National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

[WestCoastRunner]

It was me. Send me fifty bucks and we'll call it even.

Priceless!!

[eyeball]

And that process is part of the whole TimeSpace continuum in which life forms and exists. For the lack of a better term, I've decided to call that continuum "God." I have no idea if that's an old man with a beard or some software code or some sort of pure energy, but whatever it is, it's "God" to me. So even though I approach this with agnostic scepticism, I wind up sounding like Betsy.

I like the idea that my consciousness is how the universe gains an appreciation for itself. This approach wound up making me feel like whatever it is that Betsy is talking about one night. It might have been the mushrooms though.

[The_Squid]

I have been asked plenty of times from my college years to my adult years why I don't believe in God. I can only say that I am too intelligent to believe in God.

However, I do believe in some weird higher power that has gotten me out of impossible situations. Is that God? I don't know. I don't know wtf it is.

I don't agree that believers have less intelligence.

Indoctrination as a child is very powerful.

People don't get more intelligent if they realize that their faith isn't true.

[WestCoastRunner]

I don't agree that believers have less intelligence.

Indoctrination as a child is very powerful.

People don't get more intelligent if they realize that their faith isn't true.

I agree. My thoughtlessness.

[WestCoastRunner]

I like the idea that my consciousness is how the universe gains an appreciation for itself. This approach wound up making me feel like whatever it is that Betsy is talking about one night. It might have been the mushrooms though.

I agree that I'm overwhelmed by it all, however I tend to think I'm grounded. I have no proof of a god so until I do I'm confused.

[BubberMiley]

Was there ever a decent musician who didn't believe in "God"? I think that's because you have to surrender your psyche to the celestial powers for it to work properly.

That and practice a lot, of course.

[WestCoastRunner]

Was there ever a decent musician who didn't believe in "God"? I think that's because you have to surrender your psyche to the celestial powers for it to work properly.

That and practice a lot, of course.

I grew up in the 70!s I grew up without church. I have no clue what God means. I don't need to surrender my psyche powers to anyone.

[Guest]

I have no proof of a god so until I do I'm confused.

Well said, I agree...except for the confused part. I am about as confused about the existence of the Biblical god as I am about the existence of Thor, unicorns, Zeus, Vishnu, Sasquatches, etc. If enough evidence for a super-nature and/or supernatural beings was presented than I would, but there isn't sufficient evidence thus belief in the concept seems rather silly.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Guest

[jazzer]

I have seen no proof. And trust me. I would love to believe in a god but it ain't happening for me.

Seems to me no God is the default. Atheists don't have to prove anything.

[kimmy]

Was there ever a decent musician who didn't believe in "God"? I think that's because you have to surrender your psyche to the celestial powers for it to work properly.

That and practice a lot, of course.

I imagine many would say John Lennon, but for me it's Lemmy Kilmister (peace be upon him).

-k

[kimmy]

I think Betsy is the only person who could make the leap from "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe" to the conclusion that the National Academy of Science has declared that God exists.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

I think Betsy is the only person who could make the leap from "Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe" to the conclusion that the National Academy of Science has declared that God exists.

No....others can/do agree with the original OP. The NAS declares the facts and opinions of many scholars and scientists, including those that believe God exists. Maybe find some atheist Academy of Science to counter if needed.

Edited March 26, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

No....others can/do agree with the original OP. The NAS declares the facts and opinions of many scholars and scientists, including those that believe God exists. Maybe find some atheist Academy of Science to counter if needed.

93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists The notion that the text Betsy has quoted is a declaration of an official position on the existence of God is hilarious.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

93% of the National Academy of Science are atheists The notion that the text Betsy has quoted is a declaration of an official position on the existence of God is hilarious.

I doubt that...the quote stands whether you agree or not. Do you feel threatened by the NAS position ?

Previous surveys do not add up to 93% atheists...nice try.

[kimmy]

I doubt that...the quote stands whether you agree or not. Do you feel threatened by the NAS position ?

Previous surveys do not add up to 93% atheists...nice try.

Since the NAS doesn't have an official position, I certainly don't feel threatened by it.

The quote is what it is, but it certainly isn't what you and betsy claim it is.

The 93% figure is something I'd heard kicked around before... it appears to come from the survey referenced here.

The actual figures are 7% believe in god, 72% don't believe in god, 21% agnostic or doubting.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The actual figures are 7% believe in god, 72% don't believe in god, 21% agnostic or doubting.

That's right....the 93% atheist claim was just bunk.

[kimmy]

That's right....the 93% atheist claim was just bunk.

Equally bunk that a group of people of which only 7% of the members believe in god has adopted Theistic Evolution as their official position.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Equally bunk that a group of people of which only 7% of the members believe in god has adopted Theistic Evolution as their official position.

Not exactly the question that was asked in the past....sorry...God is alive, and well....and constitutionally protected.

The Gallup questions, which deal with views of God's role in evolution, rather than general belief or disbelief in God, are far less ambiguous. When these questions were used (Larson and Witham 1997), the answers showed that a large proportion (40%) of prominent scientists believe in a God that is sufficiently personal or interactive with humankind that human evolution is guided or planned.

The title of the recent Larson and Witham article in Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God" is premature without reliable data upon which to base it.

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

[bush_cheney2004]

Albert Einstein adamantly rejected atheism, and did not consider himself an atheist. Perhaps pantheism worked for him, and that's good company for any God fearing scientist...amen.

Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Edited March 26, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

That's super for Albert. Isaac Newton was also devoutly religious.

None of that actually supports the claim that the National Academy of Scientists has declared Theistic Evolution as their official position. I already posted a link to the publication from which betsy's quote is cropped. You're welcome to look through that and find any such declaration. I doubt you'll even try, because you know full-well that you won't find one. Which is why you're now throwing out more red herring than a Norwegian trawler.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

That's super for Albert. Isaac Newton was also devoutly religious.

But you readily post bunkem % numbers from old surveys to champion the atheist cause.

None of that actually supports the claim that the National Academy of Scientists has declared Theistic Evolution as their official position. I already posted a link to the publication from which betsy's quote is cropped. You're welcome to look through that and find any such declaration. I doubt you'll even try, because you know full-well that you won't find one. Which is why you're now throwing out more red herring than a Norwegian trawler.

The NAS has no official position. That would defy their very mission. But they can and do communicate the findings of their membership, including pesky belief God vs. Evolution stuff. God bless the atheists.

Edited March 26, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[betsy]

Long time no see.

The National Academy of Sciences is not declaring that God is the creator of the universe. They are explaining that god and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You've misinterpreted the material you've quoted to support your agenda.

"Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

The remarkable nature of the universe is revealed by science. God isn't.

None of the material you've provided actually supports the claim that the NAS has endorsed the existence of god or "theistic evolution" as the explanation for the universe. They are simply pointing out that a view-- "theistic evolution"-- exists in which god formed the universe in a way that's not contradictory to the facts science has learned.

-k

You are putting words in my mouth.

The statement of the NAS clearly speaks for itself. It is not endorsing anything!

It is simply stating facts! Facts that are based on scientific findings.

Read it again!

".....many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

What are those facts?

1. Theistic Evolution ((the belief that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution), is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

2. That, INDEED....There are many evidences to support Theistic Evolution (reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the PHYSICAL universe), which are revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines!

Science cannot come right out and say, "God exists!" The supernatural is beyond the realm of science.

THEREFORE, you use your logic!

If science says, Theistic Evolution is not in disagreement with the scientific explanations of evolution, and that in fact, there are many evidences that support Theistic Evolution (God created the universe) .....what logical person wouldn't take that as the death knell for atheism?

Logically, if there is evidence for Theistic Evolution (God created the universe....) - and science says there are many evidences - of course that means there's definitely evidence supporting the existence of God!

Really.....how can anyone say there is evidence supporting creation by God, and yet there is no evidence to support the existence of said Creator?

Just think about it! It's so simple: if you have evidences that say a baker had baked this cake, of course that means the Baker must exist!

If there are evidences that support creation by God.......God has to exist!

And if science says there are evidences that support creation by God......there goes atheism! What's the basis for atheism if science says there are evidences that support creation by God?

Where do you base your atheistic belief that God doesn't exist?

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Okay, they didn't say that. I don't have to go back and read it to know that.

No, the statement regarding Theistic Evolution didn't say that.

The site of the NAS, however, posted this:

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars. Established by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.

Scientists are elected by their peers to membership in the NAS for outstanding contributions to research. The NAS is committed to furthering science in America, and its members are active contributors to the international scientific community.

Nearly 500 members of the NAS have won Nobel Prizes, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, founded in 1914, is today one of the premier international journals publishing the results of original research.

The National Academy of Sciences charter commits the Academy to provide scientific advice to the government “whenever called upon” by any government department. The Academy receives no compensation from the government for its services.

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM, formerly the Institute of Medicine) -- were founded under the NAS charter in 1964 and 1970, respectively. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. The Academies' service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role.

http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/mission/

It isn't just an ordinary organization where-in any scientist can just walk in to sign up.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

That's because, like Betsy, you're too rigid in what your conception of "God" is, even though it's a concept no one can fully understand.

Well, speaking as a Christian - of course, I do have some knowledge/concept of what God is (based on what He's revealed about Himself).

But you're right that the human mind does not have the capacity to fully understand God.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Wow, this thread based on the false and preposterous notion that there is evidence for creation by a god has a lot more interest than I expected.

1) Creating an explanation for gods to match current scientific understanding doesn't equate to there being evidence for a god. Just like stating forests exist, many undiscovered species and lands exist, therefor there is evidence for the Sasquatch is not true.

2) Words have a meaning so we can have a reasonable discussion. Changing the meaning of a word like god to mean love or physical forces doesn't help the discussion. In this thread it appears that Betsy has defined it as the Abrahamic God of the bible so we should be limiting the definition to a creator deity, not some unexplained natural process.

Well Slick, your analogy of the forest and its species, isn't the same with the NAS stating simple facts based on scientific findings. You're making a very simple statement by the NAS (addressed to the public - written in layman's terms)....seem quite so complex.

If science had publicly stated that there are evidences the Sasquatch created the bunker - that remains a fact until science says otherwise. What? That's like you saying, there is really no such thing as gravity.....just because science MAY someday change our "current understanding" about it. Therefore, there is no such thing. I hope you're just kidding.

And please, you are wrong about your assumption.....no, when I'm discussing about the NAS definition of God the Creator - I go by that definition. I mean, God the Creator.

HOWEVER.......however, like I've explained before, I've got my own arguments why I believe the God Creator being referred to by the NAS could be none other than the Abrahamic God. That's for another topic, though. When I do get to doing that subject, you bet it will be quite thorough! That's a promise.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy