Top scientist asks sceptics to probe existence of God
-
Many a times people like to look at this world based on our point of view. Like for example alot of questions like, why Children died of cancer? Why deform babies exist? Why some child are born with low IQ, why this and that, this and that. Its not difficult to think that God doesn't exist because all does things happened. But to be frank all the answer could be answered if People look at it in the point of view of God himself. God set the setting of our world and let us roam as and when we like. Just like one day you decided to have some fish. You set you a fish tank. Added some fish to let it grow and multiple. Soon the fishes grow numerous. They killed each other for food, done some stupid stunt sucked into the filter and shred into pieces. They become so dirty and shit all over creating all the bacteria and germs dirty the water, and died of sickness which they created. Hmmm what are you gonna do?
Use your almighty hand to save them!? If you does that they will only take you for granted as proven in the bible then where comes the thing as faith. How do you gonna differentiate the Good and the Bad that you gonna keep and throw?
This world is just a testing ground for better things to come.
Its amazing to see how babies are borned from day 1 as a sperm. The human body was so perfect just fit. for the intended task. You be amazed if you watch the documentary. To tell me that all living things comes from Stones is quite bizarre.
Further more have you seen Naked science on Discovery channel? There is alot of things which are supernatural and yet Science couldnt prove. Example Telepathy powers. And it existed. -
the very idea of a god or gods is so stupid....
To say that science doesnt explain everything is fine....But to say that the reason behind it all is an divine entity...n to say that....it cant
be seen is dumb...cuz it doesnt explain ANYTHING. -
Karma can be defined as Cause and effects. Our current actions and its future results are compounded of several causes and will result in compounded results. All things in this world are inter-dependent and in constant change. Hence the Buddhist defination of Karma is logical and science can always attestOriginally posted by Claudia_2006:Can scientist define karma and reincarnation?
Reincarnation, or rather rebirth can be proven. No doubt it is not accepted by the scientific community. Lookup in google Dr Ian Stevenson, who is a leading professor into the research topic of rebirth. -
"Oh, we dunno the answer to this question. Must be the work of God."
"Oh, why this happen. Must be God's will."
".... Must be God..."
".... Must be God..."
".... Must be God..."
WAKE UP ALREADY! Don't shuff everything that U CANNOT ANSWER or have TOTALLY NO IDEA and put it into ONE BIG BLACK-BOX named GOD.
Of coz its EASY to credit everything unknown to this "mystical, all-powerful" entity. But EASY = TRUTH? How gullible! And what kind of attitude u have? Anything u cannot understand or answer u say its becoz of GOD instead of trying to find out the actual workings behind it.
If there is a God, why would he NEED YOU - pathetic lifeforms? To entertain himself?
God, if he is indeed almighty, HAS NO NEED for you.
You, becoz of fear and psychological dependence, are NO DIFFERENT from a CAVEMAN 2 million years ago. YOU NEED a "GOD" for your own sake.
Therefore it is easy to see that in reality:
God don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.
Its no coincidence that over 95% of the smartest men (incl scientists) do not believe in a Creator God. Ask yourself why they dont.
By the way, its funny to see so many people who have no idea of science talk about it as if they really understand. Even if scientists can explain the union of sperm and egg u can ask where's the soul/spirit blah blah this will never end.
How many of u ~REALLY~ know about big bang? u think its like an explosion dont you? if so, YOU'RE WRONG.
It's true that science cannot answer EVERYTHING. Mystical stories (aka religions) can ALWAYS answer EVERYTHING without any need for proof - easy for them. while our scientists crack their brains day and night, story writers dont need to do that.
p.s > people who still question evolution live in ur own world. -
Waliew.... Where are the sceptics?
-
dont think the (religious-unbiased) scientists will wanna waste time and effort on such a silly topic. "probe the existence of God"...
better to put their talents into proper and practical studies.
** oh, i guess the smartest people/scientists who dont believe in a Creator God (well that means the overwhelmingly majority of them) are EVIL, lured by SATAN (<--- thats sarcasm if u didnt get it duh...) 
think about it. 
-
i dun believe it god lah..................
science cannot answer everything .. i admit... but that does not imply that god exist...
you cannot solve your maths problem.... does that mean your god has created the problem?
no, it means you do not have the knowledge.. that all and you do not jump to further stupid unreasonable conclusion.
if you all ungrateful god believer people open your eyes.....
if not for science, engineering, architecture, computer , do you think the civilisation would have evolved to today's situation.
do you think aeroplane would be invented if not for human (the wright brother) to use their determination and own hard work to create things for world?
do you think that computers would have existed if human(scientists and mathematics) does not use their own creativity to innovate.
we have no time to waste to think about god.... cos thinking about it will not help you to achieve thing in life...
you have to depend on yourself, not god, to achieve what you want to do in life.
people believe in god because it is a conveininet thing. -
so we are who we are?Originally posted by january:i dun believe it god lah..................
science cannot answer everything .. i admit... but that does not imply that god exist...
you cannot solve your maths problem.... does that mean your god has created the problem?
no, it means you do not have the knowledge.. that all and you do not jump to further stupid unreasonable conclusion.
if you all ungrateful god believer people open your eyes.....
if not for science, engineering, architecture, computer , do you think the civilisation would have evolved to today's situation.
do you think aeroplane would be invented if not for human (the wright brother) to use their determination and own hard work to create things for world?
do you think that computers would have existed if human(scientists and mathematics) does not use their own creativity to innovate.
we have no time to waste to think about god.... cos thinking about it will not help you to achieve thing in life...
you have to depend on yourself, not god, to achieve what you want to do in life.
people believe in god because it is a conveininet thing. -
Human brains are lowly no matter how intelligent one can be.Originally posted by skyfoo:likewise, can the book ans the atheists' qns?
"It's natural that humans live by logic." I want to say a lot of things but I just don't know how to express them. The sentence I just quoted, I hope you ponder upon that quote. Don't just put me off first. Really do go into deep thinking on that very simple sentence.
Skepticism is good, but it is not really good if you are skeptic but yet takes a stand.
Sorry if anyone feels offended.
-
Living logically might seems safe and we definitely feel contented, if not blessed. By logic, it seems, THAT is 'dumb'. Thinking illogically, you are 'dumber'. Which stand should we take?Originally posted by ToLox:the very idea of a god or gods is so stupid....
To say that science doesnt explain everything is fine....But to say that the reason behind it all is an divine entity...n to say that....it cant
be seen is dumb...cuz it doesnt explain ANYTHING. -
With reference to the quote highlighted in blue.Originally posted by january:i dun believe it god lah..................
science cannot answer everything .. i admit... but that does not imply that god exist...
you cannot solve your maths problem.... does that mean your god has created the problem?
no, it means you do not have the knowledge.. that all and you do not jump to further stupid unreasonable conclusion.
if you all ungrateful god believer people open your eyes.....
if not for science, engineering, architecture, computer , do you think the civilisation would have evolved to today's situation.
do you think aeroplane would be invented if not for human (the wright brother) to use their determination and own hard work to create things for world?
do you think that computers would have existed if human(scientists and mathematics) does not use their own creativity to innovate.
we have no time to waste to think about god.... cos thinking about it will not help you to achieve thing in life...
you have to depend on yourself, not god, to achieve what you want to do in life.
people believe in god because it is a conveininet thing.
"Ahh don't give a fuglah who create us or not or what happens after we die. All I know I have a life to live and I want to be at least contented in my life. I want to have a life that has many achievements" - A very fulfilling and enriching life in a logical sense. But does not capture the objective of life.
With reference to the quote highlighted in red.
People DON'T believe in god because it is a convenient thing to do too. So how? Neutral stand? Taking a neutral stand is a convenient thing to do too. -
Science can define anything in the world if they want to. The mentality of logic gives birth to science.Originally posted by Claudia_2006:Can scientist define karma and reincarnation?
Can scientist define karma and reincarnation?
Can why not.... Karma is defined as blah blah blah blah... Reincarnation is defined as blah blah blah blah.... Ohh... Ok I understand. --->Why you understand? Because it sounds logical? ----> Leading to acceptance?
Everything I said so far, may seems illogical to you, why? Because, logically, it sounds illogical. So be illogical truthfully temporarily... -
For those who read my posts, and if you think I'm posting bullsh!t, it is ok. Entitled to your opinions. But for those who are really interested, think deeper into what I have mentioned so far. I don't want anyone to agree with me in fact, anyone that agrees or disagrees with my points has just reinforced my points. Just take a moment and think thats all. if you think and after sometime, ahh don't give a fuglah, that's ok. If you think, and continue thinking for the rest of your life, thats the best. It will never lead you to the ultimate answer but it brings you closer to the asnwer.
-
Totally agreed! But it's not complete.Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:the inability of science to explain something, does not prove the existence of God. -
Originally posted by dinky1409:Totally agreed! But it's not complete.
-
Ha ha ha. Ok. If that's what your friends are like, then they really must be cavemen.Originally posted by sgquitter:"Oh, we dunno the answer to this question. Must be the work of God."
"Oh, why this happen. Must be God's will."
".... Must be God..."
".... Must be God..."
".... Must be God..."
WAKE UP ALREADY! Don't shuff everything that U CANNOT ANSWER or have TOTALLY NO IDEA and put it into ONE BIG BLACK-BOX named GOD.Of coz its EASY to credit everything unknown to this "mystical, all-powerful" entity. But EASY = TRUTH? How gullible! And what kind of attitude u have? Anything u cannot understand or answer u say its becoz of GOD instead of trying to find out the actual workings behind it.
Not every person with a belief is like the friends you seem to have. Just because they are gullible doesn't mean the rest of the world is.
Not every person with a religion just goes to their place of worship and make meaningless ramble all day long.
You are basically just making an assumption about religion itself.If there is a God, why would he NEED YOU - pathetic lifeforms? To entertain himself?
God didn't create us to make him more powerful or anything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a reason. It's just a reason you don't know yet.
God, if he is indeed almighty, HAS NO NEED for you.You, becoz of fear and psychological dependence, are NO DIFFERENT from a CAVEMAN 2 million years ago. YOU NEED a "GOD" for your own sake.
After saying similar stuff so many times, it's quite obvious you have an assumption about all people who believe in a religion. Have it your way. Btw, Lee Kuan Yew is a devout buddhist. Just a point of information.Therefore it is easy to see that in reality:
Eh..... What you're saying isn't really correct, because it works on the assumption that there is no God. So your statement isn't really convincing. Good effort though. Try to assume that God is real first, then look back to your sentence, God don't need men, men need God, so man clings ever more tightly to God.
God don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.
Besides, I don't see you expressing that you need God, probably because you consider yourself above the average 'caveman'.Its no coincidence that over 95% of the smartest men (incl scientists) do not believe in a Creator God. Ask yourself why they dont.
Yes, and smart men have been known to make mistakes. Even the smart ones. Afterall, it was scientists who used to tell us that electricity travelled from positve end to negative end. Now we know electricity is caused by electrons travelling in the opposite direction.
Scientists once believed light had wave properties, but will lose its wave properties after travelling long distances. And the guy who said that received a noble prize for what he said too.
Even in this age, we are always hearing variations of what "experts" say. Sometimes we hear coffee is good for you, yet at other times scientists say its not. If anything, science itself is subjective.
Science is basically man's study of the things around us, so it is still something done by man. So it is still imperfect and there are chances the scientific concepts we know today will be replaced by different ones tomorrow.
Another example is how atoms were once thought to be the smallest things, now we know there are photons, electrons and neutrons.It's true that science cannot answer EVERYTHING. Mystical stories (aka religions) can ALWAYS answer EVERYTHING without any need for proof - easy for them. while our scientists crack their brains day and night, story writers dont need to do that.
Story writers do crack their brains day and night but that's not the point. -
Not asking you to believe me, but just to say something I believe in.Originally posted by ToLox:the very idea of a god or gods is so stupid....
To say that science doesnt explain everything is fine....But to say that the reason behind it all is an divine entity...n to say that....it cant
be seen is dumb...cuz it doesnt explain ANYTHING.
I personally don't think religon and science are meant to be in two different things. At least, I don't think they're meant to.
God created earth and the scientific rules by which earth and all it inhabitants/contents are bound. Science is basically a study of things created by God.
"Nothing happens in contrary to nature, but only man's understanding of it."
That's my view on religon and science. Not asking anyone to believe me but that's what I think. -
Extracted from the 3rd paragraph of the ST article (notice line in bold)
"But his most complete argument for God appears in a new book, The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which addresses two radically divergent audiences: He asks scientific sceptics to investigate God with the same open-minded zeal they apply to the natural world. And he tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith."
If the article is read carefully (notice the line in bold), Dr Colins also levelled criticism at fundamentalist evangelical Christians who refuse to accept scientific findings like evolution..
Actually I feel that Dr Francis Collins did present a balanced view-point in saying that both scientists and religious people should subject their ways of thinking to more critical analysis. However, I also feel that after writing his book which is a critique on modern scientific biases, he should also follow up with another book that is a critique on the dangerous illogic of religious fundamentalism. Personally I think that both science and religion have their individual merits and their gaps. -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
Yes, but some people seem to take particular offense when somene says he or she believes in God/Gods. It's like they are very strongly anti-religon or something.
Extracted from the 3rd paragraph of the ST article (notice line in bold)
"But his most complete argument for God appears in a new book, The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which addresses two radically divergent audiences:[b] He asks scientific sceptics to investigate God with the same open-minded zeal they apply to the natural world. And he tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith."
If the article is read carefully (notice the line in bold), Dr Colins also levelled criticism at fundamentalist evangelical Christians who refuse to accept scientific findings like evolution..
Actually I feel that Dr Francis Collins did present a balanced view-point in saying that both scientists and religious people should subject their ways of thinking more critically. However, I also feel that after writing his book which is a critique on modern scientific biases, he should also follow up with another book that is a critique on the dangerous illogic of religious fundamentalism. Personally I think that both science and religion have their individual merits and their gaps.[/b] -
Originally posted by hoganrock:
-
Yes. It is perhaps possible with a new branch of mathematics call Cellular Automata. It has been proven that simple rules/equation system governing the individual cells in a cellular automata system produces complicated (and indeed statistically random) behavior. Such behavioir is very similar to life itself. Moreover, using cellular automata, shapes of muscles, sea shells, corals, leaves can be generated mathematically from scratch.Originally posted by MingFreeman:Those scientists should ask themselves:
Can science define what is "life"?
Why a sperm and an egg combined can produce "life" ? -
Speechless. That's what i felt when i first read ur posts.Originally posted by dinky1409:Science can define anything in the world if they want to. The mentality of logic gives birth to science.
Can scientist define karma and reincarnation?
Can why not.... Karma is defined as blah blah blah blah... Reincarnation is defined as blah blah blah blah.... Ohh... Ok I understand. --->Why you understand? Because it sounds logical? ----> Leading to acceptance?
Everything I said so far, may seems illogical to you, why? Because, logically, it sounds illogical. So be illogical truthfully temporarily...
And not becoz they make sense, rather they TOTALLY dont make *ANY* sense AT ALL.
dinky trying to smoke people? (<-- thats what most religious people excel at during debate... heheh )
Are u REALLY trying to say we should believe in illogical explanations instead of logical ones? I dunno what to say.
Scientific definitions are not written as a person pleases or depending on mood (unlike religious writings). The key word here is "testable" - a check. It doesn't matter if the person doing the "testing" is tall, short, holds a phd or only had elementary education, rich, poor, ethnic background, male or female, watever... Everyone who does the "test" will get the same observation and results. No room for bias or unsupported evidence. Definitions are also specific, as opposed to being vague.
That is why Science is credible. What technologies we have now are proof of science.
It doesn't stop here. Science is also truthful, any mistakes or points worthy of note is always corrected or highlighted. There is a system for correction. This makes sense too, becoz as scientists get more info, they are able to refine their work.
If u think that becoz of these corrections, Science cannot be trusted, then should we trust some illogical, unproven, un-testable, vague story like "reglion"?
Religion on the other hand, is extremely unstable, unproven, un-testable, i could go on... For e.g, different people have different accounts of their "spiritual" experience, but none had any way to prove themselves. Not to mention the heaps of inconsistencies and the stubborness and refusal to admit mistakes (becoz it will question the authenticity of the religion). That is one of the reasons why reglion loses its credibility.
well, if u really realised that what you've posted is bullsh1t then i guess there is still abit of consciousness left in u. -
Originally posted by sgquitter:
Look at the posts in this thread.
Ha ha ha. Ok. If that's what your friends are like, then they really must be cavemen.Not every person with a religion just goes to their place of worship and make meaningless ramble all day long.
What am I assuming?
You are basically just making an assumption about religion itself.God didn't create us to make him more powerful or anything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a reason. It's just a reason you don't know yet.
Yeah, there are TONS of OTHER things God didn't tell us too, becoz humans cant understand, yadda yadda watever reasons . Am I supposed to say it sounds more reasonable now? LMAO
I didnt assume that God made us so that he can be more powerful. God (if there is such a thing), according to u, is ALMIGHTY. Any MORE powerful is impossible. But if he is indeed *almighty*, then he has no need for us. Watever reasons will violate the "idea" that "He" is "Almighty".After saying similar stuff so many times, it's quite obvious you have an assumption about all people who believe in a religion. Have it your way. Btw, Lee Kuan Yew is a devout buddhist. Just a point of information.
Is LKY an authority in such topics? Why would you wanna bring him in? Why not other ministers?
It is not an assumption that I'm making. It is a FACT that an overwhelming 9x% of scientists (smartest and most logical people) do not believe in an Almighty God.Therefore it is easy to see that in reality:
So its supposed to be:
God don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.
Eh..... What you're saying isn't really correct, because it works on the assumption that there is no God. So your statement isn't really convincing. Good effort though. Try to assume that God is real first, then look back to your sentence, God don't need men, men need God, so man clings ever more tightly to God.
God (if there is one) don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.
Man clings ever more tightly to God
Given the inaccurate, ambiguious, illogical, (i could go on) nature of the "Holy Bible" (and all its forms) and its "Almighty God", the assumption that "the God mentioned in the Bible truely exists" cannot stand firm if we want to remain credible.Besides, I don't see you expressing that you need God, probably because you consider yourself above the average 'caveman'.
Why would I believe in something imaginative and false? And even go to the extent of NEEDING it?! Wow... Well, maybe when i watch movies or read a fantasy book, yeah, I can do with imagination but not when i want to believe in it for REAL. Yes, and smart men have been known to make mistakes. Even the smart ones. Afterall, it was scientists who used to tell us that electricity travelled from positve end to negative end. Now we know electricity is caused by electrons travelling in the opposite direction...... If anything, science itself is subjective.
I answered that in my post above.
Of coz it is man's study for his own knowledge. We don't have God telling us how to make a rocket or how nature is the way it is.
Science is basically man's study of the things around us, so it is still something done by man. So it is still imperfect and there are chances the scientific concepts we know today will be replaced by different ones tomorrow.
And i totally agree man is far from perfect, becoz there is no such thing as perfect. The good thing is man learns, and corrects his mistakes - this is good practise. The bad thing is some people believe too much and too deep esp in religious issues that they refuse to admit or correct mistakes - this is bad practise.
Which is more worthy?
To believe in something that truthfully admits and corrects its mistakes?
To believe in something juz becoz it sticks firmly to its (wrong) ideas? -
Originally posted by geodome:
problem is many people talk about very complicated stuff and they think it is a simple one-step solution.
Yes. It is perhaps possible with a new branch of mathematics call Cellular Automata. It has been proven that simple rules/equation system governing the individual cells in a cellular automata system produces complicated (and [b]indeed statistically random) behavior. Such behavioir is very similar to life itself. Moreover, using cellular automata, shapes of muscles, sea shells, corals, leaves can be generated mathematically from scratch. [/b]
for e.g., the emergence of non-life to life. Common people think that it is about a one-step process. Scientists tackle this problem in multiple steps. That is one of the reasons why the misunderstanding.
And the funny thing is, some people have that idea that there is only ONE chance for life to exist in such a long span of time (millions of years). The story of the tornado constructing an aeroplane is one good example of people trying to smoke others who are not well-informed. -
Hi there.. Hehe I was expecting this kind of skeptical posts but its ok I won't diss you for saying what I have written is bullsh!t or whatesoever.Originally posted by sgquitter:Speechless. That's what i felt when i first read ur posts.
And not becoz they make sense, rather they TOTALLY dont make *ANY* sense AT ALL.
dinky trying to smoke people? (<-- thats what most religious people excel at during debate... heheh )
Are u REALLY trying to say we should believe in illogical explanations instead of logical ones? I dunno what to say.
Scientific definitions are not written as a person pleases or depending on mood (unlike religious writings). The key word here is "testable" - a check. It doesn't matter if the person doing the "testing" is tall, short, holds a phd or only had elementary education, rich, poor, ethnic background, male or female, watever... Everyone who does the "test" will get the same observation and results. No room for bias or unsupported evidence. Definitions are also specific, as opposed to being vague.
That is why Science is credible. What technologies we have now are proof of science.
It doesn't stop here. Science is also truthful, any mistakes or points worthy of note is always corrected or highlighted. There is a system for correction. This makes sense too, becoz as scientists get more info, they are able to refine their work.
If u think that becoz of these corrections, Science cannot be trusted, then should we trust some illogical, unproven, un-testable, vague story like "reglion"?
Religion on the other hand, is extremely unstable, unproven, un-testable, i could go on... For e.g, different people have different accounts of their "spiritual" experience, but none had any way to prove themselves. Not to mention the heaps of inconsistencies and the stubborness and refusal to admit mistakes (becoz it will question the authenticity of the religion). That is one of the reasons why reglion loses its credibility.
well, if u really realised that what you've posted is bullsh1t then i guess there is still abit of consciousness left in u.
I hope you read my posts, all of them here, cause I'm not definitely smoking people or influencing people to join. -------> That's what they always say even though most of the time it's true
I know its very difficult to grasp of what I'm saying. But my main intention is to get people to think very deeply. And continuous thinking.
Science is truthful and whatever so on so on... Correct. Science is truthful because it makes everything seems so logical. What is logic? Judgement of the human brains? Don't give too much credit to the human brains. Who are we to do so?