Tormod Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Hi wendiane! Welcome to our forums! Do you mind telling us what the Jehova Witnesses say? They never seem to knock on my door... Tormod
Marcus Posted June 12, 2003 Report Posted June 12, 2003 Ref your science/religious projectProof that there is no guy with a big white beardIf a Creator did not exist, Man woud invent one anyway (we need someone else to blame)If a Creator exists because someone says so (i.e through faith) and if you don't have faith, then logic says that he does not existIf a Creaytor exists through faith, then wth 1000's of different faiths over the centuries, and thousands of diferent gods - they can't all be right, so they must be wrong
fatty_ashy Posted June 17, 2003 Report Posted June 17, 2003 1) God isn't a old man with a white beard, it's an impression2) Your proof isn't very convincing because you never answerd what if God DID exist? You just went talking about what if God was a figure derived from faith. (sorry if i sound rude) God and Science is never a good mix because science is constantly changing and God can only be REALLY understood if we understand everything about science, which explains why science cannot explain God. You can say we are "advanced" but we're actually pretty backward. By the way, I am very curiuos what the Jehovah witnesses say about the Big Bang...well, if you said it's interesting then tell us. I always thought it would be a flat no....are Jehovah witnesses Christian or Catholic or something else?
Pudge Posted June 19, 2003 Report Posted June 19, 2003 We are not really here, we just think we are. Virtual reality is the basis of creation. We are what we think we are.
fatty_ashy Posted June 19, 2003 Report Posted June 19, 2003 Seriously?? I can try and think I'm some good-looking hunk but I don't think I'll attract a lot of girls... Anyway...What do you mean by virtual reality? Computers? Then who or what invented the computer? Honestly, you don't think the matrix really has us, do you?
Tormod Posted June 19, 2003 Report Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by: PudgeWe are not really here, we just think we are. Virtual reality is the basis of creation. We are what we think we are. Well, I know a lot of people who spend most of their life thinking they are lesser than they ought to think. We are not what we think we are - we are what we think others think we are. Now, if THAT's not off topic I don't know... Tormod
n/a Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 if religion is for real then why are their so many? and why are they still looking. we are not suppose to ? god. why not? he said i am what i am. maybe he doesn't know either. nobody has the answer to that one. i believe we just happened.and that is it . their is no life after death relion has held us back for century. thanks to the sciencetest who had the courage to go on. what has religion ever done to improve our world. they were bigger murders than anybody . you will never convince me that one man had all that magic to create the world . the science people are on the right track i'll stick with them i remember a preacher who said that god did not want us to go to the moon after it failed back in the sixties. oooopppppps, what happened.
n/a Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by: fatty_ashy1) God isn't a old man with a white beard, it's an impression2) Your proof isn't very convincing because you never answerd what if God DID exist? You just went talking about what if God was a figure derived from faith. (sorry if i sound rude) God and Science is never a good mix because science is constantly changing and God can only be REALLY understood if we understand everything about science, which explains why science cannot explain God. You can say we are "advanced" but we're actually pretty backward. By the way, I am very curiuos what the Jehovah witnesses say about the Big Bang...well, if you said it's interesting then tell us. I always thought it would be a flat no....are Jehovah witnesses Christian or Catholic or something else?
Tormod Posted June 25, 2003 Report Posted June 25, 2003 Hi, Nathan, welcome to our forums. I don't think anybody here believes that God is "one man"...like fatty says, He is a concept. Just to clear things up. Now, why are there so many religions? Excellent question. Why even so incredibly many fractions within each religion? My take is twofold. Partly, it is because religion has been with us for as long as we could think. Religion has followed people all over the globe and has changed with their culture, so there would necessary have to be many. As new prophets have come for the different fractions, so they split further (as with Judaeism and Christianity). Second, it is a political issue. Religion has - and still is - a tool of power. Just observe what missionaries do - they try to convert people of other religions to their own, so that they can get "on the right path". Many governments use religion to oppress their people. But I would also like to point out that many of the greatest scientists in history were religious. The Greeks had their own mythologies, the great philosophers were usualle people of faith (in every part of the world). Isaac Newton belonged to a strange sect (Arianism), Einstein was a firm believer in God. So religion is not in itself bad. What is bad is how it is so often used to subvert others. Tormod
TINNY Posted March 3, 2004 Report Posted March 3, 2004 Here's proof of god's existence, through modern science.click here
Tormod Posted March 3, 2004 Report Posted March 3, 2004 That page is a striking example of how it is possible to get everything wrong in one go. No theory is "final". No theory "proves" anything. A theory cannot, in fact, be proven, according to standard scientific method. What is worse, the points listed use theories which are widely disputed and in no way can be taken as evidence of any existence of God. We still do not have a good theory for unifying gravity with the other forces, thus we cannot explain how the forces relate. We do not know the origin of the Universe. String theory actually predicts that there was no singularity at the beginning, but an expansion following a contraction - which suggests that the Big Bang was just a continuation of a previous universe (eliminating the possibility that the Big Bang was a "creation" of sorts). "Light occupies no volume of space and therefore has no existence in the physical universe." This makes the basic assumption that because something does not have volume, then it does not exist. However, light is simply a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The speed of light defines the upper limit for speed of communication. The electromagnetic spectrum is a way to describe different wavelengths of energy, like radio, x-rays and visible light. Yes, the photon (the carrier of light) appears to be massless. However, a photon is not accellerated to the speed of light. Since a photon IS light, the speed at which it travels is the speed of light. Remember, the speed limit of 300,000 km/s is in pure vacuum. Scientists have managed to slow light to mere meters per second. So the speed of light may have an absolute upper limit, but only the limit is constant, not the speed. If light does not exist - then how do we explain that paths of light bend around heavy objects? Which is how Einstein's theory of general relativity was tested by Eddington during a solar eclipse in 1919. (Note the word "tested" - not proven). "The scientific facts behind these interpretations represent a virtual consensus by a number of the world’s leading physicists, including several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists." This is a typical non-scientific argument, and hides the real meaning of the document. The scientific *facts* (which, however, are only theories) represent some sort of consensus. The *interpretation* is of course nothing but a subjective argument. Tormod
GAHD Posted March 4, 2004 Report Posted March 4, 2004 Well, my personal THEORY on the existence of 'god'; We are conscious through the electrochemical reactions of the cells in our brain, some one trillion nerve cells on average, per human being. These cells themselves show some degree of consciousness; they communicate with each other, have a certain degree of memory, and react to affect their surroundings. Another step down the oganlets within the cells exibet a similar, though proportionately lesser degree of consciousness. Neither the organlet or the cell could have the faculties to understand the way the human mind works, but they are an integral part of it. Taking this idea to the next level, there are approximately six billion human beings on the planet; all interacting physically, chemically, verbally, etc... Viewing these interactions in a similar light to the interactions of the cells in the brain, the next level of my theory starts to rear it's big ugly head. Yet there aren't quite enough humans to closely match the number of nerve cells (let alone the other nine trillion cells contained within the brain). A short bit of pondering later, I realized that humans also interact with the other life on the planet. Though the number of living beings on the planet has yet to even be estimated to my knowledge, I'm confident the total number well exceeds one or ten trillion, even counting colonies of insects as '1 being'. In similar manner to the lowly cell, humans could likely not understand the thought processes of such a gestalt. "Godly intervention" is also unlikely; do we even notice when a single brain cell dies? Even a few hundred thousand wouldn't be missed too much, assuming they weren't crucial connecting cells. likely it would take quite a bit of action to attract such a being's attention, if it even had the ability to take action. If life interaction isn't oddball enough for you, go another step out on the theoretical limb; how may stars are there? Well over 10 trillion, possibly closer in the neighborhood of a googol(1*10^99). All interact in any manner of gravidic, chemical, and electromagnetic ways, as well as with their neighboring astronomical bodies. Were a gestalt (or "God") to arise from these, it would be even more alien to our manner of thought. One might say that the universe works on a (im)precise set of laws, and so cannot form a 'consciousness'; the interactions take an astronomical amount of time to take place, further taxing our ability to even conceive that such interactions could form a single thought. Yet we ourselves follow a precise set of laws trough the interactions within our bodies, our minds. As an example of scale; it might take a person(universe) mere seconds to form a sentence, yet in that time innumerable particles(people) have arisen and decayed. An interesting concept arisen though many a theological debate, sometimes over many a drink. Now bring on the flames
deamonstar Posted March 4, 2004 Report Posted March 4, 2004 you've just reminded me of a similar 'theory' that I came up with when I was in early grade school... hmmm... could be that there is some sort of connection here.
Tormod Posted March 4, 2004 Report Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by: GAHD A short bit of pondering later, I realized that humans also interact with the other life on the planet. Now bring on the flames No flames here - but what you are talking about is nothing but James Lovelock's Gaia theory. You should check it out. http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html Tormod
deamonstar Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 reading all manner of subjects (even stuff that is, at first glance, at odds with our points of view), studying, learning, listening to others with an open mind, trying new things, new experiences, new activities, searching for answers or explanations to things and questions that most people don't quite comprhend, taking the time to get to understand what we've learned. etc... etc...
TINNY Posted March 6, 2004 Report Posted March 6, 2004 TQ 4 advice. but how can i stay motiveted, avoid laziness etc. This is out of topic.
Recommended Posts