God can not be disproven by science

[JPGYAN]

Belief in God often extends beyond scientific evidence or rational thinking and can be deeply rooted in personal experiences, cultural upbringing, and spiritual intuition For many, the existence of God is rather a matter of faith rather than empirical or invalid evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't necessarily follow from BB that time began.

The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time

String theory suggests that the BIG BANG was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state

www.scientificamerican.com

Good article! IT does propose what I would call a cyclic universe based on string theory as his preferred option of the mature of our universe, He does note that the application of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory can come up with a similar solution,

I believe the singularity option remains a possibility. It is likely that all possible p[topm still consider our universe and all possible universe exist in a boundless Quantum Matrix which is likely timeless except for Quantum time at the Quantum scale,

 

[muhammad_isa]

Weasel wording does not help your case and justify the ignorance of your statements.

..and ad-hominum is not a justification of your beliefs.

The point is clear as in evolution, weather prediction and science in general you cannot provide any evidence for your outrageous assumptions based on an ancient religious agenda..

Calm down .. you've got the wrong person .. I'm well educated in the sciences.

 

[shunyadragon]

..and adhominum is not a justification of your beliefs.

No ad hominem nor anything to do with my 'beliefs.' The issues are science.

Calm down .. you've got the wrong person .. I'm well educated in the sciences.

If you are well educated in sciences, and not biased you would not reject evolution and make statements such as:
"I don't think so.
Take the weather, for example .. can we predict with any certainty what it will be like tomorrow? No."

 

[muhammad_isa]

No ad hominem..

I beg to differ..

If you are well educated in sciences, and not biased you would not reject evolution and make statements such as:
"I don't think so.
Take the weather, for example .. can we predict with any certainty what it will be like tomorrow? No."

"Meteorologists use computer programs called weather models to make forecasts. Since we can't collect data from the future, models have to use estimates and assumptions to predict future weather. The atmosphere is changing all the time, so those estimates are less reliable the further you get into the future."

All you are doing, is taking my statement in an absolute literal manner, imo. i.e. being pedantic
..and evolution is not the topic here .. but fyi, I don't reject it.

 

[Kfox]

If you believe in the Big Bang, what was happening before time began? Could it have been an eternal being that created us?

As long as something exist, the concept of time can be applied to it. I believe something has always existed, so the concept of time has always existed

 

[shunyadragon]

"Meteorologists use computer programs called weather models to make forecasts. Since we can't collect data from the future, models have to use estimates and assumptions to predict future weather. The atmosphere is changing all the time, so those estimates are less reliable the further you get into the future."

All you are doing, is taking my statement in an absolute literal manner, imo. i.e. being pedantic
..and evolution is not the topic here .. but fyi, I don't reject it.

I am not taking your statement in any manner other manner than the statement as literally as you stated which is false. Making the additional false statement in reddish orangish does not help your argument.

Your simplistic problematic statements above perpetuates the problem with your previous statement. The way it is worded it is not a statement from any scientific source.

The weather prediction for the 24 hour prediction is extremely accurate. As you lengthen the time frame beyond this the accuracy diminishes, but remains very good for about seven days or so, Long range weather prediction are accurate within the range of the criteria that describes the potential range of outcomes. Computer models are based on Fractal math and Chaos Theory, which takes into the many variables of weather and climate. For example the prediction of global warming trends in recent history has been very accurate.

What are the weather predictions based on? Let's deal with good scientific sources:

Home. External Link. Opens in new window. » Resources » The Ultimate Guide to Weather Forecast Models 2024

***Staff edit***

​

 

[shunyadragon]

As long as something exist, the concept of time can be applied to it. I believe something has always existed, so the concept of time has always existed

In a broad generalization this is maybe OK, but for example it does not reflect Quantum time on the smallest scale. Time on the Quantum scale relates to the momentary time of particles behavior and is not the continuous space time in the large scale of our universe

 

[PearlSeeker]

In a broad generalization this is maybe OK, but for example it does not reflect Quantum time on the smallest scale. Time on the Quantum scale relates to the momentary time of particles behavior and is not the continuous space time in the large scale of our universe

Besides that, time is relative. For one observer time can freeze (or have a beginning) for other not...

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Making the additional false statement in reddish orangish does not help your argument..

Well, my argument is basically that we cannot rule out that G-d is able to cause
bad weather .. locally, and globally.

..but how G-d might implement that is another topic. As as far as I understand,
G-d is not a person, and not comparable to any observed physical phenomena.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, my argument is basically that we cannot rule out that G-d is able to cause
bad weather .. locally, and globally.

..but how G-d might implement that is another topic. As as far as I understand,
G-d is not a person, and not comparable to any observed physical phenomena.

God Created our universe and the Natural Laws and processes that determine the nature of our physical existence including weather and climate good, bad and indifferent. The nature of our physical existence is indeed uniform, consistent and predictable from the perspective of science including the weather.

The problem above is a bit in terms of wording. There is no evidence that God deliberately causes specifically bad weather.

 

[Heyo]

As as far as I understand,
G-d is not a person, and not comparable to any observed physical phenomena.

Observed physical phenomena have causes, cause other things and are measurable. If god is not all that, then it doesn't have a cause, can't cause other things and is not measurable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Observed physical phenomena have causes, cause other things and are measurable. If god is not all that, then it doesn't have a cause, can't cause other things and is not measurable.

No .. it doesn't logically follow. That is purely a materialistic outlook, that does not
accept the possibility of miracles. i.e. natural laws being broken w/o apparent reason

 

[Heyo]

No .. it doesn't logically follow. That is purely a materialistic outlook, that does not
accept the possibility of miracles. i.e. natural laws being broken w/o apparent reason

Logic is purely materialistic - or better, the other way around, materialism follows from logic.
Logic is all about cause and effect, if ... then ... else. Magic is illogical, it doesn't connect a phenomenon to a cause (at least not in a direct line of causes and effects).

 

[muhammad_isa]

Logic is purely materialistic - or better, the other way around, materialism follows from logic.

No .. logic is like boolean algebra .. it has a mathematical "flavour".
It does not depend on physical concept like the material universe.

Magic is illogical, it doesn't connect a phenomenon to a cause (at least not in a direct line of causes and effects).

It is NOT illogical .. it's just that it's not easy to explain.
It's not what we expect. There could be many reasons.
We can't be expected to know/understand everything .. we are finite creatures .. we grow old etc.

 

[Heyo]

No .. logic is like boolean algebra .. it has a mathematical "flavour".
It does not depend on physical concept like the material universe.

It doesn't depend on reality, but once there is a reality, logic can only make sense of that reality when it is orderly.
That doesn't say there aren't phenomena we don't understand, yet. That is not magic. Magic is the suspension of the laws of physics (and thereby logic).

 

[MonkeyFire]

As long as something exist, the concept of time can be applied to it. I believe something has always existed, so the concept of time has always existed

Time has always existed in a infinite form, but that was outside the cosmos. The finite form of time was created with outer space, and it too must end. God is immortal one, and humans arre mortals, so God can be in love, and still fall in love too.

 

[shunyadragon]

No .. it doesn't logically follow. That is purely a materialistic outlook, that does not
accept the possibility of miracles. i.e. natural laws being broken w/o apparent reason

It is not necessarily a materialist outlook. It is only materialist if one believes God does not exist to Create Natural Laws and processes that govern our physical existence. The Possibility of miracles requires a belief in miracles that have not been ever objectively demonstrated to break Natural Laws.

The next word in the dictionary past miracle is mirage.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That doesn't say there aren't phenomena we don't understand, yet. That is not magic..

We have different definitions of "magic".
There can be black magic .. white magic etc.

Magic is the suspension of the laws of physics (and thereby logic).

OK .. if you want to call phenomena that "break the laws of physics" magic, that's up to you.
..but saying that has something to do with logic? NO.

 

[shunyadragon]

We have different definitions of "magic".
There can be black magic .. white magic etc.


OK .. if you want to call phenomena that "break the laws of physics" magic, that's up to you.
..but saying that has something to do with logic? NO.

Again we have no objectively verifiable evidence that miracles have ever occured that violate the Laws of Nature.