God

[The Disciple of Ragnos]

Actually, it's hard to call believing in God an actual "belief", well if it's not that, what is?
It just evolved from cave people's not understanding the basic rules of the universe. Unfortunately, the fact that all these beliefs, even though evolved, preserved into the present day, stops the new overview of nature and universe, a scietific view, from evolving like the religion did.

[Empress Palpatine]

That sounds like the theory of universal atraction to me ( by Sir Isaac Newton).
Altough i fail to understand how will ever God and science mix.
God is based on blind beliefe and science is based on open eyed questioning.

Mrs. Vader's post was based on a conversation we had over lunch one day. I was telling her about a book I have been reading. It is a new book about the life of Albert Einstein. He was a person I was curious about...not so much the details of his theories (which can bake your brain), but how he came up with his ideas.

Among other things, he theorized about gravity/attraction, etc. The bigger the item (the more of it), the bigger the gravity's pull. I heard this one in my school days. I was thinking that perhaps that there is a metaphysical equivalent...like the sum total "gravitational pull" of a group of peoples' auras together, especially if they are all focused one particular way. I think this is why witch covens like to do group magic.

I think there are several people on this board who would like this book. Einstein is the guy who gave science a sort of magic, a mystery.

I for one do not think the idea of God and science contradict (nor did Albert Pike in MORALS AND DOGMA). Only religious types who go funde have a problem.

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

I believe the seperation of religion and science to be artificial constructs to keep us under societies control. If you read ancient religious texts you will see that many of today's scientific descoveries were at one time vailed in the poetic language of religion. For example the Hebrew Kabalah talks of an oscelateing universe and that the universe is curved and sphereical. Reciantly a scientist by the name of Steven Hawkings descovered a substance in space that is dark matter. This dark matter is spread throughout space and it has been descovered that there is enough of this matter to enclose the universe into a shpere. This enclosier than was proven to mean that our universe does in fact oscelate. This matter is apropietly named Hawkings matter.

This is an example where science and religion are wed. So if we approach religion scientifically we might find the right balance between magic and reality to make the real world magical.

[Darth J'Zal]

As a theologian with a strong scientific background, I have been involved with discussions on science and religion. My experience has been that those who try to reconcile the two end up creating explainations that coddle believers but have no scientific basis.

Furthermore, trying to make a physics-metaphysics connection often results in using similar words to connect unrelated concepts. The scientists in the family and I had a field-day with the energy lectures at Ashlaknights Academy (no offense, Master Thompson).

BTW: Stephen Hawking did not discover dark matter. Vera Rubin and Kent Ford have that distinction, although mention of it goes back to the 18th century.

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

I have an audio tape of Hawkings lectures on his stuff to do with his descovery of Hawkings Matter. It is even named after him so how can you say that Hawkings did not descover it? Just because you want to insist in sideing with societies dictates that says that science and religion must be at war and to believe one is to deny the other does not make it so. Just because we have a society that silences people does not make them right just jack booted, but certianly not right.

[Darth J'Zal]

Dear Lady,

This is exactly my point: in my experience, it is the religious-minded who get defensive in discussions on the existence of God. You got upset when all I said was I find scientists to be more willing to compromise on the issue, sacrificing their need of the provable for the sake of maintaining dialogue. Many agnostic (not to be confused with atheist) scientists would be perfectly willing to believe in God if proof to their satisfaction was given.

I am a theologian--I would very much like to prove the existence of the divine by whatever name or form--but understand the position in which I am. I need to present proof, or at least something that makes sense, not just for scientists, but also for reconciling the "truths" within Christianity. Give me something I can use, something that yields the same results for anyone else as it does for you. That is the center of the debate between science and religion, the need for proof: results that can be duplicated by someone else. What evidence does anyone have that God exists: personal experience, a feeling, ancient texts, coincidence? Each of these has different meaning/interpretation for different people, which is why there is not, and likely will never be, a definitive answer. The question then becomes "is it even possible to prove the existence of the divine?" Getting defensive only serves to show that your argument has no foundation.

No one is denying you your belief in God. If you are happy with your beliefs, all power to you. As demonstrated in this and other threads, each of our interpretations of the divine differs greatly from that of others who contribute to this forum. How can any of us expect our belief to be the only "right" answer?

You seem to be confusing dark matter with Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. There is no such thing as "Hawking matter." Your misunderstanding of scientific concepts is disturbing, but not surprising after seeing the latest NASA discovery reduced to a informationally-devoid snippet on the nightly news.

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

Just pretend that I said nothing!!!!!!!!! Forget it. There is a reason that regular people do not like tadays scientists, because they are so picky on all descussions as to sillence everybody else. So I will not bother next time.

[Empress Palpatine]

This is evidence of the hostility between the two camps. Most of what common people hear about science is on T.V. There is no way common people can know science as well as a scientist. For some reason this makes scientists (or those who fancy themselves as in that vein) hostile to regular folks. Then they wonder why regular people go running back to religions. If scientists wish to be understood, they need to communicate better to the mass of people out there.

[Darth Devious]

which is why carl sagan was so good.

[Empress Palpatine]

which is why carl sagan was so good.

I agree. He was great. This is the reason I bought the Cosmos DVD series.

[The Disciple of Ragnos]

...And the argument between Mrs. Darth Vader (http://forum.sithnet.net/forum/member.php?u=17) and Darth J'Zal (http://forum.sithnet.net/forum/member.php?u=76) is only proving me right. Mrs. D here representing the point of view of non-scientist (automatically a religious point of view), and DJ - a scientist. If these two can hardly get along, how can the actual views of religion and sciense?

The Hebrew Kabalah talking of an oscelateing universe? Agree, there can be nothing more coincidential than this. That was just a (can't even call it a theorem) of a lot years old, having nothing to do with actual observations.

But we again forget about our thread's topic. Is there a connection between The Force and God? Here, we could've used both religious and secular points of view, but every topic on this forum gets carried away if nobody stops it.

[Darth J'Zal]

I never said I was a scientist. I said I am a theologian with a strong scientific background, so that actually puts me in the “religious camp.” Doesn't anyone know what a theologian is? By definition it is one who studies the nature of God and religious truth. As I stated, I would love to prove the existence of God, but am faced with constraints.

I apologize to Mrs. Darth Vader if she feels I was in any way attacking her or her beliefs. I worked for several hours over two days to word a response that I sincerely thought would reassure and not embarrass you. I obviously failed and for this I am sorry. Furthermore, I am sorry that I was insensitive to your reaction. I know that getting defensive and showing any ignorance of scientific fact are easily exploited weaknesses in that debate. I did not take into consideration as much as I should have that you do not have this level of expertise.


And now I would like to thank her. This whole exchange has gotten me to look at the issue of scientific proof.


Perhaps looking for proof of divine existence is the wrong way of going about it. To say that God does not exist because there is no proof is flawed logic. Lack of evidence does not negate existence. Throughout history scientists have been making hypotheses and formulating theory based on their observations, yet they often lacked the equipment to thoroughly observe. As the tools to observe are refined, so too are the theories. One consideration is the lack of a tool with which to observe the divine. Another consideration is what if our assumptions are wrong--either of the nature of God or what constitutes evidence of God? And please don't anyone take this to be an attack on your beliefs. It is just a question.


Just because I personally believe that man created God in his own image DOES NOT mean I believe the divine does not exist. I only have issue with the anthropomorphic representation of god(s). How many of you would accept this if I say the divine “told” me it is so? And there is the rub. I believe in the divine within us all; proving it is another matter.


For those who believe that faith is proof of God, they have their evidence. But they cannot expect others to accept that proof. Neither should those who demand more than faith discount faith as proof for those who believe.


I think what is really important but often gets overlooked in this whole debate is that all religions offer a similar blueprint for communal living.

[Darth J'Zal]

Now, if you will indulge me, I will present my analysis on the Christian vs. Atheist debate presented on ABC News Nightline last Wednesday (May 9, 2007).

Based on what was broadcast, neither side presented convincing arguments to support their position. Both sides presented flawed logic and non-truths, relying on mixed meaning and making big leaps between the argument and the evidence to support that argument.


The Christians made a huge, unsupported leap between a painting being created and everything being created. An artist created a painting, someone created the paint, but someone found the pigment compounds. Logic does not follow that these compounds had to be created as the painting or paint was. Conditions were such that these chemicals compounded and deposited in a particular location. Pigment compunds came into being but there was not the consciousness or deliberateness of an artist's work. This argument combined flawed logic with mixed meaning: substituting one definition of "create" with another. The Atheists rebutted by asking if everything in the universe has to be created then who created God, for which the Christians had no answer.


Both sides seemed to feel the validation of Jesus was of much greater importance than his message. Contrary to the Atheists' claim, existence of the historical Jesus is generally accepted as true by scholars. While Josephus and Tacitus do not provide first-hand witness of his life, the fact that they did not doubt his existence demonstrates that knowledge of Jesus extended beyond Christian circles. Each was willing to stake his reputation on hearsay. However, resurrection appears to be solely documented in Christian literature, whether actually witnessed or not, and then not in all Christian literature. Furthermore, Jesus' teachings can be attributed to other rabbis of the day. Scholarship points to Jesus being part of a widespread reform movement. Why he became the "spokesman" of the movement probably resulted from his martyrdom and the zeal of his followers.


The Atheists provided no support for their position. Instead all they did was perpetuate the flawed logic that lack of proof means lack of existence, which the Christians then used to discount evolution: no evidence of transitional species means evolution doesn't exist (despite the fact that there is evidence of transitional species).


A member of the audience asked if God created the perfect machine of the human body, then explain cancer (which as cell mutation gone haywire supports evolution). One of the Christians immediately turned the question to one of suffering, which the asker pointed out was not the question. Despite several efforts to get the panelist back onto the issue of cancer, he continued to evade the question posed.


While I would like to give the panelists the benefit of the doubt, I fear that what was broadcast was representative of the entire debate. Both sides seem to have come prepared to make its point without consideration of genuine rebuttal. This was not a debate; it was two sides each listening to itself reinforce its own justification that it is right.

[The Disciple of Ragnos]

Okay, I'm not gonna read the both essays, but I never said you're a scientist, I meant that in this particular argument you represent scientifican side of religion, while Ms. D represents a pure religious idea.

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

Darth J'zal, Thank you for your apology. To me if someone thousands of years ago either "talks" to the Force or goes into a meditative state and comes up with knowledge of the universe that today we are just descovering in science that prooves that the Force in fact does exist. How would some ancient Hebrew know way back then about an oscolateing universe? They had no scientific instraments only their communion with the Force. I believe the acuracy of the vision as proof. Even Carl Sagan noted the acuracy of the Hindhu time tables as correlateing with the "Big Bang". He said no doubt by accident but the fact that if you look at many religious writtings they all have many such scientific accuracies. So it is in looking at many religions that you notice this fact. It is in the cross referanceing that the pattern begins to emerge. The Kabalah, Hindhuism, Bhudhism, Odenism and even some christians have a form of theistic evolution. It works like this the Force first creats a void, then the Force fills the center of the void with a very condensed light(this lightcan not be seen by the eye. It looks black to us). The light gets so packed that by continueing the stream until it blows up in a collosel explosion known as the "Big Bang". From then on scientists have maped out our course of evolution quite well. So I believe in both a Force that created all this over the course of 15 billion years as stated by Carl Sagan in Cosmos and That at key times minipulated the course the evolution will take. I believe in both a Grand Arcitect and evolution. Does this help explain my point of view. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. I do not wish to insult anyone either. In India there are many scientists that think that science and religion does not need to go to war. You can reconcile the two. Albert Pike in 1871 wrote his book called "Morals and Dogma". In it he used the science of his day with religion and found that they were compatable. I think that the same can be true today if the scientists were willing to look at the religious writeings that show their theories written thousands of years before we had the instraments to study the science.

When something only happens once, it is a coincodance. If it happens in many places across the globe I consider it a fact to be dealt with. If many religions attest to oscelateing universe and many refer to the "Big Bang" and a spherical universe and then a scientist comes along to prove these as facts about our universe than I take the religious writeing as a Vision given by the Force and therefore the Force is proven as real because it told information that no one had access to thousands of years ago when the vision was seen. So if today's scientist proves what someone said way back then of course I see it as proof. I hope this explains where I a comeing from. I hope that no one is insulted. But I hope that this is clear as to what I was trying to say.

I too own "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. Sagan is my faverate as well. Hawkings is harder to understand. I hope that this fixes things.:)

[The Disciple of Ragnos]

...Or there could be thousands of other reasons. Little green persons with large heads, for one ;)

[The Disciple of Ragnos]

up.............................

[Mrs. Darth Vader]

...Or there could be thousands of other reasons. Little green persons with large heads, for one ;)

That was a good joke. I got a good laugh.:haha:

It seems that Einstien originaly thought of the fact that the universe is curved and is sphereical from the physics community.

[Darth_Mithras]

Hmm here are my thoughts on God:

I don't belong to any one religion or church
I don't believe in one god

I DO believe in a supreme being, a higher power

but what I really believe in is the force