations of the BB have been made.
4) There is no evidence for a creator, nor for the need for one.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
>> <janpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:510c60e8-6685-4ad0-8bdc-d1b109dd4b01@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>> Practically each one of us is wondering whether God does exist, >>> whether we have eternal soul, what is the goal of our existence, what >>> awaits the humanity in a near future, how we should act in our lives, >>> etc., etc. I also belong to the group of people asking this kind of >>> questions. But there is a significant difference between myself and >>> others who ask. After all, because I am a professional scientist, I >>> managed to find not only the answer to these questions, but also >>> identify a wealth of scientific evidence which confirms that my answer >>> is this correct one.
>> IOW - you're no scientist - just another raving lunatic.
>*NARF*
>What're we going to do tonight, Brain?
>Heh....
Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
adman wrote: > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:rIKdncyHW_2eVYjVnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@comcast.com... > | adman wrote: > | > "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote in message > | > news:WuGdnQ_t0O4dwYjVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com... > | > | janpa...@gmail.com wrote: > | > | > On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote: > | > | > ... > | > | >> You cannot use science to answer non scientific questions. > | > | > ... > | > | > Since when questions concerning God are declared "non scientific". > Is > | > | > it from the time when your personal definition of what science > should > | > | > do, or should NOT do, becomes imposed on the entire scientific > | > | > fratermity? I am a professional scientist myself and I do ask, and > | > | > also do answer, these type of questions. > | > | > | > | Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, > | > | predicted, and repeated. > | > | > | > | Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test > God? > | > | How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat > those > | > | results? > | > > | > Let me know when you can make a universe and everything in it that can > be > | > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated. > | > | How is that an answer? Are you saying that those steps cannot be > | applied to God?
> No those steps cannot be applied to God
So, God is not scientific. QED.
> But there are alot of claims that science makes that is not and cannot be > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated.
Like what?
> So if you are willing to accept when science says there is a big bang that > created the universe, when the big bang is not tested, observed, predicted, > and repeated; then why be so unwilling to accept a creator that cannot be > tested, observed, predicted, and repeated?
Ah, but the Big Bang HAS been observed. You can observe it today. It can be tested and predicted and those tests and predictions can be repeated by a multitude of scientists.
Subject: Re: Atheists make progress but destroy morality, believers increase morality but neglect progress - so what God is to do with present people (JP)
On Apr 28, 5:11 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote: ...
> Then you'd know that science is anything that can be tested, observed, > predicted, and repeated.
> Please show how these steps can be applied to God. How do we test God? > How do we observe God? How do we predict God? How can we repeat those > results?
We can research God in exactly the same as we research every other phenomena that science tries to research, but that cannot be tested, observed, predicted, and repeated. If we exclude such phenomena from the science's scope of interests, then e.g. scientists could NOT say anything about the origins of the universe - as NO scientist was present there, and NO scientist can be present when this origin may be repeated. Similarly about the evolution - science has a lot to say about it, but it cannot test or repeat it.
Humans have intelligence (at least some humans do). In turn intelligence can overcome every obstacle. We just need to use it for researching God. I am doing this since 1985. Some initial methods of researching God I am planning to outline on the web page "will.htm" indicated before. However, as I am describing these methods, I intend to discuss them simultaneously. (I do discuss them on several threads simulataneously - e.g. see also the thread (in Polish) at the address http://groups.google.com/group/pl.soc.religia/browse_thread/thread/88... .)
