Why not God AND Science?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I tend to see science and religion as two different sports.

That's all very nice, but this thread is not about religion and science but, rather, about God and science.

 

[Alazye]

Ladylazarus, why the insults? If I have offended you, then tell me what I have done but if I have not offended you why the insults and anger? Just because a website supporting evolution says that evolution is true that doesn't make it so. Evolutionists even claim that they can't explain how RNA based cells "evolved" into what they are today or how RNA based cells even evolved in the first place(See Essential Cell Biology, Alberts, et.al, 2nd edition, pg 492).
If, as you say, natural forces created life, then where is life being created today?

Concerning Pompeii and Pakistan, and many of the world's natural disasters: a lot of these occurences actually can be avoided if the warning signs are heeded. Did you know that Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor, actually survived the Mount Vesuvius eruption because he and many others acted on the strange tremors that they were feeling by leaving the city? Yes gravity has power (although it is believed by many researchers that gravity is weak. You can overcome gravity fairly easy: just take an apple and throw it in the air) and lightning does strike but these have no creation abilities whatsoever. For example, if lightning strikes a human being, who has within himself many amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc. (much more than "primordial soup" could ever have), he doesn't change into a new species. He is just injured or killed nothing more. (Note: your arms don't go out when you spin, if you don't want them to.)

I am not assuming that everything needs a creator because the Creator has no creator nor needs one.

Complexity is the evidence for an Intelligent Creator because nothing that is complex "just happens". Also, if someone believes in evolution, then they have to admit that all of their thought processes were produced by random chance and there is no real way that person can know whether his brain evolved the right way or what right even is. Consider this anecdote:

1. A young man stated, ‘I believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

His belief undercut its own foundations. (Aig)



​

 

[Alazye]

Sorry All! I was under my sister's name when I got on this site. If yu want to PM me or bad mouth me, or whatever, address it to songofmorning.

 

[michel]

A true scientist has no 'faith' in science. On the contrary, a true scientist realizes that science is all about reduction of observations in laws and theories. A true scientist realizes that, as more data are being available, formerly postulated laws may have to be revised, and an updated and more powerful theory can be postulated. But creationists seem to miss this point.

But a scientist has to have faith in his instruments!

I agree with most of what has been said, concerning the divide between God and Science.........at the end of the day, though, I still would conjecture that one day, the two will find that they are on the same level - seen from different perspectives.

 

[Songofmorning]

The only thing that religion and science share is faith. Someday I would like to be alive to see them both hold the Truth, this Truth will eventually lead to one source.

Very lucid and eloquent Cardero. I think I'm starting to agree

 

[michel]

Very lucid and eloquent Cardero. I think I'm starting to agree

That is basically what I think; one day, someone will realize that science will be able to 'measure' God.

 

[Songofmorning]

"But a scientist has to have faith in his instruments!" Good job, michel! On point as always

 

[TurtleGirl]

I'll take it one step further michel. Not only does a scientist need to have faith in instruments, but also the system. Religion is faith based on a higher being (creator) while science is mearly faith based on mathematics.

 

[time_spender]

Hi & salam
while i was reading the topic i thought that maybe this verses from Quran helps!:
051.020
YUSUFALI: On the earth are signs for those of assured Faith,
PICKTHAL: And in the earth are portents for those whose faith is sure.
SHAKIR: And in the earth there are signs for those who are sure,
051.021
YUSUFALI: As also in your own selves: Will ye not then see?
PICKTHAL: And (also) in yourselves. Can ye then not see?
SHAKIR: And in your own souls (too); will you not then see?

In this verse God says first:
On the earth and then he continues----> also in your own selves
That means that science (knowledge about earth and things that are in it) helps us to find our creator...
Sorry for my mistakes ( i should paste this part in my signature !)
and God bless
wasalam

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Evolutionists even claim that they can't explain how RNA based cells "evolved" into what they are today or how RNA based cells even evolved in the first place(See Essential Cell Biology, Alberts, et.al, 2nd edition, pg 492).

Oh, there is an hypothesis or two. I don't see why the above is a problem for evolutionary theory.

If, as you say, natural forces created life, then where is life being created today?

Estimates suggest it took well over one thousand million years to get from RNA to algae, and the environment in which that process could've taken place would've been vast. Do you see that this may make your question unusual?

For example, if lightning strikes a human being, who has within himself many amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc. (much more than "primordial soup" could ever have), he doesn't change into a new species.

True, since that would require a simultaneous and identical change in DNA in trillions of highly complex cells. The primordial soup wasn't like that at all.

Complexity is the evidence for an Intelligent Creator because nothing that is complex "just happens"

No, but step by step over a few billion years is hardly "just happened".

Also, if someone believes in evolution, then they have to admit that all of their thought processes were produced by random chance

Random mutations that are then filtered by natural selection does not suggest the product of natural selection is having completely random thoughts!

Songofmorning if people start with the assumption that God must be responsible for life on earth no matter what, then any area of fuzziness people can point to in scientific theory concerning the origin of life is dressed up as proof that God as a supernatural being messes with the equation. Then, if the fuzziness is cleared away they find some other fuzziness and repeat. That's not science, thats...just irritating. What is even more irritating is to confront a barrage of misconceptions that are being deliberately circulated as propaganda. Rather than God working together with science that's creationism waging war on science. Are such creationists interested in the truth? I don't think so, I think they're interested in maintaining their power base. Unfortunately, ALL YOUR BASE ARE...nevermind

 

[painted wolf]

actually you don't need faith in your instruments... they are tested repeatedly and checked against other instruments to make sure they are in proper working order.

This is why exparaments are done repeatedly and by multiple people using multiple instruments... helps remove the 'faith' aspect.

wa:do

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I think science and religion are absolutely compatible. But I do not think science can, or ever will prove or disprove the concept we all "God"...http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3097.html

I concur 100%! My problem with most of these debates is that many people on one extreme or the other do not wish them to be compatible.

...The findings of science strongly suggest that god does not exist...

This statement is incorrect unless you already do not believe that God exists. A true scientist does not rule out the existence of something just because he cannot confirm it right now. Recall the story of how the planet Pluto was discovered.

 

[jeffrey]

If you take the OT as just stories of history and how early man tried to explain things, God and science go hand in hand. God created the laws of physics, and why would he not create the world in a 'big bang' or any other way he chose? He's got all the time in the world to do as he wishes, why hurry?

 

[ladylazarus]

This statement is incorrect unless you already do not believe that God exists. A true scientist does not rule out the existence of something just because he cannot confirm it right now. Recall the story of how the planet Pluto was discovered.

You completely missed the entire point of my statement. I know that a true scientist doesn't rule out the existence of something just because he cannot currently confirm it. I also never said that god does not exist.

I said that the findings of science strongly suggest that god does not exist, as there is absolutely no evidence supporting his existence, and every established logical argument is either logically inconsistent, or, in Godel's case, functions off of impossible premises. Because of this, we can conclude that god probably does not exist.

A true scientist doesn't have beliefs.

Concerning Pompeii and Pakistan, and many of the world's natural disasters: a lot of these occurences actually can be avoided if the warning signs are heeded. Did you know that Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor, actually survived the Mount Vesuvius eruption because he and many others acted on the strange tremors that they were feeling by leaving the city? Yes gravity has power (although it is believed by many researchers that gravity is weak. You can overcome gravity fairly easy: just take an apple and throw it in the air) and lightning does strike but these have no creation abilities whatsoever. For example, if lightning strikes a human being, who has within himself many amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc. (much more than "primordial soup" could ever have), he doesn't change into a new species. He is just injured or killed nothing more. (Note: your arms don't go out when you spin, if you don't want them to.)

I give up. If you plan on having discussions about these things, you need some basic literacy in the subject. I don't have time to give you a physics course.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...as there is absolutely no evidence supporting his existence...

..and there is absolutely no evidence disproving His existence. We each draw conclusions based on what we already know to be true. For this reason, we can conclude that God probably does exist. It truly is a pointless debate.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

If you take the OT as just stories of history and how early man tried to explain things, God and science go hand in hand. God created the laws of physics, and why would he not create the world in a 'big bang' or any other way he chose? He's got all the time in the world to do as he wishes, why hurry?

The God many people believe in is supposed to have done things a certain way, a way that scientific discoveries contradict. If you take the view that you've put forward however, it allows for something other than literal interpretation of the Bible. I found a website 'Bible Metaphors' on Google just now that is an example (not an endoresment, just an example).

 

[Sunstone]

How do you respond to those who say science renders the concept of God superfluous?

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

How do you respond to those who say science renders the concept of God superfluous?

My opinion is that the value of religious beliefs shouldn't be weighed solely on the basis of their factual accuracy & relevance but on their potential positive social & personal impact. We are not purely rational creatures, and if we attempted to be much of the strength, joy & beauty we find in the world, and that we depend upon to be happy & healthy, could be lost.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How do you respond to those who say science renders the concept of God superfluous?

Science does not answer theological questions.

Science cannot even ask theological questions. God, being metaphysical, is beyond the scope of any scientific inquiry.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My opinion is that the value of religious beliefs shouldn't be weighed solely on the basis of their factual accuracy & relevance but on their potential positive social & personal impact. We are not purely rational creatures, and if we attempted to be much of the strength, joy & beauty we find in the world, and that we depend upon to be happy & healthy, could be lost.

If so...

Positive social and personal impact can be measured scientifically via social science, psychology, physiology, and medical science. The most beneficial religions for humanity could be presented as the most accurate.