Research on Belief in God

[ray j willings]

You're badly oversimplifying all of Cosmology with your 'facts', you take things as absolute that are still being debated in the scientific community. They're still trying to understand but you've closed the case.

The speed of light is a fact. We know that the universe is inflating/expanding fact. We have mapped our universe fact. All these things are facts.
I am not oversimplifying anything just using factual examples to make my point. If you want believe the earth is 6000 years old and that the moon is not moving away from the earth and it's god's design then that shows a lack of understanding of the way our universe works. I have not closed the case at all, again you make a presumption. I'm just pointing out some things that we do know and it does not point to in anyway a universe created by a super natural being. Like I said there have been many gods to choose from and what makes you think your god is the right one? Why is the story's that you believe any more truthful than the stories of the hundreds of other gods?

 

[rhubroma]

The recantation was not written by the judges but by Galileo himself and yeah he didn't understand anything at why he was arrested. He acted like a crybaby. The proof is that he switched side straightway, claimed that geocentrism was right and propose to give evidence for it. Lol! We should remember that 9 out of the 10 cardinals + the Pope himself believed in the heliocentric model and in Kepler's laws - only there was no proof yet -, so they sure did not want any proof for the geocentric model. Of course, you'd deny these facts but what do I care, read the report of the trial and you'll see.

Galileo got arrested because he was a perjurer and obtained an Imprimatur in Florence by fraud. Case closed. The arrest was justified. The sentence was even very mild. End of story.

Edit: oh I forgot, just one more thing. The threat of torture is bullsh*t, entirely made up by atheists. He was 72 and above 60 years of age, you no longer risk torture at that time.

He wrote it to assauge the tempest against him, for the reasons mentioned therein. You can attempt the notions of your pathetic and ridiculous apologia on fellow idiots.

 

[RetroActive]

The speed of light is a fact. We know that the universe is inflating/expanding fact. We have mapped our universe fact. All these things are facts.
I am not oversimplifying anything just using factual examples to make my point. If you want believe the earth is 6000 years old and that the moon is not moving away from the earth and it's god's design then that shows a lack of understanding of the way our universe works. I have not closed the case at all, again you make a presumption. I'm just pointing out some things that we do know and it does not point to in anyway a universe created by a super natural being. Like I said there have been many gods to choose from and what makes you think your god is the right one? Why is the story's that you believe any more truthful than the stories of the hundreds of other gods?

You don't have to convince me, I don't know. There are a gathering crowd of physicists, and other scientists, that you have some explaining to do to convince them. It's been a while since I've looked into this and I see a new vid. was just posted so I thank you for the inspiration!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNaVb7b-tg

 

[Echoes]

Titanic was a plane ...

Atheists can't deal with facts, it's really amazing. As long as they defend the official version of the Galileo trial, they won't get any credibility whatsoever.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Titanic was a plane ...

Atheists can't deal with facts, it's really amazing. As long as they defend the official version of the Galileo trial, they won't get any credibility whatsoever.

The mistake that religious people make in this regard is that they think atheism is another competing religion. It's not, there is no official doctrine, it is simply a disbelief in any God figure. An atheist is free to believe or not believe any version of history that he/she wants. With the simple caveat that if they begin believing in the existence of a god figure then they are no longer an atheist.

 

[ray j willings]

You don't have to convince me, I don't know. There are a gathering crowd of physicists, and other scientists, that you have some explaining to do to convince them. It's been a while since I've looked into this and I see a new vid. was just posted so I thank you for the inspiration!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNaVb7b-tg

Very interesting thanks for that...I remember this article http://www.theguardian.com/science/.../26/higgs-tau-tau-lepton-masses-cern#comments

 

[ray j willings]

Titanic was a plane ...

Atheists can't deal with facts, it's really amazing. As long as they defend the official version of the Galileo trial, they won't get any credibility whatsoever.

But Echoes, there is no scientific evidence for a super natural being. That seems to be a fact that you cannot deal with.

in 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculano da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.

This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he "held" belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of "discussion" rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the Sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

This time, Galileo's technical argument didn't win the day. On June 22, 1633, the Church handed down the following order: "We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo... have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world."

Along with the order came the following penalty: "We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms."

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy

 

[RetroActive]

The mistake that religious people make in this regard is that they think atheism is another competing religion. It's not, there is no official doctrine, it is simply a disbelief in any God figure. An atheist is free to believe or not believe any version of history that he/she wants. With the simple caveat that if they begin believing in the existence of a god figure then they are no longer an atheist.

The problem that atheists have is that they think that all religious people are fundamentalists, particularly Christians, that believe that the universe was created 6000 yrs. ago and there's a personality in the sky directing things. It's simply ignorance talking to ignorance.

Panentheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

 

[Hugh Januss]

The problem that atheists have is that they think that all religious people are fundamentalists, particularly Christians, that believe that the universe was created 6000 yrs. ago and there's a personality in the sky directing things. It's simply ignorance talking to ignorance.

Panentheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

I don't really give much thought to what various religions do or don't believe and I don't care whether or not they go on believing it. I only have a problem when they start making laws which require me to go along with their beliefs or they come knocking at my door and waste my time trying to convince me that I have to believe as they do. Beyond that I really have no idea what you are on about.

 

[rhubroma]

Titanic was a plane ...

Atheists can't deal with facts, it's really amazing. As long as they defend the official version of the Galileo trial, they won't get any credibility whatsoever.

The credibility is overwhelming, the non-official reason is appalling chap.

 

[RetroActive]

I don't really give much thought to what various religions do or don't believe and I don't care whether or not they go on believing it. I only have a problem when they start making laws which require me to go along with their beliefs or they come knocking at my door and waste my time trying to convince me that I have to believe as they do. Beyond that I really have no idea what you are on about.

Of course you don't. Science really struggles with consciousness too. It's easier to believe in dead matter.

 

[Jspear]

But Echoes, there is no scientific evidence for a super natural being. That seems to be a fact that you cannot deal with.

What is your definition of scientific evidence?

 

[RetroActive]

What is your definition of scientific evidence?

After you give him one free miracle (the big bang) then he's going to give you all sorts of mathematical models that don't work together and require greater and greater abstraction like dark matter, dark energy, and black holes that have never been observed or measured or detected but must be there to make the math work. 90% of the universe is missing and black holes are a contradiction but don't worry, he'll use the words 'scientific method' as his proof.

Oh, and infinity keeps expanding infinitely, I forgot that part of the story and it seems important to him.

 

[RetroActive]

Mel Acheson: How Science Can Lose Its Way | EU2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE09IwQUV2k


MEL ACHESON: "Show Me the Math!" | EU 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktFFUJaFSL8


MEL ACHESON: What's the Matter with Matter? | EU 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d89qBNlYPeE

 

[frenchfry]

The problem that atheists have is that they think that all religious people are fundamentalists, particularly Christians, that believe that the universe was created 6000 yrs. ago and there's a personality in the sky directing things. It's simply ignorance talking to ignorance.

Not at all true. I fully respect the right of anyone to have their own beliefs, but like Mr. Anuss I don't appreciate when someone's religious beliefs are imposed on me or affect my daily life.

Of course you don't. Science really struggles with consciousness too. It's easier to believe in dead matter.

I don't spend a lot of time wondering about the science of why/how we are here either. I don't see what value that has. Once again, if others want to dedicate their lives to discovering the origins of the universe let them go at it, I'm just not that interested. I would rather concentrate on how to make this a better place to live.

 

[Echoes]

The mistake that religious people make in this regard is that they think atheism is another competing religion. It's not, there is no official doctrine,

It's obviously a counter-ideology aiming at the consumption society that we are know living in.

The fact that most atheists - including ALL atheistic posters here - are viscerally anti-religious, is testament of it. Of course some atheist are honest and respectful, several personalities - including Dr Plouvier who is my source for the Galileo affair - and people I know in real life but I don't see any of them here. And if I were to paraphrase a famous quote from French cinema "there are also flying fish, but not the majority of the kind."

 

[hrotha]

The fact that most atheists - including ALL atheistic posters here - are viscerally anti-religious

*waves*jjjjjjj

 

[Jagartrott]

90% of the universe is missing and black holes are a contradiction but don't worry, he'll use the words 'scientific method' as his proof.

Black holes a contradiction?
The fact that we don't know everything and that there are holes in our current knowledge or that not every theory is backed up by solid evidence is no proof of a creator. Yet this manner of reasoning has been used throughout history. Thunder? Must be (a) God. Millions of different species? Must be God. An enormous universe? Must be God. Et cetera.

So far, science has a far better track record in explaining reality than religion, I'd say. So your mistrust is a bit funny.

 

[rhubroma]

It's obviously a counter-ideology aiming at the consumption society that we are know living in.

The fact that most atheists - including ALL atheistic posters here - are viscerally anti-religious, is testament of it. Of course some atheist are honest and respectful, several personalities - including Dr Plouvier who is my source for the Galileo affair - and people I know in real life but I don't see any of them here. And if I were to paraphrase a famous quote from French cinema "there are also flying fish, but not the majority of the kind."

How about simply being pro-reason. Now everyone is at liberty to believe in whatever they want. Unfortunately, among the religious, that was for a long historical period decidedly not the case. Allthough, I've not put anyone under the Inquisition. So there goes your BS about atheists "hating the religious." The religious hating anyone who objects, or thinks differently, has had, on the other hand, a long and brutal history.

This is your source??? You have got to be kidding. This is the most shameless type of historical revisionism and wilful manipulation of the evidence.

http://www.amazon.fr/Pie-contre-Hitler-Bernard-Plouvier/dp/2353741444

 

[RetroActive]

Black holes a contradiction?
The fact that we don't know everything and that there are holes in our current knowledge or that not every theory is backed up by solid evidence is no proof of a creator. Yet this manner of reasoning has been used throughout history. Thunder? Must be (a) God. Millions of different species? Must be God. An enormous universe? Must be God. Et cetera.

So far, science has a far better track record in explaining reality than religion, I'd say. So your mistrust is a bit funny.

Hawking Still in the Dark on Black Holes | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2A4qXJQjc&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY&index=37
There are longer explanations to be found. There's something(s) out there but what are we seeing? I think if a better understanding of the sun develops a lot of things will fall into place. Go through the list, there are some interesting questions.

I never said there was evidence of a 'creator' either way. I'm saying we don't know, we don't necessarily know what we think we know. I'm skeptical all the way around but I don't think that humans that have had religious or spiritual experiences all throughout human history in every culture are all insane. It's a baby bathwater thing and we don't know.

The real problem is dogmatism whether it's religion or science. It's a human problem in other words.

PS, if I think of 'a creator' at all I think more in terms of a field of potential. Think about microwaves carrying all sorts of information around. That's not a new thought at all, been around for millennia, and is the sort of thinking that led to microwaves carrying information around. It wasn't so long ago that seeking the aether was a source of scientific inspiration, now we call it plasma. People have been talking about subtler energies for a very long time. They used to talk in terms like emanations, resonance, etc.

Samadhi can be measured now, a higher frequency.

 

[Tank Engine]

including ALL atheistic posters here - are viscerally anti-religious

As a definite admirer of Bonhoeffer (and not only), I am offended by this comment.

 

[rhubroma]

Hawking Still in the Dark on Black Holes | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2A4qXJQjc&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY&index=37
There are longer explanations to be found. There's something(s) out there but what are we seeing? I think if a better understanding of the sun develops a lot of things will fall into place. Go through the list, there are some interesting questions.

I never said there was evidence of a 'creator' either way. I'm saying we don't know, we don't necessarily know what we think we know. I'm skeptical all the way around but I don't think that humans that have had religious or spiritual experiences all throughout human history in every culture are all insane. It's a baby bathwater thing and we don't know.

The real problem is dogmatism whether it's religion or science. It's a human problem in other words.

PS, if I think of 'a creator' at all I think more in terms of a field of potential. Think about microwaves carrying all sorts of information around. That's not a new thought at all, been around for millennia, and is the sort of thinking that led to microwaves carrying information around. It wasn't so long ago that seeking the aether was a source of scientific inspiration, now we call it plasma. People have been talking about subtler energies for a very long time. They used to talk in terms like emanations, resonance, etc.

Samadhi can be measured now, a higher frequency.

Science has allowed for civilization to distance itself from the worst obscurantisms of religion, though by no means can explain every mystery. And I have no problem with that; that is a certain cathartic margin for mystery. It's that doubt that protects us from all dogmatisms.

In fact about as close as I can come to experiencing a religious moment, is on a bike ride deep into nature, where, in such times, my own insignificance is placed before the mysterious wonder around me. To then know that my own energy is taken from and given back to the energy that is in everything, is all the raison d'etre I need.

 

[ray j willings]

What is your definition of scientific evidence?

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult and means, for example, spending years working on a single experiment, traveling to Antarctica to measure carbon dioxide levels in an ice core, or collecting DNA samples from thousands of volunteers all over the world. Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected. And ideas that are protected from testing or are only allowed to be tested by one group with a vested interest in the outcome are not a part of good science.

 

[RetroActive]

Science has allowed for civilization to distance itself from the worst obscurantisms of religion, though by no means can explain every mystery. And I have no problem with that; that is a certain cathartic margin for mystery. It's that doubt that protects us from all dogmatisms.

In fact about as close as I can come to experiencing a religious moment, is on a bike ride deep into nature, where, in such times, my own insignificance is placed before the mysterious wonder around me. To then know that my own energy is taken from and given back to the energy that, is in everything is all the raison d'etre I need.

We're basically on the same page. I go for a hike, that's my church.

 

[Jspear]

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science. Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult and means, for example, spending years working on a single experiment, traveling to Antarctica to measure carbon dioxide levels in an ice core, or collecting DNA samples from thousands of volunteers all over the world. Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected. And ideas that are protected from testing or are only allowed to be tested by one group with a vested interest in the outcome are not a part of good science.

I agree with your post here. This is the way to objectively learn about our universe. You do realize that the methods and extensive testing you mention as definitions of true scientific evidence in no way support or prove evolution....you give to much credit to science in what it "proves" to us. Science is what we use to advance medicine, reduce pollution, produce more food, ect. You can't use objective science to prove the age of the earth for example. What I'm getting at is science can't prove there is no God....that isn't the realm in which it works.