Happily. Celestial bodies are not necessarily spheres. The evidence for this claim is only put forth from the same people that put forth pictures of a spherical earth.harrison_duncan said:every celestial body ever discovered is a sphere, that for me is the single biggest piece of evidence. Also if the earth is flat please explain that north and southern hemispheres having opposite seasons.
George_Horse said:There is no proof for a God. I believe in science rather than an imaginary being.
Fr3ak said:There is no evidence or proof of the existence of any sort of god. Because of this, I believe, as a rational person, that there is no god, however I am open to the existence of one if you can prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a chance one exists. However, the only arguments I have had are very easily disproven and do not even come close to beggining to prove the existence of a god. The fact of the matter is that we have evidence to suggest that something such as the theory of the big bang is what created the universe. By observing our universe, the evidence leads to a logical conclusion. We cannot say for certain, it is just a theory, however there is more evidence to support whereas the no evidence to support the existence of a god.
Feel free to challenge me to this and attempt to prove me wrong and try to prove god exists. Who knows, maybe you will come up with something original.
To answer your question:Answer: Science is the study of the natural world...plain and simple. The ideology behind a supremely powerful being who can defy all the laws of the natural world is by definition "Supernatural" and therefor stands distinctly separated from Science and beyond Scientific understanding. So essentially, whoever created the Scientific Method (Whoever you believe made the most contributions to its establishment) didn't create a Religious incompatibility but merely made it so that one could not be used in conjunction with the other as they are in different realms.Logic said:Why would a theist make something that isn't compatible with his religion?
And secondly:Answer: I've found no reference to the "Realm of the unseen" that isn't a supernatural reference. Granted you cannot see gravity but that doesn't make it supernatural, this is a faulty comparison because Gravity, while it cannot be observed directly (Similar to air), the effect of Gravity can be observed and experienced. You can test gravity, you can formulate hypotheses and then experiment to verify its existential nature.Logic said:And god doesn't have to be in the realm of the super natural alone, Why not the realm of the un seen?
In this, I'm afraid that we may have to agree to disagree, God or "A God" is a supernatural being by definition no matter how hard anyone wants it to be otherwise. I don't believe anyone from the Scientific Community would disagree either. Not to say that Science cannot be applied to what's in front of us that may be the result of something Supernatural...I think this is where Science and Religion meet very well.
And I agree that no twisting of words is required to bring Science and Religion together however, this doesn't make it so that anyone can use Science to formulate theories regarding God. To date I actually haven't seen any scientific study aimed at theorizing God at all, most Science regarding the supernatural is used in an attempt to prove or disprove it all-together...never to explain the existence of God...but that might have something to do with Science and the Supernatural being separated by definition.
|synonyms:||paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman,|
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."