Science is the study of the physical natural world using observation and experiments.

What is God? God is spirit, therefore he is more than natural. He is supernatural. There are different bodies in the world. There is the natural human body, animal bodies, fish bodies, and then there is the spiritual body. Example: the body of AIR , you cannot see it, but you can see it's efects when the wind blows the leaves off a tree. 
The human being is limited to the physical world. We can only study the things that we see, hear, smell and feel using our limited technology.
We only know the things that God has revealed.God has revealed that he is eternal, no beginning and no end.The universe and time itself has a bigining and therefore one day an end.God revealed himself to humanity in the form of a man called Jesus. God revealed his words in the book called the word of God or bible.The bible itself is not a regular common Book. Isaac Newton studied the bible and discovered that it was written in a mathematical puzzle or code. This is the reason why we study Jesus and the bible.To discover God in any other way would require the person to be a genius, with the example of Isaac newton or Albert Einstein discovery of God using mathematics and the laws of physics. 
The human being lives in a Three dimensional world or a physical world (check out Einstein  or  Carl Sagan  3 dimension explanation on you tube).God exist in another dimension, but he has the capability to enter our 3 dimension world when he wants to. We the humans are limited to this 3D world and cannot cross over to another dimension.To compare God's world and dimension to our world is like comparing apples and oranges .The use of science to reveal God   Being or existence is not the proper way. But it is the proper way to study Jesus, the bible and Israel. 

Albert Einstein said; "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

We are sure that you have heard about Sir Isaac Newton's contributions to Mathematics and Physics. His discovery of Gravity, his formulation of the laws of Motion and of interaction between bodies. Many of you will have heard of his invention of Calculus, of differentiation and of integration. But there is one thing that we are equally sure that most of you will have never heard of. And it is this: 
Sir Isaac Newton knew that the Bible was written in a code. 
He spent around half of his life trying to decode it.

Sir Isaac Newton in his book   Principia said ; "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. 

What did the two world's most intelligent scientists know that we today, do not know?

God Bless.

Augh, the tardness is so strong here.

You continue to misquote based on ignorance.

On the Einstein, which is such a pet source of misrepresentation by knucklehead theists such as yourself:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quot...stein.html

On Newton: You have no sense of the effect time and environment have on men. It is as likely as not that Newton would be an atheist were he to be alive today. Let us rephrase your uber-incisive question: What do we know today that one of the world's most intelligent scientists was societally and professionally kept from coming to know or express?

Air isn't spiritual, air and spirit are nothing alike. You can actually see air, very plainly, that's why the sky is blue. Importantly, air exists and spirit (at least the definition of spirit you'd like to use) does not.

God has never revealed anything to anyone.

Those two scientists didn't know anything which we do not know today, and we know a hell of a lot more today than either of them could have ever imagined.

Next?

Jimenez, first off the Einstein and God idea has been responded to before in your previous thread.

Secondly besides the Bible, and other religious books, telling us that there is a supernatural world how do we know there is?

You mention us not being able to see wind. I even heard this idea yesterday which is completely false. You may not see the wind but the wind is easily detectable. If you spray a can of paint on a windy day the wind will move it in a certain direction and the same with any other aerosol based spray. If you want to see a clear representation of the wind just observe a hurricane or a tornado.

The wind is clearly evident to most everyone if not everyone so it is really a bad comparison to make. I would ask you what "sand" or "aerosol" we can spray that would help us see God's movement or existence? I can easily detect the wind, I can feel it, I can find out the direction it is moving in, etc. However there is no such test for God. Simply having someone write something down and claim it is true is not enough to prove anything other than someone wrote it down.



Also you mention that we as human beings are limited to the physical. I would like to ask you what exactly you use to determine the spiritual exists? You use a physical book and your mind which are both things that are limited to this physical universe.

You say that we cannot measure God using the physical but your very understanding of God depends on you using your brain which is a physical object along with the Bible which is a physical object. I am afraid that if we cannot use our human means to understand God than you cannot understand God through scripture because it is a physical object.

Everything that religion uses to understand things is based somehow on the physical. Whether it is through reasoning which happens in the mind and is a physical entity or whether or not it is through a book which is a physical object.

I am not saying I agree with your reasoning but you used reasoning of some form to come to the conclusion you have about God and spirituality. Your reasoning however is based in this physical realm so you do in fact do use the physical to understand the spiritual. You are a physical being and regardless of whether or not a soul exists you are using your mind/brain to make all of these determinations.

If Isaac Newton had today's resources, he would (probably) never make such a statement. He was a Christian living centuries ago, so of course he would say that. He also believed in astrology and alchemy - how 'bout you?

Overall, an absolutely horrible post filled with false assumptions and inaccuracies. Go read more, then try again sweetheart.

ElD, he'll just go and read more scripture and come vomit more shite. Don't encourage him.

(December 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm)ElDinero Wrote: If Isaac Newton had today's resources, he would (probably) never make such a statement. He was a Christian living centuries ago, so of course he would say that. He also believed in astrology and alchemy - how 'bout you?

Overall, an absolutely horrible post filled with false assumptions and inaccuracies. Go read more, then try again sweetheart.

His lack of learning can only be the result of an american education.
Sad.

I fail to see any logic whatsoever in the OP. Am I missing something?

Is this another one of those, "God exists because I exist, and I believe in him" dudes?

How original.

This one is exceptional for his profound lack of anything resembling reason coupled to an incredible lack of search-engine power.

If the god you are talking about exists in a realm where science cannot potentially falsify his existence then there is no point in comparing the two in any way, shape, or form. You say goddidit, then put god in a box where science can't even get at him, the whole argument is meaningless, you might just as well say I have an invisible, massless dragon in my garage that doesn't breathe any fire, come and have a look at what it hasn't made.