I don't consider that to be a Christian point of view but an off brand point of view. Seeking proofs of God is seeking signs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is disproven by science? Really?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
I like my intelligence with bacon and biscuits and gravy.This is your brain:
This is your brain on intelligence:
Here I go again ...
What real entity do you intend to denote when you say "God"?
By "real" I mean existing in the world external to the self, reality, nature, the place where things with objective existence are found.
As distinct from purely conceptual, existing only as a notion, a thing imagined.
We need a definition of a real god sufficient, if we find a real candidate. to let us determine whether it's god or not.
Or are you only talking about the imaginary kind of god?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I ask you this last time and you didn't answer?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No they don't. Now your personal version of God may be disproven by reality, but why blame "science" for that?
Science only disproves faulty versions of God.
Who is defining God as an entity? Are you starting with an idea of God, like some guy in the sky with an idea in its mind like a watchmaker and a watch?
The heck it doesn't. That process is what is responsible for countless forms of life taking shape, adapting, surviving, and thriving. What is it that is figuring out how to do that, if it's not an "intelligent" process? I think you are assuming intelligence to mean something akin to human cognitions. That's an anthropomorphic projection, that intelligence must be human.
Do you believe other animal life forms besides humans possess intelligence? I know a lot of people assume they don't, as they view humans as beyond nature in some fashion or other. Kind of like the earth being the center of the known universe.
What is wrong with viewing the process of evolution as intelligent? Aren't the cells of your own body intelligent? Don't they know what to do? Or are you cognizing their actions and processes in order for them them to know what to do? Do they have little human brains thinking their actions, like aliens commanding spacecraft? Intelligence doesn't need to look like conceptual thought, is my point here.
You assume evolution is about specific species surviving? Why? None of this negates what I'm saying.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
God is the same as Intelligent Creator or Intelligent Designer, since existence is observable. Intelligence predicts it.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Basically yes, since you cannot dis-agree with me if you do not know the topic of intelligence.So, those who don't agree with you are "non-intelligent" person's. Brilliant way to write off other rational human beings.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
That is still very weak. How many times other non-theist scientists insulted us of being delusional, stupid, moron..with no evidences? Thus, my OP is still cute.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
This is your brain:
lol!!! You are funny!
This is your brain on intelligence:
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Intelligent Designer of all existence.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
But in the new Intelligent Design <id>, it is very clear.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
lol! In faith, there is no middle ground...
Oh ok, Baiame. He's my favourite God too.
No they don't, that is myth spread by the ignorant. Atheist and other non believers believe there is no evidence for leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns and gods.
I think is bad play to misrepresent a group simply because you don't or won't understand
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Lol! You are telling me that you do not know how to separate myths or fairy tales to reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Your post wasn't directed to me.
I'm not a proponent of ID. I'm just trying to understand your argument.
You seem to be stacking the deck in your favor by requiring that, in order to qualify for existence, an entity must be like something that we can perceive consciously. But we have an unconscious mind. Can't we just assume that stuff can exist there as well? It doesn't have to be "supernatural." It can be natural but imperceptible.
Last edited:
Science doesn't "usually" offer proofs. Rather, it offers theories (the best idea that we have to date, based on many facts, tests, and logic). (That was my definition, not a dictionary definition).
Math offers proofs.
Science does correct misconceptions in the bible, and misconceptions of church elders (pope, cardinals, bishops, pastors). For example, in the Dark Ages, scientists were routinely threatened to recant their statements for fear that it was blasphemy. The church decreed, didactically, that meteors could not fall from God's perfect heaven. Some scientist was tortured for saying that they did.
Science says that dinosaur bones are at least 6.8 billion years old. Some Christians believe that it is only 6,000 years old. But, since Special Relativity says that time dilates at relativistic speeds, and time dilates in strong gravitational fields, it could very well be that science proves that it is 6,000 years old (according to some reference frame). In fact, it should be possible to calculate how strong the gravitational field would have had to have been. You could alter that calculation assuming that God was traveling at some percentage of the speed of light (for each percentage). A graph could be made.
There is much friction between theists and scientists. Theists often state ridiculous things, (Jonah in the belly of a whale)(blowing a ram's horn "shofar" to knock down the walls of Jericho).
But, when scientists get involved, things seem stranger still. The newest theory is that a comet impact knocked down the walls of Jericho. There is no rock debris, but the ground is scorched from the point of impact, 14 miles from Jericho, and microscopic diamonds are in the 4 foot layer of ash. Regular forest fires would not be nearly hot enough to form diamonds.
Some scientists speculate that the nearby towns of Sodom and Gomorrah could have been leveled by the same event. But I noticed on the map that Jerusalem would have also been leveled at that distance, so it likely had a different cause.
Many scientists are theists. Neil De Grasse Tyson believes that we are in a virtual world (like the Matrix movie). This isn't very scientific, since scientists usually have a reason for their beliefs.
Enricho Fermi said that it is the hand of God that moves subatomic particles.
Einstein, though a Jewish born atheist, balked at the notion of quantum mechanics (random processes), by saying that "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
Scientists are frustrating to theists, because they only accept ideas if there are compelling reasons to do so. Theists, on the other hand, have gut instinct that God exists.
Shrewd politicians think of theists as perfect patsies to get votes, because they never question that something is true, and always believe what they are told. Consequently, they are told that Guantanamo didn't allow torture (because they changed the definition of torture, so they could deny it). Theists still believe in their politicians, who make war (defying God's commandment not to kill). Theists believe in people's laws, not God's laws. Oddly, this means that well meaning theists can be duped into following Satan (as they have been).
Fascinating notion.
But, officer, I ran that stop sign because it was red, so I assumed that it was Satan's.
Plugs my flying unicorn's ears. "Don't listen to her, Uni, she says that you don't exist." Flies away on Uni.