What "science" disproves higher beings?

Post Reply New Topic

That's not the point. This thread is a response to someone who said he could do just that. Obviously that is silly and I don't see why we need this thread. I'm sure the vast majority of people here agree that you can't disprove something supernatural with science. Physics and metaphysics are two separate subjects.

1. Maybe try logic 101 or philosophy 101. That's like asking if God can make a round square. Asking God to perform a contradiction or otherwise do something that isn't real, is in no way a demonstration of His powers being limited.

2. Also maybe try learning more than the complete basics about a religion from the most backwards group(s) in it before you start judging it. Have you ever read the whole Bible? How much do you know about it? Are you at all familiar with the original languages used? Are you at all familiar with the original people involved, their history and culture?

No, you're just a troll who wouldn't know what intellectual honesty was if it hit him in the head like a brick. If you were at all interested in taking this seriously you'd quit incessantly referring us to youtube videos and crappy sites full of crackpot material. Are you even aware of where you can go to find scholarly publications? Have you ever read any? Can you even name ten relevant scholars off the top of your head? Let's make it even easier: name five of them? Or better yet: can you name even one scholar who you've read, whose peer reviewed publications you've read at least one of, that held a viewpoint opposing yours? If not it's time you put on your big boy pants and did so.

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 19 Nov 2014, 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually I have read it from cover to cover and it has contradicted itself time and time again. Im not some mere troll here I just see it as just a bunch of popycock as opposed to todays material from actual discoveries made. Apparently the world was supposed to end over 12 years ago with the rapture and such it still hasn't happened and every single church still preaches the end is near and will happen now and nothing still happens from 2000-2012 nothing and nothing will continue to happen it was all a waste of time to be in fear of.

Alright, let's see what you know then. Where does it say in the bible the world was supposed to end twelve years ago? Where does it say the world will end soon? Or better yet: where does it say the world will end?

When I was religious and a stupid bible thumping thrall of a make beilieve god and was a Christistian every pastor I came across used scare tactics that the world was going to end soon and now and this was over a decade ago and nothing has happened. Look up revelations and come back to me, none of that has truly happened and it was supposed to happen over a decade ago.

You're not being asked what you were told. You're being asked to support that the Bible says anything of that nature. Show me where it says that. Once again: the opinions that were given to you don't necessarily have anything to do with the actual contents of the Bible.

No they are not. There is no rule in science that says it's methods cannot be used to study any observable phenomenon. For instance there is a commonly cited study on the efficacy of prayer.

No they are not. There is no rule in science that says it's methods cannot be used to study any observable phenomenon. For instance there is a commonly cited study on the efficacy of prayer.

You're being irrational, think about it like this:

Answer #1: God claims to be a monotheist (as in the sense of being a monotheistic God, not a person who has monotheistic beliefs), correct? If He wish to create a second god (thus, it will become polytheistic and contradict His monotheistic kingdom), He could, as He has the power to do it as He can do everything, but there will be no cause or reason for such thing and it will go against the monotheism He chose to create, thus, He wouldn't make one and as He had not created anything like that, we cannot say He is polytheist, as there are no second god he had created! And because He still maintained to be monotheist, therefore, He still is to begin and end with, a monotheist and not polytheist, the same with the Omnipotent God as He didn't create one and there are no evidence but our imagining and conjecture and if God had not created it as He didn't wish to, He still maintains as the one and only Omnipotent God. He needs no reason to test His abilities, if He wish to make himself inferior or lower his ranks, He could do that, but He don't, which is the keypoint. - if someone wish to articulate my point more eloquent, be free to do such, I have a feeling I didn't word myself fluently or stress out my point clearly.

Answer #2: Usain Bolt is the fastest runner, that does not mean that if Flash existed, he is faster than Flash or the fastest of all time, but the current record holder and as no one are faster than him, he is regarded as the fastest. The same can be said about God, no one are more powerful or stronger than God, if God chose to make a second god, even stronger than him, he could and that god would hold the record then, but he don't and therefore he is the record holder, and in His case as no rational human can overtake God, he will forever be the most powerful unless he created an equal to himself. Therefore, the claim that God is not all-powerful is absurd, can be said the same about God is all-loving, even though God will take some to hell and he dislike some of these creations he had created doesn't mean he is not all-loving. God created more than 100 billion humans of all time, who knows how many billions or gazillions of Angels and demons, too. If God just love 87 billion of all humans and is indifferent about the rest, does not mean he is not all-loving, as no human can love as many as God, figuratively or spiritually, yes, but not literally, therefore he IS the all-loving.

3# answer: I see that you ask this question with the image of God as a big invisible bearded man sitting on the sky, or in other words, you're humanizing Him.

God looks not like His creation and we cannot comprehend His image, but as you're already are a blasphemer, I suppose you don't have anything against regarding Him as this; you should think of God as the transparent and body-less water or the transparent and body-less air, He is everywhere and His image may not be imagined, you cannot see Him, but feel Him, but if you did see Him, the illumination of his outline, alone, will burn a whole Universe at His own will.

I don't know how to conclude this and stress out the main point as a TL;DR, it's quite narfistic, if anyone could help, please feel free.

There have been other answers to this fallacious paradoxical argument, but as always, it has been proven wrong.

^^^ But according to Judaism/Christianity humans were created in Gods image, so there is reason people anthropomorphise him to some extent. And blasphemer, really? If you look at it that way we are all blasphemers to someone else's religion since we don't believe in their gods. The Greek and Germanic Gods were quite anthropomorphic by the way. According to the Eddas Odin walked on the earth as an old man with a broad-brimmed hat.

Last edited by trollcatman on 19 Nov 2014, 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is not the job of science to prove what does not exist. It is thee job of those who believe in such things to prove that your "higher beings" do exist. Science has never made a mission of disproving what you believe. No scientist has a goal of disproving the existence of higher beings Scientists do not study evolution with the intent of disproving what you believe. You are uncomfortable with the findings of scientists because the things they discover are inconsistent with the beliefs that you are incapable of proving. That pisses you off. Too bad. I am not concerned with people trying to disprove what my beliefs are. (Zen Buddhism) I do not care if people agree with my beliefs and I certainly do not view anyone who disagrees with me as trying to disprove what I believe. I do not need the validation of someone else in order to benefit from my beliefs. I think the problem is that you are insecure with your own beliefs so you feel threatened by anyone who does not share your beliefs.

It's absolutely blasphemous to idealize God, which is why I did not hesitate to call the person a blasphemer, the only Christians that were anthropomorphizing God were Romans and Greek because of their Pagan ancestors and traditions (such as the gods you were referring to) that still survived the culture, it's Paganic, it's idolatry. But you're right; we're all atheists and blasphemers regarding other gods and religions but our own (unless actual atheists or pantheistic).

Also about your point on "we're created in God's image", I'm still right, according to Christian sources: Having the ?image? or ?likeness? of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God?s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that ?God is spirit? (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body (which is what I said about him being transparent or like water and air). However, Adam?s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-Go ... z3JX4RK3EZ

This means we are made in God's image, figuratively and spiritually speaking, not literally and psychically.

Still, the Abrahamic God is usually depicted as an old man with a beard. And of course in Christianity there is Jesus, the embodiment of God on earth. Almost all of the polytheistic religions have anthopomorphises their Gods: Hinduism, the Egyptian religion, the Roman/Greek/Germanic religions.
And for blasphemy, to me that's a dirty word since it's been used to suppress freedom of speech for centuries. In some countries there are still laws against blasphemy, Without blasphemers we wouldn't have had people like David Hume.

Jews, Eastern Christians and Muslims do not. He is only depicted as an old man with a white beard in Western Christendom due to the Pagan traditions and how most Western Christians actually do not take their faith seriously, I don't think that anyone actually think he looks like that either, it's just like the angel-babies, it comes from Western art, it's not specified or addressed in the Christian texts, neither do people actually believe them like that, it's just a way to picture them when mentioned because we haven't reached that state of maturity yet to stop idealize God.

It's rather a stereotype than anything. God clearly said that you shall not depict him in Book of Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see Me and live" and of the Gospel of John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time", he also said that he is body-less, so he shouldn't be able to made pictures of as an old man. I don't think Jesus was an incarnation of God, but even if we went off with that, it's still an incarnation, not God himself in his own 'body'.

I don't really think the word blasphemy is bad, infidel has a more negative connotation than the other.

The largest Christian denomination is Roman Catholicism and they do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe the Bible is man-made and not infallible. The teachings of the Church in the nearly 2000 years since are just as important. So many people assume that just because something is written in the Old Testament that Catholics have to believe that. They sort of had to of course, since a literal interpretation of Genesis makes no sense in modern times. It's the same with Judaism, modern Judaism isn't just about Old Testament scrolls but also about the writings of the rabbis in the centuries after the destruction of the Temple.
It's very possible that pagan elements ended up in European Christianity. The different polytheistic religons also influenced each other and sometimes adopted each others Gods. Ultimately, the European polytheistic religions and Hinduism share a common ancestor in the hypothesised proto-Indo European religion. Odin/Wodan has some things in common with the Christian Jesus too: both have died and been resurrected, both are seen as the way to the afterlife.
And not all European Christians used depictions of Jesus or God, since the reformation many Protestant denominations have destroyed the images in the Catholic churches. Since I grew up in the Calvinist areas the Catholic Church is a bit foreign to me.

That's why I don't believe in either the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, they are full of contradictions, scientific inaccuracies and further on that it can't be possible for them to be word of God. But I wasn't speaking of denominations, I spoke of the two religions in general and their book without interpretations. General Christianity, especially Eastern Orthodoxy that are much more religious than Western Christianity, along with Jews and Muslims consider God to not be imagined, they are great sins. Either way, this gets off-topic on the main topic about the paradox responses. Despite what people think, God said that he is image-less and that is basically the end of argument, you can't argue against the ultimate showdown argument.