Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

But what if the detection of the Consciousness is actually what activates something from zero activity to minute activity? How can we prove that it wasn't at zero activity before looking at it? This is the fundamentals of Quantum Science.

I know it's butt-hurt to be part of 20th Century Orthodoxy but the 20th Century is over, sweetie :daisy:

 

You sound just as dogmatic and passionate as a pastor in a non-denominational church.

 

What is the game? Is life the life of an individual cell? The breath goes in and out of the body. Where does the first gasp come from?
It is not the cell that gives life, it becomes alive. We can't say that there is zero activity in a cell when a cell dies. The statement there is a breakdown of dna indicates activity. We are personally unaware of anything called end of life. To be aware is to be alive. If life is in fact all around where is it's end? We can say that the living change form. There is no form of death. There are various stages of chemical composition. There is no state of non-existence. The mechanism responsible for life existed before the cell even appeared.

To say we understand the extent or proportions of life is premature. Life proves thus far indefinite.

 

You probably have a special feeling regarding God or something, they are not really that different of examples. Your approach to disproving leprechauns sounds quite like some arguments that have refuted God's existence. Other than that 'believers' in both camps can just fall back on "that they are magical" or "he is Supernatural", both of which you cannot disprove.

Millions of people thought this guy was a living God with supernatural powers. A large amount of people believing in something doesn't necessarily make it more probable.


http://youtu.be/MZjs2AP4Pko

We're basing it off observable conditions which sustain life, so I don't see it as a double-standard, I see it more akin to the presuppositions in some quantum mechanics of hypothetical particles, which have yet to be directly observed. Another piece of evidence, which I think helps bolster the case for searching for aliens, is the theory that we are literally made of stardust. That some of the unique properties of life came about as chemical reactions when stars "blow up". An issue is is that celestial objects are really far away.

Do you remember this scale from earlier? my response is basically nested here as well.

Depending on the level of power exhibited, I definitely see the potential for many to agree with you. I think if there was some super advanced race that say sped up the daily cycle on earth to like a 12 hour day or something ridiculous with super powerful technology and basically just camped up at the outskirts of the solar system, I think many would resort to it must be God. But even in that hypothetical scenario, that doesn't necessarily suggest this Type III civilization created the Universe.

 

Don't follow..

 

I am under no onus to prove or disprove the existence of leprechauns. That exercise ignores a fundamental thing. There is no state of non-existence. We find a better fortune in trying to understand what we see. We commonly say things most definite about them. They are an element of folklore for example. Folklore has lot's of uses, entertainment for one. Folklore is also used to teach lessons. Leprechaun posits a reflection of human attributes. To be prone to mischief as a way of entertaining oneself and to be secretive while doing it. To be willing to trade a thing a value for the promise of greater value as in the leprechaun willing to give up his gold for freedom. When we research leprechaun we find images. 'The rainbow itself a symbol of promise in life.

 

Even if were you couldn't the best you could do is.. Leprechauns exist in folklore.

 

Which arguments are those? If I was aware of an argument that something omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent can't exist, I might concede. We don't have to rely on any claims of God being magical or supernatural in order to keep God from certainly not existing, whereas we do with leprechauns.

And people probably did research into the guy to see if those millions of people were right or wrong. Just like it would be noble to research leprechauns if millions of people were claiming to see them.

There's no reason to suggest that these conditions exist anywhere but here. So we're looking for something we have no reason to firmly believe exists. The data isn't against their existing, but the data cannot be against God existing either.

I guess camps would probably be split, then, as to whether God was what created the universe or if God was the ultimate power in the universe. I think at the end of the day you just have to be kind of reasonable as to what God is. I know I'm talking about a sufficiently advanced intelligence/power, but I don't know if people are really thinking that when they talk about God, so...

Well people argue, for instance, that God can't be omnipotent because he can't create a rock so big he can't lift it. I'm saying God doesn't have to perform impossible tasks in order to have all the power that there actually is. The former would be a power that simply isn't.

 

I don't understand the distinction. If we can speak of existence it is evidence of existence. Don't know what is meant by at best. We can make other observations in addition to it is simply folklore. For one it is not just any folklore it has specific qualities. We can describe the lore. As I pointed out these qualities are reflections of human qualities. He wears clothes etc. We can describe the association of lore with specific culture and on.

No one is aware of anything supernatural. There is such a thing as not comprehending the nature of a thing.

 

You answered the question yourself..

Beyond that posting a video on a website is not an impossible task, if you will not concede there, really we're just deteriorating into a semantics issue, which is pointless in discussing.

Wrong..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets

Probably something theists should discuss and resolve amongst themselves.

 

So you're saying that something that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is, by definition, supernatural?

No, and that raises a real question as to whether God really has the power to take requests. It would seem that God simply cannot take certain requests. Because God is perfect and doesn't take some requests, how could God take any similar request? It's not like God is some surfer dude who hangs out on his cellphone, picking and choosing stupidly who he does and doesn't talk to. Or is it exactly fucking like that?!

Since when does something's being habitable mean that it is inhabited. It's not like every time you see a bedroom you know it's for sleeping in, is it? Because that would seem to suggest that something had created it for a purpose. There could be a garden of Eden we could view from a telescope. It might even have buildings. But that wouldn't mean that aliens hadn't destroyed themselves with neutron bombs fifty seconds before I looked. We might simply be the most advanced species in the cosmos.

We might be alone or we might not be. We might be accidents or we might not be. These are both questions that just matter, I think. I don't think it's unscientific to try and answer them, because we know we do it for a good reason. Or do we?

Yeah, I would hope that such an intelligence wouldn't really care if you called it God or not. Probably wouldn't care much if you capitalized it or not.

 

Just so we don't get sidetracked by some of the other stuff...

If it can't, Then it's not all powerful :rofl:

 

Power is the rate of doing work.

God could simply not be concerned with taking requests and that doesn't reflect on power.

Just for shits, a musing, one story has god at rest at this point, it's creation continuing to unfold as it had begun. We ourselves are obligated only to minimum requirements although we set all kinds of goals for ourselves. So it seems we have more capacity than we need. As far as potency you can't be any more potent than to extend life.

 

So supposing God is aware that requests are being made, is he really aware of the nature of a request? Or did he once entertain a request and didn't like the results? Because if he is aware that requests are being made but has never responded to one, how aware is he really? He wouldn't know what it meant to fulfill a request, so would he know everything? Or if he has filled some requests but not others, then what kind of personality does God have that he picks and chooses?

 

you're anthropomorphizing it waayyyyy too much.

If we are talking the god portrayed in the Bible, then the answer to why no response to the thread question was forthcoming is simple,
"this isn't about you".
At least in the NT, God responding to prayer was always as a result of the person making the supplication for some other person or something in which they had no true personal ulterior motive.

requests made for selfish or self indulgent purposes are always generally ignored.
at least according to the texts.

 

even though it may be "God" or whatever as the source of power behind answers to supplications, we fail to recognize that we are the ones who wield and direct that power, but it has to be in accordance with "righteousness" or in other words fits the overall plan and functioning of the whole kit & kaboodle and follows the law of reciprocity, otherwise, it ain't happening.

 

I'm not suggesting the planets are inhabited, I'm responding to this statement by you...

There are plenty of planets which do not contain water and/or not in the hospitable zones of their stars, where life as we know it could effectively be considered impossible.

I don't understand the bedroom analogy, there is a range of values in the Drake equation, a wide one at that.

Well we have a planet full of other animals for one, but going with that common idiom you are using...

I do not necessarily disagree, I'm kind of indifferent to the drake equation but the statistics are pretty staggering when you discover how many stars there are in the milky way galaxy alone. The Earth is seeming less "special" in a cosmological sense and the situation seems slightly reminiscent of the misguided beliefs in regards to the geocentric model, which was popularly held up until the middle ages, where people believed the cosmos revolved around the earth.

 

But such requests don't have to be ignored...God could possibly answer them. How am I anthropomorphizing when you're the one saying God is such a being that makes conscious choices to ignore some people and not others?

If God is all-knowing, there must be a certain set of requests he simply can't fulfill, right? How could he know the right answer in one instance and have it be a different answer in another?

 

Oh. Well I'm just saying the conditions aren't exactly the same, or we will have creatures identical to us, which is the only intelligent life we are aware of. By conditions I don't just mean the climate; I mean the change in variables over a course of time. A rock falls at the wrong place at the wrong time and no life develops on the planet. Who exactly knows what the odds are that we're here. Maybe 99% of the time it's a rock falling at the wrong place at the wrong time and the other 1% is apples falling at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't disagree either, just playing Devil's advocate.

 

I don't think the goal is to find creatures identical to us.