The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
god + science = eh lets give it a try
ohhaythar
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
It’s not faith. It’s not religion. It’s not blind acceptance. I believe in god because I just can’t not believe in him. An atheist friend of mine said with every scientific breakthrough god is disproved. A Christian friend of mine said faith overrules science. I believe both of my friends are wrong. Why can’t science be the language of god? I think with common ground there are answers. I want this thread to be about compromise, and how science might one day compliment the reality of a god and not about atheism or Christianity. This is about looking at god in a universal manner and not as a specific deity. God is present in all cultures so let’s dismiss specific faiths and their holy books, so we may rather look at the idea of god and not the people who worship him.
ohhaythar on
0
Posts
Kinda contradicts, doesn't it?
However, I could see how people could believe in 'the science of God' and that scientific studies just help people understand how God does what He does.
But then, there are religious texts and such that are hard to mesh with modern scientific developments.
1) Several important scientific theories are disproven
OR
2) Bassically every religion out there is wrong as to who/what/how/when God is
That's the thing. I don't believe god did anything but set everything in motion. After the big bang it was all up to evolution. I just think he has control over afterlife now. I think in later years instead of pushing him out we will be able to fully understand what he is rather than continuing to think of him as a substitute.
I think 2 is somewhere to what I think. As i said, god has appeard in every culture, so not everyone is going to be right. There are however similarities.
That's the thing, though. Previously people didn't know how lightning came about, so they thought it was god. Then science showed how it happens, and people don't attribute it to god any more. People didn't know how earthquakes happened, so they thought it was god. Then along comes plate tectonics and we don't think that any more. People didn't know how speciation happened, so they assumed god was responsible. Evolution answers that question.
How is understanding the start of the universe any different?
So you're functionally a deist? Watchmaker, etc?
Thing is, if we progress as we currently are, we'll eventually have detailed knowledge about the universe before the big bang. You can't really just say "God did it" and leave it at that, because in all likelihood, that's exactly what didn't happen. What's the difference between you saying that, and somebody however many centuries ago saying that some god made earth and let the wheels spin? Or that some god made us and let the wheels spin?
No, eventually we'll know, and deities will get pushed back again.
Yeah, that's an example of spirituality being pushed further and further back. Honestly, that's some pretty hair-brained stoner crap. It's attributing magic to mundane things. That's never useful or correct.
Kind of like how 'chi' is actually your circulatory system? Aren't these beliefs kind of arbitrary, given that you are admitting that you are only believing them until science comes up with an explanation?
If all god did was set things in motion and let things progress naturally from there, why not just take the next step and ask why they couldn't have just started as naturally as everything else?
But that's what I want to get to. I want science to explain the afterlife to me. Somehow I don't believe that when you die there isn't something waiting for me, but religion can only pose and idea while science can give me results. Even if there is electricity I am fine knowing what to expect. I don't remember who or where, but I remember hearing a scientist saying how the brain's electric currents are effected by outer stimulus. If this is true then that could effect how our so called "soul" (electricity) reacts after death. Is electricity included in the theory of how mass can't be destroyed. I believe those memories have to go somewhere.
As a programmer, I have created AI's from scratch before and set them to live in their own little worlds. Everything in their world makes sense to them.
But no matter how clever they get, it is 100% impossible for them to ever prove:
1) That I exist.
2) What I am.
3) That I am responsible for everything in their lives.
I imagine the same parallel can occur for real life.
I believe Galileo was right when he said "...nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages. I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."
The Bible even defines itself: "Thy word is a light unto my path" It does NOT say "Thy word is the path"
The argument that I am making (along with Galileo, Einstein, Sagan, Emerson, Hawking, and Haisch), is that the tangible act of God is what we understand as "science." The Bible and scriptures are merely a supplement , a guide, by which to follow the path of science (and God).
I believe it was Newton who wrote about that "two books of God". The first (and therefore irrefutable) book is the universe itself, and all of its laws. The second book is the Bible, which should never be seen as more than an explanation and supplement to the laws of nature. This pretty much fits in with what I have said above.
*Edit*
I would like to add something I found interesting.
The "big bang" was the spontaneous release of all of the constant energy across the universe. Before the bang, it was compressed into a singularity.
Einstein's theory of relativity states that matter and energy are interchangeable. This means that all of the matter in teh universe was probably energy at some point (also points to a singularity)
Hawking's has proposed that this "singularity" of energy is "God". If this is true, then the Bible does a remarkable job of explaining quantum astrophysics for such an ancient manuscript. The Bible says that God is everything, and he has always been and always will be. This has only recently been accepted as truth through science.
Science doesn't always tell you want you want to know. It tells you about observable reality. If the two don't mesh, it's not a flaw in science.
I think the problem here is you dont actually know what science is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
And your talk of the afterlife and so on is total nonsense, and is a fine indication of the difference between faith and science. You think these things that you say, however you have no reason to think them (which is why they dont make sense). Science explains things in a very specific way, please see above.
Someone needs to write a sci-fi novel about that.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. And if the bible, or any other religious text, is supposed to be a supplement, why is it so very, very wrong so often? Rabbits don't chew fucking cud.
No, some people won't believe in God even if God showed himself to their face. There are people who always look for the other explanation.
It makes more sense than any other theory I've seen so far. If its such "utter bullshit", then why have some of the greatest minds in history come to the same conclusion independently?
No really, when I hit you with a baseball bat and crack your skull open, it's because I transferred a large amount of god upside your dome.
As an atheist I can tell you that I would believe in God the instant he could prove himself in a convincing way. Now, would I worship him? That is another question entirely.
Except many historic scientific figures were spiritual if not actually part of a major religion.
The idea here not being 'lol if so-and-so believed in god and he was a big scientist then god MUST be true' but rather that these scientists in question (and no I am NOT talking about the horrible 'christian scientists' (not all scientists who are christians belong in this group BTW) were able to meld their beliefs and their scientific knowledge together.
So yeah, they can coexist. There is nothing inherently wrong with either that makes them HAVE to be in opposition, it's based on the people.
My lightbulb is currently converting electrical God into light God and heat God.
Dude I TOTALLY saw the image of Jesus on a piece of toast, what more proof do you need?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
God isn't supposed to "make sense" isn't that the point?
What a crock of shit. I don't believe that at all. If lightning bolts rained from the sky and spelled out "HI I'M GOD" on the side of the building you would just say something like "A coincidence, nothing more. The whole universe is a coincidence anyway. people are fuckin sheep".
How does this make more sense? Please explain instead of just stating it. As far as the "greatest minds" you are talking about, please name a few. Don't just put it out there with no clarification. Also, even if they all agreed on it, they aren't right just because they are smart. It's a complete argument from authority to try and pull this shit off.
Human dependence on God is going to lead to a major disaster. God is not a renewable resource.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what I would and would not accept as evidence?