the word “God” is too loaded with preconceptions for anyone remain subjective. I prefer the term IT. IT is not man, not woman, not emotional- , not vengeful, does not require worship, & does not condem those who do not worship IT.

There are quite a few that have experienced god/IT directly-not as an abstract idea- myself included. IT exist in all things, & can be experienced directly, at a deeper level than surface appearances, where we begin to know that all is one. We are all a piece of IT. The experience of oneness of all things , of KNOWING IT & being one , is beyond what words can describe or any need to convice people it was experiencing the truth. Not any god of any religion I have read about.

Each person is entitled to believe whatever they choose. IT cares not. Our history appears to us as matireal evolution, void of any god. The evolution of form, of consciousness, science, understanding do not prove nor disprove its existence. IT exist beyond time & the time iIT created, & of what is required to us for all evolution to take place. From IT’s “perspective” all time is happening in an eternal NOW where IT resides in its purer form.

The entireity of IT is infinite, & precedes the existence of the entire manifest world we can see, quantify & measure. There are many things that exist, yet can never be package & quantified into neat little formulas.

God does not exist in the same way that man holds his beliefs. IT does not exist within the same time & space IT created. The truth is, that we are all a tiny piece of IT, experiencing ITSELF,. Deep in the silence of our true eternal self, is the greater SELF of which we were all born & are a part of. This can be experienced directly, & is so real & so powerful no one who has this experience will doubt what they have experience is real. There is a level of knowing that is like a sense we never were aware of or knew we had. There is no middleman, no priest or Jesus as a go between.

An unrelated interesting “belief” – modern physicist- for many decades, understand that ultimately atoms are not little solid particles, & can’t be isolated to exist at an exact place at a precise time. Called the Heisenberg principle- accepted by Einstein & many other great 20th century physicist. The “particles” can only accurately be said to have “tendencies to exist” at a certain place & time, in what is called a probility cloud. We are not solid as it seems, & can more accurately described as being formed out of energy patterns.
Read the Tao of Physics. I find this understanding has deeply profound implications.

Einstein’s belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died.
Einstein wrote a letter to Besso’s family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, “…for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.”

Though it is not the thrust of your article it is my main contention with what you’ve said is that this is wrong, and in such an obvious way that I’m surprised people believe it. Yet people trot it out all the time. Why?

First, why it is wrong:
Here’s a negative I can prove: “The sun is not the center of the universe.” Here’s another one: “1 plus 1 does not equal 3.” You yourself offer a number of negative proofs: people do not see god in wood; the statue does not weep milk; prayers do not effect the outcome of events in the way people believe (god doesn’t respond to prayers and heal sickness and so on).

In a posteriori proofs, we can prove a negative by showing that some alternative is true that excludes the negated assertion. In a priori proofs, we can prove a negative by showing that the logical conclusion of some premises is a contradiction, therefore, the premise is not true. Anyone who takes a course in logic ought to know this.

Why do people use it then?
I think people say that we can’t prove negatives because of Russell’s Tea Pot example, which is a great example, but we atheist skeptics have taken the wrong lesson from it if we think it shows you cannot prove a negative. It shows where the burden of proof lies: on the one making the claim and not on the one skeptical of it. It shows that one can insert excuses into almost any assertion to the point where it becomes practically impossible to disprove. It says nothing at all about what kind of claims are and are not falsifiable. Russell, as a philosopher very well versed in logic, most definitely knew that you can prove all sorts of negatives.

Another possible reason is that people think “well, someone could always posit some other condition that would make the proof not DEFINITIVE, so we can never prove a negative period.” But this is just as true of positive claims; no (non-axiomatic) proof is ever going to be 100% irrefutable.

I agree that science has its scope of operation and faith has its own – that is total. It is consequently a bit foolhardy to look at gaps in nature that science cannot currently answer and then claim that God has provided an answer for this in the bible, or Quran, or whatever; likewise, it is a bit the same looking at nature as it currently is and show that it has been shown to be so in the bible. I refuse to believe that the bible (at least that is what I know) is a book of science and the mistake of assuming this to be true was the cause of a lot of problems to some of the founds of modern science – including Galileo and Copernicus. Science must get its evidence from observation and should be able to predict scientific knowledge currently unknown. Science is principally based on models that are more and more able to answer more and more questions that science poses (while at the same time posing new ones – that is the joy of the sciences). It is wrong – for example – to state that the bible does not agree with the theory of evolution so consequently science is wrong. It could be wrong, but science is correctable – it self corrects – case in point is the theory of relativity and classical physics as was put out by Newton.

On the other hand faith must be reasonable but it is also personal. We may not agree with the bible as a historic record, but it provides some historical document of some happenings in the past – just like there are historical books on Alexander and the famous knot (I don’t remember the name). What we can at least tell is that Alexander did live; likewise we should have some picture that there was a man in Galilee called Jesus; one of the authors of the gospels says he knew him on a one-to-one basis; why should we doubt this report of an eye witness? We could refuse certain facts of it all, but the main fact (at least for those who are not Christian) is that there was a Jesus and his message seems to have been that he was the promised messiah.

I believe that the Aquinas ‘proofs’ (which are not really proofs, but arguments for God’s existence) are sufficient FOR ME to have some certitude that there is a God. The attributes of this God would generally be dependent on arguments drawn from these arguments as well as on one’s religion. The cause and effect argument of Aquinas is especially valid for me because it states that we are a system of realities that receive existence and such a system cannot explain for itself. We could could assume the existence of multiverses and so forth, but the fact holds that to date; in this universe, we don’t know of anything that exists without having been brought to exist. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal can be extended to provide for the possibility of such happening, but this is limited by the amount of time it exists (OK, here I am using science as some kind of gap – but the general principal is that we cannot find that thing that came to exist on its own). What Aquinas then says is that if there such a system that cannot explain itself and thus should not exist (even by accident because then it is caused), there is a need for a reality that explains for its own existence.

This does not necessarily end up becoming justified by the big bang theory because there could be a better theory later that makes the big bang theory outdated; but it is a good argument for ME.

It is true that dogma is unchanging; by its nature it has to be. However, I like the argument put forward and it has given me some material for thought; it has been put out generally well without being insulting to me. Good discourse man! Good discourse!

I do believe in cognitive dissonance, science and theist.

I do NOT believe the earth is the center of the universe.
All measurements taken from earth, with galaxies more distant, moving away at greater speeds. This makes the earth the center of the big bang!
The Big Bang being proposed by a priest I might add.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1945606/posts

This area should be a great empty place, with matter forming on the outer edge of the expansion of space time.
This is why I do not believe in the big bang theory, among many other problems.
If the theory was true, then if you looked in the direction of the big bang, the red shift would be less than in the direction away from the big bang.

This leads me to believe, the universe is much much older and bigger, maybe even infinite in nature.

but i love YOUR sentence “why can’t you ask the same thing of God?”

& .. “”"science learns.”"”"

may be d god is phenomenon which comes under d science of mind…

its hard to explain people when they see god n science on opposite sides… basically.. may be science n religion are opponent!!!!!!!

I guess you believe everything you read.
Substantiate your faith with science not more trivia.

The facts are facts and the faith is faith.
One day all will be revealed in both science and faith and the facts will be plain for all to see.

Science = Faith
Disprove that!
Or better yet, don’t and simply end this argument and just be happy to live your lives with a loving family and make peace with your neighbour.
That is the scientific reality of faith.
1 good deed x Y = Z.
Conjugate that and rest happy that you are all faithful.

Next!

The facts are facts and the faith is faith.
One day all will be revealed in both science and faith and the facts will be plain for all to see.

Science = Faith
Disprove that!

If you actually research the theory you find that Darwin saw it as a tool of God. It was Huxley who wanted to make it into an alternative religion so as to eliminate the fact that there are places in the bible where homosexual relations with children are against the laws of the old testament

Eternal Damnation – Is it really a far fetched idea?

The thought of a person burning in torment throughout eternal without a second of rest is a little hard to believe. It is hard to believe especially when this torment is due to their not being perfect on earth. For we think that it is impossible for any of us to be perfect here on earth. How can we be perfect, when we are but only human? Even if man did naughty things on earth, but how could a loving God ever send such a person to burn without mercy, without end, with no hope of ever escaping. What could a mere human being do that could demand such a response from God? Unless the person committed the atrocities of Hitler they simply do not deserve such a conclusion.

Such way of thinking is the result of man making himself the judge. In his limited understanding without all of the facts he has determined what is just and what is not just.
Is it impossible for God to create all things perfect and in agreement with Him? Can God give His intelligent living beings the option not to serve Him? Serving God by choice they are forewarned of the consequence of not serving Him. Is this idea an impossibility?
God in His Word tells us that He created all things in perfect harmony with Him. Some intelligent living beings willfully rebel against Him. God made a way of escape for man but man must chose to accept the way of escape.

The law of God is in effect for eternity. When a sin is committed it is in violation of the law until the penalty is for the sin is paid. If man does not place his sins on Jesus Christ then his sins are never forgiven. For eternity the sins are in violation with the law and for eternity they will be served justice.

The essence of eternal damnation is that the justice of God demands that all which is contrary to His law be served justice. His mercy allows man a chance to place his sins at the cross. Once man leaves earth there is no plan of salvation in the next life. If man dies in his sins there is no divinely ordained method nor possibility of escape. Ever.

Have your sins been forgiven?

I agree with the gentleman with the Mark Twain passage, but Aquinas’ argument (which Aquinas would even agree with) actually goes back to Aristotle, who would argue that since something can’t come from nothing, there has to be a First Source.

The intriguing thing about this debate is that, even in science, there’s a requirement of faith to accept someone else’s extrapolations as fact. Case in point, back in the 19th Century, scientists were beginning to believe that man evolved from more primitive species, and that man directly descended from Neanderthal man. Now, up until ten years ago, that was the widely held scientific view until a group of Germans tested the DNA and found too many variances between Neanderthal and modern humans. Yet, up until that point the scientific community kept its faith in a Neanderthal progenitor of the human race. Heck, I still have atheist friends who still believes that modern man directly descended from Neanderthal despite the contradictory and compelling evidence.

So, to those, and the rest of you, who hold the old line that we evolved from the Neanderthal creature, how did we get here if the DNA evidence says otherwise? I personally would argue that evolution as we know it doesn’t come from random mutation, but through a concept in the computing world known as class inheritance, where a programmer (in this case, a Divine Entity) builds more complex structures out of simpler structures. This explanation makes far more sense to me than modern evolutionary theory — which looks more like a collage than even scientific conjecture.

Of course, as time elapses and we learn more about the universe we live in, the pendulum of course will continue to swing.

With all due respect, I must say that there seem to be some errors in your understanding of how theology works.

1. You seem to be limiting God to the spacio-temporal world. Anybody who’s studied theology will tell you that God CANNOT be limited in such a manner. If God exists, it’s HE who established science. Not the other way around. So limiting God to a scientific study will basically get you nowhere, whether you’re attempting to prove or disprove Him. Because pretty much everything we take for granted in science is the result of His work (provided, of course, that He exists). This, I think, is also why your claim about “allowing a crack for God” is fundamentally flawed. Either there’s a greater power that made everything in existence possible, or everything just “exists” without a greater cause. Claims like that make it seem like God is literally supposed to be some guy in the clouds with a long white beard and robe. But any theologically-versed Christian (or, for that matter, Jew, Muslim, etc.) will tell you He isn’t.

2. Because of the less scientific nature of God, the question of what constitutes as “evidence” for God’s existence becomes a bit sticky since, if God created the spacio-temporal universe, then EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE could be seen as “evidence” of God’s existence (yes, I know this is a circular argument, but it’s nonetheless an important thing to ponder). More importantly, the nature of “evidence” isn’t quite as objective as you make it out to be. If somebody did, in fact, have a personal revelation; that may very well be evidence to the individual of God’s existence. It may not be evidence to you, but as long as you can’t disprove his view, it’s completely reasonable for him to see it as evidence (this could perhaps be retorted with the “celestial teapot” anology, but let’s not get into that right now). Coming up with a “scientific explanation” for a religious belief doesn’t really do anything to discredit the religious belief, because there’s always the question of whether or not there’s also an underlying spiritual explanation for the belief. If God exists, then there will be both scientific and spiritual explanations for such phenomena. If He doesn’t (btw, yes, I am a believer – Catholic, to be precise), then there’s only the scientific explanation (one would think). I believe there are plenty of compelling reasons to believe in God. And while I think a skeptic is completely justified in his skepticism, I think he then needs to be a little skeptical of his own skepticism.

3. On the topic of intercessory prayer, I think your claim about “study after study showing it doesn’t work” is a bit of an exaggeration. Some studies have suggested it doesn’t. But there have been others suggesting that patients under IP DID in fact live longer and healthier lives than people who weren’t under IP. Scientific studies like these are always quite fickle, so perhaps it isn’t wise to put so much faith into them. Not to mention that there’s controversy over doing scientific studies for something like intercessory prayer, because many suggest that “scripting” such prayer (which you would need to do for such a study) diminishes its effectiveness.

That said, I don’t mean any disrespect as I typically enjoy reading your blog. And I agree that the comment you rebutted was DEFINITELY worthy of criticism (from both a scientific and theological standpoint). Nonetheless, even if you’re a non-believer, I do think theology should be taken more seriously than you seem to suggest in that article. After all, there’s a reason why belief in God has lasted so long. That being the case, there must be SOMETHING to it.

You should read about the assembly of a cell and the creation of a proteins, the building blocks of life. Bradley mentions that amino acids have to be put together in just the right manner to make a protein molecule. Then you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules, maybe 200 of them, with just the right functions to get a typical living cell.

I personally find it hard to believe that life began coincidentally, even if there were billions of years, for it to happen in some prebiotic soup that was our earth. The chance that the biochemical instructions that are encoded on our DNA, and those of the trillions of plants and animals on our earth, happened by coincidence, is a stretch for me.

Well haha what Have i Learned surrounded by nothing but snakes and worms…..
Just to believe in my Lord not what you have learned on this internet….have a proper life
I’m doing Great and to him whom the words not align in order than you will of course have a hard time making any sense of what we are trying to relay am I right…..Yes…. Proved my point buddy.

Thanks very much!

Also, regarding your title, “Science Learns. Does God?”, it is not a proper comparison, is it? Science is a discipline that studies the operation of the universe. In this case, the object of study is the universe. Science “learns” as the collective body of human scientists advance in their knowledge.

God created the universe, which came from his mind. He knew all about it before it ever existed. But the knowledge that God has does not fit into the discussion because it is not directly accessible to us. When it comes to the things of God, the proper thing to compare to science would be theology, which is the discipline that studies what God has revealed of himself. So if you ask the question, “Science Learns. Does Theology?”, the answer is yes. A good example of this is _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_ by Cardinal John Henry Newman [http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/] and _Dei Verbum_ by the Second Vatican Council [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html].

And concerning Intellegent Design. There is no Intellegent Design model;
every advocate of intellegent design has a different definition of how it
workds. Michael Behe, for example, advocates a form of theistic evolution
where God had to continually “tweak” the evolutionary process to produce a
desired result–but he accepts that the Universe/Earth are billions of years
old and that men and (living) apes share a common ancestry. Other ID
advocates are progressive creationists, day-age creationists, or young earth
creationists. How are schools supposed to teach something its own
proponents’ can’t agree on?

My life’s actions will stand on their own. I fully believe that if what I’ve done in my life is not “good enough” for Heaven; and if in fact there is an afterworld and the “filter” for entry is indeed based on knowledge of one book or another, then it’s not a place I’d want to be anyway.

Nicely said.

I will indeed make the most of my life with “>>>>?????”

And if some Levantine superdaddy has a problem with that, then I’ll just have to set him straight.

How sad for you if you feel that way. I am a skeptic deist (borderline agnostic). I have a ton of friends, all loving and educated individuals from both the very religious and completely non-religious, and we are all good folks with strong family support and encouragement. We all have donated time and effort to worthy causes, whether to Loaves and Fishes, or to educational facilities abroad and at home. We respect our fellow human beings, we sing together, we support local causes, teach our children right and wrong, and help our communities and their citizens to be all they can be.

All of us. Each of us. Whether theistic, deistic, or atheistic. To suggest we cannot do these things because we choose not to read the same books as you is nothing short of deluded myopia.