where and when was God formed?

[questor]

CC, you still haven't dealt with the fact that your suppositions have not been proved. you speak with certainty about theories. when the data is all in, then we decide about the beginning of the universe and life. your data may point a certain way to you, but not to the majority of the scientific community.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by questor

CC, you still haven't dealt with the fact that your suppositions have not been proved. you speak with certainty about theories. when the data is all in, then we decide about the beginning of the universe and life. your data may point a certain way to you, but not to the majority of the scientific community.

Data doesn't point in a certain direction, interpretations of it do. The question really is: which interpretation and the predictions therof best fit the observational data. There is more, much more. If the data does not fit the prediction, either the theory must be changed (if possible without dark matter, dark energy, or god) or abandoned.

cc

[questor]

yes, unless the data is incomplete, flawed, or misinterpreted.

[Tarantism]

you guys are wasting your time.

there is no god. im sorry to say that he does not exist. if you want to believe it that is your buisness. eventually, however, some innovative "god-questioning scientist" is going to discover something, be it an extention of string theory or otherwise, that will describe some process that we cannot yet explain an that scientist will disprove god. it is bound to happen.

\//\\\/

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Data doesn't point in a certain direction, interpretations of it do. The question really is: which interpretation and the predictions thereof best fit the observational data. There is more, much more. If the data does not fit the prediction, either the theory must be changed (if possible without dark matter, dark energy, or god) or abandoned.

cc

Just to finish up with this thought. (Yesterday I was distracted).
There is of course data that does not require as much interpretation as other data. Data that points directly to the increase (or non-decrease) of entropy with time, and the conservation of energy are some examples: that is why these are attached to physical laws.

Keep in mind too that data is never "all in." There is always more to be collected.

Where is the data for your belief, beside the apparintion of the leg of Jesus in St. John's cave at Patmos.

cc

[Vending]

Originally Posted by (((tartanism)))

you guys are wasting your time.

there is no god. im sorry to say that he does not exist. if you want to believe it that is your buisness. eventually, however, some innovative "god-questioning scientist" is going to discover something, be it an extention of string theory or otherwise, that will describe some process that we cannot yet explain an that scientist will disprove god. it is bound to happen.

\//\\\/

Actually, there is no possible way to disprove that a god exists. At least not using science. There were always be things that lie within the realm of science that science will be unable to prove. This stems from the fact that science demands of itself that it be logically valid and that Godel guy proved that any logical system powerful enough to be usefull can never be self-consitant.

Thus there will always ALWAYS be unanswered questions in science and there will always be people that claim that god fits into these unanswered questions.

--------

On another note, i always find it interesting that (on both sides of the debate) people assume that if we can explain all the natural phenomenon then that must mean there is no god. This seems like quite a jump to me. I mean, let us postulate that there is a god and that he followed the "watchmaker" senario. That is, he made the universe in such a way that it would function by well-defined rules and that it would contunue to do so for the rest of time. Then we would expect that all the natural laws could be worked out and understood (ignoring the godel thing, for now), yet there would have still been a god.

The point is this, people cannot know everything. If there is a god, then there is not nessesarily any contraints placed on his actions. Therefore, there is no way to ever prove that he does not exist. There will always be someway to belive in a god that is logically consistant with everything that we know. That is just the facts. Trying to argue that god (in general) does not exist will never be able to yeild a positive result.

Now that is not to say that such discussions are not INTERESTING...

[Abstruce]

Originally Posted by (((tartanism)))

you guys are wasting your time.

there is no god. im sorry to say that he does not exist.

To complicate this argument is to perform mental masturbation.

All Gods do exist in religious folklore, folklore is substantiated by faith that exist in the the mind of the individual religious fundamentalist, this is fact.

The final fact. All Gods are man made.

[HydrogenBond]

If we go back to genesis; the universe was formless and void and spirit of God was brooding over the deep..., Let there be light, etc. From this one can loosely deduce that God is not energy or matter. Therefore God can not be composed of the physical substance found in our universe.

If God can create light out of a void, and God is not light, he would have to be composed of a substance from which light can form. I still like the idea of particles moving faster than C. The speed of light is the limit of the physical universe. But C did not appear in the void universe until after God said, let there be C. A slow down from C+ should theoretcially be able to form a C limited universe.

At C we have total time dilation, according to special relativity. As such, energy is a particle with an eternal reference. Something faster than C would also have an eternal reference but being faster than C should have a little extra time potential to it. It can create eternal things and still exist.

[Abstruce]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

If we go back to genesis; the universe was formless and void and spirit of God was brooding over the deep..., Let there be light, etc. From this one can loosely deduce that God is not energy or matter. Therefore God can not be composed of the physical substance found in our universe.

Lets play the insanity of Christianity.

If God created light on the first day along with day and night.

What then was the reason he needed to create the Sun and the Moon on the third day?

One last thing that proves Judaism is bogus, the fossil record.

Dinosaurs eat fish.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Abstruce

If God created light on the first day along with day and night.

What then was the reason he needed to create the Sun and the Moon on the third day?

I read ages ago that the belief of the ancient (I think) Sumerians, was that light and dark were the properties of day and night -- they were specific entities -- and that the sun, moon and stars were there merely to enhance the day and night.