Scientists are seeking God

[Inan3]

Poor choice of words, i guess, saying what you 'should" do without adding "if".

i was not offering an opinion of your personally. No more than if i said, "you should try to avoid rush hour traffic".

If i said 'you tend to make things up" or, ;you think things are personal when they are not", THAT is making a personal remark about your character, personality or etc.

If tho what you said about personal opinions means you are against it, lets hear no more of them.

Now, back to the "should, if".

True this is not a debate forum as such, nor are there tight rules.

However it is a science forum, and there is a certain reasonable expectation expressed by many here, that a person not jut make assertions with nothing to back it up.

I could say with that i think is more truth that nobody is actually looking for god, they just think they are.

No data to work with for your opinion or mine.

i guess if you hear that you should avoid rush hour traffic, you might as for the if and the why, or you could just take it as an honest suggestion.

you didnt look at it that way apparently, so here is the if and the why.

In science we do data not opinions. If a person just asserts opinions (as facts) they have no standing
in a discussion about science. They establish no credibility that way, just the opposite.

There is more, but i dont want to go on about it. it was intended as a "should not if". you might at least consider my reasons for saying it.

Thank you Hespera, I accept that and appreciate your explanation.

That's not to say that I will always apply the "data not opinions" thing but then I don't think things need to be that disciplined here. I think it's okay to just talk. It just seems more human and not so uptight but when asked I don't think I would mind to provide some particulars that formed my opinions and judgements on certain topics.

 

[Inan3]

That's fine - I don't know if I'd call Laws theories, but anyway - however, your definition doesn't say anything about proving laws. At best, you can hope for the same thing for a law, under the above definition, as you can for a theory - the status of "still not disproven".

But Cabal, isn't that the status of MOST of science? Maybe I exaggerate by saying MOST but at least I could say "a LOT" of science. To me science seems to be in a state of "still not disproven or proven." Is that right?

 

[Cabal]

But Cabal, isn't that the status of MOST of science? Maybe I exaggerate by saying MOST but at least I could say "a LOT" of science. To me science seems to be in a state of "still not disproven or proven." Is that right?

Well, sure it is. Scientific ideas either are disproven or not yet disproven. I should be clear and say that something being "not yet disproven" does not imply that it will definitely be falsified in the future. It's just being precise over exactly what level of validity we can legitimately claim, basically because we don't know the future, and we can't absolutely prove theories, though we can certainly prove them beyond reasonable doubt.

Generally speaking though, we tend to place strongest confidence in the theories that have stood for the longest time and withstood the longest scrutiny. Ironically, that usually means the controversial ones.....

 

[mzungu]

I thought these articles were interesting although, I haven't read them ALL completely but I will. I would love to see what others think of these subjects. It would be nice if we could have some honest opinions without anyone criticizing or getting mad at others' opinions or thoughts.


The God Particle - National Geographic Magazine

The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread | The Economist

Will Physicists Find God? - Newsweek

God Particle riddle could be solved "by 2012" - CBS News

God Particle Discovered

So much for the so-called "God particle" - CBS News

The God particle has as much to do with God as shellfish have with fish.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I thought these articles were interesting although, I haven't read them ALL completely but I will. I would love to see what others think of these subjects. It would be nice if we could have some honest opinions without anyone criticizing or getting mad at others' opinions or thoughts.


The God Particle - National Geographic Magazine

The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread | The Economist

Will Physicists Find God? - Newsweek

God Particle riddle could be solved "by 2012" - CBS News

God Particle Discovered

So much for the so-called "God particle" - CBS News

God might be in the title, but the devil is in the details.

 

[Hespera]

Thank you Hespera, I accept that and appreciate your explanation.

That's not to say that I will always apply the "data not opinions" thing but then I don't think things need to be that disciplined here. I think it's okay to just talk. It just seems more human and not so uptight but when asked I don't think I would mind to provide some particulars that formed my opinions and judgements on certain topics.

good we understand eqch other on that point.

 

[Inan3]

God might be in the title, but the devil is in the details.

Cute... but do you have a meaning on that are you just being cute? It's okay either way. Your remark made me smile.

 

[KCfromNC]

When I was in school a Law of Science was defined as a theory or equation which has never been contradicted by observation or experiment, and is supported by numerous experiments and observations. Does not mean there can't be an exception, just we have not found one and it is unlikely, and if we do, it can no longer be considered a Law of science.

My old textbooks give "Newton's Law of Gravity" as a Law and not theory, based on that definition.

The problem with this idea is that this law you mention has been known to be wrong (in this case, incomplete) for longer than you've been alive. It's still called Newton's Law of Gravity because that's what its name is. The law is still the same equations, we just know it's not a complete description of everything we observe in nature.

The word law versus theory is mostly a historical artifact - you'll note that laws generally come from science prior to the 20th century. They're both just names applied to a successful hypothesis. Language evolves over time and some words go out of favor. Older theories were named laws. Newer laws are called theories. It's more an oddity of language than anything to do with certainty of the underlying science. One isn't better than another - some laws are known to be wrong while many theories are more successful than the laws they replaced. Don't get caught up applying non-technical definitions to a very specific usage of the words in the scientific community.

 

[Hespera]

The problem with this idea is that this law you mention has been known to be wrong (in this case, incomplete) for longer than you've been alive. It's still called Newton's Law of Gravity because that's what its name is. The law is still the same equations, we just know it's not a complete description of everything we observe in nature.

The word law versus theory is mostly a historical artifact. They're both just names applied to a successful hypothesis. Older theories were named laws. Newer laws are called theories. It's more an oddity of language than anything to do with certainty. One isn't better than another - some laws are known to be wrong while many theories are more successful than the laws they replaced. Don't get caught up applying non-technical definitions to a very specific usage of the words in the scientific community.

I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort tht govern the behaviour of matter and energy.

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable.

 

[Inan3]

I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort tht govern the behaviour of matter and energy.

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable.

Heb 1:3 The Son shows the glory of God. He is a perfect copy of God's nature, and He holds everything together by His powerful command. The Son made people clean from their sins. Then He sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven.

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort tht govern the behaviour of matter and energy.

Sure, we see order and patterns in how stuff works. Who knows why, if it even makes sense to ask why in the first place.

But the laws and theories I was talking are scientific ones. They're simplifications of reality which let us make predictions about future observations. Calling one a law and another a theory doesn't make one more or less accurate. You have to test them and see the results. You can call it a ham sandwich for all I care, but if it lets me make better useful predictions of how stuff works that's all that matters. The person I was responding to was getting caught up in the difference between law and theory, and there really isn't a consistent one that I can find. It's just putting names on stuff that works to various degrees - the name doesn't tell you if it works, the testing does.

 

[Hespera]

Sure, we see order and patterns in how stuff works. Who knows why, if it even makes sense to ask why in the first place.

But the laws and theories I was talking are scientific ones. They're simplifications of reality which let us make predictions about future observations. Calling one a law and another a theory doesn't make one more or less accurate. You have to test them and see the results. You can call it a ham sandwich for all I care, but if it lets me make better useful predictions of how stuff works that's all that matters. The person I was responding to was getting caught up in the difference between law and theory, and there really isn't a consistent one that I can find. It's just putting names on stuff that works to various degrees - the name doesn't tell you if it works, the testing does.

no disagreement from me

 

[Hespera]

Heb 1:3 The Son shows the glory of God. He is a perfect copy of God's nature, and He holds everything together by His powerful command. The Son made people clean from their sins. Then He sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven.

Originally Posted by Hespera

I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort that govern the behaviour of matter and energy.

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable.
​

I know all that, ive read the book. you choose to believe it explains the source of everything. Fine, your opinion, your choice.

This is tho a science forum, and as such, we kind of expect to see some sort of data. and you have zero for that.

And if you did have it right about the source, it still gives nothing about this...what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable.

We were addressing lilfeathers confusion about what a law is, and honeslty inan, a bit of preaching contributes nothing to that.

 

[Inan3]

Originally Posted by Hespera

I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort that govern the behaviour of matter and energy.
​

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable.
​

I know all that, ive read the book. you choose to believe it explains the source of everything. Fine, your opinion, your choice.

This is tho a science forum, and as such, we kind of expect to see some sort of data. and you have zero for that.

And if you did have it right about the source, it still gives nothing about this...what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable.

We were addressing lilfeathers confusion about what a law is, and honeslty inan, a bit of preaching contributes nothing to that.

Well, it wasn't really meant to be preaching. You see, I think it turns out to be science. The scriptures tell us that God is a Spirit... God is Life and in saying that I am saying that that Spirit is the same as LIFE or ENERGY or POWER and God being the SOURCE of all LIFE, ENERGY or POWER I actually believe that plays out to be the power or energy that holds it all together. Jesus explained that when He SPOKE He was actually speaking LIFE and SPIRIT. God's spoken word is what has generated ALL the power within the universe to energize and to hold it together. Because He IS Spirit and Life and because Spirit and Life are all around us and in us this is what keeps us living and moving and producing and increasing. The same is with the universe and all that is within it. The laws are inherent with His intent for the operation of each particular function of creation. You say you do not know the source. I believe I do. I believe that an intelligent Being would have had to put the "laws" in to effect for it to work and run so efficiently and in synchronization. You have said the same thing to a point but you conclude with:

"What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable."

To which I say, I do believe it has been made known already, for we are told in the scripture, which I included that it is God who holds it all together by the power of HIS command. Seems so profound and yet so simple to me.

Now on your other point, I think that you forget that this is not only a "science" forum but a "Physical and LIFE" forum, within the confines of CHRISTIAN Forums so that to bring God into the equation is always acceptable.

One more thing, you also told me, "We were addressing lilfeathers confusion about what a law is" but then your aswer to him was,

"I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort that govern the behaviour of matter and energy.
​

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable"
​

It seems, and I mean no offense to you, that you were trying to address his confusion with your own confusion and lack of understanding, so, no pun intended, I decided to help and shed a little LIGHT on it. To add to that point the scriptures also explain God is LIGHT and if you factor that in with SPIRIT and LIFE you pretty much have the answer to ALL of creation.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well, it wasn't really meant to be preaching. You see, I think it turns out to be science. The scriptures tell us that God is a Spirit... God is Life and in saying that I am saying that that Spirit is the same as LIFE or ENERGY or POWER and God being the SOURCE of all LIFE, ENERGY or POWER I actually believe that plays out to be the power or energy that holds it all together. Jesus explained that when He SPOKE He was actually speaking LIFE and SPIRIT. God's spoken word is what has generated ALL the power within the universe to energize and to hold it together. Because He IS Spirit and Life and because Spirit and Life are all around us and in us this is what keeps us living and moving and producing and increasing. The same is with the universe and all that is within it. The laws are inherent with His intent for the operation of each particular function of creation. You say you do not know the source. I believe I do. I believe that an intelligent Being would have had to put the "laws" in to effect for it to work and run so efficiently and in synchronization. You have said the same thing to a point but you conclude with:

"What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable."

To which I say, I do believe it has been made known already, for we are told in the scripture, which I included that it is God who holds it all together by the power of HIS command. Seems so profound and yet so simple to me.

Now on your other point, I think that you forget that this is not only a "science" forum but a "Physical and LIFE" forum, within the confines of CHRISTIAN Forums so that to bring God into the equation is always acceptable.

One more thing, you also told me, "We were addressing lilfeathers confusion about what a law is" but then your aswer to him was,

"I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort that govern the behaviour of matter and energy.
​

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable"
​

It seems, and I mean no offense to you, that you were trying to address his confusion with your own confusion and lack of understanding, so, no pun intended, I decided to help and shed a little LIGHT on it. To add to that point the scriptures also explain God is LIGHT and if you factor that in with SPIRIT and LIFE you pretty much have the answer to ALL of creation.

Oh.... you were serious, weren't you?

:o

 

[Hespera]

Well, it wasn't really meant to be preaching. You see, I think it turns out to be science. The scriptures tell us that God is a Spirit... God is Life and in saying that I am saying that that Spirit is the same as LIFE or ENERGY or POWER and God being the SOURCE of all LIFE, ENERGY or POWER I actually believe that plays out to be the power or energy that holds it all together. Jesus explained that when He SPOKE He was actually speaking LIFE and SPIRIT. God's spoken word is what has generated ALL the power within the universe to energize and to hold it together. Because He IS Spirit and Life and because Spirit and Life are all around us and in us this is what keeps us living and moving and producing and increasing. The same is with the universe and all that is within it. The laws are inherent with His intent for the operation of each particular function of creation. You say you do not know the source. I believe I do. I believe that an intelligent Being would have had to put the "laws" in to effect for it to work and run so efficiently and in synchronization. You have said the same thing to a point but you conclude with:

"What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable."

To which I say, I do believe it has been made known already, for we are told in the scripture, which I included that it is God who holds it all together by the power of HIS command. Seems so profound and yet so simple to me.

Now on your other point, I think that you forget that this is not only a "science" forum but a "Physical and LIFE" forum, within the confines of CHRISTIAN Forums so that to bring God into the equation is always acceptable.

One more thing, you also told me, "We were addressing lilfeathers confusion about what a law is" but then your aswer to him was,

"I guess we all more or less believe that there are "laws" of some sort that govern the behaviour of matter and energy.
​

What the source of those laws might be, what they actually are, and whether any are immutable is all completely unknown and probably unknowable"
​

It seems, and I mean no offense to you, that you were trying to address his confusion with your own confusion and lack of understanding, so, no pun intended, I decided to help and shed a little LIGHT on it. To add to that point the scriptures also explain God is LIGHT and if you factor that in with SPIRIT and LIFE you pretty much have the answer to ALL of creation.

You say you do not know the source. I believe I do. I believe that an intelligent Being would have had to put the "laws" in to effect for it to work and run so efficiently and in synchronization.

I dont know and you dont know. Simple. You believe you know something, and I believe you dont; but you dont KNOW. Mobody does.

To which I say, I do believe it has been made known already, for we are told in the scripture, which I included that it is God who holds it all together by the power of HIS command. Seems so profound and yet so simple to m

Again you just think you know. You might be right but i doubt it.
I see nothing whatever profound in any of the religions' stories about things like this.

Now on your other point, I think that you forget that this is not only a "science" forum but a "Physical and LIFE" forum, within the confines of CHRISTIAN Forums so that to bring God into the equation is always acceptable.

No Im not 'forgetting". i said.this is tho a science forum, and as such, we kind of expect to see some sort of data. and you have zero for that. The name of the forum is physical and life SCIENCE. if you make assertions of any sort about matters of science and have zero data to back up your version, it wont get a whole lot of respect. simple.


[/quote]

It seems, and I mean no offense to you, that you were trying to address his confusion with your own confusion and lack of understanding, so, no pun intended, I decided to help and shed a little LIGHT on it. To add to that point the scriptures also explain God is LIGHT and if you factor that in with SPIRIT and LIFE you pretty much have the answer to ALL of creation

.

No I am not confused. iI will agree to the lack of understanding, a lack of understanding that i share with every single human being on earth.

Your idea...

explain God is LIGHT and if you factor that in with SPIRIT and LIFE you pretty much have the answer to ALL of creation

actually just does not do a thing. maybe he is and maybe he isnt but you still have no more information than if you said the answer to all is the number '42". Ok it is 42,now what? ok its god, now what? You cant even make an omlette with that info.

The origin and nature of natural law is unknown and probably unknowable. That is simple statement of how things are. It doesnt need to be reinterpreted into religious... all due respect.. but religious platitudes.

 

[Inan3]

Oh.... you were serious, weren't you?

:o

Thank God for smilies. Otherwise some people don't seem to be able to express themselves.

 

[Inan3]

Maybe religion is the answer claims atheist scientist


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/richard-alleyne/6146656/Maybe-religion-is-the-answer-claims-atheist-scientist.html

Although, he has the premise wrong... it's a start!! He suggests that maybe people need a "Supernatural punisher."

"Given that punishment is a useful mechanism, how much more effective it would be if you invested that power not in an individual you don't like, but an all-seeing, all powerful deity that controls the world," he said

My hopes is that many will begin to look at the past and the present and begin to see God in their future. We can learn from the past and I think it is necessary that we look at what got us here. It certainly is NOT the existence of God but rather the absense of God.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Maybe religion is the answer claims atheist scientist

Although, he has the premise wrong... it's a start!! He suggests that maybe people need a "Supernatural punisher."

"Given that punishment is a useful mechanism, how much more effective it would be if you invested that power not in an individual you don't like, but an all-seeing, all powerful deity that controls the world," he said

My hopes is that many will begin to look at the past and the present and begin to see God in their future. We can learn from the past and I think it is necessary that we look at what got us here. It certainly is NOT the existence of God but rather the absense of God.

That article isn't speaking to the truth of God in any sense. Many atheists have claimed that religion is useful. It is quite possible that when humans became more intellegent, religion memetically evolved into a useful adaptation. Our mind isn't perfect, and evolution may well have designed the concept of religion as a useful makeshift fix. Atheists that subscribe to the theory think that while religion is useful on a societal level, they have still seen through it and can't go back.

 

[Inan3]

That article isn't speaking to the truth of God in any sense. Many atheists have claimed that religion is useful. It is quite possible that when humans became more intellegent, religion memetically evolved into a useful adaptation. Our mind isn't perfect, and evolution may well have designed the concept of religion as a useful makeshift fix. Atheists that subscribe to the theory think that while religion is useful on a societal level, they have still seen through it and can't go back.

Did you mean to say "evolution may well have designed the concept of religion?" It almost sounds like you give evolution some sort of intelligence. Remember with evolution it's all just a crap shoot. Please tell me HOW evolution could have designed religion as a useful makeshift fix.