Article Image
News Link • Science, Medicine and Technology

Science To Rule Out God In Near Future

• http://govtslaves.info, Natalie Wolchover
 Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious — the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe — can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.

Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there’s good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever.

Carroll argues that God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in modern times, as physics and cosmology have expanded in their ability to explain the origin and evolution of the universe. ”As we learn more about the universe, there’s less and less need to look outside it for help,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries.

29 Comments in Response to

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 Ernie, I too thank you for speaking to the troll infestation of this forum.  I have been infuriated by those who get us way off topic with lies, slander, and general agitation.  They are like police dogs set upon a peaceful crowd of protesters. To tell the truth, I have thought of no longer participating in this forum because of these imps. But I don't like the idea of being driven off a site by malicious and illogical ad hominem attacks that have no merit. I'll admit I have used some of the strongest (but not obscene or blasphemous) language I have ever used in public in response to the wicked verbal assaults I and others have suffered here.  Adios!

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Thanks, Ernie. Thanks for the opportunity of personal expression that you have given us in this forum. And I apologize for whatever negative impact I personally may have caused over the period that I have been commenting.

I, having spent a reasonable amount of time programming, understand the BIG job of programming work that it is to simply keep a forum like this going. I appreciate, also, the amount of work and time that would be involved with enhancing a forum to make it easy enough to monitor so that one has time to live life and do the monitoring at the same time.

If you decide to drop the forum, I would understand completely... although I would like it to stay. I have learned a lot (and there is a whole lot more to learn) from the forum comments, themselves (to say nothing about the whole information process of Freedom's Phoenix).

Thanks again, Ernie - and Powell, and Donna - for the opportunity and the info.
 

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:

From the Publisher: 7 Years of an open Freedom Forum has provided many examples of the good and the bad of providing an open forum for discussion. Powell and I agreed early on that neither of us had the desire or the motivation to monitor the interactions on the site between readers. But this thread (and several others) have made it clear that we need to focus on making the site better as a tool for advancing liberty rather than a weapon for mischief. Oh,... and in case you need to know who gets to make the determination, it's me (or whoever I designate).

I remember the early days of the Internet in the mid-nineties before the "trolls" began to infect the internet. Anyone could ask a question or make a comment and get valuable information from those hoping to help increase understanding. But as time passed it was clear that a very small percentage of participants could shut down the advancement of knowledge and exposure to alternate opinions with a desire/need to get the last word... to the point of threats and intimidation.

We have ignored the FreedomForum for too long. It can easily be eliminated from FreedomsPhoenix without having a negative impact on the additional information provided to a Front Page posting's comments. Hammering away on a particular posting in the comment section will go totally unnoticed unless someone stumbles across that posting or is actively engaged in a thread on that link.

To keep the FreedomForum available, we are working on guidelines that would make it more useful and informative.

I learned over 15 years ago how ineffective and disruptive ad hominem attacks are.

(From Wiki) Abusive ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem,

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6]

FreedomsPhoenix has no requirement to even have the Freedom Forum and it has been of little use of late. Other sites heavily monitor their Forums because it is a large part of their traffic. FreedomsPhoenix' traffic has little to do with the Freedom Forum. We were very busy developing other parts of the site and for those of you that have been around a long time you know how much has been done over the years... from scratch starting in 2005 with No Template. Now we are going to revisit the the Freedom Forum concept so that it can be a useful tool to advance human freedom.

Oh,... and so we are very clear, this is my property and I will manage it as I see fit to forward whatever interests I determine to be of the most value to me. Your comments on the subject are welcome, but be fully aware that after consultation with staff, readers and friends, it will be me that makes the final decision.

Disruptive and/or abusive users of FreedomsPhoenix will have their accounts deleted. For the last week we have been developing methods to delete entire threads, entire accounts, block email addresses, delete anything entered by individual accounts, search and examine postings of accounts and anything else I can think of to purge all of the abuses of my property... by whatever standards I determine. The only contract I have is with paid subscribers and that is only for access to the eZine and some other Custom Features.

IF we decide to keep the Freedom Forum in a similar form it will be monitored (which means I get to delete whatever I want... remember, it's mine) in such a way that will add knowledge and understanding to the issues brought up as original threads or at the end of a posting that appeared on the Front Page.

I've been a very regular participant on forums for just under 20 years and I know what leads to inspiration and action and I know what doesn't (reminder, I get to use my criteria) and the use of the Forum here on FreedomsPhoenix has neither inspired or promoted positive action by the most prolific posters.

If we are unsuccessful in our effort to elevate the knowledge and information coming from the FreedomForum, it will vanish without the vast majority of our readers even noticing.

Peace,
Ernie

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

Suka: Again I must expose you as a liar.  In your post time stamped 01:27:15, you explicitly stated that in your mind, I was a thug and a pervert. Then you attempted later to claim I wrongly accused you of the statement because only Kim Dyer had said such things. (For which she, unlike you, apologized.) You are obviously a very corrupt festering sore upon the face of humanity. I certainly want no "help" from such a unprincipled miscreant as yourself.  Go home to Satan, Suka. You bring nothing but trouble and the stink of a troll to this forum. 

Comment by Steve Duncan
Entered on:

 McElchap, I was not the one who called you a thug, a pervert and a person practicing polygamy -- it was Kim Dyer. Your diabolic method of killing your critics by prescribing an enema of sulfuric acid is not only the way of the Devil but also that of a sick or perverted killer. You need to be medically exorcised by a Psychiatrist!I tried to help you but you are so paranoid to be of any help. Sorry...

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 Suka: Your claims against my character are illogical and without merit or evidence. I am neither a "thug" or a "pervert", and your unwarranted slander and libel is apparent to readers in this forum.  I am dragging no souls to Hell, as you say, and nothing I have written suggests that. Your miscreant display of reprobate evil behavior reflects poorly upon yourself.  I am too old to do more than pray the Lord stuffs a big sock in your pie hole. May God's boot be heavy upon your butt!

Comment by Steve Duncan
Entered on:

To McElchap, the El Diablo Chaplin of the dying whose souls he drags with him down to Hell when they die [?] said: “Kim Dyer apologized to me of her own free will, with no prompting from me.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah … but she still believes what she said about you …did she withdraw what she said that you are a “thug”, a “pervert” or did she retract her belief about you that you could be a Mormon practicing “polygamy”? None of the above!

Your explanation that you are a “Baptist Chaplin” doesn’t make any difference – your religion and Mormonism that Kim Dyer hates, are almost the same in principles and practice – in Kim’s mind.

It just happens that in my opinion, Kim Dyer believes that a Mormon in belief disguised as a “Baptist” is polygamous although not all Mormons have many wives – like the exceptional Mormon that Mit Romney is who is married to only one wife. He is “exceptional” indeed that even a whacko like Larken Rose endorses him for President!

You should know – and know it well -- that in the mind of the public what is seen [which I also see in my mind’s eye] is that your skin is dyed with the black color of a menacing “thug”, a dangerous “pervert” and morally, a darker shade of “polygamy”.

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 Suka: Or is it El Diablo? Kim Dyer apologized to me of her own free will, with no prompting from me. She also said she had no beef with Pure Trust. So what do you do? You agitate her. I can forgive her mistake, but your cold provocations are another matter. Kim has lost her father in murderous circumstances, and this, understandably, has her highly upset. It takes a real classy guy like you to pick away at her, huh?  Pathetic. 

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Seems to me that there is a group of commenters that comment together. Usually they comment about the same time that JV does. Most of the time they use slander, lies, deception, name-calling, and general bad-mouthing of other commenters and their comments... when the comments don't agree with their philosophy.

The tactics that they use are similar to the tactics of a terrorist cell that is out looking for recruits. These people put on an "angry" show, so that others who are angry will identify with them emotionally. Their tactics work along the lines of those Nigerian emails that we all get... the ones offering us lots of money if we will only send them a small amount to get the big prize. There is only a small difference that separates how the two operate. The JV group attempts to attract naive people who have been hurt in the past, and are looking for a way to vent their anger.

My only real question about who they might be, revolves around, are they a terrorist cell looking for recruits? Or are they a Homeland Security group, trying to ferret out people who are terrorists?

Whatever these people really are, nobody who constantly badmouths, slanders, lies about, attempts to deceive, calls bad names, like these people do towards fellow commenters, is acting sincerely, forthrightly, in a straight-forward manner. Be careful that you are not taken in by them.

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 Your apology is accepted, Kim Dyer.  Thank you.  Now if only Suka the agitator would take a cue from his idol, Vanderville, and exit stage right.  

Comment by Steve Duncan
Entered on:

McElchap, Kim Dyer called you a “thug”. Prove to her that you are not. Otherwise she is going to prove to you what a thug you are.

I didn’t call you a thug, did I? So why in hell are you taking your bite on me? Are you in a delirium of fear now because Kim Dyer exposed you as a “thug”, and you are afraid that she is going to prove what a Baptist thug you are for everybody to see?

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 Bite your tongue, Suka! I have never made fun of Kim Dyer, in fact, I tried to help her once. (I am beginning to regret that.) I am so fed up with the lies being shoveled so generously in this forum.  Yes, I asked Dyer where she got the idea I supported polygamy, as I NEVER have supported that or any of the perversions I was accused of. I am a Baptist, and and a former hospital chaplain. I take my faith in Christ, my morals and my Bible seriously. Perhaps she mistakenly associated me with a Mormon adversary. I am not Kim Dyer's adversary. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to act as an adversary.  Stop the lies and slander. This forum is being ruined by malicious, deceitful people who hide behind pen names.

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

 Since JV had opted out, folks -- do you think we should back up and support Kim Dyer? Judging from the way she writes, she shows a lot of energy. The bad guys in Freedom Forum are “worried” feeling inundated and overwhelmed! I think Kim Dyer can take them down single-handedly!

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

lol lol LOL. Look at all the comments that sprang up since midnight last night. Ernie, did you make a special call to KD just to get a little more action here? lol

Yabut, JV, since McElchap doesn't live in Arizona, maybe he doesn't have a palm to look at the back of like we folks in parts of Arizona do. I went and looked around the back of my palm, and I couldn't find any nuts at all! Of course, it may not be the season of the year for palm nuts.

I don't really blame your journalism school, but who ever heard of journalistic grammar like "you are a hopeless nuts?" I know. That's something that goes back to elementary school. They probably should have held you back a year or two. Or did they, and it simply didn't take?

Sorry. I was just kidding about the grammar school. Everybody knows that you are an eminent scholar... or is it really an imminent scholar?

Oh, double sorry. I gotta quit picking on you like that. Folks, anybody who can move from the Arab world like JV, and master the English language as extremely well as JV has, is truly a great scholar. In fact, he and his whole group are great scholars, especially when they let JV write their comments in the FP forum for 'em.

Anyway, we appreciate your attempts, JV.
 

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

 Kim Dyer: WHERE did you ever get the idea I supported polygamy? I do not. Nor do I appreciate being called a thug.  You are a person aggrieved and hurting, but you are lashing out irrationally. I tried to offer you kindly Christian counsel after you had approached me by E-mail, and I suggested you stop festering the wounds and seek further counsel closer to home, seeing I don't live in Arizona. I am not a pervert in any way, and your libelous insults regarding me should cease.

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

Vanderville: In ending paragraph #11 of Dr. Paul Davies' Templeton Prize address, the physicist said "So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."  The prize is "for Progress in Religion", despite whatever claptrap spews from your mouth. The prize was awarded in Westminster Abbey May 3rd, 1995, having been announced in 1994.  Elsewhere, Davies said "... when I think of God, it is as an abstract, timeless being." I made this distinction in noting Davies was not supporting any particular religion's version of the Supreme Being.  It is amazing, Vanderville, that no matter what subject is at hand, you declare yourself to be the foremost authority and do little more than attempt to shout others down, and insulting them.  Your speaking of Aquinas is mere diversion away from the issue I raised about Davies' proof for theism derived from his work as a physicist using mathematics.  And if you really knew science, you would know it IS classed as a "pure" science.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

 Now that Kim Dyer is back, I am out of here. Aside from exposing PureTrust's identity as Donna Hancock,I am sure she will "take care" all of you ... you "MarkVictor, psychopaths, liars, Illuminati," etc. etc....

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

Oh, oooOps … Kim Dyer is back! Watch out, McElchap, and especially you, PureTrust. Although I don’t understand what she is saying, I take it that she must have a VALID gripe against the two of you. Never mind me, Kim and I, are “miles and miles” apart. She says her piece much “smarter” than I do mine, and intellectually, she is just “an arm-length away” from both of you!

Now that Ms. Dyer is back, I expect “your hands are full” from now on, and you will be “burning your midnight candle”. [By the way, these quoted phrases are nonliteral expressions – meaning you will be so busy or too preoccupied... “an arm-length away”, means close or closer, almost similar, not far apart, almost the same; “miles” apart is the opposite of “an arm-length away”. These are STANDARD meanings – don’t attempt to introduce your own personal or customized meanings when not wearing a straitjacket.]

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

PureTrust, the expression I know you so well like I know the “back of my palm” that you are a hopeless nuts!" is similar to Kim Dryer's revelation of your secret that she knew you too well like she knew the “back of her palm” that you are a "she" in disguise as a "he".

I wish I know for certain like I know the "back of my palm" that you are a "she" and not a "he"... the same expression.

You always get to Limbo without miss because you know the route how to get there like you do the "back of your palm".

Illiterates hardly know this expression like "I know the way like I do the back of my palm."

You cannot understand simple things straight [scatterbrain] because your wandering mind always go around the bush [oops! watch out for this “around the bush” expression]. And your “logic” stinks every time you talk nonsense that you alone understand. You just have to educate yourself a little bit more so that you can talk to me meaningfully instead of making me yawn. I cannot go on helping you all the time.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

I do not waste my time with nincompoops who don't even understand the expression "I know you so well like I do the back of my palm that you are a hopeless nuts!"

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

JV, you are so funny.

First you want to "CLEAN UP THIS COMMENT WITH DECEPTION AND DISTORTION THAT MISLEADS AND FOOLS THE PUBLIC ... ." Does that even make sense? Do you really want to clean up some comment with "DECEPTION AND DISTORTION THAT MISLEADS AND FOOLS THE PUBLIC?"

Then you try to tell us that a theory is proof? Look at your words, "... but Metaphysics can and did prove that God exists, i.e., St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Theory of the Prime Mover." Are you deceptively trying to get us to accept that some Theory of Evolution is proof that evolution exists?

Next, you say that you "cannot just standby with arms akimbo [with nonchalance or indifference] and allow illiterates or charlatans to fool around and deceive the public ... ." It is starting to seem like you were right in your first paragraph. You are attempting to enforce "DECEPTION AND DISTORTION THAT MISLEADS AND FOOLS THE PUBLIC," not simply allow it.

And what, exactly, is the back of your palm? Is it the skin under your palm? Or did you mean the back of your hand? You are trying to tell us that you study the back of your hand on a regular basis so you will recognize it in the event you find it, lying somewhere, unattached?

What in the world kind of graduate school did you go to that you continually try to mix people up with all kinds of nonsensical wording and foolishness, and the "DECEPTION AND DISTORTION THAT MISLEADS AND FOOLS THE PUBLIC" that you use?

As for mathematics, do you even know what mathematics really is? In your quotes of great men of the past, have you even seen what they are really saying? They are saying that mathematics does not exist, except as a language that man, himself, has devised and put forth so that he can better understand and explain the Universe to himself.

Since this is so, mathematics is what people make of it. The mathematical proof of God lies entirely in the fact that God can't be proven with pure math. Therefore, God is the mathematical inverse of math itself.

It's kinda like when you hold yourself up as a great understander of all kinds of things, and then you show by what you say that you don't much understand anything. You are mathematically inversing yourself right out of credibility.

In essence, mathematics does NOT exist naturally, and only exists as it does to help people understand the things around them. In the Garden of Eden, the man-made language called mathematics was totally unnecessary and probably undesired.
 

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

The only science that stands to rule out God, is political science. And the only scientists who stand to rule out God are the ones who have not looked at the physical sciences, but have only entrenched themselves in the political sciences. And the only followers they will have are the people who love to be told by politicians that they (the people) are good, and that they are free. But not even all of the political scientists will rule out God, entirely. Indeed, the physical sciences do the exact opposite. Correctly applied science makes liars out of scientists who are against God.

Then these people will all die, both the unbelieving political scientists and their unbelieving followers, to be held in the gloomy dungeons of death, until the time of the actual judgment when Jesus returns and reawakens them. Meanwhile, the followers of, and believers in God, who have died in their faith in God, will have been kept with God in a wonderful, beautiful, heaven-like place. Jesus will bring these His people (the souls of these people) with Him when He returns. He will resurrect them all, reuniting them with their bodies, the believers with new, perfect bodies, the unbelievers with bodies that will sustain them during the judgment.

Then there will be the judgment, where the people will be divided, based on their faith in God, or lack thereof.

Look up at the stars some night. Get out of the city lights on some clear night, and look at the stars shining so gracefully in the sky. The silence of the night with its mostly-subdued night sounds can be SO romantic. The stars can be SO beautiful in their patterns. If you watch for awhile, you can actually see them slowly sidle across the night sky. The peace can be so inviting. Yet it can be an extremely false peace, FOR ALL WE KNOW.

Since the speed of the propagation of gravity has been shown to be the same as the speed of light in a vacuum (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity), we will not FEEL the effects of a collapse of the universe until we SEE it. If a gigantic black hole, or some other tremendously huge disaster were swallowing up the stars of space, literally destroying the materials and energies of all that we see in the night sky, we would not see it or be aware of it until we felt it - until it was virtually on top of us - because the speed of the propagation of gravity is the same as the speed of the light that we see. We have no clue as to how close an imminent danger might be.

The scientists know nothing with respect to everything that there is to know. And the political scientists are all hot air, knowing even less. And their followers are like them.
 

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

McElchap, now that the ignorance of what you are saying about Dr. Davies, and the Theory of the Prime Mover that you knew nothing about, have been EXPOSED, you are now burying your head under the sand.

NOTHING what you said about Dr. Davies’ 1994 Templeton Prize is true – what you reported was just your run-away imagination. Even though you ransack the whole Internet to look for ANY Templeton Prize awarded to Dr. Davies’ “equation proving the existence of God” you alleged, you will keep on looking for it till hell freezes over or until the crow turns white whichever comes first, but still you will NEVER find it – because it doesn’t exis! It was the product of your imagination you use as a bad habit to fool the public for a long, long time you are not even aware of it.

It was Davies himself who said that he won it “for my work on the deeper significance of science” – not for writing a mathematical equation proving the existence of God that you falsely claim he did.

This is just to remind you of your hubris every time you are disconnected from reality.

You don’t stand on anything about what your false report says on Dr. Davies winning the Templeton Prize award, nor on your ignorance of what is St. Thomas Aquinas’ Theory of the Prime Mover is all about. You will never understand it because it was intended for minds with intellectual sophistication. Do I still need to say the obvious?

Try to admit your mistake, even just once in your lifetime. It will help you to regain your self-confidence, and to get back your lost self-respect.

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

Vanderville, I stand by my statements regarding Dr. Davies' Templeton Prize. I know what I read about his landmark proof and the signifigance of the prize.  Did you actually read my comment completely, or look up Prof. Davies' Templeton Prize? Or Davies' own comments on his achievement that won him the prize? I know I did. Your hubris does not move me.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

WHOA …WOW, HOLD IT – LET’S CLEAN UP THIS COMMENT WITH DECEPTION AND DISTORTION THAT MISLEADS AND FOOLS THE PUBLIC …

McElchap’s comment below says: The ‘pure science’ of mathematics HAS PROVED GOD'S EXISTENCE! In 1994, Dr. Paul Davies, a physicist now employed at Arizona State University, won the Templeton Prize for his equation proving the existence of God, the Prime Mover.” These are all false, or at least incorrect!

First, there is no such thing as “pure science of mathematics” that has proven the existence of God. Mathematics can NEVER prove the existence of God, but Metaphysics can and did prove that God exists, i.e., St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Theory of the Prime Mover.

I cannot just standby with arms akimbo [with nonchalance or indifference] and allow illiterates or charlatans to fool around and deceive the public on this matter that I have studied thoroughly in graduate school, and therefore have had the privilege of knowing like I do the back of my palm.

This is the subject of my other comment on the falsified report still running in this website entitled: “Harvard historian: Ancient papyrus refers to Jesus' wife” 09-23-2012 by Terrence Aym … you can read this comment if you click this link: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/119301-2012-09-23-harvard-historian-ancient-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.htm

As slightly edited to make it clearer, this is what I said: “I have a ball in graduate school enjoying this academic course, specifically in defending my Thesis on Theology as a ‘selective’ requirement to Ph. D. when I explored the mystery of what I described in my academic paper as The Religious Realm: The Third Dimension of Reality [the title of my dissertation].”

Thomas Aquinas’ not mathematical but metaphysical Theory of the Prime Mover proving the existence of God is thoroughly studied and prominently discussed as a topic I explored and ably defended [before the graduate school’s Panel of Doctrinal Higher Learning], for my academic work of discovering this philosophical reality of proving God in the third dimension of the mystics, of spiritualists and spiritualism, and of religious shamanism of the mysterious Far East, especially prevalent in the Northern Asian Region. It was a metaphysical study of beings, supernatural and otherwise, and their philosophical causality, including an investigation and examination of various religions conducted in defense of Christianity in general, and of the Catholic Church in particular.

The second important point I want to correct is that Dr. Paul Davies did NOT win the 1994 Templeton Prize “for his equation proving the existence of God, the Prime Mover …” as falsely reported. Davies himself said he won it “for my work on the deeper significance of science” – not for any arithmetical equation to prove God exists [for scientists, that would be silly]. Thus for anyone to say that Davies won the Templeton Prize for his “equation” proving the existence of God is a very offensive lie one can attribute to a scientist.

The third important point I want the public to know is that mathematical “equation” is what St. Aquinas disproved in his Cosmological Argument for the existence of God saying that “the subject of a mathematical demonstration is defined without any sensible matter…Mathematics does not presuppose the separate existence of its objects; metaphysics does…” and that mathematical objects have an element of “Unreality.” Philosopher Simon added to what St. Aquinas said calling this mathematical “Unreality” as a "condition of reason", for they abstract from sensible qualities and primary matter, which makes it impossible for them, as mathematical, to exist outside the mind. That’s because St. Aquinas perceived the enigma of number and quantity as mathematical entities that exist “beside the world of reality” as merely some sort of “intermediate beings”!

There are more interesting points that I wish I can discuss with you without appearing to be presumptuous or academically ostentatious and “bigheaded”. But suffice it for me to say that the intelligence of the reading public should be given due respect they deserve. The worst thing that repulses me is when an ignoramus treats the public like a bunch of mentally retarded!

Nonetheless, this is just the way I can possibly help, when illiterates ridiculously pretending to be knowledgeable, are aggressively on the loose!

Comment by David McElroy
Entered on:

The "pure science" of mathematics HAS PROVED GOD'S EXISTENCE! In 1994, Dr. Paul Davies, a physicist now employed at Arizona State University, won the Templeton Prize for his equation proving the existance of God, the Prime Mover. Davies will tell you his math does not prove that God is the Supreme Being as espoused by any particular religion, but Davies does say the Prime Mover operates with intelligent design, and may have personality.  

Davies has performed the work of a forensic scientist, like a medical examiner doing an autopsy on the corpus delicti. He took a measure of various facts in evidence upon the table for quantifiable data, and pronounced his findings. His mathematical equation did a great service for theism by documenting the body of God. But, as any medical examiner knows, you cannot know the personality that resides within that body unless you have been communicating with it in life.

Davies, with science, extrapolated a logical deduction studying what physical nature presents to our quantifiable measures, what theists call "General Revelation".  To know the person within God's physique, or anyone else's, requires personal communication, relationship. That is what is known as being "Special Revelation".  To know God, you must experience Him spiritually, be in relationship. This was the message of Jesus Christ, that we might know God.

Powell's note about us not being able to test God is correct, as finite man is not able to test an infinite Supreme Being.  You cannot get quantifiable data for an infinity. No metric is big enough. But this does not mean you cannot prove the infinite Being exists by studying physical sciences. It should, and does, inspire many scientists to embrace theism and seek to experience God.  Amen!

Comment by Skeptical Thoughts
Entered on:

While it is true you cannot prove or disprove claims such as Gods, Ghosts, or Goblins; it is most probable that in the future scientists will demonstrate exactly how life comes to exist. And that demonstration will most likely be devoid of the concept of "God".

Comment by Sam Weathersby
Entered on:

Science best hope Poppa doesn't rule them out. :-)

 That we exercise faith in our relationship with God is true. In 1969 I did that & He proved IN ME that indeed, He does exist. If I had not been transformed by Yeshua Messiah [Jesus Christ] back then I would have stayed with sex 'n drugs & rock 'n roll.

 I can't prove Him to any one else, that must be done by the same act of faith I exercised. Yeshua said that we would know His reality as individuals when He said He would put the  witness of His reality in those who put their faith in Him. 

All I did was pray a simple prayer that I meant with all my being.

 "Jesus, forgive my sin & come into my heart [inner most being]. I take Your sacrifice as Your payment on my behalf, according to what the Bible says." 

Swimming upstream since that day in Oct. '69 has not always been easy, but I would not trade what Yeshua has been in & to me in my life for anything. He is real. His Word is true. I am not perfect, but I have a place to go when I mess up.

 Thank you.

 SamFox

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Sorry can't happen.  As God is untestable it cannot be ruled out by science.  BUT, that does not mean God(s) exists.  It means an invisible, undetectable God cannot be measured/ studied by science.  You either have faith or you do not.  If you do not why waste your time trying to disprove the undisprovable...unless someone is trying to pour molten lead down your nonbelieving throat.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


GoldMoney