Is there proof God exists?

this part:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

The human brain is not supernatural just because we don't understand much of how it works...

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

He's not saying anything is supernatural. He's saying that it eludes our comprehension thus far. Our inability to understand something does not automatically make it supernatural. The human brain is not supernatural just because we don't understand much of how it works...

USAFHokie80 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

The human brain is not supernatural just because we don't understand much of how it works...

So if you don't understand how it works, how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing supernatural involved?

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

The human brain is not supernatural just because we don't understand much of how it works...

So if you don't understand how it works, how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing supernatural involved?

Because I understand that we are a relatively young creature and our understanding of many things is limited. A while ago, we didn't understand gravity or light, electromagnetism or even a cold. None of those things were supernatural. It took us time to figure them out. It is silly to throw up our hands and claim something is supernatural just because we lack understanding at that time.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

The human brain is not supernatural just because we don't understand much of how it works...

So if you don't understand how it works, how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing supernatural involved?

Because I understand that we are a relatively young creature and our understanding of many things is limited. A while ago, we didn't understand gravity or light, electromagnetism or even a cold. None of those things were supernatural. It took us time to figure them out. It is silly to throw up our hands and claim something is supernatural just because we lack understanding at that time.

We are a relatively young creature that has the ability to understand gravity as compared to what?

His point is simply that there's no credibility to the supernatural, and that history has shown that many things thought to be supernatural end up being proven to be not.

So compare man's understanding of chemestry in the dark ages to man's understanding of [insert supernatural claim here].

Give it time.

T
K
O

P.S. - The notion of supernatural is as ludacris as a notion of something being "subnatural."

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

Einstein also realized that in order to excel as a scientist - he would need to look past the immediate & present 'evidence' and consider that there may be something unexplainable (supernatural perhaps?) out there.

unexplainable and unscientific are not synonomous.

T
K
O

Huh?

The human brain is not supernatural just because we don't understand much of how it works...

So if you don't understand how it works, how did you reach the conclusion that there was nothing supernatural involved?

Because I understand that we are a relatively young creature and our understanding of many things is limited. A while ago, we didn't understand gravity or light, electromagnetism or even a cold. None of those things were supernatural. It took us time to figure them out. It is silly to throw up our hands and claim something is supernatural just because we lack understanding at that time.

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

real life wrote:

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

But thats exactly what religious people havent got. They know the answer, and its always the same, that is - God.

The God of the gaps in our understanding.

Steve 41oo wrote:

real life wrote:

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

But thats exactly what religious people havent got. They know the answer, and its always the same, that is - God.

The God of the gaps in our understanding.

Cheers to that brother.

The religious have never demonstrated any such openmindedness.

So just keep...

Throwing your hands up
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

real life wrote:

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

But thats exactly what religious people havent got. They know the answer, and its always the same, that is - God.

The God of the gaps in our understanding.

Cheers to that brother.

The religious have never demonstrated any such openmindedness.

So just keep...

Throwing your hands up
K
O

Any who chart their life's course based on hope of reward fit into this characterization.

As do those whose goal is moral license.

Neither is open minded.

...It would seem then that our scientists are more ready to accept god as being real than our preachers accepting that he is not.

T
K
O

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

real life wrote:

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

I find this funny coming from a Creationist.

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

I find this funny coming from a Creationist.

Huh?

By definition - Creationists must clearly have an open mind. What do you mean by your statement?