Why can't science and God co-exist?
I see a lot of people say that science and God can't co-exist.
Why not?
- Login to post comments
Rev_Devilin wrote:Hi e303
What god are you referring to ? specifically
Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?
I am talking about a creator of all things and I grew up Christian.
Are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ? ie Christianish god which you can described better than the Bible ?
Or the Christian deity himself as described in the Bible. and if so which one? Catholic Protestant Seventh-day Adventists Jehovah's Witness, Normans ect ect ect ect
Could you be more specific ? pls
I accept the biblical values though I understand the bible was written by men. To me the intention of the scripture is to transfer some of those values and ways of thinking along with some historical accounting of life and lives of the past but certainly not all lives and life on earth.
Free will allows me to place spiritual value along with historical value of a document.
I think evloution did happen and I think not ALL animals were on a boat with noah etc. ect.
If you wish I can say the sky is blue and you can refute that postion and say it only appears to be. I will say fine and you are right.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
- Login to post comments
Not the only one. You forget about Odin, Rah and the 397236 gods of the Aztecs. This in no way means that the asserted being (if it existed) is the christian god. Or rather it's pretty unlikely.
The whole argument is based on the presupposition that
a) god exists AND
b) that he is the ONLY independent being that exists (good luck providing an argument for this, which isn't circular ie. quoting the bible).
And anyway, there are scientific hypotheses about how the universe came to be, which do not violate the laws of nature (eg. quantum fluctuation). It is not necessary that there must be a deity which created it.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
I noticed that no one responded to this post on page 1 (which somewhat surprised me):
No, it is not established. Dark matter and dark energy interact with our physical reality and are therefore subject to science. We can observe the gravitational effect dark matter has and thus are able detect it and research it. Also dark matter and dark energy couldn't have existed "before" (whatever that means) the big bang. So it's unlikely that the "creator" is made up of that stuff.
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant
LMBAO. Well said Kemono very dry, very true.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
It is very difficult to reconcile dark matter and energy with the known laws of nature. So far the only thing that seems to interact with dark matter is gravity but even then not in a normal way. There is indeed much speculation about the properties but it seems certain it is not at all normal or held to normal laws.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Why the break down of normal communication? Agression without need = fear.
BTW I had to look up those meds you said I should take. Keep them and let me put my points to you in another way.
Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Hi e303
What god are you referring to ? specifically
Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
God is an answer to a question born of ignorance and superstition
? where does the wind come from. God made it
Science is an answer to a question born of rational examination
? where does the wind come from. it is mostly a difference in temperature between the land and the sea
If you answer the question with God then you don't need science
if you answer the question with science then you don't need God
God is an answer. that expects you not to question the answer
Science is an answer. that expects you to doubt and question the answer
The two are incompatible
What point is there if you are going to ask and then answer yourself with "God made it as if everyone who thinks there is a god would answer that way?
Science and the persuit of a positive ID of a creator are hand in hand and should be.
So so far neither side can prove a thing but arguments are stacking.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
e303, Let's try something new.
I am God. I am your God. Prove that I am not.
ok I will play.
I will even be brave and not hide in the cracks of saying I can't prove a false.
Here we go. Doubt cannot be feigned or created for the purpose of conducting philosophical inquiry. Doubt, like belief, requires justification. It arises from confrontation with some specific recalcitrant matter of fact which unsettles our belief in some specific proposition. Inquiry is then the rationally self-controlled process of attempting to return to a settled state of belief about the matter.
Here is a mathematical theorem: There is no largest prime number. And here is a proof:
Here is a scientific belief: General relativity accurately describes gravity within the solar system. And here is the argument for it:
You see the difference, I hope. The mathematical proof is airtight; it’s just a matter of following the rules of logic. It is impossible for us to conceive of a world in which we grant the underlying assumptions, and yet the conclusion doesn’t hold.
The argument in favor of believing general relativity — a scientific one, not a mathematical one — is of an utterly different character. It’s all about hypothesis testing, and accumulating better and better pieces of evidence.
Hypothesis (A ) A god path
Hypothosis (B) A non-god path
Descartes discovered that some truths have a nature or essence of themselves, completely independent of one's thoughts or opinions.
lol Some ideas about killing you and seeing if you cameback did roll though my head. Now that I think about it, beliefs that lead to the best "payoff", that are the best justification of our actions, that promote success, are truths, according to the pragmatists. So I would die trying to kill you and gage your reaction to my actions.
The criticism that we don't now know what happens in the long run (can I kill you or no & did you react and how) merely shows we have a problem with knowledge, but it doesn't show that the meaning of "true" doesn't now involve hindsight from the perspective of the future and thus lend evidence of what is true.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Well e303 This is your default answer isn't it ? God did it
Especially in your misuse and out of date use of quantum physics / quantum mechanics. God did it
Some of the theories you have used to express doubt and uncertainty. have been resolved. undoubtedly the God did it has fully resolved the doubt and uncertainty and these questions no longer occupy your mind because of the answer "God did it"
Although this is hardly a unique approach. history is resplendent with it
fortunately for you and me there have been people that didn't except the God did it answer. or else we'd still be throwing stones at our own shadows and dying of old age at twenty three
Did you miss this question ?
What god are you referring to ? specifically
Or are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ?
I am talking about a creator of all things and I grew up Christian.
Maybe God just started it. Fisrt cause >>> effect >> effect >> effect ... ect.
From a magical nothing leaped everything from it is just as fun as a counter to me don't you think?
So god did it vs magical nothing did it. Simply choose and move forward to support it.
BTW - You did know the examples I gave were simply to demo the two versions of understanding and not be the best and most comprehensive insight to those examples. The lesson of the diffferences that both seem to have truth and yet.... was the point.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Oh silly human. You must simply not understand my ways, for you to exhibit such disbelief. Some things are outside the reasoning of your natural world you know, and since you don't have full knowledge of everything you cannot rule out the possibility I'm your God. Killing me would prove nothing, since you're simply tempting my will and I may not even care to come back. People all over your world claim to have a personal experience with God, and I tell you they've all had this personal experience because I control the entire cosmos and really have great interest in your moment to moment thoughts.
Btw, the eternal torment I created is way worse than anything ever envisioned by the whole of religion on earth. So, you know, I'm not sure you want to play those odds. Believe that I'm God, or you'll never know anything but suffering.
P.S. I love everything.
Pretty entertaining.
Intuitively the idea of a proof is it's just a verification of something. In experimental science, you verify truth by performing an experiment. Until that then everyone has to make a choice of belief. err.. which is what I have always said.
Still claiming you are God does make your statement falsifiable
"God does exist" is unfalsifiable, while saying "I am god." is falsifiable.
Though I am only able to experiment with your head with the transfer of ideas. This does not preclude the knowledge required to prove your statement false or true cannot be found.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Are you talking about a God of your own personal creation ? ie Christianish god which you can described better than the Bible ?
Or the Christian deity himself as described in the Bible. and if so which one? Catholic Protestant Seventh-day Adventists Jehovah's Witness, Normans ect ect ect ect
Could you be more specific ? pls