This conversation is closed.

Is there room for God in science (Creationlism vs Evolution)?

1)Do you believe in one, both or none?
2)Why do you believe it (them)?
3)Does your belief(s) prove others wrong? How so?
4)Is there room for God in science? Or is it
unreasonable to mix the two?

  • thumb
    May 6 2012: Science is science. Leave god out of it unless you can scientifically prove there is a god.

    For starters you need to define god because there are about 6 billion different versions. Which god do you want in science?

    There is no scientific proof for god in most definitions unless you get into semantics like god is the universe etc.

    I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not (know - gnostic), and I'm a non theist having no belief in any god defined.

    Why don't I have a belief in any god. No reliable proof - via evidence and reason. Its a big claim that there is a god or gods, especially if you believe they created the universe with us in the centre of everything. I note many definitions of god almost define god out of existence - immaterial, invisible, outside time and space. I go one more and say probably non existent.

    I don't have to prove anything because I'm not the one claiming there are gods, or elves, or ghosts, or alien abductions, or nature spirits etc. Notice how these are all elusive, hard to pin down and prove/disprove.

    From an educational perspective, Gods belongs in comparative religion and history, the bible in literature etc.

    God is not in modern western science. It is a process that dropped supernatural explanations a few hundred years ago. Scientists can believe what they like in terms of religion, faith etc, but don't confuse the two.

    Science, secular philosophy, ethics etc is based on evidence and reason. It is not the place for revelation, scripture and authority. Imagine if scientists said the HIV virus leads to Aids because I had a divine vision, or read it in an old book.

    I would say some religious beliefs are more or less compatible with the findings of science. A deist approach is harder to disprove and is perhaps more reasonable than literal accounts, but no one has proven a supernatural god exists. I believe the god king pharaohs, Jesus, existed but were just human like you and I.

    Why are you asking?
    • thumb
      May 6 2012: "Science is science. Leave god out of it unless you can scientifically prove there is a god."

      Very elegant!
  • May 8 2012: .
    1. I do not "believe" in either. Creationism is mere mythology (and quackery). Science is a tool for work. I trust the results of science because I understand how it works. I don't "believe" them. It is not a matter of faith. I don't "believe" in evolution. I am convinced by the evidence that evolution did and is still happening.
    2. As I said above ...
    3. My "beliefs" could not prove anybody wrong. But the evidence does. Anybody's desires for or against don't change reality one bit.
    4. Nope.

    I add that this is not about creationism versus evolution. There is much more science that conflicts with believed gods, besides being obvious that these gods are mere mythology.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      May 7 2012: Hi Adriaan,

      RE: I believe in both because one comes from the other. When God created the universe...
      Any proof for these bold claims?

      I suggest god comes from humans - the evidence is there.

      RE: religion can tell us the reason why. How do we know the why from any religion or god is the real why and not some made up stuff?

      So you are saying we can belief whatever we like without evidence. Aren't some beliefs more justified than others by evidence and reason. Imagine if science worked that way. It wouldn't work.

      Not sure why supernatural, god, religious claims are immune from critical consideration? I'm not talking about forcing people to believe something, just to justify their beliefs, to question etc.

      RE:often the only reason for people to exclude God from their life, and thus science, is to not have to live by the rules of an authority. Well for me and nearly all the non theists I know the primary reason is there is no evidence to support belief in the existence of some sort of god, especially the specific varieties. Secondly, if it does not exist then the religious rules come from humans - often primitive ones which explains why half the rules are stupid and the other half obvious.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 9 2012: RE: "If, whatever you believe makes you a better person, BELIEVE IT!!

          I guess this is better than believe whatever you like even if it makes you harm others.

          Still not as good as basing your believe on evidence and reason and then living well within this reality.

          I still think starting with justified belief is the best approach.

          I'm not sure why love and good deeds are less meaningful if done without reference to any gods. I'd suggest good deeds from the heart of an individual is more meaningful than good deeds because instructed from god.

          What is the evidence of god wherever you look? Is it just because you assume god created everything? This is a circular argument. What evidence do you have that god created everything and is acting in the world?

          I suggest why or meaning does not need god. In fact from my perspective linking meaning to god is basing meaning on a falsehood.

          I'm actually not in a position of blind unbelief. Eyes and ears are open ready to see and hear something that points to their being gods other than as ideas, or that any particular relgious belief is nothing more than a human artefact, a social technology.

          I actually come from a position of belief in a god, but gradually I came to see this had no evidence. Reason told me my faith was unjustified.

          I'm open to any new evidence or reasons. I don't deny there may not be a god or gods. There could be 12 sitting beside me. All I have heard come back to big assumptions without proof, logical fallacies, subjective personal mind/consciousness experiences, wishful thinking and cultural/community programming. If there are gods they are extremely elusive and don't seem to have any direct relevance so might as well not exist.
        • thumb
          May 9 2012: Not sure why we lose free will if we are an animal?
          We are just a smart animal, with the most advanced brain, that allows for language and complicated group interactions, high self awareness and thinking ability and combined with our walking upright and hands and ability to transfer knowledge makes us the most amazing tool users we know of. We have the most amazing minds we know of it the universe, yet we are not that far removed from other animals biologically and in our progress.

          Go back 200 years no cars, electricity, aircraft, computers. Go back 5000 years and we probably didn't have writing. Go back 30,000 no agriculture. Go back 300,000 just basic stone tools.

          Animals make choices, just not of the complexity we have thanks to our brains. From our brains we have our mind. Damage the brain and you stuff up our minds, our ability to reason.

          The main thing that separates us from other animals is our brains.

          Re: freewill there is the reductionist argument that our decisions come down to physical processes and could be predicted theoretically. We could potentially predict every decision. Also the theological argument that god actually sits outside time and knows everything so actually knows what we will do, knows everything that will happen. In a way it is already written - there is just the illusion of freewill.

          Still it feels like we make decisions. That is good enough for me.
        • thumb
          May 9 2012: There are certainly many questions. The word mystery has some unhealthy connotations.

          I accept there is a lot we don't know. What we think we know is likely to be improved. The more we know the more weird reality actually is. I used to think rocks were solid. On a human scale they are. On an atomic scale they are not. Even an electron is probably not solid but may be a vibrating string whatever that is.

          Pluto used to be a planet. Now it is just a trans neptunium object and not even the biggest one.

          We have now detected planets at other stars. We may not be alone in the universe in a physical way.

          So I'm ready to update my world view any time.

          I can't help it if many religions have their origins in pre-scientific era. If they look man made.
          The more recent ones such as Scientology and Mormonism are even more obviously man made as they have more evidence and information - their human origins are not lost in the depths of antiquity.

          I could ask the same of you. If you open your mind you could also see that the world and religions and the human experience could be and most likely is just the way it is without any human beliefs about gods being necessary.
    • May 7 2012: brilliant. I'll only amend slightly for my view:

      1: I believe Evolution is God's way of making up for the Platypus and our general hairless weirdness as biped land mammals.

      2. I believe in God because Science can't explain why the Platypus is hilarious. I can't believe in Science because it's it's only a tool for inquiry. I don't believe in shovels, I use them.

      3. My belief would probably make Dawkins cry and Einstein visit Las Vegas. It's a dualistic argument that asserts we can have our cake and eat it too (provided we don't comment on what type of cake it is or who the best baker of the cake was...the cake being an analogy for Religion).

      4. I dunno, I think there was room for Newton (he was heavily into astronomy and alchemy). I really don't think the argument is of Science versus Religion. I think the argument is nihilism versus optimism. All any religious or agnostic person wants is to commune with something outside of the human condition (you know, besides boring dolphins and gorillas and a million other cool things on our ridiculously fertile planet). The idea that we're not alone is inspiring (and also self evident but I digress) whether it inspires us to rise up against an oppressor (the Independence Day/Terminator future) or become part of a larger game (the Star Trek future). Plenty of other people want us to just keep our heads down and submit to the inevitable and inescapable monotony of daily life without looking for hope.
      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Hi Jean, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic and are actually from the dark side where I reside. But I suspect so.

        If you are being straight forward in a comical way....then stating the obvious

        1. Evolution could be gods invention, but doesn't need a god. Funny god waited 13 billion years for humans to evolve to worship her. the platypus is the one of the best examples against young earth creationism. It is a something no mind is likely to create. Is urinates out of the same hole it inseminates. Opps that's us as well.

        2. Science can explain our behaviour including humour, laughing. Linguistics, the humourous patterns in language etc. Science is a process. Its not the sum of human experience. Laughter, a fine meal, a beautiful sunset - no need for god in order to have these experiences.

        4. I agree Science and Religion are not symmetrical opposites. Both are human constructs. But they overlap and conflict in many areas. The opposite of religion or belief in god is having no religion or no belief in any gods. I'm guessing you don't believe in a lot of gods other humans do or did believe in.

        If you believe no gods or no religion = nihilism you really have no idea. Why do we need fantasies to be optimistic. Also, the consolations of religion have nothing to say on the truth of religion.

        If there is no loving god. Tough. We are an adaptable species. Our ancestors were the survivors. My life is fuller and more meaningful now without god. I no longer have to deal with the dissonance.

        You may find the idea of god inspiring. Actually we are not alone. We have our brothers and sisters.
        • May 9 2012: Heh, I should've known you were a sith lord; no Jedi would make fun of Obi's name. All hail, brother. The following are responses and musings in order:

          1. If G*d is a cis-female then that explains everything...the mood swings, especially (I'm just kidding Marylin Vos Savant, please don't destroy me with your intellect!) Also, have you read Norse or West African Mythology? Loki or Anansi would definitely do something like make a platypus. Also, to play the Devil's (heh) Advocate, I'd like to quote 2 Peter 3:8, "A day for the Lord is like a thousand years". Sure, Xtian fanatics use that passage to assert that the planet is only 6k years old (sooooo stupid), but think about this: Humans have been worshipping the sun for as long as it took the sun to decide whether or not to fart. Yes, I know, it's an illogical statement.

          2. Science cannot explain why The Aristocrats joke is funny. I defy you to publish a scholarly paper defying my defiance. And yeah, you're right, no need for an *external* G*d to explain why roses smell awesome. That's the G*d within (and to be clear, that's the one I worship; so Namaste motherfrakker).

          3. Oh shit, you skipped that one, or I'm not awesome enough to make it un-invisible.

          D. First, I believe in every G*d that was spoken of in the whole of existence. I follow the Terry Pratchett model of Deity interaction (which is the one true way and if you say otherwise, I'll destroy you!); to be honest, science's tendency to (mostly) peacefully resolve intellectual conflicts is a page from the playbook that should be applied to religion (poor JP2, he was trying to do that, now he's drinking mimosas with Gabriel).

          I've found that my interactions with the Religulous tend to make me irritable; I really appreciated your stoic defiance of the possible non-existence of an interactive Divine. I will be burning that phrase (If theres no loving G*d, Tough) on a frat paddle and going to a Baptist church on Sunday.
      • thumb
        May 10 2012: Namaste Jean.
        Should have known Loki was an Aussie.
        You comment below made me smile out Loud.
        Small gods from TP - great little book. You might be onto something.
        No wonder my place feels crowded.
  • thumb
    May 12 2012: science have proofs, but it dont have answers to a lot of questions.
    belief have no proofs, but it have answers to almost all questions..
    as i see it, there is no room for god in science. we cant prove anything refering as 'goods deeds' in sceince. all the information that we know today can just be considerd as a drop of water from an ocean. from that drop we made everything we have today, but its not enough to define god or a higer power or the driving force of universe.
    • thumb
      May 16 2012: Your outlook will close you off from new insights delivered by science.

      I Urge you to open up a little.
      • thumb
        May 18 2012: i just meant there is still a lot of questions that science cant answer. thats why we go for god, i belive in science but i was just saying that it doesnt have the capability to answer all my curiosities and i am forced to have beliefs or stand confused before some facts, that science cant answer. by god i mean the "ultimate truth" that we are trying to prove litlle by little using science.
        • thumb
          May 19 2012: Many thanks Pranoy - yes, I agree.
          There will always be more for science to explore and reveal.
          In the places that science cannot go, I agree that it is useful to have the unknown "covered" by a word and a concept: "god" is an OK word or concept.
          I think it is healthy to have that word or concept contain a "sketch" or structure to give us entry for inquiry.
          Those things we paint on the face of the word can come from intuition, revelation, illumination, or hallucination - it does not matter.
          What matters is that the word does not prevent our questing.
          Some religions forbid placing a name on the concept - because words can become walls.
  • May 5 2012: 1) I'm convinced that God exists and has create the universe we are living in. I presume that he created the various forms of life by means of evolution, but the ''how" is not relevant.
    2) I'm convinced of his existence because I observed many signs of the existence of a spiritual world and have heard similar experiences from many other people.
    3) Science and religion cannot be in conflict with each other because they are complements.
    4) Is there room for the painter in his paintings?
    • thumb
      May 6 2012: Hi Hubert, how do you define this God?
      What are the signs of the existence of a spiritual world? Any chance these might simply be neurological experiences? How do you jump from spirit world experiences to creator of the universe?
  • thumb
    May 19 2012: First of all, i believe in God. Science is an attempt to understand the world, and humanity should continue the strides towards knowledge. But science can not answer all questions. Science works by experiments and observation, but experiments and observations are limited in that they do not explain certain core issues pertaining to function and reason for existence.
    If your dog observes that you pick mails from your mailbox every morning before entering your car, is it right for the dog to think the car starts because you picked a mail? Will the dog know what you have in your mind? And your relationship with your boss? Will the dog know if you had headache?
    The dog will only be interpreting your state from its point of view. The fact that you see and know that something is happening does not mean you know why it is happenning or that your observations.
    God wants humans to acquire knowledge by seeking it; that is why the Bible is not a Geography textbook, or a manual for Oceanograhers or space scientists.
  • Dan F

    • +1
    May 16 2012: Public classroom education should be directed at teaching and testing students on established knowledge and/or fields of study as opposed to the preaching of the dogma featuring a supernatural entity. Most communities have numerous houses of worship to serve those individuals whom personally choose to investigate various belief systems to expand their religious or mystical inclinations or commitments.

    1) I recognize both have followers, one as to faith and the other as to evidence.
    2) I don't. I lack faith in one and rely on critical thinking to appreciate the other.
    3) I see the liberty to have a belief system as a personal choice irrespective of what someone else my think. It's an important and protected civil right.
    4) Answered in my opening comment.
  • thumb
    May 16 2012: HI Carnell,

    I see that there are 2 gods.

    One is simply the universe, the other is an artifact of language.

    The artifact of language is incompatible with science - because science will nail it for what it is - and has nearly finished the job. Science will deliver a far better behavioural and linguistic outcome than the old books.

    I salute the brilliant thinking of the old religeous writers, but they were only the beginning.
    (edit - sorry, forgot to answer your direct questions):

    1)Do you believe in one, both or none?

    Evolution is evident. It's a shame it has been poluted by the "law of the jungle" guys.
    Creationism .. well, if you include time as part of creation .. one would have to step outside of time to know it either way, so it's irrelevant.

    2)Why do you believe it (them)?

    I don't believe in Darwinsim - I observe it. There is a terrible ambiguity in teh word "beieve". from teh scientific perspective "belief" is a dynamic topological process going on in our neurons and synapses acting as an object and causality sorting machine. "Belief" in teh religious context is a ste of local minima in teh secondary level of perceptive brain topology. Local minima are causal patterns that cannot be reolved becasue they are lies or simply unobservable.

    3)Does your belief(s) prove others wrong? How so?

    Yes. Religion as a set of local minima (dogma) is perpetuating lies and mistakes. In cases where religion delivers observable outcomes then there is value - and tha value passed, rightly, into the domain of science.
    The word "wrong" is a bit strong, because I believe that the notion of "god" is useful as an anchor to the autobiographical self constructs to stop them from entering delusory paths and multiplying local minima. This is my belief - it's just speculation.

    4)Is there room for God in science? Or is it
    unreasonable to mix the two?

    There is room in science for teh god who is the universe. YOu cannot mix the language artifact - it generates needless angst
  • May 12 2012: (1) Do you believe in one, both or none?
    Faith is required for one. The other does not require Faith, just evidence.
    (2) Why do you believe it (them)?
    See (1)
    (3) Does your belief(s) prove others wrong? How so?
    See (1)
    (4) Is there room for God in science? Or is it unreasonable to mix the two?
    See (1)

    Lets be clear. Science is the study of natural causation. Faith is the belief in supernatural causes. These two are completely unrelated.

    Most of the claims that Creationists have can be answered by searching youtube for Ken Miller Intelligent Design. He did a great job of explaining it all in COURT.

    The latest claim that creationists make is that our existence is so improbable that it couldn't have happen by random chance.
    [1] There is still a widespread misconception propagated by creationists that Evolution=RandomChance. This is false. There are plenty of non-creationists/religious sources to properly learn what evolution is.
    [2] Relatively new argument is the use of probability numbers to calculate some ridiculously low number for the probability for our existence. The fallacy in this calculation lies in the assumption that only this one sequence of events could have resulted in life. We can not calculate the probability of life occurring without knowing what other possibilities there might have been had life emerged differently. In short, we don't know enough about the potential of other interesting ways events might unfold.

    The number one reason I do not believe in creationism is the proponents lack of honesty.
    [1] Creationism has now been relabeled as Intelligent Design purely for the purpose of misleading people. The Discovery Institute camouflages the name in order to disassociate religion due to their earlier failure to slip this under the radar that "separation of church and state" legislation would stop.
    [2] Intelligent Design proponents want to bypass the rigorous scientific peer-review process and inject their agenda directly in to the classroom
    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • May 19 2012: Hi, Chris !
        I came back to your comments again, I was intrigued by this :

        "I was reading about the formation of the proton, and what actually causes a molecule to divide, and how the spin of the electron effects the magnetism of a nucleus."

        I tried to figure it out and looked through Zohar. Now I understand, that 'look through' and 'Zohar ' is impossible pairing. Zohar requires years and years of studying, true dedication and most importantly, being in tune...
        I would appreciate greatly your explanation , if it is possible in the frame of a TED conversation or maybe you could help me with a kind of 'precision', where exactly in Zohar I can find this information.
        I understand , that it is encoded in a cryptic message of a sacred text, but maybe I'll manage to get it :)
        Any link ? Is there in the Net any help for beginners ?

        Thank you !!!
    • thumb
      May 16 2012: Hi Blush,

      "Science is the study of natural causation. Faith is the belief in supernatural causes. " very succinct.

      I have also considered the probability argument in regards to the origin of life. Once you get self replicating molecules you have one building block. Then cells etc etc. Once you have multicellular life the flow from less adapted to more adapted life via natural selection is intuitively easy to grasp, for me anyway. Mutations may be random, but natural selection in many ways is not totally random at the macro scale. A better adapted individual has a slightly better chance of passing on genes.

      The initial steps are still a puzzle to my understanding. There could be life on millions of planets. Or we could be the only one. If we are the only one then the origin of life might be an absurdly improbably event. But this does not mean the answer is a creator god.

      The existence of a creator being is another question and so far seems unverifiable.

      If we need to explain and prove everything has natural causes before the faithful accept no god is necessary it is an endless spiral.

      The burden of proof is on the theists to prove their god exists. Perhaps also to explain how god created the universe. To say god did it is not proof of anything.

      I don't want to get bogged down in the probability argument because to say the origin of life has a minute probability of happening proves nothing really, but I wonder if they take into account how many molecules there are in a single glass of water (7.5x10^24 ), let alone the the entire surface of the earth.
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    May 10 2012: God does not enter the sphere of science until religion makes scientific claims. The Earth is 6000 years old is such a claim and what's more a claim that conflicts with scientific facts. Creationism can therefore be ruled out as a plausible explanation for all life on Earth. Conversely, scientific thinking can be applied to religion and God. You can make rational arguments about God's improbability (perhaps probability, but I have yet to hear a good argument). However, scientific thinking and actual science are two different things. Scientific research does not really treat God. They may treat religion in the context of peoples (anthropology, social science) or as phenomena (psychology, neuroscience), but science doesn't tackle God directly. First, God is a fuzzy concept, second, God is almost always declared as a completely supernatural entity.

    1) none 2) no evidence, too anthropocentric, better explanations for everything religion claims to tackle 3) nobody's belief about anything proves the others wrong unless the others are speculating about said person's belief. 4) answered above.
  • thumb
    May 10 2012: If people ask, what kind of or what definition of God or what exactly is God? Whatever your definition about God, then:

    - If people think God is in the material field, then it should be recognized by science.

    - If people think God is in the spiritual field, it has many examples of things that are considered to be spiritual, such as symptoms of hypnosis and deep meditation and its benefits and how much its existence may be recognized, proven now, through the methodology of science.

    - And if people think of God as a thing that anyone can not recognize God using our eyes, then there are many examples of the existence in this world that its form can not be known through the observation of the eyes, but science has proven its existence through the impact caused by its interaction with other things.

    It's just a matter of time about when we will be able to recognize logical relationships within the interaction of science field, so these relationship may be leads to the awareness of the existence of God.

    Science should be able to know God, because if God exist, then the existence of God is between the two possibilities. God side by side with us or as one of other covering.

    And no hole is not an existence. Hole, darkness, and emptiness. Whatever it is, as long as it has influence to other things, then it exist. There are no gaps or cracks that indicates there are nothingness, so whatever it is, interconnected each other (whatever it is, in such way properly). Therefore it should be mutually continuous existence of God with the science, and because of that, sooner or later science will be able to track the existence of God.

    There is room for God in science and in any way. We just need our patience, just like our generation from the past. We just do not know, how, when, where and who's the next to know God through science, just like the old time. But logically, there are possibilities ..., but again, it's just a matter of time. Until we die ...
  • May 9 2012: Hi Obey
    1. I would not know how to define him, but I let me explain how I represent it in my mind. I have at least four dimensions. The first is time. I exist already many years, so I have length in time. I cannot move freely in time, I am moved with like everybody to the future. I have three spacial dimensions, length, width and thickness. Long ago I noticed that I have a spirit/soul, who has his own will and agenda and I noticed that he can oversee past and future. Once I made an inventory of my memory, converted it to gigabytes, divided it by the number of my braincells and came to the conclusion that my memory could never be stored in my brain, not enough space. Apparently my memory is stored in my spirit and in my brain I have only pointers to my memory in my spirit. If I loose the pointer, I loose the memory, but if I see the object of that memory again, the pointer is restored. When I die and leave my body I will become one with my spirit. Look at for near-death-experiences (NDE). several people who had a NDE and got revived, said that their whole live passed before them. My guess is that this is an incorrect interpretation of what they experienced. I presume that they had full access to every memory of their whole life.
    Presume that on wall of your room is a two dimensional world with two-dimensional intelligent creatures. If you make a hole in their world, they can only say that a higher form of life did it. They cannot see or hear you unless you poke a finger or arm through their world, then they see the cross section of your finger/arm. Similar can my spirit interact with me although he has four spacial dimensions. God must have even more dimensions, but he is above time, maybe because he created time.
    2. Signs of a spiritual world. Once I felt a spirit before me. He wanted his dead body be found. He had died at the time he appeared for me.
    3. We have a long experience with miracles and positive effects of praying. So He exists.
    • thumb
      May 12 2012: Hi Hubert. Thanks for responding. Very interesting.

      1. On the memory part, I would suggest caution before leaping to some spiritual cloud storage. Our brains have 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections. I'm not sure if you or anyone knows how it all works. We don't know whether memories overlay in 3D etc etc. Not sure if it works in a binary manner, or one memory per neuron etc.

      I'm guessing you have plenty of assumptions to work out how much data our brain can hold and how much data a memory takes. I guess in your philosophy most animals must have spirits. Not sure how close your assumptions are to reality.

      I note when our brain is damaged our mind and memory may be damaged.

      As far as I know there is no evidence our mind is anything more than a product of our brain.

      Even if you are right that our memories and not stored physically or chemically in the brain, that does not mean they are held in anything related to typical definitions of spirit. It is simple speculation, or perhaps an argument from ignorance to claim our memories are in our spirit.

      NDE is another thing we don't fully understand. But to leap to conclusions is problematic.

      We don't even fully understand dreams.

      2. Ghosts or spirits of the dead and other paranormal have never been proved. I've seen a few freaky things. I simply can not explain these but a big leap to think these are spirits of the dead. They are awfully elusive.

      3. Rare events and coincidences happen. Not sure if you can safely assume they are supernatural. Even if they are, this is not proof any god. Just that spooky things happen. Spontaneous healing is not restricted to Christians. I note 99.999% of the time prayer does not work. IF you pray for enough things they will occasionally coincide with some rare event and plenty of mundane. Someone prayed for a promotion and got one. Its not proof of any specific god or any god. How do you get from spooky stuff to a god? Seems like big probably cultural assumptions.
      • May 12 2012: Hi Obey
        1. Please do not misunderstand me. I told how I represent it in my mind. It is just a model that fits my experiences. I'm not pretending that it works that way. Nobody has even the faintest idea how the brain works.That is why all projects on artificial intelligence are failing. I presume that abstractions are the main problem. What is fear, anger, love, happiness, etc. How do you feel an emotion? And why do you feel an emotion?

        2. Whether ghosts and spirits have been proved is a matter of opinion. They have not been proved legally. That is correct. But if I suddenly feel the presence of a spirit, know who the person is, know that the person has died just before, know what the person wants me to do and I get later a confirmation that tis person actually deceased at the time I felt the presence, then I need no proof.
        Nor do I feel the need to produce proof for other people.

        3. The experiences I have leave me no doubt and of course that is no proof to others.
  • May 7 2012: @ObeyNo1Kinobe:
    Brilliant name tag; you make me want to create a new account called "Nonserviam23" Couple of questions though:

    "So you are saying we can belief whatever we like without evidence. Aren't some beliefs more justified than others by evidence and reason. Imagine if science worked that way. It wouldn't work."

    IMSIO (In my self-important opinion), once evidence has entered into the picture, something once believed in can no longer be believed, merely accepted as a matter of course. We don't "believe" in the sun's existence, now do we?

    "Not sure why supernatural, god, religious claims are immune from critical consideration? I'm not talking about forcing people to believe something, just to justify their beliefs, to question etc."

    Oh, they aren't. Further, IMSIO, any religious authority who asserts that their way is the only right way is being self important, since all absolute statements are false statements. ;)

    Now uh, about this whole "anti-authoritarianism" sub-argument: One can't really throw a temper-tantrum at Gravity and decide to defy it's rules of the house because it wouldn't let us go to a party. Scientific Law is a separate beast from Social, National, or Religious Law; were we to anthropomorphize it, Scientific Law would want to change and become more inclusive.
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: Hi Carnell.
    Most of the historic heavyweights in science also had faith in God. Recently however, mainstream science has been defined in materialistic terms. So any empirical data that may have, in times past, pointed to God, must be re-interpreted in line with the materialist prime directive.
    The most obvious past example is the geologic column. Many layers of rock laid down by water with entrapped fossils were assumed to be a relic of Noah's Flood. Slow deposition cannot explain fossils. Today we are told it is a result of long slow deposition, with rapid deposition employed as & when required to account for fossils.
    The immensely complex operation of the nano-technology controlled by computer code in the cell points clearly to intelligent design, but must be re-interpreted in spite of impossible odds.
    So today's science rules out God, so they are incompatible. This of course has no effect on whether God exists or not in actuality. Many scientists are casting off the materialistic restriction, & ploughing their own furrow. If their hunch is correct, then the answer to your question will change in due course.

    • thumb
      May 7 2012: Hi Peter, most of your creation theories are answered on

      Many arguments for god or ID suppose what we see around us does not intuitively seem to be possible to happen via natural processes. But it just pushes the question back a step and is usually answered with fallacies such as special pleading - uncaused causes etc.

      The global flood has been so debunked it is amazing. It didn't seem to effect the Chinese or Egyptions etc. 150 years after the flood there were enough people from Noah + 6 to build the tower of babel etc. God could have made it look like it didn't happen except for cherry picked and misunderstood data. Still no rabbits or humans found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc.

      In a lot of areas we just don't know. Origins of the universe. Origins of life on earth. Is there life on other planets. In others, e.g. after we have a self replicating molecules, and simple life we can more easily understand how this evolved due to random mutations and natural selection.

      God is more inexplicable than just saying we don't know.
      • thumb
        May 7 2012: Hi Obey.
        I have read TalkOrigins 'till my eyes bleed, it doesn't answer these basic questions. It certainly has a go at most of the creation questions, which is commendable. I use it a lot.
        This thread isn't about the flood; however, three women could easily breed tens of thousands in 150yrs, given that their lifespan would be greater than that.
        So my answer remains; at the moment there is no room for God in mainstream science. Pity!

      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Obey,
        your argument holds true if we regard God as the anthropomorphic being attributed to God (the Catholic church's definition based on personification). If we regard God as that which is doing the creating (quantum fields), then your argument falls apart. I guess it depends on how we define the word.

        The bible was written in the age of mythology. Anyone who takes it literal will find enough evidence to rule it out. When you no longer take it literal, it begs the question, what is it trying to tell us? The bible deals with a good and evil nature. Which one will win in the end? It says nothing about how life evolved. It says volumes about how evolution created a brain that has potential for terrible and wonderful things. We have to sort it all out and decide which path we will follow.

        As far as the original question, creationism is defunct. But God is not dead in the minds of those who know where it leads. Let science explain how we got here. Let God explain where we are going.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      May 7 2012: Sounds mumbo jumbo to me. Pun intended.
  • May 6 2012: 1) In explain the physical with theories such as evolution and the spiritual with a form of creationism.
    2)I support the theory of evolution because of evidencenin the forms of fossils, molecular comparison, study of selective pressure, etc.
    I think there is what i call a spiritual realm beyond the physical because of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, and cases of past-life and imbetween-life regression in the book Journey of Souls. This does not mean I am sure. The only thing I am sure about is that I am agnostic.
    3) What I believe certainly doesn't prove anything.
    4) If science is the study of everything, yes. If science is the study of the physical, then we should study how we are affected by the belief in god.
  • thumb
    May 15 2012: 1) I believe in God as the creator of all things. I believe that science is our way of figuring out the mechanics of his creation.
    2) I believe in these because it is logical.
    3) i am not here to prove anybody wrong.
    4) see answer to 1.

    The whole crux of the problem is a misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of scripture. The whole "literal 7 days and if you don't believe that you're going to hell" only served to divide the religious from the scientific community, when really there should be no division at all. Additionally, since Darwin's theories the religious community has attacked evolution because they have felt that it negates the concept of the first couple, much like the non-earth centered view caused the church to denounce Copernicus and threaten Galileo with jail or death.

    But at the heart of it, science is a way to understand, to explore, to clarify the intricate mystery of God's wonderful playground that we call the universe. A very noble pursuit, all forms of science. I say, carry on!
  • thumb
    May 12 2012: A lot of the arguments for god and spiritual realm etc relate to things that could be reasonably explained with all the relevant information or are things we simply can not presently explain. Its a huge leap to go from this to some human explanation like spirits or gods. Its another huge leap to get to some specific belief system like christianity or hinduism etc.

    gods, ghosts, alien abductions, fairies etc people believe they see these things but there is no evidence they exist or whether the perception of these is properly explained.

    A material brain which drives our mind is probably where most of these things go on.

    Miraculous events actually don't automatically prove some god even if there is something supernatural going on. Its a guess to say this god or that did it.

    It often an argument from ignorance a fallacy.

    Spooky or difficult to explain or unanswered questions are often connected to gods without credible evidence.

    Life, the universe is amazing the more we find out scientificallty. Why rely on pre scientific guesswork rather than reason and evidence?
    • thumb
      May 12 2012: Hi Obey.
      What is your take on this sort of thing :-

      • thumb
        May 12 2012: Hi Peter,

        I read your link and was not convinced..Sad to say those proofs did not prove anything..some of the material was clever but none of what was said could be established as fact.

        outside of the unnaturalistic things that is mentioned in the bible, I think the big reason as to why the bible does not have as much merit is because so many books were implemented and taken out and implemented again and so on....if you want to establish things as fact you go with the evidence and only remove things that can be proven to be unhistorical but that was not the case creating what is true, one gains power, which is the case for the bible...

        Now its time for me to pull out the first of many of my Ace cards:

        Peter, there is really one main issue with the Resurrection story and it has to do with the crucifixion:

        Romans during that time never crucified people on a hill (as the bible and many images claim)..Roman's crucified people on roads that led to Rome to use people as examples and Jesus would not have been an exception..there would have been no need for a 24 hour watch because no one would have been given special treatment.. Jesus also was not as famous as many claimed to be. It was not until the travels of Saul of Tarsus that Christianity began to become influential and Jesus was considered to be the son of god.

        I think the main issue when it comes to religion honestly has nothing to do with the validity of propositions. I think the main issue is a sociological one:

        It really comes down to respect and tolerance. Many people take these things personal and I understand why: It provides meaning and essence to ones life. This is fine, when kept privately but in a public domain it causes lots of issues because many of us are reasonable enough to know when things do not make sense, its just a matter of separating the facts from what is not factual but its taboo because the moment one questions these things, all bets are off and we get labeled as a bigot.
        • thumb
          May 13 2012: Hi Orlando.
          The bible always has & always will be hotly debated. I don't think we can claim that it is off-limits for discussion.
          Never heard the argument about the crucifixion site. Maybe you could help me with a scripture reference, as I can't find one. It was at a place named Golotha (Place of the Skull). It may or may not have been on a hill, or beside a road, I just don't know. Will check it out though.

        • thumb
          May 16 2012: Orlando,
          I seriously disagree with your reasoning about where Jesus was crucified. The Romans wanted nothing to do with his crucifixion. It was the Jews that demanded it. They knew he had a following. They knew that many Jews would arrive for the passover. They knew that the Jews expected an insurrection when the messiah would come. The last place they would have wanted him was out in the open.

          As far as a watch was concerned, they knew that the Jews believed that the messiah would rise in three days. It was part of their prophecy. They wanted to make sure that the Jews themselves wouldn't steal his body just to say that he rose from the dead.

          I read the book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell if you want to know my source. He was an attorney that set out to prove the gospels were falsified. He was converted by the time he finished his research.
      • thumb
        May 13 2012: Hi Peter,

        It would take a while to refute in detail.

        First we mainly have to rely on the bible. We don't know who wrote or when the gospels were written. Probably verbal stories passed down over decades.

        No non bibl eye witness records even though apparently all the tombs opened up and Zombies everywhere.

        The earliest versions of Mark didn't even mention much about the Resurrection - earliest known text ends Ch 16. The rest seems to have been fabricated later.

        It excludes gospels of Thomas, Judas, MAry M etc.

        The included Gospels don't even agree. E.g. what JC last words were. Who was ruling when he was born. So we can't even rely on the bible for consistency.

        Not a known single event in life of JC we can corroborate with non biblical contemporary sources even the star at the time of his birth.

        So to even argue the story of Jesus based on bible accounts is highly speculative.

        So then you come back to well all these people joined the church and died for their beliefs. In regards to new members - look at Mormon church just a few hundred years ago and it is even more unbelievable. People have died for all sorts of beliefs. You ignore the majority did not join.

        Finally, for the sake of argument even if JC was killed and came alive, that doesn't mean there is a god. It doesn't mean the bible is accurate even in the bits it doesn't contradict itself. Doesn't mean a single word recorded in the bible is accurate or that Jesus was correct. It doesn't prove anything - its just an unexplained phenomena.

        Something so profound with so little evidence. And then a huge leap that this proves everything in the bible is true when most of everything else indicates its just another man made religion.
        We have more eye witness accounts recorded for ghosts and alien abductions than the resurrection and people swear they are true.

        I guess god didn't think any critical thinking or reliable or more convincing evidence would be needed. And he had 4000 years to think about i
        • thumb
          May 13 2012: Hi Obey.
          Eye witnesses don't die for a belief; they had to die for something they know to be false.
          Do you believe in Julius Ceasar, & Alexander the Great ? Is the bible the only collection of books that lies about history ?

      • thumb
        May 14 2012: Hi Peter,

        Again there is no reliable evidence that all the stories in the bible happened as recorded.

        So you rely on faith or speculative circumstantial evidence - that the death of the Christians at the time proves the resurrection. I used to use the same argument. You don't know what all the Christians who died saw, heard, believed and died for, what was going on in their heads.

        You only have the bible account, internally inconsistent, historically inaccurate, unknown authors, evidence of doctoring. The early Christians can not even agree if Jesus was God. You don't know the gospels are eyewitness accounts recorded at the time. More likely they were verbal stories - this is the gospel as told by Mark taught to me etc etc - written done decades after and possibly added to by later Christians.

        RE: "Do you believe in Julius Caesar, & Alexander the Great ? I've heard this before. I believe they and Jesus probably existed.

        No one is claiming Julius Caesar performed miracles, resurrected, is god etc etc. Your claims are far more substantial than saying Jesus was an ordinary human historical figure.

        Finally even is JC died and rose, for which there is no convincing evidence, it does not prove he is god or that the bible is correct etc etc.
      • May 14 2012: Dutko?

        Start here:

        Best to all,
  • May 12 2012: I believe that if it comforts and gives you peace of mind to believe in God, More power to you. If you do not believe in a God, More power to you also. That's your choice. Let's do some math and science just to look at the size of things. According to the latest estimates there are 150 billon stars in our galaxy and 150 billon galaxies in our known universe. We are talking about massive size almost beyond comprehension. Imagine if you can that if you could shrink our universe and put it under the most powerfull microscope we have today, Could you see any of us? I doubt it. We would be the size of micro atoms, if not smaller. With all that in mind the questions I see is this. Was there ever a starting point, not just our universe but all the others if the theories are correct? And if there ever was a starting point who or what started it? If you had the power to create a universe why would you put us in it? Why? What is our purpose or do we have a purpose in this universe? I don't honestly know for sure how about you? I am talking about before even our universe was created, the begining of everything.
    • thumb
      May 12 2012: Hi Terry.
      I wonder about this sort of thing. We are told that hydrogen gas clumped under gravity to form the stars. Hydrogen doesn't normally clump, quite the opposite. The answer to this is for a supernova to blow it together, or maybe two side by side with the gas between them. Really ! Quite a coincidence, but how did we get the first one ? Dunno !
      If you take the estimated umber of stars now, & divide it by the estimated number of seconds since the Big Bang, then we get an average star formation of 20,000 to 30,000 stars per second. I don't. Think we've ever actually witnessed one, but I may be wrong. We have seen stars appearing, but that could be gas moving out the way etc.
      I don't think we're near as clever as we make out. I'll stick to my bible.

      • May 13 2012: Hello Peter
        Sorry it took me awhile to reply. Been busy. I do not know with 100 percent certainty that there is a God , Nor do I know with 100 percent certainty that there is not a God. But I hope and pray that there is a God because the idea of the extinction of me when I die is not a very comforting thought to me. Thank you
        • thumb
          May 13 2012: Hi Terry.

          100% eludes us all, if we're honest. Keep hunting with an open mind.


    • thumb
      May 16 2012: Terry,
      Something you may want to consider; the Mayan calendar is made up of nine levels. Each level is 20 times longer than the one that follows. Each level is describing a shift in consciousness. When you compare the nine levels with the geological record, they fit. See the following links taken from mayanmajix website; - scroll down on the left till you get to the nine stages of the Mayan calendar and click on that. It will give you a good visual.

      This is either extraordinary coincidence, or there is more going on than we realize.
      • May 16 2012: Hi Roy
        Thank you for responding. I will try not to be long winded, no guaranties. The good thing about the maya is that they at least gave everyone a date to work with. Whether there is any credience in their prophicies and math will be answered for all of us on Dec. 21, 2012 or 7 months and a couple of days. But back to the topic of God verses evolution. I try to have a open mind to all possibilities and look at things from outside the box. In this topic I first look at the size and scope of things like the size of our universe verses the size of us in it. My observation and opinion is that in that respect we are extreemly small. But do we really matter? I believe we do. I do have my theories on how to explain the esistence of God through science but I am not interested in being ridiculed and also I am not certain that I am 100% correct with the answers I got. A added note: The mayans were smart but they were also a very violent culture. Thank you for your time believe it or not we are on the same page with trying to explain God with science. I am just using a different approach to it.
        • thumb
          May 17 2012: Terry,
          We may not be as different as you think. I wrote a book comparing science to religion (see my profile). The laws of physics, chemistry, and electromagnetic theory are the same throughout the cosmos. Although we may be a miniscule race on a lonely planet that barely seems to exist, our makeup came from the stars, and we are one with the cosmos. As insignificant as we may seem, we can understand the entire universe by unravelling our very makeup. As small as we are, our minds are huge.

          The Mayans were a violent people, which I believe is why they died out. But their knowledge was ahead of its time. The end of the Mayan calendar is not the end of the world, it is the end of a current process. What follows is yet to be seen, but something will follow. I expect it to be a grand awakening to possibilities beyond our present knowledge. I see it as something to look forward to, not something to be dreaded. The reason that I presented the links is that it is implying that evolution is no accident. We were meant to be here, and there is a purpose behind all of this that we do not yet comprehend.

          There is a book called "Edgar Cayce on the Akashic Records" by Kevin Todeshi. It's a very insightful book about how connected we are to something greater than ourselves. And yes, we matter a great deal to the power that brought us into this world.
  • thumb

    E G

    • 0
    May 11 2012: The guy who don't know what a scientific theory means , believes something named 'scientific theory' ; creationism is not a scietific theory and I don't believe it , I believe only that God was the originator of our universe somehow.

    God and science are different , the question should be put : is there room for science in God ? Not exatcly .
  • thumb
    May 8 2012: Didn't you know? God is dead!

    Man lives, man creates.
    • May 8 2012: Well I'm convinced by that pithy rebuttal.

      But's an update! Chaos Reigns. A talking fox said so in a creepy movie. Check and mate, eh Brute?
    • May 9 2012: In 1882 Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead. The Bible is to this day the best selling book every year. Just thought this would be an intersting thing for you to know.

      If you want to make an argument, you're going to have to use more than ten words to make it a convincing one.
      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Is God dead?
        To be dead the remains sure had to be alive before.
        God, called upon as the creator of all in existence including life cannot be alive itself nor dead for that matter.

        Nietzsche referred to the God of man, the object of their devotion during the middle ages had become a social process. It had become a lifeless exercise of prayer, church attendance and festivals around the year obliged to everyone that would participate within society. The fire was dead and almost no one did bother much what it was all about. Those that posed questions were expelled from church as well as society, they were strange and suspicious. I think Nietzsche comprised that feeling in the notion that God had died. The imagery that ever drove people to built the world we live in had become a dull habit.

        To have a Bible to many is part of that habit. Hardly anyone ever reads in it they only swear by it.
        To proof yourself right in your believe in whatever it may be, you can quote from most any book.
        Science is an attempt to understand the world with our mind and to test that understanding to the actual world. It produced more wonders to the human eye than religion ever claimed.

        Religion has nothing to do with science then adapt to it to survive.
        • May 9 2012: Thanks for taking the time to explain your point.

          My only response is that a majority of people look through a cloudy lens when generalizing a religion. The only time religion is noticed by the media is whenever there's a small radical group or something that puts it in a bad light. People only pay attention to religion when it makes said religion look bad. For Christianity, people see Westboro Baptist Church and assume that they represent the majority of Christians. For the longest time after 9/11, there was a collective mentality that all Muslims were terrorists. And so on and so forth.
  • May 8 2012: Um, point of order: We seem to be anthropomorphizing G*d continuously as an old white guy in the clouds. If we're going to be silly (because, IMSIO, religion nowadays is little more than a fun alternative translation of why things are awesome and how to appreciate awesomeness) why aren't we picturing G*d as the sexy sun goddess Ameratsu, the mysteriously cool Odin, or the kick-a** party monster that is Legba? Just wondering.

    @Roy: "Given the earth, we have molecular formations being guided by the octet rule. Could any other rule have applied? If the answer is yes, then molecular formations are all built on chance. If the answer is no, then why not?"

    F***ing brilliant. Let's anthropomorphize it, since the laws of Physics are so boring. The Ameratsu within compels all molecules to get together in a orgy of edutainment until new and interesting things happen. The law, therefore must be "if it feels good, synthesize it". Or, maybe more simply, "Quarks just wanna have fun". Why is it wrong to imagine that every single point of "mattergy" is just trying to find happiness and joy? Personally, I think the atoms were laughing at Heisenberg as he was trying to measure.

    @Gabo: "If you are being much more generic and want to call the way things work "God." Fine. But I find the thought useless [...] Creationism is mere mythology (and quackery)..."
    But, but...don't you find it mind numbingly boring to see the world as a series of uncaring natural systems, "destined" to serve their function as cold pieces of interstellar machinery? Also, mere mythology? Were it not for mythology, for the dreams and allegories of our fore bearers, Romulus and Remus wouldn't have been the inspiration for stories about one of the greatest civilizations our world has seen in antiquity. Were it not for mythology, the movie Master of the Flying Guillotine would've been a boring historical movie. Were it not for mythology, our reach wouldn't be bothered to try and grasp at all...
    • thumb
      May 8 2012: Jean,
      I have a problem with anthropomorphizing God. I don't see God as an alternative to physics, I see it as a window into spirituality. Physics doesn't control how we think. Physics controls how and what we are able to create. Much of what we create is a product of imagination, which is connected to intuition.
      I don't believe that there is such a thing as creation science. There is nothing in the bible that tells us how God created anything. The point I was trying to make is that there is an order to the universe that we didn't put there, and the ancients referred to that order as God. But their line of thinking pertains to issues of right and wrong, and not what works and what doesn't.

      So long as science is going to tell me that I am a cosmic accident, that my death is the eternal end to me, and I see people trying to step on me because they see me as a competitor in life (someone to be used and abused for their own personal gain), then I am going to take issue with science as the all to everything we need to know about life. I refer back to your statement about uncaring natural systems destined to serve their function as cold pieces of interstellar machinery. There is more to life than just what science can tell us.
  • thumb
    May 8 2012: Let me take this one step further; after the big-bang, there was this primordial soup of subatomic particles. From that soup emerged hydrogen. Could anything else have come out of the soup? If the answer is yes, then it all happened on chance. If the answer is no, then why not?

    Hydrogen formed first generation stars which ignited into fusion reactors. From fusion came the buildup of the elements. Today we have the periodic table. Could anything else have come from fusion? If the answer is yes, then all our elements are a product of chance. If the answer is no, then why not?

    Given the earth, we have molecular formations being guided by the octet rule. Could any other rule have applied? If the answer is yes, then molecular formations are all built on chance. If the answer is no, then why not?

    Do you understand what I am trying to convey? Evolution is reductionism in reverse. As the universe unfolds, it is responding to specific patterns that seem to have been pre-ordained. It couldn't have been any other way. Prior to hydrogen forming, there were no atoms. And yet, once hydrogen formed, it came complete with a structure already built in. How could a structure exist prior to hydrogen forming, and why is it so precise if it didn't exist in the beginning?

    We can continue this discussion all the way through the evolutionary process. What was pre-ordained and what wasn't? If you know the answer, then let's hear it. If you don't know the answer, then we have to accept that there is a mystery to the universe that we can't explain. If you choose to call it God, then you must also accept that God is something that cannot be explained. The modern definition of God is supreme being, but that is a personification. Take the personification away, and all you have left is the ineffable mystery. How did God create the universe? I'll go with evolution, because it is the only thing I can explain.
    • May 8 2012: I think you are making several categorical and philosophical mistakes Roy. The main one being that you seem to think, or imply, that if something is not pure randomness, then it is "preordained" as in "with a purpose by someone," as in "intentional." I truly don't understand why this false dichotomy comes so naturally to most people, and gods-believers in particular. The way I see it, if thinks work one way rather than randomly it just means that things work that way. It just means that such is the nature of reality. There might be a reason for things working that way, or maybe that's just the way it is, no reasons whatsoever. But I truly don;t see why would it be either random, or intentional.

      If you are being much more generic and want to call the way things work "God." Fine. But I find the thought useless, and perhaps a rather convoluted way of keeping a god concept in your mind for no other reason that you like the idea of a god, even if it is something incomprehensible, even if it is just a renaming of things you don't understand, even if it is useless.

      As for each of your points about hydrogen, atom formation, and such. Though all involve change, I would avoid calling the whole thing "evolution." Many of these items have embedded "rules" (within their own nature) about how and why it happens/happened that way. The processes involve both randomness and natural ways (so called natural laws). But that's a long story not worth trying if the very basis of your comment is this false dichotomy.

      • thumb
        May 8 2012: Gabo,
        I could take my argument to extremes and say was there a Gabo Moreno or Roy Bourque in the orignal primordial soup of cosmic particles, and my reasoning would rule it out. But I question the argument that we are all a cosmic accident. A friend once asked me; why do people do the things they do? I said; what do you think? He said; because they can. He was trying to distinguish between existence and righteousness. I see religion as the search for an understanding of right and wrong, and I see science as an understanding of how things work. I understand fully that you cannot make a direct comparison between them. But by the same token, you can't just toss one out because it seems to conflict with a differing world view. They deal with different issues and they are both important in their own way.

        When I think of God, I don't think of a being that controls everything, I think of it as something to meditate on to help me find my place in the cosmos. From the modern evolutionist's perspective, I am just a meaningless, insignificant soul in an infinite universe that has no rhyme or reason other than it exists. And when others seek to take advantage of me, they are just exercising their evolutionary right to exist at my expense. Do unto others before they do unto you becomes the new not so golden rule.

        I find the need to meditate on a higher power because it keeps me from becoming one of those who live at the expense of others. My faith has kept me focused on the more important aspects of our existence, science being one of them, and a genuine respect and concern for the well being of others being another.

        As for "the rules within their own nature", those rules extend beyond their own nature. They become part of the larger structures that they produce. Every atom possesses gravity. But that gravity accumulates to become part of the whole scheme of things. What we think is pure coincidence, often turns out to be far more than that.
        • May 9 2012: Roy,

          But you are accumulating fallacious thinking on top of fallacious thinking. I can easily, and quite happily, toss religion and gods out of the window and I still find meaning and companionship, and whatever else. No problem. I find fascination, and awe, and much more from understanding what science indicates, while you find it meaningless, accidental, and such. But that is just your preference. But get this surprise. To me the idea of a god makes the whole thing meaningless [and boring]. While being here after billions of years of stuff going on I find fascinating. I am part and parcel with the universe, what could be more awesome? My atoms formed inside the enormous temperature and pressure of stars? Man, how could that not give you a sense of a "place in the Cosmos"?

          Then, I don't see the connection between "we are a product of evolutionary processes" and "we shall live at the expense of others." None whatsoever. [Edit: Do you think that understanding gravitational forces should lead to a desire to toss people down precipices?] We have reason, we can and should use it. After all, it does not seem as if having reason is an everyday event. Thus, why toss it away? It is real (unlike the gods). So we can reason and attain those nice things you want to come from some higher power. That we are all that there is to it gives us a much higher responsibility, and thus, much more inspiration to do it better. Of course, this is no easy task. but if we keep relying in myths, we will go nowhere.

          And I repeat. Who said that everything is "pure" coincidence? It is the result of how things work. There is a huge difference, and it still does not imply gods.

      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Gabo,
        I don't choose to believe in God in lieu of science, I have no problem with either one. I have never said that science itself is meaningless, only their conception of me as a cosmic accident that has no future is what is meaningless.

        You don't see the connection between evolution and living at the expense of others? You apparently don't realize how many people are doing just that. I see it all the time; drug cartels, human traffickers, prostitution, government corruption, internet scams, gambling casinos, corrupt religious institutions, organized crime. They say if you see one rat, there are a hundred more that you don't see. The devil (metaphorically speaking) likes to hide in the darkness; what you don't know won't hurt you. Why is there so much poverty and starvation in a world that has plenty if no one is stacking the deck in their favor? They won't tell you what games they are playing, but they are playing games.

        The "higher power" is not what will give me nice things, but meditating on the higher power (intuition and creativity) is what will give me the insights to know how to bring them about.

        We have a confusion of definition. I do not believe in anthropomorphic gods. I believe in the power that does the creating (quantum fields). It has all the qualities that are attributed to God because, to me, that is exactly what they are. So we have to differentiate between what modern religion is preaching, and what I have come to know through personal religious experience.
        • May 9 2012: Hey Roy,

          But you insist on mistaking what science tells you about you, and what you think it is telling your from your deep feelings. That's my problem with your approach. As I said, if you want to call quantum fields, or whatever else, "God," fine by me. I find it useless. But here my problem with your view is that you say that science tells that you are "a cosmic accident that has no future." Science is not telling you such a thing. You are putting that meaning into it.

          As for your list of awful things going on. Do you really believe that those things happen because those things were inspired by evolution? That would be too much of a stretch. Do you really think that because you call quantum fields "God," that will solve the problem? If neither, then what was the point of mentioning such things? I shall rephrase my point: maybe some people find inspiration on gravitation to kill somebody by tossing them to a precipice. But gravitation and science are not the problem. Maybe some people have found "justification" in a deformed vision of evolution for their racism, or whatever else. But evolution and science are not the problem. Then, I truly think that you can find ethics and such without calling quantum fields "God." I also prefer to use our collective reason to solve our problems than any anthropomorphic or otherwise gods. I don't think our problems are easy to solve. I am often pessimistic, yet I try to do my part. Anyway, I no longer know if we are still talking within the scope of this conversation ... so I think this is enough for now.

      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Gabo,
        According to Richard Dawkins, when I die, I am history, never to be seen or heard from again. His views are getting widespread acceptance. I find that view meaningless. Why spend a lifetime making sacrifices if you simply cease to exist in the end? There are things that we have to do to ensure that there will be a future for others to share. I have to feel connected and responsible in some way. I can't simply disconnect myself from existence and still feel that anything I do matters.

        I don't think that calling God "quantum fields" will solve any problem outright. What I think it will do is to clear some misconceptions in the religious sector that lead to misguided persecution of scientific facts. We owe our allegiance to a higher power. If you have misguided notions about what that higher power is, it will lead to a cascade of problems down the road, which is exactly what has happened in the religious framework.

        All those awful things, do I believe that they were inspired by evolution? Yes I do, not by teachings on evolution, but as part of human nature resulting from evolution that some allow to develop. It's called the selfish gene. Eastern philosophy attempts to bring humanity above that condition. It is what religion is built on. Holding humanity accountable is where a lot of religion came from. I'll admit it is in serious need of reform. But I have had experiences that only make sense to me if I view them from a religious frame of mind. I can't simply cast it off. I have to keep that duality intact.
  • thumb
    May 8 2012: Carnell,
    1. I believe in both.

    2. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. Anyone who denies it simply doesn't know much about it. On the other hand, evolution is a creative process. What is driving the process? What people believe is where the problem comes into the mix. God is a right-brain term. Religion personified the creative forces of nature. The personification is not what is real, but that is all that people understand when they think of God. To me, God is what is doing the creating, and that is quantum fields. As far as how long did it all take; if you understand what the Mayan calendar is saying, it took pretty much what the big-bang is saying. As for the Judeo-Christian tradition; it fits like a glove in the Mayan National cycle, which began just under 6000 years ago. It doesn't say anything about how God created, so you can't use it to dispute what science is saying.

    3. My belief will advocate that the fundamentalists don't have a clue about how God created anything. But that isn't what religion is all about. It is about the spiritual journey.

    4. If you understand God as quantum fields, then the answer is yes. Quantum fields are everywhere, they are invisible, they are perfect, they are eternal (as far as we know), they are the source from which all things come and back to where they go. They just aren't a person. But then it isn't the bible that says God is a person, it is religion. When the Catholic church waged their attack on Galileo, they took God out of reality. Since then, anything that can be explained is no longer attributed to God. When you put God back into reality (quantum fields), anything that can be explained can also be attributed to God. You just need science to explain the processes.
  • May 7 2012: A frustrating notion that surrounds me every day is that religion and science cannot coexist on any level. While it is understandable that one is based on faith of an unconfirmed being and the other is faith on observation, by no means is it unheard of to be a religious scientist. Even Neil Degrasse Tyson, a phenomenal astrophysicist who often holds conferences that dispute intelligent design, once talked about the coexistence between science and religion on

    I do believe in a God, but I also believe in using science to discover all the wonder of the universe created by Him. I embrace the thought of finding humanist explanations for things created by a higher power. As intelligent and technologically advanced as we are as a species, I feel there are some things that may never be explained (i.e. the existence of a higher power).
  • thumb
    May 7 2012: I like your point and i would be happy to add something

    GOD is nothing less that the part which science can't explain. A long time ago when people believed in GOD, science didn't exist and the religious one was enormous. With the developing of mankind and the evolution of our mind along with the physical structure, people got illuminated by GOD and started to reason better, they created a new branch in their tree of life. They called it science.

    The tree of our life is GOD, and there are 2 branches... 1 which is the religious and the other which is science. With the growth of the 2nd branch the other got smaller with the passing of time. Nowadays for people what can't be explained is religious (like GOD, exorcism, etc.) and what can be explained is science (like physics, mathematics, etc.). These 2 branches live on an inverse proportion method which causes harm only to the owner of the tree (humanity).

    GOD will fully be accepted in science only when people will stop and think for a moment. These two branches have lived one along each other for eternities and will continue, but if one dies the other dies for sure.

    I hope i helped. Have a nice day!
    Mario Çobo
  • May 7 2012: I love the answers guys, keep it up!
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: 1) I believe in evolution.

    2) The facts that I have seen and found direct me to the belief that evolution is true.

    3) I couldn't guarantee that my belief is absolutely perfect, without flaws, but I find it is all inter-connected somehow. Proving someone elses beliefs isn't reality isn't easy, and I don't want to prove them wrong. The process should be giving the other person the facts and having them decide for themselves. Change comes from within, but external influences can help. This system would work for me as well, if the other person had the proof for me to see their reality to be the truth.

    4) I will restate that all things are inter-connected somehow. Even though I don't know how yet, I strongly believe that things work in symbiosis. Only rarely are somethings not inter-connected, but that is the beauty of living. Those instances where the lines of reality are blurred and something new arises, then we integrate that new thing into reality.

    Thanks for reading my thoughts. Feel free to share yours. =)
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: As an atheist myself, I find that God is the natural and instintive way for common people to find they safety and reasurement they can't find in their minds. This happens because most people are affraid of knowing what the world is about, they are affraid of not liking the scientific answers to their questions, and also because people need the answersto the questions science is yet to answer.
    In my opinion, believing in a metaphysical entityto be the lord of the universe and all that in it lies is the denial of the scientific method. Science is the search for answers to all the questions, from simple things as 'is the earth round?' to more complex matters such as the origin of the universe. To allocate all solutions in a non-palpable non-measurable non-sightable entity is blinding human knowledge.

    So, no, science and God cannot coexist.
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: Don't understand the question. What does God mean? Can you be a little more specific?
    • May 6 2012: hai again!
      the question is quite simple. God is not viewed here as a physical entity, rather as a myth. it could be a person or a thing.
      hope this helps
      • thumb
        May 6 2012: So the question is ;
        "IS THERE ROOM FOR - a person or a thing - IN SCIENCE?"

        I would think so, yes.

        Don't you have a better definition to work with? I have no idea what God is about, help me out here!
        • May 7 2012: hai Gerald,
          its like this. for every creation, there is a creator (which can be a person or thing). so the question is whether there was a scientific origin or was it the work of God. the only definition i can give is that god is the limits of human comprehension. the subject of religion has evloved through Debate and discussions, so you have the freedom to name anything That cant be given a reason as god.
      • thumb
        May 7 2012: You ask people about God without any comprehension about what the word stands for.
        Then you state that everything created has a creator but as anything created is any organization of parts within the total being following the idea of any creator that is as well a part of that total being thus both being fragments within the totality that exist, you see that creation nor creator are all encompassing and cannot count for anything they say about God. If all that exists is the creation of God then God has to be outside that what exist and thus nonexistent.
        So if God is the creator he is nonexistent and when there is a creator that creator isn't God as they say God is all encompassing.
        Maybe it's better to see God as the first ancestor of our present existence and then you better call it man as people of this language group originally did and venerated.
        • May 10 2012: hai frans.

          well... when i say that god is the limits of human comprehension, i dont actually mean there is no definite meaning. it is just that who god is and what he does is looked at by different people over different periods of time
          and that part where u prove the non existence of god by saying that "god has to be outside.....and thus non existent", actually, there is one ancestor particle in all of us that is the same particle which gave rise to life as we know. as of know the unknown god particle (to be scientific, Higgs Boson) is yet to be discovered. however, with the discovery of higgs comes more questions.... and thus my statement.
      • thumb
        May 10 2012: anish,
        Try to see all that exist as a holographic projection from one singularity. That's your god particle which is part of nothing and at the same time part of everything.
        To see it you have to turn your vision to that what sees.
  • May 6 2012: let us put it this way, god is the limits of human comprehension. When man discovered lightning, he worshipped lightning as god. but when he discovered electricity, lightning was no longer considered a "wrath of god". and now, a certain Higgs Boson is said to be responsible for the excess of matter that is believed to have created the universe. one thing about this Higgs Boson is that it appears to have Lots of energy, but hardly any mass. so that sort of defies the law of matter. but with more solutions come more questions. there are still unexplained inevitables of life.. love, compassion, dedication, commitment. God is in everything you cant actually give a proof for its existance
    • thumb
      May 7 2012: Why not just say the limits of human comprehension is the limit of human comprehension?

      Why use a loaded word like god?

      Love, compassion etc can be reasonably understood via biology and psychology neuroscience.
      You know working in groups, protecting young etc -not just limited to humans but most complex in us.

      You are saying god is everything we don't understand or have proof for. God must be a lot smaller than it was 30,000 years ago, or even 2000 years ago, or 200 years ago.

      God has so many connotations - why not use language more effectively and say what you mean.

      The universe is amazing, much of it is hard to comprehend, our existence and consciousness is also amazing. Lets make the most of it.
      • May 7 2012: hey knobe!
        pleasure knowing you. firstly, if there is anything as deep a ravine as the grand canyon, it has to be compassion and love

        secondly, God is not becoming smaller. on the other hand, god is getting more and more a possibility in the eyes of human beings. which is why i am saying God is a big question mark. And that question mark can be worshipped, criticized and researched.

        and there is only one connotation as far as God is considered. and that is faith, all others being contraptions.

        and you are right, most of the universe is hard to unravel, but we humans love facing challenges. and so we rule out the possibility of a certain creator rather than welcoming him with open arms and seek what actually is the truth.
        • thumb
          May 12 2012: Hey Anish

          How do you define God?

          Are you anthropomorphising the limits of our ignorance?

          There are many imaginary gods, from the specific e.g. Maduk, Odin, Yahweh to deist types to all sorts of whacky definitions. Faith is not God.
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: i believe god is everything and becoz of him people are there who created described science
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: I believe in Science, as it is the only way we have to understand, or at least try to understand the world we live in. I don't believe God and Science can exist at the same time. However I understand the need of imagining a God as the source of all there is.
  • thumb

    R H

    • 0
    May 6 2012: If I take your question (even though you've classified this conversation as a debate, you still asked a question) literally, I would say 'no'. Science is about us - what we percieve, measure, define. God is about everything - immeasurable and, as yet, undefinable agreeably. 1) I believe in both. 2) Because I believe they both exist. 3) I don't want to prove others wrong. 4) Same question as heading, already answered.
  • thumb
    May 6 2012: 1). One.
    2). Of the two it is the only one that is a non-self conflicting explanation of the Universe.
    3). No. Their self-contradiction proves them wrong.
    4). Science is controlled by the Scientific Method which can not accommodate God.
    • May 14 2012: My answers are exactly the same as your goodself. However I come down on the side of scientific evidence. From my understanding of your other posts on various topics you hold the opposite view?

      Perhaps this is a good example of Thesis, Antithesis = Synthesis ;)
      • thumb
        May 15 2012: Defending the opposing opinion is a valid technique for gaining understanding of other's viewpoints. The question is only about number four. There cannot be room for God in Science because He does not submit to the Scientific Method. The Scientifc Method cannot accomodate God, to do so would be self-conflicting. However, it is not "unreasonable to mix the two" because God does not disallow Science. So a born-again follower of the Holy Bible is free to recognize and learn from the factual, truthful accomplishments of Science, while the Agnostic/Atheistic MUST disallow and actively oppose everything in the Holy Bible. The heavens declare the glory of God, Mr. Harman. Science declares the non-existence of God. Oil and water, my friend, oil and water.
        • May 15 2012: I disagree with "the Agnostic/Atheistic MUST disallow and actively oppose everything in the Holy Bible." That would be silly. I MUSTN'T disallow, nor actively oppose, the Bible (who said you could talk on my behalf?). I have read the bible, I have listened to believers, and I have found that the Bible is far from being scientific, and far from being anything but fantasy. That's a conclusion, and I don't see any way that the many problems with the Bible, scientific and logical, can be talked/reasoned/evidenced away. But I did not start with the conclusion. I don't oppose the Bible, neither in principle, nor in method. The Bible just does not work, and that's not my fault.
        • thumb
          May 15 2012: I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't believe in any gods due to a lack of reason and evidence.

          I'm not sure what you mean by disavow. The book is part of our culture for better and for worse. I don't think it is from any god. I think it is probably manmade like all other religious type texts, the Koran, the book of Mormon, Egyptian book of the dead, Buddhist sutras etc.

          It has some tribal mythologies of the Hebrews through to somebodies dream vision of the end of the universe.

          When people claim it is gods handbook for humans to live by it seems reasonable to ask how do you know that. What is the evidence for that. And also to point out some of the more obvious issues with it.

          Science and reason asks where is the evidence. As you mention god is not verifiable - being defined as invisible, immaterial, outside time and space. In fact this practically defines god as non existent. How surprising. How convenient. Consistent with god not existing except as an idea.

          Also I'm not aware of any proof the bible is anything but a human construct. Again, you can not disprove that an invisible god was responsible for bringing to us with all it's flaws.

          However, I'm open to new evidence.

          Science asks for the evidence for god or astrology or alien abductions etc.
        • May 15 2012: Mr Long, perhaps it may be better or more accurate to paraphrase Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, and say that the scientific method has no need of the god hypothesis.

          Regarding what you say about an atheist/agnostic being compelled to disallow everything in the Holy Bible; I think that much as you say that a follower of the Holy Bible is free to recognize and learn from the factual, truthful accomplishments of Science; an individual Atheist/Agnostic is free to appreciate the poetry of the psalms, the literary style of Biblical narrative or the moral message of the Sermon on the Mount, for example. Even the man described as Darwin's Pitbull - Richard Dawkins says that he likes Christmas carols.

          I think only the supernatural, for want of a better term, elements of the Bible are what MUST be disallowed by an atheist/agnostic, though of course many atheists/agnostics would take issue with much of the historical and moral elements as well.
  • thumb
    May 5 2012: the church in recent years has eventually opened its doors to science, i believe there are priests at the Vatican and out who are scientists and are working side by side with other scientists. both sides need to accept the one another and both sides need to keep an open mind! i don't believe we were created out of dust, but that does not stop me believing in God.
    • thumb
      May 6 2012: Hi Shelley, what leads you to believe in god? How do you define god?
    • thumb
      May 9 2012: Shelley,
      We were all created out of dust, and evolution explains how. Plants absorb moisture from the ground, which contain powdery fragments of earth (minerals), the definition of dust. The moisture and minerals become part of the plant's structure by the process of photosynthesis. The plant becomes the food source of the animal kingdom. Your mother ate fruits and vegetables (which are parts of plants), or meat (from animals which feed on plants). The food breaks down in the digestive system, and through osmosis, is transferred to the blood stream. Part of that blood passed on through to your developing body through the umbilical cord. Your developing body took the microscopic fragments of earth, and through cell metabolism, created the cells of your body.

      Now that you are alive, you continue to maintain the process by eating fruits and vegetables, until you die. When a body dies, it returns to the earth from which it came. By this whole process, we were all created from the dust of the ground. But there is a long drawn out process to explain what that actually means. The bible doesn't tell us how we were created, only what we were created from. And in that respect, it is not incorrect.

      For the record, don't stop believing in God. There is much to be learned that we still don't know.