Do you believe in God or Science?

[mikebird]

Science.
Physics
Chemicals
Lifeforms
Air
Hydrogen
Carbon
Water
Fire
Orbit
Planets
Suns
Space
Satellites
Machinery
Optics
Metallurgy
Dirt / sand between your fingers
Light
Sound
Energy
Power
Rocks
Elements
Resources
Weather
Pharmaceuticals
Death

only one thing binds us all together: £$€¥
including RSPCA Animal Rescue

I think politics shouldn't be a religion

NOT TELEPHONES
or SALES

 

[hoddesdon]

I agree with the OP, but I suppose he will never know.

Science has proven that God exists.

 

[hidwell]

I

Science has proven that God exists.

Science could never prove the existence of a fictitious God.

 

[BlueDays]

Science has proven that God exists.

whut!? h: Can you provide a link to back up this statement?

 

[Lea]

I found this question to be a tricky one, because it implies that science is one thing and god is another one, 2 completely separate and different things....O.O? why does it have to be like that?, isn't the creation of the world, the universe, the mind, (what ever you imagine, feel and think) the good and the bad, all of what is experienced through life... part of his creation??? I often read or hear in either tv or magazines that scientists are either inventing or creating something new but I call it BS because one cannot create something that dosen't exist,( to do so you have to be outside of god) all cures and a better living just like technology ALREADY exist and is just merely "waiting" to be discovered. so if I am discovering LIFE through science... em I not discovering GOD (creation) through it, what is LIFE really?.... is a human body one thing? just like what is a car or a house? can I call a human body the heart or an arm or can I call car the sits of a car or even name the wheels a car?, when I think of the word GOD i think of a whole lot of a bunch of things that make that word, so I do not think that god is something isolated or completely away from life... who made us think like that in the first place and why?? ?
why is it that we humans have to level every thing. some see a tiger as an evil thing just because his nature is killing and some other people see the beauty in the tiger. so I am thinking... if we are talking about life... aren't we talking about GOD, and if we were to talk of science.. wouldn't we'll be talking of both, life and the creation itself. so in that sense I wonder why we as humanity got so damn lost to wonder away from life (god) and seek him in weird tiny places....................... WHEN HE IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That´s true.

 

[MarieSwanson]

did god make science?

 

[Flanscho]

did god make science?

Science is the act of methodically acquiring knowledge. That can't be created as such.

 

[KiaKaha]

Erm.... no... no it has not.


I am not entirely sure people quite understand the fundamental principles of what science actually entails.

 

[kilojoule]

I am not entirely sure people quite understand the fundamental principles of what science actually entails.

I agree.

spw history in the making hehe

 

[kilojoule]

Science requires no belief.

Yes. This. :thumbup:

 

[FeartheGreat]

Would it be safe to say that I don't know?

 

[CrazyGirl]

The 1st choice, God

 

[MarieSwanson]

science is always changing

 

[vj288]

I agree with the OP, but I suppose he will never know.

Science has proven that God exists.

Too be fair to hoddesdon, there are many accepted theories for the existence of God that are backed up by science, but there are also many that make a solid argument against the existence of one. While things like the fine tuning argument (that the odds of the series of events leading to creation of the universe are so minuscule it would be hard to believe that it happened by chance) do make a very convincing case, there are counter arguments like the multiverse argument (that there is a generator that creates and infinite number of universes, inevitably leading to one that supports life like the one we live in). Science doesn't usually play into the hands of religion as there are many inconsistencies with religious texts but I would say I have heard as many, if not more arguments using science to support the existence of god than ones against it.

Science, or philosophy while I'm on the topic, are neither disciplines that are able to prove the existence of any a god. If I were to look at the arguments for each sides totally objectively I can't conclude anything other than complete agnosticism. I'm not objective though, and I bet most of you aren't either.

 

[BlackPuma]

^ I experience God every time I indulge on a extra cheese peperoni slice. I guess everything is possible.

 

[miserablecow]

science...

 

[Flanscho]

Science has proven that God exists.

There is no single scientific evidence that supporst the existence of any deity. It's more the other way round. The more we learn, the less space there is for religion. Take the solar eclipse for example. Before science made us realize what it really is, people thought it was a sign from the gods. Or earthquakes: the gods are angry with us! Diseases? A curse! And so on and so on. Everything, of which people didn't know how it works, was explained with religion. And then we learned what it really was like, and realized that religion had nothing to do with it.

there are many accepted theories for the existence of God that are backed up by science

Which one?

While things like the fine tuning argument (that the odds of the series of events leading to creation of the universe are so minuscule it would be hard to believe that it happened by chance) do make a very convincing case

I never got how that argument can be convincing. It's like, and I think I used this example before, as if a religious person and an atheist would both see a cave filled with rain water. And the religious person would say "oh, the cave was created specifically for the water, since the water fits in perfectly", whereas the atheist would say "well, the water just took the shape of the cave, because it follows certain laws and principles".

If the universe would be slightly different, then you and me would not exist. But if life of any sort would be possible, other beings would exist, that could ask the very same question.

We are not special. The universe has not been created for us. We exist simply because life teems whereever possible, and adapts as good as possible. We are the current result of this evolution. The universe exists, and we fit in very well, so we were the natural result.

 

[kilojoule]

Religion is Religion

Science is Science

Talking about one in terms of the other is like using Geometry to explain Shakespeare. You're not using the right language.

 

[vj288]

I never got how that argument can be convincing. It's like, and I think I used this example before, as if a religious person and an atheist would both see a cave filled with rain water. And the religious person would say "oh, the cave was created specifically for the water, since the water fits in perfectly", whereas the atheist would say "well, the water just took the shape of the cave, because it follows certain laws and principles".

If the universe would be slightly different, then you and me would not exist. But if life of any sort would be possible, other beings would exist, that could ask the very same question.

We are not special. The universe has not been created for us. We exist simply because life teems whereever possible, and adapts as good as possible. We are the current result of this evolution. The universe exists, and we fit in very well, so we were the natural result.

Well I'm not making a personal statement I'm just relaying the argument. But when we are talking about strength of argument, a characteristic of a stronger argument is one that is simpler and more probable, or explanatory power and the principle of simplicity. When I say the odds of the universe (according to science) are very low, I mean billionth's of a billionth of a billionth of a percent. In that respect, obviously an argument that states it wasn't random is more probable, and thus stronger in that respect. If you were to find a stack of wood stalked neatly and evenly in the forest, the best hypotheses for how it got there is that someone cut and stacked it, as opposed to it just happening to fall from a tree is such a manner. It's better because it's more probable, it the most likely and obvious solution. It doesn't mean that's how it actually got there, it may have fallen from a tree and stacked like that, but that regardless to how it actually happened the best argument is that it was stacked by a person.

It's also more simple. If you were to explain to someone a hypothesis for how it got there naturally, it would involve a lot of steps. You'd have to explain how it fell, how it was cut evenly how it was stacked, it's not simple. Whereas it being cut down by a lumberjack and then stacked, is. So a god creating the universe? Certainly simpler than it happening on it's own, and at least as probable as it if not much more probable. As I said, there are arguments for both sides and there are many convincing counter arguments to this, that is just how this one goes.

 

[vj288]

Religion is Religion

Science is Science

Talking about one in terms of the other is like using Geometry to explain Shakespeare. You're not using the right language.

Not really. If you were to take a religious person who believes the bible wholeheartedly, for example, he could still use science to try to, say, prove that there really was a flood that drowned the earth. If you're just talking about the spiritual aspects of them (existence of god, angels, afterlife, free will, good/evil ect) then science can also overlap. For starters most of those things aren't mutually inclusive with religion, you can question the existence of a higher power without thinking in terms of religion at all. And science can be used to formulate arguments,hypothesize, make points ect ect.

It doesn't have to be thought of in terms of either one either. Like for example, in talking about the creation of the universe, many scientist accept the odds that all the events happened just as they did are extremely poor. Some may argue that it wasn't so random, and that maybe some outside variable influenced it somehow. Some may call it a "god" others may just think of it as something undefinable or unknown to us, just for an example. They can be defined in the others terms and then applied to them, it's not like comparing geometry to Shakespeare, there is some overlap between theology and science allowing parts of one to apply to the other.