Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Scientific proof of God


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 147 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 5 Sep 2012 01:55:58 BDT
Dissident says:
MIT professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder PhD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4065080646891971315

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross PhD:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh-ross-origin-of-the-universe
http://www.reasons.org

Professor of Physics Dr. Michael Strauss on scientific evidence for the existence of God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FetjUAvXFk8

http://www.godandscience.org

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/ns/world_news/t/there-god-leading-atheist-concludes/#.UEaQzpb1u00

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 08:21:53 BDT
Rather than just listing lots of web sites, can you not sum up the findings?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 08:52:58 BDT
Spin says:
WD: To sum up, breifly,(and in simple terms); Does, or can, a deity exist at, or beyond, the quantum level, or is its existence necessarilly in, or beyond, the macro-universe...?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 09:38:28 BDT
Ford Prefect says:
Some physicists really really really want there to be a God responsible for creating the universe, and can't imagine there not being one; therefore there is. (The first chap though is an orthodox Jew, so divinity of Jesus might be a bit of an issue).

Website ... god exists, some clever people say so, some of them might be scientists, therefore god exists. The Islamic version does it better.

Oh, and Antony Flew decides he's a Deist after all.

Posted on 5 Sep 2012 09:49:44 BDT
Spin says:
Questions of theology rarely get involved with the details of science, it is a subject beyond its interest or remit, just as theology is beyond the remit or interest of science...Obviously neither God nor Man are interested in knowledge...

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 09:58:36 BDT
G. Heron says:
Spin

The origin of the universe is a question that science is addressing as is theology. The difference being science has methods for testing its answers theology does not.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 10:16:57 BDT
Spin says:
G: Perhaps, but science does not accept anything but its own definition of "Test", "method" and "Evidence". Scientists are just as stuck in their own tradition and culture as theists are in theirs...

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 10:26:34 BDT
G. Heron says:
Spin

At least scientists have a definition of test, theologians don't seem to bother.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 10:27:43 BDT
Spin says:
G: It depends on what one seeks to "test", does it not? How does one "test" morality? Or Love?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 10:33:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Sep 2012 10:33:53 BDT
G. Heron says:
Spin

" It depends on what one seeks to "test", does it not? How does one "test" morality? Or Love? "

As you have pointed out this is the theologians area, so I would ask them, if they don't have appropriate tests for morality and love then i would suggest they shut up about both until they do.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 10:35:55 BDT
One tests morality by comparing predictable/predicted outcomes. One tests love by seeing the effects on people and relationships.

All this testing can ONLY be acheived by comparing data, empirical data, and seeing what that data tells us.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 10:43:20 BDT
Spin says:
Occam: morality is "tested" by comparing "predictable outcomes"? What moral or ethical outcomes are predictable? How can one "test" love? Love is an experience; you cannot "test" an experience..Love has nothing to do with its effects on people or relationships...It effects such things but is not in any way "testable" in terms of those things...If you disagree, then I ask how you tested" your love for family; and why you "tested" your love for your family...How do you verify your love? By the results of a test or by what you feel?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 11:32:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Sep 2012 11:34:14 BDT
I'm not saying I test love in everyday life, I'm saying that love is a physical effect and can be tested, and is tested.

Morals are sets of laws with desired outcomes, this is again an empirically testable area. I'm not getting into a disucssion with you, hwoever, spin because you deliberately misinterpret things put to you, so instead, have a penguin

. .-.
. ( (9>
~/ )\
,/_/_/
-"=

Posted on 5 Sep 2012 13:18:53 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Science doesn't offer proof but evidence, and this collection of wingnuts is basically an attempt by Biblical literalists to bolster their discredited position by wheeling out dogmatic evangelists who happen to have acheived a level of education in scientific disciplines but publish nothing substantial (in some cases for a great many years).

I think it can be accurately described as 'cargo-cult' science, where it resembles scientific endeavour, but only in the most crude way possible.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 14:55:20 BDT
DB says:
AJ
Lol!
Usual all scientists are nuts unless they agree with the atheists view stance.
Open your mind.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 16:23:05 BDT
DB, if you open your mind to much, your brain will fall out.

The overwhelming consensus is what AJ is agreeing with, and these dissenters are using arguments that receive no notoriety among scientists because their methods and assumptions are shown wrong.

Simply, they are nuts.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2012 17:16:01 BDT
Spin says:
Occams: "Morals are sets of laws with desired outcomes"? Whose desired outcomes? PS: If you cannot support your argument by a reasonable discussion, but choose to respond to serious questions using juvenalia, you do no more than detract from your argument...The questions I put to you can be found in any scientific, philosophical or theological text...They are even asked in RMP studies in Secondary schools. If you cannot address them, I suggest you avoid commenting on them...

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 09:45:07 BDT
Spin I'm perfectly capable of addressing them, I just choose not to do so with you. We've been down roads liek this before and you tend to flip the car.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 11:42:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Sep 2012 11:43:49 BDT
D. Doronron says:
Occam's Whetstone says:
"One tests love by seeing the effects on people and relationships.
All this testing can ONLY be acheived by comparing data, empirical data, and seeing what that data tells us."
_____________________
Have you ever thought of getting a job writing the poems for Valentines Day cards. I'm sure women would love it. Have you ever met one by the way?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 11:58:15 BDT
Indeed I have met many and loved and been loved by a handful.
I also write criminally bad poetry from time to time.

An empirical understanding of the biochemical and physical nature of love or the evolutionary purpose of it takes nothing away from the subjective joy of the experience.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 12:59:23 BDT
Spin says:
Occam: If you choose not to adress these questions "with" me, then why do you respond to my questions with irrelevent comments? What questions are you in fact addressing when you reply to my posts?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 13:04:07 BDT
"why do you respond to my questions with irrelevent comments? "
They weren't irrelevant comments they were relevant to what you had said.

"What questions are you in fact addressing when you reply to my posts? "
I wasn't addressing a question, I was addressing some misinformation.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 13:09:01 BDT
Spin says:
Occam: Indeed, and I asked you prove or argue why you believe it to be "misinformation" (as you mistakenly call it), something you have stilled failed to do...But carry on as you please..whatever butters your toast, as they say...

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 13:09:20 BDT
"Open your mind."

Let your brain fall out.

Then stuff the empty cavity with Catholicism.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2012 13:10:54 BDT
Roasted or Ready Salted?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
153 27 Aug 2014
What homophobes are afraid of: 1209 2 hours ago
Religion Forum; RIP 88 2 hours ago
What is the point of an "Afterlife"? 18 5 hours ago
tombleweeds 124 6 hours ago
What's wrong with atheism? 5049 9 hours ago
in the image of ? 8 11 hours ago
Religion by Natural Selection? 36 12 hours ago
Amazon Mods.... 7 14 hours ago
Islamic brainwashing for kids 50 14 hours ago
Is This Gods Will? Seals discovered having sex with penguins 78 3 days ago
Are atheists in Europe still living a Christian lifestyle? 126 6 days ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  147
Initial post:  5 Sep 2012
Latest post:  18 Sep 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions