Why not God AND Science?

[ladylazarus]

..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.

There is no such thing as evidence that "disproves" something. If there is no evidence, you assume the thing probably doesn't exist. You're welcome to believe god exists, but don't pretend it's a valid logical or scientific conclusion.

 

[Quiddity]

This is kind of how I feel about the matter.
I stand my ground when science is unable to explain something (e.g., the Big Bang) and God is just as plausible an explanation as materialism. Does that go beyond science? Yes. But so do the speculations of materialist scientists when they enter into such unknown realms. If they can appeal to materialism outside of science, then I can appeal to God. That isn't "God of the gaps" - it is simply operating on the same basis, rather than accepting a double standard. - Dave Armstrong

Theistic evolution is just fine for me.

~Victor

 

[fromthe heart]

'You must spread Karma around before giving it to Victor again'

 

[mr.guy]

Interesting, vic. How does one appeal to materialism outside science?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

..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.

No evidence disproving his existence? Show me evidence disproving the existense of anything? Dragons, trolls, goblins, Santa, Tooth Fairy, Zeuss, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, show me even the slightest bit of evidence which tends to prove any of those previously mentioned creatures don't exist.

There isn't. There never will be. By definition you cannot prove a negative. If someone is claiming a positive, the burden is on them to provide the proof thereof. If I make the claim that I have 18" biceps, then the burden is on me to provide proof, no? In the same vein, if I claimed to you that Unicorns exist, is the burden on me to provide proof of a Unicorn's existence, or on you to prove they don't exist? The answer is obvious, and applies to anyone making a positive claim, ESPECIALLY supernatural claims.

B.

 

[ch'ang]

Not to backpeddle or anything but I see what you all are saying about science proving God. God needs no proof what I was trying to say was that science especially biology and the sort of things that science tries to explain show that there is an Intelligence which I know to be God running this universe.

Take for example, the replication of DNA. It is a very complicated process that even scientists liken to the working of a machine. Do machines just assemble themselves or are they made by someone who is more intelligent than they are? Or take for example the making of ATP. This is actually done by a protein that is shaped like a machine. Scientists call it the proton pump.

What I'm getting at is that no one will look at an air plane flying in the sky and say "wow! That plane must have just assembled itself." Life and the universe is infinitely more complex than any air plane could ever be and some people continue to think that it all just happened.

So your argument is "I have not researched this topic/ I have researched this topic minimally and have concluded that all the topic biologists are wrong in their theory that life evolved naturally." Also not completely understanding the amazing complexity of live doesn't prove that it was created

Hi Ladylazarus! I understand your arguments but where is your proof that the power of natural forces creates life?

Where is your proof that a mystical being tampered with reality and made life when there is no evidence to assume this, does it not make more sense to assume the universe followed the physical laws we observe now and have proof for then use a middle eastern sun god to explain it?

Don't you think that it is arrogant to state that just because you or anyone else hasn't seen something that it doesn't exist

No not at all, I have never seen or read anything to prove the moon is made out of cheese so I do not believe so. Secondly don't you think that it is arrogant to state that even though you have never seen nor have any verifiable proof for god you still think he exists?

..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.

No its not, theists are the people who claim god exists so the burden of proof is on their shoulders, they make extraordinary claims and give no evidence. Then say that it is likely that god exists because there is nothing to say otherwise. Well I say that I in fact am god... prove me wrong

 

[flupke]

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.

Even that I refute. Scientists use many different instruments to see if they reach the same conclusions. I stick to the point that we're minds receiving sensory input that we're trying to comprehend. Comprehension means no more than reduction of X observations (X a very large number) to N laws (with N smaller than X).

Instead of making the following observations (actually already partly interpretations, but in order to avoid a confusing meta-language):
- an apple falls down to the earth
- a pear falls down to the earth
- a ball falls down
... (zillions of examples)

we can make the statement: objects fall down to the earth,
This is science (very rudimentary, but science). The instrument I used was my eyes; all the rest relies on the proper interpretation of my mind as to what I saw. Later scientists (i.e. Newton) further reduced the sets
- objects fall down
- planets circle around the sun

to the first theory of gravity.
In the end, science does nothing more than to come to the one general unified theory (GUT).

Coming back to the simple observation of falling objects: Do I have 'faith' in my eyes ? Most people do; but a true philosopher/scientist would realize that the fact that I see an apple falling is already an interpretation. The observation is rather 'seeing' (sensing) red pixels (assuming a red apple) 'moving' in the visual field in a particular direction towards a large field of green pixels (suppose grass), which is, by definition, a 'down' direction. (this whole sentence is arguably an interpretation by itself, but a near-interpretation-less description would become incredibly long).

Even assuming I do have 'faith' in my eyes, does that mean that science as at the same level as religion ?
I say definitely not. Both processes have in common that we rely faithfully on our visual senses, but science goes a lot further. There are extra tests: use of other sensory inputs, use of carefully designed experiments to confirm a previous interpretation. In the end, it all relies on the 'faith' in your senses ("the fact that all experiments confirm the same interpretation could be a coincidence"), but at least scientists keep critical of the outcome, and are always ready to accept a different interpretation when newer data does not appear to conform to the last theory.

On the contrast, religion is entirely faith based. You put faith in your senses; visually by reading e.g. the bible; and on a more emotional level by 'trusting' your feelings of love. An alternative interpretation is never accepted in religion. (and an alternative is that any feeling of love is an emergent property of a complex neural network, details of which are under intense study).

Therefore, please, don't put religion and science on the same level. They are 2 entirely different concepts. Science is not faith based, and religion is not based on accepting alternative interpretations.

 

[flupke]

..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.

See this theory of our existence:

"somewhere, in a parallel universe, there was a person named Harry Potter, who, by waving his magic wand, created the universe in which we now live"

Since we cannot go to another universe (at this point), this theory is entirely untestable. We can neither prove or disprove it. Does that mean we cannot discuss it ?

Obviously, a lot of people would say this theory is "utter nonsense". But is it less valid than to say there is an untestable God ?
This is exactly what should be discussed. We can come up with millions of untestable theories. The theory of God creating the universe is "just" one of them... (unless you had proof, which you have not)

 

[hero]

a blacksmith creates things out of metal, but it is proposterous to think that he himself is part of the metal, in the same way you cannot expect to see God on earth, as anything more physically than christ did appear. yet to speak of existance. would you hit someone for no reason. of coursed not, that would be a wrong thing to do. how do you know its wrong. what makes right right and wrong wrong. yet even nonbelievers believe in a right and wrong. even in tribes never before seeing our modern world they believed in faithfulness and love. selflessness has been the source of good throughout history in all civilizations recorded. yet we know right and wrong, and everyone has the same basic idea of it.( some by choosing not to obey what they know is right have a disfigured image of right. ) so if it is the same and constant within all people whether they choose to obey it or not, a moral law, not bound by this world. it is this realization that many times leads people to seek enlightenment. but to understand something, go to its roots. i said that in studies selflessness has been the center of right. put into context and perspective and you will see that christianity it the only answer. self sacrifice, humbling yourself, love. these are all relative. love is selfsacrifice, giving of yourself, like at Christmas time. if god is love as the bible says then it would make perfect sense to say that love is self sacrifice when you look at christ crucified, being one with god. you find it hard to take what the bible says by faith, yet you buy into science. never have you actually seen an atom, yet you believe that they exist, and because you have not experienced it you take it in by faith. you believe the george washington was the first president of the united states whith no physical evidense to prove it, again taking it in by faith. almost all you know is a form of faith. you say that what you believe is factual, but you take it in by faith, making faith in our religion what it is, evidense of things unseen. their are truths such as these you cannot deny that the bible answers. you look to the world for answers not trusting yourself, knowing right from wrong, but shunning him who made right. i once was like you, logical. but for your own sake, study religion to try to disprove it, for what is physical cannot disprove that which is spiritual, and your efforts vain. i have studied both aspects, and seeing as how human beings place so much faith in what they are told is factual, you think they would have faith in the very thing that they believe, and that is in a wrong and a right, a law not physical but ever present. in my argument their is no anger nor resentment, only love, the religion you believe in whether you acknowledge it or not. by faith alone we cannot be saved.

 

[flupke]

a blacksmith creates things out of metal, but it is proposterous to think that he himself is part of the metal, in the same way you cannot expect to see God on earth, as anything more physically than christ did appear.

Metal doesn't think and has no feelings. Therefore the analogy is invalid.

... of coursed not, that would be a wrong thing to do. how do you know its wrong. what makes right right and wrong wrong. yet even nonbelievers believe in a right and wrong. even in tribes never before seeing our modern world they believed in faithfulness and love. selflessness has been the source of good throughout history in all civilizations recorded. yet we know right and wrong, and everyone has the same basic idea of it.( some by choosing not to obey what they know is right have a disfigured image of right. )

The alternative explanation for the 'right' versus 'wrong' is "that what decreases the chances of survival of a population in a competitive environment" equals "wrong" and "that what increases the chances of survival..." equals "right".
We evolved towards individuals that, by both hardware programming and further fine-tuning by cultural evolution (i.e. other people), will increase the chances of survival of the species. If we all liked fighting and killing, there would be no Homo sapiens. Some people do "wrong" (kill etc), because their overall environmental facts or maybe part of their genes did not conform to the standard of the species. A limited number of these mutants (mutants in the broad term, both biological and social) does not threaten the existence of the whole species. But of course, if there are more and more of these people using mass extermination methods, humanity may cease to exist.

Therefore: the fact that most people have a notion of what's "right" and "wrong" does not provide any kind of proof for God

put into context and perspective and you will see that christianity it the only answer.

And what do you mean with 'put into context' ? You have to admit it needs more than just this vague phrase to convert people to christianity...


[QUOTE} never have you actually seen an atom, yet you believe that they exist, and because you have not experienced it you take it in by faith. [/QUOTE]
Wrong. For now, we use the model of an atom and subatomic particles to reduce the number of observations to a smaller number of laws. If any new data contradicts the existence of an atom, scientists will gladly adopt another model. We don't "believe" in the existence of an atom. A scientist who claims to do so is not a real scientist.

you believe the george washington was the first president of the united states whith no physical evidense to prove it, again taking it in by faith.

I see several options:
1. George Washington was indeed the first president of the US
2. There is an elaborate scheme of the US government to hide the true identity of George washington
3. I cannot read and thougth it was George Washington while it was actually George Bush Sr Sr Sr who was the first president.
...

As I don't see any necessity for option 2, as there probably would be no point in doing so, but you never know of course. Therefore, small likelihood of option 2 being true. Since all other things between my reading and understanding seem to make sense in my interpretation, option 3 is very unlikely too.
Therefore, I assume that option 1 is the most likely one. This assumption is very different from your CONVINCED BELIEF in a christian god. If I want to, I can go and check old texts by various historicians etc and try to figure out if the US government is indeed trying to hide the true identity, and even further decrease the likelihood of option 2 being right.

The parallel with science: we don't blindly "believe" other people's experiments. If some new theory is really important, lots of scientists will try to reproduce the data and design new experiments, thereby either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of the theory being true.

Therefore: science does NOT equal relgion.

 

[hero]

my argument was not for the sake of saying that they were similiar, no quite honestly all i did was skip to the end of this thread and read what you had to say. a lot of it was very advanced, and was true coming from what it was you were arguing for. but i really must ask, do you argue simply for the sake of arguing, because if all you believe is science then something is wrong. i was not comparing the blacksmith analogy to the metal being humans, it was compared to all of the inorganic compounds and the things that are unable to reason, such as plants. if you read correctly i did expect for their to proof of god within man, therefore the blacksmith analogy is still valid. All of the arguments that i have read on your part all came from science, and physics. you did manage to pick a part my arguments, but you did nothing to the truth in them. none have the time to themselves complete every experiment they have ever heard, and test all that they hold true. so you must be honest and admit that you have taken much by faith. i myself would not doubt the validity in it, and neither do i expect you to, but only to acknowledge that you have faith. again in the george washington example, i do not doubt the truth, but it was only their to prove faith with or without religion. you learn from experience, correct. but much we have taken by faith, as would a child. as far as atoms and dna go, i to take it by faith that it is true, even though much is still to be learned concerning both, more dna than atom i think.

when you spoke of the argument concerning the wrong and right being compared to envirements, the only way this argument would make any sense would be if the envirement were heaven and that would hold no validity for obvious reasons. in other meanings of it "mutants" are not so common, however those who do wrong are very rare, and to call murder a defective gene would be to say that dna would in some sense control what we do and we have no control over our action. calling so many things diseases nowadays is proposterous, a scientific excuse for irresponsibility. you compared right and wrong to competitivity. which is in no way an alternative argument considering one is a choice and another a means of survival. if you would compare the emotions of a human being souly to the laws of self-preservation, and only believe what you can see then you have become nothing more than an animal, a well educated one for your sake, but an animal non the less. this is not personal attack, but a sincere consideration. if you, hypothetically speaking of course, were the only "homo sapien" left alive would life be worth living. without love, would there be a point in living. what good is happiness if you have no one to share it with. therefore if you do not see the truth in that, you have been drawn down to the likes of an educated wolf, or barbarian. however i do not believe you to be either. therefore i urge you not to make physical arguments about spiritual things. when you are dealing with a problem, humans focus on it. if you are late for work, you focus on the time, the time though itself is the problem. if it is a financial problem you would focus on how much you spend, or what your balance holds, therefore concentrating on money when money is the problem. Yet these are earthly problems. temptation however is a spiritual problem. and when humans apply earthly wisdom to spiritual problems, the truth will be distorted. temptation itself is when you are drawn away by your own lusts and enticed. but if you focus on it you only succeed in focusing on what tempts you, further tempting yourself. you may know all there is to science in the world, but your spirit will remain unfulfilled. their is a hole in your heart only god can fill. you disprove science with science. spirit with spirit. but they are not to crossed, and remain so true. i look forward to your next reply, and hope you can acknowledge some truth in my argument.

 

[flupke]

... because if all you believe is science then something is wrong.

I think you're trying to shovel me in a particular corner. Just to make my stance clear:
I don't 'believe' in any scientific theorem. I adopt the 'scientific method', which means to analyze everything critically and realize that nothing is certain. Although many people see particular scientific theories as the truth, I see them as temporary ways to reduce our observations to a more limited, and thus more comprehensible, number of laws.

none have the time to themselves complete every experiment they have ever heard, and test all that they hold true. so you must be honest and admit that you have taken much by faith.

This is where you take me wrong. I know that i cannot test everything everybody has ever tested years and years before me. But I DO know, being a scientist myself, that I CAN repeat some experiments and test them.
Suppose there are 1 million experiments to be tested, and I only have time for, let's say, 100. If 99 appear to be correct, and 1 false, I will publish this result in a scientific journal, and thus start a debate with other members of the scientific community. Make no mistake: scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. This continuous self-critical process makes science grow stronger and stronger. We never BELIEVE other people's results. But if 100 people have published several tests and reaching the same conclusions, that means the LIKELIHOOD of the conclusion being right is fairly large. We never 100% take it in; in fact, if you can prove hundreds of experiments wrong with a single new experiment: that's the most exciting part of science. (and that's where Nobel prizes are won).

So don't confuse 'believing' with 'temporarily giving a large likelihood'.

Do you see my point ?

i myself would not doubt the validity in it, and neither do i expect you to, but only to acknowledge that you have faith. again in the george washington example, i do not doubt the truth, but it was only their to prove faith with or without religion. you learn from experience, correct. but much we have taken by faith, as would a child. as far as atoms and dna go, i to take it by faith that it is true, even though much is still to be learned concerning both, more dna than atom i think.

You shouldn't take it in by faith. Never trust it 100%. You don't want to believe in a lie I hope ? Maybe it's a common trait of religious people to also trust 'common' (i.e. non-religious) things...

... however those who do wrong are very rare, and to call murder a defective gene would be to say that dna would in some sense control what we do and we have no control over our action. calling so many things diseases nowadays is proposterous, a scientific excuse for irresponsibility.

Nobody is controled by their DNA alone, but also by their environment. We are all determined by our genetic code and our environment. A lot of people see that as an argument against free will (which it is not) and therefore refute it.

you compared right and wrong to competitivity. which is in no way an alternative argument considering one is a choice and another a means of survival. if you would compare the emotions of a human being souly to the laws of self-preservation, and only believe what you can see then you have become nothing more than an animal, a well educated one for your sake, but an animal non the less.

I have no problem you calling me an animal; we all are. We're just too proud to admit it. What I mean with the 'right' vs 'wrong' explanation is that you cannot use it as proof for god.
In logical terms:

If there is an observation X
and you have two possible explanations, A and B, then you CANNOT say that X is proof for A over B.

I provided an alternative explanation for right vs wrong, so you cannot say that the observation (right vs wrong exists) HAS TO MEAN that there is a divine explanation.
And don't take me wrong; the 'right vs wrong' observation is by no means a proof for evolution, but merely an extrapolation that nevertheless illustrates how beautifully the evolution theory fits together.

if you, hypothetically speaking of course, were the only "homo sapien" left alive would life be worth living. without love, would there be a point in living. what good is happiness if you have no one to share it with. therefore if you do not see the truth in that, you have been drawn down to the likes of an educated wolf, or barbarian.

Also wolves prefer to be among other members of their species...

And so do I; it doesn't make me less animal-like, and it again says nothing about god. In a group, our chances of survival are greater than alone (I just gave you another alternative B, so don't say that A is definitely the truth).


Cheers

 

[linwood]

I don`t believe a scientist needs faith in his instruments or scientific systems.

Instruments can be and are constantly calibrated and maintianed (I`d hope).

The absolute beauty of scientific method is that it`s entire design is to deny the use of any faith.
Scientific method is about disproving itself, it exists to be battered against it`s own methodology, again and again forever.

If it can hold up to this eternal onslaught it is good science.

 

[linwood]

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

I think you should send them money.

:bounce

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion is faith based on a higher being (creator) while science is mearly faith based on mathematics.

Have you ever read a single work on the philosophy of science? Never mind - the answer is obvious.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We can't know the attributes of God; ...

...; one day, someone will realize that science will be able to 'measure' God.

What we have here from michel lies somewhere between groan and koan, and suggests a rather 'malleable' or 'adaptive' theology somewhat akin to silly putty.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The absolute beauty of scientific method is that it`s entire design is to deny the use of any faith.

I agree, but it really depends on the definition of faith and its object. Your statement is absolutely true if faith is belief/hope in the metaphysical existence of God(s).

By faith, one can believe any number of things about nature that is unscientific and that science can disprove or confirm.

 

[hero]

I think you're trying to shovel me in a particular corner. Just to make my stance clear:
I don't 'believe' in any scientific theorem. I adopt the 'scientific method', which means to analyze everything critically and realize that nothing is certain. Although many people see particular scientific theories as the truth, I see them as temporary ways to reduce our observations to a more limited, and thus more comprehensible, number of laws.

You were correct to look at it as though I were "backing you into a corner." In truth it was no offense. In debating, people often try simply to find things to disagree about, but I am not trying to do such. I wont to find common ground to introduce the perspective from which I speak. Two men look at a glass. One sees it half full, the other half empty. Which is wrong and which is right. The truth is that they are both right, only different perspectives. But if one only subjects himself to one perspective, and one only, he will only see one side as true. Science and religion (christianity in my defense) dont have to be in opposition is what people would like to say. But really they dont have to be combatant, they are opposites thus opposition is innevitable. For instance creationism. The bible doesnt say how or when God created it, only that He created it. It is pointless then for humans to argue it in opposition, where no contradiction accurs.

This is where you take me wrong. I know that i cannot test everything everybody has ever tested years and years before me. But I DO know, being a scientist myself, that I CAN repeat some experiments and test them.
Suppose there are 1 million experiments to be tested, and I only have time for, let's say, 100. If 99 appear to be correct, and 1 false, I will publish this result in a scientific journal, and thus start a debate with other members of the scientific community. Make no mistake: scientists love to prove other scientists wrong. This continuous self-critical process makes science grow stronger and stronger. We never BELIEVE other people's results. But if 100 people have published several tests and reaching the same conclusions, that means the LIKELIHOOD of the conclusion being right is fairly large. We never 100% take it in; in fact, if you can prove hundreds of experiments wrong with a single new experiment: that's the most exciting part of science. (and that's where Nobel prizes are won).

So don't confuse 'believing' with 'temporarily giving a large likelihood'.

Do you see my point ?

It is stupid to argue for something that you dont believe, it is then only arguing for the sake of arguing. Although I do understand your point, theories are modernized, and not considered as laws like Newtons were before the existance of black holes was "proven." Black holes are supposed to be invisible, and are involved with many key arguments involving creationism, if find them and the Grand unified "theory." Along with with relativity, by which, if I am correct in memory, the existance of black holes was first theorized. The bible doesn't say how or when God created earth, only that He created it. It is pointless then for humans to argue it in opposition, where no contradiction accurs, thus I wish not to move on into such, interesting, but irrelevant discussions.

You shouldn't take it in by faith. Never trust it 100%. You don't want to believe in a lie I hope ? Maybe it's a common trait of religious people to also trust 'common' (i.e. non-religious) things...

If you have learned anything from me, let it be that I am an example of a logical "religious" person. You gave good advise. I found it interesting that you mentioned a religious trait, as though, by definition, that we were born knowing religion. I know however that that is not what you meant by it, but a prime example of pointless arguments given simply because someone chose to see words instead of meanings, a mistake brought about by the failure to submit perspectively, but not, perhaps, believingly. This is the futility in arguing science vs religion, but let us attempt to understand each other rather than simply find why anothers perspective is wrong. And I hope you would not stereotype religious people and their beliefs, man will fail you, that is why we put faith in God. (When I say religious, take note that in my mind I speak of Christianity)

I have no problem you calling me an animal; we all are. We're just too proud to admit it. What I mean with the 'right' vs 'wrong' explanation is that you cannot use it as proof for god.
In logical terms:

If there is an observation X
and you have two possible explanations, A and B, then you CANNOT say that X is proof for A over B.

I provided an alternative explanation for right vs wrong, so you cannot say that the observation (right vs wrong exists) HAS TO MEAN that there is a divine explanation.
And don't take me wrong; the 'right vs wrong' observation is by no means a proof for evolution, but merely an extrapolation that nevertheless illustrates how beautifully the evolution theory fits together.

The bluntness of "animal" may not offend you but does me for you, though I see the logic in everything in this quote and agree with it. I do not consider my unwillingness to use animal in what I said as pride in my circumstance, but so as not to be abnoxious towards others. Your logic is correct in saying that the 'right' and 'wrong' explination does not prove God. I simply used it to elaborate that their is an external internal force in us. (Although I did infer as to God, that was simply the answer I had come up with, and need not yet be elaborated on.). Leaving an answer unfound where the question lies. In all I have argued it has been for one truth, that you need to acknowledge that there is a question (Where does our knowledge of 'right and wrong' come from?) that will not be found anywhere but within your own heart, the very place that we judge it. I urge you not to try and find falsness in the Christian doctorine. If all you look for is falsness, all you will see is falsness. But look for truth in it, and you just may find that what you believed false was simply a wrong perspective.

Also wolves prefer to be among other members of their species...

Although I urge for us to be submissive to one another perspective for the sake of truth, my argument with this statement is from a scientists viewpoint. Wolves stay together for strength in numbers, a means of survival. Going back to my point of why I disagreed with your analogy in the first place. Good day...or night...or morning (It all depends on your perspective).

 

[flupke]

I urge you not to try and find falsness in the Christian doctorine. If all you look for is falsness, all you will see is falsness. But look for truth in it, and you just may find that what you believed false was simply a wrong perspective.
.

Hello hero, sorry I don't have time to properly address all your points, but I want to say the following: scientists don't look for things just from one perspective. We look for a more refined 'truth' by adopting many angles.
And stating that we're only looking for 'falsness': I don't see what's wrong with it.
After all, if somebody told you that I created you by waving my magick stick, wouldn't you try to prove that person wrong ? Wouldn't you want to show that person 'the truth' ? That's what scientists are after, and we do our best not to make any mistakes.
On the other hand, religious people adopt their religion is correct, are not critical about it, and are often offended if other people are. Why stick so hard to your belief ? Are you afraid of seeing something else ?

 

[hero]

Hello hero, sorry I don't have time to properly address all your points, but I want to say the following: scientists don't look for things just from one perspective. We look for a more refined 'truth' by adopting many angles.
And stating that we're only looking for 'falsness': I don't see what's wrong with it.
After all, if somebody told you that I created you by waving my magick stick, wouldn't you try to prove that person wrong ? Wouldn't you want to show that person 'the truth' ? That's what scientists are after, and we do our best not to make any mistakes.
On the other hand, religious people adopt their religion is correct, are not critical about it, and are often offended if other people are. Why stick so hard to your belief ? Are you afraid of seeing something else ?

It is encouraging that we are on a first (screen) name basis flupke. I have tried to express the importance of perspective to you, yet you are not willing to change yours. To say that I am afraid of discovering falsness in my faith is proposterous when you are the one who refuses to view new insights. I on the other hand am more than willing to discuss, quantum physics, relativity, the grand unified theory, evolution, or just physics in general. I am no scientist but am not afraid to learn from the focal point of one. Again your stereotyping of religious people has inacurately depicted me. I have tried to deny my faith and live a lie to be honest, but i couldnt. As a christian theist i have tested all that i hold true.

I will leave you to ponder upon a quote: "If the blind live life according to what they do see, surely they will die because of it."
This is not a fear pitch, but something to seriously consider as to the meaning.

Perhaps it is hard for you to hold what i hold true true, because you have not really attempted to comprehend Christianity but disprove it without knowing what it is. Untill you set aside materialistic comprehension, (that which has blinded you to the non-physical world) you will never no what it is you believe, because you will not know what it is that you say you dont believe. Good day, I hope to see your next reply soon.