Deep Sight:

@ Justcool, excellent submissions. Profound.

But how may such a system be acheived on earth?

Is it not also dependent on the integrity of those implementing the system? Is it not also hugely susceptible to mis-application? Gifted people placed in authourity would be susceptible to dictatorial tendencies, and such a government becomes absolutely impossible to question or criticise, no? Is that healthy?

@Deep Sight.
Thanks for your kind words, and thanks also for your well fashioned questions. I will like to go deeply into it but before I do so, I please ask of you to re-familiarize yourself from these lectures from the first volume of the Grail Message:
(1) “All That Is Dead In Creation Shall Be Awakened, So That It May Pass Judgment Upon Itself!”
(2) “The Book Of Life”
(3) “The Millennium”
(4) “The Great Comet”
(4) “The Stranger”

The solution to our puzzle regarding how to implement a spiritual government on earth lies scattered in those lectures. Those are short lectures, you can easily read all of them within a short time.

But I will briefly answer your question, for now. Of course the government that I described cannot be implemented on the present condition of the earth, especially among the present humanity.

Hence God promised us the Millennium. But before this Millennium can be realized, all things must become new in the Judgment.The Judgment, under which we stand now, must first purify the earth and humanity. Only afterwards will there be a humanity worthy to live in the Millennium, a humanity that will be able to function in the Government that I described.

The will of man rules in subsequent creation, and all evils was brought about by man through the wrong use or application of his will. Hence to achieve a heaven-like subsequent creation, mankind will be disinherited of their right to rule in subsequent creation. Even those pure enough to have passed or survived the judgment would still be disinherited of this right.

We can go deeper and discuss how this can come about without violating the right of the human spirits to poses free will, a right that is inviolable, later. But please familiarize yourself with those lectures first, if afterwards you still want us to go deeper into it then we will.

So to answer your question in a nutshell: Only God can bring it about not mankind, and definitely not the present mankind. Everything must become new first.

Thanks

Deep Sight:

Unfinished business here too. . . brb

Ha! Okay my brother, lets finish the business.

@Op

Good and thought-provoking thread.

But if you will entertain my humble perception on this issue, I perceive that the fact that a fetus or an unborn baby has a genetic disorder is not enough reason to abort the child.

If we follow your train of thought, it will only lead us to Nazism; it will lead us to also wondering why we should raise sick adolescents at all, why we should care for the sick at all, and why we should care for the old and the mentally challenged. There is no end to cruelty that this train of thought will take us. It is a sure highway to the world of extreme cruelty, where the strong and the privileged overcomes the weak and disadvantaged; it is a sure way to a hellish world. While threading this path to hell, we might as well resurrect Hitler and the infamous Nazi party to guide our way.

Looking at the scenario from the spiritual perspective. Everything that comes along ones way is what the individual deserves to experience in other to attain to a grater maturity; everything that we experience or everything that comes our way is what we have called to ourselves. We only reap what we once sowed.

We sow these thing sometimes deliberately and sometimes out of neglect. A person who lives wildly, drinking excessively, using drugs and etc, may harm his/her reproductive organs to such an extent that only unhealthy fetus results when he/she reproduces. Such a person should accept the child; such a child is actually a great gift of love to such a parent. For if the parent allows love for the child to prompt him/her into caring for the child, in caring for the child the parent will find a way out of his/her neglectful living. Seeing a beloved child suffer is such a moving experience, it is enough to make the parents of the child change their ways. Thus from the spiritual perspective, aborting the child is as good as robbing its parents of the gift and opportunity to change themselves and become better people.

Also, a great harm is done to the child, for the soul ready to incarnate in such a diseased body needs the experience of living in a diseased body in other to pay its karma. So aborting the child is as good as depriving the soul of a gift that it needs in other to mature.

Only when looked at from the intellectual perspective alone does one see nothing wrong in such an abortion; but when who looks from the spiritual perspective will easily see the evil of such acts.

Thanks.

Purist:



Here are some of the key statements you made previously. The highlighted are the deist's belief, not the atheist. Also, the reason you gave as to why your own description of atheists is "alleged" is wrong. Atheists simply do not believe in any creator/deity whatsosever.

What is blind about the argument? Believing that the universe is uncaused is very different from believing that the universe is the uncaused.

They hold no such beliefs.

Yes it does. Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_cause

What's the difference?

Nope. If you believe that the universe was not caused, you simply believe that it has no cause (it came about by chance, etc). No need playing with words here. Saying that the universe itself is the uncaused cause is basically saying that the universe is god, which is strictly a pantheistic worldview.

I am aware of the broadness of this term. However, the reason I said it would be a "more appropriate" term is because there is an outright absence of deities in Buddhism - a stance which is more consistent with broader non-theism descriptor - rather than the disbelief and/or denial of deities that is normally associated with atheism (which in itself, is a subset of non-theism).

You're welcome.

P.S. I read through your initial post again and realised that you seem to have lumped deism, pantheism and pandeism together into one, and have therefore created an entirely new identity from this amalgamation - one which you have erroneously(?) labelled the "alleged atheist".

@purist

I never said anything about “unmoved mover”; I said “uncaused causer” and I explained what I meant by that. Giving me links about “unmoved mover” which is an expression used to explain a school of thought, does not refute my argument.

And according to you “uncaused” is different from “not caused”?? Perhaps I should retake my English classes; looks like I’m getting rusty.

I perceive that a lot of arguments here are now based on personal opinions and ageing for augment sake; it’s becoming unhealthy, therefore there is no need to continue.

Thanks

jayriginal:

With due respect, the bolded parts are wrong. There are no degrees to atheism. An atheist simply doesnt believe in God. What you call an agnostic is really an atheist.
I do understand the urge to break atheism down into types but it is wrong. You do seem to know more than the average theist about this (I'm assuming you are a theist, pardon me if I'm wrong).
I noticed your terms strong and weak atheists and your explanation of them. You might also come up one day with the term "evolutionary atheist", "evangelical atheist" (which is wrong) and so on.
Take for example what is going on in Christiandom today. Many Christians do not want to be identified with the evils of Christianity. Should we for instance say and maintain that all Christians are like Reverend Dr King who is currently on death-roe ?
In the same way, one can accept the theory of evolution as an atheist while another can reject it or simply not care and still be an atheist. It doesnt matter either way since they both do not believe in God.
Most people come here with a fixed definition of atheism which is wrong.

Even in your post, you have mentioned strong and weak atheists but you have to admit that whether you call them strong or weak they are still atheists.
One thing people arguing with atheists have to accept is that there will never be more than one blanket statement that can apply to atheism. The only sweeping assertion that can apply is that they do not believe in God.

If you ask a person, if he believes in God and he replies in the negative, that is not enough for you to know his position. One must understand these points if one is to have a healthy discussion with an atheist.
Again with apologies, this is simply not true. An atheist does not believe the evidence for God. If you want to know a closed minded atheist ask him if he can ever believe if God exists and what it will take for him so to do. If he says he can never believe, then you have a closed minded atheist. I submit that there is none. Remember that all we know of religion/God is what is handed down to us. Remember that such is usually handed out at an early age. Remember that the senses of man are fallible and subjective. Remember that indoctrination from an early age is usually hard to shake out of.
Note that an atheist is usually one who has shaken out of his indoctrination and examined things afresh for himself. An atheist is usually one who asks himself, if I wasnt brought up to accept this as true, would I accept it ordinarily ?
He asks himself questions like does the fact that I dont know how "x" happened make it supernatural ?

Its a long discussion and there is much more that I'd like to say, but I'll leave the above for your consideration.



Oh and one more thing, posting links isnt always helpful. On the internet, its not that difficult to find a website or two supporting whichever position one champions. I prefer original arguments where possible. Of course posting links is useful sometimes, we just have to be careful. Just saying.

Thanks for your reply. What you wrote is your opinion; I have no need to quarrel about your opinion. If you choose to go again definitions from the dictionary, then there is absolutely nothing that I can do since we won’t be able to find any basses from which to construct our arguments.

If you chose to ignore definitions from the American Heritage dictionary, then who am I to think that my own views or definitions will have any impact on you.

Therefore I most humbly refrain.

And by the way, I am not an atheist. I am firmly convinced that God that exists.

Thanks

@jayriginal
Thanks for addressing my post, but I'm afraid you are a little off.

jayriginal:

Lets make it really simple. An atheist does not believe in God or Gods as they are presented for the main fact that they are presented without evidence or that the evidence given does not measure up in the analysis of the atheist, hence the non belief in them.
An atheist does not have to accept evolution or the big b.@.n.g or any current scientific theory. An atheist may accept one or more of these or none. This has no bearing on his position as an atheist. All that is required is non belief in God(s).

I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science, evolution, big slam and etc.

jayriginal:

When asked about the beginning of life and the universe, a simple "I do not know" is the position of many atheists (not all).

Here is where you are off. A strong atheist does not hold the "i don't know" position.
"I don't know" implies that you are open to the idea of God; this is passivity. Those that hold this position are called agnostics, not atheists. At best one can call them weak atheists. You cant do away with the fact that there are dgrees to atheism. 


An atheist(a strong atheist, a true, or a pure atheist) is not that passive. A strong atheist claims that he knows; he claims to know that God or gods do not exist.

While an agnostic is open minded, an true atheist is closed minded.

Please consider these links:

The primary difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist does not believe God or gods exist whereas the agnostic is not sure either way because existence of God or gods, they say, cannot be proven. The atheist may be a weak atheist or strong atheist. The weak atheist may say, “I’m not sure whether gods exist so I don’t worship any. “ The strong atheist comments: “There is no God or gods.”

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-atheist-and-an-agnostic.htm

The American Heritage Dictionary defines an "atheist" as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." An "agnostic" is "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God" or "one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." This dictionary also notes that 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley invented the word "agnostic."

http://ask.yahoo.com/20030527.html

In reality true atheism is not just the absence of belief; strong atheism involves belief, the belief that God or gods do not exist.

jayriginal:

Speaking for myself, I never needed science to stop believing in God while some stopped believing through scientific awareness. Whatever the reason, the common ground is a lack of belief.
That is all.

Once again I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science. I have maintained many times in different threads that atheism is not science. It is not more scientific than theism.

Thanks

Purist:

Yes, I know.  Although "non-theists" would be a more appropriate term.

Wow!!! My brother, nonthesitic is an umbrella term that covers so many religious beliefs including atheism.

This is  from the link that you provided:

it has become an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions united by a naturalist approach,[dubious – discuss] such as agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism.

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

To further show you that there are degrees to atheism; read this from the same link:

Nontheism includes a variety of belief systems.[dubious – discuss] "Strong atheism" is the positive belief that a god does not exist. Someone who does not think about the existence of a deity may be termed "weakly atheistic", or more specifically implicitly atheist

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

Thanks

Purist:

I read and understood your post very well before replying, and it appears you've got atheism mixed up with an entirely different concept. Most of the attributes you ascribed to the "alleged atheist" applies more to the deist than any other.

You didn’t. Please what does the word alleged imply?

Purist:

What do you mean?  That was not a definition.  I was simply stating to you what atheists do not believe in, contrary to what you wrote.

Purist:

Exactly.  And it ends there.

Purist:

Wrong.  Atheists simply do not believe in a god/creator.  Fullstop.  There is no "or" in the atheist's position.  Whether this alleged creator is a conscious being or not is irrelevant to the atheist. 

This is just blind argument. There is no creator; what does that mean? That the universe was uncaused. You said a god/creator; so do they believe in many god/creators?

Purist:

Now, here lies the problem.  How on earth does unbelief in a creator automatically translate to a belief in an uncaused cause, much less a belief that the universe itself is this uncaused cause?  That is a contradictory stance, considering that the very phrase "uncaused cause" suggests intelligence [/b]which the atheist vehemently rejects.  No sir, atheists do not believe that the universe [b]is the uncaused cause.  That is the Pantheist's belief.

Yes, I know.  Although "non-theists" would be a more appropriate term.

Perhaps.  But this is a moot point anyway.

Wow! The phrase “Uncaused causer” suggests intelligence Wow!! Besides I never said “uncaused cause” I said “uncaused causer”

Purist:

How on earth does unbelief in a creator automatically translate to a belief in an uncaused cause, much less a belief that the universe itself is this uncaused cause? 

Simple!!!! If you believe that the universe is was not caused; you simply believe that it is “uncaused causer” The same way that religionist believe that God is uncaused!!!!!

Thanks

@all4naija

Thanks for addressing my post. I will reply to you as follows:

all4naija:

^^^^
I think fundamental particles seem more as evidences that creation. The decay of radioactive particle is due to unstable condition of element(which you are right about with little explanation) but why they do so scientists don't know - they are getting there some day.

I wonder how bringing radioactive decay helps his argument.  If anything it goes against it, because even in radioactive decay we see cause and effect. The decay is actually caused by the unstability of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is the densest part of the atom, contain protons and neutrons. Most of the times it is the interaction between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus that results in the unstability; but sometimes it could be as a result of the interaction of the nucleus and the inner electrons of the radioactive element that causes the unstability.

In a nut shell, the atom is not just one thing, or one single entity; it is a system of many things – electrons, protons, neutrons. Within the system, as within all system there is cause and effect.

In time scientist will be able to delve more into these components of the atoms, they will discover that within each component lies worlds of systems. Today we know that within these components, there are hadrons, and within hadrons, there are quarks. Soon scientists will delve more into what makes up the quark. It goes on and on, there is no end.

This is only but scratching the surface; in reality, each atom is a universe of its own.

all4naija:

However, even if at the end Albert Einstein theory of relativity, E=mc^2 is found to be discarded for others, there are evidences that matter changes into energy and vice versa. We find out that, in the real sense, nothing is actually destroyed. There are things not seen by the physicals eyes yet they are part of the physical laws of nature. For example the human detectors, the eyes, can only see three dimension yet the forth which is time is not. There are other many dimensions, like Supersymmetry, etc which we haven't understood yet but it is not proves they are spirituals because we haven't understood or can not see them.

Not only does matter transform to energy; that’s one way to look at it. Matter and energy are actually the same thing. Matter is condensed energy or matter is made up of energy. The fact that energy can condense into matter does not mean that there is no creator. The question remains who created the energy or where did it come from; the question of a creator, of an outside for remains open.

You are right that there are physical things not seen by the physical eyes. That’s the point I have been making to thehomer. It will be very uneducated for a creature to say that existence ends with its perception, that what it does not perceive does not exist. Each creature has a limited perception of reality and no creature can perceive everything that exists. I never said that whatever was not perceived with the physical eyes are spiritual. We are only like TV’s or radios, each TV or radio is tuned or designed to receive a particular range of frequency. There could unlimited number or range of frequencies so no TV should laugh at another for claiming to receive something that others do not.

Just as there are so many physical things that we do not see, it is also possible that there are so many things non-physical as well. It is only a logical conclusion. We should never view reality as a concrete limited or fixed thing, after all everything is energy. In reality nothing is tangible or solid like we perceive it.

If you tell the ancient man that a clear glass of water has uncountable number of microorganisms not see with the physical eyes, he will not believe you. To him, if he doesn’t see it then it doesn’t exist! But science has told us that this is not so; that even within the physical realm there are almost uncountable ranges, frequencies, or dimensions. It is also logical to expect that there are countless dimensions that are not even physical. Where most everything has to stop with the physical? If we put an end to the range of existence which we call physical, how are different from the ancient that puts an end to existence based on what his eyes can see?

After taking all these into consideration, you how wrong it is to laugh at somebody just because he/she claims to perceive something non-physical? Perhaps there is a dimension that is non-physical! Don’t we live in a holographic universe?

all4naija:

I still think God(as religions postulate) can be left out of the equation on how come about the universe. There are nothing as close to explaining the origin of the universe as close to god than fundamental particles,not the way we have understood them now, but the actual unknown infinite fundamentals - there the facts lie!

I will not quarrel with the above because you said God(as the religions postulate).  The religious view of God may be wrong or right; it is only a perception. Most atheists spend their time fighting this perception, hence fighting a religious battle.

Even if the religions view of God can be left out of the question; it is not a proof that the universe does not have a creator or was not created.

Thanks

@ thehomer

With all due respect, I feel that you did not really respond to anything in your last post. This thread has degenerated to arguing just for the sake of it; therefore I will not continue. Here are some of the reasons why I would not continue:

1)I asked you to prove how the physical universe poses the power to avoid being created, to avoid having a bigining; you simply cannot. You falsely pretended that you didn't understand what I meant, accusing me of not expressing myself well. The bottom line is that the belief that the physical was has always been is simply blind faith; it has no logic or science backing it.

2) You talked about Newtonian physics as if it holds no water, as if it has been debunked. Coming from you, who supposedly base your arguments on science, I am terribly disappointed. Is this falsehood or ignorance?

3)You talked about radioactive decay, as if you don't know what causes the decay. The decay is actually caused by the unstability of the atom. If you cannot see how this relates to two things influencing each other, I will not educated you. Or to put it in your own words, "I will not spoonfeed it to you."

Thanks, its been a pleasure.

Purist:

Calm down.  You are confusing atheism with deism.  Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused cause" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them. That's the deist's domain. Perhaps, you and Deep Sight may wanna have a talk.

Dude please read my post and try to understand it before you reply. I am not confusing deism with atheism. Please show me where you got the definition that "Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused causer" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them."

An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God or in the creator or causer as conscious being or conscious deity.

Here are definition of atheist:

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power. (noun)
An example of an atheist is a person whose beliefs are based in science, such as the idea humans came from evolution rather than Adam and Eve.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist


Let me break it down for you for the last time; a person who doesn't believe that the universe has a creator or a causer is simply implying that the universe is the uncaused causer.

There are degrees in atheism. Do you know that a some Buddhists can be considered atheists?

In Western culture, some atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious,[citation needed] although other atheists are spiritual.[11][12] Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[15] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[16]

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

Atheism and religionism are not mutually exclusive.

harakiri:

@justcool, I know the clear difference between agnostics and atheists (thank you very much). Agnostics have no belief in religion but believe in a supreme being. Atheists have no belief in nothing. It seems a lot of you people find it hard to believe Africans can become Atheists. A lot of you believe atheism is a "white man's thing". Pitiful.

@harakiri

Sorry my brother, you have it all confused. Your definition of both atheism and agnosticism are wrong.

I never said atheism is the white man's thing; honestly, I don't know how you could have deduced that from my post.

Thanks

harakiri:

@justcool, Did you read through my post or skimmed through? I am an Atheist and I do not believe any theory on evolution. Even many christians are evolutionists. I have no explanation for evolution but I neither believe the religious nor scientific explanation. How many times do I have to repeat this on nairaland? Atheism is simply the disbelief in religion. Period! Evolution issues is another dimension of discourse.

@harakiri

My brother calm down; sorry if I appear to have skimmed through your post before replying, I will take time to read through it again.

Please re-read the last paragraph of my post and you will see where you belong. I didn't say anything about evolution. You don't believe in the infinite singularity, you don't believe in God either; but you believe that the physical universe exists, and that it has always existed. Thus, to you, the physical universe requires no creator, it is the creator; at least it created itself and everything in it. Haven't you just substitute God with the physical universe? So you are not really a true atheist.

Having no conception of how everything came into being does not make you an atheist either; it makes an agnostic. Agnosticism does not necessarily equate to atheism. Read agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Thanks.

harakiri:

@Toba

Your thread is misleading. There are NO similarities between Christianity and Atheism. Using the most popular online dictionary (Wikipedia), they are defined as follows :

Christianity : is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in Canonical gospels and other New testament writings. Adherents of the christian faith are known as Christians.

Atheism : is,in a broad sense the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense,Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively,Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with Theism.


The difference is blatantly clear for all to see. They are NO similarities rather they are absolute OPPOSITES of each other.Addressing your underlined "points" :

(1)Christians believe in God by faith. Atheists have no faith in anything. Stating that we do is a lie (isn't that a sin?)

(2)You're right in saying that Christians were raised into Christianity. You are wrong in attributing Atheism and "Darwinism" together. Not every Atheist agrees with Darwin's theories and a lot don't even know who Richard Dawkins is. Speaking for myself, i had already dumped religion long before i knew there were books on non-religiousness. Even at that, my world view is based on personal observations NOT what i read in a book or some YouTube video. Please make an effort to understand what you're talking about before making baseless statements that are outright lies.

(3)You say the bible is "inspired". Inspired by what and who? Furthermore, quit telling lies about Atheists. A lot of Atheists have never read a non-religious book in their lives. Those who weren't raised into religion have NO NEED to.

(4)You were probably born into a Christian home and that explains why you believe the only road to "salvation" is via Christianity. If you were born in Iran or Yemen, you would be here screaming "There is no god but Allah and his only prophet Mohammed". If you were born before the slave masters entered Africa, you would still believe Orunmila,Eledumare,Sango,Yemoja and Amadioha were the ultimate gods to be worshiped. The only reason you're a Christian today is because the slave trading invaders conquered your forefathers and therefore, they were forced to believe in the god of the "white man" as being the ultimate god (Have you ever thought of these issues for ONCE in your life?)

(5)For the umpteenth time, NOT EVERY ATHEIST IS AN EVOLUTIONIST! ! ! How many times must this be repeated? My being Atheist today has absolutely NOTHING to do with theories of evolution,atheist literature or YouTube videos. I lost faith in religion due to so many inconsistencies,falsehoods,voids and loopholes. Even the fact that Christianity presents itself as a religion of "peace and good" and yet the people who practice it do the exact opposite of what their book says is more than enough to lose faith in it. There is only one life to live and i refuse to waste one second of it deceiving myself in fallacious beliefs.

(6)Explain what you mean by "god of the gaps". If you mean all the inconsistencies,contradictions,lies and loopholes, then i agree with you.


Make an effort to provide straight forward answers instead of beating about the bush (that's the typical Modus Operandi with religious folks).

@hakiri
Please dispute this striking similarity:

Both the alleged atheist and religionist(not only Christianity) believe that the universe was created or caused by an uncaused causer, an eternal and infinite deity(or thing) that has neither a beginning nor an end. Both believe that this deity existed before the present state of the universe

The religionist or believer believes that this deity is a conscious being. He calls this deity God.

The alleged atheist believes that this deity is nature. It existed as a singularity before the big slam; it became or created the present state of the universe during the big slam. Before the big slam it was a non-physical singularity; and during the big slam it created the physical world or it became physical.

So the bottom line is that the alleged atheist believes that this deity is a thing (an infinite unexplainable singularity) that has always existed in one form or another, and requires no creator.

The theist believes that this deity is a being (God) has always existed, and requires no creator.

Now do the math!! The alleged atheists have just substituted God with nature, the universe, or the singularity that existed before the big slam. One ascribes the origin of the universe to an unexplainable infinite singularity; the other ascribes the origin of the universe to an unexplainable God. Keep in mind that some religionist’s description of God very closely sounds like the theist’s “infinite singularity” only expressed in different words!

The fact that alleged atheist does not worship or pray to this singularity that he ascribes the origin of the universe to, does not make him any different from the religionist. Remember there are the religionists who do not believe in worship and prayer either.

While you digest this, keep in mind that a deity doesn’t necessarily have to be a being or a living thing; a thing or a phenomenon can also be regarded as a deity, especially if that thing or phenomenon is held in high esteem or ascribed some supernatural powers to. Such supernatural powers as atheists ascribe to the singularity that caused the universe.

Finally the belief in either God, (whether the infinite singularity or God of the religionist) requires faith, because neither the belief nor the non-belief can be based purely on science.

I use the expression “alleged atheist” because most people who parade themselves as atheists are in reality theists, only that they do not believe in the religionist’s perception of the creator. Anybody who believes in anything regarding the beginning or causation of the universe cannot be regarded a true atheist. I have never seen one; in fact, in my opinion, it is impossible for a human being to be a true atheist. Human always believe in something regarding the origin of anything they came in contact with.

The people who parade themselves as atheists are only alleged because they only reject the creator as a deity, or as a living deity; but they always believe in the creator (causer of the universe) as phenomenon that is different from God of the religionist.

A true atheist should not believe in the idea of pre-present universe, he should scorn the idea of the cause of the universe as a non-physical infinite singularity. He should simply see the physical as all that there is, and as always being physical; thus requiring no creation or transformation from any non-physical state. But then still, he wouldn’t be a true atheist; he would only have substituted God with the physical!

toba:

wow this is a classic response. I love reading and learning from your posts justcool. i recommend that u change your name from justcool to verywise. May God continue to increase your wisdom

toba:

This is another quote thats memorable. very soon, it would be worthless debating the God issue when so realities becomes dawn on us that really there nothing much more to be debated when theres actually no one present when the universe began

@toba
Thanks for your prayer, and your kind words. Remain blessed.

thehomer:

It isn't a fight but a well supported assertion. Really? Do you think atheism is a religion too or are you simply making an assertion? You would need to demonstrate this you know.

Yes Atheism, especially your own type of atheism is[b] most definitely [/b]a religion.

It involves all that religion involves especially bind faith. You believe that the universe could have just always existed. This belief is not based on any scientific or observable fact; it is purely based on faith.

If you can demonstrate to me or show me an example of something that has always existed, something (anything physical) that was not created, then this your belief that the universe was not created may no longer be considered blind faith.

Honestly it takes more faith to accept this weird belief than it takes to accept the wildest belief of any religion.

thehomer:

Showing you that the Biblical God is wrong totally upsets Christianity because it would mean you've just been making things up and declaring them to be true.

Okay it upsets Christianity. But why upset Christianity?? It goes to prove that you are fighting a religious battle and nothing more. You are not concerned about finding the truth, you are simply eager to upset Christianity. Christianity (the religion) and God are two different things.

I haven’t been making things up, and upsetting Christianity does nothing to what have said. I do not belong to any religion.

thehomer:

Have you considered that maybe the physical has always existed?

This is not backed by any science or logic. It carries no weight than me telling, “Have you considered that the universe was created.” Please back your statement up with science or known facts, otherwise you are just employing blind faith.

Your resorting to one liners will not help you here, neither will your unfounded attack on Christianity; let facts speak against facts. Let’s examine the facts dispassionately and we will easily see what makes more sense.


And who says it had to be created? Why do you assume that it had to be created? This is the problem with holding on so tightly to a religious view. It stunts your perception such that you seem unable to consider that maybe just maybe it wasn't created.

thehomer:

For some reason, you seem to forget that religions make lots of physical claims that clearly fall withing the purview of science.

We are not dealing with any of those claims here; we are dealing with only one of their claims that “God created the universe.” Or better, here we are dealing with Hawkin’s claim that “God did not create the universe.” Let’s stick to one thing at a time; there is no point allowing passion to make you jump from thing to another; you are too eager to fight religionists. Why?

Why fight a religious war if you are not a religionist yourself Is it what sussicorn commanded you to do?

thehomer:

We've been through the issue of who can use the word God so I won't address it again here. If he said the universe has no creator, how is that different from saying the Christian God isn't needed for the universe to exist? Really? He's fighting a religious war? It seems you don't know what religious wars look like.
Why not pick on God? He's very popular and has so many things attributed to him.
If you think atheism is a religion, then I suspect that you don't have a coherent concept of religion.

Why pick on God We didn’t deal with this issue; I brought it up but you gave no reasonable explanation; once again you took shelter in the arms of resorting to one liners. Why bring in the Christian God in a scientific speculation?? Please answer!!!

Because God is popular?? Wow!!! What an answer! So it is right to fight against something or someone just because that thing or that person is popular?

So Michael Jackson deserved all the bad press that he got because he was popular. Talk about jungle justice!

Ok! God is not the only popular idea or being; Obama is popular too. Hawkin might have concluded from his speculations that Obama does not exist or did not create the universe. Would that have been equally good?

thehomer:

No I won't feel outraged. Please outline the religious views he presented for us to examine them and see how religious they are.

He said “God did not create the universe.” This view is purely religious and has nothing to do with science. The terms used are religious terms, not scientific ones, except the word “universe.”

The word “God” has no scientific bearing; it is found in religion not science. So Hawkin presented a religious view and not a scientific one.

Mind you that there are some religions that believe that the universe was not created by God but by angels of God or servants of God.

Where are you most likely to find the word God? In a religious book or in a science book? Please answer, and while you are at give me the scientific definition of God.

thehomer:

No one says atheism is science. The point is present your God for scrutiny. You're still assuming some sort of creation without evidence.

I’m happy that you have been forced to say that atheism is not science. So why do you guys always run to science and try to bend it to support your views?

God is there to be scrutinized but you fail to do so; rather you fight against regions.

thehomer:

Really? You want to go with poisoning the well by saying the atheist isn't honest? Somehow, you don't seem to realize how heavy the burden of proof is upon the Christians making their outrageous claims.

Don’t start with you guy’s burden of proof jargon. That is meant to frighten people who do not know philosophy. The burden of proof is equally upon you since you assert that the physical has always been. The implication is that (1)the physical has the power to sustain itself eternally, (2) the physical has the power to evade requiring a beginning.
(3) the physical has the power to evade requiring a creator.

The burden to prove these two facts is one you. Here nobody is asking you to prove the negative; those three implications of your assertion are in the positive, and hence they require proof.

thehomer:

How do you know they have this perception? Did they tell you and you just believed it?

This means absolutely nothing!

thehomer:

How do you think we were able to determine the range of colour vision in the dog?

Again, how do you think we were able to determine that the dog had such a sense of smell?

Through unbiased scrutiny and experimentation, and through evidence. If only you will scrutinize the evidence of the perception of the non-physical with the same unbiased attitude with which you approach dog.

There has been numerous occasions where psychics have through clairvoyance solved crimes. There has been numerous cases where a believer's prophesy turned out accurate.

But whenever any human does anything that is beyond physical ability, anything that hints that humans may have a dimension that is beyond the physical, you guys close your eyes and refuse to it.

thehomer:

You're forgetting the numerous tools that can be and have been brought to bear when using science.

This means nothing.

thehomer:

How were those scientists able to determine that they could do this? It is quite different from religious claims since they are unable to do more than simply claim that they perceive this power of God. Well what did this power of God tell them? When we check, they turn out to be wrong more often than not.

They don’t just make claims; they have demonstrated more than enough. You just don’t want to see and investigate. Prophesies have come true; sick people have been healed, even the dead raised! I wonder why the police employ the help of psychics.

Of course there are charlatans among the believers in God claiming to have non-physical abilities, as much as there are charlatans in all walks of life, even in science.

thehomer:


You're forgetting the countless times where the psychics and the religious people have been so wrong that it would be hilarious if not for the gravity of the situation. This is a confirmation bias which is one of the cognitive biases that the process of science eliminates.

The above proves absolutely nothing!!!

Countless times dogs have been wrong too; does this mean that dogs do not have a heightened sense of smell?

thehomer:

You're already starting to echo some misinformation already.

What misinformation?

thehomer:

This is simply false. All we ask for as reasonable people is that people who make such claims need to back them up with evidence yet for some reason, they run and hide. If they could actually do the things they claim, they should step right up and receive fame and fortune rather than skulking around with gullible victims.

You make claims too that you cannot back with evidence; extremely outrageous claims. You claim that the universe has always been, or does not require a creator, yet you provide no evidence to back up this claim.

thehomer:

Using the word "persecution" the way you have above is committing a fallacy of ambiguity because the same word within this context means two different things.
Also, Hawkins is simply expressing his views. All I see is religious people complaining that he does so and science seems to support his claim. I think he does much more damage to religion since as we can see, the religious people are already in a state of fear over the whole thing.
Do you think criminals should be put in jails and kept there?
Do you think you're being objective in your attempted "persecution" of Hawkings?

I will not let the use of the word “persecution” deviate us from the topic at hand. I sense you completely understand the context in which I used the word. There is no ambiguity involved.

If Hawkin was just expressing his views on science, why bring God into it? This is a question you still have not been able to answer. Is God a scientific word? Why do damage to religion if he is really discussing science? Can’t one talk about science without bring in religion? How many scientific laws involves the word God??

thehomer:

This still doesn't support your claims since we're somehow able to tell that they are actually able to perceive these things. Comparing those with synesthesia to religious people claiming to see all sorts of demons and what not actually cheapens what these synesthetes perceive because they can actually demonstrate that they perceive these things but the religious people when checked are simply found to be wrong. If you think those religious fellows have something to say, please let them know that there are prizes waiting for them if they can demonstrate it. You really should try to be skeptical of people who make outrageous claims for on them lies the heavier burden of proof.

People with non-physical abilities have demonstrated more than enough. Any unbiased investigator will easily arrive at the Truth. There are genuine psychics, healers, prophets and etc. You simply refused to leave your bias alone.

I will not waste my time here.

thehomer:

Sorry, what scientific evidence are you looking at that made you arrive at this belief of the universe having a creator? What does this creator look like? If you think that this creator is so unknown, why are you worshiping it? You know, continuing this worship to the wrong creator may just make the real one angrier and angrier.

The scientific evidence that I am looking at is the scientific law that “every action has a reaction.” In other words, every reaction was preceded by an action. The ever changing, expanding universe is simply a reaction to an action that preceded it. That action is the creation of the universe.

The universe, even if it has always existed, would not be able to transform from one state to another without the input of an external force. Otherwise the law of thermodynamics would be violated.

Why try to deviate from the topic. Are we dealing with worshiping the creator? Whether you worship or not, that does not change a thing about the existence of the creator. Once again you are dealing with religion!

Thanks

@ thehomer

Please read about synesthesia and see how variant perception of reality can be even within the same specie!

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

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050528144241.htm


Synesthetes (people with the ability to see the forms and colors of sounds) actually see sounds and musical notes as smoke-like clouds of colors. If scientists can investigate and validate such phenomena as synesthesiae, which the medieval and ignorant people of the by-years would have frowned on, called fallacy or witchcraft, why can’t today's atheists accept that those who claim to perceive God's power or the non-physical may not be delusional; they may, as Synesthetes are, be gifted which perceptive abilities that the average man does not have.

Some people, on looking at nature, perceive nature as an orderly designed piece of work; some go as far as perceiving the Will of the designer. Asking such people to give you scientific evidence of the existence of the designer and His Will is like asking a Synesthetes to show you scientific evidence that the musical note "C" has a bright red color. At best science can suggest or may incline one to believer that the universe has a creator, but it cannot conclusively prove the existence of this creator or His non-existence. It’s simply beyond the scope of science.

thehomer:

Except when he was e.g wandering the garden of Eden, in a burning bush, wandering with the Israelites as a pillar of fire and as a cloud pillar etc.

See! Here you are fighting the God of the bible or you are fighting the biblical perception of God. If only you and Hawkins would admit that you are fighting a religious battle. It is no different when two different religions fight each other. Your religious view (Atheism) is your own perception of life and God; the Biblical religionist's view is also another perception of life and God.

God and people’s perception of Him are two different things. If you succeed in proving that the biblical view of God is flawed, you have not done anything in proving that God does not exist or that He did not create the universe.

thehomer:

On the issue with Hawking, it is exactly what he has done. He is talking about this physical universe and the fact that a God doesn't need to be introduced into the equation.

Firstly: On the contrary that is opposite of what Hawkins did. Hawkins used science beyond its physical limitation. You cannot expect that the physical universe (everything physical that exists) was created by anything physical; if something physical already exists, then how did that come into being?? The physical could not have been created by the physical, otherwise you are not dealing with origin or the creating of the physical; you will only be dealing with transition. That which already exists need not be created again, it can only transform. Thus whatever created the physical has to be non-physical; otherwise you are not dealing with the origin of the physical, you are only dealing with transition from one physical state to another physical state.

Claiming that that which created the physical can be physical violets the very definition and idea of the phrase: “to create.” Perhaps we should seek help from the dictionary:

transitive verb
1: to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth — Genesis 1:1(Authorized Version)>
2a: to INVEST with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>
3: CAUSE, OCCASION <famine creates high food prices>
4a: to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b: DESIGN <creates dresses>
intransitive verb
1: to make or bring into existence something new
2: to set up a scoring opportunity in BASKETBALL <create off the dribble>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create

Here we are using the word “create” in the context of definition 1. That is to “bring into existence something new”; this already precludes the weird assumption that the physical can create the physical. If any physical substance or phenomena already exists then the physical has already been created. By the definition of the word, “creation of the physical” can only imply or start at the point where the very first physical substance or physical phenomena, be it the smallest atom or the smallest particle of a quark, emerged from a non-physical substance or came into existence.

And since that which created the physical has to be non-physical, applying science, which is only limited to the physical, to it is misguided. I repeat: “Science is a tool designed for the physical; using it otherwise would yield unhealthy results.

Secondly: why bring in the word “God” into it? Is “God” a scientific word? If he had simply said that the universe has no creator, it would have been different. Bringing in God into it simply reveals that Hawkins is attacking the religionist's view God, Hawkins is simply fighting a religious war and hence should not hide under the false cloak of standing on scientific bases or theories. Hawkins might have as well concluded from his scientific speculations that the Tooth Fairy or Sponge Bob did not create the universe; but why pick on God?; especially when you guys claim that God is as fictitious a character as Sponge Bob or the Tooth Fairy. Hawkins is simply fighting a religious battle and using science to propagate his religion, atheism.

How would you feel if a religionist claims that science has validated every story in the bible? You will definitely feel outraged!! But that’s exactly what Hawkins did; he used science to back up his religious views.

Let it be said once and for all that Atheism is not science; atheism is not more scientific than theism. Neither of the two perceptions has been confirmed by science; nor can either of them be proven by science, because they both venture beyond the realms of science. They both seek to understand the creation of the physical existence, an origin which cannot be physical, and hence cannot be assessed by science. But most theists are honest enough to admit that their view is based on faith, the bible, conviction, personal non-physical perception, personal inclination, thinking or choice, and not science; the atheist is hardly this honest, he always tries to claim that science has confirmed his views. This is deception!!!!!

thehomer:

How does this non-physical realm interact with the physical realm? You may also need to realize that non-believers who meditate actually are able to feel all sorts of sensations but they simply accept that it is physical and based on the brain. You're introducing this non-physical realm and I simply have to ask for some evidence of it.

I keep telling you that I have no scientific evidence; science is a very limited tool of perception. Some people perceive beyond the realms of science; and for one who does not have this perception, there is no way I can convince you of it.

It’s like a dog asking a man to prove to it that there are seven colors in the color spectrum. Every picture of the seven colors presented by the man will simply be filtered by the dog’s eye which is incapable of perceiving the seven colors of the spectrum.

Please in this dog and man analogy, I do not mean to sound derogatory. You are definitely not a dog; for the sake of cordiality, I will give another analogy.

You know dogs can perceive odor where a man cannot. So your demand for evidence is like a man asking a dog to provide evidence that it can perceive odor where a man cannot. Any evidence provided by the dog will simply be filtered by the man’s organs of perception which are not as sensitive as that of the dog. If the dog presents the man with a piece of cloth from which it can perceive a certain odor, on smelling the cloth the man will perceive no odor and declare the dog as being delusional or lying. If the dog is able to trace the location of something from the odor that the thing leaves behind, the man would simply call it a coincidence, and still would not believe that the dog can perceive something that he is incapable of perceiving. Wouldn’t you consider such a man strange? Especially now that science has confirmed that every creature has a perception of reality which is limited or relative to its organs of perception; and no two creatures perceive reality exactly the same way.

As a scientist you should know that it is possible for another person to perceive that which is imperceptible to you. Existence is not limited to one individual’s organs of perception; hence, one should also logically conclude that existence cannot be limited to the scientist’s perception of it or the scientific perception of it.

There are people who claim to see sounds, and they actually do! Atheist do not ridicule them; scientific atheists know that it is possible that such people’s eyes are able to detect the forms formed by the sound waves which we perceive as sound on our ears. I.e. some people claim to see a cloud of red smoke-like forms emanate from a musical instrument when the musical note “C” is played on the instrument; nobody ridicules them. But when religionists claim that he is able to perceive the power of God or some non-physical beings, they become an object of ridicule and mockery.

Today police dogs are employed by the police and used for investigation; when they are able to help in solving a crime by their heightened ability to perceive odor, the society rewards them and even celebrates them. No scientist or atheist would dare ridicule the dog or claim that it was through a coincidence that the dog was able to solve the crime. But today when a psychic helps in solving a crime or claims to see the beyond; or when a religionist makes a prophecy that turns out to be true, he/she would be ridiculed by atheists who claim that the non-physical does not exist. They will consider the success of the psychic or the fulfillment of a prophesy to be mare coincidence; and soon such a gifted one will be put to silence, ashamed and utterly ridiculed.

Reminds me of the Hausa saying: “Where one person dances and receives money, another person dances and receives a beating!!!” This is injustice that is done by evangelical atheists.

Gradually, it’s becoming a repetition of the mediaeval witch trials in ancient Europe: where one is tied to a steak and burned as witch, just because he/she possessed some knowledge or ability that others do not. Today as soon as a religionist claims to perceive the non-physical, modern-day atheists will tie him/her to a steak of mockery and throw pseudo-science at him/her as stones till he/she is silenced.

thehomer:

Just to be clear, is it okay with you that persecutions continue?

Persecution of the religionist's views and beliefs in the way that Hawkins does it definitely needs to stop. In his blind rage to fight the religionist's views, he does more harm to science than he does to the religionist or religion. He places the very formidable filed of knowledge that we call science on a slippery ground; on a ground where it will collapse or fall at the weakest whims of any objective person.

Persecuting the evils of the society should continue; but by persecuting I only mean objective opposition, not violent and unbounded attacks. One should not resort to lies, trickery or false claims in his/her opposition to evil; one must remain honest, gracious, and objective. Such objective opposition (I.e. persecution against slavery) is justified.

Thanks

thehomer:

I hope you enjoyed your trip.

My trip afforded me a rich experiencing; I'm grateful to the Almighty.

thehomer:

But, the Christian God was described in the Bible and I think scientists can read the Bible can't they? Or shouldn't words in the Bible be accepted as meaning what they say? As far as we can tell, the Christian God is supposed to have been described in the Bible. If you think he wasn't, then one must ask how you came to know about him.

Right the Bible and other scriptures described Him as non-physical. It would be both misguided and absurd to search for Him with physical tools.

If Hawkins had taken a physical event described in the bible, (an even that supposedly happened in the physical world) and analyzed it scientifically, then he would appear more objective. Even if he concluded, from his scientific speculations and discoveries, that such an even is impossible within the physical world, he would still appear objective and not misguided; because he would be analyzing a physical event with a physical tool.

He would only be using the tool, science, where it belongs; within its realm of operation. But using science to judge the non-physical is like using a spade or a basket to collect water.

thehomer:

The question that follows here would be how do are you able to tell that that some non-physical being is present? Is there any field or tool available to describe the presence of non-physical beings?

The non-physical can only be felt by the non-physical. So many people, including I myself, have felt it. It is simply beyond science, beyond the grasp of physical means or the physical organs.

Everyman living physically on earth wears many nonphysical bodies along with his/her physical body as the outermost covering. While on earth the individual perceives predominantly with the physical body, yet every now and then receives impressions from the beyond through his/her non-physical body. Through neglect and spiritual inactivity, some people have allowed their non-physical bodies to become numb and completely inactive; hence they only perceive with their physical bodies which is incapable of noticing the nonphysical.

Science relies on physical observation and analysis, it relies heavily on the brain and the physical organs; hence the non-physical is beyond its (science’s) realm of operation.
Knowledge of the existence of God is afforded to man through his spirit which is non-physical. The spirit being spiritual can feel, perceive, or make connection with the power of God. Through this connection the spirit perceives the omnipotence that lies in the power of God; the spirit then can decipher God, as much as its nature and maturity allows it, through His power.

Such a man who stands in the power of God will always know deep within him that there is a God, even if he cannot put it in words; he knows this in his spirit which baths perpetually in the power of God. Many people feel this daily and hourly, be it only in forms or premonitions, promptings and inclination; all these could be a result of something that is alive within their spirits. So most people that are inclined to believe in an Almighty God are not fools, they are only yielding to something that their spirit feels.

Due to the fact that modern man places his brain on a high pedestal, modern man considers a thing worthwhile only when it is intelligible or easily comprehended by the brain; many people, prompted by the certainty of a God which they feel within them, seek to find this God with their brains or to make that which they feel in their spirit more intelligible. Hence they drag what is holy to dirt for the brain being physical can never fully describe or qualify God.

This is why many believers present all sorts of ridiculous pictures of God, and also why many give the scriptures all sorts of wired and earthly interpretation. They seek so hard to make what is non-physical earthly, or they try to understand the non-physical with physical means. These believers are as misguided as Hawkins who seeks to qualify the non-physical by physical tools.

Just because some people do not perceive with their non-physical bodies does not mean that those who perceive are deluded fools. As scientist you know that every creature perceives reality differently from other creatures. The range of colors that dogs perceive is different from the range that humans perceive. The same is applicable to sound and etc. Where a man may not perceive any sound, they dog may perceive unbearable noise. Where a man perceives no odors, the dog may perceive a very strong odor! And even within the same species, perception still differs! Some men see better than others, some men are color blind. Somebody can lose his ability to see, speak or work out of indolence. The man who closes his eyes for a year may not be able to regain his sight immediately after opening it, for a while he will lose the ability to see. A man who keeps his limbs inactive for a very long time may lose the ability to walk.

Hence due to lack of spiritual movement, some people have made their spirits along with their non-physical bodies unable to perceive the power of God that flows through creation. Such an individual has severed his connection with God and hence cannot perceive Him.

But the fact that he doesn’t perceive a thing does not mean that others do not, or that that thing does not exist. Even science has confirmed that each creature only perceives as much as its organs of perception allow it.

thehomer:

The problems with the way you're using persecution here would lead one to conclude that voicing a contrary opinion may be construed as persecution. Another problem is that persecution is generally used to show that what is happening is unjust or improper. With the way you're using it, the conclusion would be that whatever act wins out in the end is the right one while the one that fails is the wrong one. This sort of conclusion I wouldn't disagree with.

I never said that whatever wins out in the end is the right one. Persecution, in the context that I’m using it, is a neutral word; it doesn’t entail that that which is persecuted is always right or wrong. I know generally people use certain words in different contexts; but in my context, I’m using persecution as a neutral word.

Anybody who attacks the beliefs of others persecutes, it doesn’t matter whether the belief is right or wrong.

Persecution doesn’t necessarily have to be unjust treatment. To bother somebody constantly is a form of persecution. Hence one can, in this context, say that the police persecute criminals.

Here is dictionary’s definition:

per•se•cute
    ˈpɜr sɪˌkyutShow Spelled[pur-si-kyoot]  Show IPA
verb (used with object), -cut•ed, -cut•ing.
1.
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2.
to annoy or trouble persistently.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persecute

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, intimate orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/persecute

Using scientific speculations to arrive at the conclusion that the fundamental belief of the religionists is wrong is a form of persecution. Indeed speaking against such fundamental beliefs religious can be construed a form of religious persecution.


Thanks

@thehomer
I was in Nigeria for a while, and I forgot about this thread.

thehomer:

I think you need to show how Hawking lacked objectivity and the pseudo terms he introduced. Can religious people use the word sun? How about stars? I think this is the idea of non-overlapping magisteria that has been shown not to be useful. Hawking was simply referring to the sort of God that is available in so many religious texts.
Actually, we use science and reason to sell our beliefs all the time except when it comes to religious beliefs. This I think is the source of most of the problem. Consider why people are willing to sit in a metal tube hurtling through the air at velocities greater than 700km/hr. Think of why we vaccinate our children.

Forgive me but I think here you are just begging the question. I have dealt with those issues clearly enough in this thread. I just want to remind you that the word “sun” and “stars” existed before modern science.  We can trace their etymology more towards religion than to modern science. Besides you completely missed the point!!! The point is not the words per-se but under which context the word is being used. Or which definition of the word that is used. In scientific research or writing one can use the word ‘sun’ as long as he/she uses it in its scientific context; i.e. referring only to its scientific definition. In science you can only refer to Jupiter as being a planet not as being the god of good fortune. Using science to discover the existence or non-existence of Jupiter as the god of fortune or the ruler of the gods is pseudo-science; as long as science is concerned Jupiter is a planet. When science deals with Jupiter, it deals with Jupiter as a planet, otherwise we will be dealing with mythology and not science.

Now under what context is Hawking dealing with God? The word “God” has no scientific definition and it remains a pseudo term when used in scientific research.

He would have been more objective if he had given us a scientific definition of the word God, a scientific definition!

Words have many definitions!! Science can define the sun as a star in the center of our solar system; while to some religionists, the sun is a god in the sky. Science can use the word ‘sun’ as long as it sticks to its definition of the ‘word.’ But a word that has no scientific definition is a pseudo term when used in science.

It is my perception that Hawkins is using a scientific context to define or describe a word that is strictly religious and has no scientific definition.

Even a blind man can see that Hawkins lacked objectivity. He moved from context to context; the findings he made within a scientific context, he used it to qualify a religious context!! This is a terrible blunder in logic!

Believers made it clear that God is non-physical. Science made it clear that it is limited to the physical. Thus using science to pronounce judgment the non-physical is a terrible blunder. You are simply using a tool beyond that which it is designed for. It’s like trying to think with your limbs; your limbs are made for walking not thinking. When one wants to think he should employ his brain! The fact that your feet cannot think does not mean that thinking does not exist. A dog might as well tell you that the color green does not exist just because its eyes are not refined or designed to see the color green.

Science as a tool is not designed for the non-physical! It is simply misguided and lacking in objectivity to use science to pronounce judgment of that which is non-physical. It is simply beyond the reach and realm of science. Science cannot prove that the non-physical exists neither can it disprove that it does exist. Using science to judge the non-physical is pseudo-science; it would be voodoo.

thehomer:

Wow. Speaking against slavery is persecution if a religion says people should keep slaves? While you are being consistent, I hope you realize that some of the conclusions that follow from this is that punishing people for wrong doing is persecution.
Actually, slavery is a right in many religions.

Actually, you have simply shown how valid my analogy is since you consider speaking against slavery to be considered as a religious persecution.

Persecution in the context that I used it simply means to speak against something or fight against an idea. Not all persecutions are wrong, as long as we are dealing with persecution in the context of just speaking or acting against something or an idea.

The fact that something is being persecuted does not make that thing right or wrong. Both good deeds and evil deeds can be persecuted.

Persecuting an idea that any group holds as the fundamental core-belief of the group is tantamount to persecuting that group, as long as they hold on to that idea. Speaking against slavery is persecution against any group – religious or not – that holds the practice of slavery as one of the fundamental practices of that group.

Indeed so many religions were persecuted, and rightly so, for their practice of slavery. In time many religions evolved and dropped such monstrous and unfair practices. Hence speaking against slavery today is no longer persecution to such religions, since have abandoned slavery.

m_nwankwo:

Hi JeSoul. Thanks for your question. I offer my perception as follows. God endowed each spirit with the ability to gain connection with his power. That ability is a faculty that is an integral part of the spirit. That already presupposes that it is the spirit that prays, not the brain, the mind and not the various other non-spirtual cloaks that envelops the spirit. A spirit does not pray with words or even with thoughts. Words, and thoughts at best should give an earthly direction to the voilition of the spirit especially since most people are not yet accustomed to allowing their spirits to pray without words and thoughts. Now the volition of the spirit sets the spirit aglow and the nature of that voilition gives the glow or energy waves radiating from the spirit definite color and sound. The powers of God that vibrates in creation also have definite color and sound and via the process of homogeneity between the emanations of the spirit and the powers of God, you then get a union of the spirtual voiltion with the specific power of God. This union alters the sound and color in the uniting elements permitting it to rise higher and higher via further union of radiations until it gets to the realm or plane where an answer will be given. Thus the union of these radiations form a flight of steps to the region from which help or answer to a prayer is given. Again the help or answer is mediated to the praying spirit through  these flight of steps. There are other secondly happenings but it may cause confusion as a lot of pre-explanation are needed and so I will not include it here.

Only an emanation from the spirit that is imbued with love, purity and faith makes this contact with the power of God as I explained above. Thus most prayers do not go beyond the personal aura of those praying because they lack love, purity and faith. Since most of us find it difficult to open our spirit, then most of our prayers do not emanate from the spirit but from the brain and mind and such prayers are worthless. Only psychic shocks like deep sorrow or deep joy can occasionally and spontaneously inhibit the suffocating influence of the the brain and mind, allowing the spirit to gain connection with God and thus really pray. Had we developed the way God wanted us to, then we can perpetually be in connection with the power of God without need of psychic shocks. Rightly understood, people should only pray when there is an overwhelming desire to do, only then has it a chance of gaining connection with God. To pray routinely out of habit is not just a waste of time but an evidence that such a person is yet to sense even to the minutest degree the holiness of God. To be permitted a connection with God is the highest blessing that can befall us and thus we must approach the throne of God with love, purity and faith. If we do not, then this solemn moment of prayer that is and meant to be an elixir for our spiritual development and maturity will become a dishonor to God. Thus instead of connecting us to God, such non genuine prayer forms a gulf which with time may become insurmountable allowing us to wallow in ignorance and sin.

A genuine prayer is a communion with God or to be more specific a communion with the power of God. Such communion even for a few seconds gives the spirit an inner joy that cannot be expressed in earthly words. It also imbues the spirit with the indescribable conviction of being under the sacred protection and guidance of God. It imprints in the spirit the overwhelming desire to only live according to the will of God. Strangely, the more a man get attuned to this type of genuine prayer, the more earthly desires fall away. The more the innumerable lists of what he want God to do for him diminishes and finally dries up for such a man stands in the power of God and whatever his spirit needs or his body needs, the laws of God will bring it to him without effort. Thus strange as it may sound he has nothing to ask for the blessings from God will be overwhelming that he can only utter thanks, thanks and thanks to God. Instead of prayers of supplication, prayers of thanks giving  will become the norm in his life. Being on earth, and the fact that such a man is not yet completely transformed, trials and temptation will come but the power of God to which he has attuned himself will help him to confront and overcome even the most difficult of earthly circumstances. Calmly and coolly, he or she faces all earthly trials with gratitude to God irrespective of whether these earthly experiences bring him joy or sorrow.

Now to your question. I only pray for guidance from God and for the strength to only live according to the will of God. On some occasions, I can hear from my guides to send up prayer for this or that person (they can be family members, strangers or even people who are no more in the flesh). In that case I open my spirit and ask God to mediate his power to those that are in need. When I am also confronted with events, things or issues which I am not sure what is the will of God, I also open my spirit to God and receive guidance what to do and not do. My intuitive prayer can be captured in earthly words as "Oh God, the creator of all the worlds, be though with me, Amen". Stay blessed.

The above is just wonderful!!!! The third paragraph is unbelievably deep. Those words could only have been passed down from above; they are definitely not products of the brain.

They resonate in me like melodies from above, richly edifing my spirit.

M_nwankwo may the ALMIGHTY grant you ever more strength to draw from above.

Jenwitemi:

I think it is much more apt to change the title of this thread to, "The Improbability of The Jewish/Christian/Islamic God". Because, as i suspect, when atheist make claims that there is no God, they are always meaning the "One True Gods" of the world religions, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, the 3 middle eastern desert dogmas. Those "Gods" that exist only on the pages of the scriptural texts of these religions. These scriptural Gods can be easily disproved as being responsible for the creation of this reality by the atheists. But to say that there is no intelligent creator at all responsible for creating this reality, this existence, makes the atheists look just as ridiculous as their opposites, the religious, in their school of thought.

There is a CREATOR of this physical reality, and that CREATOR is what we refer to in general as - even though the word is a pretty much bastardized one which i hardly use nowadays - GOD. To say that this physical reality - at whatever scale - was not created by an intelligent mind and just happen by CHANCE( ) is re.tar.ded, even insane. For nothing exists that was not created by an intelligent mind. There is no amount of research and discoveries that will ever prove that the creation of this universe, or any other universe, could have been achieved without the intelligent mind of a creator.

And the fact of the great possibility - confirmed by physicists that there is no solidity to this physical existence - that this physical reality is nothing more than just a programmed 3D virtual reality is enough to end all this silly debates for good.

Deep Sight:


How can you categorically say what is natural and what is supernatural natural? Do you not agree that a person who lived 2000 years ago would regard an aircraft as a most supernatural thing?

And yet there is nothing supernatural about an aircraft. It works with strictly natural laws of physics.

In my view, there is nothing like the word “supernatural”. Everything that exists is natural or unnatural but not supernatural. Artificial creations could be unnatural, but not supernatural, because all things exist in tandem with natural laws of physics and natural laws of existence.

The above two quotes are filled with so much light; if a clairvoyant gazes upon them, he will be blinded momentarily by the light that emanates from them.

I don’t know how to commend Deepsight and Jenwitemi enough for those wise and luminous words. I could not agree more with them.

Kudos to both of you! I’m humbled by your wisdom.

mazaje:

I thought you said that God and religion are two different things?. . . .

I don't see how I contracted my myself. Didn't I say that religion is man's perception of God? People use religion(Spirituality, and etc) in their quest for God or to experience the non-physical, not science; science is directed towards the physical. This is what I mean by "the word God is a religious word"; this does not contradict the fact that God and religion are two different things.

The word "Gravity," is scientific word. The explanations about gravity that science gives is man's perception of the natural phenomenom which science calls "gravity." But this phenomenon and Gravity(scientists perception of the phenomenom) are two different things. The scientists perception can be wrong and changes over time as they study the phenomenom; but the actual phenomenom remains adamant and unchangeable. You cannot say that Gravity does not exists just because some scientists have a misguided perception of it.

A better conclusion should be that "This phenomenon which science calls Gravity is definitely not the way science describes it to be." The same way, one who finds the religionists veiw of God faulty can say "This phenonmenom that the religionists call God is definitely not the way they describe it to be." But to deny the existence of a phenonmenom just because people's description of it is false is like throwing away the baby with bath water.

thehomer:

This is a major problem one often encounters when discussing with theists. Rather than the discussion being on the actual ideas, it shifts to one of tone and feelings. So what if the word God arouses the sensitivity of believers? Does this mean non-believers cannot refer to God? How about the idea of a God? Recall your references about how science arose (though it was a fallacious line of argument).

If you think Hawking's documentary was a religious persecution, then I think you have really lowered what a religious persecution is. Do you think that speaking against slavery is religious persecution? How about writing against slavery?

It is not a question of feeling; rather, it is a question Hawkins lacking objectivity, and introducing pseudo terms. The word "God" is not a scientific word; rather, it is a religious word.  Using the word "God" in his scientific speculations is completely misguided, out of place, and perspective. Non believer can refer to God, but no body has the right to use science to sell their beliefs.

Speaking against slavery is a persecution to any religion that practices slavery as one if its fundamental religious rites, and such religions should rightly be persecuted. within the right context -- in the political context of human right violation. At the moment, speaking against slavery, will no longer be persecution because all religions of the world today have abandoned slavery. Unlike belief in God, the practice of slavery is not the fundamental rite or demands of any religion.

So your analogy is totally out of place and misguided.

mazaje:

Now we are back to semantics abi?. . .Ok. .No wahala. . . .My question still remains. . .Do you have any evidence to show that what ever is responsible for the existence of the universe as we know it is a single entity? Last time I checked every religion keeps making outlandish claims that their own imaginary God created the universe no? Most of them even have ridiculous creation stories to tell us that their own God created the universe, but thanks to science and what it has revealed the educated ones amongst them have abandoned such creation stories to the realm of allegory. . . .

No I do not have any scientific evidence; God is non-physical, beyond science. I have said this in this thread many times but you seem not to be listening.

I don’t have any scientific evidence that God exists; neither do you have any scientific evidence that God does not exist. Science is powerless here because we dealing with an idea that is non-physical, beyond the realm of science.

The deceiver or the trickster is the person trying to claim that science has discovered that God does not exist. Science does not deal with the non-physical.

The fact that some religions stories appear to be myths or do not correspond to reality does not mean that God does not exist. God and religion are two different things. Religion is man’s perception of God, not God Himself.

Remember even science has had its share of wrong and weird theories, which later scientists debunked. Does this mean that science does not exist? If science is allowed the privilege of making mistakes, why deny religion this privilege?

Once we discover a false or inconsistent religious view, every atheist picks up a stone and throws at the existence of God. God and religion are two different things!

mazaje:

How do you know that what ever is responsible for the existence of the universe is non physical?. . .The problem with your assumption is that Most scentist do not believe in God or spirituality. . .Over 90 percent of the NAS which is one of the most prestigious body of scientist today do not believe in any God or spirituality. . . .Their is no community of science that is better than the NAS and over 90 percent of them do not believe in any God. . .So your claim that true scientist know the importance of spirituality is false. . . . .

Again how do you know it’s not non-physical?

I don’t care about NAS, that just a body of scientists. I spoke about the best scientists—Newton, Einstein, and etc. Looking back on history it appears that the most brilliant ones, the ones that made most impact and discoveries were theists. Of course greater number scientists today are atheists. But proves nothing, I’m not talking about number; I’m talking about those that made the most contribution to science, those that took science to a higher level, or those that made the greatest discoveries in the history of science.

mazaje:

Really?. . . .Science has disproved many Gods and will continue to do so. . .Humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins to please some imaginary fertility Gods, science has shown people that there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops instead of wasting time sacrificing animals to please the weather Gods. . .When sick science has shown that all you need is to live and eat rightly to avoid some kinds of diseases instead of praying to some Gods for healing or sprinkling the bloods of some animals on sick people to heal them. . .Where are the Gods of thunder and lighting? Once the scientific explanation was provided for these two phenomenon the Gods of thunder and lighting all died natural deaths , no?. . .

Science has not proved and can never prove that God does not exist.

Sacrificing virgins and God are two different things. The religionists that sacrificed virgins were just misguided believers; their perception of God was very misguided. The same there were many misguided scientists(Alchemists) that thought that they can change base metals to gold. These scientists, today we call the pseudo scientists, were misguided in their knowledge of science, but this does not mean that whole field of science is false and laughable.

Despite, their misguided views, Alchemy laid foundation for the formidable science that we know today as chemistry. The believes with weird beliefs today may evolve and their childish beliefs may lay the foundation for a very formidable field of knowledge tomorrow.

mazaje:

Actually I don't attribute my non belief to science per say. . . .My non belief lies on one single fact and that fact is that all Gods that men worship were created by humans. . . .

I’m happy that you are honest enough not to attribute your non-belief to science.
You are very entitled to your view that God does not exist. It’s very okay to hold that view, if that what you really believe. But is wrong to try and use science to sell your views; and it is equally wrong to mock, ridicule or persecute those of divergent views.

People should be left to evolve.

mazaje:

I feel your pain man. . .I have witnessed first hand persecution of some Grail message adherents back in the days. . .A friend's brother became an adherent of the grail message back in the days,and his relationship with his family ended immediately. . .I have seen some guy lose his closeness to his family because he married a woman that is an adherent of the grail message. . .So you see, religion in its very nature is like racism because it encourages segregation by telling a group of people that they are God's friends for accepting a culture and ts stories while those that disbelieve are his enemies for not accepting their culture and stories. . .People talk about freedom of religion but in reality there is no such thing. . .Once you leave the religion of your parents,most times your relationship with them ceases. . .

Good! You see why I get concerned when Hawkins tries to use science to diprove creation by God. Why God! This word arouses the sensitivity of believers. When did science become the endeavor to prove anything about God? Is this not making God a religion?

What Hawkins did, in my perception, is nothing but religious persecution.

mazaje:

To hell with Hawkings. . .I have stated that his opinions are mere speculations, as long as he can not provide evidence for his assertions then he remains a lair. . .

Again to hell with Hawkings and his speculations. . . .I don't care, as long as he doesn't provide evidence for his assertions then he remains a lair. . .But one thing I give him credit for is that he made it clear that he was just offering his personal opinions. . . .When people hold on to ridiculous beliefs I can't help but laugh at them. . . .That's just me for you. . .

Good!

@Op and co.

Why not be bold enough to take it a little further, why pick only on God. There are other things that people talk about, and I'm sure that you haven't seen any of those things. Love, feelings, intentions, emotions, energy, time, thoughts, air, and etc. These things do not exist either, because nobody has ever seen them. But I know that you can say that you have personally felt these things. But what about things like black holes, anti-matter, and even the big slam? Have you ever seen any of these? No! So they dont exist, or they never exsisted.

I live in an apartment in California, but I have never seen the designer of my apartment; therefore he does not exist. The adage "seeing is believing" is a metaphor that should not be taken literally; science has proved that majority of existence is actually invisible to the Unclad eyes.

God should spend His time and energy following you and giving you signs to prove to you that He exists? Talk about an inflated feeling of self-importance.

Thanks

all4naija:

Thanks! That bold line concludes it all.

Nice sharing with you!

Thank you too! And I hope you understood what I mean. I didn't mean any offense. The fact remains that bringing in my personal non-physical experiences will not help us here. I wish not to create a personality cult of myself or anybody.

Its better to let facts speak against facts, rather than bringing in what is very personal. There are of your experiences that I will not be able to grasp; the same you may not to able to grasp some of mine. If you cant find the non-physical in your own experiences, then you would not be able to find it in mine either.

So don't take it in a bad way. I appreciate your contributions.

mazaje:

You addressed God meaning the creator of the Universe as a he, no?. . . .Your evidence that the universe has only one creator which is a he is WHAT?. . . .

It is English that we are speaking here; I didn’t make the rules of English. English is a very gender-specific language, the rule is to address God as “He”; not necessarily because He is male. This is just the rule of the language. Just as you say “father time”, “mother nature”; it doesn’t mean that time is a father or that nature is a mother. You can address time as “He” and nature as “she”; you can even address things that are dear to you, like your country or nation as “she.”  Even boats and etc. are addressed as “she”; it doesn’t mean that they are female. It’s just the nature of the language.

mazaje:

So you see, even the ancients that you are talking about relied on science to achieve some of their greatest feat, not on religion,the principle of erecting the pyramids are scientific. . .No religious principle was applied in its construction and surely no God or Goddess offered any advice to its construction. . .The people relied on the natural principle of science to bind all the bricks together and erect that structure. . . .

I never repudiated the importance of science; I am a chemist/ Engineer. My point is that science is a tool limited to the physical, and should not be used to debunk God which is non-physical. True religionists know the importance of science; and true scientists know the importance of spirituality, and also know that science the fact that science exist does not preclude the existence of God and the non-physical.

My point for mentioning the Egyptians is that atheists here make it sound as if all believers are ignorant fools. There are imminent scientists who are believers too.

The Egyptians employed science in building the pyramids, but it was the urge for the non-physical that drove them to build the pyramids. Science is simply a too that one needs in the physical; being restricted to the physical, it cannot prove or disprove anything that is non-physical.

If one choses to not to believe in the non-physical, he should not attribute his non-belief to science. Such would be deception.

mazaje:

The belief in Santa does NOT affect any body, people do NOT refuse to go to the hospital to get treated for their disease because of belief in Santa, people do not discriminate against each other because of belief in Santa, people do not go to war because of belief in Santa. . . .People do all these things in Nigeria in the name of religion. . . .Its a lie to say that atheist are not persecuted in Nigeria for being atheist, f you think am lying then try to be one fora day. . . .

Let’s not let this deviate us from the topic at hand. Everybody gets persecuted for their beliefs. Christians persecute Muslims and vice-versa. Even among each religion, they persecute each other; some Catholics persecute Protestants and vice-verse. Sunni Muslims persecute other Muslims and vice-verse. If anything the people that are persecuted the most in Nigeria are the ritualists, traditional religionists and new agers or groups like Rosicrucians, Eckists and even adherents of the Grail Message(Cross bearers). The average Nigerian believes that members of these groups worship the devil. This is worse than not believing in God. Yet these people all flourish in Nigeria. I am a cross-bearer and I know the persecution I go through, even in my own family.

You cannot let persecution turn you into a hater.

From my own observation, and being very honest, religionist pretty much leave atheists alone. It is the atheists that are usually very aggressive in their evangelism. Tell me why Hawkings should bring in God in his scientific discovery or speculation? Who is being the aggressor here? How many religionists, after making their religious discoveries claim that scientific laws do not exist?

mazaje:

Sure, it is. . .If it means anything to you then you should admit that you are only guessing when you talk about knowing if the universe has a creator or claiming to know that the creator is a he. . .

If we are only guessing then why do you guys take Hawkings guesses as scientific laws that have proved that God does not exist? At first you guys were treating Hawkins like a God; now do you agree that he is only speculating? If so, then thanks for your honesty. But you should also be honest enough to admit Hawkins was out of place by attacking God with his speculations. He is being unnecessarily aggressive!

You can believe or see my beliefs as speculations, that perfectly okay; you haven’t done anything wrong by doing that. I can also see my beliefs as infallible truths; that okay as long as I don’t force it on people or try to use it to disprove science or radicle another person’s belief.

You can also hold Hawkins speculations as infallible truths; that's okay, you haven’t done anything wrong; you can also share this opinion of yours with others. But you will be out of line when you force it on others or ridicule others because of their divergent opinion.

I never asked you to believe in God, or a creator; you are free to believe what you want to. But when you radicle others who do not share your beliefs, then you are definitely wrong.

You must be honest enough to admit that Hawkins is misusing science. Science is used as a tool for the understanding, comprehension of the physical world; not to prove or disprove what is non-physical.

Thanks

all4naija:

Okay, let's assumed I don't understand what you are trying to pass across to me. There are evidences to prove something really have effects on something or at least it must be observable for you to know what you experienced. In those your experiences which you alone must have felt along the line become meaningful to you where only you can relate it in the physical. Let alone this prove that such experiences must have physical relevance before you as a human can explain them at all. The point from you starting to become conscious of them to the point where of the actual events took place beyond your understanding,it's within this world though not be tangible as such. What I am saying is that these might look supernaturals but they are not cause there is nothing like supernatural that natural can associate with. It doesn't add up, it equates to nothing other than natural. Supernatural is more or less in the term than in the actual meaning of it.

I am not trying to teach you anything here, just that this argument has led us to expository of our different perceptions with regards to understanding our universe, where explanations have to be the order of the day.

Some people are annoyed about god being a myth but, that is the truth after reading those books which postulate it existence and as model to follow before you can have a part in the kingdom(the heavenly realm) and those who will be annihilated. The books are full of errors if what they depicted is what god is then, I needless not to waste my time looking at them. They were just stories which don't add up. Sorry for saying that, which look as insult to your belief.

what actually make science very powerful in quest is that it is continuous discovery unlike religion that has defined everything through a single eye of god, who doesn't exist. If the way god has been depicted in those books is what it is most of those supernaturals professes in them would have materialized by now only to be the opposite.

One thing I have found in religion individuals(theists, Hindus,etc) as well as regionists is that they soon forget what the books profess when science proves them wrong.

My friend,
Thanks for addressing my post; but with all due respect, the above does not make any sense. I too, do not believe in everything in the bible, neither do I believe in the Koran. I don’t subscribe to any religion. But all these things have nothing to do with God.
These religions and books are man’s perception of God not God Himself. The fact that some human perceptions do not add up does not make God non-existent.
There is no point sharing my experiences with, you simply will be unable to grasp them.

@thehomer

Since you know very much about science, I wont spoonfeed you. Do your research about the pyramids and how they are aligned with the stars. Even the pyramids of the Aztecs in south America were aligned with the stars.

Modern science has not built a structure that has lived as long as the pyramids. Indeed modern science does not even know how the Egyptians moved giant stones. Some have speculated that the extraterrestrial aliens helped the Egyptians. Some believed that the Egyptians know enough science to counter the effects of gravity, thereby making a stone that weighs thousands of thorns as light as a feather!

Either way, these men, the Egyptians were believers, they believed in the non-physical gods to which they built temples. Once again we see the deluded foolish believers being better scientists than non-believers!

I repeat theists make better scientists, going by historical record, -- from Issac Newton to Albert Einstein. Weren't these men theists? Please compare them to your almighty Hawkin!

About communication, I will not spoonfeed you either; do your research or subscribe to the discovery channel.

Let me re-phrase my question: If a child asks you, "Uncle homer, whats the science behind a flying airplane?" What would your answer be?
Is this science or law of physics that allow airplanes to fly arbitrary or is it adamant and unchangeable? If its 'may' or 'might' what guaranties that the airplane may not fly today and tommorrow chose to swim or disappear.

I repeat, it is man's observation that changes or gets better over time. That which is observed, the laws of physics or the science behind them remains adamant and exact. If all conditions are met a million times, the same results will ensure a million times. If you cant grasp this then you are not a scientist.

Thanks

@mazaje

You are very funny my friend! You reply did not touch anything that I said, you failed to look at my post objectively. You are trying to make me sound ridiculous to no avail. I never said that the universe was created by "a male entity who interacts with humans , wants to be worshiped and speaks the human language is WHAT?." Why do you lie like that? If you are a scientist you should let facts speak against fact and not make up things or accuse fellow posters of saying thing that they never said.

I never said that the pyramids were not built by scientific principles.  Dude you are just making things up, and it is childish to resort to lying just make your opponent appear ridiculous. About electricity, I would simply have informed you if you are humble. But I will not spoonfeed you.

If you think that the best way to respond to the persecution that you face in Nigeria is by degrading science to a voodoo religion, then you are greatly mistaken. You cant stand up among your people and fight for your right and your beliefs?  I repeat I know people who are atheists in Nigeria; actually one of them is my friend, a very popular guy who is never afraid to let anybody know his beliefs. Every belief that people have affects others in one way or the other, it doesn't make then declare a war against others. My kids believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy but I don't. Their belief affects me in many ways even financially because I have put money under their pillow when they lose a tooth. I have buy presents during Christmas and pretend that Santa bought them, I even had to dress up like Santa some Christmases. Sometimes during Christmas the mall is packed with kids waiting in line to see Santa; sometimes you cant buy anything at some malls because of this. You see how this affects everybody? But I haven't seen anybody declare a war of lies against kids just because of their belief in Santa.



Honesty is very important.

all4naija:

@Justcool

First of all I want to thank you for those analysis of comments from you. One thing is that your views are from a scientific peripheral and I am glad you did that with what you quite understood.

Yes science is beyond chemistry and engineering you mentioned which didn't touch much on this matter of the origin of the universe. There are branches of science which have dived into this matter in a clearer pictures, which one of them is quantum science. It has gone far to explain a lot about things in our universe that would rather seemed invisible, how they interact, react, etc(explaining in layman terms).

The spiritual matter you are talking about is not a really something about the supernatural but state of man ability to develop inner feelings like love, patience, tolerance,etc and interact with his community. I think is an ability. There's nothing supernatural about it. We all possess that energy to interact with our environment which most people don't know. The metaphysics you made mentioned of is nothing supernatural either but a more concentrated way of using the energy in an entity to communicate with the environment, it more or less like the spirituality you are talking about. There is nothing spiritual there. Remember some of us were once believers or our parents were. We were once beclouded too so, don't think this not believing in god is just based on framed up ideology, were as it is not ideology at all.

Those experiences of yours if well analyzed carefully you find out they are not actually what you think they are. The mother nature is very powerful and full of wonders. These don't meant they are supernaturals. You can see how mathematics can play out in these and living god of religion defenseless in so many areas.It would have be thought god made mathematics.

Science is confined to physical as such because the universe is of physical entities, there is nothing supernatural in what we are living to say the least. I once gave a simple example with a telephone call from a distance country, without proper understanding of how it operates some individuals would deem it a miracle but it is not. These are how the things we don't understand about of universe are - just because they are elusive don't mean the are supernatural or spirituals.

On the final note, science is getting gradually revealing most of these things we don't have proper understanding of - science, by elementary definition, is discovery. It didn't  prove here is no other world neither did it prove there is another world than the physical but, prove all these things are truly not what would be a guess work with infinity's only probable. 


Thank you once again.

 

@all4naija

I know science is not limited to chemistry and engineering; I only told you about my background so that you think that you dealing with a person who knows nothing about science. I keep abreast of the most recent scientific discoveries, and I have actually met some very eminent scientists personally.

Just because you don’t feel, perceive something, or find it within the range of your perceptive ability does not mean that that thing does not exist.

There is no way science can speak about the non-physical; it’s simply beyond science.

There is an old saying that “who feels it knows it!” You cannot make pronouncements on my experiences especially when you don’t have such experiences.

It’s like a dog telling a human that the color green does not exist just because the dog is incapable of seeing the color green.

Or like a human telling a dog that certain high frequency sound, which dogs hear very well, do not exist because the human cannot hear or perceive such sounds.

Everybody most remain within his/her range of perception and should not call others fools or pronounce judgment on the perceptions that he/she is incapable of.

He should simply say that he had never experienced such, or that such experiences are not within the realm of science.

Thanks