science proves the existence of god

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Nobody appears to have informed the scientific community that God's existence has been proven. You'd have thought such a staggering result would have made the news all over the world.

Peace

 

[Scimitar]

Define what constitutes for proof - coz if its observable verification for a God, then hah - you have to wait a looooooooooong time.

If it's circumstantial evidences, mathematical proofs, logic, debunking of bad science in order to arrive at a more honest truth - then we can go some ways to making atheist feel like they've invested a lot of faith in something that remains to be proven also

Scimi

 

[sugaray21]

Lol...it all depends who is in charge,who monopolises what is shown and told to the world....do you think that the corporate elite/the powers that be/the Illuminati etc (Ie.the families and corporations that truly run things) with all their money and power over the mainstream media,would ever let this type of information out to the mainstream,in the way it is presented? Of course not,because then the masses may begin to become curious and do their own research,and educate themselves of all sides of every story -where will that lead to? =A massive shift in societal dynamics and most fearfully for the elite,a looser grip of control of the masses.this possibility is absolutely unacceptable to them,they have been socially engineering the masses for decades for their own agenda so any diversion to that end is a no no.especially if everyone suddenly decides they must follow a God and no longer want to be subordinate to (corrupt) human beings....

 

[sugaray21]

That last post of mine was directed at Cz gibson

 

[Independent]

Is that all you could find in the video to object to? What about all the other stuff the video talked about?

i found plenty to object to but it's 1.5 hrs long. If you want to ask something specific I'll give you my view.

Not all of it is worthless, there are some genuine issues raised. But overall it is not a serious scientific document as you can tell in the first few seconds, when it drifts off immediately into conspiracy land (new world order - yawn).

I commented on the Fibonacci numbers because they make such a big deal of it in the video. The fact that they omit to tell us the real signficance of the number is unforgivable from a science point of view and renders the video as pure propaganda.

 

[Independent]

Lol...it all depends who is in charge,who monopolises what is shown and told to the world....do you think that the corporate elite/the powers that be/the Illuminati etc (Ie.the families and corporations that truly run things) with all their money and power over the mainstream media,would ever let this type of information out to the mainstream,in the way it is presented?

Isn't this video doing exactly that? Telling another story?

With regard to the issue of science censorship, many of the scientists featured in the video work for Creationist institutions such as the Biologic Institute. Their mission is to research into and find proof for Intelligent Design. They have been founded on the notion that research built on Creationist principles will actually produce better science than 'normal' science.

So far, they have published very little and made no important contribution to scientific advance. It would seem that they prefer to spend their time criticising others rather than achieving anything for themselves. They are typical of the overwhelmingly negative, defeatist trend of Creationist scientists who find a problem and say 'This is a problem. It's really hard. Let's give up.'

 

[جوري]

will actually produce better science than 'normal' science.

You know very little on science and much less on how research actually works. Makes me wonder under whose name you speak here?
Have you ever filed IRB form? Do you have membership to any research body? Do you know of the procedures involved, consent process, clinical studies, types of studies even?
If not, please do take your closing statement into consideration before your next post!

best,

 

[sugaray21]

independent:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations.

What do you mean exactly? I thought science (according to atheists) was the explanation for every thing...unless it’s pseudo science, which i don’t believe it is...how can it be subjective then as you say?

Ok, it’s telling a story. But I thought since all the information in there was scientific, doesn’t that change things? I mean a story is usually fiction isn’t it. Or fact presented in a way that the reader has their own agenda, yes. So are you saying this doc is a manipulation of scientific facts? They are either correct or they’re not.
Ok, so the scientists you say are funded by creationist institutes...they are paid to prove intelligent design. So they will talk about it as if they have concrete evidence. But isn’t that exactly what they are saying? In front of cameras? Wouldn’t they look a bit silly in the scientific community if they said there is a God, and they have proof, but then somehow that proof could be overturned, wouldn’t they have already thought of eliminating the impossible, or no? But i thought that’s what they did? I’m confused!
What about the evolution part, the DNA part....

Do you mean that you completely refute the idea they are implying based on all the evidence presented? (if you yourself would call it scientific evidence).
Is the science in the video wrong? Did they get it wrong? (genuine question, as you seem to be more knowledgeable).
You don’t accept what they are saying, that, based on the mathematical probability there must have been a designer of some form or another?
Remember, they are not saying what they think God is, they are not describing God in any way, they are not pretending to know what is God, but they are simply stating that the probability of a higher intelligence is 100%....they are not telling anyone to believe in god or follow a religion (just to be clear). These scientists are clearly atheists bordering on agnosticism, that’s all...
Everyone has their own version of what God is....the word God for non religious people has become a somewhat inconvenience..a backwards/fairytale/man in the sky notion/concept..

If you removed all of your current knowledge about religion, the western societal stigma attached to it, others’ views of what God may/may not be, societies idea of what God may/may not be, Television and media’s view of what God may/may not be...and in particular remove any images in your subconscious/conscious mind about what you think God might look like IF there was a God...if you removed all that from your mind and looked at the documentary with a blank canvas so to speak, and instead considered the possibility of God as just another word for higher intelligence/being/entity/grand designer, and importantly neither male or female, would you still come to the same conclusion?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Lol...it all depends who is in charge,who monopolises what is shown and told to the world....do you think that the corporate elite/the powers that be/the Illuminati etc (Ie.the families and corporations that truly run things) with all their money and power over the mainstream media,would ever let this type of information out to the mainstream,in the way it is presented? Of course not,because then the masses may begin to become curious and do their own research,and educate themselves of all sides of every story -where will that lead to? =A massive shift in societal dynamics and most fearfully for the elite,a looser grip of control of the masses.this possibility is absolutely unacceptable to them,they have been socially engineering the masses for decades for their own agenda so any diversion to that end is a no no.especially if everyone suddenly decides they must follow a God and no longer want to be subordinate to (corrupt) human beings....

If you want to talk about social engineering, religion is one of the most effective ways to control a society. This is why I believe it was a necessary part of human development. Without religion, our species could well have murdered itself to extinction. Today, though, most of us are aware that there are better reasons not to kill other people than to maintain the approval of a deity.

On the whole, I think our leaders would be very happy if we all believed in God.

Peace

 

[M.I.A.]

disagree, your observation is right.

religion is a powerful tool that affects the entire world.

but if your clever enough to realise how it could be manipulated then you already know the main factors you should be worried about.

i encountered a recent trend of people saying things are just social constructs.. which is correct, but it does not make them any less real to the people.

even without religion, there would be god.

..well i mean a real creator of mankind rather than people appointed to represent other peoples views.

..which is government lol.


so maybe religion is not a way of controlling the people, rather a way of making them aware of who they choose to represent them.

mankind would not have murdered itself into extinction, look at any lesser species.


the paradox is that how can you question authority when you know it can only be god given?

..god exists, but those days seem gone.

each person gets his own day i suppose.

 

[جوري]

religion is one of the most effective ways to control a society

You should replace that comment with any of the corrupt man made systems- communism, capitalism etc.
Not only is the killing and immorality more rampant than ever as they're more allowing in iniquity while being quite intolerant of virtue..
What is the ethical dilemma here save for the number of prison cells to erect to hold the criminals like animals and where no actual rehabilitation takes place but more of the same empty vicious cycle and the same dark cast system under more acceptable terminology exists.
I do wonder what is your 'better reason' not to kill or how it is that you can quantify your ethical code- I mean honestly what is your baseline? I ask in rhetoric of course given how many sovereign nations your 'know better' boys have subjugated in the name of a 'lesser evil'

best,

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Long time no see.

You should replace that comment with any of the corrupt man made systems- communism, capitalism etc.

While I agree with you that both of those man-made economic systems frequently involve corruption, I have to ask whether you think they have been more effective than religion in controlling societies? I think it is religion's emphasis on the moral code that has made it so effective in controlling people's behaviour.

Not only is the killing and immorality more rampant than ever as they're more allowing in iniquity while being quite intolerant of virtue..

Capitalism is certainly capable of being blind to morality. I'm not sure that there is more killing now than ever, though.

What is the ethical dilemma here save for the number of prison cells to erect to hold the criminals like animals and where no actual rehabilitation takes place but more of the same empty vicious cycle and the same dark cast system under more acceptable terminology exists.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but can't really see how it's relevant.

I do wonder what is your 'better reason' not to kill or how it is that you can quantify your ethical code- I mean honestly what is your baseline?

Among people, whatever maximises human flourishing is good; whatever does not is evil. There are certain moral facts that we just know. Is it better to live in a place where disease is rife and life expectancy is low, or in a place where the opposite conditions exist? Our instinct for survival makes the answer obvious, and there is no need for a supernatural explanation to see the truth of it.

I ask in rhetoric of course given how many sovereign nations your 'know better' boys have subjugated in the name of a 'lesser evil'

Is it sensible to assume that I represent a large number of people who all think the same way and who all agree on every course of action?

(That might also be a rhetorical question.)

Peace

 

[Independent]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and observations.

You're welcome. I'm also appreciative of the Mods for allowing me to say (most) of what i want, even if some of the debates are curtailed at highly unfavourable moments.

are you saying this doc is a manipulation of scientific facts? They are either correct or they’re not.

Many years ago I worked for short time in a sales job in New York. It was the toughest job I ever had but it was a formative experience. One of the techniques they used was to work gradually towards the real message. Don’t come right out with it at the start, you’ll scare them off.

That’s what this video does. It’s a carefully constructed sales technique, glossily and expensively produced. The annoying angelic voices should warn us of where we’re going to end up.

The fact that it uses slick sales techniques doesn’t necessarily invalidate the message but it certainly gets my back up when they themselves start to accuse others of ‘propaganda’. There is a phrase they use in England – ‘The pot calling the kettle black’.

But I thought since all the information in there was scientific, doesn’t that change things?

Well, that depends on how accurate it is. As I described with the Fibonacci number example, they have been deceptive in leaving out the key fact (that this ratio has an evolutionary advantage). This is dishonest. The video is aimed at the general public, not scientists. They know most people won’t know and won’t check.

Ok, so the scientists you say are funded by creationist institutes...they are paid to prove intelligent design.

There are a mix of scientists in here. Some are Creationists – nothing wrong with that. But for the sake of objectivity they should declare their interest camera. They are mixed in with other genuine but entirely outdated scientists (eg Solley Zuckerman) and even someone like Richard Dawkins, a pronounced anti Creationist (who has been edited to make it look like he can’t answer a question). The video also name-drops ‘A’ list stars like Mendel and Pasteur and informs us they have ‘refuted’ Darwinism – well that’s news to the scientific world!

These scientists are clearly atheists bordering on agnosticism

The professional Creationist scientists are manifestly not atheists. (Neither are some of the other scientists).

Is the science in the video wrong? Did they get it wrong? (genuine question, as you seem to be more knowledgeable).

As I said before, the video covers a wide area and some of it raises genuine questions – for instance about the origin of the universe and abiogenesis. (Both have been discussed heavily in other threads). No one thinks these two issues are fully understood or explained. For instance, although i enjoy reading someone like Dawkins i don't agree with everything he says and i think the debate is less certain than he suggests.

Both are at the cutting edge of scientific discovery, so whatever you can say today will be out of date 12 months from now. But I can’t see any reason why we should give up and say ‘we can’t explain something right now, so God must have done it’. I hate that defeatist, negative attitude. And if there is a God, I’ll bet he hates it too.

if you removed all that from your mind and looked at the documentary with a blank canvas so to speak, and instead considered the possibility of God as just another word for higher intelligence/being/entity/grand designer, and importantly neither male or female, would you still come to the same conclusion?

Underlying your question is the notion that I am ‘blinded’ by my education or some other form of bias, whereas you are miraculously clear-sighted. This a vacuous debate because, obviously, I can say that about you and you can say it about me and nothing will ever progress. So let’s leave that alone.

To answer your question directly: you are making a mistake if you assume that I don’t want to find a Designer behind Nature’s work. For me, such a discovery would be the most exciting thing I have ever come across in my life.

It would be, literally, life-changing and i welcome that event, if it ever happens to me.

i do think there are things about the universe which have the potential to provide that but I'm not going to find them in this dishonest video.

 

[جوري]

While I agree with you that both of those man-made economic systems frequently involve corruption, I have to ask whether you think they have been more effective than religion in controlling societies? I think it is religion's emphasis on the moral code that has made it so effective in controlling people's behaviour.

I don't think of religion in terms of 'control' - There's a certainty and a gradation of transcendence, enlightenment and reason that you'd have to experience to understand. I can't follow your premise because I don't subscribe to it!

Capitalism is certainly capable of being blind to morality. I'm not sure that there is more killing now than ever, though.

You'll have to work in a shock trauma in a community hospital in a down trodden area of the western world to have a better and clearer understanding of that, and of the vicious cycle these people live whilst their equally untalented counterparts drown in millions for taking their clothes off!
At the end of the day they both take their clothes off - 90% of those who do receive two dollars to get shot or raped while the others get air time. Certainly if one doesn't subscribe to a religion at all but lives in a society that doesn't reward either types of behavior then such behavior wouldn't be so rampant. Every man made system has equally failed to address the needs of the people and their spiritual needs are siphoned into some detrimental behavior which is a topic for another day!

Among people, whatever maximises human flourishing is good; whatever does not is evil. There are certain moral facts that we just know. Is it better to live in a place where disease is rife and life expectancy is low, or in a place where the opposite conditions exist? Our instinct for survival makes the answer obvious, and there is no need for a supernatural explanation to see the truth of it.

Statistics are made to comfort people such as yourself. If you think a little bit about it, you might surprise yourself. For every AIDS patient that comes to the hospital which I have to report to the CDC, thousands others die nameless 'John doe' Not every disease, hunger, poor living condition is reported to you, and if you want to believe that it is, so you can sleep better then be my guest
Everything about life is 'supernatural' the fact that it is in abundance makes it 'natural' for you, but try to reproduce it ex nihilo not through procreation and we can have this conversation again!

best,

 

[czgibson]

Greetings جوري

It seems that in order to think as you do, I would need to have lived your life. Beyond that, I'm afraid I couldn't make any sense of your post.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings جوري

It seems that in order to think as you do, I would need to have lived your life. Beyond that, I'm afraid I couldn't make any sense of your post.

Peace

Yes I find many atheists meet with that sad end- we too can't relate to the way you think or live the life you do. Thus words as 'control' and 'supernatural' etc. are a faulty premise from which we can't sustain a meaningful dialogue- perhaps you're better suited for a forum with like minded individuals?

best,

 

[MustafaMc]

Both are at the cutting edge of scientific discovery, so whatever you can say today will be out of date 12 months from now. But I can’t see any reason why we should give up and say ‘we can’t explain something right now, so God must have done it’. I hate that defeatist, negative attitude. And if there is a God, I’ll bet he hates it too.

I am not sure I agree that these or evolution are on the cutting edge of discovery. Rather I don't see how theories about the origin of the universe and life itself are in any way 'scientific discovery' or that they in any way enrich my life. I don't see that speculation and guessing about how the universe began from nothing spontaneously with the Big Bang or that all of the extant and extinct species of life originated from a unilcellular Common Ancestor is meaningful and should be called 'scientific discovery'. On the flip side I don't see how saying that the details of life are too intricately complex to have arisen by chance and therefore must be the result of a Creator is in any way defeatist or negative attitude. It gives me a sense of wonder and awe to become aware and knowledgeable about different aspects of nature as evidence of a Creator. In the same way I can look at a painting by, say Thomas Kinkaide, and know beyond doubt that it was created by an artist, so also I can look at life and the species of life and I can know that it had a Creator. It is a source of personal frustration that others can see those same evidences and not come to the conclusion of a Creator being intimately involved in their establishment as reality.

To answer your question directly: you are making a mistake if you assume that I don’t want to find a Designer behind Nature’s work. For me, such a discovery would be the most exciting thing I have ever come across in my life.

This touches upon my last statement above. I am left to conclude that it is a form of Divine guidance or being left to stray.

 

[greenhill]

I commented on the Fibonacci numbers because they make such a big deal of it in the video. The fact that they omit to tell us the real signficance of the number is unforgivable from a science point of view and renders the video as pure propaganda.

That the occurrence of the Fibonacci numbers in the natural world showing a pattern to worldly things and that it is also reflected in the Qur'an, I suppose implying the same 'forces' at work which is discernible (for now) only through these kinds of study.

 

[جوري]

For everything a non-believer says or does, I find a relevant verse in the Quran. Sob7an Allah

[FONT=Verdana,arial]Fatir [35:8]

[SIZE=+2]أَفَمَن زُيِّنَ لَهُ سُوءُ عَمَلِهِ فَرَآهُ حَسَنًا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُضِلُّ مَن يَشَاء وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء فَلَا تَذْهَبْ نَفْسُكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسَرَاتٍ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/Ayat/35/35_8.gif
​

​

Afaman zuyyina lahu sooo AAamalihi faraahu hasanan fainna Allaha yudillu man yashao wayahdee man yashao fala tathhab nafsuka AAalayhim hasaratin inna Allaha AAaleemun bima yasnaAAoona​

35:8 Is he, then, to whom the evil of his conduct is made alluring, so that he looks upon it as good, (equal to one who is rightly guided)? For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills. So let not thy soul go out in (vainly) sighing after them: for Allah knows well all that they do!​

[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Independent]

I don't see how saying that the details of life are too intricately complex to have arisen by chance and therefore must be the result of a Creator is in any way defeatist or negative attitude.

You have to exhaust the possibilities of other explanations before you come to a deus ex machina. Otherwise we would still be thinking the sun was pulled across the sky in a golden chariot.

It is simply not true to say that all possible explanations have been exhausted with, say, the problems in evolution. Creationist science remains overwhelmingly negative in that it simply finds fault with other science. Ironically, it is a profoundly 'uncreative' movement.

I welcome the establishment of explicitly Creationist research groups. I am excited by their idea that approaching the subject from a Creationist angle should lead to new (they say 'better') science.

But the fact remains that, so far, it has led to nothing at all of note. I invite you to name one signigicant science advance made by a Creationist institute.