On similar lines, God is an entity which has to be 'discovered' and there are methods available for it. Follow the right path and one can discover the existence of God in his or her life just as Newton 'uncovered' the existence of a gravitational force, which had always existed since the birth of our planet!

That is an interesting thought. I assume that when you say there are methods to discover God, you mean non-scientific methods? I would never be so bold as to say that God can not be discovered or proved with the scientific method, but I must say that my own opinion is that other tools are needed. I base this on the fact that, so far, science has demonstrated that a God does not leave scientific evidence of his existence. Perhaps this is the underlying reason why some religious people hate Darwin's ideas. He takes away what appeared to be proof of the existence of God. But, if God exists, he may want us to use those other methods you are talking about, and Darwin's discovery prevents people from taking the easy way out. - or at least it should, but people can be lazy in many different ways.

 

Ever read "Contact" by Carl Sagan? It proposed just such a senario, which was totally missed in the movie. I thought the idea was an elegant one myself.

 

That is an interesting thought. I assume that when you say there are methods to discover God, you mean non-scientific methods?

I was referring to the science of spirituality. It is a methodical science in which you concentrate all your resources....mental, physical or meta-physical to experience God. I must add something here, God is an entity to be experienced....not to be discovered! In a way this would contradict my earlier statements in a particular way. The problem is you cannot prove the existence of God with external measuring instruments. The device to experience God lies within oneself.

 

I was referring to the science of spirituality. It is a methodical science in which you concentrate all your resources....mental, physical or meta-physical to experience God. I must add something here, God is an entity to be experienced....not to be discovered! In a way this would contradict my earlier statements in a particular way. The problem is you cannot prove the existence of God with external measuring instruments. The device to experience God lies within oneself.

I agree with this. When I was a teenager, I thought that if I studied enough math and science, I could truly understand why the universe exists. After thirty years of study, the awesome intricacy and beauty of the universe is more obvious, but our existence is even more mysterious and unfathomable. I can now see that to believe that science can find all the answers requires as much faith as believing in a God. There is no easy way out of the dilemma, but I believe that looking inward is more useful than looking outward when it comes to spirituality. But, I also believe that the scientific method is the only good tool to learn about the way the universe works. The problem is that even if we knew the universal scientific laws that explained all observations, we would have to ask, "why are these laws inevitable and how can we have laws that have no starting assumptions?" ...... no easy answers!

 

There is nothing wrong with exploring the metaphysical, humans are made for it. Some folks confuse it with science though, or try to twist science to fit their beliefs based on faith. The thing I liked about Sagan's book is if a civilization hits a certain point (much more advanced than ours) then metaphysical starts becoming science.

Science is not meant to explain everything, it is meant to explain observed phenomena. It doesn't claim to have perfect explanations either, it is a method, which is missed by many people who confuse science with religion.

 

I agree with this. When I was a teenager, I thought that if I studied enough math and science, I could truly understand why the universe exists. After thirty years of study, the awesome intricacy and beauty of the universe is more obvious, but our existence is even more mysterious and unfathomable. I can now see that to believe that science can find all the answers requires as much faith as believing in a God. There is no easy way out of the dilemma, but I believe that looking inward is more useful than looking outward when it comes to spirituality. But, I also believe that the scientific method is the only good tool to learn about the way the universe works. The problem is that even if we knew the universal scientific laws that explained all observations, we would have to ask, "why are these laws inevitable and how can we have laws that have no starting assumptions?" ...... no easy answers!

I couldn't agree more!

 

beenthere,

- interesting. You are setting yourself up as the ultimate judge of the theory of evolution.

No, of course not. It falls on its own accord.

What evidence exists to cause the theory to be shown as incorrect (beside the fact that you don't like it)? What is a testable alternative?

Haven't you been reading my posts? I said countless times that higher organization never comes from lower organization by itself. When it can shown that it does, then evolution theory becomes viable.

As far as holding a theory off the books until every aspect is utterly proven, that just isn't the way science works.

But when a central premise of the theory cannot be shown to work, then the theory is not viable.

Theory is not absolute fact.

Theory simple means "we think". Some "thinking" is better than others.

It is an explanation of observed phenomena that seeks to establish a set of rules that govern the things observed.

Like I said; "we think".

If one had to go to absolutes, than we would not have a theory of gravitation -

There are several theories of gravitation by way of subatomic particles, string theory, and others. They are incomplete, but I know of none that violates a basic principle like evolution does.

nobody yet knows how gravity works, but the effect can be demonstrated to exist. Should we take it off the books because we can't fully explain gravity?

Gravity always follows certain rules, and never fails to follow those rules. That makes it a law, which should be known and respected.

Ratch

 

steveb,

Ratch, I wasn't trying to reopen the debate. I was just addressing the point that science must reject ideas that don't mesh with facts.

Yes, I was thinking of evolution when I said that.

But, it's important that you recognize that you are out of step with all serious scientists of our age.

I realize that, but since when is a consensus proof that something is correct?

Scientists have been applying the scientific method to this subject for quite some time now. There is data, fact and theory firmly established.

And the theory has a flaw in its thinking. You must know which flaw I am referring to by now.

Your stating that is is all BS doesn't change this. That fact that you have just made statements and not offered one rational thought for a scientific explanation speaks volumes about your position on the subject.

I did give a explanation. The one about higher organization "evolving" from lower organization by itself, remember?

You basically have a nonscientific point of view, which is your right, but let's label it for what it truly is.

It is scientific in that I reject the theory on the basis that its central thesis has not shown itself to be true.

Ratch

 

b.shahvir,

I was referring to the science of spirituality. It is a methodical science in which you concentrate all your resources....mental, physical or meta-physical to experience God. I must add something here, God is an entity to be experienced....not to be discovered! In a way this would contradict my earlier statements in a particular way. The problem is you cannot prove the existence of God with external measuring instruments. The device to experience God lies within oneself.

Be careful. You are dangerously close to a religious discourse which is not allowed in this forum.

Ratch

 

Oh, it's allowed, but if you call it science don't expect people to buy the bullcorn. Faith is not science, and heresy is no longer a crime (thank God). Thing about science, you can't pick and choose your evidence because it disagrees with your faith.

Hope you enjoyed your Easter, I did.

 

Bill_Marsden,

I assume you are posting to answer my post. It would be nice if you put the name of the person you are addressing on the header like most of the other folks do.

Oh, it's allowed,...

I thought the rules forbid discourse on religious subjects. Was I wrong?

but if you call it science don't expect people to buy the bullcorn

I don't. I gave reasons for my statements.

Faith is not science, and heresy is no longer a crime (thank God).

Yes, and how does it tie into this discussion about the veracity of evolution?

Thing about science, you can't pick and choose your evidence because it disagrees with your faith.

A true statement, but who is doing such a thing here?

Ratch

 

b.shahvir,
Be careful. You are dangerously close to a religious discourse which is not allowed in this forum.
Ratch

Really ? I didn't know that ! The fact is, spirituality differs from religion in many ways....one cannot equate the two.

 

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. You can't win em all, and you can't control everything.

 

As a general guide - Off-Topic A place to discuss anything other than electronics with other members. General conversation allowed, but please have consideration for your fellow members.

So asserting that my religion is superior to yours would not be considerate (or permitted). Some issues, such as politics, have a greater emotional loading than other subjects, and tend to go out of control faster.

Civilized discourse is always permissible. A modicum of humility will find an audience.

Arrogance, on the other hand, tends to strike sparks and get moderated.

 

I feel it's a complement to this forum, moderators and members that this thread, with it's underlining subject, can have gone on for such a length without spiraling down into name calling and taunting.

I'm sure no one's mind was changed but it still contained some entertainment value. Perhaps it will add some small value to the research results of some google search a century from now on the gradual change of public opinion on the subject.

It's probably now run it's course, but at least no animals were harmed during it's run.

Lefty

 

But maybe some were subtlety changed?

 

But maybe some were subtlety changed?

Could you elaborate further on what you mean? Thanx.

 

You are dangerously close to a religious discourse which is not allowed in this forum.

Religious discourse is allowed, if done with civility. Religious discourse would, however, be off-topic for the current thread.

 

Religious discourse is allowed, if done with civility. Religious discourse would, however, be off-topic for the current thread.

Can I conduct spiritual discourses?

 

Wanna know about Masonry?