Science explains the existence of God.

[Greatest I am]

Science explains theexistence of God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSe4Ff57n4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBLjVqrrjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDbesQQi9yc

Without a personalapotheosis, all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge ---without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others.

All who claim a God are alsoidol worshipping. They have just pasted their bible pages onto a golden calf.They think they have hidden the calf’s shape but it is still discernible under themanmade WORD of God. To have a Godinabook is to idol worship.

Most that follow a religiondo not really follow it. They only follow tradition and cultures based on oldtribal ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Are you an idol worshipper ordo you fall under the first link’s definition?

If not, give the logic trailto your God.

Regards
DL

P. S. Most will see this O Pas an attack on those who believe. If you do, then you should know that I amnot an atheist but call myself a Gnostic Christian and do believe in a Godhead.It is just not supernatural and is not immoral the way the bible God isportrayed to be.

 

[Stone]

If science is a rational explanation of reality ( and it is ), how could it ever explain your logic?

 

[Stone]

Science explains theexistence of God.
............................

Nope......
and furthermore......
Science can't explain the claims you make about your own religious beliefs.

 

[darkcgi]

 

[Stone]

Science explains theexistence of God.

......................

Without a personalapotheosis, all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge ---without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others.

All who claim a God are alsoidol worshipping. They have just pasted their bible pages onto a golden calf.They think they have hidden the calf’s shape but it is still discernible under themanmade WORD of God. To have a Godinabook is to idol worship.

Most that follow a religiondo not really follow it. They only follow tradition and cultures based on oldtribal ways.

..................

Are you an idol worshipper ordo you fall under the first link’s definition?

If not, give the logic trailto your God.

Regards
DL

P. S. Most will see this O Pas an attack on those who believe. If you do, then you should know that I amnot an atheist but call myself a Gnostic Christian and do believe in a Godhead.It is just not supernatural and is not immoral the way the bible God isportrayed to be.

'apotheosis'
definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apotheosis

1
: elevation to divine status : deification

2
: the perfect example : quintessence

Since being god-like is not achievable by humans ( and that includes you despite your claims ) and as for 'perfection' ....I think I've pointed out too many of your fallacies for you to be considered even close....scratch that.....near ( )....the claims you make about your own religion are obviously only beliefs of a non scientific genre .
You can not scientifically prove the religious claims you make about your gnostic beliefs.

all who claim that God is real without any personal knowledge

In the scientific context....

without a clear logic trail --- are just lying to themselves as well as others

.....of course. Science only relates to explaining the relationships of matter and energy that exist with in our plane of existence....our reality.

Sooo.......that makes the title of your thread.......worthless.

All who claim a God are alsoidol worshipping.

And there you are with your gods, goddesses, demons and other unsavory characters that you worship.
Hypocrite

I amnot an atheist but call myself a Gnostic Christian and do believe in a Godhead.It is just not supernatural

LOL!
Not only have you just posted your practice of idolatry ( this 'Godhead' )......you've just contradicted yourself and exposed your position to being one of denying the existence of God or any supernatural force.
That makes you an atheist.
Perhaps you are some sort of atheist gnostic?
But even that is contradictory with the cherry picking you take from the Holy Bible to substantiate your position.
How about.....'confused gnostic'?

 

[Greatest I am]

I found this on some of thelatest science being done on the God issue and found it quite interesting interms of how we process information and what happens to our minds when we pray.It, like myself, is not anti-spiritual but tries to show how religions realityworks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm971ltF44A

Regards
DL

 

[fuel1316]

Tl;dr

 

[Stone]

I found this on some of thelatest science being done on the God issue and found it quite interesting interms of how we process information and what happens to our minds when we pray.It, like myself, is not anti-spiritual but tries to show how religions realityworks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm971ltF44A

Regards
DL

Interesting, but if you listen to the end, Freeman states it could be our belief in God that makes us human.
Do you understand how that contradicts with your attempt to persuade us God is evil?
According to that logic and your position, to be human is to be evil.
Are you arguing for humanity to become non-human and if so, what would that be?


But, back to your thread title.......it's a logical fallacy and no scripted video is going to change the relationship of science to any concept that is believed to reside outside our physical reality ( God ).

You don't seem to be very familiar with the concept of the scientific method and ( imo ) it's causing you a lot of confusion in regards to issues of faith.

 

[Stone]

Since this is your 'science' thread, GIA and claim to be god-like which entails being of immense knowledge and intellect ( or at least should :smiley24: ) do you have an explanation for 'existence'?
How was it created?
This is not the same question, where did it come from, such as some theorists pose, from branes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_(M-theory) ......and ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology ).
To get you started, it's not the 'Big Bang', that was the expansion of matter and energy, not the creation of it.
And if you have the silly notion to claim branes, you are still stuck with the origin of a brane.
So the question is not where does matter and energy come from, it's what created 'existence' and that includes the existence of the theorized brane.
If you don't understand the term, 'existence' , please read this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

 

[Minor Axis]

The first video, Prof Sapolsky (the only one I've watched so far) is thought provoking because it simply points out that mainstream religious views are every similar to the religious views of cults and other groups who are disdained as charlatans, whose members are "lost" or are consorting with the devil.

The important point is that the religious themes from different belief systems have the same overall characteristics such as descriptions of, "magical", "super-natural" occurrences, but what distinguishes them as acceptable or not, are the details. Virgin birth, burning bush, sea parted, rising from the dead, no problem for Christians, but if you speak in terms of voodoo, or paganism, it is immediately rejected. This speaks much to the indoctrination process in combination with the number of believers.

While I can't say I "believe", due to lack of proof, I have hopes for a spiritual existence after physical death. Where I get into most disagreements in my religious discussions has to do with the details, as in how does anyone know what any details are? My premise is that we don't know details, mostly we adopt an established dogma and go with the details it presents as pseudo facts.

 

[Stone]

The first video, Prof Sapolsky (the only one I've watched so far) is thought provoking because it simply points out that mainstream religious views are every similar to the religious views of cults and other groups who are disdained as charlatans, whose members are "lost" or are consorting with the devil.

The important point is that the religious themes from different belief systems have the same overall characteristics such as descriptions of, "magical", "super-natural" occurrences, but what distinguishes them as acceptable or not, are the details. Virgin birth, burning bush, sea parted, rising from the dead, no problem for Christians, but if you speak in terms of voodoo, or paganism, it is immediately rejected. This speaks much to the indoctrination process in combination with the number of believers.

While I can't say I "believe", due to lack of proof, I have hopes for a spiritual existence after physical death. Where I get into most disagreements in my religious discussions has to do with the details, as in how does anyone know what any details are? My premise is that we don't know details, mostly we adopt an established dogma and go with the details it presents as pseudo facts.

Your post is off topic when compared to the thread title.
Actually, all of the opening post appears off topic
The videos are about religious beliefs and their effects upon us.

The thread title is about science experimenting on God, a logical fallacy.
Science explains the existence of God.

Science is being used to detect how we feel about religious beliefs and God.

if you speak in terms of voodoo, or paganism, it is immediately rejected. This speaks much to the indoctrination process in combination with the number of believers.

And yet......you embrace a faith that comprises a fantasyland scenario of an Earth simulator/spirit world without providing any basis ......and yet reject out of hand other faiths that rely on written texts, Christianity being your favorite target.
How is that not being a hypocrite?

While I can't say I "believe", due to lack of proof, I have hopes for a spiritual existence after physical death.

We discussed that before, several times, MA.
You're merely using sophistry to hide your own faith that you've accepted.
'Hope' and 'Faith' are as distinct from facts as they are similar to each other and I have given you Wikipedia articles in the past to read on this.

My premise is that we don't know details, mostly we adopt an established dogma and go with the details it presents as pseudo facts.

Some people do, some people don't.
Has it been my acceptance of reality that pisses you off the most, or that I just like to tear your posts apart?

 

[Greatest I am]

The first video, Prof Sapolsky (the only one I've watched so far) is thought provoking because it simply points out that mainstream religious views are every similar to the religious views of cults and other groups who are disdained as charlatans, whose members are "lost" or are consorting with the devil.

The important point is that the religious themes from different belief systems have the same overall characteristics such as descriptions of, "magical", "super-natural" occurrences, but what distinguishes them as acceptable or not, are the details. Virgin birth, burning bush, sea parted, rising from the dead, no problem for Christians, but if you speak in terms of voodoo, or paganism, it is immediately rejected. This speaks much to the indoctrination process in combination with the number of believers.

Well put and I agree.

While I can't say I "believe", due to lack of proof, I have hopes for a spiritual existence after physical death.

Most people also do I think. In fact many fear death and I think that religions have capitalized on that fear to the max by creating unwarranted guilt that the believer must then pay the church to assuage. Quite the con job.

Without a personal experience with God, proof is quite impossible and the hopes and wishes we all have should remain just that. To allow the words of men or priests to bring those hopes and desires to faith is quite insane FMPOV.

Where I get into most disagreements in my religious discussions has to do with the details, as in how does anyone know what any details are? My premise is that we don't know details, mostly we adopt an established dogma and go with the details it presents as pseudo facts.

Yes. And that is religionists start living with mantras like this.
“Faith must trample under footall reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Yes. And that is religionists start living with mantras like this.
“Faith must trample under footall reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther

Regards
DL

That you would make an argument for reason and logic must surly be the most outrageous irony in all of your posts.
I think you've finally achieved true greatness


(by the way, I'm not Lutheran )

 

[Minor Axis]

That you would make an argument for reason and logic must surly be the most outrageous irony in all of your posts.
I think you've finally achieved true greatness


(by the way, I'm not Lutheran )

I've had you on ignore for a couple of months now. Decided to give you a chance but am sad to see that the main thrust of your arguments still focus on belittling views contrary to your own. Back on ignore...

 

[Stone]

I've had you on ignore for a couple of months now. Decided to give you a chance but am sad to see that the main thrust of your arguments still focus on belittling views contrary to your own. Back on ignore...

Maybe you're just too sensitive :eek
Or still lacking a logical......(scratch that)....reasonable rebuttal?

Nothing is going to change, MA, no matter how hard you try to spin your hypocrisy.
You might as well keep me on a permanent ignore

( by the way, putting someone on ignore in a debate forum isn't exactly debating from strength.... ... .. and I'll use it to my advantage )


So.....you have contempt for people that give thought to biblical scripture.
Out of curiosity, from what texts did you derive your Earth Simulator/fantasyland of a spirit world faith from? If not texts, perhaps a cult?
Or do you consider your faith derived from your imagination?
Why would your imagination be of religious significance to others?

The first video, Prof Sapolsky (the only one I've watched so far) is thought provoking because it simply points out that mainstream religious views are every similar to the religious views of cults and other groups who are disdained as charlatans, whose members are "lost" or are consorting with the devil.
..................................

LOL!
Sapolsky obviously never read any of the god-like being of almost infinite wisdom we call, GIA....attacks on Christian leaders and followers as charlatans and whose members are lost or consorting with evil.........
There are Christian denominations that refer to others of Christian beliefs in the same manner. Same with Islamics and likely the same in many religions with a difference in theological structure....and that even includes ....YOU. Think not? Go back and read the crap you've been posting where you type cast others not of your own beliefs.
IMO,that makes you a hypocrite with little to no tolerance of others.

While I can't say I "believe", due to lack of proof, I have hopes for a spiritual existence after physical death.

You're not fooling anyone unless you've just recently recanted your beliefs in a Earth Simulator/fantasy spirit world scenario.
As far as religious beliefs go, 'Hope' and Faith' are synonymous.

Where I get into most disagreements in my religious discussions has to do with the details

Well.......let's hear some details about this Earth Simulator/ fantasy spirit world that you believe in.

as in how does anyone know what any details are?

OK......where did you find these details concerning your religious belief in this Earth Simulator/fantasy spirit world scenario?

My premise is that we don't know details

Are you admitting you made up your religious beliefs purely from your imagination?
Shocking, just shocking I tell you