As well, I should point out that had man not questioned and designed that it was up to him to discover the workings of the universe, you wouldn't be able to post to this very forum.
Disproving is so boring, let's play "how did god evolve?" Did you know Yahweh was the serpent? It's true! And he had two brothers, B'aal (Both Mammon and Hadad) and Mot, Death himself. They were the sons of El, of the Elohim, making at best Jesus the grandson of god. But there's more! B'aal may have been a title, and as such El, Yahweh and Mammon/Hadad get confused for each other and their characteristics as their legends were spread around the ancient middle east, so you end up with oddities such as the Baal cult of Carthage, and the modern Beelzebub, a name for a Christianized devil.
But who was Baal Hadad? Why, he was the lord of heaven! Then that would make Yahweh the serpent, and the deceiver.
Anyway, my point is, even if I did disprove such a thing, the history and philosophy is so convoluted, and your faith is so basic and principled (and frankly, you're young) that you'd never accept it, and I could probably make any case I wanted to regardless.
I've been thinking how to explain this, because it's been bugging me how you haven't gotten it. Let's put this in math terms.
x+4=6 Obviously x=2. Now, take a look at this. a+4=6 A also equals 2. Therefore x=a. I had the choice to label the number 2 any letter, but in the first equation, I chose x. Regardless of what I chose to label it as, it still represents the number 2. However, "x" doesn't always represent 2. In the equation x+3=6, x=3. So x doesn't always have to represent just one thing.
Taking one step forward, in the English language, "house" is defined as a place of human shelter. Now in other parts of the world, the French word "maison" means the same thing. So where we, as humans, take shelter can be represented by several words, depending on where we are in the world.
Moving to my point, what I'm saying is that humans chose the term "day" to represent the 24 hour period in which the Earth rotates. We chose that term, and could have chosen anything else. When I'm playing Minecraft, the day I refer to when I speak with my friends isn't 24 hours long, but 12 minutes. But that day may represent something else entirely to God.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be going into hibernation while playing Skyrim.
Alternatively, I would only believe in God if you presented cold hard truth that he doesn't exist. Your argument demands "faith", mine demands "proof".
You can't break belief without proof. One could say that, "I believe I can fly." Until you explain to that person that it is physically impossible for humans to fly, he will still think that he can fly.
So, in this case, if you really want me to stop believing in God, I expect proof that he doesn't exist. I want the report on my desk by 5.
You seem over concerned that I give a crap about your faith. And again, you cant prove a non existance, only the stuff that does exist, so technically onus is on you, especially since it seems to matter to you.
It piques my curiosity to see someone this interested in my faith, yet not a practicing member themselves. I have to apologize. Ever since my first post (which was the Walking Dead quote over on the other topic), I felt as if I was on the defensive. The quote expressed my opinion of God pretty accurately, so I posted it, but it got rather... negative feedback. I was hostile ever since. Sorry :D
We talk about ideas, no one really (should) care about personal faith. My issue comes from when people start attempted defences when they themselves dont have the necessary info to do so.
The feedback was to the simplicity and source. Most here are well educated, some in seminaries, most universities, and expect from each other higher quality discourse, sources and ideas.
You seemed to believe you came in with ideas and info we had never before considered, so to us you were a nuisanse.
Day means the amount of time it takes a planet to rotate on its own axis. A day on Earth is very different to day on Mars, and the same applies to years.
I'm going to try and end that back and forth feud there with a new thought:
Have you ever realized that science wouldn't be the same without religion to have pushed it down? Without religion telling everyone that some deity or god was responsible for everything, there would not have been science to try to find a new way to figure things out.
To the original post of this thread, religion and science, despite popular belief, or perhaps because of it, are not mutually exclusive. I happen to know a man who is a great physicist and a devout mormon. I myself believe in evolution AND the existence of multiple deities.
honestly if applying certain sciences to religion such as quantum mechanics god is proven to exist...with the double slit experiment we now know as a fact that consciousness directly effects matter on a sub atomic level... fluctuation between its a particle one moment then a wave of energy the next...without a primary consciousness matter could not have formed beneath this principal so a primary source of "life" must exist did it send a son to die for my sins...well kinda doubt it...
OK, I'd advise against using quantum mechanics to prove something if you don't understand it at all.
Two main science errors here;
1) You assume conciousness is required for waveform collapse (or whatever analogous situation you have in your favourite interpretation). That is only true in a very few, very unpopular interpretations which deliberately shoehorn human conciousness into things.
2) Things do not fluctuate between wave and particle. Rather things have both wave and particle existence. The (classical style) waveform describes the probabilistic distribution of an object that, in interactions, behaves as a (classical style) particle. Honestly, both are convenient classical shorthand for purely quantum nature phenomena.
hmm... i like this...i agree on my first error in stating that it is a requirement, but i would like to further understand the angle of my second error. i was looking from a purely post double slit experiment if you have other topics regarding the phenomena i would appreciate it. i do believe still that IF consciousnesses can effect matter than at least in some form ones consciousness is capable of continuing beyond the death of a body. this is not me attempting debate just curiosity and conversation.
It's not consciousness affecting matter, that's like saying McDonald's is fatty because it's quick. It's observation, and if I'm not full of shit, observation is a catalyst for otherwise randomly occurring events, not the sole driving force behind such things. Pal of course knows much, much better.
Regardless, how would this result in consciousness continuing after death? Even if these particles behaved how you thought they did, without the working biological tissue to both support the "energy" and to organize it into forms that become active, they're just random particles that happened to be powering your brain at the moment of death, and will scatter and decay just like any other.
Hello, I think we should stop worrying about religion because if he really wants us why we are lied to you it for thousands of years? Why did you it to silence the science? well it is because they are greedy for power is mainly accause of religion that there are quarrels in the world and there is war and conflict if religion never existed we would be much more developed as a society. They lie to us for many thousands of years and we continue to believe them. I do not say to stop believing in God you can but you can pray at home and not encourage power-hungry person.
The people on this forum are going to rip that to shreds. Just warning you. You'd better have some solid back up arguments for your rebuttal. Not that I speak from experience or anything. :P
