Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Discuss the March 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God’s Plan by Daniel Friedmann.
Gertie
Posts: 1262
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Gertie »

Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:18 am
Gertie wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 7:58 am
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm The author explains, quoting some of the historical scholars, that actually the earth is not old as the scientists claim. He suggests that the God has created it in several thousand years (a 'day' in God's creation is taken as a 'thousand years'), but has made it to look like billions of years old, with the old stones, fossils, rings on the tree trunks, etc. The author compares this with making a newly made Denim to look old by fading its colour.

Do you think this is true? If so, has the God deceived us? But why? On the other hand, has science got it all wrong despite hundreds of years of studies?
I'd want some compelling evidence or argument for the speculation that there is a god which made fossils, etc more recently than science suggests, to believe it. Just like if someone claimed the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy mice really did create the earth as an experiment. Because you can make untestable claims about anything which can't be disproven. In which case the sensible thing to do is generally follow the evidence available - and that's what science does.
I see your point, and that is the issue when it comes to philosophical arguments. One can suggest a point that neither be proved or disproved, and people can argue on that point for eternity. They are usually not based in any evidence, but solely on various speculations and suggestions. The question regarding presence or abscence of a god belongs to this too. So it is better to rely on scientific evidence rather than mere religious statements.
Well if there is some compelling argument based on reason rather than evidence, that can be philosophically persuasive too.

In this case (I've not read this book and won't be buying it) two different explanations are offered for the existence of fossils, tree rings, carbon dating, geological findings etc. One explanation is compatible with all our other empirical observations of the universe, and the entire physicalist model which has been constructed around our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. And the other contradicts it based on the possibly metaphorical beliefs one particular religion came up with prior to the availability of much of the knowledge we now have. And somebody then working out the numbers of generations (begottings) mentioned in different texts which occured since the setting of the Adam and Eve story. Throwing in ad hoc that a day = a thousand years to make it somehow more convincing.

That claim is untestable, just like the claim that white mice created the earth as a lab experiment. Neither can be disproven, but that doesn't mean such a claim has a 50/50 chance of being true. So when such a claim is made, the onus is on the maker of the claim to provide either evidence or some other compelling argument. The scientific claim is compelling because that's what all the evidence points to, and it is consistent with our overall model of how the world works. When anomalies arise, that model is adjusted, it is open to new evidence and interpretations. A faith based model is stuck with simply denying all the evidence and anomalies, and opposing arguments. It's not a philosophical argument, it's a theological interpretation of a text which many theologians themselves read as intended as metaphorical, rather than a divine revelation of an actual event. And belief in such is known as apologetics, because it's not part of philosophical practice.

There are some philosophical arguments for the existence of god, this isn't one.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by evolution »

Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:17 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:18 am
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm The author explains, quoting some of the historical scholars, that actually the earth is not old as the scientists claim. He suggests that the God has created it in several thousand years (a 'day' in God's creation is taken as a 'thousand years'), but has made it to look like billions of years old, with the old stones, fossils, rings on the tree trunks, etc. The author compares this with making a newly made Denim to look old by fading its colour.

Do you think this is true? If so, has the God deceived us? But why? On the other hand, has science got it all wrong despite hundreds of years of studies?
Uummm... your title has a typo, it should be: Has the god deceived us THUS science has it all wrong, OR not.
Thank you for the correction. It can be put in that way. If the God has deceived us, then definitely science could have got it all wrong. But can't it be like either this or that? Can it be that science has got it wrong in the first place and the God had nothing to do with that?
Could it also be; Has God not deceived us, but there are some things, which people who do science have got wrong?

Like, for example, most, so called, "scientists" still believe that there was 'a beginning', which unfortunately, is distorting the way they look at, and see, 'things'?
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Sushan »

Gertie wrote: March 4th, 2021, 4:39 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:18 am
Gertie wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 7:58 am
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm The author explains, quoting some of the historical scholars, that actually the earth is not old as the scientists claim. He suggests that the God has created it in several thousand years (a 'day' in God's creation is taken as a 'thousand years'), but has made it to look like billions of years old, with the old stones, fossils, rings on the tree trunks, etc. The author compares this with making a newly made Denim to look old by fading its colour.

Do you think this is true? If so, has the God deceived us? But why? On the other hand, has science got it all wrong despite hundreds of years of studies?
I'd want some compelling evidence or argument for the speculation that there is a god which made fossils, etc more recently than science suggests, to believe it. Just like if someone claimed the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy mice really did create the earth as an experiment. Because you can make untestable claims about anything which can't be disproven. In which case the sensible thing to do is generally follow the evidence available - and that's what science does.
I see your point, and that is the issue when it comes to philosophical arguments. One can suggest a point that neither be proved or disproved, and people can argue on that point for eternity. They are usually not based in any evidence, but solely on various speculations and suggestions. The question regarding presence or abscence of a god belongs to this too. So it is better to rely on scientific evidence rather than mere religious statements.
Well if there is some compelling argument based on reason rather than evidence, that can be philosophically persuasive too.

In this case (I've not read this book and won't be buying it) two different explanations are offered for the existence of fossils, tree rings, carbon dating, geological findings etc. One explanation is compatible with all our other empirical observations of the universe, and the entire physicalist model which has been constructed around our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. And the other contradicts it based on the possibly metaphorical beliefs one particular religion came up with prior to the availability of much of the knowledge we now have. And somebody then working out the numbers of generations (begottings) mentioned in different texts which occured since the setting of the Adam and Eve story. Throwing in ad hoc that a day = a thousand years to make it somehow more convincing.

That claim is untestable, just like the claim that white mice created the earth as a lab experiment. Neither can be disproven, but that doesn't mean such a claim has a 50/50 chance of being true. So when such a claim is made, the onus is on the maker of the claim to provide either evidence or some other compelling argument. The scientific claim is compelling because that's what all the evidence points to, and it is consistent with our overall model of how the world works. When anomalies arise, that model is adjusted, it is open to new evidence and interpretations. A faith based model is stuck with simply denying all the evidence and anomalies, and opposing arguments. It's not a philosophical argument, it's a theological interpretation of a text which many theologians themselves read as intended as metaphorical, rather than a divine revelation of an actual event. And belief in such is known as apologetics, because it's not part of philosophical practice.

There are some philosophical arguments for the existence of god, this isn't one.
That is quite true and conclusive. And I would like to add something to it. Even in the religious belief systems, they have a way to cope up with suddenly occurring anomalies. They do not change their beliefs, but make up some sort of argument and defend their beliefs. But, if they can defend that anymore, they hand over that duty to the God saying its God's doing and mere humans cannot understand that.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Sushan »

evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 5:21 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:17 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:18 am
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm The author explains, quoting some of the historical scholars, that actually the earth is not old as the scientists claim. He suggests that the God has created it in several thousand years (a 'day' in God's creation is taken as a 'thousand years'), but has made it to look like billions of years old, with the old stones, fossils, rings on the tree trunks, etc. The author compares this with making a newly made Denim to look old by fading its colour.

Do you think this is true? If so, has the God deceived us? But why? On the other hand, has science got it all wrong despite hundreds of years of studies?
Uummm... your title has a typo, it should be: Has the god deceived us THUS science has it all wrong, OR not.
Thank you for the correction. It can be put in that way. If the God has deceived us, then definitely science could have got it all wrong. But can't it be like either this or that? Can it be that science has got it wrong in the first place and the God had nothing to do with that?
Could it also be; Has God not deceived us, but there are some things, which people who do science have got wrong?

Like, for example, most, so called, "scientists" still believe that there was 'a beginning', which unfortunately, is distorting the way they look at, and see, 'things'?
Well, that is possible, and we cannot say no to anything about God, because we cannot prove or disprove His existence.

And in the case of scientists, they do not believe on the big bang out of faith. But they have shown compelling evidence to solidify that theory. And later the theory of expanding and contracting universe came. Then scientists searched evidence to see whether that theory is correct. So, scientists work has a different way than God's work, and they prove their points with evidence, not with arguments or metaphysical explanations.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Gertie
Posts: 1262
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Gertie »

Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:10 pm
Gertie wrote: March 4th, 2021, 4:39 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 8:18 am
Gertie wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 7:58 am

I'd want some compelling evidence or argument for the speculation that there is a god which made fossils, etc more recently than science suggests, to believe it. Just like if someone claimed the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy mice really did create the earth as an experiment. Because you can make untestable claims about anything which can't be disproven. In which case the sensible thing to do is generally follow the evidence available - and that's what science does.
I see your point, and that is the issue when it comes to philosophical arguments. One can suggest a point that neither be proved or disproved, and people can argue on that point for eternity. They are usually not based in any evidence, but solely on various speculations and suggestions. The question regarding presence or abscence of a god belongs to this too. So it is better to rely on scientific evidence rather than mere religious statements.
Well if there is some compelling argument based on reason rather than evidence, that can be philosophically persuasive too.

In this case (I've not read this book and won't be buying it) two different explanations are offered for the existence of fossils, tree rings, carbon dating, geological findings etc. One explanation is compatible with all our other empirical observations of the universe, and the entire physicalist model which has been constructed around our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. And the other contradicts it based on the possibly metaphorical beliefs one particular religion came up with prior to the availability of much of the knowledge we now have. And somebody then working out the numbers of generations (begottings) mentioned in different texts which occured since the setting of the Adam and Eve story. Throwing in ad hoc that a day = a thousand years to make it somehow more convincing.

That claim is untestable, just like the claim that white mice created the earth as a lab experiment. Neither can be disproven, but that doesn't mean such a claim has a 50/50 chance of being true. So when such a claim is made, the onus is on the maker of the claim to provide either evidence or some other compelling argument. The scientific claim is compelling because that's what all the evidence points to, and it is consistent with our overall model of how the world works. When anomalies arise, that model is adjusted, it is open to new evidence and interpretations. A faith based model is stuck with simply denying all the evidence and anomalies, and opposing arguments. It's not a philosophical argument, it's a theological interpretation of a text which many theologians themselves read as intended as metaphorical, rather than a divine revelation of an actual event. And belief in such is known as apologetics, because it's not part of philosophical practice.

There are some philosophical arguments for the existence of god, this isn't one.
That is quite true and conclusive. And I would like to add something to it. Even in the religious belief systems, they have a way to cope up with suddenly occurring anomalies. They do not change their beliefs, but make up some sort of argument and defend their beliefs. But, if they can defend that anymore, they hand over that duty to the God saying its God's doing and mere humans cannot understand that.
Yep there's always those Mysterious Ways... :)
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by evolution »

Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pm
evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 5:21 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:17 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:18 am

Uummm... your title has a typo, it should be: Has the god deceived us THUS science has it all wrong, OR not.
Thank you for the correction. It can be put in that way. If the God has deceived us, then definitely science could have got it all wrong. But can't it be like either this or that? Can it be that science has got it wrong in the first place and the God had nothing to do with that?
Could it also be; Has God not deceived us, but there are some things, which people who do science have got wrong?

Like, for example, most, so called, "scientists" still believe that there was 'a beginning', which unfortunately, is distorting the way they look at, and see, 'things'?
Well, that is possible, and we cannot say no to anything about God, because we cannot prove or disprove His existence.
But whether 'God' exists or not can be very easily proven. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion that God could even be a "he".
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd in the case of scientists, they do not believe on the big bang out of faith. But they have shown compelling evidence to solidify that theory.
What theory? That there was a 'bang', which was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything, which they have just named and labelled a 'big' one?

To me, this sounds more or less just like those people who claim God was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything.

To me the words 'God' and 'Big Bang' are just two different terms and phrases in an attempt to explain what human beings have absolutely 'no' idea about.

After all, they are just terms used to explain a phenomenon, which can be also proven false very easily anyway. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion; 'in the beginning'.

When people look at 'things' while assuming and/or believing that there was 'a beginning', then they will not see thee actual Truth.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd later the theory of expanding and contracting universe came.
So, some people are just adding more and more theories/guesses onto what are just other theories/guesses, all in the hope of backing up and supporting their underlying assumption or belief that there was 'a beginning', in the first place.

All of these theories/guesses are just based on the assumption that there is 'a beginning'. And, then people look for "evidence", which backs up and supports what they just 'assume' is true.

Remove the assumptions, thee Truth is revealed.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmThen scientists searched evidence to see whether that theory is correct. So, scientists work has a different way than God's work, and they prove their points with evidence, not with arguments or metaphysical explanations.
Lol The, so called, "evidence" here is not proof, but rather just an 'interpretation', which is made after a theory/guess had been made, and depending on how one idolises or not the one who said and wrote the theory/guess, then that influences how one is influenced by the, so called, "evidence", or not.

Just like the religious person just accepts the words in a book, without proof, so to does the scientific person just accepts the words in a book, without proof.

Depending on the author these people who see the author as a 'God', then just accept what they say, even if there is no actual proof nor evidence at all. These people then, sub or unconsciously, look for 'that' what supposedly backs up and supports what their "God" has said and claimed.

There is no actual proof that the Universe is expanding and contracting. There is, however, a claim that there is evidence, which supports that the Universe is expanding. However, this is not even evidence, let alone any proof, that the Universe began with a big bang, nor began with any thing else.

The saying, "in the beginning", which scientists still even say and use to this day, when this was written, is a misleading phrase and term, which has been around for eons.

Considering where, and frombwhat book, that phrase came from it is surprising that, so called, scientists still say and use that phrase as though it has any truth to it, in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Sushan »

evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 6:39 pm
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pm
evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 5:21 am
Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:17 am

Thank you for the correction. It can be put in that way. If the God has deceived us, then definitely science could have got it all wrong. But can't it be like either this or that? Can it be that science has got it wrong in the first place and the God had nothing to do with that?
Could it also be; Has God not deceived us, but there are some things, which people who do science have got wrong?

Like, for example, most, so called, "scientists" still believe that there was 'a beginning', which unfortunately, is distorting the way they look at, and see, 'things'?
Well, that is possible, and we cannot say no to anything about God, because we cannot prove or disprove His existence.
But whether 'God' exists or not can be very easily proven. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion that God could even be a "he".
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd in the case of scientists, they do not believe on the big bang out of faith. But they have shown compelling evidence to solidify that theory.
What theory? That there was a 'bang', which was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything, which they have just named and labelled a 'big' one?

To me, this sounds more or less just like those people who claim God was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything.

To me the words 'God' and 'Big Bang' are just two different terms and phrases in an attempt to explain what human beings have absolutely 'no' idea about.

After all, they are just terms used to explain a phenomenon, which can be also proven false very easily anyway. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion; 'in the beginning'.

When people look at 'things' while assuming and/or believing that there was 'a beginning', then they will not see thee actual Truth.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd later the theory of expanding and contracting universe came.
So, some people are just adding more and more theories/guesses onto what are just other theories/guesses, all in the hope of backing up and supporting their underlying assumption or belief that there was 'a beginning', in the first place.

All of these theories/guesses are just based on the assumption that there is 'a beginning'. And, then people look for "evidence", which backs up and supports what they just 'assume' is true.

Remove the assumptions, thee Truth is revealed.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmThen scientists searched evidence to see whether that theory is correct. So, scientists work has a different way than God's work, and they prove their points with evidence, not with arguments or metaphysical explanations.
Lol The, so called, "evidence" here is not proof, but rather just an 'interpretation', which is made after a theory/guess had been made, and depending on how one idolises or not the one who said and wrote the theory/guess, then that influences how one is influenced by the, so called, "evidence", or not.

Just like the religious person just accepts the words in a book, without proof, so to does the scientific person just accepts the words in a book, without proof.

Depending on the author these people who see the author as a 'God', then just accept what they say, even if there is no actual proof nor evidence at all. These people then, sub or unconsciously, look for 'that' what supposedly backs up and supports what their "God" has said and claimed.

There is no actual proof that the Universe is expanding and contracting. There is, however, a claim that there is evidence, which supports that the Universe is expanding. However, this is not even evidence, let alone any proof, that the Universe began with a big bang, nor began with any thing else.

The saying, "in the beginning", which scientists still even say and use to this day, when this was written, is a misleading phrase and term, which has been around for eons.

Considering where, and frombwhat book, that phrase came from it is surprising that, so called, scientists still say and use that phrase as though it has any truth to it, in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
It doesn't matter to me whether God is a he or she, since I have no intention in backing the idea of a God.

But the expansion of universe is not a mere theory, but an observation.
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.
Above quote is simply taken from google, but there are enough references for this matter.

And this concept of big bang is not a mere speculation or belief like the concept of an almighty God, which has no actual evidence. Maybe it cannot be proven, but what has been found is better than what the scriptures say about the concept of God.

Looking out into space is like looking back in time. That is because light from objects that are far away takes longer to reach us than light from objects nearby. If an object is a million light years away, we are seeing it as it looked a million years ago.
Modern telescopes are so powerful that they can view objects many billions of light years away, close to the time of the Big Bang. If the Big Bang did happen, then we'd expect those distant views to reveal clouds of gas which have not yet turned into stars and galaxies.

Astronomers have recently found gas clouds like this in the distant Universe. Some of them are around 12 or 13 billion years old. Even at this incredible distance, we can tell what they are made of by using a technique called spectroscopy to analyse light that passes through them.

As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/how-do-we-k ... ed/zjn68xs)
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by evolution »

Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 6:39 pm
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pm
evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 5:21 am

Could it also be; Has God not deceived us, but there are some things, which people who do science have got wrong?

Like, for example, most, so called, "scientists" still believe that there was 'a beginning', which unfortunately, is distorting the way they look at, and see, 'things'?
Well, that is possible, and we cannot say no to anything about God, because we cannot prove or disprove His existence.
But whether 'God' exists or not can be very easily proven. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion that God could even be a "he".
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd in the case of scientists, they do not believe on the big bang out of faith. But they have shown compelling evidence to solidify that theory.
What theory? That there was a 'bang', which was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything, which they have just named and labelled a 'big' one?

To me, this sounds more or less just like those people who claim God was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything.

To me the words 'God' and 'Big Bang' are just two different terms and phrases in an attempt to explain what human beings have absolutely 'no' idea about.

After all, they are just terms used to explain a phenomenon, which can be also proven false very easily anyway. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion; 'in the beginning'.

When people look at 'things' while assuming and/or believing that there was 'a beginning', then they will not see thee actual Truth.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd later the theory of expanding and contracting universe came.
So, some people are just adding more and more theories/guesses onto what are just other theories/guesses, all in the hope of backing up and supporting their underlying assumption or belief that there was 'a beginning', in the first place.

All of these theories/guesses are just based on the assumption that there is 'a beginning'. And, then people look for "evidence", which backs up and supports what they just 'assume' is true.

Remove the assumptions, thee Truth is revealed.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmThen scientists searched evidence to see whether that theory is correct. So, scientists work has a different way than God's work, and they prove their points with evidence, not with arguments or metaphysical explanations.
Lol The, so called, "evidence" here is not proof, but rather just an 'interpretation', which is made after a theory/guess had been made, and depending on how one idolises or not the one who said and wrote the theory/guess, then that influences how one is influenced by the, so called, "evidence", or not.

Just like the religious person just accepts the words in a book, without proof, so to does the scientific person just accepts the words in a book, without proof.

Depending on the author these people who see the author as a 'God', then just accept what they say, even if there is no actual proof nor evidence at all. These people then, sub or unconsciously, look for 'that' what supposedly backs up and supports what their "God" has said and claimed.

There is no actual proof that the Universe is expanding and contracting. There is, however, a claim that there is evidence, which supports that the Universe is expanding. However, this is not even evidence, let alone any proof, that the Universe began with a big bang, nor began with any thing else.

The saying, "in the beginning", which scientists still even say and use to this day, when this was written, is a misleading phrase and term, which has been around for eons.

Considering where, and frombwhat book, that phrase came from it is surprising that, so called, scientists still say and use that phrase as though it has any truth to it, in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
It doesn't matter to me whether God is a he or she, since I have no intention in backing the idea of a God.
And, it does not matter to me whether you are backing the idea of God or not. You were just the one who labeled God a "he" here.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm But the expansion of universe is not a mere theory, but an observation.
And, how much of the Universe can actually be observed?

The sun revolves the earth, it called be said and claimed is not just a mere theory, but an observation, as well.

Does what is observed make the observation actually True?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.
Above quote is simply taken from google, but there are enough references for this matter.

And this concept of big bang is not a mere speculation or belief like the concept of an almighty God, which has no actual evidence. Maybe it cannot be proven, but what has been found is better than what the scriptures say about the concept of God.
If you say and believe so, then it 'must be' so, correct?

Again, how much of the actual Universe has been observed?

To make the claim that the Universe is expanding, based upon a very narrowed and short sighted field of view, reveals a very narrowed and, literally, a very short sighted perspective of 'things'.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Looking out into space is like looking back in time. That is because light from objects that are far away takes longer to reach us than light from objects nearby. If an object is a million light years away, we are seeing it as it looked a million years ago.
And, this is repeated, once again, for what reason, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
Modern telescopes are so powerful that they can view objects many billions of light years away, close to the time of the Big Bang.
And, which each newer and more modern generation of people will come newer and more modern telescopes, with each newer one claiming to be "so, much more, powerful".

Also, is that the bang, which is claimed to be the start and beginning of the Universe/Everything, or, is that just another bang, of the countless other bangs, which ALL just happen within the Universe, Itself?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm If the Big Bang did happen, then we'd expect those distant views to reveal clouds of gas which have not yet turned into stars and galaxies.
What do you mean by, "if the big bang did happen"?

Was there a bang, which is labeled and called, 'the big bang', or was there not?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Astronomers have recently found gas clouds like this in the distant Universe.
What does the term and phrase "distant Universe" actually mean and refer to, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Some of them are around 12 or 13 billion years old. Even at this incredible distance, we can tell what they are made of by using a technique called spectroscopy to analyse light that passes through them.
Who cares?

And, why do you call that relatively 'minuscule distance' an "incredible distance"?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.
And your purpose for repeating 'things', which are clearly already written in books, is ...?
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Sushan »

evolution wrote: March 5th, 2021, 3:54 am
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 6:39 pm
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pm

Well, that is possible, and we cannot say no to anything about God, because we cannot prove or disprove His existence.
But whether 'God' exists or not can be very easily proven. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion that God could even be a "he".
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd in the case of scientists, they do not believe on the big bang out of faith. But they have shown compelling evidence to solidify that theory.
What theory? That there was a 'bang', which was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything, which they have just named and labelled a 'big' one?

To me, this sounds more or less just like those people who claim God was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything.

To me the words 'God' and 'Big Bang' are just two different terms and phrases in an attempt to explain what human beings have absolutely 'no' idea about.

After all, they are just terms used to explain a phenomenon, which can be also proven false very easily anyway. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion; 'in the beginning'.

When people look at 'things' while assuming and/or believing that there was 'a beginning', then they will not see thee actual Truth.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmAnd later the theory of expanding and contracting universe came.
So, some people are just adding more and more theories/guesses onto what are just other theories/guesses, all in the hope of backing up and supporting their underlying assumption or belief that there was 'a beginning', in the first place.

All of these theories/guesses are just based on the assumption that there is 'a beginning'. And, then people look for "evidence", which backs up and supports what they just 'assume' is true.

Remove the assumptions, thee Truth is revealed.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 2:16 pmThen scientists searched evidence to see whether that theory is correct. So, scientists work has a different way than God's work, and they prove their points with evidence, not with arguments or metaphysical explanations.
Lol The, so called, "evidence" here is not proof, but rather just an 'interpretation', which is made after a theory/guess had been made, and depending on how one idolises or not the one who said and wrote the theory/guess, then that influences how one is influenced by the, so called, "evidence", or not.

Just like the religious person just accepts the words in a book, without proof, so to does the scientific person just accepts the words in a book, without proof.

Depending on the author these people who see the author as a 'God', then just accept what they say, even if there is no actual proof nor evidence at all. These people then, sub or unconsciously, look for 'that' what supposedly backs up and supports what their "God" has said and claimed.

There is no actual proof that the Universe is expanding and contracting. There is, however, a claim that there is evidence, which supports that the Universe is expanding. However, this is not even evidence, let alone any proof, that the Universe began with a big bang, nor began with any thing else.

The saying, "in the beginning", which scientists still even say and use to this day, when this was written, is a misleading phrase and term, which has been around for eons.

Considering where, and frombwhat book, that phrase came from it is surprising that, so called, scientists still say and use that phrase as though it has any truth to it, in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
It doesn't matter to me whether God is a he or she, since I have no intention in backing the idea of a God.
And, it does not matter to me whether you are backing the idea of God or not. You were just the one who labeled God a "he" here.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm But the expansion of universe is not a mere theory, but an observation.
And, how much of the Universe can actually be observed?

The sun revolves the earth, it called be said and claimed is not just a mere theory, but an observation, as well.

Does what is observed make the observation actually True?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.
Above quote is simply taken from google, but there are enough references for this matter.

And this concept of big bang is not a mere speculation or belief like the concept of an almighty God, which has no actual evidence. Maybe it cannot be proven, but what has been found is better than what the scriptures say about the concept of God.
If you say and believe so, then it 'must be' so, correct?

Again, how much of the actual Universe has been observed?

To make the claim that the Universe is expanding, based upon a very narrowed and short sighted field of view, reveals a very narrowed and, literally, a very short sighted perspective of 'things'.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Looking out into space is like looking back in time. That is because light from objects that are far away takes longer to reach us than light from objects nearby. If an object is a million light years away, we are seeing it as it looked a million years ago.
And, this is repeated, once again, for what reason, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
Modern telescopes are so powerful that they can view objects many billions of light years away, close to the time of the Big Bang.
And, which each newer and more modern generation of people will come newer and more modern telescopes, with each newer one claiming to be "so, much more, powerful".

Also, is that the bang, which is claimed to be the start and beginning of the Universe/Everything, or, is that just another bang, of the countless other bangs, which ALL just happen within the Universe, Itself?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm If the Big Bang did happen, then we'd expect those distant views to reveal clouds of gas which have not yet turned into stars and galaxies.
What do you mean by, "if the big bang did happen"?

Was there a bang, which is labeled and called, 'the big bang', or was there not?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Astronomers have recently found gas clouds like this in the distant Universe.
What does the term and phrase "distant Universe" actually mean and refer to, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Some of them are around 12 or 13 billion years old. Even at this incredible distance, we can tell what they are made of by using a technique called spectroscopy to analyse light that passes through them.
Who cares?

And, why do you call that relatively 'minuscule distance' an "incredible distance"?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.
And your purpose for repeating 'things', which are clearly already written in books, is ...?
First of all, I have refered to God as He, because can't always say God and I don't want to say It. (With the unknown gender identity that you love to highlight, I think 'it' is more suitable then)

Secondly, we can go on arguing upon things but never come to an agreement. Anyone can deny any obvious and proven fact with various arguments. It is just a waste of time and energy.

Thirdly, why I repeatedly saying things that are stated in books, because I am trying to show you that there are acceptable evidence regarding this concept if 'Big Bang'. It may not be the ultimate truth, but through the advancement of science, many calculations and researches have been done based on such speculations, and I don't see any regression but progression in science as well as the world.

There are people who still deny that world is spherical, but a flat object. But such believers haven't affected the others or the scientific advancements in any way. Maybe they have been a nuisance for their colleagues, but not to the whole world.

Thank you for your valuable inputs related to the topic and it was a great support to carry on this discussion and keep this forum running
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by evolution »

Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pm
evolution wrote: March 5th, 2021, 3:54 am
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
evolution wrote: March 4th, 2021, 6:39 pm

But whether 'God' exists or not can be very easily proven. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion that God could even be a "he".



What theory? That there was a 'bang', which was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything, which they have just named and labelled a 'big' one?

To me, this sounds more or less just like those people who claim God was the cause, or start, of the beginning of the Universe/Everything.

To me the words 'God' and 'Big Bang' are just two different terms and phrases in an attempt to explain what human beings have absolutely 'no' idea about.

After all, they are just terms used to explain a phenomenon, which can be also proven false very easily anyway. One of the things needed first, however, is to get rid of the absolutely absurd and ridiculous, completely impoossible, notion; 'in the beginning'.

When people look at 'things' while assuming and/or believing that there was 'a beginning', then they will not see thee actual Truth.



So, some people are just adding more and more theories/guesses onto what are just other theories/guesses, all in the hope of backing up and supporting their underlying assumption or belief that there was 'a beginning', in the first place.

All of these theories/guesses are just based on the assumption that there is 'a beginning'. And, then people look for "evidence", which backs up and supports what they just 'assume' is true.

Remove the assumptions, thee Truth is revealed.



Lol The, so called, "evidence" here is not proof, but rather just an 'interpretation', which is made after a theory/guess had been made, and depending on how one idolises or not the one who said and wrote the theory/guess, then that influences how one is influenced by the, so called, "evidence", or not.

Just like the religious person just accepts the words in a book, without proof, so to does the scientific person just accepts the words in a book, without proof.

Depending on the author these people who see the author as a 'God', then just accept what they say, even if there is no actual proof nor evidence at all. These people then, sub or unconsciously, look for 'that' what supposedly backs up and supports what their "God" has said and claimed.

There is no actual proof that the Universe is expanding and contracting. There is, however, a claim that there is evidence, which supports that the Universe is expanding. However, this is not even evidence, let alone any proof, that the Universe began with a big bang, nor began with any thing else.

The saying, "in the beginning", which scientists still even say and use to this day, when this was written, is a misleading phrase and term, which has been around for eons.

Considering where, and frombwhat book, that phrase came from it is surprising that, so called, scientists still say and use that phrase as though it has any truth to it, in relation to thee Universe, Itself.
It doesn't matter to me whether God is a he or she, since I have no intention in backing the idea of a God.
And, it does not matter to me whether you are backing the idea of God or not. You were just the one who labeled God a "he" here.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm But the expansion of universe is not a mere theory, but an observation.
And, how much of the Universe can actually be observed?

The sun revolves the earth, it called be said and claimed is not just a mere theory, but an observation, as well.

Does what is observed make the observation actually True?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.
Above quote is simply taken from google, but there are enough references for this matter.

And this concept of big bang is not a mere speculation or belief like the concept of an almighty God, which has no actual evidence. Maybe it cannot be proven, but what has been found is better than what the scriptures say about the concept of God.
If you say and believe so, then it 'must be' so, correct?

Again, how much of the actual Universe has been observed?

To make the claim that the Universe is expanding, based upon a very narrowed and short sighted field of view, reveals a very narrowed and, literally, a very short sighted perspective of 'things'.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Looking out into space is like looking back in time. That is because light from objects that are far away takes longer to reach us than light from objects nearby. If an object is a million light years away, we are seeing it as it looked a million years ago.
And, this is repeated, once again, for what reason, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
Modern telescopes are so powerful that they can view objects many billions of light years away, close to the time of the Big Bang.
And, which each newer and more modern generation of people will come newer and more modern telescopes, with each newer one claiming to be "so, much more, powerful".

Also, is that the bang, which is claimed to be the start and beginning of the Universe/Everything, or, is that just another bang, of the countless other bangs, which ALL just happen within the Universe, Itself?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm If the Big Bang did happen, then we'd expect those distant views to reveal clouds of gas which have not yet turned into stars and galaxies.
What do you mean by, "if the big bang did happen"?

Was there a bang, which is labeled and called, 'the big bang', or was there not?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Astronomers have recently found gas clouds like this in the distant Universe.
What does the term and phrase "distant Universe" actually mean and refer to, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Some of them are around 12 or 13 billion years old. Even at this incredible distance, we can tell what they are made of by using a technique called spectroscopy to analyse light that passes through them.
Who cares?

And, why do you call that relatively 'minuscule distance' an "incredible distance"?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.
And your purpose for repeating 'things', which are clearly already written in books, is ...?
First of all, I have refered to God as He, because can't always say God and I don't want to say It.
Why can you supposedly not always say God?

And, when you say you do not want to say 'it', do you mean you do not want to always say God, or, you do not want to call God, 'It'?
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pm(With the unknown gender identity that you love to highlight, I think 'it' is more suitable then)
Is "unknown gender identity" that "I love to highlight" a contradiction of terms?

Also, here is the assumption that I love to highlight or give a gender identity to God, coming from exactly?

God can obviously also be an 'it', just like every other 'thing' can be.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmSecondly, we can go on arguing upon things but never come to an agreement.
But if one formulates a sound and valid argument, then any argument opposing that one would just be either unsound or invalid, or both, and not really worthy of repeating anyway.

Also, if one formulates a sound and valid argument, then the other, by necessity, could not refute it, and thus could not disagree with it on any logically reasoned way.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmAnyone can deny any obvious and proven fact with various arguments.
Any one can also disagree with any thing, just for the sake of "disagreeing".
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmIt is just a waste of time and energy.
Agreed. So, that makes some wonder why you even 'try to' bother to.

Why do you deny obvious and proven facts, with various, so called, "arguments"?
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmThirdly, why I repeatedly saying things that are stated in books, because I am trying to show you that there are acceptable evidence regarding this concept if 'Big Bang'.
There are also acceptable evidence regarding the concept of God.

But, the words 'acceptable' and 'evidence' are VERY relative and loose words, which could refer to just about ANY thing. This, just like EVERY thing else is dependent upon the observer.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmIt may not be the ultimate truth, but through the advancement of science, many calculations and researches have been done based on such speculations, and I don't see any regression but progression in science as well as the world.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmThere are people who still deny that world is spherical, but a flat object. But such believers haven't affected the others or the scientific advancements in any way. Maybe they have been a nuisance for their colleagues, but not to the whole world.
The exact same thing could be said in relation to those people who still deny the Universe did NOT begin and is NOT expanding. But such believers are FREE to believe whatever they want. They also will NOT stop thee Truth from being revealed.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmThank you for your valuable inputs related to the topic and it was a great support to carry on this discussion and keep this forum running
Did you mean 'this thread' here, or did you mean 'this forum'.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 258
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Sushan »

evolution wrote: March 6th, 2021, 2:02 am
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pm
evolution wrote: March 5th, 2021, 3:54 am
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm

It doesn't matter to me whether God is a he or she, since I have no intention in backing the idea of a God.
And, it does not matter to me whether you are backing the idea of God or not. You were just the one who labeled God a "he" here.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm But the expansion of universe is not a mere theory, but an observation.
And, how much of the Universe can actually be observed?

The sun revolves the earth, it called be said and claimed is not just a mere theory, but an observation, as well.

Does what is observed make the observation actually True?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm

Above quote is simply taken from google, but there are enough references for this matter.

And this concept of big bang is not a mere speculation or belief like the concept of an almighty God, which has no actual evidence. Maybe it cannot be proven, but what has been found is better than what the scriptures say about the concept of God.
If you say and believe so, then it 'must be' so, correct?

Again, how much of the actual Universe has been observed?

To make the claim that the Universe is expanding, based upon a very narrowed and short sighted field of view, reveals a very narrowed and, literally, a very short sighted perspective of 'things'.
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Looking out into space is like looking back in time. That is because light from objects that are far away takes longer to reach us than light from objects nearby. If an object is a million light years away, we are seeing it as it looked a million years ago.
And, this is repeated, once again, for what reason, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm
And, which each newer and more modern generation of people will come newer and more modern telescopes, with each newer one claiming to be "so, much more, powerful".

Also, is that the bang, which is claimed to be the start and beginning of the Universe/Everything, or, is that just another bang, of the countless other bangs, which ALL just happen within the Universe, Itself?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm If the Big Bang did happen, then we'd expect those distant views to reveal clouds of gas which have not yet turned into stars and galaxies.
What do you mean by, "if the big bang did happen"?

Was there a bang, which is labeled and called, 'the big bang', or was there not?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Astronomers have recently found gas clouds like this in the distant Universe.
What does the term and phrase "distant Universe" actually mean and refer to, exactly?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm Some of them are around 12 or 13 billion years old. Even at this incredible distance, we can tell what they are made of by using a technique called spectroscopy to analyse light that passes through them.
Who cares?

And, why do you call that relatively 'minuscule distance' an "incredible distance"?
Sushan wrote: March 4th, 2021, 10:18 pm As Big Bang theory predicts, these ancient gas clouds are made of very different stuff to the modern Universe. Most of the chemical elements in the modern Universe are made inside stars. Because the gas clouds come from a time before stars, they consist almost entirely of the most basic elements, hydrogen and helium.
And your purpose for repeating 'things', which are clearly already written in books, is ...?
First of all, I have refered to God as He, because can't always say God and I don't want to say It.
Why can you supposedly not always say God?

And, when you say you do not want to say 'it', do you mean you do not want to always say God, or, you do not want to call God, 'It'?
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pm(With the unknown gender identity that you love to highlight, I think 'it' is more suitable then)
Is "unknown gender identity" that "I love to highlight" a contradiction of terms?

Also, here is the assumption that I love to highlight or give a gender identity to God, coming from exactly?

God can obviously also be an 'it', just like every other 'thing' can be.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmSecondly, we can go on arguing upon things but never come to an agreement.
But if one formulates a sound and valid argument, then any argument opposing that one would just be either unsound or invalid, or both, and not really worthy of repeating anyway.

Also, if one formulates a sound and valid argument, then the other, by necessity, could not refute it, and thus could not disagree with it on any logically reasoned way.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmAnyone can deny any obvious and proven fact with various arguments.
Any one can also disagree with any thing, just for the sake of "disagreeing".
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmIt is just a waste of time and energy.
Agreed. So, that makes some wonder why you even 'try to' bother to.

Why do you deny obvious and proven facts, with various, so called, "arguments"?
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmThirdly, why I repeatedly saying things that are stated in books, because I am trying to show you that there are acceptable evidence regarding this concept if 'Big Bang'.
There are also acceptable evidence regarding the concept of God.

But, the words 'acceptable' and 'evidence' are VERY relative and loose words, which could refer to just about ANY thing. This, just like EVERY thing else is dependent upon the observer.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmIt may not be the ultimate truth, but through the advancement of science, many calculations and researches have been done based on such speculations, and I don't see any regression but progression in science as well as the world.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmThere are people who still deny that world is spherical, but a flat object. But such believers haven't affected the others or the scientific advancements in any way. Maybe they have been a nuisance for their colleagues, but not to the whole world.
The exact same thing could be said in relation to those people who still deny the Universe did NOT begin and is NOT expanding. But such believers are FREE to believe whatever they want. They also will NOT stop thee Truth from being revealed.
Sushan wrote: March 5th, 2021, 11:14 pmThank you for your valuable inputs related to the topic and it was a great support to carry on this discussion and keep this forum running
Did you mean 'this thread' here, or did you mean 'this forum'.
I would love to see those facts which prove the existence of a God.

Well, yes, God can be an 'it' as we cannot give it a gender identity. But if there are so many facts to prove His existence, why there are no proof or data for His gender identity. Usually we say that someone exists when we see him. If God's existence is proven, why no one could say whether it is a he or a she?

Yes, if one cannot disprove someone's belief, then he cannot validly refuse it. But that does not mean that the other one has to agree with that argument.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Nick_A
Posts: 2672
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Has the God deceived us or has science got it all wrong?

Post by Nick_A »

Sushan wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 4:17 am
LuckyR wrote: March 2nd, 2021, 3:18 am
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm The author explains, quoting some of the historical scholars, that actually the earth is not old as the scientists claim. He suggests that the God has created it in several thousand years (a 'day' in God's creation is taken as a 'thousand years'), but has made it to look like billions of years old, with the old stones, fossils, rings on the tree trunks, etc. The author compares this with making a newly made Denim to look old by fading its colour.

Do you think this is true? If so, has the God deceived us? But why? On the other hand, has science got it all wrong despite hundreds of years of studies?
Uummm... your title has a typo, it should be: Has the god deceived us THUS science has it all wrong, OR not.
Thank you for the correction. It can be put in that way. If the God has deceived us, then definitely science could have got it all wrong. But can't it be like either this or that? Can it be that science has got it wrong in the first place and the God had nothing to do with that?
The meaning and purpose of our universe can only be understood through a triune perspective. Science limits itself to a dualistic perspective. Science is beginning to appreciate the triune perspective which will help a great deal for establishing the complimentary relationship between science and religion in the future.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Post Reply

Return to “The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021