Science and God?

[Rigon]

Science isn't interested in proving that God doesn't exist. Religion is not a factor in any of sciences many disciplines. Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet. If a God is not necessary than it follows it is not necessary to believe in one. Correct?

[protokol]

It's certainly not necessary to believe in a god (if that was so, then all the atheists would vaporize in a cloud of fire and brimstone!). However sadly some people think that if you don't believe, then you are somehow pitiful and not as enlightened as they are. Of course some god-believers couldn't care less whether others believe or not. It's the ones on their high horse which get under my skin.

[GreekBitcoin]

According to Lawrence Krauss and quantum mechanics the universe can spontaneously be created from NOTHING (nothing at all) and it simply doesnt need a creator...

Now of course those are difficult things to grasp and many will argue that well, in order for quantum mechanics to work something/someone needs to make the laws of physics so there was something before nothing and who created that something and so on...


So its quite personal but only at that level. Bullshit stories from ancient books should not be given much respect especially when they try to regulate how humans should act and most times by doing it totally wrong...

[nakazznicek]

I don't know what would science eventually have to do with religion, besides some psychology studies, as religion is as far as i know about beliefs. Some miracles might happen, but mostly religion part of them happen afterwards, and many of them can be explained properly. What goes for "ancient books", we might find hilarious what our today media production would be considered in few thounsand years

[noviapriani]

Science isn't interested in proving that God doesn't exist. Religion is not a factor in any of sciences many disciplines. Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet. If a God is not necessary than it follows it is not necessary to believe in one. Correct?

Except the below premise is not true - except in the minds of those who already take or wish to take that position.

Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet.

[protokol]

Science isn't interested in proving that God doesn't exist. Religion is not a factor in any of sciences many disciplines. Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet. If a God is not necessary than it follows it is not necessary to believe in one. Correct?

Except the below premise is not true - except in the minds of those who already take or wish to take that position.

Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet.

Actually it is true.

Back in ancient times, when people started believing in deities, they had no comprehension of how the world around them could possibly have come about without something creating it.

Now however, science has shown that there are many possible ways that the universe could have come about without involving a god or creator. Note the "not necessary" in the statement.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

the etymology of god is similar to guard (meaning someone who's in charge).

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

If every person on earth believed in the supernatural(i.e Deities, Gods), Science wouldn't exist. The Earth would still be flat. Let alone exploring Mars and interstellar space.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

If every person on earth believed in the supernatural(i.e Deities, Gods), Science wouldn't exist. The Earth would still be flat. Let alone exploring Mars and interstellar space.

isn't the whole purpose of Science to basically attract the opposite sex?

[sana8410]

Science isn't interested in proving that God doesn't exist. Religion is not a factor in any of sciences many disciplines. Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet. If a God is not necessary than it follows it is not necessary to believe in one. Correct?

Sorry , but there is no "proof" that the universe just happened. That there would be no deliberate creative force (call it God, as I do, or whatever you like) is taking a greater leap of faith than the belief that there is a supreme and unifying power responsible. As to the exact details of how, I won't pretend to be so wise as to understand.

[sana8410]

I know you don't believe in God. But from the seeing the actions of the tiniest micro-organism (a single cell is quite a busy place!) to the complexities of the mightiest galaxy to the mystery that is love, how can you not? If all the universe is an accident, well it is one heck of an accident. I don't see science and God as being at odds. I believe science helps us to understand, as well as our limited human brains can, the wonders of God's creation.

[Rigon]

Science isn't interested in proving that God doesn't exist. Religion is not a factor in any of sciences many disciplines. Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet. If a God is not necessary than it follows it is not necessary to believe in one. Correct?

Sorry , but there is no "proof" that the universe just happened. That there would be no deliberate creative force (call it God, as I do, or whatever you like) is taking a greater leap of faith than the belief that there is a supreme and unifying power responsible. As to the exact details of how, I won't pretend to be so wise as to understand.

All life on our planet and all the natural wonders on it developed from an combination of evolution and vast amounts of time. That has nothing to do with any concept of a "God". God did not create us...we created him. Ancient peoples created God and religion because there was no science and no explanations for the phenomena around them.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

I know you don't believe in God. But from the seeing the actions of the tiniest micro-organism (a single cell is quite a busy place!) to the complexities of the mightiest galaxy to the mystery that is love, how can you not? If all the universe is an accident, well it is one heck of an accident. I don't see science and God as being at odds. I believe science helps us to understand, as well as our limited human brains can, the wonders of God's creation.

Imho, God was created because people couldn't accept that there is nothing after death, that their lives had no meaning(well, most anyway) ,they just wanted to make their lives easier. The Human is a social creature, it can't accept otherwise.

[Rigon]

I know you don't believe in God. But from the seeing the actions of the tiniest micro-organism (a single cell is quite a busy place!) to the complexities of the mightiest galaxy to the mystery that is love, how can you not? If all the universe is an accident, well it is one heck of an accident. I don't see science and God as being at odds. I believe science helps us to understand, as well as our limited human brains can, the wonders of God's creation.

The biggest mistake is the idea of an "connection" between creation and religion. There is none. Its self evident that religious creation stories are fanciful, implausible and made up. Only science sees through the mythology and finds the truth. Religion may make you feel good but only science can enlighten.

[nakazznicek]

I know you don't believe in God. But from the seeing the actions of the tiniest micro-organism (a single cell is quite a busy place!) to the complexities of the mightiest galaxy to the mystery that is love, how can you not?  

This is the reason. Who do you cosider God: Jesus? Divine Spirit? Anything you stated doesen't need God to run, nor start, and doesen't show any clues that he is interfering. And then, why would he do that? Create something and watch, let it evolve?

[Ayers]

why they should be interested in proving that god exist? why they should provide the existence of an illusionary thing? i trust more Penrose with his ccc theory than a futile god existence, they should focus more on study our universe.

[protokol]

I know you don't believe in God. But from the seeing the actions of the tiniest micro-organism (a single cell is quite a busy place!) to the complexities of the mightiest galaxy to the mystery that is love, how can you not? If all the universe is an accident, well it is one heck of an accident. I don't see science and God as being at odds. I believe science helps us to understand, as well as our limited human brains can, the wonders of God's creation.

You're right in saying that the universe is "one heck of an accident", but that's what I believe. Was it Carl Sagan that said "We should be thankful for winning the cosmic lottery!"

Don't forget that although it seems like an incredibly unlikely thing to happen, we are only pondering these questions because we happen to be conscious. Think of all the other life on Earth that can never ask these questions, not to mention the possible other stars/galaxies/other universes where the conditions were not quite right for life to exist. There's nothing there to ask "Where did it come from?"

Although I don't believe in any god, I do feel a certain "spiritual-ish" connection with the universe, when I ponder where all the atoms in my body originated. The beer I'm drinking right now probably contains traces of rare elements that were born in a supernova somewhere billions of light years away...

[zolace]

It is certainly understood that this is your position.  But, that is not the same as supporting it.And, on a related note, believing in evolution and the existence of the Creator are not mutually exclusive.

[Rigon]

It is certainly understood that this is your position.  But, that is not the same as supporting it.And, on a related note, believing in evolution and the existence of the Creator are not mutually exclusive.

Evolution is evidence and that "supports" my position. What supports yours? Science and religion are incompatible.

[Rigon]

Top ten comparisons of religion and hypocrisy:

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.