[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Well if all your doing is playing a word game then you are being inconsiderate and wasting everyone's time. Perhaps you should be banned. We've tried reasoning with you, but you have ignored all well-reasoned arguments, and continued with your preaching as though we weren't even here...

This is the most serious word game of our times. I know I am not the only one who has spoken in favor of accepting there is a God, and that we can not know all there is to know, and if there is any justification at all to banning me, the theology forum should be removed, because of the complete intolerance of me argument. It is like quick sand that can only kill those who do not agree with this those in power. This is the flip side of past religious intolerance, when it was the non believers driven out of the colony. It is the karma of the past, and just as lacking in wisdom.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

This is the most serious word game of our times.

I'm outta here....

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Yes, I guess it is a word game for me, and a very important one. God and time are both abstracts, not concrete realities.

Time is a demonstrable property of the universe, "God" is something you simply keep asserting is real without evidence.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Well, in the sense that we can consider God is, the stuff of the universe and the organizing forces, this makes God concrete and something we can study with science.

You haven't even shown that any deities actually exist, let alone that they can be studied or measured in any way. No offense, but it seems like you just write stuff that you think will sound profound or mystical.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

However, what the objection to God seems to be, is it leaves room for all the abstracts, those things that can only be inferred and not proven beyond a doubt. I asked what is the difference between being materialistic and insisting there is no God, and being spiritualistic assuming there is a God.

No one is insisting or assuming anything but yourself. There are no signs of design, purpose, or beneficence in the properties/nature of our universe. You've shown none, and neither has anyone else. The difference between having a natural world view and a supernatural one, is that those with a naturalistic world view don't need to pretend to know things that they do not know.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Then while walking, I realized the difference is, when we speak of God, we inject ourselves into an understanding of God. We do not inject ourselves into an understanding of science.

This just sounds like spiritual, ambiguous garbage. Completely vacuous, and a waste of everyones time. Not sure what you mean, and no, this is not an invitation for you to expound, because I'm not interested. I just wanted to point out how you sound to someone rational.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Myself, and others, are concerned that science without God leads to what happened in Germany during the second world war, and the US, given its forcus on military conquest and condoning the most inhumane treatment of humanes in favor of its military goals. I will give me life to say that.

Like who, Ben Stein from the evolution denial film "Expelled"? That's the only place where i have ever seen anyone claim that "Science leads to the holocaust" or whatever.
Strange coincidence that you have supported both "What The Bleep Do We Know" and the ideas from the film "Expelled" on these forums, which are both severely distorted and obscurantist religious propaganda.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Now if you want to say God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is fine with me, but I have gone to that site and find it very offensive. In the country where I live, we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I believe both are very important.

Yes, and people are free to worship The Flying Spaghetti Monster when they please. That's what freedom means. Freedom also means that if someone joins Hypography and incessantly posts about how The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mystical property of the universe, the admins can freely ban them if they don't shape up.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

What I am suppose to name, beyond the stuff of the universe and the forces that organize it? What can I say, other than science is the way to study it?
What is there to prove? I have asked this before. What do I need to prove? Eisentien and I share an understanding of God, and you all are rejecting that, and keep arguing with me there is no proof of a God. Back to the word game I guess?

Who cares what Einstein believed. You still haven't provided any sound reasoning or evidence for your assertions.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

PS I will probably be banned soon anyway, and then you all can claim your win. Like if you can't win with reason, win with power right? I have been penalized for Preaching/Proselytizing, and I preach about democracy and morality all the time. That is the purpose behind my post and my sense of purpose in life. Give me liberty or give me death.

If you are penalized, it will be for repeatedly ignoring the rule that requires you to support your claims. No one is going to 'win' anything, you will just be mistaken, and then possibly banned.
Everyone would benefit from your trying to observe, and read more instead of insisting that you already have everything figured out, but perhaps this isn't the right forum for you.
Here is an article about order rising from randomness by theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman:
The Third Culture - Chapter 20
This is what an honest inquiry into questions about complexity looks like. What you are doing is not scientific, and it is not productive.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

This is the most serious word game of our times. I know I am not the only one who has spoken in favor of accepting there is a God, and that we can not know all there is to know, and if there is any justification at all to banning me, the theology forum should be removed, because of the complete intolerance of me argument. It is like quick sand that can only kill those who do not agree with this those in power. This is the flip side of past religious intolerance, when it was the non believers driven out of the colony. It is the karma of the past, and just as lacking in wisdom.

Just to be clear, "Theology" is the study of religious beliefs as a social, anthropological and philosophical context, and thus is "scientific" under the general umbrella of social studies.

You're free to use the word however it is you wish, but you should not expect other people to simply accept your definition.

Claiming that you are the only one who has spoken in favor of accepting that there is a God in this forum is not true. Many of us here do accept that there is a God but we do not demand that other people accept that. To insist that that is the only way to avoid the accusation of religious intolerance is itself intolerant.

While there are a few here who are intolerant of religious beliefs, many here do have religious beliefs and are tolerated quite nicely. The difference is that they do not seek to impose their religious beliefs on others.

This happens to be just as offensive to people who have religious beliefs that are different from yours as it is to those who have no religious beliefs, so it's not a matter of "religious intolerance," it's a matter of good manners.

Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability,
Buffy

[nutronjon]

I like the last one best, because it basically says the same thing I am saying.

Synopsis
Since 2000, America’s most ambitious young evangelicals have been making their way to Patrick Henry College, a small Christian school just outside the nation’s capital. Most of them are homeschoolers whose idealism and discipline put the average American teenager to shame. And God’s Harvard grooms these students to be the elite of tomorrow, dispatching them to the front lines of politics, entertainment, and science, to wage the battle to take back a godless nation. Hanna Rosin spent a year and a half embedded at the college, following the students from the campus to the White House, Congress, conservative think tanks, Hollywood, and other centers of influence. Her account captures this nerve center of the evangelical movement at a moment of maximum influence and also of crisis, as it struggles to avoid the temptations of modern life and still remake the world in its own image.
God's Harvard:A Christian College on a Mission to Save America by Hanna Rosin from Harcourt Trade Publishers

The truth about modern physics, man, and God
Latest News
From the B.C. Catholic

Book review
By C.S. MORRISSEY

Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century, Institute for Advanced Physics Press, 2004.

Truth cannot contradict truth. Pope John Paul II made a special point of proclaiming how the truths known by faith and reason are not at odds.

In a new book that takes up this great papal theme, Catholic physicist Anthony Rizzi shows how all advances in modern physics, like quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity, are eminently compatible with the philosophical and theological wisdom of the Catholic Church.

Many popular writers are fond of misinterpreting modern physics in order to make extravagant claims: that nothing is real until we observe it; that nothing is ever certain; that everything is relative to the observer; that the mathematical necessity of other universes has been proved; and that we humans mostly consist of the empty space of atoms.

With the perspective of a physics insider, Rizzi shows all such claims to be nonsense. They result from science overstepping its bounds and doing bad philosophy. Moreover, as a practising Catholic, Rizzi reconciles, in the best Thomist tradition, the discoveries of modern physics with the metaphysical wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas.

He exposes the philosophical contradictions implicit in the scientism prevalent today. As Tom Wolfe recently described this corrosive cultural prejudice, "We now live in an age in which science is a court from which there is no appeal."

Rizzi, however, has the requisite credentials to make the appeal. Rizzi's claim to physics fame is that in 1997 he gave the first satisfactory definition of angular momentum, something that Einstein's general theory of relativity lacked. Today he continues to research general relativity and gravity waves at the California Institute of Technology's Louisiana Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO).

The truth about modern physics, man, and God | Redeemer Pacific College - A Canadian Catholic College

Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional - capable of being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the existence of a supernatural force.

Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people.

Some scientists say simply that science and religion are two separate realms, "nonoverlapping magisteria," as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put it in his book "Rocks of Ages" (Ballantine, 1999). In Dr. Gould's view, science speaks with authority in the realm of "what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)" and religion holds sway over "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/na...believers.html

[nutronjon]

I woke this morning thinking about the charge of just playing a word game, and that a Hellenistic explanation of God is, "in the beginning is logos (the word)". That means, in the beginning is the reason for all things. Now adding to this the that Jesus is the word, would be deifying the thought. But there is no deity to what I am saying. Some scientist a A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete? express this thought well. Kauffman says, "The schism between science can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from the supernatural, theirstic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceasless creatitity in the natural universe." This is talk of a diety, but a different way of understanding the meaning to word "God". Everything I have said is about a different way of understanding the meaning of the word "God", and this problem was caused by the religions that separated God from nature in the first place. I am in agreement with opposing the superstitious religions that separated logos from nature, but sure can not understands the attacks on what I am saying.

One scientist A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete? argues science does end the belief in God, and it is obvious this scientist holds a Christian understanding of God. All the arguements against what I have said, are based on a Christian understanding of God, so I have said there is an assumption made that is not accurate. I do not write of anything like a Christian God. I am not writing of a deity. I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

This has very important political consequences. It means preventing tyranny and having better justice. If anyone would attempt to discuss this political aspect with me, beginning with questions instead of attacks, perhaps we could clear up this understanding.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

See if what works?

[Pyrotex]

Nutronjon,

the horse is dead. It's been dead a long, long time.

Stop beating it. You are wasting bandwidth and every one's time.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I do not write of anything like a Christian God. I am not writing of a deity. I am writing of a scienticify why to think of God. And unlike, moontanman says, I do not insist everyone think this way, but I ask that we give it a try and see if it works.

Why? What purpose is served in giving yet another definition to the term God when it already has so many others? For those that do believe in the Christian deity or others this would seem to be more of a hindering obfuscation to progress instead of an aid. If you are not writing of a deity why use the term God at all?

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Why? What purpose is served in giving yet another definition to the term God when it already has so many others? For those that do believe in the Christian deity or others this would seem to be more of a hindering obfuscation to progress instead of an aid. If you are not writing of a deity why use the term God at all?

What does this sentence say?

"The schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe." Stuart Kauffman.

Is there anything offensive about that sentence? Would it be a good thing to end superstition and religious conflicts? Might science be helpful in this goal?