Science Makes God Unnecessary

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by ajay00

God and love are matters of experiential understanding, and not intellectual understanding.

If one is stuck in the intellect, one misses both.

This has little to do with what I have said. Your original premise is flawed, so therefore any conclusion you make based on that will be erroneous. It has nothing to do with experiential understanding, it's a simple matter of critical reasoning.

[Serrao]

Also without science God is in fact unnecessary.
I see God as an option.
Take it or leave it. Or maybe only when you seriously need Him/Her (to exist). Buddha would say: "each his thing".
For example Jesus accepted God in his life and many blessed others did the same.
I did the same thing too long ago and am still very happy with that decision.
God is even becoming more and more important in my life.

ps. Not as much as God though, but I really love science too.

I was somewhat interested in this back and forward thing between the 2 of you. (Note: I am agnostic but I am looking at this as objectively as possible).

Originally Posted by ajay00

As per Jesus ,God is love.

Has science evolved to the point where it can say that love is unnecessary for a human being !

Originally Posted by VinceField

Arguments bases on unproven assumptions and hearsay serve little purpose.

Originally Posted by ajay00

God and love are matters of experiential understanding, and not intellectual understanding.

If one is stuck in the intellect, one misses both.

Originally Posted by VinceField

This has little to do with what I have said. Your original premise is flawed, so therefore any conclusion you make based on that will be erroneous. It has nothing to do with experiential understanding, it's a simple matter of critical reasoning.

VinceField - are you saying that the statement/ question of "...science making love unnecessary for humans..." is the unproven assumption?

I would agree that science does not make the assumption that love is not necessary for humans (even taking into account the varying definitions of love). It was, however, posed as a question rather than an assumption (although maybe it should have had a question mark). As far as I can see, the God that is being referred to by Stephen Hawking is simply a straw man in the eyes of someone with a spiritual perspective of existence. It is not being posed as a perspective of: [God = love]. I think Hawking is simply implying: [God = some form of creator].

The main question I would pose is - in what way does scientific enquiry about observable phenomena make a concept of a creator unnecessary? Also, to whom does this conceptual creator become unnecessary to? I cannot see how conceptual creators are in any way relevant to scientific methodology or enquiry.

I know that within modern physical science there is no question of a God, it is not a scientific issue - it is a philosophical one. I would therefore state that God is irrelevant to any form of scientific enquiry unless it was in some way involved with some form of study involving statistics involving belief or something similar, e.g. sociology. With regards to the modern physical sciences, God is completely irrelevant.

So basically to summarize I would replace the word "unnecessary" with "irrelevant". BUT, I would also state that it was never really considered necessary anyway, was it? So science does not make God unnecessary - it just never was a part of it in the first place... it was always philosophical.

Originally Posted by Serrao

Also without science God is in fact unnecessary.
I see God as an option.
Take it or leave it. Or maybe only when you seriously need Him/Her (to exist). Buddha would say: "each his thing".
For example Jesus accepted God in his life and many blessed others did the same.
I did the same thing too long ago and am still very happy with that decision.
God is even becoming more and more important in my life.

ps. Not as much as God though, but I really love science too.

I am not so sure that it is an option to all believers (I am agnostic but I have a reasonable understanding of the theist position). I have had a tendency to think that people do not choose beliefs. Is it not true that, for something to really be believed, there would be no choice in the matter?

That is in fact one of the reasons why I call myself agnostic. If there is uncertainty then the existence of a creator would be speculation to me rather than a belief. Do you agree with any of that? I respect your viewpoint either way - I am just pondering.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

VinceField - are you saying that the statement/ question of "...science making love unnecessary for humans..." is the unproven assumption?

No, the unproven assumption/hearsay is that what Jesus is claimed to have said in the bible is truth.

[wmsm]

Originally Posted by 3dnow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyJf...eature=related

Ancient male consciousness considered using a building process for levitation of stone. The information had previously been recorded in the attacked atmospheric wavelengths via radiation burning into stone fusion, releasing crystal particles and causing stone to begin to lift off the face of Earth.

The term God related to his own thinking process of a circle O, a cell condition which his own psyche related to (his own cellular mass) and how the light responded in his own cell in relationship to received atmospheric wavelengths and recorded memories.

GOD when studied as a biblical science states the Cell O.

. at a point G begins.
the point. moves around in a circular movement of light and negative cell release of energy.
the point . circulates in the cell O, forming G.

O the cell splits by 2 as D and D.

Hence the male human evaluated the cellular condition for losing energy to be G O D, the Creator of life and the destroyer of life also.

If you care to study ancient philosophy, letters valued as angles were given valuations.

D a value of 500.

O as the cell of GOD split into 2 a value of 1000.
Christ given a value of 1000.

Anyone with common sense would realize that religion is spiritual science of the consciousness.

Anyone with common sense would realize how dangerous it was for a human being to believe themselves Creator and Inventor.

Anyone with common sense would realize that a human being destroyed their own atmospheric holy life condition by applying science of converSION.

That SION cannot save your life, or give you the spirit of creation, instead applying it will destroy your cell life just as we are all witnessing. The constant spiritual attacks, the proof of spirit attacks and cellular changes, the proof of our mind psyche alteration, the loss of our spiritual health and spiritual life circumstance.

Spiritual wisdom also applied to the gain of personal experience, where the light spirit demonstrated and also communicated to our psyche that we are not the Creator, that we are not God, that we were removed from the God condition.

Therefore when our own psyche and consciousness gives itself a personal review, then you should heed your own information.

We are not God, never were God and never could be God.

The physical cell life did come from a light spirit body, who released all organic life as a self gained condition. That the atmospheric light body sound changed our light spirit's own higher sound into an organic life cell.

We were created and are not being created. God therefore is not creating human life....God created human life.

The atmosphere the condition the ancient philosopher called the Christ Heaven as the Holy Ox or holy spirit of oxygen took over the God circumstance to keep us alive. If you remove the mass of oxygen by using it for nuclear conversions or for science, you will kill us all.....as known by the ancient Philosopher and religious teachings who forbade any form of spirit transformation.

Only sick minded evil occultists would believe that they were going by Scientific insight to gain GOD....who are you kidding anyway?

[wmsm]

Originally Posted by Cheesus Toast

I was somewhat interested in this back and forward thing between the 2 of you. (Note: I am agnostic but I am looking at this as objectively as possible).









VinceField - are you saying that the statement/ question of "...science making love unnecessary for humans..." is the unproven assumption?

I would agree that science does not make the assumption that love is not necessary for humans (even taking into account the varying definitions of love). It was, however, posed as a question rather than an assumption (although maybe it should have had a question mark). As far as I can see, the God that is being referred to by Stephen Hawking is simply a straw man in the eyes of someone with a spiritual perspective of existence. It is not being posed as a perspective of: [God = love]. I think Hawking is simply implying: [God = some form of creator].

The main question I would pose is - in what way does scientific enquiry about observable phenomena make a concept of a creator unnecessary? Also, to whom does this conceptual creator become unnecessary to? I cannot see how conceptual creators are in any way relevant to scientific methodology or enquiry.

I know that within modern physical science there is no question of a God, it is not a scientific issue - it is a philosophical one. I would therefore state that God is irrelevant to any form of scientific enquiry unless it was in some way involved with some form of study involving statistics involving belief or something similar, e.g. sociology. With regards to the modern physical sciences, God is completely irrelevant.

So basically to summarize I would replace the word "unnecessary" with "irrelevant". BUT, I would also state that it was never really considered necessary anyway, was it? So science does not make God unnecessary - it just never was a part of it in the first place... it was always philosophical.

Scientists believe that information makes them intelligent. They read spiritual interpretation and believed that it was going to give them new insight into how a human male first acquired information of science in his natural consciousness.

Scientists wanted human beings to be God, so that they could study us, experiment upon us in secret and gain the information of God, only because they believed in their own ancient acquirement of science as a conceived and informed evaluation as a psychic condition.

They believed that our cells had many different dimensions of information regarding energy and if they gained this information they would have the beginnings of creation.

Yet where is the human cell in the beginning of creation Scientist? We don't exist in out of space you evil, nasty human beings.

They began to attack us all via a satellite program studying black body radiation and cellular conditions, murdering us, changing our cellular natural activity trying to make us a conscious condition involving black body radiation.

Is it a wonder that human kind worldwide were spiritually attacked with evil visions, evil spirit bodies and cellular change?

Scientists never considered that records are made in the atmosphere via the conditions of radiation attacks. If a Scientist decided he was going to be spiritually taught, then be spiritual and not a Scientist. You have no idea Scientist what it is like to be a loving, kind spiritual consciousness, or else you would never consider contacting our minds or attacking our spirits.

Who cares Scientist who or what you believe created us. Those of us who have had real light spirit contact seen and witnessed by us in our life do not need your review of our experience. And also Scientist it was you, who created the precepts for religion, not us.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ajay00

Has science evolved to the point where it can say that love is unnecessary for a human being !

That would be difficult to quantify, but studies in neuroscience attest to emotional links with brain development.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by wmsm

Scientists believe that information makes them intelligent. They read spiritual interpretation and believed that it was going to give them new insight into how a human male first acquired information of science in his natural consciousness.

Scientists wanted human beings to be God, so that they could study us, experiment upon us in secret and gain the information of God, only because they believed in their own ancient acquirement of science as a conceived and informed evaluation as a psychic condition.

They believed that our cells had many different dimensions of information regarding energy and if they gained this information they would have the beginnings of creation.

Yet where is the human cell in the beginning of creation Scientist? We don't exist in out of space you evil, nasty human beings.

They began to attack us all via a satellite program studying black body radiation and cellular conditions, murdering us, changing our cellular natural activity trying to make us a conscious condition involving black body radiation.

Is it a wonder that human kind worldwide were spiritually attacked with evil visions, evil spirit bodies and cellular change?

Scientists never considered that records are made in the atmosphere via the conditions of radiation attacks. If a Scientist decided he was going to be spiritually taught, then be spiritual and not a Scientist. You have no idea Scientist what it is like to be a loving, kind spiritual consciousness, or else you would never consider contacting our minds or attacking our spirits.

Who cares Scientist who or what you believe created us. Those of us who have had real light spirit contact seen and witnessed by us in our life do not need your review of our experience. And also Scientist it was you, who created the precepts for religion, not us.

Having spiritual inclinations does not exclude one from scientific interests, or vice-versa.

[Gem]

The assertion that god is unnecessary was made famous by Hawkins, so it's important to understand the context of how he came to say such a thing. The famous quote is as follows:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary" [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989].

The context was that quantum theories don't express boundary conditions for the universe, so the universe didn't begin, and therefore it wasn't created at all.

My favorite bit of Hawkins is this one

"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.].