PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Your arguement relies on one fact: That the Quran is truth. This is not nesscisarly true.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists Confirm The Signs Of God
- Thread starter Peace
- Start date
Is It Unscientific to Believe in God? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Do you assume that scientists don't believe in God? You might be surprised by the conclusions some scientists are reaching these days.
Do you assume that scientists don't believe in God? You might be surprised by the conclusions some scientists are reaching these days.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
do you assume that scientists can't believe in god and evolution?
You might be surprised by how many do.
wa:do
You might be surprised by how many do.
wa:do
Ody
Well-Known Member
Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Let us consider three of the mysteries that are leading some scientists to wonder about the existence of a Creator.
Pah
Uber all member
I guess that depends of whether the Big Bang is a singularity or not. There is growing support it was not.
Pah
Uber all member
From the linkWhy Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site
Let us consider three of the mysteries that are leading some scientists to wonder about the existence of a Creator.
How did the universe come to be? - expansion and contraction of matter
Why does the universe appear to be expressly designed to support life? - it wasn't. There is no design to the universe and the overwhelming portion of the universe is devoid of life.
How did life arise here on earth? - Chance, within a hospitable environment.
John Grey
New Member
I agree with the general sentiment behind Peace's original post; spirituality and science do not need to be polar opposites, and the division between the two is largely idealogical. But lets be completely fair; the notion that science and religion must support each other is idealogical as well. While on the one hand it may be true that evolutionist see what they want to see when looking at scientific data, creationist are guilty of the same crime, arguably more so than the evolutionist.
I think two things need to be kept firmly in mind when discussing the relationship between science and religion;
1) Logic is man made. It maybe the best method mankind has of measuring and understanding the universe, but that does not mean that it defines the universe. You might argue that the universe defines logic, but man is still involved making logic inherently flawed. It's man, trying to interpret the cause and effect relationships of the universe, who uses his dim understanding to define logic.
2) Language is man made. There are words in the dictionary that didn't exist 100 years ago. Heck, there are words in the dictionary that didn't exist 10 years ago! Language is constantly evolving to more accurately describe our environment and what we, as a species, understand. As such, it stands to reason that if a book was dictated by God to a human being thousands of years ago, it would not be 100% literal because we lacked the sufficient vocabulary to understand. If a book was dictated by God to a human being right now, it still would not be 100% accurate, if only because we humans have an uncanny ability to hear whatever we want to hear.
In the end, both Non-Theist and Theist alike come about their conclusions concerning religion and science in a subjective manner. Objectivity is an worthy ideal, but is ultimately a fallacy.
I think two things need to be kept firmly in mind when discussing the relationship between science and religion;
1) Logic is man made. It maybe the best method mankind has of measuring and understanding the universe, but that does not mean that it defines the universe. You might argue that the universe defines logic, but man is still involved making logic inherently flawed. It's man, trying to interpret the cause and effect relationships of the universe, who uses his dim understanding to define logic.
2) Language is man made. There are words in the dictionary that didn't exist 100 years ago. Heck, there are words in the dictionary that didn't exist 10 years ago! Language is constantly evolving to more accurately describe our environment and what we, as a species, understand. As such, it stands to reason that if a book was dictated by God to a human being thousands of years ago, it would not be 100% literal because we lacked the sufficient vocabulary to understand. If a book was dictated by God to a human being right now, it still would not be 100% accurate, if only because we humans have an uncanny ability to hear whatever we want to hear.
In the end, both Non-Theist and Theist alike come about their conclusions concerning religion and science in a subjective manner. Objectivity is an worthy ideal, but is ultimately a fallacy.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
In other words, it is what it is "just because." Deep stuff, but it doesn't tell anyone anything. I posted this in another thread, but it is just as appropriate here:
Christkilla
New Member
There are also religious doctors who refuse to prescribe day after pills to rape victims based on their religious convictions. They, as well as any scientist who claims that this that or the other is so beautiful/perfect/complicated/etc and so the must be a god behind it should be stripped of their credentials, removed from their profession, and sent way somewhere quiet.
Give me a break. That has to be the most retarded thing I have heard all month!
Give me a break. That has to be the most retarded thing I have heard all month!
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
There is no scientific proof of god and people who say otherwise are quacks
The problem with this thread is that there will never be an answer. There are soo many opinions from people that think their are the facts, that no one would ever agree. ever. That is what is wrong with religion. Period..... Religion tears human beings and even animals apart, it teaches segregation, non conformity, and racism. Until we realize that we are one people, on this tiny earth, and must be one people, then we will never prosper. Religion will be the end of all mankind... and you can mark my words on that...
Phil Lawton
Active Member
Who can forget the sectarian violence which erupted between Catholic badgers and Seventh Day Adventist wildebeest in 1972?
Dark days.
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
I thought maybe he'd been reading the Duncton books as natural history rather than fiction.
James
Many people voice their opinions loudly about this very subject... However, I think we should stop talking about 'proof' and more about 'evidence' and 'theory'. For example, I being an atheist, believe that the *theory* of evolution has a much more convincing argument than of a superior being. The world *may* be the product of a deity who up'ed and left when the job was done or even by a theity who still 'exists' and presides over the planet still. However, based on the evidence we are presented with, my belief takes me in the direction of evolution and the Big Bang *Theory*. Others may interpret this evidence in a different way which contributes to their own beliefs. You cannot say that 'evolution is right' or that 'god exists' because the evidence can make either probable depending on your point of view but cannot provide *proof*.
I don't believe there is a God... but that doesn't *prove* that I'm right. You may believe there is a God, you may have even been convinced enough by the evidence to *know* but that in itself doesn't mean you are right either.
This kind of argument can just go around and around in circles and has done, I suspect, for a rather long time for the lack of *proof*.
I don't believe there is a God... but that doesn't *prove* that I'm right. You may believe there is a God, you may have even been convinced enough by the evidence to *know* but that in itself doesn't mean you are right either.
This kind of argument can just go around and around in circles and has done, I suspect, for a rather long time for the lack of *proof*.
rocka21
Brother Rock
NICE, VERY NICE!:yes: great post!!
Phil Lawton
Active Member
But...but...that's what this place is all about, T.
Well, okay, I can put my four-penneth in then for the science side of things.
While you may not be able to prove that God exists or doesn't exist you *can* attach a probability based on what evidence *is* available. To me, I embrace evidence that is factual rather than theoretical and believe what seems to be the most *probable* conclusion based on that evidence.
Science incorporates (I mean generally here) a great desire to learn and discover. This discovery has to stop at some point with religion as evidence (in the scientific sense) is proving a little more than a small challenge and so scientific discovery has to give way to theory earlier with regard to this topic. Evolution is a 'theory' but based on evidence found in the Earth. A more logical theory that doesn't look towards the spiritual has not yet come to fruition.
I know there have been many great scientists who have kept their faith. I guess it all depends on how you interpret the evidence and the environment in which you were brought up and lived (for example, modern technology brings scientific advances and more ways to investigate this issue, yet factual evidence that supports the theory of a theity or deity remains painfully aloof) . I think the ratio of theists to non-theists (not necessary atheist) in the scientific community in the UK in recent times leans favours the latter as the country becomes day by day a more secular society. I think it would be foolish to assume that the appearance of some distinguished individuals reflects the thoughts and beliefs of the wider scientific community. Plus, it's dangerous to assume that when someone such as Einstein mentions 'God' the 'God' he's referring to is may not reflect his own beliefs and it may not be his intention for his statement to be taken in the literal sense as the word itself is, afterall, highly overused with countless meanings depending on context and audience.
I'd love to add more but I smell apple pie and custard. Yum.
While you may not be able to prove that God exists or doesn't exist you *can* attach a probability based on what evidence *is* available. To me, I embrace evidence that is factual rather than theoretical and believe what seems to be the most *probable* conclusion based on that evidence.
Science incorporates (I mean generally here) a great desire to learn and discover. This discovery has to stop at some point with religion as evidence (in the scientific sense) is proving a little more than a small challenge and so scientific discovery has to give way to theory earlier with regard to this topic. Evolution is a 'theory' but based on evidence found in the Earth. A more logical theory that doesn't look towards the spiritual has not yet come to fruition.
I know there have been many great scientists who have kept their faith. I guess it all depends on how you interpret the evidence and the environment in which you were brought up and lived (for example, modern technology brings scientific advances and more ways to investigate this issue, yet factual evidence that supports the theory of a theity or deity remains painfully aloof) . I think the ratio of theists to non-theists (not necessary atheist) in the scientific community in the UK in recent times leans favours the latter as the country becomes day by day a more secular society. I think it would be foolish to assume that the appearance of some distinguished individuals reflects the thoughts and beliefs of the wider scientific community. Plus, it's dangerous to assume that when someone such as Einstein mentions 'God' the 'God' he's referring to is may not reflect his own beliefs and it may not be his intention for his statement to be taken in the literal sense as the word itself is, afterall, highly overused with countless meanings depending on context and audience.
I'd love to add more but I smell apple pie and custard. Yum.