Apparently, the old story still holds much of the time.

Priests are often locked in their beliefs and are unable to see things from another perspective than their own. The same thing may sometimes be the case when it comes to scientists as well, unfortunately.

We try to explain things in a way which relates to mathematics and physics but in many cases find it hard to "believe".

So, if you happen to be a scientist, but still is not a believer in a God, is it then more easy to think of everything in existence from a random/chaos or coincidental point of view, or is it possible to explain things by means of (perhaps thought of or assumed already) kind of "intelligent design".

I guess this question was meant for I.D. He is making his points as well, like me.

We know that time did not exist before the big bang. The big bang was not only the moment of creation, but also the moment of Genesis.

Still, we leave it to the physisists and mathematicians to explain it all.

Well, I.D. I guess I may give it another try.

Science is best explained by means of mathematics and physics, because both of these subjects relate to science itself.

If you feel lost, think you have committed a sin and possibly would wish for forgivness, you visit the church in order to be forgiven.

More often, people visit the church in order to worship their religion as well as practice their faith in God.

Most of the time the church is not supposed to punish or penalize you for the sins you possibly may have committed.

Though it is still known to have happen in the past (Giordano Bruno vs. the Catholic Church).

Really, the Catholic Church stands out today with its white uniforms and pure and "pristine" ceremonies.

The only thing I really do not like with the Catholic Church is the point or "seance" where people attending the ceremonies are supposed to be drinking from a cup (not vine, perhaps only water). I guess this process in its context is meant as being a cleaning or purification for the sins possibly having been committed.

My guess is that some people who are preaching in the Church also are having a general understanding of science.

Typically, they do not attempt to throw away science as being meaningless or out of context, they rather look at science from a point of belief (call it religious belief).

But in the end, priests (or anything similar) are not scientists and have no way at explaining the functional characteristics and behavior of neither black holes nor time by means of their knowledge as being priests (or believers).

This does not imply that believers can not be good scientists, but that certainly does not go well with most of you.

Perhaps I should go at this from another direction?

Would you like for me to comment on your comments?

I have aready started to define God. I have been doing that since I got here.

The Creator...

Stands outside of our linear timeline...

So your definition is complete now? Just two factors.

Elsewhere I could have sworn you had some other things to say were defining characteristics of God.

No need to swear, indeed I have made other comments about God. Complete? No, not even close.

I think that when humans try to define God, they inevitably end up on very shaky theological ground.

Yes, that is very true. I could give the defination from my Church but that would just be rejected by the Catholic haters here. So, Im not even going in that direction.

General terms is close enough. If something needs more defining I'll make up my mind if Im the one that needs to do further defining.

Apparently, the old story still holds much of the time.

Priests are often locked in their beliefs and are unable to see things from another perspective than their own. The same thing may sometimes be the case when it comes to scientists as well, unfortunately.

We try to explain things in a way which relates to mathematics and physics but in many cases find it hard to "believe".

So, if you happen to be a scientist, but still is not a believer in a God, is it then more easy to think of everything in existence from a random/chaos or coincidental point of view, or is it possible to explain things by means of (perhaps thought of or assumed already) kind of "intelligent design".

I guess this question was meant for I.D. He is making his points as well, like me.

We know that time did not exist before the big bang. The big bang was not only the moment of creation, but also the moment of Genesis.

Still, we leave it to the physisists and mathematicians to explain it all.

I request that you do some real hard thinking in answering a question from me.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why cannot I have my God along with my science? I have been doing this also since I have showed up here. Why do you object to this?

It really appears to me, I.D., that are you believing in a God.

Unlike many others here it may seem.

Which is not bothering me too much. In the end correct results for this project may be obtained from people having both points of view. Being scientifially minded as well as objective is an important way in order to be able to get any results.

Like salt water in the ocean, you have tons of data, but apparently not much real facts available to you.

Either you are supposed to be a believer, or you are not so otherwise. It is up to every individual person to make up his or her own opinion when it comes to this.

If I possibly stated my own views and opinions, I possibly could be modded out of this forum.

What I earlier tried here was having a look at this as seen from both angles or points of view. May such a "double view" on the subject of this thread ever become balanced and objective?

We are referring to Jesus Christ because it is assumed that he was a person who once was living in this world. In the end it is harder to define angels, devils and finally God, because these figures do not materialize in any way.

Do we remember Jesus Christ for what was thought to be right or correct in what he did, or for what was assumed to be incorrect? He was thought to be healing people from illnesses, but in the end he had to sacrifice his life because of hostility towards him (or maybe it was superstition).

Speaking of living at the correct place but probably at the wrong time.

In the Jewish faith, there is a fairly generalized recognition that the effort by humans to define god is at least in some degree engaging in a form of hubris that is not within accepted religious norms. You see something about this in the Tower of Babel story in the Tenach. Also you will see this in the writings of Maimonides - pretty much the preeminent philosopher and Talmudic scholar of the middle ages.

When various church doctrines define god, often enough they engage in exclusion rather than inclusion.

I think that when humans try to define God, they inevitably end up on very shaky theological ground.

Yes, that is very true. I could give the defination from my Church but that would just be rejected by the Catholic haters here. So, Im not even going in that direction.

General terms is close enough. If something needs more defining I'll make up my mind if Im the one that needs to do further defining.

In the Jewish faith, there is a fairly generalized recognition that the effort by humans to define god is at least in some degree engaging in a form of hubris that is not within accepted religious norms. You see something about this in the Tower of Babel story in the Tenach. Also you will see this in the writings of Maimonides - pretty much the preeminent philosopher and Talmudic scholar of the middle ages.

When various church doctrines define god, often enough they engage in exclusion rather than inclusion.

I think that when humans try to define God, they inevitably end up on very shaky theological ground.

Yes, that is very true. I could give the defination from my Church but that would just be rejected by the Catholic haters here. So, Im not even going in that direction.

General terms is close enough. If something needs more defining I'll make up my mind if Im the one that needs to do further defining.

Agreed.

Musicplayer,

I'll get back to you later tonight, my time.

I have aready started to define God. I have been doing that since I got here.

The Creator...

Stands outside of our linear timeline...

So your definition is complete now? Just two factors.

Elsewhere I could have sworn you had some other things to say were defining characteristics of God.

No need to swear, indeed I have made other comments about God. Complete? No, not even close.

If we are going to argue about the existence of God, might be nice to know what we are arguing about. So post the rest.

---

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why cannot I have my God along with my science? I have been doing this also since I have showed up here. Why do you object to this?

Who here has objected to you having your God along with your science? As far as I can tell most here are generally fine with you having both.

My objections arise when you suggest your views should be taught in science classrooms as valid alternatives to the current best approximations.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

approximations

or

Ummmmmm?

How about my best approximations of a Designer?

I have a problem with best approximations of there not being a Designer being taught in school. And that is what is being done in school.

Oh, what bad.

I started writing here and I fell out when starting a new tab using Internet Explorer 7.

Two dozen good lines down the drain.

Let's try again and see what I can get.

Order out of chaos - or maybe it is the opposite way?

Different states or conditions exist where also different rules of mathematics and physics applies.

Since we have both perfect symmetry as well as chaos and randomness in nature, we might assume that the latter state is more frequent occurring. Also we might define inorder as an element or condition existing in nature.

In Climate Science we are dealing with turbulence when it comes to the flow of water and air. Also we have the subject of viscosity which studies the flow of liquids.

In mathematics we are dealing with complex numbers, where such numbers like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 and so on (really, the exact numbers instead) leads to an approximation of the calculation of the final numbers.

Many other such examples are available.

But, any such state, whether perfect symmetry or total chaos and randomness can be explained by means of mathematical and physical laws. These laws are predetermined in nature. Meaning that a creator must have behind in order to make up something of nothing. Regardless of type of system, the order of complexity can become exceedingly difficult to comprehend and explain.

But what about the atomic world? At best it is either Quantum Theory or Chaos Theory. Still, certain rules might be applied to different states and conditions.

Why do we not see a perfect world in microcosmos? Is it because of its complexity?

Anyway, do we perhaps see approximations for one field, uncertainty for another field and pure guess for a third field or subject?

Mathematics and physics for the first, Quantum Theory / Chaos Theory for the second and the Theory of Relativity (two parts) for the third principle?

Maybe points two and three should be put up in the opposite order or relation to each other?

Apparently God is the creator of things and the Devil is the destructor of things. Two opposite forces. Why so? We still can not explain divine things based on neither of the three possible principles mentioned above.

It is generally assumed (because Albert Einstein said or stated it so) that God does not play with dices.

Why? Is it because we may be able to deduce one set of rules or principles from the playing of dices, or maybe no such rules at all?

Edit on this: Just came across another post here. Let us not forget the economy and market. We are supposed to be having rules governing the market, still it is subject to "fluctuations".

approximations

or

Ummmmmm?

How about my best approximations of a Designer?

I have a problem with best approximations of there not being a Designer being taught in school. And that is what is being done in school.

Well, if I brought you a thing that met some of your approximations it would be rather hard to decide if it was God or a fake.

If you are incapable of making an exact definition, then perhaps we could say that is because it is a myth.

But let's start with it existing outside our dimension of time and a causal event for the universe. As this being exists in a dimension that is not unfolded in our universe, that being can't visit us in this universe as it needs that other dimension unfolded. You also can't posit it being able to somehow swap dimensions as our time appears to have a starting point and the being would be folded to zero before the start time, zero of course being a nothing as you frequently like to point out.

Now cause. I'm not aware that string theory permits more than one uni-directional dimension. Perhaps that is a flaw in the theory. If we discard the requirement that the being exist outside of time, I believe we can have cause, strange as it may seem. The being can self cause. The issue then is you can't anthropomorphize the being, but that isn't in our rule set, so all is good. In this case the being becomes the universe.

---

Correctly. Theory and speculation always go hand in hand.

First theories are being created and developed for certain subjects, later these theories become proven by means of observation and scientific studies.

One way of trying to explain the Universe is by means of understanding stars and planets (possibly you need to be an astronomer in order to do this).

Another way of explaining the Universe is by means of mathematics and physics.

Some people are dealing with cosmology where the subject of time and space (including hyperspace and multiverses) are relevant.

Therefore, there are always more than one way in which one particular subject of interest may be approached. Possibly different approaches towards a subject may return different results or understandings back in return.

For each of these areas, certain elements and principles may only be explained by means of mathematics and physics.

Still, there are many people who are trying to explain nature by means of philosophical thinking.

Which means that the thinking process, including theories and possible speculation about certain subjects always will be ahead of observation and proof of facts.

All I have stated is all that I have stated. It seems to reason that the Creator/Designer stands outside of our timeline. I did not say the Designer is in another universe. The Creator of "spacetime, the fabric of the universe, stands outside of it. If you understand Christianty [and all other Faiths believe the Maker has returned for some reason or another]in any way shape or form you would understand that the Creator/Designer has entered in His Creation many times. After all, it is the Designers Universe.

It has been known that History in time becomes Legend and because of Secular Humanism---Myth.

I do not believe in string theory. Nature tells us that everything has a start and end. We live then die. The stars themselves live then die. I believe that this universe will Crunch and perhaps start all over again; I have already stated that I do not believe in Reincarnation.

I believe that hyperspace could be real? But, a Einstein–Rosen bridge more realistic.

I also believe that we are Privileged and Unique. I also believe that the Maker of spacetime built into us the want to explore His universe. And has put us in the right place [earth] at the right linear time for that exploring. And it would appear to me that we have just the right tools for that exploring at just the right time.

The only question is if we live long enough as the human race to do so. All Faiths share many morals that allow us to live in peace. And that question appears to be up to us if we do live in peace. It would also appear that the Designer has put all of His eggs, so to speak, in one basket. The Design is not only intelligent it is built to instill intelligence in us. So, don't expect the Designer to come and Teach us all how to get along when that has been done. Don't expect the Designer to come and show us how to build spaceships to explore His universe when that intelligence has already been instilled.

Lastly, don't expect me to be anything more the general in defining what God is, mainly because Im on the inside looking out, not on the outside looking in. The Bible tells us that we are made in the Designers Image. It is not defined any more then that. I don't know the mind of the Designer in that matter. I would guess that in the Designers Image could mean intelligence. It does not need to mean visual likeness, it is not defined in the Bible. I say box, you think cube perhaps with one side that can open. I say green and not all of us agree. In the Designers Image need not mean a head with two eyes and a body with two legs and arms. It could very well mean we look just like the Designer? However in His Image could mean many different things and as I said I do not know the Designers mind I can only make some guesses just like science does.

For the existance of a GOD'is bestowed on the person.Past History has revealed that children were Sacroficed and killed for a God.There was then and now lots of violence in the name of religion.Is it that are existence was just chance that being on a goldylocks planet sparked our lives from one celled oganisms.You be the judge.

---

So if God is the creator of everything, are we assumed to believe everything.

In the same way, the devil is supposed to be the destructor of everything, especially our faith.

I have not checked this specifically out yet, but as far as I know, there are still no definitive proof that cosmic strings exist even though there are theories present about such strings. For black holes and the creation of the Universe by means of the Big Bang we think we have got a little further.

Many people do not believe in God, still they run scientific projects and are having both an interest as well as knowledge about the subject. Still religion perhaps is not science in the same way, or how is it going when it comes to this?

We definitely do not take everything dealing with religion for granted. In science, things that yet have to be proven are either theories, hypothesis, or speculation. They are later proven by means of experiments and verification.

We make a distinction between the good and evil by means of defining both a possible God as well as a possible devil and relate each thing to each other in an appropriate way. We do not have to make any scientific assumptions or conclusions in order to be able to do such a thing, still it is being done in such a way.

For sins possibly having being carried out or done, you are supposed to be pardoned by the church, either by means of forgiveness or possibly absolution.

Which assumes that you either is a believer or otherwise being a member of either the Catholic Church or the Protestantic Church, or possibly something else (congregation).

But it may seem that belief or "always doing the right thing" does not always lead to a reward. In the end you maybe end up in "Hell" if you are not a believer, or most likely in "Heaven" if you are a believer. If you are a scientist, you therefore may risk ending up in "Hell" if you either do not believe or is otherwise unable to "prove" certain things when it comes to religious facts.

A long time ago it was easy to believe in god or gods. Men and women didn't understand most of the forces of nature, so when it stormed god made the lightning and when there was a drought god witheld the rain. Everything that happened to them that they didn't do themselves god did. Their leaders encouraged this whether they believed or not and they encouraged the fear of god so the everyday man could be manipulated to do their bidding. If you don't obey me god will punish you and visa versa if you do my bidding and don't steal from me or fool around with my wife god will reward you after you die by taking you into his arms in heaven. Most people at least claimed to believe in god because there was no other explanation for the occurrance of extraordinary events whether good or bad.

In current times logic and science have teamed up to provide rational reasons for the forces of nature. It is most likely our superstitious nature that allows some of us to still cling to the belief that god causes natural events to happen and the stubborn belief that everything has to happen for a reason.

Also one can believe in god and not be religious or be religious, or at least follow the practices of a religion, and not believe in god. Most religions are a good thing as they provide guidance for proper behavior in this ever increasingly crowded world. It's OK to live an uncontrolled life as long as you live alone and make no contact with the rest of humanity, but if you choose to live in a crowded society you need to live by the rules decided upon by that society. That has been religions function since we started living in organised settlements.

Currently I believe god is us, as reflected by the rules of society.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Bob,

Good, thoughtful post