Norwegian Scientists Disprove God

Groups such as Oxfam have criticized the Uruguay Round for paying insufficient attention to the special needs of developing countries. One aspect of this criticism is that figures very close to rich country industries—such as former Cargill executive Dan Amstutz—had a major role in the drafting of Uruguay Round language on agriculture and other matters. As with the WTO in general, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Health Gap and Global Trade Watch also criticize what was negotiated in the Round on intellectual property and industrial tariffs as setting up too many constraints on policy-making and human needs. An article asserts that the developing countries’ lack of experience in WTO negotiations and lack of knowledge of how the developing economies would be affected by what the industrial countries wanted in the WTO new areas; the intensified mercantilist attitude of the GATT/WTO’s major power, the US.; the structure of the WTO that made the GATT tradition of decision by consensus ineffective, so that a country would not preserve the status quo, were the reasons for this imbalance.[11]
 
Last edited:
Hm...

Don't really know if that's disproving God...more of disproving an act of God. However...you have to think that if God is in control, then it *was* He that made the bushes burn.

Crazy pants, I say! Crazy pants!

-Malky
 
Only an idiot would be declared as prophet, a holy man who saved his people from slavery, and the pillar of millenia-old religion.

Smart dudes on the other hand get laid.
 
even if they could prove bushes could speak (not bloody likely) you'd have to scientifically prove it feasible for the entire earth to flood, frogs falling from they sky, a man to walk on water, people rising from the dead... ect, ect.
 
So el_prez do you only believe things that have been scientifically proven?

I hope not, because all of the top scientists I have ever read about say there is so much more out there that we haven't even begun to look at, and you'd be really limiting your world that way.

I believe *anything* is possible. Science limits nothing, it only seeks to explain in a logical sense.
 
Actually, El_Prez, they porved all of the egyptian plagues, or rather, they proved that it was feasible that it could have happened rationally.

However, the fact that bushes CAN burn, doesn't mean that there can't be a god that can make them burn. It's the same as saying "Look, I can catch fish, so it's impossible for god to catch fish..."

Mind you, I'm no christian/jew/whatever, or even semi-religious, but this isn't proof of anythin, this is just proof that it could've happened with a scientific explanation.

On top of that, why wouldn't god use science if it would be convenient?
 
If god does exist why doesn't he show himself?

Somehow all this religious crap is about things we haven't seen with our own eyes. Mostly impossible in real life (fairytales anyone?) and if it isn't possible (yet) to explain is scientifically (SP?) it's a proof for a god to exist?

Get lost, give me a real reason to believe he is here. As long as we haven't found him he doesn't exist.
And don't use things we can't yet research as a proof for his existence.
 
Somehow all this religious crap is about things we haven't seen with our own eyes
Click to expand...
That's why it is a religion, if it was all proven, it wouldn't be religion, it would just be fact.

If god does exist why doesn't he show himself?
Click to expand...
Why would he want to?

Mostly impossible in real life
Click to expand...
Wrong, you don't know what's possible and what isn't, it is impossible to prove that it COULD NOT have happened, so there is still the possibility that it could have happened.

it isn't possible (yet) to explain is scientifically (SP?) it's a proof for a god to exist?
Click to expand...
No, it isn't proof that a god exists. However, there is also no proof saying that he doesn't exist.


As long as we haven't found him he doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Ehhh, so, just because something hasn't been found it can't exist? So I suppose all of those creatures and plants just now being found in for instance rainforests didn't exist until they were found either?

Basically, MazeMouse, you need to respect other people's religion, and not tell people that he can't exist, with faulty reasons, and as if you are right(you could've at least said "I think" somewhere).
Apparently, you don't get the entire religion thing, religion is about BELIEVING in something, and if it has been proven, there is no belief, only FACT. Please try to realise that, even though something hasn't been scientifically proven, it doesn't mean that it can't be!
 
[PCE said:
el_Prez]even if they could prove bushes could speak (not bloody likely) you'd have to scientifically prove it feasible for the entire earth to flood, frogs falling from they sky, a man to walk on water, people rising from the dead... ect, ect.
Click to expand...

But that is only if you take everything that happened in the bible as verbatim. I consider it more as a series of parables than actual recorded truth.
 
I think that its a falicy to think that religion and science are mutually exclusive. The problem I think goes to ones expectation.

People look to religion to find factual truth when they should be trying to understand belief and faith. But people also place their faith in science which has often disappointed.

Whose to say that the hand of God isn't in science. To believe that religion only helps us understand what we don't know misses two points. Religion also helps us appreciate the things we do know. It also premises to idea of understanding over the value of appreciation and belief.

Personally, I think the best course for both science and religion is to keep them out of each other's way. This way the scientific method of scrutiny and cynicism is not disturbed by the hope of religon in faith in a given teleological end. Likewise we don't
tarnish religon with fruitless efforts of proof but understand religion as an article of faith.
 
It almost seems that too many people take their religion as a monopoly in truth. Far too often, those same people also use a literal translation of their holy texts.

It's kind of like how so many deeply religious people immediately dismiss Darwin as an idiot (or a tool of Satan, or whatever for that matter), yet Darwin didn't contradict Creationism in the least. As a matter of fact (Welsh, can you look this up for me--you're the research guy here :)) I believe it was someone else who accredited Darwinism and Creationism as mutally exclusive and not Darwin himself.

The problem with "disproving God" is that there are thousands of arguments in which religion claims prove the existence of God. Until science can logically account for every single one of them, religion will still exist in the hearts of man. And, if for some reason science *does* explain everything accredited to God, then it would no longer be in the hearts of *man* because we ourselves would be gods (meaning perfection itself in this case).
 
So el_prez do you only believe things that have been scientifically proven?
Click to expand...

I think you guys misread my post a little. The original message said that scientists proved that bushes can burn by themselves - thus, disproving god exists. I said that they would need to disprove a lot more than the spontaineous combustion of plants.
The problem with "disproving God" is that there are thousands of arguments in which religion claims prove the existence of God.
Click to expand...
- exactly.

To me science holds no facter in belief or non-beleif, its a personally choice (I do beleive in God and that Jesus was his son).

It's a lot easier to to say 'oh, that religion stuff is bullshit' than to actually believe and give your life to a God that you cant physically see or hear (unless he talks to you but that hasnt happend for quite some time).

non-beleivers - Doesnt it scare you to know that when you die there is only nothingness?
 
[PCE said:
el_Prez]non-beleivers - Doesnt it scare you to know that when you die there is only nothingness?
Click to expand...

No

And besides that, whether or not there is an afterlife, this has no bearing on my life here and now, so why worry?

That's like worrying about what I'm going to do when I retire now. C'mon.
 
Doesnt it scare you to know that when you die there is only nothingness?
Click to expand...
I don't know that, even though I don't believe in god as given in the Bible and the Christian religion(or the Islamic or whatever other religion), that doesn't mean that I believe there's nothing in the afterlife.

As well as that, there is indeed no point whatsoever in thinking about it.
 
When you demand that God "show" himself, you are assuming 'him' to be an old white male with grey beard, white pajamas and shiny halo? Ever occured to you that "Children's Bible"-s illustrations might be, umm, artistic depictions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top