[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

the stuff is part of science and colleges, and everything I have posted to this effect has been ignored. I suppose I could find the site that provides several scientific arguments about the existence of God, and post it again, but what is the point when, these links are ignored?

Nutron,

To make the bold statements which you make requires extraordinary proof. Find that site and post a link, along with your description of how the link specifically relates to your ideas about "using science to understand god" and "by studying nature, we can infer something about god".

*Do not* give a link to Cicero or Einstein. *Do not* repeat what you have stated over and over already. If you can not post a link or some other form of reference, then do not post at all.

This is a formal warning! Failure to follow the steps outlined above will result in an infraction. If you have questions about this, then PM me *first*. Again, any post that you make beyond this point that does not support your claims in some way, you will receive an infraction, and continue to receive them until you comply.

If you are unable to do this, then please do not post these ideas again.

Thank you

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

No, I have given a point of view that is quite essential to understanding democracy, and I stated it is a point of view shared by Einstien, Spinoza and others.

...in which you have taken quotes out of context and misinterpreted as others have shown through much more extensive quotations in response posts that you have ignored.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

The opening post for this thread goes far beyond saying God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, and I am mystified about why I was penalized for what I said, and the opening post of this thread is okay.

Its not "okay," and I'm sure Ryan will thank you for pointing this out.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Fritjof Capra recieved his Ph.D. from the University of Vienna and has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities. In addition to his many technical reseach papers, Dr. Capra has written and lectured extensively about the philosophical implications of modern science.

I have taken Fritjof Capra's class at Berkeley, and I can quite assure you that although he strongly supports the notion of connections between mysticism and physics, even he would not agree with your strident insistence of "acceptance of God" as a first principle. Capra's beliefs have been criticized for using connections that are both strained and have other interpretations, and yet he is capable of keeping himself within the scope of scientific discourse by realizing that it is up to him to continue to provide evidence, rather than demand that his hypothesis be unquestioned.

You may wish to follow his excellent example.

Moreover, it is useful to note that excellence in one area does not mean that we should unquestioningly accept everything: William Shockley was a brilliant scientist, critical to our modern society because of his invention of the transistor. Would you say that we should therefore accept without question his racist views on eugenics?

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth,
Buffy

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Nutron,

To make the bold statements which you make requires extraordinary proof. Find that site and post a link, along with your description of how the link specifically relates to your ideas about "using science to understand god" and "by studying nature, we can infer something about god".

*Do not* give a link to Cicero or Einstein. *Do not* repeat what you have stated over and over already. If you can not post a link or some other form of reference, then do not post at all.

This is a formal warning! Failure to follow the steps outlined above will result in an infraction. If you have questions about this, then PM me *first*. Again, any post that you make beyond this point that does not support your claims in some way, you will receive an infraction, and continue to receive them until you comply.

If you are unable to do this, then please do not post these ideas again.

Thank you

A Templeton Conversation: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

There are several arguments addressing the question "Does science make the belief in God obsolete? This comes from the May-June American Scientist magazine.

Here is one the opening sentence of one argument,
"No, but only if we continue to develop new notions of God, such as a fully natural God that is the creativity in the cosmos." It is made by Stuart Kauffman's, and is an updated version of the arguments made by people I am forbidden to link to.

[nutronjon]

In Favor of God

In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning

David Snoke*

Department of Physics and Astronomy
snoke@pitt.edu
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260

From: PSCF 53 (September 2001): 152-158.

It is passe to reject "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, but I argue that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against atheism based on its lack of explanatory power. The standard argument against God-of-the-gaps reasoning deviates from the mode of normal scientific discourse, it assumes a view of history which is incorrect, and it tacitly implies a naive optimism about the abilities of science. I encourage apologists to point out gaps of explanation in atheistic theories wherever they see them, and expect atheists to return the favor.

[nutronjon]

I am still not sure what have to prove, and since I can no longer use philosophers to make my case that it is valid point of view to believe the universe and forces are God manifest, and that the way to learn of such is through science, I am surely handicapped, however, I will do my best to meet the demand made of me by linking to scientist who argue in favor of the existence of God.

In Favor of God

In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning

David Snoke*

Department of Physics and Astronomy
snoke@pitt.edu
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260

From: PSCF 53 (September 2001): 152-158.

It is passe to reject "God-of-the-gaps" arguments, but I argue that it is perfectly reasonable to argue against atheism based on its lack of explanatory power. The standard argument against God-of-the-gaps reasoning deviates from the mode of normal scientific discourse, it assumes a view of history which is incorrect, and it tacitly implies a naive optimism about the abilities of science. I encourage apologists to point out gaps of explanation in atheistic theories wherever they see them, and expect atheists to return the favor.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

...Does science make the belief in God obsolete?

Simple question: do you understand the difference between these two statements:

• Science supports the existence of God
• Science does not eliminate the possibility of existence of God.

The fact that you responded to Freeztar's request to the first point by posting an item supporting the second point indicates that either you do not comprehend the difference, or you are engaging in a game of endlessly reframing the argument in order to harrass and inflame atheists, whom you appear to despise.

Spreading hate is a very sad purpose to have in life.

Folly is often more cruel in the consequences than malice can be in the intent,
Buffy

[nutronjon]

I haven't read this book, but then my word isn't respected, so it would do no good for me to read the book and paraphrase it. The best I do is refer to people you might respected.

The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God?
By Russell Stannard, Paul Davies


Preview this book

By Russell Stannard
, Paul Davies
Contributor Paul Davies
Published 2000
Hidden Spring

God/ Proof, Empirical

248 pages
ISBN:1587680076
Add to my library
Write review


Buy this book
Amazon.com
Barnes&Noble.com - $20.00
Books-A-Million
BookSense.com
Google Product Search

Borrow this book
Find this book in a library
Down the centuries there have been various attempts to prove the existence of God, and to demonstrate God's action in the world. Russell Stannard, the distinguished physicist and author, looks at what modern science can bring to the discussion. Are the difficulties of "knowing" God the same difficulties physicists now confront in "knowing" the physical world?Comparing the latest scientific theories and age-old religious thinking, Stannard produces some startling parallels. He examines Creationism and the Big Bang, Biblical miracles and Quantum physics, and the idea of an omniscient God in the context of 4D spacetime. Written in a clear and lucid way, The God Experiment is a fascinating challenge to our assumptions about God, science and our place in the Universe

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I haven't read this book, but then my word isn't respected, so it would do no good for me to read the book and paraphrase it. The best I do is refer to people you might respected.

Nothing has been said here about not respecting your word. In fact, you seem to completely misunderstand what is being requested. Quoting huge blocks of text out of context allows the reader to easily claim that you neither understand what you are quoting or that you are misinterpreting it.

By just posting these comments that are--as I and others have said--not relevant to the questions that you've been asked, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of persecution.

If you would take some time to say why these quotes support your argument you might not find yourself in this situation where even people who are strongly sympathetic to your point of view can actually support your points.

It would be, shall we say, a Revelation.

I have high hopes, but I fear you will disappoint us all.

Come and see the violence inherent in the system,
Buffy

[nutronjon]

I don't know if I am getting close to meeting the demand, but know I am tired. I will continue to work this after I am rested, until I have met the demand. For now here are some Louis_Pasteur thoughts. Good night.

L' univers est dissymetrique...
The universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetric.
Works Vol. 1 (1 June 1874) Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences
I beseech you to take interest in these sacred domains so expressively called laboratories. Ask that there be more and that they be adorned for these are the temples of the future, wealth and well-being. It is here that humanity will grow, strengthen and improve. Here, humanity will learn to read progress and individual harmony in the works of nature, while humanity's own works are all too often those of barbarism, fanaticism and destruction.
Statement of 1878, as quoted in Crystals and Life : A Personal Journey (2002) by Celerino Abad Zapatero, p. 139


Let me tell you the secret that has lead me to my goal. My strength lies solely in my tenacity.
He who proclaims the existence of the Infinite, and none can avoid it — accumulates in that affirmation more of the supernatural than is to be found in all the miracles of all the religions; for the notion of the Infinite presents that double character that forces itself upon us and yet is incomprehensible. When this notion seizes upon our understanding we can but kneel ... I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the Infinite in the world; through it the supernatural is at the bottom of every heart. The idea of God is a form of the idea of the Infinite. As long as the mystery of the infinite weighs on human thought, temples will be erected for the worship of the Infinite, whether God is called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, or Jesus; and on the pavement of these temples, men will be seen kneeling, prostrated, annihilated by the thought of the Infinite.
As quoted by Sir William Osler in his introduction to The Life of Pasteur (1907) by Rene Vallery-Radot, as translated by R .L. Devonshire (1923)
Blessed is he who carries within himself a god and an ideal and who obeys it — an ideal of art, of science, or gospel virtues. Therein lie the springs of great thoughts and great actions; they all reflect light from the Infinite.
As quoted by Sir William Osler in his
Louis Pasteur - Wikiquote

[C1ay]

Belief does not equal fact and should not be presented as such. Exclamations like "god is nature", "god is democracy", "god is the driving force", etc. are examples of such. These are not facts and are not even claims that can or could be explored via science so they have no place here. This is a science forum and we restrict the discussions to those that are scientifically founded.