You can't truly see the connections between things so how do you truly know they exist? - gothabomber
Captain Cynic Guides
Administrative Contact
Talk Talk
Philosophy Forum
Religion Forum
Psychology Forum
Science & Technology Forum
Politics & Current Events Forum
Health & Wellness Forum
Sexuality & Intimacy Forum
Product Reviews
Stories & Poetry Forum
Art Forum
Movie/TV Reviews
Jokes & Games
Photos, Videos & Music Forum

Science gives proof of God.

User Thread
 63yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Booky is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Science gives proof of God.
I accept most of the modern Scholar Biblical Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism saying that the miracles as miracles are imposible.

My findings of science is that it does far more in proving the reality of the "intelligent design" (God) and far from disproving it.

The "big bang" proves a creation day, and the first thing was light as in - let there be light.

Even evolution shows an intelligent design(er).

So I find a bigger problem being in religions that promote "miracles" and supernatural as being a religious mistake.

Science is proving the miracles to be logical events and not supernatural at all.

I even confront some "Atheist" and most believe in stories like "Star Trek" and other Sci-Fi shows in that a person in the future could go back in time and claim to be Jesus (Yesu) and heal sick people (like a Dr. McCoy) or walk on water with an antigravity machine or teach an ethical doctrine like a Mr. Spock might do, so Jesus could be a fake from the future and that seems acceptable - but not the Bible at face value.

So now I have come to believe the miracles of the Bible might not be miracles at all, except that since mankind is so lost and uninformed then it looks like a miracle or supernatural and it is not supernatural at all.

Like I believe that God gave us the antibiotics and medicines so we can heal things just like a miracle while it is not really a miracle at all.

To destroy Nazi Germany then God was on the side of the American allies, but it was necessary for us to fight the war because a supernatural miracle is not how our world functions. Without us invading on "D-Day" then THAT miracle would not have happened.

I see this concept as an example of "apologetics" since it apologizes for the ignorance of mankind in the proof of God.

I am trying to show that science does in fact prove the existance of a very practical and non-magical God and not the mystical Orthodox versions of God.

Like the Star Trek TNG show where they went to a planet that had their God as a powerful alien in orbit around that planet http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68324.html.

So our "God" is a realistic creature and not a magic man, and thus science is bringing us closer to the truth and to the hidden secrets of God.

I say intelligent design is obvious in evolution and natrural selection because it is evolving in an upward and improved direction which is an intelligent direction and therefore ID. Without intelligent design then life would evolve both downward and deteriorating and not on a steady path to betterment.

The Bible is not the same as scientific research and the "six-day" creation story is NOT telling of the "big bang" as the 6 days are telling of re-newing the earth per Psalm 104:30, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20104:30%20;&versi
on=9
; and Genesis 1:2, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-3;&version
=9
;.

We have medicine that brings people back to life from the dead, we have evolution declaring life came out of a lifeless earth, and the Bible saying life was created out of dust - so it is different words for the same event.

And the Exodus story of Moses and God was really a vulcano giving a fire-light during the night time and a smoke covering cloud during the day time.

That is exactly what I see is the science is proving the miracles to be realistic events and thus showing us a more accurate account of what the Creator really is.

Religions claim to know about the Creator and religions are filled with errors and nonsense.

But the stupidity of religions does not cancel out the reality of a Creator and of intelligent design, and so science is now showing us a new interpretation of ID and of God.

Creator means inventor and science proves that the miracles are realistic events and not magic.

There is a peculiar story from the Bible that Christian Orthodoxy strangly has correct, in that it tells that God first created a race called "Angels" and a third of those Angels rebelled and caused WAR in the Heavens.

Most people just ignore the glaring revelation that this report is saying that God's invention (Angels) went sour and screwed up so God is not creating perfectly.

Later the famous story of the "Flood" is also saying that God's creation went wrong and He had to destroy it in failure.

These and many other Bible accounts show that God is not a perfect Creator.

Even Jesus being crusified is a sign that things were NOT working well.

So I say the common perception is incorrect in viewing human beings as insignificant to the universe when the exact opposite is in the evidence - that human beings are the ultimate and most complicated invention that has ever been constructed.

It is like us building the Space Shuttle and it blew up a couple times so the inventors make improvements and it blast off again and again. The Space shuttle was created as perfect as possible and then it still evolves just as mankind is evolving in an intelligent way.

The Orthodox claims of God being all-perfect, all-knowing, etc, is an exaggeration that is not told from the Bible.

Science is saying there is no intelligence in evolution and I see intelligence there big time.

I am saying that if the systems did deteriorate then that would be evidence of un-intelligent design.

Deterioration would be evidence of a stupid design(er).

So the reality that natural selection and evolution do improve is the very proof of intelligence.

I am saying it is based in some literal event as told in figuretive ways.

The six days are said to be six thousand (6,000) years, per 2Peter 3:8 link http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8;&version
=9
;, and there is is much more to that story that Orthodoxy leaves out. Like there are millions or billions of year between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 link http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1-3;&version
=9
;.

That is me giving examples of science proving the "miracles" of the Bible to be realistic events and not acts of magic.

I do not know what God is.

Describing its nature and characteristics is all we have.

That is one big reason that I say science is giving us a more clear picture of what the Creator is, or what the intelligent designer is.

No one knows what it really is, and not even the various world scriptures tell us sufficiently of what it is.

For me I had experiences with ghost and spirits long before I believed in any God, so I go to scriptures to explain the so called supernatural and not finding God only inside some books.

In the US Civil War it was Abe Lincoln that saw God on the battlefields, and other people did not see the God until Abe pointed Him out for others to see.

Einstein saw God in science while others deny it.

The big example is the big-bang in that science has proven a creation day.

So now to claim there was no creation day is to deny both the scriptures and science, thus they support each other.

Since we do not know what God is - then whatever we call the God (or God concept) is irrellivant.

The science gives us proof of an intelligent design and that is evidence of an intelligent designer and so science is giving us a totally new deffinition of what God must be.

That is the point of science finding God - finding a God that no one knew before.

I used the Space Shuttle before as my example, and the fact that the Shuttle blew up a couple times is not a proof of unintelligent design.

The proof of intelligence is in the newer version that has the flaw repaired.

So that some life forms deteriorate and die is not the proof of unintelligence because the new life is a superior model.

The extinction of inferior versions of man being replaced by a superior version of mankind shows an intelligence. Just like an improved Space Shuttle build over the ruin of past failures.

The proof is from the failures.

Early man failed and died off. Then another form of improved man appeared.

And it failed again, then improved again, and etc.

So the proof is in the failure then improvement, thus intelligence.

Science is always being re-defined and religion / scriptures need to be redefined too.

I say many if not most Atheist are more correct then Orthodox religions but more correct is far from being right.

Saying our emergency medics can raise people from the dead but Jesus Christ certainly could not do it - that is a petty argument.


| Permalink
"Courage is the key to all advantages."
 30yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that MugenNoKarayami is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Booky I really like that you made a thread like this because we're coming to a time in our evolution that we have to renew our ideas of what religion really is.

I highly doubt the ones responsible for upholding these beliefs took into account of how advanced we would become. People in ancient Greece were completely convinced of Olympian Gods but were proven to be nothing more than scientifically proven natural occurrences. Religious leaders cannot honestly believe that they can lie to an entire civilization of intelligence and reasoning.

People today want to see proof of the things we perceive around us.


I think faith is one of the oldest tricks in the book. "take my word for it, because you couldn't possibly understand" Being asked to have faith is another way to say don't ask questions that can't be answered. A perfect example "GODS PLAN"

you may ask, "what is God's plan?" and the response will normally be "Just have faith " What if I don't like God's plan? Why can't I be told what my role is in God's plan? When reading a very good point in Booky's post I started to think, what if our role is to be a guinea pig for his creation? If we are a failed experiment, a story will probably be made up that it was "HIS PLAN" and if we succeed is surviving, it was "HIS PLAN".

For most people being lied to for so long, I don't think they could handle that truth. But for people who understand that miserable fate, will/should not live their lives any differently.


To sum everything up, after reading Booky's thoughts on all of this, I personally think - and am not offended by the idea that we could just be an experiment to see if Homo Sapien Sapien is really capable of surviving any and everything this universe has to through at us. I believe we are capable of such a task, IF and ONLY IF our religious leaders will acknowledge the fact that God does not personally protect or guide us, but rather WE must guide and protect EACH OTHER based on our OWN moral compasses. We're the most advanced creatures on the face of this planet as far as mental capacity is concerned. Everyone as a whole should be informed of this, and only can we begin to really unlock our potential for our perfect race to survive.

When this is realized - "sin" will be the only thing subject to de-evolution. Positivity will be all that remains to evolve to something greater; our real potential. Boy would I love to see that day.

I think people could come to be understanding of this idea if they are assured that each and every one of us hold the key to our salvation. We have our own power of Trial and Error. No other animal that I know of is capable of this. (A species that is able to create and maintain its own life, you say?)

If there is a God, a very good choice was made to upgrade us with conscious awareness. He may have very well given us his secret, and we don't even know it. until now that is ;D

And frankly, I would have no problem believing in God if he was portrayed in this way. The very fact that he was sold to me as a mythical being is what turned me off the most. But with this new perception of what God COULD be, I'm much more open to the idea of a God who can make mistakes just like us.

| Permalink
"I'm a human being, God Dammit!! My life has value!!!"
 63yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Booky is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
It is my position that "God" is still real and active even if the Bible were completely false or fake.

And a lot of the Bible is - IMO - completely false and fake.

I myself came to believe in a God because I experienced ghost and demons and spirits in this world and THEN then I went to the Bible to see if it could explain the spirit world.

And an ant is intelligent so an ant or group of ants building an ant-hill or ant-hole is thus using intelligent design in their work.

So seeing intelligent design in the "big bang" or in the living creatures including mankind does not mean it has to be higher intelligence.

In fact the scriptures (if they be correct or not) shows a God in simplicities, even the simple stuff is where God is to be found. It is a mistake to look for a higher intelligence when looking at itelligent design (ID). That is an important point and pointer.

I like science and I am saying a simple intelligence and not a lower one.

I do believe the evidence shows us that science is in fact taking us closer to the truths and thereby taking us closer to the thing we call God.

So if science is true to its own claim that science is seeking out the truths - then the scientific discovery of intelligence and of God would be a GREAT scientific discovery.

The 5th dimention is intelligent design - God.

Otherwise the defense of NOT wanting to discover the reality of a God is not scientific nor honest.

I find it to be a huge mistake when science mis-uses the wrong "Orthodox" distortion that God must be a super high intelligence, because that "Orthodox" perception is extremely vain and self flattering, ie: God must be super smart because we see our selves are very intelligent.

In the example of the Space Shuttle it was created as a super intelligent invention because the Shuttle creators made it the very best that they could, so the Space Shuttle is a super intelligent invention equal to its creators.

So God invented a super intelligent creation in the universe and in mankind and so we are that expression of its super intelligence and so in searching for our creator we must not be looking for superior intelligence at all. Only equal intelligence would be realistic.

That is the logical approach with our human vanity and our Orthodox distortions removed. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodox

To add to that Space Shuttle example;

what if the Space Shuttle could think? and it would see mankind as inferior to itself because man can not fly into space, man does not have onboard computers, man has emotions and confusing aspects, and mankind would be seen as the Shuttle's servants because people keep the Shuttle functioning.

My point is that mankind (like the Space Shuttle) is the expression of super intelligence and that is why seeing our Creator for what the creator really is - does not mean looking for any superior intelligence in the ID.

We are already the super maximum intelligent design of all times.

Like the Star Trek movie about "V ger" being the man-made "Voyager" space craft gaining super knowledge and unable to see mankind as its inventor.

Mankind is like that "V ger" in that we fail to see our God because of our own distorted perspective.

I say that is why the science is so extremely blind.

The science only wants its pre-set "truths" and refuses to look at the evidence contrary to its particular kind of truth.

This is exactly my point here in telling to open up your perception and see what is being exposed by science.

It depends on how we define science, but I would say that discovering life on another planet would be praised as a scientific discovery.

Like science put men on the moon.

So saying the discovery of a "God" would not be scientific is just another example of closing out a truth because of refusing to see it.

I do understand the closed minds but I do not respect them.

I do not know what God is, so THAT answer is beyond me.

But I do strongly object to seeking God under the claims of Orthodox religions because they know less then we do.

So I have been saying from my first posting here that I do declare that God is not Orthodox at all.

Religions do not even interpret the scriptures correctly and they have confused the reality of God with their fantasies and their distortions.

I see science as a way of correcting some of those errors.

First I object to that idea of "worship" because the God of the Bible does not ask us for "worship" and Jesus does not ask for worship and worship is a trait derived from idolatry and improperly incerted into Christianity.

The word for worship only meant "to show or declare worth" and not bow, pray, homage, etc., as that is all "Baal" (idolatry) stuff, and the human master's demand for worship - not God.

So I say it is mistakenly mixing up the Orthodox false God and false claim for "worship" and mixing it in with the God that science is exposing, they are greatly different indeed.

And it is not just that the true God (Creator) created us, but that it (the thing called God) is alive and active in this world and beyond - so that is the BIG qualification.

The limitations of God is the point where science and God meet together.

By demanding an "infinate God" then that is another blind spot for NOT seeing the reality of the thing we call God.

Certainly in science we can not make demands on the outcome, especially when the evidence points otherwise.

What is the universe but finite - yet it goes on forever, and our minds go faster then light and we race to the edge of the universe to discover finite again, and people want infinate in their God when it is not there.

Some people just can not be satisfied - even God has limits.

I do not like the name "God" myself. That word "God" comes from an old Anglo name for an idol, as people would carry their Gods around with them.

The word "God" is extremely incorrect from the Bible and elsewhere.

The Bible words for "God" were Elloheem meaning plural as in Gods with an "s" and the better name was Yahweh which meant Creator in a male tense as in "Father", and the two words are combined in the Bible as Yahweh Elloheem (each can be spelled in other ways) and that meant Father of the Gods (using our English terms) as it would more likely be translated as Father (or Creator) of the Spirits.

So I find the Bible equates "God" as a large group of creatures, in a different form then our physical existance, and it has a hieracrchy with a Father or King / Ruler and subordinates, like Jesus was said to be the "spokesperson" and then there is said to be arch-Angels and demons and more.

I say we each and all can see or experience the spirits or demons or Ghost now with just a little effort, and it apparently happens often all over the earth.

So I am actually agreeing with science again (agreeing in my own way) that the common perception of the thing we call God is very incorrect indeed.

I am saying that if we take the miracles out of the Gospels, or just ignore the miracles, then we can see the message from Christ and see the man in a clearer way.

The miracles are really a divertion from the real message.

Biblical Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism does that and it works well.


| Permalink
"Courage is the key to all advantages."
 46yrs • F •
A CTL of 1 means that Sorceress is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
I believe science is getting closer to understanding the beginnings of the universe and if there is a creative, inteligent force behind that eventually it will be revealed through scientific evidence because that is what most people sem to need. But I do think that all science needs to converse together rather than being separated off into little separate traditions, to truly understand and philosophical questioning needs to be included in dcientific education, because empiricism isn't always the only way to truth.

| Permalink
""Each child holds the world in an open hand to mould it into any shape they choose.""
 63yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Booky is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
I like that point that people "need" an intelligent creative force, while most scientist declare that there is no need of a God.

Both outer-space and life is truly empty and void without the Creator.

Mankind is simply not sufficient by ourselves.

We would be lost, empty, alone and without purpose or meaning.

Even a false god is better then no god at all.


| Permalink
"Courage is the key to all advantages."
 38yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Chained Wings is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
Even a false god is better then no god at all.


This is the very reason why organized religion is able to peddle such ridiculous fairytales.

People will lie to themselves if it makes their time on this planet more comfortable, or if it means they dont have to think about the possibility of life without a "meaning," or death being the end.

| Permalink
"When I was a child I flew! Then as an adult- I watched others soar."
 63yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Booky is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
This is the very reason why organized religion is able to peddle such ridiculous fairytales.


I agree.

And that is why I say we must remove the "fairytales" in order to find the truths.

To throw out God and religion just because of the "fairytales" would be an even bigger mistake.


| Permalink
"Courage is the key to all advantages."
 55yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that NATuralMan is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
There is one inherent problem, one of many that I will address anyways, with Intelligent Design when speaking of Evolution.

We know for a fact that many species have died out over the eaons in different periods, and that some are indeed quite "new", in geological terms.

This would mean that "Intelligent Design", ei Creationism, has been an ongoing process for millenia, and goes on today.

This would indicate that this "Intelligent Designer" is indeed with us at this very moment, creating new species as we speak.

Deosn't make so much sence now, does it.

| Permalink
 35yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that allimar is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
The only two religions I see as being more correct then all others is Mathematics and Science. Branches of these two subjects are based off observations, theories, and by individuals willing to accept that said theories are in fact incorrect.

Other religions simply state they are in fact correct and true with no logical explanation, proof, theory or with the acceptance they could be in fact wrong.

Now for the real deal. Observing two students in science class, I noticed two amazing concepts.

Student A absorbed information from science class, based theories on said subject and began to logically test, observe and form his own theories parallel with current understandings of varied sciences.

Student B rejected the information, then manipulated taught material and tried to match up the information with his understandings of his own religion. He was then unable to predict or form accurate amylases on projects.

My theory with other religions is such if you isolate and murder believers as well as destroy evidence of that religion it will no longer exist. Also, if you were to take individuals at birth with no knowledge of the world, isolate them from all forms of society, they would grow and build basic math and science skills. This as well as form a new religion based on their ability to observe and handle the environment.

This alone proves there is no, 'God' as well as demonstrates that no other religion is any more true than any other author writing a fantasy novel.

People who believe in the BIBLE and other religions to me are no more correct then those believing the Lord of the Rings tail to be a legitimate part of history. And that somehow the world changed shape to what we know today as Earth.




| Permalink
"The more you learn, the less you know."
 55yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that NATuralMan is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
People who believe in the BIBLE and other religions to me are no more correct then those believing the Lord of the Rings tail to be a legitimate part of history. And that somehow the world changed shape to what we know today as Earth.


Not all religions contain Creationist/ID myths. Except for the Abrahamic Religions, most other Creationist myths involves that culture's Deity creating the world and/or people, not the Universe. Both types of Creationism is simply disproved by scientific evidence.

Also, just as it is impossible to prove the existance of Deity to others, whether those found in the Bible or mine, it is just as impossible to prove that they Do Not exist.

| Permalink
 35yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that allimar is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Aside from the fact the only information/ knowlage you get regarding any religion from is a book writen by a person, or word of mouth by another person.

This alone proves the fictional characteristics of religions out and about.

| Permalink
"The more you learn, the less you know."
 63yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Booky is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
NATuralMan

We know for a fact that many species have died out over the eaons in different periods, and that some are indeed quite "new", in geological terms.

This would mean that "Intelligent Design", ei Creationism, has been an ongoing process for millenia, and goes on today.

This would indicate that this "Intelligent Designer" is indeed with us at this very moment, creating new species as we speak.

Deosn't make so much sence now, does it.


Well I agree with every thing you said but not your last line conclusion.

It does make sense - just as you explained it.

It would not make sense to say the ID or the Creator or God was not with us today.

It would not make sense if there was a Creation / Creator that was not active and still actively living and functioning today and onward.

Yes, the Creator being "with us this very moment" is the sensible conclusion and not otherwise.

To have a Creator that was NOW gone would be adsurd.

Evolution shows "intelligent design" and Designer because it keeps improving onward non stop.

The "fact" that we see some species dying off and new improved species showing up is the proof of intelligence in action - living active intelligence - God.


| Permalink
"Courage is the key to all advantages."
 63yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that Booky is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
= allimar

Aside from the fact the only information/ knowlage you get regarding any religion from is a book writen by a person, or word of mouth by another person.

This alone proves the fictional characteristics of religions out and about.


That is true of religion but not of God or ID or Creator.

Even if the Bible and other religious books were totally lies - then God still remains.

As there is evidence of ghosts and spirits and other dimentions and big evidence of a Creator like the "Big Bang" means a creation day, and more evidence available like the proofs of intelligent design.

Claiming and believing that God is inside the Books instead of in the real world and out in the real universe has made hypocrites out of many religious people.

I am saying that if we want to see the truth then we must separate God from religion.

The existance of a Creator God is not dependant on the Books of mankind.

That is one reason my own religious beliefs are so unOrthodox is because I have seen Ghost and had weird spiritual experiences, and so I learned about God before I had any true religion of my own. Then afterward I went to the religious books to explain the things I saw and felt in the real world.

I still like some parts of the Bible and other Holy books because they give us great insights, but God is not locked inside the Book.

It lives.


| Permalink
"Courage is the key to all advantages."
 55yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that NATuralMan is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
Well I agree with every thing you said but not your last line conclusion.

It does make sense - just as you explained it.

It would not make sense to say the ID or the Creator or God was not with us today.

It would not make sense if there was a Creation / Creator that was not active and still actively living and functioning today and onward.

Yes, the Creator being "with us this very moment" is the sensible conclusion and not otherwise.

To have a Creator that was NOW gone would be adsurd.

Evolution shows "intelligent design" and Designer because it keeps improving onward non stop.

The "fact" that we see some species dying off and new improved species showing up is the proof of intelligence in action - living active intelligence - God.


You missed the point, tho I've a feeling you did so on purpose.

Evolution disproves the idea of a Creator Deity, sorry, as well as Creationism/ID which is the same thing anyways.

Also, where are all the miracles? Citiies disappearing in pillars of fire? The flat earth copletely inundated with water though there isn't enough on the planet to do so? How about all those other biblical god stuff that is compeltely lacking? Not even considering said bible is from one of the younger religions on the planet, devoted to THE youngest Deity.

ID was an intertesting theosophical excersise developed by the great Greek philosophers. It was recently dusted off by Christian conservatives in a rather weak and lame attempt to circumvent the Constitution and force their religious doctrines back into public schools, where it does not belong, and to attempt to provide some "scinetific basis" to support their religion.

Creationism/ID simply doesn't stand up to peer review in the scientific community.

Not to mention that one would have to prove the existance of said Intelligent Designer before one could consider ID a valid theory.

And let's face it, that aint gonna happen.

| Permalink
 55yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that NATuralMan is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
That is true of religion but not of God or ID or Creator.

Even if the Bible and other religious books were totally lies - then God still remains.


How about some proof there, sparky.

As I stated above, Creationism/ID requires the proof of a creator god first. You, and all Creationism/ID proponents are attempting to prove your creator god through Creationism/ID first.

Since the Theory of Evolution already explains, in detail, the process of Evolution, and Creationism/ID relies solely on the faith of a creator god, you would have to prove that god even exists first.

| Permalink
Science gives proof of God.
  1    2  
About Captain Cynic
Common FAQ's
Captain Cynic Guides
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
General Forum Rules
Cynic Trust Levels
Administrative Contact Forum
Registration
Lost Password
General Discussion
Philosophy Forums
Psychology Forums
Health Forums
Quote Submissions
Promotions & Links
 Captain Cynic on Facebook
 Captain Cynic on Twitter
 Captain Cynic RSS Feed
 Daily Tasker
Copyright © 2011 Captain Cynic All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy