StuckInTheSixties:

Wow ... that was a whole lot of ... somethin' ...

muchanove: i think its impossible to proof the existance of God using scientific methods.

because lets face it science is dependent on the physical reality around us, but whats around us is not only physical, us thinking is not physical. But there is a mandatory connection between the physical and the non-physical. Lets say the physical stuff came from "nothing" which science is trying to proof, how about the non-physical? there has to be another discipline that unifies the two.

The only successful "discipline" that explains (or try to explain, for non-believers) is Religion.

LiptonCambell: Doesn't the "non-physical" havwe the same problem as the boogie man, though- you can't even prove that the non-physical actually exists- theres no proof of etheral creatures, outside of the fact that people have convinced themselves that they exist.

hellbhoy: Steven Hawking should rename his book "MAD AT GOD FOR MAKING ME A CRIPPLE".

Big bang theory ? THEORY being the apt word,it's a well thought through scientific process to explain the universe and everything within it without actually really proving anything.But uses known variables and discoveries at that time to rationalize what appears to be apparently true because it can be made into a sum total or definitive answer you can understand if you know astrophysics,quantum mechanics and other hard to understand science.

GOD and creation ? well that's just taken in FAITH isn't it which is a completely different subject.So back to the old argument science versus religion.

Another astrophysical theory is if we find the centre of the universe will we find proof of GOD ? or find something else we did not know or existed.Might that be a better search and if we do find it and no sign of the creator or findings then WHAT ?.

I have a vague understanding of Hawkings works but remember before the sound barrier was broken on earth all the scientists said this could never be done other than in space because all the theory,physics and projected calculations said otherwise and the craft would just shatter into a million pieces and the pilot would sort of explode at a molecular level of some sort.Well MACH 5 and rising and needless to say that theory is now defunct.Will Hawkings theories suffer this fate as well ?.Will there be other better more solid theories in the future about space,time and dimension.On a personal level I think Hawkings brain lives in an alternate universe at times.

muchanove: what i meant by the non-physical is not about ethernal creatures. What i meant is we human beings being physical thing we posses thoughts, emotions and feelings that are not physical but are necessarily bonded with the physical.

LiptonCambell: I'm still confused. So you're saying that you cannot prove the existence of God because God is an idea, and nothing more? I'd certainly agree with that.....

hellbhoy: Yeh Lipton I'm sold on your idea.

StuckInTheSixties: Going back to muchanove's original comment:

muchanove says:
"i think its impossible to proof the existance of God using scientific methods."

True. So what? It's impossible to prove the existence of unicorns using scientific methods, too. And leprechauns. And the Boogey Man. Since they're all impossible to prove with science, they all have equal lack of credibility. The only difference is that God has a bunch of people worshiping him, while unicorns, leprechauns and the Boogey Man don't.

muchanove says:
"because lets face it science is dependent on the physical reality around us"

Correct. And that's what separates science from religion: "reality."

muchanove says:
"but whats around us is not only physical, us thinking is not physical."

There is no way to prove that. "Thinking" appears to be a very sophisticated, complex, amazing, but plausible result of bioelectric activity within the nervous systems of animals (including humans).

muchanove says:
"But there is a mandatory connection between the physical and the non-physical."

???

muchanove says:
"Lets say the physical stuff came from "nothing" which science is trying to proof"

WRONG! You're suggesting that scientists have made a decision that physical stuff came from nothing, and are now trying to evidence to substantiate that decision. Religion works that way, not science. With religious, the dogma comes first, and then those that adhere to the dogma try their damned best to stuff the square peg of science into the round hole of that dogman. Science, on the other hand, has no dogma. It simply wants to find out how things work.

muchanove says:
"how about the non-physical? there has to be another discipline that unifies the two."

Why so? Is it not possible that science and religion will never come together?

muchanove says:
"The only successful "discipline" that explains (or try to explain, for non-believers) is Religion."

Religion provides explanations. Just not explanations based in reality.

muchanove says:
"what i meant by the non-physical is not about ethernal creatures. What i meant is we human beings being physical thing we posses thoughts, emotions and feelings that are not physical but are necessarily bonded with the physical."

To repeat: There is no way to prove that. Thinking appears to be a very sophisticated, complex, amazing, but plausible result of bioelectric activity within the nervous systems of animals (including humans).

hairytoes: is there enough information in nothing to give us what we are and see now.

Smiling_Bandito: My brain hurts. Sixties, you and Lipton are trying to rationalize an emotional argument, one based upon most of humankind's earliest teachings and recollections. The Bible says, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it". Conditioning. There are very few of us who will break away from their conditioning; it is our earliest memories and values that are least questioned. I am a Christian, but I love Science as well. I can accept that the existence of God may never be proven in a scientific way, you know, empirical evidence and all. I am content to study what I believe are his works and explore the wonder that exists in every living cell, in every burning star, in every galactic light show. I may be a product of my conditioning, but in the end that does not matter. I cannot shake my belief in God, nor am I trying to. You guys have very logical arguments and I certainly respect them, even if my world view differs from yours. I won't try to justify my beliefs cause it's futile, I won't convince anyone who's mind is made up. But that's on both sides of the aisle. I can no more convince an atheist to believe in God than I can convince a fundamentalist that the world is not 6000 years old. In the end, we just talk past each other, are on completely different wavelengths; too much of that ties my brain in knots.

hellbhoy: This thread going wrong is all Steven Hawkings fault for writing a book he can't even back up with hard evidence,let's throw him over a cliff and see if he types in his voicebox please help me GOD.Or even take him back into space and send him to the centre of the universe to return with hard data he can back up as he can obviously travel back in time at the speed of light according to his nutsack.

StuckInTheSixties: Hey Mikey!

I think you know me well enough by now to know that I simply look at someone's words, I don't try to apply other meanings to them but simply take them at face value, and if I see something I object to, I voice my objection.

If someone describes Biblical meanings as you just did, as "teachings, recollections, and conditioning," I have no argument with that. But, of course, if someone tries to suggest to me, or tell me outright, that those kinds of things represent the real world, then I speak out.

If someone is positing that these are valuable STORIES, they'll receive no argument (well ... Leviticus has some nasty shit in it, etc.). But if someone tries to tell me that Noah and Jonah actually happened, I have to object.

MegaOrgun: I believe in God cause I was possessed by Satan.

Sevon: the fact that God cannot be either proven or disproven is perfect if you think about it. it means no one is right and we have no business fighting over it lmao...

StuckInTheSixties: ... unless someone insists that God's existence can be proven.

goleafsgo87: It depends on how you perceive god a figure or the universe as it creates life everyday. Our physical gods are the annunaki we prey to them they created us and of course ego close minded mankind will deny it to the end. I seek the truth no more hiding if we seek it all we will become more peaceful with eachother, that should be our main goal as a race.

anyway's folks i already know the truth it's up to you to take time be very open minded and connect all of the pieces together from the bible the Qur'ān. also the pieces from great authors such as zecharia sitchin, eric von dakin (dakin is shady at times so dont fully trust him lol) Also sitchin was the only man on earth to read summerian text check him out it's a great start, sitchin using old sayings from the bible and combines them with evidence with a more realistic story on what really happened.

Also the genesis revisited great book.

Took me awhile and trust me it scramble my brain but when you know everything and have confident look and a certain direction you will feel peace within yourself its so true.

Anyways folks check it out and goodluck with your search your going to enjoy this long fun ride!

goleafsgo87: Oh one more thing im sure other life outhere don't know how life first begun, im sure life outhere in the universe have no idea what started it all. All i know is what started us and it's very interesting search it up people and it will make more of a interesting debate but always be wise with your debates and never offend someone's faith even if they put you down just shows how close minded ego's they are

StuckInTheSixties: goleafsgo87 says:
"i already know the truth"

Okay. Provide some objective, tangible proof for that "truth" and I'll go along with you.

If you can't to that, I'll have no reason to take you seriously.

goleafsgo87 says:
"Oh one more thing im sure other life outhere ..." (etc. etc.)

Okay. Provide some objective, tangible proof for that "life outhere" and I'll go along with you.

If you can't to that, I'll have no reason to take you seriously.

LiptonCambell: >>>Also sitchin was the only man on earth to read summerian text

Uhhhhh.....thats not true at all buddy. Many people can translate sumerian text- in fact, people have been translating cuneiform since the 18th Century- and all modern lexicons agree that Sitchin's translation is dead wrong.

So its not that only Sitchin can read sumerian text- its that he's the only one who makes shit up to sell books.

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sumerian/sumerian.htm

hellbhoy: HAWKING himself can't even supply the truth GOD does not exist so the debate goes on.

MegaOrgun: oh debate my ass, i laugh!

DoReMi1978: I don't believe we, ordinary, regular people, have the face or authority to call S.Hawkins "poor man". So few people has seriuosly try to understand, or just imagine how the Universe works and actually come with an answer. Poor us!!

Smiling_Bandito: What I wanna know is this: Why would anyone care that Hawking doesn't believe God was needed to create the Universe? It is just one man's opinion, a prominent and brilliant man but still a man nonetheless. Does his opinion in any way change the way you feel about God (whether u believe he/she exists or not)? That's like being infuriated that someone's favorite color is green when I know that black is the greatest color ever, or some such silly shyt.

StuckInTheSixties: Well put, Bandito.

Serabi: Late in the topic, but I cannot possibly fathom how any idiot can believe that a non-existing god can 'punish' Stephen Hawking for his 'Blasphemy'!!!! Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis can affect anyone.

What did newborn babies with painful life threatening diseases do to your god?