WHO is GOD in terms of SCIENCE ?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by hansda, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .


    In terms of SCIENCE :


    Who/What is omnipotent ?


    Who/What is omniscient ?


    Who/What is omnipresent ?
     
  2. spidergoat Give me heat, and then I'll add the wood. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    47,117
    Nothing.
     
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,932
    Nothing.

    No one.

    The CMB.
     
  4. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    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 ? ' .

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

    How CMB is omnipresent ?
     
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,932
    No. There is no omnipotent force. The Strong force is only strong with the nucleus.

    There is no perfect observer.

    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.
     
  6. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    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'.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2012
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,932
    That's because Pincho doesn't believe in science.
     
  8. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    .. and I don't believe in Christianity. Thanks for helping me with the level playing ground.
     
  9. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Alex, I agree on CMB . . . Might I also suggest . . . virtual vacuum . . . . virtual particles . . . . gravity . . . SQR . . . . and other quantum phenomena?
     
  10. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    CMB is OK, so are Virtual Particles. You could include the Big Bang though.
     
  11. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    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.
     
  12. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    Or that the physical/material world is all that exists, a fair inference to make from the complete lack of evidence to the contrary.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2012
  13. DaveC426913 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    608
    (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.
     
  14. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,096
    What the hell is CMB?
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,932
    The Cosmic Microwave Backround.
     
  16. ughaibu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    224
    Am I correct in interpreting your stance as some form of scientific fictionalism? If so, please clarify the features of your position.
     
  17. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    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?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2012
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  19. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I think that it was an example, you are supposed to ignore that part, and go with the thread title.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    608
    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.
     

Share This Page