Did God already create a perpetual energy machine?

[nutronjon]

Nutron, I just gave you the answer in my previous post. Did you even read it?

 

You are claiming you are some kind of Shaman or Prophet or something, with special knowledge that you and only you has which we can't verify. We would have to be fools to believe you...show proof or bug out.

 

No, I have given a point of view that is quite essential to understanding democracy, and I stated it is a point of view shared by Einstien, Spinoza and others. I have no special powers, just a little literacy in the reasoning for democracy, and I have repeatedly said it is through science we can know of God. This is far from superstition or any thing like being a Shaman or Prophet.

 

The opening post for this thread goes far beyond saying God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, and I am mystified about why I was penalized for what I said, and the opening post of this thread is okay.

[Overdog]

...This is far from superstition or any thing like being a Shaman or Prophet.

 

It is superstition, pure and simple. You need to show how it isn't, or shut up. You have been like a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over and over to the point you have lost all credibility with anyone who has tried to discuss this with you over the LONG period of time you have been allowed to continue with your preaching. I am no longer willing to discuss this with you AT ALL!

 

Bye

[nutronjon]

Are you saying that you learned this stuff as science in college?

 

Fritjof Capra recieved his Ph.D. from the University of Vienna and has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities. In addition to his many technical reseach papers, Dr. Capra has written and lectured extensively about the philosophical implications of modern science. He is the author of The Turning Point and The Tao of Physics, an international best-seller that has sold over half a million copies and has been translated into a dozen foriegn languages.

 

Yes, Moontanman, the stuff is part of science and colleges, and everything I have posted to this effect has been ignored. I suppose I could find the site that provides several scientific arguments about the existence of God, and post it again, but what is the point when, these links are ignored?

[freeztar]

the stuff is part of science and colleges, and everything I have posted to this effect has been ignored. I suppose I could find the site that provides several scientific arguments about the existence of God, and post it again, but what is the point when, these links are ignored?

 

Nutron,

 

To make the bold statements which you make requires extraordinary proof. Find that site and post a link, along with your description of how the link specifically relates to your ideas about "using science to understand god" and "by studying nature, we can infer something about god".

 

*Do not* give a link to Cicero or Einstein. *Do not* repeat what you have stated over and over already. If you can not post a link or some other form of reference, then do not post at all.

 

This is a formal warning! Failure to follow the steps outlined above will result in an infraction. If you have questions about this, then PM me *first*. Again, any post that you make beyond this point that does not support your claims in some way, you will receive an infraction, and continue to receive them until you comply.

 

If you are unable to do this, then please do not post these ideas again.

 

Thank you

[Buffy]

No, I have given a point of view that is quite essential to understanding democracy, and I stated it is a point of view shared by Einstien, Spinoza and others.

...in which you have taken quotes out of context and misinterpreted as others have shown through much more extensive quotations in response posts that you have ignored.

The opening post for this thread goes far beyond saying God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, and I am mystified about why I was penalized for what I said, and the opening post of this thread is okay.

Its not "okay," and I'm sure Ryan will thank you for pointing this out.

Fritjof Capra recieved his Ph.D. from the University of Vienna and has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities. In addition to his many technical reseach papers, Dr. Capra has written and lectured extensively about the philosophical implications of modern science.

I have taken Fritjof Capra's class at Berkeley, and I can quite assure you that although he strongly supports the notion of connections between mysticism and physics, even he would not agree with your strident insistence of "acceptance of God" as a first principle. Capra's beliefs have been criticized for using connections that are both strained and have other interpretations, and yet he is capable of keeping himself within the scope of scientific discourse by realizing that it is up to him to continue to provide evidence, rather than demand that his hypothesis be unquestioned.

 

You may wish to follow his excellent example.

 

Moreover, it is useful to note that excellence in one area does not mean that we should unquestioningly accept everything: William Shockley was a brilliant scientist, critical to our modern society because of his invention of the transistor. Would you say that we should therefore accept without question his racist views on eugenics?

 

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth, :phones:

Buffy

[nutronjon]

Nutron,

 

To make the bold statements which you make requires extraordinary proof. Find that site and post a link, along with your description of how the link specifically relates to your ideas about "using science to understand god" and "by studying nature, we can infer something about god".

 

*Do not* give a link to Cicero or Einstein. *Do not* repeat what you have stated over and over already. If you can not post a link or some other form of reference, then do not post at all.

 

This is a formal warning! Failure to follow the steps outlined above will result in an infraction. If you have questions about this, then PM me *first*. Again, any post that you make beyond this point that does not support your claims in some way, you will receive an infraction, and continue to receive them until you comply.

 

If you are unable to do this, then please do not post these ideas again.

 

Thank you

 

A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

 

There are several arguments addressing the question "Does science make the belief in God obsolete? This comes from the May-June American Scientist magazine.

 

Here is one the opening sentence of one argument,

"No, but only if we continue to develop new notions of God, such as a fully natural God that is the creativity in the cosmos." It is made by Stuart Kauffman's, and is an updated version of the arguments made by people I am forbidden to link to.

[nutronjon]

In Favor of God

 

In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning

 

David Snoke*

 

Department of Physics and Astronomy

[email protected]

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

 

From: PSCF 53 (September 2001): 152-158.

 

It is passe to reject "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, but I argue that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against atheism based on its lack of explanatory power. The standard argument against God-of-the-gaps reasoning deviates from the mode of normal scientific discourse, it assumes a view of history which is incorrect, and it tacitly implies a naive optimism about the abilities of science. I encourage apologists to point out gaps of explanation in atheistic theories wherever they see them, and expect atheists to return the favor.

[nutronjon]

I am still not sure what have to prove, and since I can no longer use philosophers to make my case that it is valid point of view to believe the universe and forces are God manifest, and that the way to learn of such is through science, I am surely handicapped, however, I will do my best to meet the demand made of me by linking to scientist who argue in favor of the existence of God.

 

In Favor of God

 

In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning

 

David Snoke*

 

Department of Physics and Astronomy

[email protected]

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

 

From: PSCF 53 (September 2001): 152-158.

 

It is passe to reject "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, but I argue that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against atheism based on its lack of explanatory power. The standard argument against God-of-the-gaps reasoning deviates from the mode of normal scientific discourse, it assumes a view of history which is incorrect, and it tacitly implies a naive optimism about the abilities of science. I encourage apologists to point out gaps of explanation in atheistic theories wherever they see them, and expect atheists to return the favor.

[Buffy]

...Does science make the belief in God obsolete?

Simple question: do you understand the difference between these two statements:

• Science supports the existence of God
  
• Science does not eliminate the possibility of existence of God.
  

 

The fact that you responded to Freeztar's request to the first point by posting an item supporting the second point indicates that either you do not comprehend the difference, or you are engaging in a game of endlessly reframing the argument in order to harrass and inflame atheists, whom you appear to despise.

 

Spreading hate is a very sad purpose to have in life.

 

Folly is often more cruel in the consequences than malice can be in the intent, :phones:

Buffy

[nutronjon]

I haven't read this book, but then my word isn't respected, so it would do no good for me to read the book and paraphrase it. The best I do is refer to people you might respected.

 

The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?

By Russell Stannard, Paul Davies

 

 

Preview this book

 

By Russell Stannard

, Paul Davies

Contributor Paul Davies

Published 2000

Hidden Spring

 

God/ Proof, Empirical

 

248 pages

ISBN:1587680076

Add to my library

Write review

 

 

Buy this book

Amazon.com

Barnes&Noble.com - $20.00

Books-A-Million

BookSense.com

Google Product Search

 

Borrow this book

Find this book in a library

Down the centuries there have been various attempts to prove the existence of God, and to demonstrate God's action in the world. Russell Stannard, the distinguished physicist and author, looks at what modern science can bring to the discussion. Are the difficulties of "knowing" God the same difficulties physicists now confront in "knowing" the physical world?Comparing the latest scientific theories and age-old religious thinking, Stannard produces some startling parallels. He examines Creationism and the Big Bang, Biblical miracles and Quantum physics, and the idea of an omniscient God in the context of 4D spacetime. Written in a clear and lucid way, The God Experiment is a fascinating challenge to our assumptions about God, science and our place in the Universe

[Buffy]

I haven't read this book, but then my word isn't respected, so it would do no good for me to read the book and paraphrase it. The best I do is refer to people you might respected.

Nothing has been said here about not respecting your word. In fact, you seem to completely misunderstand what is being requested. Quoting huge blocks of text out of context allows the reader to easily claim that you neither understand what you are quoting or that you are misinterpreting it.

 

By just posting these comments that are--as I and others have said--not relevant to the questions that you've been asked, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of persecution.

 

If you would take some time to say why these quotes support your argument you might not find yourself in this situation where even people who are strongly sympathetic to your point of view can actually support your points.

 

It would be, shall we say, a Revelation.

 

I have high hopes, but I fear you will disappoint us all.

 

Come and see the violence inherent in the system, :phones:

Buffy

[nutronjon]

I don't know if I am getting close to meeting the demand, but know I am tired. I will continue to work this after I am rested, until I have met the demand. For now here are some Louis_Pasteur thoughts. Good night.

 

L' univers est dissymetrique...

The universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetric.

Works Vol. 1 (1 June 1874) Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences

I beseech you to take interest in these sacred domains so expressively called laboratories. Ask that there be more and that they be adorned for these are the temples of the future, wealth and well-being. It is here that humanity will grow, strengthen and improve. Here, humanity will learn to read progress and individual harmony in the works of nature, while humanity's own works are all too often those of barbarism, fanaticism and destruction.

Statement of 1878, as quoted in Crystals and Life : A Personal Journey (2002) by Celerino Abad Zapatero, p. 139

 

 

Let me tell you the secret that has lead me to my goal. My strength lies solely in my tenacity.

He who proclaims the existence of the Infinite, and none can avoid it — accumulates in that affirmation more of the supernatural than is to be found in all the miracles of all the religions; for the notion of the Infinite presents that double character that forces itself upon us and yet is incomprehensible. When this notion seizes upon our understanding we can but kneel ... I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the Infinite in the world; through it the supernatural is at the bottom of every heart. The idea of God is a form of the idea of the Infinite. As long as the mystery of the infinite weighs on human thought, temples will be erected for the worship of the Infinite, whether God is called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus; and on the pavement of these temples, men will be seen kneeling, prostrated, annihilated by the thought of the Infinite.

As quoted by Sir William Osler in his introduction to The Life of Pasteur (1907) by Rene Vallery-Radot, as translated by R .L. Devonshire (1923)

Blessed is he who carries within himself a god and an ideal and who obeys it — an ideal of art, of science, or gospel virtues. Therein lie the springs of great thoughts and great actions; they all reflect light from the Infinite.

As quoted by Sir William Osler in his

Louis Pasteur - Wikiquote

[C1ay]

Belief does not equal fact and should not be presented as such. Exclamations like "god is nature", "god is democracy", "god is the driving force", etc. are examples of such. These are not facts and are not even claims that can or could be explored via science so they have no place here. This is a science forum and we restrict the discussions to those that are scientifically founded.

[CraigD]

Nutronjon, reading your post in this thread and similar posts in others, I find myself confused when trying to construct a mental image of her beliefs. Though as a rule hypography discussion should address ideas, not their authors and messengers, I can see no relief for my confusion in this area other than to straightforwardly ask, Nutronjon, what are your beliefs concerning God?

 

Specifically, do you believe in a personal, interceding God? That is, do you believe that God is aware of your individual existence, and that He or His agent might, under certain circumstances, cause fortuitous or un-fortuitous events to befall you or others? (for example, a person is about to walk under a safe accidentally dropped by a mover’s hoist, but is briefly distracted, causing him to be missed)

 

Do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body? In other words, do you believe in an afterlife?

 

These questions, and their answers, are of personal belief, and thus require no argument or support. They should not be subjected to a requirement for such. My intention in asking is to further understanding of your posts. I understand that such questions may be considered personal and private, so please feel no requirement to answer them. Understand, though, that failure to provide a simple pair of yes/no answers to the two* specific question I ask above will be viewed by me, and likely by others, as evidence that your intentions are other than to communicate effectively and be understood.

 

________

* These two questions could be considered three, if you consider “do you believe in a personal, interceding God?” to be the separate questions “do you believe in a persona God?” and “do you believe in an interceding God?”, or four if you consider the question “do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” to be the separate questions “do you believe that, only if you act and/or think in a specific way, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” and “do you believe that, regardless of how you act and/or think, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?”

[nutronjon]

Nutronjon, reading your post in this thread and similar posts in others, I find myself confused when trying to construct a mental image of her beliefs. Though as a rule hypography discussion should address ideas, not their authors and messengers, I can see no relief for my confusion in this area other than to straightforwardly ask, Nutronjon, what are your beliefs concerning God?

 

Specifically, do you believe in a personal, interceding God? That is, do you believe that God is aware of your individual existence, and that He or His agent might, under certain circumstances, cause fortuitous or un-fortuitous events to befall you or others? (for example, a person is about to walk under a safe accidentally dropped by a mover’s hoist, but is briefly distracted, causing him to be missed)

 

Do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body? In other words, do you believe in an afterlife?

 

These questions, and their answers, are of personal belief, and thus require no argument or support. They should not be subjected to a requirement for such. My intention in asking is to further understanding of your posts. I understand that such questions may be considered personal and private, so please feel no requirement to answer them. Understand, though, that failure to provide a simple pair of yes/no answers to the two* specific question I ask above will be viewed by me, and likely by others, as evidence that your intentions are other than to communicate effectively and be understood.

 

________

* These two questions could be considered three, if you consider “do you believe in a personal, interceding God?” to be the separate questions “do you believe in a persona God?” and “do you believe in an interceding God?”, or four if you consider the question “do you believe that, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” to be the separate questions “do you believe that, only if you act and/or think in a specific way, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?” and “do you believe that, regardless of how you act and/or think, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?”

 

do you believe in a personal, interceding God?[/b

No, I think that should be perfectly clear by now, and I am totally confused about why my position on that is not clear.

 

, if you act and/or think in a specific way, or not, your consciousness will survive the physical death of your body?

On this I am not sure. I do believe reincarnation is a possibility, but I do not believe we have proof of it. And if reincarnation were a fact, I am still unsure of how that would function. However, if you are asking do I think a diety judges us, absolutely not. I think if we were to discuss consciousness it would be helpful. What is it? Does it have an energy form? How do we explain ESP? What is the collective pool of intelligence? Is this separate from plants reacting to a smell that tells them they are in danger?, or other acts of nature, like an ambeoa dividing. Like the scientist I have linked to, I think there are so many mysteries for us to explore, but we can not explore truths in an environment of intolerance.

 

Your thoughtfulness in asking those questions, and concern for how I feel about answering the questions is like water following a draught. I am on the verge of being banned, because others are not understanding what I am saying, and I have several penalities, and don't expect to be here long. Thank you very much for asking questions and being considerate.

 

what are your beliefs concerning God?

Only that we should study nature to know God, not the so called holy books.

[C1ay]

Only that we should study nature to know God, not the so called holy books.

 

And this is how you make yourself sound confusing. In presenting this statement the way that you have it gives the impression that you are claiming the very existence of God as a fact. Is this the case. Do you believe that there is a God or are you simply using the term God as a synonym for nature?

 

There is no doubt that we should study nature to have a better understanding of it. Why drag a reference to God into it when there is no corroborative evidence to support any correlation between nature and some entity for which there is no evidence?

[nutronjon]

And this is how you make yourself sound confusing. In presenting this statement the way that you have it gives the impression that you are claiming the very existence of God as a fact. Is this the case. Do you believe that there is a God or are you simply using the term God as a synonym for nature?

 

There is no doubt that we should study nature to have a better understanding of it. Why drag a reference to God into it when there is no corroborative evidence to support any correlation between nature and some entity for which there is no evidence?

 

 

Why examine the water for the cause of what is killing people, when there is no corroborative evidence to support any correlation between the dying people and the water? It is the witches causing all this dying, and we must find them and rid ourselves of them. When we are so sure of what we know, we do not tolerate even thinking of a possibility, we prevent the discovery of truth.

 

What does this sentence mean?

 

"The schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural god as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe." Stuart Kauffman.

 

How is that sentence different saying God is the stuff of universe and forces that organize it? I have said God is an abstract, or the X factor. What is the X factor if not an abstract or a chosen symbol? I have said, only if we consider God is the stuff of the universe, is God anything but an abstract idea, and only then can we use science to study God. There is absolutely no superstition in what I have said, none.

 

The quotes I used didn't prove a Christian God exist and this has never been my intent. I do not accept the God of Abraham as a real God/deity. I do not hold any superstitious ideas of a God at all. What I set out to prove is several scientist have thought of the universe as God, and I was penalized for this and brought closer to being banned. I don't think there should be a theology forum if what I am saying is not allowed. I think it is wrong to set people up with questions and then penalize them for answering them.

 

I do think Did God already create a perpetual energy machine? Is an absolutely excellent question to ask, and I wish that is what everyone were discussing here.