What is God?

[=Zoomer=]

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing for here. That God exists because history exists?

I'm not arguing for the existence of the god that man perceives to be "God" (the creator of everything). I'm arguing that the "God of man" (the creator of man only), is not only possible, but "likely" (mho) if viewed in a historical context.

You can take small points in any two arguments and find a way to make some overlap, but that it is usually just cherrypicking data. That is why I would say no, science cannot support a creation argument based just on the fact that the Bible exists and can be true. You need hard, unbiased evidence- cherrypicking points like the ones you mentioned is biased.

I disagree. I think the ONLY logical way to approach the subject is to overlap the evidence, and try to weed out the chatter. I still maintain the truth must be consistent with science and history. It's foundational to my argument.

 

[myp]

I'm not arguing for the existence of the god that man perceives to be "God" (the creator of everything). I'm arguing that the "God of man" (the creator of man only), is not only possible, but "likely" (mho) if viewed in a historical context.

How so? The greatest historical proof, the hardest evidence lies in a theory that does not need God to be true- evolution. Look at the fossil record.

I disagree. I think the ONLY logical way to approach the subject is to overlap the evidence, and try to weed out the chatter. I still maintain the truth must be consistent with science and history. It's foundational to my argument.

A banana is yellow. The sun is yellow. It doesn't mean they are both made from the same thing. While overlapping data can be useful, it has to be done in a meaningful way, not just taking the datapoints that satisfy your argument and ignoring the rest.

 

[clax]

Further more i can understand people who need science to explain things in order for us to accept them. What I can't understand is why I need to explain my beliefs scientifically in order to have them. Other people believing in my God is not at all my mission, forcing me to go against things that I accept as existing with circumstantial and esoteric evidence should never be the goal of any science. Honestly what harm am I bringing by believing in God?

 

[myp]

Further more i can understand people who need science to explain things in order for us to accept them. What I can't understand is why I need to explain my beliefs scientifically in order to have them. Other people believing in my God is not at all my mission, forcing me to go against things that I accept as existing with circumstantial and esoteric evidence should never be the goal of any science. Honestly what harm am I bringing by believing in God?

Read all my posts again and you will find not once was I trying to convince you that God does not exist. All I said was that if you believe in God, you are being unscientific in doing so. And that is fact. The conclusion that God exists has not been reached through the scientific method so you can't believe in God if you are being scientific, at the most you can say it is possible.

 

[=Zoomer=]

How so? The greatest historical proof, the hardest evidence lies in a theory that does not need God to be true- evolution. Look at the fossil record.

Evolution is vital to my thinking. Not overlooked at all. It supports the notion that "modern" man (think missing link) was genetically altered (created). The problem with the biblical account is the notion that the SAME god that created "everything", also created man. I think science adequately refutes that idea~

Conversely, science maintains that "God" couldn't exist, because without a space/time continuum, nothing existed (not even "God"). Of course I'm over-simplifying that statement, but that is the gist. However, whether or not an "omniscient GOD" exists (which I think is not likely just as you do). It is also highly likely that the entity most think of as "God", is actually what history, archaeology, AND science more logically point to).

A banana is yellow. The sun is yellow. It doesn't mean they are both made from the same thing. While overlapping data can be useful, it has to be done in a meaningful way, not just taking the datapoints that satisfy your argument and ignoring the rest.

The entire premise of science is the pursuit of "disproving" (not "proving") assumptions. My overlapping of ideas most certainly needs to be viewed in that manner. I'm all ears~ So far, I haven't been able to find any evidence to refute my ideas, but that doesn't mean I've stopped looking!

 

[clax]

Read all my posts again and you will find not once was I trying to convince you that God does not exist. All I said was that if you believe in God, you are being unscientific in doing so. And that is fact. The conclusion that God exists has not been reached through the scientific method so you can't believe in God if you are being scientific, at the most you can say it is possible.

Read all my posts and you will see all I was saying is that out was possible.

 

[myp]

Read all my posts and you will see all I was saying is that out was possible.

You implied that following the scientific method and believing in God were compatible. They are not. You also said that the probability wasn't in favor of there being no personal God or contradicting the major religions.

 

[clax]

You also implied that following the scientific method and believing in God were compatible. They are not.

Being a scientist is in no way a disqualification of believing in God, was all I said.

 

[myp]

Being a scientist is in no way a disqualification of believing in God, was all I said.

If you are coming from a position of science you can't believe in God. Of course a scientist can say I will forego the decision to be scientific when it comes to God (a decision I personally don't understand), but believing in God and science are not compatible with what we know right now.

 

[clax]

If you are coming from a position of science you can't believe in God. Of course a scientist can say I will forego the decision to be scientific when it comes to God (a decision I personally don't understand), but believing in God and science are not compatible with what we know right now.

all but the last line I absolutely agree with.

You don't believe in science, science is. Belief is for things that are not provable

 

[myp]

You don't believe in science, science is. Belief is for things that are not provable

Yes, but science has a procedure for proving what is and is not real. And what is not proven real falls in the realm of "we don't know", not "I believe". Again, science and agnosticism work, but not full out theism and science.

 

[clax]

Yes, but science has a procedure for proving what is and is not real. And what is not proven real falls in the realm of "we don't know", not "I believe". Again, science and agnosticism work, but not full out theism and science.

I believe, is not relative to science in the least. any belief is personal, all people have their own beliefs.

You almost are making science into it's own religion.

 

[myp]

I believe, is not relative to science in the least. any belief is personal, all people have their own beliefs.

You almost are making science into it's own religion.

No you just don't want to admit that science and believing in God are not compatible. I don't know what else to say.

 

[clax]

No you just don't want to admit that science and believing in God are not compatible. I don't know what else to say.

They are, there is nothing left to say. Honestly what you just said is a personal belief, it hinges on your opinion, but everybody is allowed to have those. You just as well a anybody else.

Being that humans are not always rational, some may think that a God exists, others may think it is impossible for a God to exist. I respect both sides. I think everybody should.

 

[myp]

They are, there is nothing left to say. Honestly what you just said is a personal belief, it hinges on your opinion, but everybody is allowed to have those. You just as well a anybody else.

Being that humans are not always rational, some may think that a God exists, others may think it is impossible for a God to exist. I respect both sides. I think everybody should.

I respect both sides, don't get me wrong. I have plenty of friends and family who are quite religious. Nothing wrong with that. All I am saying is that if you ask the question of whether there is a God scientifically, you cannot come to a conclusion that allows you to believe in God. Most scientists try to look at the world and such matters objectively and as such, it doesn't make sense to believe in God.

 

[clax]

I respect both sides, don't get me wrong. I have plenty of friends and family who are quite religious. Nothing wrong with that. All I am saying is that if you ask the question of whether there is a God scientifically, you cannot come to a conclusion that allows you to believe in God. Most scientists try to look at the world and such matters objectively and as such, it doesn't make sense to believe in God.

I would agree with you, but it isn't always the case. Three scientists I know are very religious. My brother who is a chemist, my friend who has a divinity degree, who also does experimentation on the development of a drug that can work to aid people in alcohol dependency recovery. Both sciences can be practiced and no need to discuss God's existence will cloud their judgment. My father works with higher math, he is a decan.

 

[myp]

I would agree with you, but it isn't always the case. Three scientists I know are very religious. My brother who is a chemist, my friend who has a divinity degree, who also does experimentation on the development of a drug that can work to aid people in alcohol dependency recovery. Both sciences can be practiced and no need to discuss God's existence will cloud their judgment. My father works with higher math, he is a decan.

They aren't asking the God question scientifically then. The way they might look at things at work might be contradictory to how they look at God. I didn't say there are no scientists that believe, but just that I don't quite understand how you can't look at things logically or scientifically if you have been scientifically trained. And that goes back to my belief that it is a better way of thinking.

 

[clax]

They aren't asking the God question scientifically then. The way they might look at things at work might be contradictory to how they look at God. I didn't say there are no scientists that believe, but just that I don't quite understand how you can't look at things logically or scientifically if you have been scientifically trained. And that goes back to my belief that it is a better way of thinking.

There is no way to ask it scientifically. I don't think to many people put everything through a scientific method, to me that us irrational.

 

[myp]

There is no way to ask it scientifically. I don't think to many people put everything through a scientific method, to me that us irrational.

Of course there is a way to ask it scientifically- I just told you how- the scientific method. And there are a lot of people who look at fact-based matters scientifically- those that are scientifically trained that is because they understand it. How is that irrational? Is logic irrational to you? That is actually irrational

 

[clax]

Of course there is a way to ask it scientifically- I just told you how- the scientific method. And there are a lot of people who look at fact-based matters scientifically- those that are scientifically trained that is because they understand it. How is that irrational? Is logic irrational to you? That is actually irrational

Logic is subjective.

It is irrational to approach everything in life using the scientific method. Basically put science is a vocation, and who you are is not what you do, that is what I meant.

Finding a wife or husband cannot be treated as a scientific experiment, consoling an upset child cannot be approached by scientific method, determining the type of music, food, weather, and so on can not be defined by scientific method.

So part of your life must be taken for what it is, it is irrational to approach some things using the scientific method.

Logic fails us because man by nature is illogical. We are not volcans.