Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested
Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!
Could Science Ever Completely Eliminate God as an Explanation of Existence?
The creation story in Genesis explains God's role in creating the universe. (Photo: Shutterstock.com)
Explanations for the most fundamental of questions — how the universe as we know it came to exist — has been discussed and debated for centuries. Before widespread scientific advancement, it was commonplace for God to be invoked as the explanation for natural phenomenon, but now some are saying that at the rate science is going, it will eventually rule out the necessity for God as an explanation.
In fact, Sean Carroll, a cosmologist with the California Institute of Technology writes that although using God as an explanation for natural phenomenon 2,000 years ago was acceptable, “now, we can do much better.”
Life’s Little Mysteries reports that Carroll recently published an article in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity discussing this very topic. Carroll discredits God as an explanation when held to the same standards as scientific theories and writes eventually “conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.”
In his article, Carroll “[attempts] to explain the rationale behind the belief that science will ultimately understand the universe without involving God in any way.”
Carroll begins to explain the work and cosmological evidence gathered early in the last century and brings us to the Big Bang Theory, which Life’s Little Mysteries writes has “gobs of evidence” collected in its favor. Still, Carroll writes turning to believe in God as a theory for creation of the universe is “tempting” because of the “inability of established physics to describe the Big Bang.”
Carroll points out that this temptation comes from thinking that the universe had a beginning. He writes that some cosmologists believe the “Big Bang” is only ”a transitional stage in an eternal universe,” meaning the universe didn’t necessarily have a beginning where it was “created from nothing.”
“There is no way to decide between beginning and eternal cosmologies on the basis of pure thought; both possibilities are being actively pursued by working cosmologists, and a definitive judgment will have to wait until one or the other approach develops into a mature scientific theory that makes contact with observations,” he writes.
Carroll also brings up the “why this universe” argument, which God is often used as an explanation to answer. This argument basically states that if the requirements for intelligent life to form are very specific as laid out by science, then the fact that our universe was fortunate enough to meet those specific conditions shows evidence of God’s handiwork playing a role.
Life’s Little Mysteries explains Carroll’s thoughts on this sentiment in the simplest terms (emphasis added):
Some versions of quantum gravity theory, including string theory, predict that our life-giving universe is but one of an infinite number of universes that altogether make up the multiverse. Among these infinite universes, the full range of values of all the physical constants are represented, and only some of the universes have values for the constants that enable the formation of stars, planets and life as we know it. We find ourselves in one of the lucky universes (because where else?).
Some theologians counter that it is far simpler to invoke God than to postulate the existence of infinitely many universes in order to explain our universe’s life-giving perfection. To them, Carroll retorts that the multiverse wasn’t postulated as a complicated way to explain fine-tuning. On the contrary, it follows as a natural consequence of our best, most elegant theories.
Once again, if or when these theories prove correct, “a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not,” he wrote. And there goes God’s hand in things.
In addition to theories between scientists and theologians as to how the universe came to be, Carroll writes other arguments favoring the role of God include:
- The fact that the universe exists is simply because God allows it to be so. “He is the answer there is something rather than nothing.”
- The fact that the universe is able to sustain itself in the way it does is because God allows it to be so. “…as the sustainer of the self-sustained spacetime egg and as the creator of its quantum laws.”
- The fact that the observational and regular laws of nature are not a coincidence. “If there is no cause of this, it would be a most extraordinary coincidence – too extraordinary for any rational person to believe.”
Carroll writes it is difficult to respond to arguments where why something happens is being considered beyond the fundamentals of what happens. He acknowledges that this is most likely not going to be considered a good enough comeback, but “the ultimate answer to ‘We need to understand why the universe exists/continues to exist/exhibits regularities/came to be”‘ is essentially ‘No we don’t.’”
To Carroll, and most scientists he writes, there is no reason to ask “why” things exist as they do, like the regularity seen in the laws of nature, since they are understood as “nomological facts.”
To be fair, Carroll does give the hypothesis of God as an explanation the same treatment as any other scientific idea. Putting the God hypothesis next to the same standard as any other scientific hypothesis, Carroll finds this theistic reasoning lacking (emphasis added):
Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions – a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor. If and when cosmologists develop a successful scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, we will be left with a picture in which there is no place for God to act – if he does (e.g., through subtle influences on quantum-mechanical transitions or the progress of evolution), it is only in ways that are unnecessary and imperceptible. We can’t be sure that a fully naturalist understanding of cosmology is forthcoming, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt it. Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena; now, we can do much better.
Carroll does write that belief in God and religion “serve purposes other than explaining the natural world.” He also concedes that his arguments do not add up to “proof” that God does not in fact exist, only that using God as an explanation to explain the natural world is not a successful theory by the standards of science.
Read more details of Carroll’s arguments of “Does the Universe Need God?” here.
(H/T: Yahoo! News)
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’ 594 Comments
Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members 521 Comments
Pope Francis’ Sermon Sparks Debate: ‘Even the Atheists’ Have Been Redeemed ‘With the Blood of Christ’ 498 Comments
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 400 Comments
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 334 Comments
Faith
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
334 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 290 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
153 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
Read More
-
Dem. Rep. Apologizes for Attending ‘Racist, Anti-Semitic and Homophobic’ Speech
Read More
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
Read More
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
117 Comments
Technology
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
Read More
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
-
6 Fascinating Spy Gadgets You’ll Probably Want (and Can Have) After Seeing
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (343)
thx1138v2
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:01pm“God is dead” – Friedrich Nietzsche, 1892.
“Friedrich Nietzsche is dead” – God, 1900
Something for the scientists to keep in mind.
Report this comment
Philfife1
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:12pmWell said
Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:22pmBrilliant!
An encyclopedia of meaning in 2 short sentences.
Love it!
Report this comment
Fatheroftwo
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:25pmWait! It can’t be true! If GOD is no longer the reason for our existence then that leaves only one other possible explanation!
WE ARE ALL A FAILED ALIEN EXPERIMENT!!!!!!!
AHHHHHH………NOOOOOOOO….
(beam me up Scotty! No intelligent life found!)
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:35pmScience only exposes and explains the tools God uses.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:45pmI’ll be borrowing that one.
Report this comment
RWCT
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:47pmIn the BEGINNING[TIME], GOD[]Force/Energy] CREATED [Motion] the Heavens[SPACE] and the EARTH[Matter]. The FIRST sentence in the Bible states the 5 BASIC/Fundamental Elements of science. The sciences, originally were to study HIS Creation, to try to understand HIM. Now, of course, it tries to disprove this, which then is pseudo science. Keep trying guys re Dark matter etc. Without God, their wisdom is that of FOOLS, as Gods’ WORD also says we KNOW by the CREATION around us we stand without EXCUSE, that there IS GOD. Repent and believe this TRUTH!
Maranatha
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:53pmAnd who did God say that to? I don’t recall anyone hearing it.
Report this comment
PutMoreOnMyPlate
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:03pmDoes anyone feel that? Seriously, do you? Just sit back and clear your head and do you feel it?
Report this comment
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:30pm“Friedrich Neitzsche is God.” — The Neitzschians from “Andromeda”
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:34pmPUBLIUS…..Not everyone can understand the triple-encrypted, mega digitized, encoded letter that was written and sent to us, by the ineffable, mysterious supreme deity of the universe….Fuggit about it.
Report this comment
mr.goodvibe
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:43pmIf this is true then can we open a portal and send all the commies and goat humpers to another part of the multiverse please.
Report this comment
mr.goodvibe
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:48pmLESBIAN PACKING…. I thought the Pleidians were from Andromeda.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:03pmCreationism is the Lord’s account of creation. Science by definition can only give the “observed” version. I can see that if one was present observing God putting His Word into motion …….It could very well have looked like a “BIG bang”. So?
Report this comment
jzs
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:18pmSo where did God come from?
Report this comment
pantokrator
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:26pmJZS,
God always was (Or as I like to say, He simply is). He is the Alpha and Omega, and by the definition, He requires no beginning, as He has no end.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:51pmJZS…..All it takes is one tiny spark of FAITH. That, cannot be learned nor can it be imbued. People are born into it or they are not. if I were you I would try to not think too much. Find a kinky sperm receptacle, and git yo’ freak on. That’s what you guys live for, ain’t it?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:56pmHe’d rather love himself silly.
Report this comment
B_Will_Derd
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:56pmSo, we are a collection subatomic particles that exists in one of an infinite number of Universes that have randomly combined and functioned in such a way that they are now contemplating their own existence in ways collectively and unique to those that compose individuals. . If all that is true, and why not, then how do our quarks, etc. express appreciation for the wonder and awe that inevitably stems from that contemplation? Put a face/name to it? what shall we call that unknowable infinite omnipotent fact? We have a long way to go to get past that. A loooong way.
Report this comment
PutMoreOnMyPlate
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:12pm@JZS
God is self-existing. He didn’t create Himself, He always was and always will be. He is the absolute constant in the universe. He is not an effect but He is the cause. Like Him or not, believe in Him or not, it doesn’t matter because He’s there.
Report this comment
MajorLeagueInfidel
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:27pm@Lesbian Packing: Pretty sure they would have been “meh we don’t care.” because they believe in nothing.
Report this comment
tonypro
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:34pmTouche’
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:51pm@jzs
“So where did God come from?”
Why don’t you ask Him? You do know how to do that right?
You seem to know everything but, you don’t know this? What’s wrong with you?
Report this comment
williaml
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 12:17amwell stated
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 1:13amLESBIAN PACKING HOLLOW POINTS… then Dylan Hunt (Kevin Sorbo) kicks their Neitzschians hinnies back to the Divine.
“While I admit the universe does have a sense of humor, I doubt very much this is a joke.” - Rev Bem
Report this comment
Verceofreason
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 2:12amSo the are both dead. Meh.
Report this comment
Two Trees
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:38amThe improbability of the hypotheses including, but not limited to, multiple-parallel universes, bouncing universes, etc., are staggering. Aside from that, they don’t “solve” any of the problems of why there is something and not nothing. Versions of the singularity are even held out as reasons for God-less creation. In the various big-bang type singularity explanations, flimsy quantum notions aside, the virtual particle-like quantum event arising from nothing existing in null-space necessitates an external observer — external to the universe. The various multiverse models simply don’t solve the problem of where did it (everything) come without relying on even (far) less likely assumptions.
Add to all that the phenomenal improbability of the various physical forces being “just so” that stars don’t burn out or not form, etc., etc., and the improbability of our universe proves to be staggeringly high.
No. These are scientists with an agenda. Objectively speaking, cosmology is moving further from needing an indescribably intelligent and powerful external observer (God.)
I reference an excellent book reviewing this subject by Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D. the title of which is something like “new proofs for the existence of God.” A challenging read in terms of physics, but he very effectively puts all of the ducks in a row, and effectively shines light on the anti-scientific nature of comments such as those by this proponent of scientism.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 6:00amYo Monk:
God does not answer questions out of a lack of sincerity … that’s the problem …
Yo JZS:
You —> “who said I’m not a christian” ( or close)
God and Jesus … “I am that I am”
Your own words are a self witness.
You might want to rethink your thinking
But then science says God is dead … Well alrighty then … who cares … the matter is settled by bunches of hunches!
you might want to rethink your thinking .. no judgement here …
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 8:08amWhat a silly question. They have already eliminated God from the equation even though they cannot explain many many things. It isn’t really about science. It is about trying to use science to kill the idea of God. It is about throwing off the yoke of a God who tells we are to live in a certain proscribed manner. It isn’t about science even though the ideology likes to hide behind that claim. Science by definition could never discover or exclude God because it is the study of the natural world and God is supernatural. All science can do is point to the finerprint of God or not, that’s it. To honestly suggest that some theories about universe origins or existence could actually be taken as gospel fact is kind of funny to me given the many unanswered and false scientific assumption discovered later about things on our very own planet. Heck we can’t even explain why humans yawn scientifically. We now seem fairly certain that birds did NOT evolve into dinosaurs based on some very recent research out of Oregon State University even though this was long considered a fact of science. The bottom line is, when someone studies origins EVERYONE begins with a presupposition. This ALWAYS determines how they evaluate the information collected. If the presupposition is incorrect, so are the conclusions. Please remember often times this is less about what science actually confirms and more about ideology hijacking science for support. I know, I used to be like this guy…TY
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 8:24am@ TWO TREES….As formerly one of those scientists, I agree with you completely. I posted my first response before I read yours and the are amazingly consistent in their assertions. Many scientists speak boldly and arrogantly about what science has “confirmed” not because science has actually confirmed it, but because they so desperately need support for their beliefs about origins and life. To actually admit that their is a Creator logically demands that that Creator has certain authorities over life. Many recoil at this thought. The very idea is threatening and backward to many. Of course to many scientists they don’t even understand their presuppositions and how that causes them to interpret and/or effect their scientific data/theories. To them it flows logically from how they were trained and taught to think, not realizing that their worldview determines how they perceive their reality and explain/answer the 4 questions basic and foundational to all worldviews.
Who are we?
How did we get here?
What are the problems?
What are the solutions?
Any talk of origins can only involve interpretation or historical science, not true hard operational science. Historical science ALWAYS relies upon presuppositions (that cannot be tested) unlike operational science, hence the division. Of course mathematics being the most pure form of science because it is not open to interprataion as are the other sciences to greater or lesser degress depending on the field of study. T
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 9:31amTWO TREES & SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING… Thank you both for your eloquently written posts. *Golf Clap* Oh the bleep with it *RAUCOUS APPLAUSE*
Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 11:20amMr. carroll, explain DNA and the order it is in. I do not think it could have evolved that way.
Gravity has to be a force inside of, or around the individual atoms, as the more atoms the denser the object, the heavier the object becomes.
Report this comment
Balpit
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 2:44pmSLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Just as religion can be hijacked by extremists, so too can science.
Back then, science was all about discovery and learning about the world around us.
Nowadays, science has been hijacked by people intent on disproving God. They couldn’t care less what science is really about, and any discoveries made are just byproducts of their true mission.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 2:55pmSleazy,
How are you my friend–I assumed you would pop up here at some point. Now, I’m not intending to resume our old argument, but I can’t help but clear up something:
“We now seem fairly certain that birds did NOT evolve into dinosaurs based on some very recent research out of Oregon State University even though this was long considered a fact of science.”
No. I’m not exactly sure what the “We” is your referring to here, but you imply that this is the scientific consensus. It’s not–not even close. You site one study and then suggest that this study (by John Ruben, who is famous for trying to build his career on relentlessly attacking the Dinosaur-to-Bird theory) has somehow led to some level of certainty in the scientific community. This is completely false and hugely misrepresents the response to the study. Your assertion here is lazy and intellectually dishonest. I know that you can argue better than this.
Report this comment
SoNick
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 5:17pm@Balpit and others:
No scienstist worth his or her salt “works to disprove god”. To even think such a thing is to completely misunderstand the way science works. I will, once again, refer to the (possibly apocryphal) story of mathematical genius Pierre-Simon Laplace, who presented his astronomical treaty to Napoléon. Intrigued, the emperor apparently told him: ‘M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.’ to which Laplace famously replied: “I had no need of that hypothesis”. And he didn’t! A lot of things we used to credit to deities (lightning bolts are literally thrown by Zeus from The top of Mount Olympus, for example) have been explained by science. And while it is true that the more science advances, the more superstition regresses, it is not the goal of scientists. Scientists try to explain the natural world. Superstitious people don’t.
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 7:06pmSLEAZY.. he makes a lot of sense as long as you begin with a single hard assumption; “the supernatural is real.”
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 7:10pm@THX I’m not really sure what you want us to keep in mind? are you suggesting god killed Nietzsche? weak logic.
Report this comment
Marine25
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 7:29pm5000 years ago there were thousands of gods.
Some became unnecessary as man, you know, got smarter.
3000 years ago there were hundreds of gods.
Today we are down to just a few.
The trend is towards none.
And if that ain’t evolution…
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 11:16pm@ PUBLIUS…Hey my friend, I likewise thought you might appear on this thread. Just one small point, you are citing the worng man and the wrong research and it is quite confirmed according to what I have read about it. Check out OSU own web page for the research and just how solid it is. Of course they simply assume dinosaurs evolved alongside of rather than into birds, but the point is that they pretty much have very strong reasons to believe from their reseach that it was impossible for dinosaurs to have given rise to modern birds through evolution. Check it out, I think you will see I am correct. Thanks my friend for the comment, be blessed.
@ CESIUM…I agree with you my friend. Beginning with the presupposition that God exists would be absurd except for all of the fingerprints I have examined that point to just such a being (my original presupposition was that God did not exist and it just did not fit with reality as I have examined it). The fact things exist rather than nothing, prophetic evidence, archeological evidence, literary antiquity evidence (bibliographical, internal and external), the problem with morality, the problem with logic, etc etc. I believe while science is useful to discover a part of reality it is encapable of encompassing ALL of reality that we know to be and exist. It is after a survey of ALL areas of evidence that one arrives at the absurdly logical conclusion that God is. Thanks my friend, hope work is going well. Be blessed.
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 12:17amCESIUM… it isn’t a problem if you’ve experienced the supernatural (not talking ghosts here). But then I understand… if you haven’t then yes, it could be difficult to accept the reality of that which is by its essence beyond nature. It is easier to deny that which the senses cannot observe that can. Oh snap! With Descartes philosophy even that is impossible. Umm… just a question about mathematical equations based on string/quantum theory. At such a miniscuel level of observation, how can one be certain that they are correct? I mean… If there are multiverses, and can’t be observed accept through equations on paper…? Get my gist? Faith anyone?
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 10:43amSleazy,
Asserting that you yourself are convinced by the OSU research (notice all the commentary on that research is provided by John Ruben, so I am not wrong there) is different from asserting that there is anything near a scientific consensus on this theory. Plain and simple–there is not much you can argue on that point.
If you want to suggest that you find the study convincing, you are free to do so. To misrepresent it by saying that “we” know birds did not evolve from dinosaurs is simply dishonest.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve read up on the OSU study. Feel free to peruse some criticism as well:
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/07/17/birds-cannot-be-dinosaurs/
Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 2:07pmAn honest scientist would say, “I don’t know.” Given the constraints of true objective scientific inquiry, it is not something they can prove or disprove (baring an appearance by the Almighty in person). So many arrogantly box themselves in and declare it “reason” when it is actually just as blind and dogmatic of faith as the most illiterate Neanderthal Jihadist.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 3:27pmCavallo,
You are mixing up two different things there. There is a definite difference between saying that science can’t disprove God (which is true), and saying that this means that Intelligent Design is just as valid a scientific theory as Evolution (which is not true).
Report this comment
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 5:52pm@ PUBLIUS…Thanks for the reply. I thought you stated John did the research, my bad on that, I misunderstood what you were stating. I actually was lQQking more at the study itself not the commentary so much. I will review your criticisms I appreciate the link. I was so much asserting that I know this is factual, but there is now some good information that seems to call into serious question a long held theory thought to be more or less settled. That was really my point. I haven’t really been able to spend as much time with my replies on this thread. I am doing most all of it at the soccer and football fields and it is more difficult to say the least without your resources to reference and only your memeory. Thanks and until we debate again take care….
Report this comment
Bearfoot
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:56pmCould Science Ever Completely Eliminate God as an Explanation of Existence?
Stupid men can say whatever they want but they are unaware of the reality of things.
I am posting a scripture, that if anyone is interested to hear what our Creator has to say about this, here it is:
Ezekiel 38:18-23
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:42pmPretty big sword being raised at the Straights of Hormuz right now. A third Carrier Strike Group and another Marine Expeditionary Unit arriving this week.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:38pmWISEHINEY….How dare you inject issues of obvious importance into this, just for fun, exercise in futility.?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:57pmJust trying to figger out if Ezekiel wrote about right now.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:15pmWell, what I found in does not look good for Israel…at all. Ezek. chap.6.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:44pmHmmm….”He that is far off will die of pestilence….”
As in the “New Israel” – America? Bird Flu?
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:56pmwiseazz….I’ve heard that N.Korea has a bioweapon on its way here. But I’m sure our super efficient bureaucrats have our six.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:02pmPLEASE shake em off!
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 6:11amYo Wisehiney:
” there is nothing new under the sun”
Gods Word is multi-faceted
Trouble is comming to Israel, many will die, those remaining will finally accept Jesus as the Messiah.
America … God is not happy … I don’t think the prognosis is good… what the outcome will be ???
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:56pmI have a beautiful painting by a famous artist hanging on the wall beside a large window in my home. Every single person that has ever seen it around sunset has completely overlooked it for God’s beautiful picture out beyond. New painting every day!
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:09pmAnd I would say the sunset is no less beautiful if one takes it not as created by the divine but as the beautiful interplay of immense natural forces and laws, billions and billions of years of movement, orbit, rotation–the unimaginable ferocity of the nuclear sun, the incomprehensible distances traveled by light and the fascinating variety of the visible spectrum refracted through weather systems that swirl constantly above our heads, affected by an almost infinite number of variables in immeasurably complicated patterns. That, to me, is no less beautiful.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:20pmI am sure you feel immense gratitude to the immeasurably incomprehensible pattern. Bow your head.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:58pmPublius…..Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
and danced the skies on laughter silvered wings.
Sunward I’ve climbed and joined the tumbling mirth
of sunsplit clouds and done a hundred things
you have not dreamed of.
Wheeled and soared and swung high in the sunlit silence ,
Up, up, the long delerious burning blue, I have flung my eager craft
through footless halls of air. Where never lark or even eagles flew
And while, with with silent lifting mind, I’ve trod
the high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand…and touched the face of God
Gillespie Mcgee Jr.
religiosity is an intellectual pursuit….spirituality is a feeling. I think you have the two mixed up.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:49pmHow exactly would I have that mixed up Max?
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:16pmI don’t really know Publius, You seem to need a concrete answer to questions of faith, and it always appears to be an intellectual type of answer that you are looking for. There are those that want to convince others of the veracity of their own views, when for the most part, it can’t be done. I personally, don’t care much if you believe anything or nothing at all…I’m certainly not an evangelist, and not qualified to judge your spiritual state. I really just come on here to make fun of lefty’s, and argue with atheists about the body of Moses.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 6:34amYo Pencilman:
You have millions and think yourself rich and yet you are a pauper, for God has trillions piled apon trillions piled apon trillions times a trillion, times a trillion, times a trillion … gettin small yet?
The closer I get to God the more I appreciate the “sunset”, understanding that it is a painting in “real time” and not a random moment of beauty but the beauty of “eternity” being displayed in a moment.
I do care about your soul … though it is your’es to decide
Report this comment
turfdog
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:56pmScience only builds models to describe observations, causes and results. It does not nor ever has discovered what is not able to be observed. Question that science cannot solve: what was before anything was.
The human mind searches relentlessly to know how to deal with what it experiences, a simple part of the human desire to continue to exist. Whether believer in God, aethiest, or agnostic, there is a region in our search that knows that it will always be an incomplete search. Einstein said that God doesn’t play dice. But he left out the part of where the dice came from.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:31pmTURFDOG….
could not find a thread of cohesive meaning in your post….you’re a smart fellow…try again..take your time, and remember….:one foot in front of the other.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:36pmI thought he made perfect sense.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:44pmNope… read it again. Still don’t understand what he said….Maybe its me…..
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:48pm.”…there is a region in our search that knows it will always be incomplete…..” Wha? and this was part of his conclusion? What do you think he said?.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:57pmTurfdog,
The problem is that when people assume that God exists in the currently unexplained origins of matter, they, for some unknown reason, assume that it must be the God of the Bible, and that this somehow makes everything from Creationism to opposition to gay marriage more plausible.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:08pmIt’s simply a thoughtful way to say that we continue to thrive in searching for the unknown with a stubborn nature about us. He’s just describing man’s desire to find the truth.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:23pmIn the BEGINNING[TIME], GOD[]Force/Energy] CREATED [Motion] the Heavens[SPACE] and the EARTH[Matter]. The FIRST sentence in the Bible states the 5 BASIC/Fundamental Elements of science………….. I sampled this from some body….I understand this.
Report this comment
mr.goodvibe
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:46pmI get ya TURFDOG, although einstein did also theorize that energy never diapears, it changes form. That is something to think about.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:30pmPublius No son, the problem is that when people assume that there is no supreme deity, creator God, who has lain the patterns and breathed life into this universe, they must assume a model to explain what ‘is’. And that model will always exhibit the bounds and limitations of the mind that is making the assumption. As far as we can see, the universe is limitless, but how can a limited mind begin to comprehend it? Let alone convey it’s grandeur? Publius, I think you are a fraud. No one could be that obtuse. c’mon …you’re just talking so you can go look at what you wrote, huh?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:41pm@MAX – Sounds good to him!
Report this comment
One Man Mormon Blues Band
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:52pmThe height of human hubris. The scientists “assume” the laws of nature are eternal in time and uniform across space and infinity. Where do they think those laws come from? And if they were to prove where those laws originated, we would be left to wonder what caused that cause. Being able to tell a story, or explain something, without reference to something else does not PROVE that anything exists or not.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:00pmBut to posit an uncaused cause does not actually lend support to any of the myriad of psuedoscientific theological theories out there like creationism. If we could logically conclude the existence of an unmoved mover, there would be no logical reason to assume that this would be the God of the Bible.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:38pmPUBLIUS …Why not?
Report this comment
PutMoreOnMyPlate
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 1:22amScientists summoned God.
“We don’t need you anymore so we’re going to ask you to move on.”
“REALLY, WHAT MAKES YOU SAY THAT?”
“We have solved all the mysteries of the universe and even creation- see we can make man from dirt.”
They start to take the dirt and form it into a man-
“STOP RIGHT THERE- USE YOUR OWN DIRT.”
The End
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 1:33amYeah…Use your own dirt!!!
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:51pmNope.
Report this comment
quiltgal
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:18pmNope from me too. Not possible. Never will be. No one will ever have an explanation, other than the existence of God, for how the first spec of matter came to be.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:39pmHey! You’re actually right Snowleopard, although I assume for the wrong reason. Science can never fully eliminate a possibility (prove a negative).
Report this comment
Pontiac
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:27pm@PubliusPencilman
I agree in that predisposition to belief is hardwired into the human psyche… If you’re incapable of recognizing superstition for what it is, you’ll be forever controlled by it.
@quiltgal
You might want to join us in the 21st century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:45pm@pontiac As opposed to what controls you.
Report this comment
Pontiac
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:58pm@wisehiney
Okay… What controls me?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:15pmPontiac 455 HP V-8?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:27pmOOPS! – cubic inch
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:30pmPONTIAC….I assume that you believe that you are not being manipulated. How can you prove that? We could look at your library, I suppose. Maybe examine your predilections. Interview your mentors. We could analyze your childhood with regressive hypnosis.
In the end who really gives a hoot? Soon all our beliefs will be put to a test of fire.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:39pmJONES – How many hundreds of billions of real estate value just went – poof ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-19/fukushima-radiation-japan-irradiates-west-coast-north-america
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:41pmGot me singing “Nearer My God To Thee”.
Report this comment
Pontiac
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:48pm@Max jones
[I assume that you believe that you are not being manipulated.]
Assume what you will…
[How can you prove that?]
What do I care?
[Soon all our beliefs will be put to a test of fire.]
Whatever.
@wisehiney
Goodness, I’m a gas hog!
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 6:44amIf you want to be a straight 6 … you can be. Heck, be a moped … though God has plenty of gas … cheap!
Report this comment
hi
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:49pmIs God speaking to me? Someone dear to me who is a Christian is applying to the astrophysics program at Cal Tech. Geez.
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:06pmIs God speaking to you?
.
I don’t know did you raise your hand?
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:08pmIs God speaking to me?
.
Don’t know did you raise your hand?
Report this comment
hi
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:19pmYes! I raised my hand In prayer for wisdom from Him.
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:04pmSo you wanted something and are irritated you have not received it yet.
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:28pmBy the way Wisdom is the byproduct from hard work. It can’t be just emailed to you as an Attachment from your personal Butler that you see as God.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:49pmDoes’nt the poverty of their souls and their spirit reveal itself through the things these trolls write? The truth is not hidden. It is here. It pains them greatly, but they continue. (SIGH)
Report this comment
jcldwl
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:54pmScientist fudged info to push global warming. What else have they fudged for the almighty grant. But the fact of the matter is that without them fudging, the answer to the headline question is NO. I have lost all respect for scientists and about the only thing they are good for is a nice laugh on Big Bang Theory (the TV show).
Report this comment
db321
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:03pmYes Science can eliminate the existence of God. It is called a lie! Look how many idiots believe the lie that a Movie, nobody watched, is eliminating our Constitution and Freedom of Speech.
The one Religion Science can never eliminate is the existence of the Muslim religion. Just try to criticize Mohammed and this Government will make you disappear.
The really sad news is that soon all American’s will have to disown the God of our fathers and except Mohammed as their Messiah. The moment one denounces God they instantly earn an eternal swim in the lake of fire. I choose death before I ever will except a false Messiah.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:14pmDB321…Just don’t fall for the rapture “THEORY”. First ones taken are taken by antichrist. Hold your ground.
The anti-christ will appear as the most impressive being to ever walk the earth, and will claim to be Christ, Will show miracles and wonders. And deceive all but God’s elect. Those chosen before the foundation of this world.
http://theseason.yolasite.com/
Report this comment
ShyLow
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:46pmrevelation 3:20 knock knock knock Penny
Report this comment
SerikFox
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:43pmAccording to the bible, God created everything, including science. So, no; you can’t use creation to disprove the existence of it’s creator.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:49pmJust like you can’t use a book to prove the veracity of the same book.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:25pmI can prove that there is a concerted effort to erase Yashua the Messiah from past-present-and future. I can prove that our government is part of this concerted effort. I can prove that most of the intellectual elite on the planet are part of this concerted effort. I can prove this effort is thousands of years old, and supernaturally driven. I can’t prove the existence of Satan, in any form, but he will do that himself fairly soon. Ready?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:51pmI bet there is no recovery room for those who come to the realization that they just landed in hell. FOREVER.
Report this comment
floridareader
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:42pmThe man/woman who puts his/her trust in humankind is condemned to his own destruction.
Many scientists and medical doctors have found God in their own work.
Recently I finished chemotherapy for cancer and although I have so much to be thankful to the doctors, I first and foremost am thankful to God because he has held me tight so I never went depressed or pessimistic.
He has guided me and my family through this time and has guided the specialists that have treated me successfully. So glory to God, and sadness to those that don’t have him in their life.
Report this comment
wvernon1981
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:42pmNo. Science will never disprove a god created everything. Science can only discredit bad hypothesis for god’s creative involvement.
Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:40pmIt already has to the degenerates in society.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:59pm@RANGER – Their facts are proven wrong everyday.
Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:40pmUnfortunately what passes for science these days is not based on empiricism (direct observation), it’s more like an amalgam of faith and some reasoning.
True science can only operate in the observable and empirical universe. It can never make assumptions about the things, or forces that operate outside of it.
It can never cross the line into faith. Once it does, by definition it ceases to be science, and becomes a faith based belief system. At that moment it holds not greater veracity or place than any other faith.
So what we are seeing today, is not Science disproving God. We are instead seeing a new faith attempting to discredit Christianity.
It’s been tried before, and will be tried again under a different name. It never works, but the God haters still try.
This is an expression of the cornerstone that becomes the stumbling stone spoken of in the Bible. It’s fun to watch.
Report this comment
22AUTOMATIC
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:51pmBelow are three terrific must see docs about this very subject. They go point by point to explain intelligent design and each debunks every single “big bang” and “evolution” theory including the list of 700 of the top world scientists who have officially signed the form stating Darwin’s ideas are no longer plausible in the 21st century. Feel free to send them to anyone who still has questions about the existence of God or Intelligent Design. Also, have them watch Ben Stein’s award winning movie “Expelled” which shows why Darwin is still being pushed so hard in society today by the Elites.
http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/33826735
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=204_1334864931
http://youtu.be/bls2D0jMK84
Report this comment
davuf
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:58pmExcellent post.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:01pmWell said, that’s what I’m thinking. The multiverse theory is becoming more and more known, but as I read into it, I begin to realize how far some have gone to try and discredit God, to the point that their very claims are branching into faith itself. It may be from my personal perception, but to me, this stuff is coming off as complete and utter desperation on their behalf.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:42pmRANGER1965….stated in a very very simple fashion, rings true. Aquarian age, transcendentalism, trying to make each individual GOD….can you see it… billions of supreme deities with billions of rationales why each is correct? Ha. won’t fly.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:43pmSorry Ranger, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Science theorized the existence of the atom long before it was directly observed. That wouldn’t mean that atoms were “a matter of faith.”
Do a little research on exactly what a scientific theory is.
Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:08pm@PUBLIUS
The only problem with what you said, is it’s wrong.
Mathematical constructs based on observation, or theories designed with a rational chain of logic; again based on the observable universe, is still empirical knowledge.
A theory is robust and acceptable when it has a strong basis in empiricism, even if reasoning is used. But there must be a means to test the veracity of the theory, if only parts of it.
Early atomic theory (As you mentioned) could be tested and quantified mathematically. Chemical reactions could be predicted with exacting specificity which furthur bolstered these theories. Later, with advancing technology we could even observe clusters Atoms with high Atomic weight with an electron microscope, and even observe (indirectly) quantum level reactions with colliders.
But when a theory is based completely on reasoning, with no basis in empiricism, and is completely untestable, then it truly is a faith, and not science.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:20pmYes, but predicting a chemical reaction was never the same thing as observing an atom. The same with the Germ theory and various theories of subatomic particles. But sure–which are the theories that don’t make the cut in your mind?
Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:26pm@Publius,
Macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution comes to mind. Where impressive genetic variability within a species (micro-evolution) allows a species to change and adapt under the forces of natural and sexual selection, including some pretty wild changes….however the wildly different squirrel is still a squirrel, even if looks pretty funky.
To use this bit of undeniable and observable empiricism, and say that a Squirrel can become a monkey, or a bird, or the infamous transitional species is where Science becomes Faith.
It’s never been observed, nor will it. It isn’t present in the Fossil Record, nor has any cool evolutionary experiement working with mutagenic agents ever produced any extra-species change. And it won’t.
Yet rather than believe in God, an Evolutionary Biologist would rather be tortured to death than admit Macro-Evolutionary theory is as much a faith based religion as Islam.
It fails on every level as Science, but because they can’t think of a palpable explanation that can pass the test of science, they desperately push this clap-trap like a Meth Dealer, and attack anyone in the scientific community that disagree’s with them.
These characters along with the human made Global Warming theorists have become the “well paid” new priesthood in a bankrupt religion which is setting science back 100 years.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:02pmRanger,
“say that a Squirrel can become a monkey, or a bird”
Of course, nobody says that a squirrel ever becomes a monkey. Maybe you should read up on this so maybe you will know what you are talking about, rather than just reiterating stuff from ID websites.
“It’s never been observed, nor will it.”
Ah, you see, that’s where you show that you aren’t thinking scientifically at all. That’s just pig-headedness, and you can’t disprove a theory by simply asserting that something will never be observed. Speciation has been observed, many many many “transitional” fossils have been found, and we’ve found in the fossil record exactly what evolution would predict that we’d find: that modern animals are proceeded by animals with similar attributed that are now extinct, and that those animals diverge more and more from modern types the further you go back.
But surely this argument will have no effect on you, since you’ve simply declared that the theory of evolution MUST be false. That’s the big difference, you see. If proof of some kind of divine creation appeared that was more convincing than the theory of evolution, I would have to necessarily choose that account over evolution. That’s how science works. You, on the other hand, don’t think that way, and that’s why you don’t understand the difference between faith and a scientific theory.
Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 12:19amI don’t need to “declare” anything. The elegant foundation upon which Science sits declares it with a resounding cry. Yet it goes unheard by the high priest hood of Neo Science.
Nor do I try to convince you with science or anything else what I believe by faith, and faith alone. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant.
But making the square pegs of faith fit into the round holes of science will never work. It’s obvious to anyone who is honest. Science is not about consensus, or group think. It’s not a democracy, and no one gets a vote.
You should perhaps read some good books on the subject, or take a few classes.
Critical thinking is a good thing.
Report this comment
PutMoreOnMyPlate
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 1:28amThank you Publious, Scientific Theory and Faith are a lot alike. You chose to accept them and shove them down each others throats until they’re sick of it.
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 7:19pm@Ranger1965 “Macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution comes to mind.” These are creationist distinctions my friend, where only the latter is acceptable.
Report this comment
grayling646
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:39pmI have a theory. The writers at TheBlaze have an weekly bet about who posts a story that gets the most comments. Liz thinks this one may garner 100′s of comments. I think she may be right. We’ll see.
Report this comment
hi
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:51pmI was thinking that too! You know they do that!
Report this comment
Chromo200
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:00pmsounds plausable
Report this comment
davuf
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:00pmIt makes for a good debate. Never hurts to hear the other side of the arguement. Besides these comments are entertaining.
Report this comment
grayling646
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:09pmDav, are you trying to convince me or yourself?
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:39pmCOULD SCIENCE EVER COMPLETELY ELIMINATE GOD AS AN EXPLANATION OF EXISTENCE?
___________________________.
.
NO for before they can dismiss God as the progenitor of all, they would first have to define what is God. The only time in the far far future where Science would be able to Define God is when our Hubris takes us to a place where we start thinking of ourselves …as God.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:43pmThe moment some sinister old virgins put on dresses and pointy hats and began to exercise secular power in the real world, religionists took a running leap over that line you just described.
Report this comment
grayling646
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:13pm….sooooo, we need to ask my cat.
Report this comment
Max jones
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:15pmThat….Is… the end game…. everybody… is God…as …God…with a private, personal theology and theosophy. Each person decides for himself what is right, what is wrong. As long as Obama pays the bills, so each of us can perfect our “creation.” Oh, why…. do I see anti-christian, apocalyptic nuance in everything? Can anyone tell me that?
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:37pmThe question is – Could science ever completely eliminate these trolls. I tired of waiting for God to send them to hell.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:41pmWaiting for God to send people to hell is the entire essence of organized religion. You’re convinced that you are the best student in the class, but you’re getting impatient waiting for teacher to punish the other ones.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:50pmI was kind of glad that I am the worst one here.
Report this comment
hi
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:53pmAndy
We want you to be with us in Heaven. There are going to be a lot of fire-nados down there.
Report this comment
paperpushermj
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:03pmAndy that has got to be the most jaundiced reason for a belief in a deity I’ve ever heard. If you can handle it, may I suggest reading Aquinas on Nature and Grace.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:46pmI suppose one big difference between a zealot and a scientist is that a scientist will never think that you deserve eternal torture because you disagree with him.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:55pmSo you are just gonna try to torture us during our natural lifetime?
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:58pmDo you feel tortured because someone disagrees with you? For that I would just suggest you grow a pair.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:17pmOnly a weasel would spend so much time trying to spread so much unhappy BS. Or are you paid to do it? You will never accomplish any thing. Were you fired from one of the liberal rags that are closing down every day because no one wants to read such miserable BS?
Report this comment
Tree_Butcher
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:35pmScience cannot prove that I have a soul, science cannot prove that Love does not exist, so how can it prove to me that God does not exist?
I believe in God, I talk to Him all the time – it’s called Prayer. I have Faith that He does all the listening. Prayer works when you do pray for the right things. He is not on ‘our’ side or anyone’s side, we are either on His side, or not.
Report this comment
davuf
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:06pmIts all in the dark matter. Science will keep ‘proving’ that God isn’t there right up till the moment they find him.
Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:34pmNo amount of science will make me believe there is No God!
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:37pmThat’s your prerogative, just don’t lose your mind the next time you hear someone call religionists unintelligent.
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:39pm“Completely eliminate science”? They can’t even partially eliminate God from science. Without God, there would be NO science.
God created nature. Science is the study of nature. Therefore……isn’t science the study of God’s applications?
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:03pmHi TSUNAMI_22,
Haven’t seen you around for a while. Good to hear from you again. I started a new job 3 days ago. It’s going pretty well. You’ll only see me on The Blaze at night Mon thru Fri.
Hope all is well with you. : )
Report this comment
TSUNAMI_22
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:03pmErrr…”completely eliminate God, I meant”.
Report this comment
Caballosinnombre
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:07pmThe day they disprove God will be the day they find the bones of Jesus.
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:33pmNo, science can never completely eliminate the possibility of God, because that is not how science works. You can’t prove a negative. Simple as that. The Blaze’s headline here is just another example of how the folks there have no idea how scientific discourse works.
Report this comment
Minnaloushe
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:16pmYours is the best comment on the article.
Report this comment
wisehiney
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:24pmDo you need help locating the web site of Journal of Science?
Report this comment
blackyb
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:32pmScience? Who really cares what those fools say?
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:37pmEvery remotely thoughtful person that has ever lived?
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:44pm“Science? Who really cares what those fools say?”
….says a guy using a computer connected to the internet. More than a little irony there.
Report this comment
pantokrator
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:53pmIgnorant post, my friend. Science is a place to learn much in our existing universe. You shouldn’t fear science, or fear opposition, because it makes you appear weak and ignorant. As Jefferson once said,
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, He must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
Report this comment
SUMTHINSTINKS
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:30pmThe one KEY word that keeps coming up with Scientific is “THEORY!” So….Why are Some Scientists SO WILLING to disregard GOD or a CREATOR??? Maybe no one can PROVE existence, but NO ONE CANNOT PROVE EXISTENCE!!! This country believes in FREEDOM. Why are so many people wanting to FORCE their beliefs on others? I Believe in a Creator. I believe there may be more to human history than we may currently know. I Don’t Believe in Condemning People for What They Believe! Although………I Don’t Believe in Radical Islam! I don’t believe the need for violence from ANY Religion!!!!!!
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:48pmI believe in not overusing capital letters.
Report this comment
Jenny Lind
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:27pmNot in my book honey, and might I say Good luck with that. Someday you can explain to Him why you were trying to explain Him away. Good luck with that, too
Report this comment
smokeysmoke
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:33pmi think science will answer a few questions and open doors to many new ones… those people who say god made the earth 12000 years ago are crazy, but i do believe that god created the laws in the universe we live by, no matter how big we find it
Report this comment
Wool-Free Vision
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:59pmGreat comments! I agree with both Jenny Lind and SmokeySmoke. Well said, the both of you.
Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:26pmSo if I take a bucket of red, white and blue confetti and dump it out, it will turn into a US Flag eventually?
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:40pmIf I take a pile of unlettered, non sequitur arguments and plug my ears as I recite them, will they eventually add up to proof of the Christian God?
Report this comment
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:52pmKaydeebu,
Sure, maybe eventually it will become a U.S. Flag, but there is a 100% possibility that it will look like something. But, of course, if you work backwards, there is an infinitesimal chance that you would get exactly that result. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:26pmGod is being eliminated by Junk Science. I can’t prove there is a God but Every Argument that is made against God can also be made against the like of such ridiculous theories as the Big Bang theory. In fact there is more “proof” that God exists than that the Big Bang theory is fact!
The fact is these people think they are smart but in reality they are great mathematicians that think like morons!
Report this comment
wvernon1981
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 7:05pmThe Big Bang Theory does nothing to discredit god. If anything, creationists have used it to show the universe had a beginning as the Bible says.
Report this comment