Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
markdohle

God and science

957 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
8 hours ago, danydandan said:

There just seems to be very polar opposites.

There does not seem to be a middle ground, that is based on news we get here. 

But this is a discussion forum where debate is expected. People say things they think here that normally don't come up in average conversations. 

8 hours ago, danydandan said:

Like everything, even this threads topic, is an Americanism. It appears your either a proponent of science, or you're a proponent of Theism. Heaven forbid your a scientifically minded individual who happens to go the church, or a mosque or a synagogue on the weekend. 

That too depends on the person. You can have a respected scientist who ascribes to theism like Simon Conway Morris, or bat**** crazy butters like Jonathan Wells who says God told him to destroy Darwanism. I reckon we see that same here when posters like DieChecker enter the discussion after Will has been rambling on. Some are respected. Others not so much. 

I have to admit, I have often been more than puzzled by your own views on theism considering your background. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
8 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Hey Dan, I for one, really don't care who goes to what church or how often they go. To me it's all about live and let live - but I'll let my true thoughts be known here - and with a few close friends and relatives. 

 My wife is an ardent Christian, but we never talk about religion or anything of that nature. And my friends who are agnostic/atheist - they never, ever, would oppose someone for going to a church.  

I don't oppose anyone going to church....Thats the reason we have freedom of religion in the US you can if you want and do not have to if you want. Where my problem comes in is when people try to shove it down my throat then there is a problem. 

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, Alien Origins said:

Where problem comes in is when people try to shove it down my throat then there is a problem. 

That or they guilt trip you for not believing. Not everyone who is religious or spiritual is a condescending jerk, but some of them are the worst.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That or they guilt trip you for not believing. Not everyone who is religious or spiritual is a condescending jerk, but some of them are the worst.

Well I figure if I want to burn in some mythological hell it's my choice the way I see it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, Alien Origins said:

Well I figure if I want to burn in some mythological hell it's my choice the way I see it.

I don't know. The Christian concept of heaven and hell look the same to me. Forced worship or endless pain forever. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a horrible concept. I find reincarnation to be idiotic. It invokes the idea of infinite suicide. Then you have weird spiritual beliefs in space jesus, etc. Seems like more work that it's worth. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Ladies and Gentlemen, please hold on to your keyboards and mouse cursors, we will be entering the metaphysical realm and do not be alarmed if space jesus denies any dancing with forbidden messages. Snacks and light beverages is not recommended while perusing.

~

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
8 hours ago, danydandan said:

Can you elaborate on what truths you can't test?

Actually, the truths are subjective. What may be true for me, may not be true for you.

As I said, philosophical claims are untestable, even if many things are true.

Next would be morals and ethics.

Historical claims also cannot be tested. All we can do is guess. But since we haven't observed the past, we cannot say for sure what is true.

Paranormal experience cannot be tested. Also, it is not what all will experience. It may be true for the person who experienced it, but hearsay for others.

Some scientific theories, like String Theory have not been tested. It may be true.

In short, if we don't consider the possibility of something being true, we think it is false. But it may actually be true.

So something that is untested doesn't imply it is false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Actually, the truths are subjective. What may be true for me, may not be true for you.

As I said, philosophical claims are untestable, even if many things are true.

Next would be morals and ethics.

Historical claims also cannot be tested. All we can do is guess. But since we haven't observed the past, we cannot say for sure what is true.

Paranormal experience cannot be tested. Also, it is not what all will experience. It may be true for the person who experienced it, but hearsay for others.

Some scientific theories, like String Theory have not been tested. It may be true.

In short, if we don't consider the possibility of something being true, we think it is false. But it may actually be true.

So something that is untested doesn't imply it is false.

No quite the opposite actually. Truths are objective, the truth is the truth regardless of how you or I perceive it. 

And string theory or rather aspects of it have made numerous predictions, been tested and verified. It's been through the rigour of scientific method, some aspects of it are untestable like multiple universes. String theory has no morphed into M-Theory.

Here is a summary I did a while ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
30 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No quite the opposite actually. Truths are objective, the truth is the truth regardless of how you or I perceive it. 

And string theory or rather aspects of it have made numerous predictions, been tested and verified. It's been through the rigour of scientific method, some aspects of it are untestable like multiple universes. String theory has no morphed into M-Theory.

Here is a summary I did a while ago.

Well, maybe String Theory can be tested. 

But what about others?

Paranormal especially can't be experienced by all. You have to tune yourself to higher vibrations to be able to communicate with spirits.

What about channeling?

None except the channeler knows what is true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Well, maybe String Theory can be tested. 

But what about others?

Paranormal especially can't be experienced by all. You have to tune yourself to higher vibrations to be able to communicate with spirits.

What about channeling?

None except the channeler knows what is true. 

Made up stuff can't be tested because it's made up. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Made up stuff can't be tested because it's made up. 

What isn't made up?

Say that a robber robbed you. Now you go to the police and he says,

'We are not going to nab the thief because we THINK you have made up the story. We want proof of he robbing you. Only then will we look into the matter.'

What would you do then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
1 hour ago, Avinash Suresh said:

What isn't made up?

Say that a robber robbed you. Now you go to the police and he says,

'We are not going to nab the thief because we THINK you have made up the story. We want proof of he robbing you. Only then will we look into the matter.'

What would you do then?

Come now, you've picked a poor example for an analogy there, if the Police thinks you've made up the story, they need some very good basis backed by solid evidence, other than just mere suspicions. When those suspicions are confirmed, then they will have to charge you with making a false report. Otherwise, when you make a formal report, they have to investigate, that is, if you provided enough leads for them to investigate, other than that, your report will just have to wait until there is more available evidence to satisfy the Courts or a State Prosecutor for an arrest

~

Edited by third_eye
Law speak fail
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
9 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Come now, you've picked a poor example for an analogy there, if the Police thinks you've made up the story, they need some very good basis backed by solid evidence, other than just mere suspicions. When those suspicions are confirmed, then they will have to charge you with making a false report. Otherwise, when you make a formal report, they have to investigate, that is, if you provided enough leads for them to investigate, other than that, your report will just have to wait until there is more available evidence to satisfy the Courts or a State Prosecutor for an arrest

~

The point is, they have to investigate the matter. Even if they think that you have made things up, they need to investigate to solve the case.

Only after investigations can they have certainty over their suspicions.

Claiming that your story is made up and hence cannot be investigated, does not do justice on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
Just now, Avinash Suresh said:

The point is, they have to investigate the matter. Even if they think that you have made things up, they need to investigate to solve the case.

Only after investigations can they have certainty over their suspicions.

Claiming that your story is made up and hence cannot be investigated, does not do justice on the matter.

Now you're shifting the sand of your beach front sand castle, If they think that you have made things up, then all they will do is to investigate you and gather evidence of why you are making things up. Justice isn't marked or earmarked according to your arguments. YOu present your arguments and that's where it starts to where it leads, whether it ends up where you wish or wants is not up to you but is totally reliant on the presuppositions raised with your initial hypothesis or speculations

~

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

I wasn't aware that the amount of planets estimated to be suitable to life was now down in the thousands, given the size of the universe. What are these 200 exact parameters that he keeps waffling on about?

Sounds like cherry picking and handwaving to me.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007
18 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Biocentrism is a theory proposed by Dr. Robert Lanza.

Btw, who is Gitt? Please be clear.

 

I really do think Dr. Lanza is really on to something. I love science that goes against the grain of the establishment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markdohle
Quote

danydandan said : Actually to introduce logic into this is a fallacy.

I'm a Theist, but an Agnostic one at that. That's the only logical conclusion.

2

Actually, I would say that I agree, however, I would change logical, to scientific, since The God question can't be handled by science, yet can be used to bolster both atheism and theism and a lot in between.  I have respect for the agnostic stance, though it drives 'some' atheist crazy, don't know why that is. 

 

Edited by markdohle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Well, maybe String Theory can be tested. 

But what about others?

Paranormal especially can't be experienced by all. You have to tune yourself to higher vibrations to be able to communicate with spirits.

What about channeling?

None except the channeler knows what is true. 

All that paranormal stuff has failed any and every test conducted with scientific rigour. 

One explanation a certain user here likes to make is that ghost or spirts know. 

What the hell is channelling?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What the hell is channelling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Let's rouse things up a bit ....

~

 

Unexplained: Helen Duncan The Blitz Witch (Paranormal Investigation Documentary) | Timeline - YouTube

 

[00.48:09]

~
 

Quote

 

~

Jump to Repeal of the Witchcraft Act - In 1944, Duncan was one of the last people convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1735, which made falsely claiming to ...

 

~

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
19 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You mean the crap Harry Houdini debunked, and was perfected by Derek Acorah? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

You mean the crap Harry Houdini debunked, and was perfected by Derek Acorah? 

Yep. The more you dig into the paranormal and supernatural the less substance to it there is. The more people use it the fill in the blanks. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
On 22/11/2018 at 4:54 AM, Guyver said:

Good.  Because the universe making itself makes no sense whatsoever when you think about it.

Mathematically it does, and math is the language of science and of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
29 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yep. The more you dig into the paranormal and supernatural the less substance to it there is. The more people use it the fill in the blanks. 

I want to learn how to cold read and then tell people afterwards that is what I did. 

Do you have Netflix? You should watch Darren Brown: Miracle. It's incredible.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
23 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

The problem comes with the conception of God. God for me, is the source of the universe. It is the fabric that binds all that is together. God is not, some human-like figure in the heavens waving his wand for Good and Evil, as most religions might get you to think. God has no gender. He is no human. Yet, he is within all. God is Light. Not just any light, but that light through which everything manifested.

Now if you don't like this, that's absolutely fine.

But if you are interested, start by reading Kingdom of God is within you by Leo Tolstoy. Also, research the children of the law of one.

It is important to experience things to learn. 

Instead of saying only Science is right or only God is right, why can't they both be right? I've found that both paths lead to the same principle of Oneness.

I mean no disrespect, but that is just your own homebrewed fantasy, to fulfill your own personal need for sense in life.
There are hundreds of God-interpretations, and they all claim to be the one true faith.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.