Questions of curiousity rather than debate

[Iti oj]

Take it you didn't bother looking at what posted by Dr Michio Kaku, explaining how science would prove it, the last time you posted this?

Because a flower is mathematically designed, the petals are evenly spaced using the Fibonacci sequence, which we find integrated into most of natures design.

The plant turning salts from the soil, into sugars using sunlight is magic.

“If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change.”

There are loads more things that can be shown with a single flower; yet if the seeker isn't looking, why bother showing.

i don't think you know what evidence/proof means . also that very same flower inspires me too. however it drives me to naturalism and science not theism. not only that but i find prescribing this to god insults the flower and/or nature. i find god diminishes the beauty, wonder and grandeur.

again the flower is not evidence/proof.

 

[wizanda]

The natural world is wonderful and awesome but I don't see what God has to do with it.

again the flower is not evidence/proof.

The mathematical precision of the universe, the precision engineering of the flower, the atomic principles and the quantum physics, is why any of this exists....Unfortunately even using the word God now, is tainted by all the silly mythologies; that is the only point that spoils it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Take it you didn't bother looking at what posted by Dr Michio Kaku, explaining how science would prove it, the last time you posted this?

Who is that? Scientist? RF member? If I dont know the guy, why would and how would I bother? Hate when people do that. Really do. Ask dont assume.

And if its a recent thread or post, Im looking for a different perspective not the same answer

If old post couple weeks and on back, I wont remember. Seizures do the darnest things.

There are loads more things that can be shown with a single flower; yet if the seeker isn't looking, why bother showing

If the person is looking at a flower from a sacred perspective, that doesnt mean he would see a creator. To expect people to see a creator then claim they are not looking, that sounds like a lot of believers I know. Its wrong. Its insultive.



I remember asking before, what would atheist base their srudy on if they started to find god; where would they start.

I know not much about science and scientist. Im just curious from what I do know without being insulted for my lack of knowledge, if Scientists where to find proof for god, where would They start?

Pretending, for a moment they doing so for sake of debate rather than saying they cant unless one can explain why. Or if they can how.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

first it depends on how and what you mean by god,
prayer studies !? and or things of that nature .

True. Abrahamic god. The one that does things rather than the metaphysical definition.

Say its prayer studies. Maybe they could look for if the prayers come true? Probably ask a christian scientist. It couldnt be what I listed in the OP. If nature, how could they detect which god it is? Christian? Jew? Muslim?

Is that why some say science and religion doesnt mix? I never understood the comment.

 

[allfoak]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

They can't use the Bible. It just says that god exists.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence

Can't use nature of design. If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

It cant be psychology. Humans believe a lot of things that don't exist physically but internally.

I could go on.

This would kinda put a hamper on saying "because we have the natural world, we know god exists". If that is the case, couldn't scientist be able to proove this true?[/QUOTE}


"I won't believe it works unless i try it for myself"!
It seems we have given up on trying things for ourselves.

Science is unable to even approach the question of the existence of God because the way to knowing our source is sealed.
We are the seal and only each individual can break their own seal.

The principles that must be put into practice are called hermetic principles because they are sealed from corruption.
The principles cannot be used without first knowing how to break the seal.
The key of knowledge is the only way.
Everything must be turned within.

The closest science has gotten to understanding this is by recognizing that the observer of the experiment has a role in the outcome.
When we realize that we don't just play a role in the outcome but actually create the outcome ourselves then science and the nature of experimentation will change forever.

 

[wizanda]

Who is that? Scientist? RF member? If I dont know the guy, why would and how would I bother? Hate when people do that. Really do. Ask dont assume.

Dr Michio Kaku is one of the worlds most known theoretical physicists; often on TV to explain things scientific for people.... Thought that was a good start to scientifically/mathematically understanding how God could be quantified.

If you'd got that bit; then could expand to cosmology documentaries, asking the question, if the universe is finely tuned to ten thousandth of a decimal place, then how could that be possible...

Same applied to what just posting, how in a random evolution could every flower, being, wave, use a mathematical formula for its construction.

If the person is looking at a flower from a sacred perspective, that doesnt mean he would see a creator. To expect people to see a creator then claim they are not looking, that sounds like a lot of believers I know. Its wrong. Its insultive.

If a person understood that flowers construction, how the mathematical, and chemical formulas were constructed, how cells function, how everything is manifest within it, then they'd realize, it didn't just come about by random chance on every level; yet that it took building blocks to achieve....

Looking at it as some ornament, shows that the person wasn't looking to begin with.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Dr Michio Kaku is one of the worlds most known theoretical physicists; often on TV to explain things scientific for people.... Thought that was a good start to scientifically/mathematically understanding how God could be quantified.

If you'd got that bit; then could expand to cosmology documentaries, asking the question, if the universe is finely tuned to ten thousandth of a decimal place, then how could that be possible...

Same applied to what just posting, how in a random evolution could every flower, being, wave, use a mathematical formula for its construction.

If a person understood that flowers construction, how the mathematical, and chemical formulas were constructed, how cells function, how everything is manifest within it, then they'd realize, it didn't just come about by random chance on every level; yet that it took building blocks to achieve....

Looking at it as some ornament, shows that the person wasn't looking to begin with.

Very complicated. I just was saying that looking at a flower doesn't show a specific creator nor a creator of any sort. A lot of us look at flowers more than just ornaments. The sacredness of nature needs not a creator behinds its creation, growth, and decay.

How does one come to that conclusion?

Mathmatics, cosmology, and etc I dont know about. So, this thread wasn't really to talk about the logistics of science just to ponder what scientist can use (simple terms) to proof the existence of god. More, where would they start.

I guess I'll try to answer my own question. They'd probably try to see if there is validity behind the claims of miracles. They'd maybe then cross reference them to see what "god" those miracles belong to. Probably use sacred text since believers seem to look at that. As for mathmatics and cosmology, Id have no clue how to answer my question with that.

 

[wizanda]

what scientist can use (simple terms) to proof the existence of god. More, where would they start.

They've already started, there are numerous documentaries, explaining how maths, physics, biology, etc....Almost any field of study, that is mastered, can make people question God...

Most brilliant minds do so; as discussed in a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson, with Richard Dawkins in the audience, it is only people in the middle understanding who deny God, where as the highest levels of theoretical science, come full circle, as there are too many unanswered questions.

I guess I'll try to answer my own question.

You might as well, as noticing you keep just ignoring what doesn't fit within your understanding.

 

[nothead]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

They can't use the Bible. It just says that god exists.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence

Can't use nature of design. If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

It cant be psychology. Humans believe a lot of things that don't exist physically but internally.

I could go on.

This would kinda put a hamper on saying "because we have the natural world, we know god exists". If that is the case, couldn't scientist be able to proove this true?

Start with the opposable thumb. I think opossums have em. If he don't crack then, maybe he never will. Face it, he more comfortable WITHOUT a God at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They've already started, there are numerous documentaries, explaining how maths, physics, biology, etc....Almost any field of study, that is mastered, can make people question God...

Most brilliant minds do so; as discussed in a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson, with Richard Dawkins in the audience, it is only people in the middle understanding who deny God, where as the highest levels of theoretical science, come full circle, as there are too many unanswered questions.

You might as well, as noticing you keep just ignoring what doesn't fit within your understanding.

You're right. It doesn't fit within my undestanding. You're wrong. I'm not ignoring it. It is just foriegn because it doesn't fit my understanding. It is not my view of reality. It's non existent in my noodle.

That's like calling an atheist ignorant or insulting him for ignoring answers to a question about gods existence he odviously wants to know about even though it may not fit his understanding given he is an atheist. Putting down an atheist for asking a question to find some level of common foundation to talk about god.

Also, you can't expect people to have the same knowledge as you do whether right or wrong.

That, and like many other non believers and atheists, we don't deny any god. That makes no sense whats so ever.

If you look at it from not believing in god (or your concept of god) point of view and pretend for a minute your concept does not exist, how would you deny it?

How can you deny something that does not exist? You can deny the claim but if it is not in your level of understanding (which does not need mean you are ignorant, just it's not in your way of thinking about reality, then of course you wont understand it.

Hence why so many people here ask about god in one way or another. We are trying to grasp in our as well as the other person's level of understanding who or what god is. That is, if it's important for some people to know this. Others like to talk about it because they are curious. Others, like myself, like to challenge what I dont believe to understand why people do believe.



Kinda get where I'm going?

Specific scientific and philosophy (it's been awhile studying philosophy) knowledge is not within my understanding. I do not know it. I cannot talk about something I know nothing about unless you are educating me through respectful dialogue and not insulting my intellegence and pointing out my ignorance.

Very direspectful.



On a lighter note,

They've already started, there are numerous documentaries, explaining how maths, physics, biology, etc....Almost any field of study, that is mastered, can make people question God...

Most brilliant minds do so; as discussed in a lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson, with Richard Dawkins in the audience, it is only people in the middle understanding who deny God, where as the highest levels of theoretical science, come full circle, as there are too many unanswered questions.

Explain respectfully, do these studies prove god exists? What did they start with, in layman's terms, when they decided to ask questions about god's existence?

You talk about mathematics and cosmology. What did they use in these two fields that had some sort of result success or fail that concluded anything about god's existence?

You dont have to write a book. Just don't insult me.

 

[wizanda]

Just don't insult me.

Not insulted you, said you've ignored numerous posts to keep to your original understanding...Which found 'very disrespectful' numerous times.

Explain respectfully

Always do, no point posting being an angel, and then not being.

do these studies prove god exists? What did they start with, in layman's terms, when they decided to ask questions about god's existence?

They didn't go about proving God's existence, that would be stupid, unless they knew what they were looking for in advance...

Throughout history scientists have been studying the workings of the things we see around us, which has led to questions that are unsolvable, without some form of creator within the process.

So a point that I've always found strange, is that the periodic table is mathematically equatable; we can even create new elements from the maths. So how can a random anomaly such as reality, contain stable mathematical principles, in something that was supposed to be random.

You talk about mathematics and cosmology. What did they use in these two fields that had some sort of result success or fail that concluded anything about god's existence?

There is a documentary series called, 'What we still don't know?' Within it they were questioning, how within multiple aspects of the universe, for it to even exist, it has been finely tuned to ten thousandth of decimal place.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not insulted you, said you've ignored numerous posts to keep to your original understanding...Which found 'very disrespectful' numerous times.

Always do, no point posting being an angel, and then not being.

They didn't go about proving God's existence, that would be stupid, unless they knew what they were looking for in advance...

Throughout history scientists have been studying the workings of the things we see around us, which has led to questions that are unsolvable, without some form of creator within the process.

So a point that I've always found strange, is that the periodic table is mathematically equatable; we can even create new elements from the maths. So how can a random anomaly such as reality, contain stable mathematical principles, in something that was supposed to be random.

There is a documentary series called, 'What we still don't know?' Within it they were questioning, how within multiple aspects of the universe, for it to even exist, it has been finely tuned to ten thousandth of decimal place.

Maybe because I'm at work or I did a double shift or what. I just can't understand what you're saying and how it applies to what I was asking. Id have to look over it. Im a simple person. I find it hard to retain too much knowledge (brain surgery? age? seizures? dont know?). Makes it hard to have a good conversation with the terms you use and the people you are refering to.

Best left to more intellegent people.

Of course I can insult myself. I get a pass. Doesn't mean anyone else can follow my lead. Im a work in progress.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Maybe the first question for "science" would be to explain how "something" could come from "nothing" unless there was some greater power that they can not explain. Most scientists point to the "big bang" as the start of the universe but they do not explain where the material and power in the big bang came from. Maybe it took the power of "God".

 

[Laika]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

As far as I know the only way this can be done is:

i) defining "god" as a form of dis-embodied consciousness
ii) demonstrating that consciousness is a product of natural processes, i.e. the brain
iii) assuming that nature is uniform and therefore that consciousness can only develop from natural causes.

This leads to the conclusion that a dis-embodied consciousness, such as a soul or god, could not therefore exist and therefore gods existence is impossible.

This involves a fair amount of philosophy in addition to scientific evidence that this can even be demonstrated. it would almost certianly qualify as "scientism" or "scientific materialism" nowdays but it intriguing none the less.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

As far as I know the only way this can be done is:

i) defining "god" as a form of dis-embodied consciousness
ii) demonstrating that consciousness is a product of natural processes, i.e. the brain
iii) assuming that nature is uniform and therefore that consciousness can only develop from natural causes.

This leads to the conclusion that a dis-embodied consciousness, such as a soul or god, could not therefore exist and therefore gods existence is impossible.

This involves a fair amount of philosophy in addition to scientific evidence that this can even be demonstrated. it would almost certianly qualify as "scientism" or "scientific materialism" nowdays but it intriguing none the less.

How would you define a dis-embodied consciousness? Is that like a soul or spirit of a person? The mind?

 

[Laika]

How would you define a dis-embodied consciousness? Is that like a soul or spirit of a person? The mind?

Any form of consciousness that exists independently of the brain basically. I think the next question that follows on from that is "how do you define consciousness?" and that really depends on whether you define it based on your own subjective experience, or by attributing it an objective source (the brain). i.e. this involves assuming consciousness comes from a physical process in the first place. It's one of those things you have to assume is true and can then only confirm it.

 

[Jumi]

How could it be proven would depend on which god we were looking at.

 

[genesis9]

If we used science (whatever the definition is??) to proove God exist, where in the hills would we start looking? Where would scientist start to test anything to make a conclusion of his existence?

They can't use the Bible. It just says that god exists.

They can't use artifacts. That just gives proof that people existed and maybe their claim not proof of his existence

Can't use nature of design. If we never heard of the word god, what in nature would give the scientist an idea that something supernatural is behind the design of, say, creation of a flower other than planting and watering seeds?

It cant be psychology. Humans believe a lot of things that don't exist physically but internally.

I could go on.

This would kinda put a hamper on saying "because we have the natural world, we know god exists". If that is the case, couldn't scientist be able to proove this true?

"You are on the right road,because you are asking but it is your road and I walk mine which is different to yours. No one can know yours. We'll all join forces to win the fight at the end (a spiritual one NOT a military one, ie stop the blood supply )
I've walked mine, you walk yours. Th e message in your heart/mind that you believe keeps getting blocked requires that you test it. If IT OR anything that you do is of benefit to yourself AND OTHERS (I didn't say ALL others ) then it cannot go far wrong.
Just of benefit to you?...........need i say more
Just of benefit of others?....you'll either get crucified or die homeless
But like the beautiful Tao, sometimes it is good to stop the searching and start the feeling Feeeeeeel the quality of what you read to self and others
BTW using science etc to understand

 

[popsthebuilder]

What I see is (which isn't directly related to your post comment) that we, as humanity, are obsessed with "mystery" and the "unknown." We call it from god to cosmos and every other word. Even scientists are looking into mystery seeing if they can find out more about life. However, the difference lies in the culture and language of believers compared to science, which isnt based on that.

In other words, scientist would call it a mystery.
Believers would call it god.

Scientists know that it is hard to solve a mystery and they dont claim full knowledge of something they dont know about.

Believers (some) on the other hand claim full knowledge (example the bible) of something they say dont know about. Which is a contradiction in terms, really: I know God is a fact and God is unknownable.

How could scientists work off of that claim? There's nothing "larger" or "higher power" or anything like that. It's just a mystery. Like trying to find the end of the universe. Scientist may not find it but they don't claim it is X because their predecessor says it is. A believer would.

That aside, though, even though a scientist cant solve a mystery, what facts do they go off of to attempt it? Christians use the BIble. (and so forth).

If a believer claims to know all, they are misleading and being mislead.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Hey, that's good, but with God you will never learn anything, he just doesn't existence, simple as that.

Your ignorance on a topic does not prove anything at all. Quite the opposite, actually.