Is science a religion?

[BADecker]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

image

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

That is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist.

Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural.

You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural".

Just because English is a second language for you, doesn't mean you have a very poor knowledge of it. You have shown that you understand it quite well. Now slow down a little when you read it.

Look above to what I posted last. I posted, "Nature is not supernatural in itself." What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that nature is not supernatural? You said, "By definition nature can not be 'supernatural'." Aren't we both expressing virtually the same thing? What are we expressing? We both are expressing that "NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL."

Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, look at the other little thing that I posted, which you ignored. That little thing is, "But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural." Nature isn't supernatural. Its existence is. What does this mean? It means that the natural nature came into existence through supernatural means. It doesn't mean that nature is supernatural. It means that the process whereby nature came into existence is supernatural.

How do we know this? Because we see nothing in nature that could have caused nature to come into existence. If there were a natural method whereby nature came into being, we would see it. Even the silly Big Bang idea borders on the supernatural.

[1714603123]

1714603123

[1714603123]

1714603123

[1714603123]

1714603123

[1714603123]

1714603123

[organofcorti]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

image

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

That is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist.

Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural.

You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural".

Just because English is a second language for you, doesn't mean you have a very poor knowledge of it. You have shown that you understand it quite well. Now slow down a little when you read it.


Look above to what I posted last. I posted, "Nature is not supernatural in itself." What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that nature is not supernatural? You said, "By definition nature can not be 'supernatural'." Aren't we both expressing virtually the same thing? What are we expressing? We both are expressing that "NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL."

Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, look at the other little thing that I posted, which you ignored. That little thing is, "But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural." Nature isn't supernatural. Its existence is. What does this mean? It means that the natural nature came into existence through supernatural means. It doesn't mean that nature is supernatural. It means that the process whereby nature came into existence is supernatural.

How do we know this? Because we see nothing in nature that could have caused nature to come into existence. If there were a natural method whereby nature came into being, we would see it. Even the silly Big Bang idea borders on the supernatural.

You wrote: "the whole definition of science includes the supernatural."

This means you think that some of science is supernatural? Yet the defintion at dictionary.com (your favourite online resource) defines science as a study of nature and natural things. Nature and natural things cannot also be supernatural. QED.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Science

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

[BADecker]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

image

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

That is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist.

Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural.

You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural".

Just because English is a second language for you, doesn't mean you have a very poor knowledge of it. You have shown that you understand it quite well. Now slow down a little when you read it.

Look above to what I posted last. I posted, "Nature is not supernatural in itself." What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that nature is not supernatural? You said, "By definition nature can not be 'supernatural'." Aren't we both expressing virtually the same thing? What are we expressing? We both are expressing that "NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL."

Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, look at the other little thing that I posted, which you ignored. That little thing is, "But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural." Nature isn't supernatural. Its existence is. What does this mean? It means that the natural nature came into existence through supernatural means. It doesn't mean that nature is supernatural. It means that the process whereby nature came into existence is supernatural.

How do we know this? Because we see nothing in nature that could have caused nature to come into existence. If there were a natural method whereby nature came into being, we would see it. Even the silly Big Bang idea borders on the supernatural.

You wrote: "the whole definition of science includes the supernatural."

This means you think that some of science is supernatural? Yet the defintion at dictionary.com (your favourite online resource) defines science as a study of nature and natural things. Nature and natural things cannot also be supernatural. QED.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Science

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

So far, since we don't have any clue except guesses as to where nature came from...

... and since the one thing that we have ascertained is that nature itself doesn't have any source for where it came from...

... the knowledge, as of facts or principles found through systematic study is that the nature came about via supernatural means.

Even Spock said, in Star Trek 2009, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The existence of nature and the universe was caused by supernatural means, and science essentially proves it... at least until science disproves it.

[Tusk]

Good point BD, nothing makes itself.

[organofcorti]

Elegant Math and Failed Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFCNCMANws

Physicist Wal Thornhill continues his discussion of some of the foundational theories of modern physics and cosmology. As Thornhill explains, the aesthetics of mathematical theories may often have little or no relationship to physical reality.

image

Definitely not! Science breeds on evidence and scientific inquiry using the scientific method to validate a claim or theory. Religion deals with absolutes, without any mechanism of scrutinizing the validity of certain claims.

Science in and of itself is not a religion. However, many scientists and the media and others treat some of the unknown things of science (the theory) as though it were reality. They essentially have created a religion for themselves, out of science. And they often proclaim the unknown as fact to those who don't have the ability to discern, and make believers of them as well. Science is definitely religion in some aspects of it.

The interesting thing about all this is that virtually all the religions out there, along with many of the philosophies that are on the edge of being religions, have lots of truth in them. Are we, then, to call these religions science? After all, when you have fact and truth, and call it science, why not have fiction like science does and call it science as well?

No. Can you link to a defintion of "science" that includes "necessary belief in supernatural"?. I didn't think so.

Not that there isn't any definition.

Since science has proven that God exists, and since everything in science comes from God, the whole definition of science includes the supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make anything from scratch, out of absolutely nothing at all (even though we can manipulate many things that exist). So everything is supernatural, especially nature.

No. The words themselves make that clear. "Nature" consists of "natural" things, not "supernatural" things.

You like posting "dictionary.com" definitions, so here's a link for you: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

That is true. But that is not what I said. The fact that nature exists is supernatural. Why? Because nobody can make nature exist. Everyone uses parts of nature, but nobody can make nature exist.

Nature is not supernatural in itself. But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural.

You're using "supernatural" to mean something other than what it does. "Supernatural" means "above nature". By definition nature can not be "supernatural".

Just because English is a second language for you, doesn't mean you have a very poor knowledge of it. You have shown that you understand it quite well. Now slow down a little when you read it.

Look above to what I posted last. I posted, "Nature is not supernatural in itself." What does that mean? Doesn't it mean that nature is not supernatural? You said, "By definition nature can not be 'supernatural'." Aren't we both expressing virtually the same thing? What are we expressing? We both are expressing that "NATURE IS NOT SUPERNATURAL."

Okay. Now that we have that out of the way, look at the other little thing that I posted, which you ignored. That little thing is, "But the fact that nature exists at all is supernatural." Nature isn't supernatural. Its existence is. What does this mean? It means that the natural nature came into existence through supernatural means. It doesn't mean that nature is supernatural. It means that the process whereby nature came into existence is supernatural.

How do we know this? Because we see nothing in nature that could have caused nature to come into existence. If there were a natural method whereby nature came into being, we would see it. Even the silly Big Bang idea borders on the supernatural.

You wrote: "the whole definition of science includes the supernatural."

This means you think that some of science is supernatural? Yet the defintion at dictionary.com (your favourite online resource) defines science as a study of nature and natural things. Nature and natural things cannot also be supernatural. QED.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

Science

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

So far, since we don't have any clue except guesses as to where nature came from...

... and since the one thing that we have ascertained is that nature itself doesn't have any source for where it came from...

... the knowledge, as of facts or principles found through systematic study is that the nature came about via supernatural means.

Even Spock said, in Star Trek 2009, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The existence of nature and the universe was caused by supernatural means, and science essentially proves it... at least until science disproves it.

You avoided the question, so I'll try again:

You wrote: "the whole definition of science includes the supernatural."

This means you think that some of science is supernatural? Yet the defintion at dictionary.com (your favourite online resource) defines science as a study of nature and natural things. Nature and natural things cannot also be supernatural. QED.

[Farhad099]

Science is not a religion. Religion is science. I learned all science book and related all religion book. Then I saw Islam is totally scientific. And so deference.

[JesusHadAegis]

Science is not a religion. Religion is science. I learned all science book and related all religion book. Then I saw Islam is totally scientific. And so deference.

I agree that each has its own classification?? And so i ask?? you read the books of christianity and judaism and other religion right?? now why is it that u find islam scientifically because other religion also are scientific but it was explained by miracles??

[Xenophoto]

Science is not a religion. Religion is science. I learned all science book and related all religion book. Then I saw Islam is totally scientific. And so deference.

I agree that each has its own classification?? And so i ask?? you read the books of christianity and judaism and other religion right?? now why is it that u find islam scientifically because other religion also are scientific but it was explained by miracles??

Just a quick note, if you guys are thinking how the Bible can be explained in a scientific way, try reading Rael. Please don't bash me or smth if you read smth you don't believe in that book. I'm not the one who made it.

[Tusk]

Ultimately we are all faced with the paradox of how noting makes itself both science and religion cant answer this fundamental question. While most can agree that intelligent design exists in the universe some think that a "god" is responsible, but what then made the "god"? Nobody can explain this fundamental question.

[BADecker]

Ultimately we are all faced with the paradox of how noting makes itself both science and religion cant answer this fundamental question. While most can agree that intelligent design exists in the universe some think that a "god" is responsible, but what then made the "god"? Nobody can explain this fundamental question.

The universe contains the idea of "making." "Making" is or has to do with the cause and effect idea. It is in everything. That is the reason why we consider it so deeply. We and our universe are filled with the idea of making. The question is, does this have to necessarily do with God?

God might have used the idea of "making" in part of the universe making. And we might see some of the aspects of God, Himself, within the universe. But since God is outside of the universe and before it, He is almost necessarily going to have attributes that are not of this universe, and might not be understandable.

For example, consider the idea of reverse entropy... where things do not wear out or coalesce or disperse. Consider the idea of bubbling energy that is naturally constantly growing in ways that we can't understand, because that is its nature. Our universe isn't like this. But we can almost imagine what it might be like a little.

Also, consider real random. From a basic scientific standpoint, everything that exists, does so by something - or many things - causing it to exist the way it does. For example, why does an electron move in a copper wire? Because it was bumped by another electron. Or because a magnetic field pressed against its magnetic field. Something caused it to move.

Yet, we have the idea of random in our lives. We use it to "guess at" stuff that is outside of our realm of observation. For example, when we flip a coin, we don't know/can't measure the forces that act on it to make it land heads or tails. So, we do a bunch of flips in approximately the same way, and measure the average.

Pure random is something that we can envision slightly, but really can't understand. Why not God? After all, we aren't even close to understanding all about the universe that He created. Why would we think that we might be able to understand much of anything about Him?

[Tusk]

That still does not explain how something can make itself, inserting a "god" is even more ludicrous because there is no evidence for a god. It is more logical to conclude the universe has made itself and like us is alive, we and everything in it are expressions of the living whole. Like it we make ourselves (we evolve both physically and consciously) through our conscious choices that are influenced by our environment and those choices in turn influence our future.

This is why IMHO The most succinct definition is :-

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. - Buckminster Fuller

  

[BADecker]

That still does not explain how something can make itself, inserting a "god" is even more ludicrous because there is no evidence for a god. It is more logical to conclude the universe has made itself and like us is alive, we and everything in it are expressions of the living whole. Like it we make ourselves (we evolve both physically and consciously) through our conscious choices that are influenced by our environment and those choices in turn influence our future.

This is why IMHO The most succinct definition is :-

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. - Buckminster Fuller

  

To say it simply, we don't really have a concept for how something can make itself if it can. Such a concept is not part of our universe. This doesn't mean that there is not something outside of the universe. All it means is that it would be so different that even the word "different" wouldn't apply.



Proof for God

Everything operates by the fundamental law of cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even your synapses in your brain fire because of things that made them fire. We don't have free will scientifically speaking. The thing that looks like free will is programming through cause and effect. This is scientific law.

Complexity is worldwide. All the scientists, and almost everyone else, know it. The things that we see about the rest of the universe show complexity as well. So far, the complexity is beyond our understanding. Whatever caused this complexity must have been more complex.

Entropy is universal. Entropy is scientific. This means that there must have been a beginning of everything. If there was no beginning, that is, if everything had always been, entropy suggests that everything would have dispersed and diffused long ago, so that there would be no complexity whatever.

In other words, Something caused a beginning time. That something caused all the complexity. That Something was far more complex than anything that we understand - consider how deeply complex cause and effect is and how it is withstanding entropy's dissolution. That Something fits our definition of "God."



We see no evidence in the universe of anything making itself without something else causing it.



There is no scientific evidence that we grow in any way without cause and effect making us grow the way we do. In other words, everything, even our maturing, and our intelligence, and our thinking, are all pre-programmed.

[Tusk]

Everything operates by the fundamental law of cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even your synapses in your brain fire because of things that made them fire. We don't have free will scientifically speaking. The thing that looks like free will is programming through cause and effect. This is scientific law.

You making an assumption that consciousness is a product of brain function, that has not been proved. This is why there is no unit of measure for consciousness. Some argue that our brains are merely receivers of consciousness like a biological TV set. Hence free will is not necessarily a product of cause and effect. Your free will could very well be influencing/driving the synapses in your brain that fire.

Assuming you support the idea of religion, arguing that your consciousness is merely a product of the brain due to cause and effect, implies we are biological robots. Then what purpose would religion even have.   

[BADecker]

Everything operates by the fundamental law of cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even your synapses in your brain fire because of things that made them fire. We don't have free will scientifically speaking. The thing that looks like free will is programming through cause and effect. This is scientific law.

You making an assumption that consciousness is a product of brain function, that has not been proved. This is why there is no unit of measure for consciousness. Some argue that our brains are merely receivers of consciousness like a biological TV set. Hence free will is not necessarily a product of cause and effect. Your free will could very well be influencing/driving the synapses in your brain that fire.

I agree that there is more to it than what standard science says. We could get into all kinds of pseudo science about this. But, standard science still says that there isn't really any soul or even spirit. Science could be wrong. It has been many times in the past. So, in the "spirit" of science, cause and effect rule in everything. There is no pure random.

Assuming you support the idea of religion, arguing that your consciousness is merely a product of the brain due to cause and effect, implies we are biological robots. Then what purpose would religion even have.   

Now you are suggesting we should talk about some aspects of religion. The question is "Is science a religion?"

Consider. If evolution is real, why did it go to all the trouble of making two sexes? Why not have just one "sex" propagate itself? We might be able to list all kinds of reasons either way. But we should be able to at least find a multitude of single sex and tri-sex families that are as large as the two-sex family. Is evolution wrong? Did nature goof?

We don't feel like biological robots. Does this make it so that we aren't? My point has always been that there is a God, that there is purpose, that science is moving into the realm of religion among people.

[Tusk]

If the universe is infinite, is cause and effect not random?

Single sex species are an evolutionary expression.

Why should god be separate from the universe?

[BADecker]

If the universe is infinite, is cause and effect not random?

Why wouldn't there be an infinity of cause and effect? After all, that is the only thing that we have found so far. Cause and effect seems to be penetrating throughout the whole earth and the few things that we can view in the cosmos. We have not found any pure random for a fact.

Single sex species are an evolutionary expression.

Is there such a thing as a single sex species outside of a few microbes? You don't see any single-sex jiggle hogs in the grasslands, or bangle bears in the woods, or bimble birds flying around in the skies. They are all male and female. If evolution existed, there would be some of these single sex "things" right in the back yard.

Why would nature stick to double sex? It is inefficient and illogical.

Why should god be separate from the universe?

We have found nothing that makes itself. Entropy shows us that the universe had a beginning. Before there was the universe, there was the Thing that made (created) it. God had to be outside of the universe to have made it... to have given it a beginning.

Let's say you build a garage. Before you build it, there is no garage, right? Then you build the garage. While you are building it, you are inside of it part of the time to build it. You are outside of it part of the time to build it. Once it is finished, you can walk inside or outside of it... provided you left a door for yourself, that is.

Same said for God in the universe. We don't have evidence of it being any other way.

[organofcorti]

That still does not explain how something can make itself, inserting a "god" is even more ludicrous because there is no evidence for a god. It is more logical to conclude the universe has made itself and like us is alive, we and everything in it are expressions of the living whole. Like it we make ourselves (we evolve both physically and consciously) through our conscious choices that are influenced by our environment and those choices in turn influence our future.

This is why IMHO The most succinct definition is :-

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. - Buckminster Fuller

  

To say it simply, we don't really have a concept for how something can make itself if it can. Such a concept is not part of our universe. This doesn't mean that there is not something outside of the universe. All it means is that it would be so different that even the word "different" wouldn't apply.



Proof for God

Everything operates by the fundamental law of cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even your synapses in your brain fire because of things that made them fire. We don't have free will scientifically speaking. The thing that looks like free will is programming through cause and effect. This is scientific law.

Complexity is worldwide. All the scientists, and almost everyone else, know it. The things that we see about the rest of the universe show complexity as well. So far, the complexity is beyond our understanding. Whatever caused this complexity must have been more complex.

Entropy is universal. Entropy is scientific. This means that there must have been a beginning of everything. If there was no beginning, that is, if everything had always been, entropy suggests that everything would have dispersed and diffused long ago, so that there would be no complexity whatever.

In other words, Something caused a beginning time. That something caused all the complexity. That Something was far more complex than anything that we understand - consider how deeply complex cause and effect is and how it is withstanding entropy's dissolution. That Something fits our definition of "God."



We see no evidence in the universe of anything making itself without something else causing it.



There is no scientific evidence that we grow in any way without cause and effect making us grow the way we do. In other words, everything, even our maturing, and our intelligence, and our thinking, are all pre-programmed.

That's not a proof with any scientific evidence. That means it's not a scientific proof. In fact, in absence of any experimental evidence, it's just illogical armchair philosophy consisting of self contradictory statements and  which redefines common terms while inventing others (eg your previously posted "Complex universe law").

[BADecker]

That still does not explain how something can make itself, inserting a "god" is even more ludicrous because there is no evidence for a god. It is more logical to conclude the universe has made itself and like us is alive, we and everything in it are expressions of the living whole. Like it we make ourselves (we evolve both physically and consciously) through our conscious choices that are influenced by our environment and those choices in turn influence our future.

This is why IMHO The most succinct definition is :-

Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. - Buckminster Fuller

  

To say it simply, we don't really have a concept for how something can make itself if it can. Such a concept is not part of our universe. This doesn't mean that there is not something outside of the universe. All it means is that it would be so different that even the word "different" wouldn't apply.



Proof for God

Everything operates by the fundamental law of cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even your synapses in your brain fire because of things that made them fire. We don't have free will scientifically speaking. The thing that looks like free will is programming through cause and effect. This is scientific law.

Complexity is worldwide. All the scientists, and almost everyone else, know it. The things that we see about the rest of the universe show complexity as well. So far, the complexity is beyond our understanding. Whatever caused this complexity must have been more complex.

Entropy is universal. Entropy is scientific. This means that there must have been a beginning of everything. If there was no beginning, that is, if everything had always been, entropy suggests that everything would have dispersed and diffused long ago, so that there would be no complexity whatever.

In other words, Something caused a beginning time. That something caused all the complexity. That Something was far more complex than anything that we understand - consider how deeply complex cause and effect is and how it is withstanding entropy's dissolution. That Something fits our definition of "God."



We see no evidence in the universe of anything making itself without something else causing it.



There is no scientific evidence that we grow in any way without cause and effect making us grow the way we do. In other words, everything, even our maturing, and our intelligence, and our thinking, are all pre-programmed.

That's not a proof with any scientific evidence. That means it's not a scientific proof. In fact, in absence of any experimental evidence, it's just illogical armchair philosophy consisting of self contradictory statements and  which redefines common terms while inventing others (eg your previously posted "Complex universe law").

Do you see how blessed you are? Neither God, nor even I, am forcing you to see the evidence and proof so that you just have to believe.

The thing that we are doing is giving and showing you all kinds of places you can go to, and all kinds of topics that you can search on, so that you can see the evidence and proof for your self.

The choice is yours for now. However, at the judgment you will no longer have a choice regarding realizing that God exists. You will be forced to understand that God exists. You will be forced by the strength of Spirit that God is, to face Him Spirit to spirit. At that time there will be no doubt on your part. As you do not believe in Him now, so you will not believe in Him then. You will know.

Words are reasonably easy for both of us in this life. So, they don't mean much. At the time of the resurrection and the final judgment, you will remember how I warned you.

[Tusk]

Do you see how blessed you are? Neither God, nor even I, am forcing you to see the evidence and proof so that you just have to believe.

The thing that we are doing is giving and showing you all kinds of places you can go to, and all kinds of topics that you can search on, so that you can see the evidence and proof for your self.

The choice is yours for now. However, at the judgment you will no longer have a choice regarding realizing that God exists. You will be forced to understand that God exists. You will be forced by the strength of Spirit that God is, to face Him Spirit to spirit. At that time there will be no doubt on your part. As you do not believe in Him now, so you will not believe in Him then. You will know.

Words are reasonably easy for both of us in this life. So, they don't mean much. At the time of the resurrection and the final judgment, you will remember how I warned you.

You have just been arguing that there there is no such thing as free will/choice

[BADecker]

Do you see how blessed you are? Neither God, nor even I, am forcing you to see the evidence and proof so that you just have to believe.

The thing that we are doing is giving and showing you all kinds of places you can go to, and all kinds of topics that you can search on, so that you can see the evidence and proof for your self.

The choice is yours for now. However, at the judgment you will no longer have a choice regarding realizing that God exists. You will be forced to understand that God exists. You will be forced by the strength of Spirit that God is, to face Him Spirit to spirit. At that time there will be no doubt on your part. As you do not believe in Him now, so you will not believe in Him then. You will know.

Words are reasonably easy for both of us in this life. So, they don't mean much. At the time of the resurrection and the final judgment, you will remember how I warned you.

You have just been arguing that there there is no such thing as free will/choice

Did you notice who I was replying to? He barely understands when I speak his language. Let's take this a step at a time, so that he (and you, too?) can understand.

You feel that you can make choices. Sometimes you do make choices. The fact that those choices are programmed into the universe for you, doesn't detract from the fact that you feel that you make choices. Choose God, and the choice will have been programmed into the universe for you.