Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 2,001-2,050 of 12,463

[Hazel]

Mack, thats an interesting take on things. It really is. However, you've started with an incorrect assumption:

Both religion and science merely are attempts to theorize and discover the reasons for the creation of man, and the world.

no, religion claims to know the answers, and then tells us not to question it. Science doesn't know the answers, and doesn't try to find the answers to ultimate questions. It is a tool that helps us to understand the world. It describes what is, nothing more. It is a method by which we can understand the world around us, and the universe at large, it goes no further than explaining what we observe, it is based on evidence. It gives us mechanisms and methods with which to understand what really is.

You then go on to say you'd prefer neither, and describe what you think the world would be without them. The first, a world without religion, would be no different to this world, except without people believing things for which they have no proof, and without people hurting and killing others over these things. So yes, it would be nice.

A world without science having ever existed means we would never have got beyond living as animals, we would never have had the minds to be able to comprehend such things, so we would never have evolved to where we are now. If science were to suddenly stop, rather than to have never existed, then we would have an increase in deaths by what would otherwise be curable illnesses, child mortality rates would rocket, and life expectancy would plummet. Without science, there is no deep rooted knowledge, as we need the scientific method to understand the world properly.

As for no true theory as to why we are here. What sort of "why" do you mean? The deep philosophical why of "what is the purpose of our existence?" or the more reasonable and eminently answerable question of how we got to be here? Evolution is very much a theory based on fact, it has large amounts of evidence and explains the mechanisms of our existence quite thoroughly. If you think there should be an overarching purpose for existence, an existential question of meaning, then we're back to believing things for no reason. There is no overarching special reason for existence, we simply exist as a result of evolution, and we make our own meanings in our own lives.

[Paul]

Purpose of existence? I don't really understand why anyone presumes there is a purpose? That's never made sense to me.

[Old-Barbarossa]

A purpose is like a dolphin isn't it?

[Nada]

Science leads to religion, religion leads to science ..if I choose either I'll end up having the other..no offense the question is pointless..

[Hazel]

Nada wrote: "Science leads to religion, religion leads to science ..if I choose either I'll end up having the other..no offense the question is pointless.."

When people make statements like that, i put my head in my hands, and wish they'd then learn to actually explain their point.

Please, explain what the hell you mean, otherwise I'll just have to assume the sentence is as meaningless and pointless as you claim the question is.

because from what we know of religion, it actually claims to have answers and tells you not to question further. Seeing as science is questioning further, then religion by its very nature cannot lead us to science.

and the reverse, science leading to religion. No, science explains how things really are, and rejects things for which no evidence/proof is available as nothing more than a poor hypothesis with no support. As such, as there is no proof of god, or any other deity, please, explain how science, which teaches about the real world, can lead to religion, the basis of which has no proof and so would be shown as unsupported by the scientific method and rejected.

[Paul]

Nada wrote: "Science leads to religion, religion leads to science ..if I choose either I'll end up having the other..no offense the question is pointless.."

Surely LACK of science leads to religion. Religion is simply giving up. ie "I can't find the answer, therefore it must be God." Several great scientists actually stopped making discoveries after they attributed the next step to God.

Also I don't understand how science can lead to religion anyway? Would you care to clarify that?

[Lisa]

Religion, I would do without religion.

[Nada]

Science ,the great discoveries, the significant great details about everything in this universe. The way everything is in coordination. It leads you to that everything and every creature in this world was created by one greater power than humans , because if it wasn't this way nothing would be in so much coordination. The more you know about science the more you'll believe there is an only god.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your word would not be good en..."

Lets imagine that the earth moves towards the sun and all life on earth ends. So no life, no religion.

That does not alter Gods position.

There are two possibilities; There is a God, there is not a God. (There could be a third, something in the middle), but our minds are not able to comprehend such a thing. So for now we have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong. If God exists it is seperate from religion.

[Paul]

Nada wrote: "Science ,the great discoveries, the significant great details about everything in this universe. The way everything is in coordination. It leads you to that everything and every creature in this wo..."
Actually I feel the exact opposite. New discoveries put all gods ever more out of the equation. The way I see it, either the Universe needs a creator because everything needs a creator, in which case what created your "only" god, or the Universe does not need a creator and the problem ceases to exist.

I'm always mystified by how people choose which god to believe in. Strange how it is so often the god your parents believe in.

Anyway the debate is about religion NOT gods. Religion clearly can operate with any gods (didn't they say recently that more than 25% of Christian Ministers don't believe in any god anyway?) so lets get back to the point. Religion or Science.

I'm sticking with science because without it we'd mostly all be dead before age 20 and we'd still be living in caves.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your word woul..."

If god exists? Prove god exists. How many times does this need to be said, anything you say with the stipulation "if god exists" is meaningless. Prove god exists.

And you're absolutely correct, if the earth moved the several thousand (or even million miles, I can never remember how much it is, but we do have rather a large amount of leeway before life becomes impossible) miles closer to the sun it would need to move for life to cease, it would make no difference to "gods" position, there would still be no proof for god, even if there is no-one to know there is no proof. This still comes back to prove god exists. Gods position in relation to anything means nothing if you cannot prove that god exists. Otherwise, I might as well say that life ceasing to exist makes no difference on the dragon position, or on the fairies position, or on the flying spaghetti monster position. If there is no proof that god, or any of the thousands of other deities that are and have been worshipped, exist, there is no rational reason to assume or believe that any deity does exist.

The proof needs to be there for the existence of god for any statement anyone makes, including the claim that god does not need people to believe in it to exist, to mean anything. Without any proof of existence, your statements hold as much water as me claiming that a purple unicorn lives in your closet, but you'll never see it as it teleports elsewhere whenever you go to look. Until there is proof that unicorn exists, then there is no reason to assume that it does.

And seeing as the only people who espouse the existence of god/s are religious people, then god/s cannot be separated from religion unless you can prove that god exists as a real being rather than as a concept, and show which religion got it right.

[Hazel]

Nada wrote: "Science ,the great discoveries, the significant great details about everything in this universe. The way everything is in coordination. It leads you to that everything and every creature in this wo..."

Actually, the more science uncovers, the more it reveals that there is no requirement for a deity, and lessens the amount of space in our understanding for god to take up. The more you look at what science teaches us, the more we realise that there is no god behind it all.

[Lisa]

That's a matter of perspective, Hazel.

[Nada]

Proofs that god exists are everywhere around us..even in our hearts , when you're in a problem a really big one and no single creature could help you out of it, you pray for a power a stronger power than yours that you believe existing regardless what you call it. Life without plain,clear beliefs is a life of a lost person. stumbling his way all around. I can't possibly see how the more science uncovers the more it reveals that there is no requirement for a deity ? from where did you get the information?

[Hazel]

no, proof that god exists is not everywhere Nada, you just like to think it is because you're coming from position that already assumes that god exists. If there was no concept of god, you certainly wouldn't claim that life is proof that god exists, thats a non sequiter. In order to properly investigate any claim, we have to approach it objectively, whereas your claim that the proof is all around us is based on the presupposition that god exists, that presupposition means that you will find proof that isn't there, and you will assign things that have no connection to the investigation as proof that god exists. We have to put aside that presupposition, we have to be objective, and investigate the issue of gods existence with an understanding of how the things people claim to be proof of god actually work, so we can see which things we cannot attribute to a deity. This narrows the field down to barely anything, if anything at all. It also assumes that your choice of which god to believe in is correct, despite there being 1000's of deities to chose from, all of which are as likely to be real as the one you chose, or was chosen for you by your parents when you were too young to understand what was being chosen.

And where I got that science uncovers no requirement for a deity, well, I read science books, I pay attention to scientific development, and there is so much evidence for there being no requirement for god, that I simply could not cover it here. In fact, much of what we discover directly contradicts the claim of a gods existence, and the claims that we were created as our current form by that god, and that god created the world/the universe. The amount of time it would take to explain all this is simply not feasible, it would require a reasonably full explanation of the fields of physiology, genetics, evolutionary biology, physics, astrophysics, cosmology, chemistry, embryology, quantum physics and psychology. Now, I'm not claiming I can wax lyrical on all of these things, but I do pay attention to them, and learn from what the experts in these fields have to say, and it makes the room left in our understanding for god as an explanation smaller and smaller as time goes on, they show how things really work, and provide proof for it. I suggest going and reading some science texts. And maybe watching some lectures by people such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

This statement:

Life without plain,clear beliefs is a life of a lost person. stumbling his way all around.

is not only insulting, but blind and ignorant. What would we be Lost from? How is it that there are people without belief who live full and happy lives if this were the case? We've already covered a couple of pages ago (and also about a dozen or so pages before that) the studies that reveal that highly secular countries, with high levels of atheism, have lower crime rates than highly theistic countries. The countries with the highest rate of theistic belief (such as the USA, and many middle eastern countries) have the highest crime rates. There are also studies showing that in relation to the percentage of theistic v atheistic people in a general population vs prison populations, there are more theistic people in prison that there are atheists So, how does blind belief make us happier again? How does blind belief make it so that we aren't lost and stumbling? Life without belief is actually very fulfilling and awe inspiring. Finding out how things really work is a much better and far more freeing experience than accepting the idea that an unprovable being that no-one can see, hear or touch (as much as you'd like to think you can; if you do hear any voices, go to the doctors) created it all. The idea of being so incurious as to the reality of the universe is anathema to me. The idea of simply accepting such a non-explanation, and not even asking someone to prove it, is just lazy thinking. Life without belief includes an understanding that we take responsibility for ourselves, and for others around us, and that we should take an active part in helping each other, and in preserving what we can of the natural world, etc etc

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your ..."

You are so so wrong...... The proof needs to be there for the existence of god for any statement anyone makes........ so wrong.

Proof may be needed for you to believe in the existence of a God, but wheather you believe or not does not alter the fact that if there is a God, the god does not, not exist, because you do not have the evidence you need to believe in his existence.

Also there are plenty of non religious people who think it possible that there could be a God.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your word woul..."

Actually it does change his position. As a purely human concept, if all life where to end in any way or even only human life then the concept of god would die with the last human, radically changing the position from one of human concept back to the default position, non-existence

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Also there are plenty of non religious people who think it possible that there could be a God. "

So what? That doesn't make your position any more correct, it just means there are more people willing to be credulous and believe something for which there is no proof of.

If there is a god, prove it. If you can't provide proof, then there is no reason to believe it. If there is a god, why is it hiding from us? its a god, it would have nothing to fear from us mere mortals.

You are stating "there is a god", and I'm asking you to prove it. Unless you can prove it, then god is as much of a non-entity as the pink giraffe that lives in your shower.

Non of your statements about gods existence, or its role in the world, hold any water if you cannot prove that god exists. Its that simple. If you cannot prove its existence, then why should we believe in it? Faith is not a virtue. Belief without proof is not a good trait. whether god would continue to exist without belief in it is neither here nor there, you would still need to provide proof that that statement is correct, and until you do, there is no reason to assume that the statement is correct in any way, especially as before you can claim god can exist even if there is no-one to believe in it, you still have to prove that god exists. Otherwise the statement is empty, and means nothing in the grander scheme of things.

what you're not getting is that until you can prove that god exists, then there is no reason to assume that god is anything beyond the invention of the religious, as such, god and religion are intertwined completely. If god is beyond the invention of the religious, if he exists outside of the religious teachings, and is a real being, then prove it. If you cannot prove it, then you are basing your beliefs on an untenable position.

Personally, I think that what we believe in should be considered paramount in import to each f us, therefore, we should ensure that we hold as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible. This means that we need to investigate the claims behind the beliefs, and search for good evidence, and find proof to back them up. If after looking, we find no proof, then the belief is not worth hanging on to, as its not a true, supported belief. So, prove that god exists, as all the investigating I've done shows me that there is no god.

Oh, and once you've proved there is a god, prove that its the one you always believed in too, and not one of the 1000s of others.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough?..."
Yes but if you are in a public debate and are going to assert god, or anything else for that matter, as justification or support for your POV, you need evidence for it to be accepted as a valid argument. To date there has been no evidence of quality presented by anyone that I'm aware of.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Also there are plenty of non religious people who think it possible that there could be a God. "

So what? That doesn't make your position any more correct, it just means there are more ..."

I hear what you are saying and I do believe, you believe in no evidence, no God.

But I am debating from the 'absence of evidence' argument. If in years to come evidence of a god is found, does that mean God at the moment of discovery then exists? Or did he exist all the Time?

[Hazel]

If in years to come, someone proves there is a god, then I will admit I was wrong, and that it existed all along. However, now, being a rational person, I understand that there is no proof and thus no reason to believe it exists. There is also plenty of evidence that there is no requirement for the existence of a deity, and much of what we have learned from physics, biology, chemistry and psychology (and all their multitude of subsets) that directly contradict the god hypothesis.

Based on the evidence currently available, there is no rational reason to assume that any form of deity, be it Yahweh or Zeus, or Odin, or Vishnu, or John Frum, exists. Prove it otherwise, and I will spin on a sixpence.

I have a request, cs, can you define god for me? How would you define god?

[Sophie]

I think that if I had to choose, I would rather live in a world of science. However, in limiting people to science, we can very easily lose some of the great things that religion has taught us. While religion is very much a cause of argument, prejudice, hatred, and many times war, it can also be a very effective tool to teach morals and values when applied in the correct way. And yes, there are certainly other ways of instating morals into people, but religion also provides other advantages such as a sense of community. It also deals with emotions where as science tends to deal more with the logical side of humanity. For progress, science is absolutely necessary, but as the world progresses, I think (and please comment if you think I am wrong, I love to be wrong!) that people need to rely less and less on religion, there are many substitutes to religion like teaching good morals thorough your actions, or making your family your community. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe in G-d. And that is an irreconcilable issue for now.

[Shanna]

Sophie wrote: "I think that if I had to choose, I would rather live in a world of science. However, in limiting people to science, we can very easily lose some of the great things that religion has taught us. Whi..."
You are right religion is completely unnecessary. We don't need it for the good stuff and certainly don't need the bad stuff.
Religion doesn't really instil a sense of community look at the members of community it seeks to separate in to US and THEM, homosexuals, different religions, races, sexes, sometimes with extreme prejudice.
It is divisive, not inclusive.

[Maja]

I had this discussion with someone not to long ago and what I find interesting is how the religion is changing. Nobody today believes in Zeus and Hera and Thor and Athena... If you mention that to a believer they would laugh at you. They have the GOD (well, at least in Christianity) that never ''existed'' before and all of a sudden he does!

I think that, as science continues answering questions and shedding more light on things that make sense and are REAL, religion will start disappearing. Well, at least the one we have today and will either disappear all together or will change into something else. In the future people might believe in a different deity all together.

I hate to say this, but I think that belief in god is necessary for people that can't handle the reality of life. Even my father told me growing up - ''It is easier for people who believe in god simply because they believe they will see the loved ones they lost and they that things happening around them are not something they can control. And sometimes I wish I could believe as well. Life might be a lot simpler and easier, but I can't. It goes against my common sense.''

I grew up in a country that is 95% christian catholic and while I was technically raised a catholic, my parents always left it up to me to make my own decisions and conclusions, and today I am an atheist. Anything else doesn't make sense to me.

In any case, humans will be gone one day and with them their beliefs and all that will be left is what is - Universe...

[Sophie]

Maja wrote: "I had this discussion with someone not to long ago and what I find interesting is how the religion is changing. Nobody today believes in Zeus and Hera and Thor and Athena... If you mention that to ..."

Well said! I have never thought of religion (although now it seems quite obvious) as something that evolves with time and with new insight.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "If in years to come, someone proves there is a god, then I will admit I was wrong, and that it existed all along. However, now, being a rational person, I understand that there is no proof and thus..."

Maybe this quote explains god a bit....

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein.

Some say he believed in a God.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough? ."

No, your ..."

But we are not talking about a concept.

You have know the one about the tree falling in the middle of a forrest. If there is no one around to hear it fall does it still make a sound?

[Hazel]

prove its not just a concept.

And Einstein did believe in a god when he was younger, he was theistic, then he became deistic, in the end. he was an adherent of Spinozism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza%...). However, who cares? A call to authority does not make your stance any more tenable. Saying "person of note A believed in god" doesn't make god real, it just means that even important and intelligent people are capable of being taken in, and are subject to occasional bouts of credulity. Einstein's quote does nothing to explain god, only his mindset in relation to understanding the world at the time he said those words. He also said:

"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me.".

Franco of Spain also believed in a god, does this mean we should assume that all religious people are tyrannical dictator types who order the abduction of babies at birth from people of the "wrong religion"? Of course not, his name brings nothing to the argument, just as any other noteworthy persons name brings nothing to the argument, its simply a call to authority, and has no place in a reasonable discussion

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be good enough..."

Ah, but we are, until there is credible evidence, it's called a hypothesis.

Yes the tree does make a sound it's phonics and physics a tree falling in a forest is not a concept it's a physical verifiable occurence that has real credible evidence

[Hazel]

Ah, but we are, until there is credible evidence, it's called a hypothesis

and in one sentence, Shanna sumarises what I've been saying over my last few responses to cs. Until there is evidence to the contrary, its a hypothesis, and thus a concept.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Just a small point regarding the existance or non-existance of god...
If there is a god, what do they do?
If people of faith are being butchered by others of faith or starving on the streets of more "developed" nations...is god on a break?

[M.]

Hazel wrote: "Mack, thats an interesting take on things. It really is. However, you've started with an incorrect assumption:

Both religion and science merely are attempts to theorize and discover the reasons f..."

Hazel,
Love your response and thank you. Your comments are dully noted and I will log them the next time I attempt to make an argument on science and religion. Please keep my “assumption” premise, as you call it, in mind. A few things...

The definition of assumption is “a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof (Oxford Advanced Learning Dictionary, 2011).” So yes, religion claims to know there answers are true, yet religion is still making the assumption that God created man and the world. As I have seen you state throughout this discussion board, there are no facts displaying that God created either. St. Thomas Acquaints was the closest to discovering and proving the existence of God, yet could not. He merely assumed God’s existence and acted on faith alone. There is proof that western religion theorized about the creation of man and the world, and that can be found in Genesis. My claim that religion attempts to theorize and discover the reasons for the creation of man and the world, although unaltered for thousands of years, it’s still a theory scribed in the Bible. Fact, not an assumption.

In the case of science, yes, science has given us mechanisms, methods and tools to explain what we have observed. I will not argue with that. However, science does have theories and has attempted to discover how and what man was created from. For example, Paleontologists have attempted to trace our origins from fish. This is a fact, not assumption. It seems though that science no longer wishes to discuss our creation because man is here, living, and breathing, so why question it. Moreover, science now attempts to theorize and discover the course of mans development, behavior, and cognitive abilities instead.

As far as the creation of the world...why do scientist build machines such as the Large Hadron Collider to study the the Laws of Nature and the fundamental building blocks of the universe and our world? Why desperately keep striving to find the Higgs Boson particle, the particle, or particles, that’s theorized to give matter mass? I would say to inch us a bit closer to disproving the western God, and proving the possibility that the Big Bang Theory actually happened. Although scientists may not be attempting to prove how man has created or evolved to this point, they are still attempting to theorize and discover the reasons for how the fundamental buildings blocks created our world. Fact, not assumption.

I agree with you that a world without science would increase the death toll, decrease life expectancy, and we would have no deep rooted knowledge to understand our world. These are benefits and elements to science that I didn’t address and thanks for pointing them out to me. Yet, science has made the world so fast that people will not take the time to discover that deep rooted knowledge anymore. Our minds have been programmed for instant information, instant pleasure, and a means to distract us from the world. Again, I agree a world without science would be devastating, yet for every cause there is an effect.

Lastly, beyond my premise, I appreciate you picking up on my existentialist thinking of existence. Most wouldn’t know what the hell existentialism is. I meant “What’s the purpose of our existence?” And your right, there is no over arching reason for existence, and each person does create their own meaning for life. Yet how many people sit down and ponder over their life meaning and take action to fulfill that meaning? Some, but not most. They would rather have a surface leveled meaning of existence through material, and never dig to the root, or develop a theory on what their existence means. I’m in no place to judge, label, or call people bad who have not. I just find it inconvenient when meaning lies everywhere and everyone is engulfed in their television, phones, and attainment of individual worth through altruism.

Your move devils advocate.

[Giansar]

OF COURSE SCIENCE LEADS TO RELIGION! HOW CAN IT NOT?

It was one of the great guys like Clarke or Asimov that said every technology advanced enough will seem like magic to a primitive enough culture.
If you found an uncivilized tribe and gave them an iPad they could easily decide to built a cult around it!

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "prove its not just a concept.

And Einstein did believe in a god when he was younger, he was theistic, then he became deistic, in the end. he was an adherent of Spinozism (http://en.wikipedia.org/w..."

As I said God and religion are seperate and that includes the bible.

If God creating everything is just another theory then it's the best we have got. Science has no idea what it's all about, it does not even know if there is anything faster than light or what came before the big bang.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "If God creating everything is just another theory then it's the best we have got. Science has no idea what it's all about, it does not even know if there is anything faster than light or what came before the big bang."
It's not the best we have.
Science doesn't really care about the philosophical reason for it all, if indeed there is such a meaning and it's all not, just a happy accident.
Give science a chance they're working on it, and considering how long science has had to work without the repression of religious authorities approx 200 yr and only the last 100 of that really free then it's done a bloody brilliant job.
You can't just insert any old crap and insist it's true because science hasn't worked that bit out yet, (well I suppose you can, but if you want to be taken seriously and not appear ignorant I don't recommend it). You can however hypothesise and look for credible evidence to support the hypothesis.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "This proof that you require, is it absolute proof, or just beyond reasonable doubt, or if I said that I have seen God would my word be g..."

Everything about God or how we came to be here is just theory, science has no answers, and until they do many people will believe in a God, which can be seperate from religion.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "If God creating everything is just another theory then it's the best we have got. Science has no idea what it's all about, it does not even know if there is anything faster than light or..."

If science working it out is a 24 hour clock I doubt we are a minute into finding out any answers as to why or how be got here. If there is no meaning or reason to us being here then why are we so concerned about, for example, people in third world countries, that has nothing to do with science.

[Shanna]

Science has answers!
I'm not sure what are the answers you want, but if you are looking for the philosophical meaning of life, can I suggest a wonderful Monty Python movie...
It's not science's role nor does it claim such a role.
Belief in a hypothesis of god, as unverifiable as it is provides no answers based in truth because the premise has no basis in reality.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "prove its not just a concept.

And Einstein did believe in a god when he was younger, he was theistic, then he became deistic, in the end. he was an adherent of Spinozism (http://en..."

God creating everything is not a theory, it doesn't have enough supporting evidence to be a theory. It is a hypothesis that as yet needs real supporting evidence to support the hypothesis before it can become known as a theory.

Science knows it doesn't know everything, to quote Dara O Briain, if it did, it would stop. But as Shanna has already said, if we don't know something, that isn't license to fill the gap in our knowledge with whatever explanation makes us feel most comfortable without even trying to find evidence to support the claim being made.

The god hypothesis is certainly not the best explanation we have, as its not even a theory, its just an unsupported hypothesis. And until someone can prove that god exists, and that god did create the world, then it will remain an unsupported hypothesis which can simply be rejected. Science is a tool, and with that tool the human species has created several sound and workable theories (proper theories, with large amounts of supporting evidence which we can use to create more hypotheses for testing the theory further) that explain a large amount of things we previously attributed to god/s, or spirits, or fairies. This sentence:

it does not even know if there is anything faster than light or what came before the big bang.

is astonishing in its triteness. The fact that the word "even" is in there is indicative of a level of hubris and contempt that is unfounded and unwarrented in anyone who knows what science has acheived and has revealed aboutt he universe. We have traced the origins of the universe back to it being beach ball sized, its not much more to get to the big bang. And to be frank no-one who claims to believe in god as an explanation knows these things either, as they don't have the proof that it was god, they simply make an unsupported claim, and for some reason are happy to simply stop looking. Faith in god puts you in a less well versed position on these subjects than an understanding of science does. Believe me, they're working on it. They are studying event horizons with the aim to understand more about the big bang, its all very fascinating. And just because the scientists don't know now, doesn't mean they won't know one day, whether its next year or 500 years down the line. Until then, we don't insert whatever we want as an explanation, we say "we don't know", and get on with working it out.

You keep saying that "humans minds cannot comprehend this stuff", (I'm paraphrasing here), but thats simply not true. Plenty of people are capable of comprehending things that some people are convinced are beyond our comprehension. And if the barrier to our comprehension is physical, such as its far away, or small, then we develop tools, using science, to aid us in our comprehension.

I notice you didn't answer my question though cs, can you define god/ what is god? Is it a physical being? a being of spirit only? Does it exist within the universe? is it omnipresent? omnipotent? omniscient? is it omnibenevolent? What is god?

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "If God creating everything is just another theory then it's the best we have got. Science has no idea what it's all about, it does not even know if there is anything faste..."

Science is not claiming to answer philosophical questions,
It can answer how we got to be here in a nutshell, Big bang, expanding matter forms stars and celestial bodies, stars explode further distributing matter (iron copper, carbon ect) forged in their furnaces, earth forms circling just the right distance from our sun with and iron core (this is vital)and iron rich swirling sea of chemicals that somehow perhaps on the edges of volcanic fissures under the surface, chemicals join to create a self replicating process (basic genes) some of these have a lucky microevolution to use sunlight as a food source (photosynthesis) this process produces oxygen which then rusts the iron in the water causing it settle (creating future iron deposits to mine)(I forgot to put this bit in last night before bed) and then creating oxygenated atmosphere, Microevolution experiments with these new lifeforms eventually leading to the cumulative affect of all that microevolution, macroevolution or speciation then the evolutionary tree branches and branches 'til, ta da here we are.
Of course all of this takes far longer than 6000 years.

[Nada]

Dear everyone who doesn't believe in God It's true I live in a place where everybody thinks god exists but if I didn't find the great sense in everything in my religion including that god exists I wouldn't be having this conversation,debating about it even if I grew up with it. Growing up with something doesn't mean getting so attached to it unless it makes sense to you , unless your truly and wholeheartedly believes it's real only then you would defend it.
I'm sorry because I don't have the ability to put what I know in words It's all about beliefs. I really don't know how to respond to your claims because I have no enough knowledge in neither religion or science . what I know and truly believe in that this universe didn't just create itself , It's mathematically proven that the more complicated the thing is the more impossible it becomes to suppose that it happened by coincidence. We humans -as you assume- if there's no god are the greatest power in earth yet it happens that we're helpless when it comes to lots of things. then who created us ,who created this universe to meet our needs. Why we in specific are the only creatures who have a mind and feelings. I'm just wondering do you read history books or do you read about other religions from trusted resources-that means from these who gains no goood at all from telling you about their religion.

[Hazel]

the universe isn't created to meet our needs, the vast majority of it is uninhabitable to us. even this planet has so many things in it that are detrimental to our existence that we cannot claim it was made for us.

Stop thinking of the world, or the universe as anthropocentric, and realise we're simply here, not for a reason, not with a purpose, just simply here, a small, insignificant part of a massive universe that we know little about.

Why do you think we are the only creatures with minds and feelings? That's a ridiculous claim. There is loads of evidence showing that other species have feelings, and have the ability to problem solve, some even make and use tools. There was a parrot in a research facility that not only learned the largest human vocabulary of any non-human animal, and he could answer questions, and see differences and tell us them. His name was Alex. He understood concepts, such as zero, or none, he could recognise objects even if you changed the size, colour, or perspective. He had a limited ability in maths, being able to add two numbers together and give you the answer. He even corrected the other parrots in the study when they gave incorrect answers.

Crows, chimps, orang utans, gorillas, dogs, bears, elephants, see otters, ravens, some types of wrasses and all species of octopod are just a few examples of animals that are able to create and/or use tools. Dogs learn more than just basic commands, and are one of the best examples we have of non-human animals having feelings. We know that other animals have feelings and emotions, and that they are capable of feats of the mind that we'd be happy to see in our toddlers and infants. If the inverse were true, and animals had no feelings, we certainly wouldn't be so concerned for their welfare and treatment, as it would make no difference to animals that couldn't respond emotionally to their treatment.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "prove its not just a concept.

And Einstein did believe in a god when he was younger, he was theistic, then he became deistic, in the end. he was an adherent of Spinozism (..."
The thread is about science or religion and I said that you can have a God and not religion so I went for science. To me God is the best answer to the big questions, since science is unable to give us an answer. And I can't wait the hundreds of years it may take science to come up with with anything that could trump God.

Do you know that the latest theory in science is that there was NO big bang, so rather than get nearer to an answer this has just thrown up even more theories.

You can use the word 'triteness' regarding my faster than light and big bang sentence, but the sentence is fact.

[Julie]

Im not very religous myself, and even tho he wasnt my favcorite character in the novel. I adored what the carmelengo said when he was speaking to the cardinals and to the world threw the bbc crew. So for me Id much rather live in a world without science. I appreciate the beauty and the power of the lightening bult. Not the speed at which it moves. :)

[Maja]

Julie wrote: "Im not very religous myself, and even tho he wasnt my favcorite character in the novel. I adored what the carmelengo said when he was speaking to the cardinals and to the world threw the bbc crew. ..."

You wouldn't be living very well or very long in that world...

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "The thread is about science or religion and I said that you can have a God and not religion so I went for science. To me God is the best answer to the big questions, since science is unable to give us an answer. And I can't wait the hundreds of years it may take science to come up with with anything that could trump God. ."

I'm sorry, what? Science hasn't found the answer yet, so making something up is the best answer? no, simply no. If we don't know the answer, we just don't know the answer. God is not a good answer until someone shows otherwise, as god has no proof. There is no proof for god, thus he is NOT a good answer. "We don't know" is the good, and honest, answer.

Do you know that the latest theory in science is that there was NO big bang, so rather than get nearer to an answer this has just thrown up even more theories.

Yes, I did know that, and thats how sicence works, as more evidence comes to light, we either support or reject ideas. Just because one theory has been replaced, or has another theory suggested against it, doesn't mean that they're all wrong, and doesn't mean that we replace it with a completely unsupported idea such as "god did it". The latest theory, btw, does include a big bang, but it includes a fluctuation of the universe, "ending" in a big crunch, and then "starting" again with a big bang, and that it does this over and over. The quotation marks are there because the terms are technically incorrect for a universe that fluctuates, but are the easiest way to explain the transition between a contraction and an expansion.

You can use the word 'triteness' regarding my faster than light and big bang sentence, but the sentence is fact.

No, its not, there is a lot that scientists can explain, and the current theory to what was there before the big bang is that the universe was there, what with the theory you mentioned earlier being that the universe expands and contracts. I admit, trite was the wrong word, what I should have used was probably condescending, because you used the phrase "they don't even know", as if someone else (yourself, a priests, whatever) does. And no-one really does, but the only people trying to find out that answer are scientists.

As for this, which I only just spotted:

If there is no meaning or reason to us being here then why are we so concerned about, for example, people in third world countries, that has nothing to do with science.

This is a question of morals, and there is a science of morality. Try reading The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, and try to understand that morality is built through evolutionary traits which make us a species that lives in groups and cares for its group members. As time ahas gone on, the world has become "smaller" and everyone is part of the same tribe, so we care. Caring about other people is certainly not a result of religion, or of a god for whom there is no proof. It pre-dates religion, and it pre-dates any concept people had of any deity.

You still haven't defined god for me. I'm starting to think that you are dodging the question.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "The thread is about science or religion and I said that you can have a God and not religion so I went for science. To me God is the best answer to the big questions, since science is una..."

I have answered the question, you must have missed the reply.

This is a question of morals, yes it is and we have morals because of what we are and what we believe. Without belief there is little need for morals. We may as well adapt the 'survival of the fittest' theory and not concern ourselves with things we have little control over and this includes future generations.

[Shaun]

No contest. A world without science is a world of apes that don't even use tools.

[Hazel]

I'm sorry cs, I've looked through the last two pages of replies, and no, I can't find a reply from you in which you actually define god. If I've missed it, thats my bad, but could you put in a sentence or two, what you define god as, please.

[Shaun]

cs wrote: "Without belief there is little need for morals. We may as well adapt the 'survival of the fittest' theory and not concern ourselves with things we have little control over and this includes future generations. "

And yet animals, without belief or morals, regularly show concern for future generations. Are you saying that if you lost your faith you'd be worse than, say, a hyena, at looking after your children?