WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?

**hansda** · 03-14-12, 09:40 AM

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .

In terms of SCIENCE :

Who/What is omnipotent ?

Who/What is omniscient ?

Who/What is omnipresent ?

**spidergoat** · 03-14-12, 10:38 AM

Nothing.

**AlexG** · 03-14-12, 10:39 AM

Nothing.

No one.

The CMB.

**hansda** · 03-14-12, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by AlexG

Nothing.

We know there are four types of forces and Nuclear Force Strong is the strongest . Can we not decide this way to find , ' what is omnipotent ? ' .

No one.

Can we not say that , the perfect observer is omniscient ?

The CMB.

How CMB is omnipresent ?

**AlexG** · 03-14-12, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by hansda

We know there are four types of forces and Nuclear Force Strong is the strongest . Can we not decide this way to find , ' what is omnipotent ? ' .

No. There is no omnipotent force. The Strong force is only strong with the nucleus.

Can we not say that , the perfect observer is omniscient ?

There is no perfect observer.

How CMB is omnipresent ?

Throughout the universe, i.e. everywhere, there are approximately 400 million photons of the CMB per cubic meter. So the CMB is everywhere, i.e. omnipresent.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 03-14-12, 11:21 AM

Gravity is God in science. The saying by Steven Hawking...

"Without Gravity there would be no Universe."

But the truth is that you can do away with the Gravity that science uses.

Funnily enough they are both called 'the big G'.

**AlexG** · 03-14-12, 11:24 AM

But the truth is that you can do away with the Gravity that science uses.

That's because Pincho doesn't believe in science.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 03-14-12, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by AlexG

That's because Pincho doesn't believe in science.

.. and I don't believe in Christianity. Thanks for helping me with the level playing ground.

**~~wlminex~~** · 03-14-12, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by AlexG

Nothing.

No one.

The CMB.

Alex, I agree on CMB . . . Might I also suggest . . . virtual vacuum . . . . virtual particles . . . . gravity . . . SQR . . . . and other quantum phenomena?

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 03-14-12, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by wlminex

Alex, I agree on CMB . . . Might I also suggest . . . virtual vacuum . . . . virtual particles . . . . gravity . . . SQR . . . . and other quantum phenomena?

CMB is OK, so are Virtual Particles. You could include the Big Bang though.

**Mind Over Matter** · 03-14-12, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by hansda

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .

In terms of SCIENCE :

Who/What is omnipotent ?

Who/What is omniscient ?

Who/What is omnipresent ?

According all the scientific findings and theories of which I am aware, the answer to all three questions are, no one/nothing.

This indicates that science's ability to explore the true is limited to the physical/material world.

**Arioch** · 03-14-12, 05:24 PM

This indicates that science's ability to explore the true is limited to the physical/material world

Or that the physical/material world is all that exists, a fair inference to make from the complete lack of evidence to the contrary.

**DaveC426913** · 03-14-12, 07:24 PM

(Let's personify Science for a moment here.)

If you were to try to pose a question to Science, its response would be "Certainly! Just provide me with evidence of these phenomena (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) of which you speak and I will get right on it."

Science remains silent on any subject until such time as it is presented with phenomena to examine or to test.

**skaught** · 03-14-12, 08:40 PM

What the hell is CMB?

**AlexG** · 03-14-12, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by skaught

What the hell is CMB?

The Cosmic Microwave Backround.

**ughaibu** · 03-14-12, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by hansda

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .
In terms of SCIENCE :
Who/What is omnipotent ?
Who/What is omniscient ?
Who/What is omnipresent ?

Am I correct in interpreting your stance as some form of scientific fictionalism? If so, please clarify the features of your position.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 03-14-12, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

(Let's personify Science for a moment here.)

If you were to try to pose a question to Science, its response would be "Certainly! Just provide me with evidence of these phenomena (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) of which you speak and I will get right on it."

Science remains silent on any subject until such time as it is presented with phenomena to examine or to test.

Not true. It all started with Newton, and Robert Hooke. When Newton decided that maths was the proof required by science, and Hooke was a sort of artistic equal. Newton came up with Gravity, but needed Hooke to complete the description, and Newton came up with attraction, which was an incorrect artistic impression of his maths. I'm sure that Hooke being more artistic would have helped Newton get the description correct as Gravity is a push force. Artists who tend to draw a lot would find attraction hard to accept, because artists draw push forces all of the time, and no artist has ever drawn an attractive form of physics, because there are none.

So science doesn't remain silent if it has maths, but maths is just as imaginary as words.

I am being pushed to the ground by gravity has become something to laugh at, and yet the maths includes mass. If you look at forces, they travel to the lowest form of energy.. holes. So mass is the opposite to a hole.. negative mass.

Because of maths, science can hide its imagination. But once you understand the maths, the imagination is just as real as words like God. F = an imaginary concept. Gravity = an imaginary concept. Gravity is a push, and an electron is a hole, and an electron's energy is the spin around the hole, and weight is the force of that spin which has locked energy into a spiral.

Science gets away with its imagination, because to see the imagination in the maths is much harder than to see the imagination in words. But attraction is an imaginary word for physics.

So once you use this imaginary word.. attraction, it gets fed along the chain. Now you have a Big Bang, because the Big Bang allows attraction to pull itself back together. If you use the correct push force... the Big Bang never comes back together.

And so it goes on. The chain has began, and all of science ends up backwards.

Now you have a real problem. science may allow 1 change every 10 years, but a complete reversal??? I have been banned from most sites for dare trying. The reversal of mathematics (which work anyway in both directions), is practically impossible. Yet science is faced with a lot of strange Gravity at the moment. Water suddenly became magnetic under pressure last week, and the moon has something which science cannot understand. Yet... I predicted both.

Science would have predicted both if Hooke was allowed to work with Newton. How much time has that mistake cost science?

**arfa brane** · 03-14-12, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by hansda

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .

How do you know that's true?

No, really, how do you know? And if you're asking what the scientific explanation for that is, it's probably: "Well, people assume all kinds of things which aren't necessarily true". Are you asking why science can't explain why people assume things?

Maybe the answer is that God is not omnipotent, nor omnipresent, and not omniscient either. Maybe God is something we made up to explain stuff.

**~~Pincho Paxton~~** · 03-14-12, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by arfa brane

How do you know that's true?

No, really, how do you know? And if you're asking what the scientific explanation for that is, it's probably: "Well, people assume all kinds of things which aren't necessarily true". Are you asking why science can't explain why people assume things?

Maybe the answer is that God is not omnipotent, nor omnipresent, and not omniscient either. Maybe God is something we made up to explain stuff.

I think that it was an example, you are supposed to ignore that part, and go with the thread title.

**DaveC426913** · 03-14-12, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

It all started with Newton, and Robert Hooke.

Picho, not one word of that follows from anything I said, nor does it appear to have anything to do with the OP's question.

I am asking respectfully. Please show some courtesy and either make your posts relevant to the topic or let others discuss it without derailing it. If you wish to discuss your own ideas, start your own thread.