Science Makes God Unnecessary

Originally Posted by Sammy

This might help... maybe.

How is this related to the law of gravity?

3dnow

[Sammy]

Doesnt the moon go around Earth with some unseen force?

for one to prove or disprove god one would have to look in to the mind. that we beleave that are minds use to work on demands. where we told ourselves what to do and we reacted. then we evolved to talking to ourselves. this is where one would look to prove god. you could view the concept of god as the motivations of those demands. where god lies is the thought processes and to beleave this you would have to give up rights to any will you would understand. ( this is what science will show us, that we truly are just a vessel and it will be scary)( that once we see this we will have proven god in his own right and rule to love. that there was something hiding this from us for are benifit)

that when one reaches for guidance it will exsist in the free will one preserves to have. if there is a all knowing being that exsist to show us teach us or improve us, this is where it would have to lie. because the only way to lead us, to guide us, or get us to understand is to exsist as are thoughts.

the question i have is does my thought process lie in the same frequency as every one else. is the basis of life the same frequency where there is truly one mind creating, the question isn't whether he exsist its how does he exsist its if we truly have free will of existing with or with out him. does this pull us out of the everything happens for a reason theory. and if you can what exsist beyond him?

this is where space time and information exsist infinitely!

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by 3dnow

Hey folks,

Forgetting about God for a second, he says "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

I found this fascinating ... I wish I could understand

3dnow

this is what he was saying .... because things attract, these things can and will create out of nothing.

if you can see through the statement, there is no such thing as nothing. there are things (the universe). gravity just "formed" or "shaped" the things. that something exists instead of nothing is a given in his statement.

iow, the universe is not a result of gravity.
becasue it is utter non sense if he meant to say that because there is attraction, things will be created. the postulate is pure nonsense.

.

Originally Posted by hybrid

this is what he was saying .... because things attract, these things can and will create out of nothing.

if you can see through the statement, there is no such thing as nothing. there are things (the universe). gravity just "formed" or "shaped" the things. that something exists instead of nothing is a given in his statement.

iow, the universe is not a result of gravity.
becasue it is utter non sense if he meant to say that because there is attraction, things will be created. the postulate is pure nonsense.

.

The universe can and will create itself from nothing, but that doesn't mean that it is nothing.

every one has heard of vibrations through space. that space its self can vibrate at very low frequency's that when observed seem like a wobble. to very high frequencys. these vibrations create more vibrations which inturn create more vibrations, these vibrations are where space, exist infinitely, every thing is created to stored in these vibrations. its a vast vail of mater we truly do not understand. the universe can store information in these vail. to allowing use to look forward and backward into time. its in the manor you resonate this vail to truly create. there for everything is existing all at once every where all the time. to me i guess the universe resonated before anything. there for it did exist infinity and so called create something from nothing. the mater is there. it would be like going to heaven and existing everywhere all the time all at once. but your still aware. there for you exist. even if it looks like nothing at any point in time i can create you from this mater. this it has been describe as being in a solid white state.

or am i way off subject.

Saying that science is just theories that get accepted as fact is too narrow a view. Asteroids are not theories. The structure of our solar system (as mentioned earlier in this thread) is not a theory. Theories lead to research which leads to discovery which leads to proven science.

Religion actually is only theory, which is offered as truth without proof - but more dangerous, without even research or discovery.

It could actually be argued that science is the quest to understand that which is god. In fact, I would offer the theory that anyone feeling threatened by scientific theories and research has a fundamental conflict to address in their own definition of what god really is. If god is the source of that which lies beyond our understanding, where is the conflict in increasing our understanding? Doesn't scientific research and discovery by definition, bring us closer to god?

Why, in our construct of god, have we included the caveat that he/she/it can never be found? That limitation is the very reason that science makes god unnecessary. Belief in such a god only survives if I willfully remain unaware of other explanations. And if certain explanations are proven for certain things, then those things must not be God because God can not be understood. God gets smaller. Therefore, all new understanding is in direct conflict with God.

What if instead, we allowed science to reveal the nature of god to us?

[Apakhana Akshobhya]

"...for one to prove or disprove god one would have to look in to the mind."

Or perhaps it is better said that realizing the truth about the thing we call "God" involves transcending the mind since it is the typical case that the mind only conjures ideas to make sense out of what it doesn't or simply can not yet understand.

Consciousness, the part of our psyche that does transcend the mind, allows the vigillant to experience the truth for themselves. Then such an individual will understand that God is not a pronoun and that most people don't know what they are talking about except that they have a feeling their ideas should be looked upon as authority, which is not an enlightened thing to do.

Originally Posted by DulcePoetica

Saying that science is just theories that get accepted as fact is too narrow a view. Asteroids are not theories. The structure of our solar system (as mentioned earlier in this thread) is not a theory. Theories lead to research which leads to discovery which leads to proven science.

Religion actually is only theory, which is offered as truth without proof - but more dangerous, without even research or discovery.

the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] –noun, plural -ries.

1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. (from Dictionary.com)

"Theory" is a scientific term. Gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory, atoms are a theory. A great many "facts" in science are just best guesses, best explanations for the way reality behaves. Heck, even F=ma, possibly the second most famous equation in all of physics, has no explanation; we don't know why it takes x amount of energy to accelerate y amount of mass to z speed, we just know that it's true. We don't know why inertia exists. We don't know why gravity exists. We just know that there is a certain degree of predictability in physicality.

In a way, religion really is a theory; an idea that attempts to explain the world. There are certain things about life that science is not equipped to explain: love, beauty, morality, laughter, purpose. Religion is an attempt to place these ideas into a coherent framework, and because these are subjective experiences and not objective phenomena, there's a great deal of personal, individual spin involved. This does not mean that there is no "research and discovery" involved, just that it is research and discovery placed into a subjective framework.

Originally Posted by DulcePoetica

It could actually be argued that science is the quest to understand that which is god. In fact, I would offer the theory that anyone feeling threatened by scientific theories and research has a fundamental conflict to address in their own definition of what god really is. If god is the source of that which lies beyond our understanding, where is the conflict in increasing our understanding? Doesn't scientific research and discovery by definition, bring us closer to god?

Why, in our construct of god, have we included the caveat that he/she/it can never be found? That limitation is the very reason that science makes god unnecessary. Belief in such a god only survives if I willfully remain unaware of other explanations. And if certain explanations are proven for certain things, then those things must not be God because God can not be understood. God gets smaller. Therefore, all new understanding is in direct conflict with God.

What if instead, we allowed science to reveal the nature of god to us?

Science cannot reveal the nature of the Divine because the Divine is an experience, a subjective phenomenon. This does not mean that It cannot ever be found, just that we will never be able to point at something and say "this proves God". Proof is objective, not subjective. Can science bring us great truths? Yes. Can science bring us meaning? No. Meaning is in the realm of religion and spirituality, not of science.

CS

Originally Posted by Chrysaetos

This ''pick and choose'' nature is attractive as it keeps us comfortable with living in enchanted bubbles.
Earthquakes is an example, any religious explanation is mere guess work..

I disagree on experiences. Human beings need to have some ''common ground'' in order to communicate.
There are not ''6 billion views'' or ''6 billion truths'', that is New Age relativism.

~ this is none of your labels.....Your Loss having closed the door to your mind!