I feel god(s) should not be used to explain science in the science forums. When I wanted to know why it rains i definatily dont what to here some mythical explaination about god crying (just a simple example). There is no science involved with religion. Theres no scientific proof for god. So please keep the god theorys for the religion section.

Amen. :D

I feel god(s) should not be used to explain science in the science forums.
fine, its your opinion, feel free to express it. but what if there is a God?

also, isn't science the pursuit of knowledge? why limit it? what if the more we know, leads us to belief in God? or the reverse? so,"let the chips fall where they may". As a Christian, I believe that scientists should not be pro- or anti-, they should be explorers, discovers, thinkers, dreamers, why should they bother? its more for the poets, artists, philosophers, etc..., you know, like me :p

When I wanted to know why it rains i definatily dont what to here some mythical explaination about god crying (just a simple example). don't you think its really interesting, that there are so many cycles to replenish needed resources, like carbon, H2O, nitrogen, etc...

There is no science involved with religion.au contrare, many early scientists were Christians, etc...
here's a list, some appear more than once because of diff discoveries:
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science2.htm

Antiseptic Surgery .... ...Joseph Lister
Bacteriology ...........................Louis Pasteur
Calculus ...........................Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics .................Johannes Kepler

...

Non-Euclidean Geometry.........Bernard Riemann
Oceanography ...............Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy .....David Brewster
(long list of names deleted on 12-17-04)


some scientists today don't believe in darwinism completely, so they may be looking for answers in?
from:
http://s8int.com/nodarwin.html
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
(long list of names deleted on 12-17-04)



atheists that believe in miracles,
From:
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
Quote from "Life Itself", (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1981), book available:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671255630/102-8915878-7836967?v=glance
who was Crick:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24495-2004Jul29.html

Theres no scientific proof for god. ahh, Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for a Creator" would argue that point with you, its strongest case being Biochemistry & Biological Info in Ch's 8 & 9. The weakest is Physics Ch 6, since life evolved in this universe, then it necessarily has to live within the parameters of this universe's physical laws.

So please keep the god theorys for the religion section.that would not be very fair, since many anti-god people, who claim to be scientific sure like to post in those forums, should they be kept out? Or are you pleading for special exalted status?

Randolfo....supa!;)

fine, its your opinion, feel free to express it. but what if there is a God?
What does it matter to science if there is a God?
Science is the practice of studying natural phenomena and attemtping to understand what exactly is happening and why.
Whether or not "God invented it" doesn't change a thing, it is there, and science deals with understanding how it works.

also, isn't science the pursuit of knowledge? why limit it? what if the more we know, leads us to belief in God? or the reverse? so,"let the chips fall where they may". As a Christian, I believe that scientists should not be pro- or anti-, they should be explorers, discovers, thinkers, dreamers, why should they bother? its more for the poets, artists, philosophers, etc..., you know, like me :p
It is fairly impossible to not BE pro or anti anything in reality.
It is, however, possible to not allow your religious beliefs to interfere with your fair honest and open-minded study of science.
If that's what you are saying, then I agree 100%.

don't you think its really interesting, that there are so many cycles to replenish needed resources, like carbon, H2O, nitrogen, etc...
Yes.
The cycles are endlessly intriguing.
That's exactly why I love studying and learning about them.
I'm not sure I see the point here.

au contrare, many early scientists were Christians, etc...
here's a list, some appear more than once because of diff discoveries:
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science2.htm
Please see my point above about practicing good science and not allowing your religious beliefs to interfere.

some scientists today don't believe in darwinism completely, so they may be looking for answers in?
from:
http://s8int.com/nodarwin.html
And?
I also think Darwinism is incomplete at best.
I also think that careful examination of the evidence supporting EVERY theory should be performed over and over again under the differing light of new discoveries.
What does this have to do with God?
Oh, let me guess. If Darwinsim is proven to be incomplete that's a shoe-in for Creationism? Hardly!

atheists that believe in miracles,
There is a HUGE difference between saying, "I believe in miracles!" and "origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle".
The first is a religious point of view, the second, which I quoted from your quote, is a scientific one.
What Crick said amounts to, "We still don't know. It is a great mystery that science is trying to get to the bottom of."
Please, at least be honest in your arguments, and do not claim that Crick said he believes in miracles.

ahh, Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for a Creator" would argue that point with you, its strongest case being Biochemistry & Biological Info in Ch's 8 & 9. The weakest is Physics Ch 6, since life evolve in this universe, then it necessarily has to live within the parameters of this universe's physical laws.
Lee Strobel's book is pathetic aplologistic crap that does not stand up to even routine scrutiny.

that would not be very fair, since many anti-god people, who claim to be scientific sure like to post in those forums, should they be kept out? Or are you pleading for special exalted status?
The good, honest atheistic scientists do exactly what the good, honest theistic scientists do. They leave God out of it and study the physical, natural world. The things that CAN BE studied. The rest of it (anything that can NOT be physically observed directly or indirectly) belongs in the realm of Religion and Philosophy.

god has NOTHING to do with science you cannot explain any science with, god this, god that, NO life is that simple GIve me some hard scientific evidence for god then you can use god as a reason to explain things. THat is my point!!! I dont care if the man who discovered aneseptics was christian; prove to me god helped and then ill change my mind. You critize darwins theory but its a theory; we once thought the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe. OVer time we will discover but GOD AS NO PART IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES. THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD SO LEAVE GOD FOR THE RELIGION SECTION. !PLEASE!

science forums are for scientific bussiness so enough of your simple bantar

THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD SO LEAVE GOD FOR THE RELIGION SECTION. !PLEASE!

science forums are for scientific bussiness so enough of your simple bantar
so god forums are for God business & business forums are for business' business, wow! you may have a point there.
as for simple, if it really were so smple, you would bandy about all your irrevocable proofs, & shut us up for good, why can't you, if its so simple?

also, if you're so logical, why do you even bother? you should raise one eyebrow, ala Mr. Spock & leave us feckless humans to our merry business, why do you care?

why did you even start this thread?

Science discovered what god is a long time ago.

The religious leaders fear science because it exposes religion for what it really is. Religions come and go, some may linger but there beliefs and practices change with time. Science does not fail, over 2000 years ago science found answers that still holds true today. Your home stands true to the science formed under gods that no longer exist.

The study of man is the science that understands the origins of god. These scientists understand that god and religion are human creations, designed to help order societies. They know that man has never known the truth and never shall, and that religions that preach this assumed truth will die out, for man is not a fool.

Religion is a blister on the record of man, using the assumed truth as a weapon to gain power and wealth. There will be a time when the gods of man will no longer exist and that the mortal individual can find comfort and communion with out the need for lies and deception.

Man must face a final test, the test of domestication. Should we fail we will die out, religion drives our domestication, with its weapons it traps us holding us back from adventure, knowledge and the will to survive.

Individuality, cultural diversity, are the hallmarks of mans greatest achievements, science is the non judge, the great finders of method, the giver of prosperity, the tool that reduces suffering, the books that bring clarity, the creator of beasts to attend man needs. Science is the bringer of unknowns and the destroyer of gods.

So next you pray give thanks to science, for without it we would be nothing but suffering barbarians, hungrily scratching the Earth for the bare minimum of lifes joy.

To place religion into the works of science is heresy to scientists, those that do will be forgotten, there delusions lost. Dont be fools, dont expose your self to heresy, except god for the fable it is and live within the love of humanity.

The religious leaders fear science because it exposes religion for what it really is. Religions come and go, some may linger but there beliefs and practices change with time. Science does not fail, over 2000 years ago science found answers that still holds true today. Your home stands true to the science formed under gods that no longer exist.

You do understand mate that these are assumptions. Any leader in any power should fear "religion" in it's "true" state. Then again, religion like science can be used for good or evil. Science as well has changed over time. Is this a bad thing? No, everything will mold to perfection.

The study of man is the science that understands the origins of god. These scientists understand that god and religion are human creations, designed to help order societies. They know that man has never known the truth and never shall, and that religions that preach this assumed truth will die out, for man is not a fool.

I agree with you that religion has been used to order societies (when taken out of context). Has anything else been used to order societies? Is religion the only to fall to this judgement? Could you also list some of these "scientists"? If we will never know the truth, then what is science trying to do? As for the fool part, there are many ignorant people who wish to remain ignorant. These are the people who would be your barbarians....

Religion is a blister on the record of man, using the assumed truth as a weapon to gain power and wealth. There will be a time when the gods of man will no longer exist and that the mortal individual can find comfort and communion with out the need for lies and deception..

If one will never know the truth, they will live with lies and deception. I don't mean to take apart what you say, but you already mentioned we will never know the truth....

Man must face a final test, the test of domestication. Should we fail we will die out, religion drives our domestication, with its weapons it traps us holding us back from adventure, knowledge and the will to survive.

Could you explain this more clearly. I think I understand what you mean but I'd like examples so I'm not misguiding my thoughts.


Individuality, cultural diversity, are the hallmarks of mans greatest achievements, science is the non judge, the great finders of method, the giver of prosperity, the tool that reduces suffering, the books that bring clarity, the creator of beasts to attend man needs. Science is the bringer of unknowns and the destroyer of gods.

Does Science destroy God? Or does it trace it's outline? Science is humans understanding of the world, it's our tool. Science itself is not the truth, but the tool humans used to acheive it. It's not the only tool though....

So next you pray give thanks to science, for without it we would be nothing but suffering barbarians, hungrily scratching the Earth for the bare minimum of lifes joy.

To place religion into the works of science is heresy to scientists, those that do will be forgotten, there delusions lost. Dont be fools, dont expose your self to heresy, except god for the fable it is and live within the love of humanity.

Science isn't the only thing that gets my thanks.

There are many scientists that have done heresy to the works of science (by your standards)....but you stand on their shoulders.


Yes, for the love of humanity... :)



Fred

Any leader in any power should fear "religion" in it's "true" state.
I was talking about religious leaders not leaders. A good leader will not use religious dogma to govern. State and church should never meet.
Then again, religion like science can be used for good or evil.
The products of science can be used for good or evil, but the process of scientific understanding is not good or evil.
Science as well has changed over time. Is this a bad thing? No, everything will mold to perfection.
That is the very nature of science, nothing is true and at the drop of a hat our understanding may change. Yet some things don't change. The circumference of a circle, pi, the length of the hypotenuse, force and leverage where all discovered over 2000 years ago and have not changed in the slightest.
I agree with you that religion has been used to order societies (when taken out of context). Has anything else been used to order societies?
We as humans do need order, and in the past when understanding was limited religion was a good tool. Now we are aware of the folly of assumed truth, that there is no one true religion. We are educated and demand a fair system for all irregardless of religion.
Is religion the only to fall to this judgement? Could you also list some of these "scientists"?
Yes and Anthropologists, archeologists, psychiatrists to name a few
If we will never know the truth, then what is science trying to do?
Ahh the basic presumption of religious types defending there faith in the light of science. Science does not set out to find truth, it is a tool to help us understand, it gives us methods not truth
As for the fool part, there are many ignorant people who wish to remain ignorant. These are the people who would be your barbarians....
Science does not ostracize the individual, sciences greatest achievement is to help all of man not just the believers.
Could you explain this more clearly. I think I understand what you mean but I'd like examples so I'm not misguiding my thoughts.

This may well be a pet of mine and will need its own thread. Later.
Does Science destroy God? Or does it trace it's outline?
Metaphors, there is no god, gods.
Science is humans understanding of the world, it's our tool. Science itself is not the truth, but the tool humans used to acheive it. It's not the only tool though....
Science is the only tool avalible for understanding. You're almost there.
There are many scientists that have done heresy to the works of science (by your standards)....but you stand on their shoulders.
They may call them selves a scientist but this does not make them one, side stepping the scientific method may give you fame and fortune but it is not scientific.
The shoulders I stand upon, that we all stand on, is solid and trust worthy for there is no deception, lies or magic parlor tricks. It is available to all to improve upon.. Science is not a religion

Science is the only tool avalible for understanding.
Wrong. Science is a methodology which explores only those questions to which the methodology can provide answers. True, the range of those questions has grown as the base of science broadens, but always there are other questions that have been addressed in other ways, by religion and philosophy.

Religions come and go, some may linger but there beliefs and practices change with time. Science does not fail, over 2000 years ago science found answers that still holds true today
But most of what 'science' found 2000 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 500 years ago would now be considered nonsense. Science fails repeatedly then picks itself up and begins again. Science has changed dramatically not just in its beliefs, but also in its methodology. One can make an argument that science as we would recognise it today was not in place till Newton's time.

There is a HUGE difference between saying, "I believe in miracles!" and "origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle".
The first is a religious point of view, the second, which I quoted from your quote, is a scientific one.
What Crick said amounts to, "We still don't know. It is a great mystery that science is trying to get to the bottom of."
I'll grant you that, I'm sure he didn't know then, ...
Please, at least be honest in your arguments, and do not claim that Crick said he believes in miracles.
but I wonder what Crick thinks now? seeing he should be on the other side of death & either know the answer or wish he did
Lee Strobel's book is pathetic aplologistic crap that does not stand up to even routine scrutiny.pathetic? so is Lee lying when he says that the drawings showing embryos by Ernst Haeckel were fudged to show similarities that were not there? via selective samples, samplying during diff developmental stages, using the same drawings to represent diff embryos, to make them appear more similar that they are in real life? all in an effort to show that all complex life is related.
read pp. 47 to 55 (in hardback edition).

The good, honest atheistic scientists do exactly what the good, honest theistic scientists do. They leave God out of it and study the physical, natural world. The things that CAN BE studied. The rest of it (anything that can NOT be physically observed directly or indirectly) belongs in the realm of Religion and Philosophy.
though I would tend to agree, there have been many new theories that go into the realm of or fringe of the supernatural; see Quantum mechanics, or string theory, for example. Why do you think some people are saying that this ideas fit nicely into Zen?

Hum,
Zen is not a religion.

Science must sometimes take into account the `human aspect` to deal with what it seeks or finds. We have a planet named Pluto, yet i don’t think that the discoverer believed in Greek gods...

Science fails repeatedly then picks itself up and begins again.
Obviously you dont understand what science is about. It is religion that fails and must reinvent its self
But most of what 'science' found 2000 years ago, or 1,000 years ago, or 500 years ago would now be considered nonsense.
Some of the "nonsense" you speak of...
600BC
Thales of Miletus arguing from the fact that wherever there is life, there is moisture, speculated that the basic stuff of nature is water. Uses geometry to solve problems such as calculating the height of pyramids and the distance of ships from the shore.
Theodorus of Samos credited with invention of ore smelting and casting, water level, lock and key, carpenter's square, and turning lathe.
530BC
Pythagoras proposes that sound is a vibration of air. Musical intervals on the arithmetical ratios of the lengths of string at the same tension, 2:1 giving an octave, 3:2 the fifth, and 4:3 the fourth.
500BC
Xenophanes examined fossils and speculated on the evolution of the earth.
480BC
Parmenides is said to have been the first to assert that the Earth is spherical in shape.
450BC
Anaxagoras of Athens taught that the moon shines with the light of the sun and so was able to explain the eclipses.
Hippias of Elis invents the quadratrix which may have been used by him for trisecting an angle and squaring the circle.
Theodorus of Cyrene shows that certain square roots are irrational.
420BC
Democritus of Abdera developed Leucippus's atomic theory: Atoms vibrate when hitched together in solid bodies and exist in a space which is infinite in extent and in which each star is a sun.
323BC
Pytheas, tides are caused by the moon.
300BC
Eukleides, better known as Euclid, describes the law of reflection.
250BC
Archimedes of Syracuse A body immersed in fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid and the calculation of the value of pi.
240BC
Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the diameter of the earth.
Diocles, in On Burning Mirrors , proved the focal property of a parabola and showed how the Sun's rays can be made to reflect a point by rotating a parabolic mirror
170BC
Parchment, superior to papyrus because it can be printed on both sides and folded, was invented in Pergamon.
45BC
Sosigenes of Alexandria designed a calendar of 365.25 days which was introduced by Julius Caesar.

The list can go on and on... Science is timeless.

Obviously you dont understand what science is about. It is religion that fails and must reinvent its self

You may be right. What was it in my post that made my ignorance of science so obvious? I believe one of the purposes of the forum is to foster understanding of science, so your comments on this could be helpful to me.

Hum,
Zen is not a religion...
Hmmm, beg to differ, see below:
http://www.kaikracht.de/zen/english/
http://www.mkzc.org/kubisze.html
http://hanshananigan.tripod.com/zenrel.html
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/zen.html

Whoa
People sure do get passionate when the god vs science argument raises it's ugly head. Perhaps each 'camp' should consider for a moment that the other is right. Why don't the scientists prove once and for all that there is no god and the fundamentalists prove there is. Hopefully there will be a very long period of silence during which the rest of us can work through things that might be really useful to a scientific debate. :bugeye:

wow I didn't expect my comments to work quite so effectively...

Let’s try a kick start:

This is to Blindman
In an earlier post I stated:
Science fails repeatedly then picks itself up and begins again
You replied:
Obviously you dont understand what science is about.
I invited you to explain
What was it in my post that made my ignorance of science so obvious?

While awaiting your response I have had time to contemplate and now find your earlier contention to be wrong. I do understand what science is about. It is a methodology for learning about the natural world.

In crude terms this methodology involves observation; formulation of hypotheses; testing of hypotheses; acceptance, rejection or modification of said hypotheses. The process continues, refining the detail. Periodically a previously overlooked detail, or unaddressed puzzle, causes an established hypothesis to be abandoned. That rejection of provisional hypotheses and abandonment of established ones is an integral part of the scientific method and of science. That is science failing repeatedly then picking itself up and beginning again.

You provide an impressive list of the accomplishments of early scientists. You fail to list the many ideas they held that we would now consider false, even nonsense. Here is an instance from your first example.
Thales of Miletus arguing from the fact that wherever there is life, there is moisture, speculated that the basic stuff of nature is water. Uses geometry to solve problems such as calculating the height of pyramids and the distance of ships from the shore.

Smart chap. The first of the Greeks to seek natural explanations rather than appealing to the gods. He got Greek science off to a very good start, but naturally he got most things wrong. He believed that:

The land floats on water. Wrong
Earthquakes are caused by roughness in the oceans on which the land floats. Wrong
He believed water to be the fundamental element and all other materials to be derived from it. Wrong
[By the way, since none of Thales writings have survived, the origin of his idea about water being the primeval source actually comes from speculation by Aristotle.]

Early scientists were wrong more often than they were right. Later scientists had to correct their errors. The process continues. In science there is no shame in being wrong. It is how science advances.

I do not object to accusations of ignorance. I am hugely ignorant and so present a large and attractive target. In future, however, I would appreciate it if those accusations were supported by evidence. That would be the scientific approach.

You can never find God through science. People who try usually become atheists. God requires that we first have faith then he will reveal himself bit by bit in his own time. God created the heavens and the Earth in a manner that would not prove his existence. His plan requires that we live by faith and not just have it all given to us without it. This runs counter to the scientific method were proof is required first. This causes many scientists to dismiss God in a very unscientific manner. In science just because something cannot be proven is not evidence in itself that something does not exist. It is a major leap of logic to say that if evolution is true, therefore there is no God, or if the big bang is true there can be no God. God and science are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed completely. I am a devout agnostic, which is to say I take my ignorance and uncertainty very seriously. God is not in the remit of science. [Though to adapt your comment: It is a major leap of logic to say that if God exists, therefore there is no evolution.]

This argument science vs. religion is almost pointless people on either side are not going to change their opinions. But eventually Time will set us free. Science will unveal the mysteries of the universe and gradually religion will fade into the sun. And will only be remembered in our history books. What will happen when we have definate proof of the big bang what will happen when we find that millions of alien civilizations exist. Religion will fail when breakthrough scientific discovoveries are made. We can argue this for the rest of our lives, we can cotemplate but when your are on your death bed dying alone wondering if everything you belived in so passionatley was wrong and then u fade into the darkness and all you thoughts and memories are lost because those electrical impulses are gone you brain dereriorates and what u believed in was just a wast of time.

To randolfo who questions my intentions for starting this thread.
I am perfectly content with the current reason for bieng but when i look at society and see a bunch of diluted minds wondering about like sheep beliveing in fairytales it makes me sick and i feel i need to raise these questions in the minds of others hopefully making them realizing the truth yet some people cannot be saved for example you. But guess what; time is of the essence and your ideas will not be as strong in your children and We will prevail in the end. Keep on denying and refuting if it really makes you feel better.
Hence: THE HERETIC

TheHeretic

If what you say is true and when we die and our consiousness vanishes forever, then we will never know if our religious beliefs were wrong. The same for the unbeliever. You would likewise never be able to say you were right. We would all be in the same boat. If on the other hand you are wrong then we all must stand and be judged by God. You as the unbeliever will be at a great disadvantage.

As for time eventually disproving God. That will not happen. Science cannot prove or desprove the existence of God. Just like I said in my earlier post.

If on the other hand you are wrong then we all must stand and be judged by God. You as the unbeliever will be at a great disadvantage.

That assumes that God happens to be judgemental, and that he favours blind obedience over questioning objectivity.

currently there is no known way to prove string theory, or so I've read. It could be a hoax, or the truth, but we won't figure that out for a while. Some may argue that we'll never figure it out. Logic suggests that that is false: many things that man at one point said will never happen have happened. So there's no reason we can't prove or disprove string theory SOMEDAY.

This same logic can be applied toward God. Being as advanced as we, we're probably way too insignificant to have the capability to prove or disprove the existence of god: religion is still philosophy in that respect. But to try to tell everyone that god has no place in science is blattant opinion with no proof, and damn ignorant. We can eventually prove God's existence, but today's not that day.

Come to think of it, maybe he intended it like this, that we ponder his existence without any hard proof. Maybe raw belief makes us better as opposed to raw understanding. This is his stage, and he's messing with us... lol

Come to think of it, maybe he intended it like this, that we ponder his existence without any hard proof. Maybe raw belief makes us better as opposed to raw understanding. This is his stage, and he's messing with us... lol


Oh man, don't bring faith into this ;).

On another note:

To question the world doesn't put one on the other side of the fence. These sheep that are spoken of, are no worse than "you". To be overwhelmed with skepticism and unable to answer your own questions makes one better?

In other threads we have discussed choices and alternate universes. Steven Hawking and Michio Kaku have both theorized that there could be an infinite number of alternate universes. If this was true how would this relate to the choices we make? Whenever we have multiple possibilities before us we must make a choice. Could it be that every choice we can conceivably make is represented in it's own alternate universe? Imagine you are on a train track and you are the engine. All choices are like a track switch. All conceivable choices are a separate track. You make a choice and you are shunted to that corresponding track. All the other tracks still exist in it's own alternate universe but your conscious self can only occupy one track a time. However, a version of you actually chose every track.

What this could mean is that there is an alternate universe where everyone is in heaven and one where everyone is in Hell. The choices you make determine which alternative universe you end up in. There could even be an alternate universe for atheists where you really do stop existing after death. Sounds like a bad one to be in. LOL.

but acually we dont make our own choices we make choices according to our past. Everything that we do is a result of past and our genetic make-up everyone genetic make up is different and everyones past is different making everyones expierences in life so different you may think ur in control but ur not.

god is the result of explaining observations; why are we here? god put us here. Science is recording ovbservations; putting pieces of a puzzle together. In science we have our theories to predict what will someday be proven or disproven. Religion is law people accept and cant prove or disprove it. That is why religion is so popular u are taught at a young age the ur religion is right and nothing else is. Then later you question it but there is nothing to definatly disprove it so u go on believing. With science things can be proven and disproven giving it a disadvantage. If scienced failed someone they may go one believing in something else. Religion cant fail it is a way of control religion is the shepard and we are the sheep when that shepard is weakend a whole new realm will be opened more peoples minds will be freed being able to think for themselves gaining insight from a bowl of mac and cheese. you may think this is nonsense but someday u may realize what i am talking about.

Sorry Brutus but I think they are. By all means discuss the existance of god through theological or philosophical means (as that is where you might expect to find 'proof' of her existence). Science is not about finding proof of the existance of god nor should it be. Hence my participation in this thread although i think most people are responding to the question 'people shouldn't use science to explain God?' not 'people shouldn't use a god to explain science. Science = the sytematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe based on observation. By your own admission god cannot be observed therefore she has no role to play in a scientific debate.

mutually exclusive, that is!

God has to be observable on some level or he/she wouldnt exist. If it be an auditory observation, a visual one, or a sensory. If he/she exists there is some way to transfer energy to and from he/she. God has a role in scientific study BUT NOT in scientific fact, at least of yet. Which inturn says God cannot be used to explain anything cause he/she is not explainable themselves, at least at our current time and presence. God should be considered a scientific masterpiece. He/She is ultimatly perfect, at least how he/she are portrayed as perfect. How is perfection of energy, life and everything inbetween unscientific? It's not, infact its mroe scientific then most give it credit for. The single entity is claiming to be able to at the very least instantly transfer energy from anything into say a entity, a creature, a plant, etc.. Even though my belief in god is in the lack there of stage, im still heavily curious if he/she does actually exist, i want answers!

I feel god(s) should not be used to explain science in the science forums. When I wanted to know why it rains i definatily dont what to here some mythical explaination about god crying (just a simple example). There is no science involved with religion. Theres no scientific proof for god. So please keep the god theorys for the religion section.
hello theheretic ,
iam kisna a newcomer here,iread ur post,
i appreciate ur idea,but there is something i need to tell u,
in india u know it is full of temples,the place of spirituality,can u believe that there is a science involved in building the temples,
the statues ,the tower outside the temple every thing have a religion as well as science orientation ,

i guess u also knew abt stone hedge,it is a mysterious construction built many years ago,stands as an example for religion as well as science

I think people make a mistake by looking at God in a "supernatural" Manner. I believe that God in fact works in very natural ways. Just because he is more infinitely advanced than we does not make what he does supernatural. You could say that God is the ultimate cause. He is the source that causes all of our natural process to work. We have laws of physics because God causes them to happen. We can observe an atom and explain its properties but we haven't a clue what causes those properties in the first place. Nature is so familiar to us that we do not stop and think just how much a miracle it all is. :)

Science is based on observations. Observations alone only show the effects not the cause of any particular event or phenomenon. Science does a good job finding how things work but has a problem with figuring out why things work. What is the underlining cause? What causes laws of physics? What caused the Big Bang? What caused anything to happen in the first place? Science always hits a dead end when they try to find the ultimate or first cause.

One of the most outspoken atheists for years Dr. Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature".

I agree with him. It is a fundamental law of nature that there must be a cause in order for there to be an effect. If there was nothing before the big bang or whatever caused the universe to come into being, then there could have never been anything to begin with. Something cannot come out of nothing. It must have taken an intelligent architect to get it all started.

To deny this is to make assumptions that are not based on science. Since you cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist then it in intellectually dishonest to proclaim His not existence based on unproven methods. Atheists do not believe in God. But you cannot base science on a belief or unbelief. Truth is not based on a belief it is simply the truth. The truth exists if anyone believes in it or not. A tenet of science is to not dismiss anything until it can be conclusively proven otherwise. It is a direct violation of this tenet to summarily deny God without having proof to back it up. In other words, until Science can conclusively prove there is no God then it cannot with any authority come to that conclusion.

Science always hits a dead end when they try to find the ultimate or first cause.

Explanations of gods always hit a dead end when they are used to explain anything.

Something cannot come out of nothing.

Virtual particles.

Oh yes, and your explanation to that will be in the form of gods?

In other words, until Science can conclusively prove there is no God then it cannot with any authority come to that conclusion.

And until theists can come up with any evidence at all as to the existence of gods, that concept will be shelved in favor of more interesting subjects... like science, for example. :D

I don't believe in god and I highly agree with theheretic.

If ppl start using god as a explanation it would blind us from seeing the facts. If we are happy with the answer "God decided it to be so" then we can't find the truth.

Religions is making us blind.

science is for opening the mind
religion is for opening the heart.

Originally posted by Brutus1964
Is time itself fractal? Is each instant in time its own interation? Does every instant that ever was still exist just behind one another? If in fact time is fractal it would mean that all time exists simultaneously, past present and future as one eternal now. The only thing that differentiates one time from another is point of reference. What is our point of reference? Well, to me it is me, to you it is you. We all have our own individual points of reference. Time fractals could explain all sorts of phenomenon such as alternate universes and dark matter. In fact there really are not alternative universes at all. It is all the same universe there are just points of reference. The reason we cannot travel back and forth through time is because we cannot become a different point of reference. If that were possible we could traverse any time or step into anyone else's conciousness.

There really is no such thing as past, present, and future. There is just an eternal now. So everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is happening now all at the same instant. Also what happens in any time period effects every other time period, so when ever something happens in one it affects all the others. That is what is so powerful about free will because we can consciously change our present thus affecting everything from that point on..


How does this post pertain to the existence of God? If all time exists simultaneously and is only differentiated by a point of reference then there must be a supreme intelligence that can provide a point of reference for all time periods past, present and future simultaneously. This can only be achieved by a super-intelligence that has access to all time interations. This can only be provided by God.

Could the speed of light and time be relative to scale? For instants, relative to us an atom moves very quickly because it exists in such a smaller scale than we do. On the other hand a galaxy looks like it is a snapshot in space. It hardly moves at all relative to us. If we were at the same scale as a galaxy then we would see the galaxy move very quickly. We would look out to super clusters and they would appear to move slowly, but how fast would they move if we were the same scale as the super clusters?

Scientist's are basing the age of the universe on our scale. How long is 15 billion years to something the size of a galaxy, or a super cluster, or even to the universe itself? If you were the size of the galaxy you would see how fast it is actually spinning. 15 billion years to us would seem like a very short time to you. By the time you could bat an eye millions of generations of people would have come and gone. To us you would not appear to be moving at all.

For example, you look at your watch. It is 12:00 noon. You instantly grow the size of the galaxy and you notice the galaxy is rotating quite briskly. You then wait till your watch turns to 1:00 pm. Only one hour has past for both you and the galaxy. However, when you shrink back down to normal size you find that millions or even billions of years have passed on earth.

The volume of the Sun is 1,299,400 times bigger than the volume of the Earth; about 1,300,000 Earth’s could fit inside the Sun. This would mean that one day for the sun would be like 297 years for the Earth. So to the Sun the Earth is really whipping by fast. This could also explain why it takes a sun so long to fizzle out. That is just the Earth relative to the Sun. How much bigger is the Earth relative to us? Are there any mathematicians out there that can figure this out? My guess is that 1 day for the Earth is like billions of years for us. Just a side note but it kind of puts a new spin on the Bible account that it took six days for God to create the heaven’s and the Earth. How is that for an attempt to prove God using science?