What is God?

[clax]

It is a question that has an answer based on fact. It is a question that science applies to. But it seems you don't understand even the basics of science and have no inclination to learn about it, so I think we are done here...

You only have one tool in your tool box so the entire world looks like a nail.

This is a metaphor I don't expect you to understand.

The question of gods existence is absolutely outside of science, show me the evidence that makes you think God doesn't exist.

You are done because you can't think outside of science. That is your problem, it doesn't mean I am a fool, it means you are missing a piece of humanity, or you are ignoring it because it doesn't fit in your "tool box".

Expand your mind beyond just science or continue to be flummoxed by people.

Dismissing me as "not understanding what you understand" is exactly makes it impossible for you to understand.

Don't get upset because my o opinion isn't the same as yours and both are valid, do as I have done and allow for difference of opinion to exist.

 

[myp]

Ok clax, you are right, everyone is wrong and the last 400 years of human progress were all a sham (er actually no, a gift from God).

 

[clax]

Ok clax, you are right, everyone is wrong and the last 400 years of human progress were all a sham (er actually no, a gift from God).

I never said anybody was wrong, my position has been the opposite of that. You have been insisting I am wrong, I have been saying there is room for every thing.

I in fact said you were right, except for one part and it is a place where you have zero tolerance.

People can be scientists beeline in God and not be hypocrites. But you indoor that out can't be, 4000 years of human history really is against that notion.

Remember there is room for everything.

Don't get so frustrated, just grow.

 

[myp]

People who are scientists (and many who are not- I don't consider myself a scientist) look at the world scientifically. They realize you can't go into the lab and "believe" to the point of assuming it is fact that the cure to cancer is in the experiment you are doing- in the same way it does not make sense to believe that God exists. You just can't do it- it is not scientific. End of story.

 

[clax]

People who are scientists (and many who are not- I don't consider myself a scientist) look at the world scientifically. They realize you can't go into the lab and "believe" to the point of assuming it is fact that the cure to cancer is in the experiment you are doing- in the same way it does not make sense to believe that God exists. You just can't do it- it is not scientific. End of story.

Believing in God and curing cancer aren't even in the same realm, let alone the same level of understanding.

somebody who cures cancer can beeline in God, if they cure cancer it isn't null and void because they go to church, or mosque. So therefore the belief in God is really null when it comes to science.

You can do it, it is done, there are people who believe in God and are scientists, it has been done, I have witnessed it that segment is absolutely incorrect.

if you apply science to the notion of a God you Getty no answer, not a yes or a no. You assume silence means no, that is not the case.

Put it this way, before luies pasture discovered germs they did exist, just no conclusive evidence existed until there was proof. The germs pasture discovered didn't just jump into existence because he observed them. To think you are equipped with the ability to know that there is no God is pure arrogance, not at all scientifically minded. You can assume God doesn't exist but you can't know. You can't even define what God is. I define God as the creator of the universe, the universe exists, simmering had to create it. I call it God because it is as God a guess as any.

 

[myp]

The cancer thing was an analogy...

And of course when germs were discovered we knew they were there. But before that you could not BELIEVE and ASSUME they existed (at least not that they physically existed- the transmission of disease, etc. is different if it was observed)- that would not be scientific. And I never claimed that God does not exist, but just that you can't believe in God either (you need to really read what I write instead of assuming).

And everything that exists does not need a creator- if you think so, what creates darkness?

 

[clax]

The cancer thing was an analogy...

And of course when germs were discovered we knew they were there. But before that you could not BELIEVE and ASSUME they existed (at least not that they physically existed- the transmission of disease, etc. is different if it was observed)- that would not be scientific. And I never claimed that God does not exist, but just that you can't believe in God either (you need to really read what I write instead of assuming).

And everything that exists does not need a creator- if you think so, what creates darkness?

You can't dictate what people can and can't believe based on their profession.

Lets put it this way if you look at the question "does God exist?" The only answer you can say from a scientific stand point is "I don't know" there is no method to test for God there is no method to see God there is nothing conclusive. If there was proof either way where is it?

The question then becomes can you believe in God if you have no proof of his existence, yes you can, you don't have to also, nobody is wrong there is no proof no evidence nothing conclusive.

I say I don't know if God exists. Any other answer is incorrect. Can I want God to exist? Yes, can I believe God exists yes, I have reasons. Do I have to? No. No matter what I do for a living.

 

[myp]

It is not a profession! Until you can grasp that, we have nothing to discuss.

And exactly, all you can say is I don't know. You can't say I believe. You can say I am agnostic, but you can't say I believe.

 

[clax]

It is not a profession! Until you can grasp that, we have nothing to discuss.

And exactly, all you can say is I don't know. You can't say I believe. You can say I am agnostic, but you can't say I believe.

Why can't I say I believe, who are you to make that rule.

sci·ence**

/ˈsīəns/NounThe intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural

That is all science is, it doesn't stipulate anything about what a person can and can't believe regarding super natural.

God doesn't fit into that scope. You don't understand science. God isn't in the physical and natural realms of understanding. God had no structure, and it had no behavior, science cannot regard it.

 

[myp]

Clax, when you don't even know what science is, I don't know how you can insist on such strong arguments for its implications to one's belief system. And no, copying the dictionary definition of science does not mean you know what it means- you keep saying it is a profession (which is wrong), that peer-review does that matter (which it does), and that the God question can't be applied (which it can since it is truth based).

 

[clax]

Clax, when you don't even know what science is, I don't know how you can insist on such strong arguments for its implications to one's belief system. And no, copying the dictionary definition of science does not mean you know what it means- you keep saying it is a profession (which is wrong), that peer-review does that matter (which it does), and that the God question can't be applied (which it can since it is truth based).

If you are a scientist then you either are professional or ammature. But science is not a profession in and of itself.

If you scientifically discovered proof, I see no need for peer review. If it is proof, it is proof.

Truth based? That is very subjective,. The God question doesn't fit the definition of science.

If you have your own definition to science it is your own. I go with the definition by Mariam Webster. Sorry you don't Getty to redefine it.

 

[tecoyah]

If you scientifically discovered proof, I see no need for peer review. If it is proof, it is proof.

....snip....

This may be the issue here. If a scientist discovers a thing, and has proven it as true to himself/herself, that is simply not enough to call it fact. The peer review process allows for a review of this truth by peers in the field, to verify accuracy of technique, repeat the findings (or not)...and show the validity and "Truth" of the findings. Should it become a verified truth, it might be called a "proof" and used to further the science.

You may not see it as a needed step, but a scientists sees it as mandatory.

 

[tecoyah]

I might also point out that this is the primary reason one cannot use the scientific method on the "God" question, as there is nothing as of yet to review other than the books. These books have been reviewed and found inaccurate, added to this would be the vast body of science explaining how the universe came into being...theoretical or not.
As the creation story seems to be the basis for many beliefs in a God, all actual data we can verify clearly points to the unlikely nature of biblical interpretation where reality is involved.
Though we cannot disprove the God hypothesis, we can easily disprove the biblical explanation of it.

 

[myp]

If you are a scientist then you either are professional or ammature. But science is not a profession in and of itself.

If you scientifically discovered proof, I see no need for peer review. If it is proof, it is proof.

Truth based? That is very subjective,. The God question doesn't fit the definition of science.

If you have your own definition to science it is your own. I go with the definition by Mariam Webster. Sorry you don't Getty to redefine it.

Problem is you don't understand Merriam Webster's definition either (and not everything can be completely defined in 1 sentence- for example it mentions the systematic study but you don't know what the system is by your ignorant comments on peer-review)...

And God is a truth based question because there is a right or wrong answer. Either God exists or doesn't. The point that we don't have the means to answer just yet is irrelevant to science- it doesn't open the door to blind and absolute belief.

 

[clax]

Problem is you don't understand Merriam Webster's definition either (and not everything can be completely defined in 1 sentence- for example it mentions the systematic study but you don't know what the system is by your ignorant comments on peer-review)...

I don't need peer review to know something, I would only need peer review to have peer review something that matters in the least to me. I think it I'd ignorant to depend on others to tell you what to think. Especially regarding spirituality.

And God is a truth based question because there is a right or wrong answer. Either God exists or doesn't. The point that we don't have the means to answer just yet is irrelevant to science- it doesn't open the door to blind and absolute belief.

it isn't, you want it to be so you can sit on a high horse and call me ignorant.

 

[myp]

ok clax... only thousands of scientists disagree on peer review and how to solve fact based questions. I think what you fail to realize is that I am making an argument based on science. That it does not make sense for anyone who understands and accepts science to believe in God. I understand that you don't accept science- that is fine, I am not telling you you are being a hypocrite because you don't understand or accept science.

 

[clax]

ok clax... only thousands of scientists disagree on peer review and how to solve fact based questions. I think what you fail to realize is that I am making an argument based on science. That it does not make sense for anyone who understands and accepts science to believe in God. I understand that you don't accept science- that is fine, I am not telling you you are being a hypocrite because you don't understand or accept science.

You don't understand science, it is not a entire thought process, it is a way of thinking, people can think scientifically to understand science based issues, then most people have the capacity to think spiritually and metaphorically and metaphisically, you say that can't. You not only don't understand science, you also don't understand people.

As for the peer review, I am sure it serves its propose, but out should never be to establish fact, proof should be able to stand alone, otherwise out isn't proof. Consensus of "educated" people is by no means proof, like I said, proof is proof you can't disagree with it unless you are a fool. Peer review to establish theory, that is its purpose.

 

[myp]

Why are you bringing up spirituality, etc.? The whole context of my argument is that if you are thinking scientifically or have a scientific outlook on the world you can't believe in God. I never said that if you take a religious or a philosophical or spiritual or whatever context, you can't. That aside, spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive. I take a scientific approach on facts-based matters because I think the track record speaks for itself and I realize my intuition can be flawed. But while I look at these matters scientifically and that has led to my disbelief in God and agnostism, I feel a tremendous spirituality with the facts. Facts like the carbon that makes so much of my body was created in an exploding star, facts like my feelings and thoughts are governed by complex chemical reactions in my body, and facts like all of humanity and the universe is a certain set of chemicals acting by the same laws of physics to produce the wonderful world we see.

 

[clax]

Why are you bringing up spirituality, etc.? The whole context of my argument is that if you are thinking scientifically or have a scientific outlook on the world you can't believe in God. I never said that if you take a religious or a philosophical or spiritual or whatever context, you can't. That aside, spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive. I take a scientific approach on facts-based matters because I think the track record speaks for itself and I realize my intuition can be flawed. But while I look at these matters scientifically and that has led to my disbelief in God and agnostism, I feel a tremendous spirituality with the facts. Facts like the carbon that makes so much of my body was created in an exploding star, facts like my feelings and thoughts are governed by complex chemical reactions in my body, and facts like all of humanity and the universe is a certain set of chemicals acting by the same laws of physics to produce the wonderful world we see.

Interesting, it is evident you do understand spirituality, I just don't understand why you can't come to a conclusion that there is room for belief in God, that it actually serves a purpose to believe in God, and think scientifically when they need to.

 

[myp]

Interesting, it is evident you do understand spirituality, I just don't understand why you can't come to a conclusion that there is room for belief in God, that it actually serves a purpose to believe in God, and think scientifically when they need to.

You are framing the question in terms of you can think scientifically for matter a and not scientifically for the matter of God. I am saying scientifically you have to think scientifically for the matter of God and when you do, you can't believe.