What religion is scientifically proven?

[Commoner]

By "basic" do you mean "unusably vague"?

What does "God is 'one'" even mean?

Didn't you watch The Matrix? He can fly and stuff! (and he gets the hot chick)

 

[Martin John]

All around us are things which have arisen through natural processes without any guiding hand including yourself. If you believe that God designed man then God must have be a terrible designer because we're full of flaws.

Natural processes? Just as the laptop I am using did not come about by a Natural process how can we believe that the universe or the single cell which is a million times more complex than a computer simply 'came about'

 

[PolyHedral]

No matter how much so-called materially advanced we are, no matter how much we endeavor to be the Lords of all we survey, no matter how much knowledge we have, in due coarse of time we have to submit to the Laws of nature-namely disease, old age and death. .

No. Sufficient understanding of biology will allow you to prevent death.

Natural processes? Just as the laptop I am using did not come about by a Natural process how can we believe that the universe or the single cell which is a million times more complex than a computer simply 'came about'

Would you like me to evolve a laptop for you? Someone already did clocks.

 

[sublime001]

There is one problem here, you are very biased towards a particular religion and belief and yet asking a generic question. In order to find the answer one must have a complete open mind, use hard facts, do a lot of research on other religions and then draw up conclusions. No point asking a question if you have already made up the answer.

 

[McBell]

Natural processes? Just as the laptop I am using did not come about by a Natural process how can we believe that the universe or the single cell which is a million times more complex than a computer simply 'came about'

So who/what created god?

 

[gnostic]

Absolutely none. And that certainly include Islam

I truly admire the medieval Muslim scientists for what they achieve real science, and had nothing to do with Allah or the Qur'an. Today's claims made by Muslims that the secrets of modern science is found in the Qur'an is absolutely garbage and embarrassing propaganda. These Muslims have no shame.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I wonder which religion is scientifically proven ...

No religion is scientifically proven, although many try to claim the mantle.

No religion ever will be scientifically proven, so you might want to learn to find company in the other religions.

 

[Autodidact]

Not exactly. Vox populi cannot always prove a argument. My point here is that by logical inference we see that every thing in our house including our house, every piece of clothing we have, every pavement we step on, every car, plane, train we get on... is created by someone.

In fact, ad populum is a fallacy. So we can throw that out the window.

So on this basis

the basis of a fallacy?

'I personally' do not think it is a bad assumption to consider that their might be a creator behind this whole cosmic manifestation.

Definitely consider it. How can you figure out whether it's true?

 

[Autodidact]

Natural processes? Just as the laptop I am using did not come about by a Natural process how can we believe that the universe or the single cell which is a million times more complex than a computer simply 'came about'

The more you understand about natural processes, the more you understand how this might be.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The more you understand about natural processes, the more you understand how this might be.

When you get right down to it, there is no such thing as "un-natural". In much the same way that there is nothing "super-natural". It is impossible to do anything outside or contrary to the laws of nature.

 

[Martin John]

By "basic" do you mean "unusably vague"?

What does "God is 'one'" even mean?

God is one: means their cannot be several 'Gods' battling it out for the number one spot.

 

[Martin John]

Of course. There is no single, generic god-claim. The only claims we have before us to evaluate are the specific claims for specific deities.


Actually, my normal next step is to conclude that anyone who's talking about things that can't be understood or approached is just making stuff up. How can you say anything about something that can't be understood at all? How could you even defend the claim that an incomprehensible thing even exists?


... except for all the ones that worship multiple gods.

And from where I sit, there's not much practical difference between the idea that different religions have mutually exclusive gods and the idea that all religions worship the same god, but with mutually exclusive ideas about that god and how to worship him.


Interesting that you should say this in support of your argument that your approach is the correct one.

Not really my argument. Just a observation. Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Christians, and Atheists kill each other etc etc

 

[Martin John]

There is one problem here, you are very biased towards a particular religion and belief and yet asking a generic question. In order to find the answer one must have a complete open mind, use hard facts, do a lot of research on other religions and then draw up conclusions. No point asking a question if you have already made up the answer.

good point- my mind is open

 

[Martin John]

The more you understand about natural processes, the more you understand how this might be.

i'm a lay person with no serious knowledge of science. Please convince me.

 

[Martin John]

So who/what created god?

The golden nugget. Was waiting for that one. For what it is worth here is something to consider.

This material realm is subject to time. Under the influence of this time we are born, grow, dwindle and die. Time is an energy of God. Its something he employs in the material world. He is not subject to time. Thus he is not subject to birth and death. He is eternal. No one created him. Creation only goes on in the material world.

 

[PolyHedral]

This material realm is subject to time. Under the influence of this time we are born, grow, dwindle and die. Time is an energy of God. Its something he employs in the material world. He is not subject to time. Thus he is not subject to birth and death. He is eternal. No one created him. Creation only goes on in the material world.

Time is a number. It's not an energy, it's not "used" by anybody. It's just a number, just like "376" describes this post.

 

[painted wolf]

God is one: means their cannot be several 'Gods' battling it out for the number one spot.

Why not? Even Christianity leaves some room open for several deities in their trinity.

Perhaps like the trinity, the many gods exist in harmony... each with their own realm to govern.

wa:do

 

[PansarBlack]

Why not? Even Christianity leaves some room open for several deities in their trinity.

Perhaps like the trinity, the many gods exist in harmony... each with their own realm to govern.

wa:do

If we take everyones religious experience as what they claim it to be then the logical conclution is polytheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is one: means their cannot be several 'Gods' battling it out for the number one spot.

Then your definition is not complete.

I mean, I am one: there are no other 9-10ths_Penguins. However, I'm not God, am I?

 

[McBell]

The golden nugget. Was waiting for that one. For what it is worth here is something to consider.

This material realm is subject to time. Under the influence of this time we are born, grow, dwindle and die. Time is an energy of God. Its something he employs in the material world. He is not subject to time. Thus he is not subject to birth and death. He is eternal. No one created him. Creation only goes on in the material world.

So you have made an exception for god.
Now the question is why?
Why does god get a free pass and the universe does not?
I mean your argument can be boiled down to "anything complex has to have a creator".
Yet the complexity of the creator is exempt from the rule you use to support there having to be a creator.

Do you not see anything wrong with that?