Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
0 registered (), 91 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Scientist Boyd Bushman UFO interview
by Tutor Turtle
Today at 10:46 AM
A WEEK AT THE MACKENZIE HEALTH CENTRE, MARKHAM, ON
by Revlgking
Yesterday at 10:52 PM
Is_the_Universe finite or infinite?
by Bill S.
Yesterday at 06:30 PM
Recent Developments in Solar Power
by Bill
Yesterday at 11:50 AM
24h test - How heavy is ORAC's intelect
by newton
Yesterday at 10:31 AM
Do we ask too much of time?
by pokey
10/29/14 05:01 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Bill S. 31
Orac 25
newton 24
Revlgking 23
Amaranth Rose II 18
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#13202 - 11/03/05 12:03 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Garry Denke Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/20/05
Posts: 119
Loc: Plano, Texas, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
whoosh!
G-d's rock collection on this Planet is called Stonehenge,
G-d's rock collection in this Universe is called Planets.
Their creatures are Secondary to rock.

You like soil. I like rocks.

G-d
_________________________
I like rocks.

Top
Of Interest?
#13203 - 11/03/05 12:59 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
"You like soil. I like rocks."

Are you the guy who put all those rocks in my soil?
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#13204 - 11/03/05 01:45 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Garry Denke Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/20/05
Posts: 119
Loc: Plano, Texas, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by soilguy:
"You like soil. I like rocks."

Are you the guy who put all those rocks in my soil?
Oy. Nay, nay: I am BOT, r2e2, Route 66
( Rocks, rocks, 33 Rock )

What evidence would you need
to consider "God" as factual ?

? Rock ?
_________________________
I like rocks.

Top
#13205 - 11/04/05 11:05 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 127
Loc: does it really matter?
Garry, I truly hope that you find your peace. Be at peace.
Sincerly,
_________________________
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Top
#13206 - 11/04/05 12:28 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Garry Denke Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/20/05
Posts: 119
Loc: Plano, Texas, USA
Thanks Mung.

RIP, Rock, 'n' Roll
(the three r's)

--Chorus
God gave rock, 'n' roll to you, gave rock, 'n' roll to you,
gave rock, 'n' roll to Everyone.
God gave rock, 'n' roll to you, gave rock, 'n' roll to you,
put it in the soul of Everyone.
--Kiss

RIP, Rock, 'n' Roll
(the three r's)

Bye Everyone.

Page 8...
_________________________
I like rocks.

Top
#13207 - 11/15/05 08:47 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
none! watch vanilla sky.

Top
#13208 - 11/16/05 07:08 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
oops, I just realised that I come a cross as a theist with that "none" statement. What I meant was that there can never exist such proof. Just as there will never be proof that 1+1=9

Top
#13209 - 11/16/05 03:27 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
dirtydog Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 5
Loc: NYC
err is there a proof that 1+1 = 2?

except semanticly I mean.

Top
#13210 - 11/16/05 04:03 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
dirtydog Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 5
Loc: NYC
"Please stop using drugs. Lets examine science facts. The temperature at which water melts is zero degrees Celsius. Is there disagreement?"

I disagree! Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius!

Top
#13211 - 11/17/05 04:00 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Philege Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/30/04
Posts: 184
Loc: United Kingdom
There is only one evidence that God is factual, and that my friends is the BIBLE!

Top
#13212 - 11/21/05 10:15 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Philege the foolish,
You are either a small person somewhere that derives great pleasure in annoying people, or you truly believe in all that 'god' rubbish and should be deported.

Top
#13213 - 11/21/05 05:02 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Philege Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/30/04
Posts: 184
Loc: United Kingdom
Ha ha ha!

Top
#13214 - 12/06/05 02:10 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??

That seems to be a fair non-denominational question. We are not being asked to believe in anything. Evidence is the common requisite for the proof of just about everything. A theory, by the nature of theories, may wait centuries for enough evidence to prove or disprove the assertions offered by the theory. Many people will die never knowing whether what they believed in so strongly was true or false.

To argue in favor of any position requires, in my opinion, the proponent be objective, unless, the situation consist of a true adversary situation so each side has the benefit of ideas formed to favor its views. In the law we have a term, Res Ipsa Loquiter. This is Latin for a common law concept meaning ?it speaks for itself?. In situations involving negligence the negligence can be so obvious, the facts so obvious, that negligence is obvious. An example would be when a surgeon amputates the wrong appendage. I recall one old case of a chair collapsing and the owner found negligent- he had the chair and was responsible for its service.

When it comes to God the mere fact of the existence of Matter, Earth and life forms fails to resolve anything because both science and a God offer a means for that to be. There should be some point of departure to argue for evidence that one idea or the other is more definitive or has more evidence in its support, Science has an explanation for life forms but nothing very specific for current humans. Initially, Evolution appears to be a potential explanation for all life forms but it is a very generalized approach lumping mankind in with frogs and apes. Now, we know we still have apes and gorillas around this Earth so at least some of our forefathers did not evolve into mankind. There is also the question of some missing links but that is too big an issue for this discussion.

Leaving science as not providing total evidence for the non-existence of God I will turn to what evidence remains to convince any one of the existence of God. The Bible offers our first source of evidence. We can conclude that humans that were not present when the activities recited were taking place wrote the Bible. This is hearsay but worth considering anyway as all that is available and historical. So the Bible says God created man in his own image. Mankind is here by design that is specific to mankind, an original item. Comparing all life forms we should find that mankind is truly unique and unlike any other known evolved creature. This is one point of departure from a generalized evolution of species that by nature cannot be presumed to single out one life form to be so unique. Also, if mankind is evolved from a specific life form similar to apes there must reasonably be something offered to disclose the point of separate evolutions. If evolution was working on all forms of life why are there not more speaking and reasoning animals like humans. If all life forms are in constantly progressive stages of improvement to survive over millions of years why did mankind get to be so far ahead of the other great varieties of life forms?

At this point, after all this wordage, I can only offer that science provides a generalized response to our origins while religion attempts to provide a more specific cause. To answer the original question seeking evidence for proof of Gods existence I, just for myself, would require a reason for our existence. Just because a creator can do something does not explain why he would do it. Neither science nor religious concepts adequately answer that question for me. Man-made ideas do not suffice. Please excuse the length of this reply, if not the content.
jjw

Top
#13215 - 12/07/05 01:04 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Some where deep down we know that finding the reasons behind our own existence has a crucial link with our own future.
In the rude scientific sense one may like to argue that such a question has no meaning if the theory offers an indeterminate answer for its own creator. Which means as a creator if you ask the question then you must know the answer .. no theory can answer that.All the theory says is I dont know.or it says either ways.
Imagine someone all alone doing all his calculations and hardwork to create this World.Some day he might himself ask this question to himself "Who created me ?" Since this semantic possibility can not ruled out we say that Creator must be having the answer in a way which No theory is allowed to hold the complete answer ...However it doenst mean that no communication has been made.
#What if the explantion requires real time as a prerequisite for proper communication?
Which means unless the creator himself comes to explain what he means .. The knowledge may decay.
Thus all the confusion and debate is due to the supposed absence of Creator anywhere today.
Probably all the answers depends on who is explaining you and in what mood. Such is the complexity of the Ultimate Answer.
Interestingly if an ordinary tries to imagine the Higher Dimensions .. he or she may fail unless the expert guide is in the right mood.
The knowledge today is becoming more difficult to be completely represented on paper.
This is no news as the physical understanding has shown dependecies on the Carrier of the Information.
Thus the answer to your question :
?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??
There exists some evidence but it can no more be be distributed on paper.It is known or in a state of to-be-known for some reasons which is more than superstitious.

Top
#13216 - 12/15/05 07:51 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
DKV replies:

Thus the answer to your question :
?What evidence would you need to consider ?God? as factual??
There exists some evidence but it can no more be be distributed on paper.It is known or in a state of to-be-known for some reasons which is more than superstitious.

jjw: It was not my question as originator.

Do you think DKV that you provided a logical response to the question? What evidence would you require? Are you suggesting such evidence does not exist? The evidence has dispursed? We should not bother to seek such evidence, or what?
Just curious.
jjw

Top
#13217 - 12/16/05 11:33 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
Perhaps our homosapien minds will one day evolve into beings that can comprehend what God is or what the force behind evolution is. Perhaps the reason for our existance is to be a link on the chain to the eventual superhuman mind who parrallels the God mind and the purpose of nature.

Unless our intelligent minds turn out to be a weak link and detrimental to our survival. Which actually makes sense to me because for all of our inventions, we're no longer in harmony with our environment. According to the theory of evolution, could we become less intellegent and less analytical and if those qualities are not optimum for our survival as a whole species?
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13218 - 12/28/05 02:31 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"the force behind evolution"
There is no force behind evolution. I once accidently added the wrong sauce to my sphagetti bolognese and hey presto! -I had created a really tasty dish, much better than the bolognese. I now continue to make that dish. That's evolution, accidental trial and error by nature. Take an atom out of the DNA over here because of radiation, it bonds another one. It works -it gets passed on. It doesn't work -it doesn't. I am astounded to learn that you don't know what evolution is. Start reading.

Top
#13219 - 12/29/05 07:49 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
You're right, Rob, I do have to get a book on evolution and start reading.

But, evolution seems to be a force in some way. Why does nature keep "trying"? Why doesn't it just stay a single celled organism and stop there? What is the movement? Or why is the movement? Why is there constant change? Why do the strings vibrate? They just do? Is that the only answer? The scientific inquiry comes to a halt? That's just the way it is. The way it is. "The Way" is. Sounds familiar... The Tao.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13220 - 12/29/05 12:54 PM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"But, evolution seems to be a force in some way. Why does nature keep "trying"? Why doesn't it just stay a single celled organism and stop there? What is the movement?"
Being one a person who HAS read books on evolution, statements like these make me cringe. If you are not an idiot, after doing some research, these statements will make you cringe also.

Top
#13221 - 01/02/06 06:20 AM Re: What evidence would you need to consider "God" as factual?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
I'm not sure wether to take you seriously or not. But what the heck, I won't take any chances.

science, one defenition: Studies that normally encompass courses based on a knowledge of facts, phenomena, laws, and proximate cause are designated Science (eg, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geography, Geology, Mathematics, Nutrition, and Physics).
The key-word here is FACTS.

"They is not F**kin Way that Science can know who the created of the World"

Quite to the contrary, science is the ONLY thing that can explain how the universe started -if it had a beginning. Saying what you said is as stupid as saying we shouldn't use maths to find out what x is in the problem;
x^2 + 3x +8 = 0.

You, I understand, have no real appreciation for science. 'Science is good but must Stay at level of its own Understanding'. This may be true, humans may never advance far enough to be able to weild science in such a way to answer such important questions as why does everything exist etc... But since ALL of our understanding of nature comes from scientific studies, it is very reasonable to think that these questions can also be answered by science.

Top
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Millias, donella07, Staley5536, mikehussey, Philep
713 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.