Is there proof God exists?

real life wrote:

How 'bout just keeping one's mind open?

I find this funny coming from a Creationist.

I think the perception runs both directions.

Modern science was built on the foundation laid by scientists over several hundred years who believed God created the universe, the earth and all that is in it.

real life wrote:

I think the perception runs both directions.

The history and evidence however does not support both. Creationists and the religious begin with a conclusion. There is no way you can have a true open mind this way. none.

real life wrote:

Modern science was built on the foundation laid by scientists over several hundred years who believed God created the universe, the earth and all that is in it.

It certainly was founded by those scientists, it is not maintained by them though. Religious scientist are present today, but it is their job to reconsile what they believe with what the empirical evidence indicates.


I'm in the science world, I can tell you that even at a mega conservative campus such as mine, you would be challenged to find a professor that challenges the very well established facts about evolution.

T
K
O

The history and evidence however does not support both. Creationists and the religious begin with a conclusion. There is no way you can have a true open mind this way. none...

LOL. You're conveniently leaving the important point out of your absurd assertion!

"Creationists and the religious begin with a conclusion"

First: Scientists also conclude.

Diest TKO wrote:

The history and evidence however does not support both. Creationists and the religious begin with a conclusion. There is no way you can have a true open mind this way. none...

LOL. You're conveniently leaving the important point out of your absurd assertion!

"Creationists and the religious begin with a conclusion"

First: Scientists also conclude.

Second: When speaking of Creationists and the religious - what conclusion are you speaking of? That is the important issue!

If there was any real concrete and verifiable proof of the existence of any of the variety of deities worshiped around the globe I don't see how people could keep it a secret even if they wanted to.

False.

Scientists start with an incertaintiy or incontinuity, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is NOT a conclusion.

Science has shown over and over and over a experiment or study beginning with a hypothesis and it's conclusion does not follow the hypothesis. When has Religion ever shown such honesty?

If Charles Darwin was alive today, he would not be upset that his conclusions have since been review and reexplored, he'd be elated. I'm positive he'd be very excited to see how the study of genetics has changed. He'd be eager to learn more and revisist his own theories and the theories that have since followed him.

hypothesis first.
conclusion second.

Further the conclusions are not set in stone. The conclusions are encouraged to be challenged, even if by some religious zealot.

Religion has not checks or balances. You are told what to believe, you accept it as truth be it consistant or not. Conclusion first, no questions. If you want to survive, you'd better close your mind.

T
K
O

So you don't start with CONJECTURES you start with conclusions. Damn, no wonder the Nobel Prize Committee won't return my phone calls. Both words start with a "C" that's probably where I made my mistake! Ya gotta admit it would sure be easier that way, wrong but easier!

TKO:
Based on the information that you've garnered from these threads want to start a class action lawsuit agains the Universities. It seems they have lied to us for years. Someone should have to pay.

So you don't start with CONJECTURES you start with conclusions. Damn, no wonder the Nobel Prize Committee won't return my phone calls. Both words start with a "C" that's probably where I made my mistake! Ya gotta admit it would sure be easier that way, wrong but easier!

TKO:
Based on the information that you've garnered from these threads want to start a class action lawsuit agains the Universities. It seems they have lied to us for years. Someone should have to pay.

Diest TKO wrote:

False.

Scientists start with an incertaintiy or incontinuity, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is NOT a conclusion.

Science has shown over and over and over a experiment or study beginning with a hypothesis and it's conclusion does not follow the hypothesis. When has Religion ever shown such honesty?

If Charles Darwin was alive today, he would not be upset that his conclusions have since been review and reexplored, he'd be elated. I'm positive he'd be very excited to see how the study of genetics has changed. He'd be eager to learn more and revisist his own theories and the theories that have since followed him.

hypothesis first.
conclusion second.

Further the conclusions are not set in stone. The conclusions are encouraged to be challenged, even if by some religious zealot.

Religion has not checks or balances. You are told what to believe, you accept it as truth be it consistant or not. Conclusion first, no questions. If you want to survive, you'd better close your mind.

T
K
O

You still don't get it. Scientists must start with several conclusions in order to form a hypothesis - otherwise they would be unable to form said hypothesis! Big picture Deist - big picture!

Some folks hate to admit that they start with presuppostions.

The myth of the 'objective scientist' has a strong grip on their minds.

In essence , they are guilty of believing their own press.

They cannot conceive that they have the same propensity for bias that they despise in others.

Let's tell it how it is.

Both creation and evolution start with certain presuppositions, deal with largely circumstantial evidence and draw inferences which usually tend to support the initial presup.

Neither has been observed, nor can be repeated since both are postulated to have occurred in the past.

Science, an extremely useful discipline, is given a bad name when the scientific method is twisted in such a manner.

Bad:
You are right Baddog I don't get it either. I can't think of ONE that starts with a conclusion. I work towards a conclusion. If I have my conclusion my work is done. What else is there to do? Like I said it would be wrong but easy.

But just to give you something to spin:

The hypothesis that time can be modeled as a four dimension on a Minkowski-space.