Anyone else believe in Science AND God?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No No.. Intelligent design.. Intelligent design can not be proven and people try to act like it can..

ayanami_rei

Because it can't be proven.. The main idea upon intelligent design is that life is too perfect. That is the main point, this is a extremely flawed idea on multiple fronts.. Yet again I am not argueing on the idea of god just the premises that was reached to meet the conclusion.. For one perfection is completely subjective because we have no idea what perfection is.

If perfection were true then mankind as a spieces would be perfect.. We are most certainly are not, for one we are prone to diease, malformities as well as numerous other things.. Heart attacks shows how inefficent our heart can be due to the fact that it has a limited amount of blood vessels/arteries compared to other animals out there. This alone could not show that god made it of course because the being could have ment to put such flaws in our selves.. But if this is true it completely throws out the entire premise of life being too perfect to begin with.

Because it can't be proven.. The main idea upon intelligent design is that life is too perfect. That is the main point, this is a extremely flawed idea on multiple fronts.. Yet again I am not argueing on the idea of god just the premises that was reached to meet the conclusion.. For one perfection is completely subjective because we have no idea what perfection is.

If perfection were true then mankind as a spieces would be perfect.. We are most certainly are not, for one we are prone to diease, malformities as well as numerous other things.. Heart attacks shows how inefficent our heart can be due to the fact that it has a limited amount of blood vessels/arteries compared to other animals out there. This alone could not show that god made it of course because the being could have ment to put such flaws in our selves.. But if this is true it completely throws out the entire premise of life being too perfect to begin with.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="ayanami_rei"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No No.. Intelligent design.. Intelligent design can not be proven and people try to act like it can..

sSubZerOo

Because it can't be proven.. The main idea upon intelligent design is that life is too perfect. That is the main point, this is a extremely flawed idea on multiple fronts.. Yet again I am not argueing on the idea of god just the premises that was reached to meet the conclusion.. For one perfection is completely subjective because we have no idea what perfection is.

If perfection were true then mankind as a spieces would be perfect.. We are most certainly are not, for one we are prone to diease, malformities as well as numerous other things.. Heart attacks shows how inefficent our heart can be due to the fact that it has a limited amount of blood vessels/arteries compared to other animals out there. This alone could not show that god made it of course because the being could have ment to put such flaws in our selves.. But if this is true it completely throws out the entire premise of life being too perfect to begin with.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"]Because, if you're going to try and shove god into science, you need empirical evidence. God can stay in his own realm with faith, but it doesn't belong in science as long as it cant be tested or observed. Sorry.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]No No.. Intelligent design.. Intelligent design can not be proven and people try to act like it can.. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="ayanami_rei"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No No.. Intelligent design.. Intelligent design can not be proven and people try to act like it can..

ayanami_rei

Because it can't be proven.. The main idea upon intelligent design is that life is too perfect. That is the main point, this is a extremely flawed idea on multiple fronts.. Yet again I am not argueing on the idea of god just the premises that was reached to meet the conclusion.. For one perfection is completely subjective because we have no idea what perfection is.

If perfection were true then mankind as a spieces would be perfect.. We are most certainly are not, for one we are prone to diease, malformities as well as numerous other things.. Heart attacks shows how inefficent our heart can be due to the fact that it has a limited amount of blood vessels/arteries compared to other animals out there. This alone could not show that god made it of course because the being could have ment to put such flaws in our selves.. But if this is true it completely throws out the entire premise of life being too perfect to begin with.

I never stated thatyou did, I stated one of the main ideas of supporting INtelligent design.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Because it can't be proven.. The main idea upon intelligent design is that life is too perfect. That is the main point, this is a extremely flawed idea on multiple fronts.. Yet again I am not argueing on the idea of god just the premises that was reached to meet the conclusion.. For one perfection is completely subjective because we have no idea what perfection is.

If perfection were true then mankind as a spieces would be perfect.. We are most certainly are not, for one we are prone to diease, malformities as well as numerous other things.. Heart attacks shows how inefficent our heart can be due to the fact that it has a limited amount of blood vessels/arteries compared to other animals out there. This alone could not show that god made it of course because the being could have ment to put such flaws in our selves.. But if this is true it completely throws out the entire premise of life being too perfect to begin with.

foxhound_fox

we are not a fundamentally perfect spieces.. Yes we do have free thought and concious experience.. But we are also driven by emotions and instinct.. No I never said god did not create man, I merely said the premises of intelligent design is false.. That god controled evolution to our current form.. To make such a broad stroking claim one must need evidence.. Not neccesarly of god, but that evolution does indeed have evidence.. Most supporters seem to claim that life is too perfect, when tehre are numerous upon numerous pieces of evidence to show it is not. The mere fact that we only use a small % of our brain functions shows that we are not perfect what so ever.. And that our rationale is controled by instincts, desires, and emotions constantly.

I never argued anything metaphyiscal only that the "evidence" that supporters claim Intelligent design has isn't really evidence what so ever.

A lot of people do silly things... like trying to prove a metaphysical existence through empirical analysis... but that doesn't mean science and religion cannot co-exist. When somebody believes in God, they are not believing in a scientific fact. They are believing in something beyond scientific explanation... something that does not NEED to be proven or disproven by science.
foxhound_fox

This is obvious since religion doesn't require proven primases, thus religion provides a very solid and very valid argument. However the apeal of science is in addition to a valid argument it thouraly tests and retests its primases to ensure a completely sound argument.

what it comes down to isn't "can a sound and unsound argument both be valid deductions' because they can, what it comes down to is do you prefer a sound or unsound argument.

I never stated thatyou did, I stated one of the main ideas of supporting INtelligent design.

sSubZerOo

That's really poetic and all, but it depends entirely on the person. To me, god does nothing. Therefore, they DO NOT compliment each other. And I unfortunately have to restate this; if god is trying to get into science (or people shoving god into science) then YES science would need to find empirical evidence for god, otherwise it's NOT science. DeeJayInphinity

*Sigh* All of those theories have evidence backing them up, that's what makes science "science." If there is no evidence to back up a god, and god cannot be tested or observed, then he is not science. And once again, it depends entirely on the person. Some people need evidence before they can commit to something. Why do they have to make an exception for the metaphysical? If it doesn't "tickle their pickle," then it doesn't have to. If they need it to be proven by science, then so what? What is the big deal? Sure they're subjecting something that should be beyond science to the scientific method but if you are going to commit to something, shouldn't there be a good reason to? Empirical evidence (for some) is definitely a good reason to commit to something.DeeJayInphinity

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]A lot of people do silly things... like trying to prove a metaphysical existence through empirical analysis... but that doesn't mean science and religion cannot co-exist. When somebody believes in God, they are not believing in a scientific fact. They are believing in something beyond scientific explanation... something that does not NEED to be proven or disproven by science.
DrummerJon

This is obvious since religion doesn't require proven primases, thus religion provides a very solid and very valid argument. However the apeal of science is in addition to a valid argument it thouraly tests and retests its primases to ensure a completely sound argument.

what it comes down to isn't "can a sound and unsound argument both be valid deductions' because they can, what it comes down to is do you prefer a sound or unsound argument.

See, that's the thing that really annoys me.

When I hear people say..."man, that scientific theory is dumb and unsound".

And then, rather than just admitting ignorance, they somehow feel the need to replace it with religion.

It's not that they prefer religion over science. It's that their problem with science is that it's unsound, so they go to religion as an alternative.

It's sort of like if I got a painful cut on my ****, and then decided to solve the problem by cutting my **** off.

So if God does nothing for you, why are you attempting to use science to disprove its existence?foxhound_fox

See, that's the thing that really annoys me.

When I hear people say..."man, that scientific theory is dumb and unsound".

And then, rather than just admitting ignorance, they somehow feel the need to replace it with religion.

It's not that they prefer religion over science. It's that their problem with science is that it's unsound, so they go to religion as an alternative.

It's sort of like if I got a painful cut on my ****, and then decided to solve the problem by cutting my **** off.

MrGeezer

Like I said, some people need evidence, and that means that the metaphysical is automatically out. It doesn't matter if it is supernatural and cannot have evidence, that is not the point. There you go, this discussion has finally reached a conclusion.DeeJayInphinity

Is it "automatically out?" There is such things as metaphysical evidence. An experience of the supernatural. For some people this is evidence enough to gain faith in a God or non-empirical claim.foxhound_fox

I believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, and I doubt the existence of a god. But that doesn't mean that my views on faith, the soul, and the prospect of an afterlife are negative. There are still too many things that cannot be explained by either science or religion. For example, how did life come to be? Explain the origin of the organism from which all life eventually evolved. Also, where did the materials for an explosion big enough to create the universe come from? What exactly spurred the explosion? The laws of physics state that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So then how does it exist?SmashBrosLegend

All of your questions already has an answer:

how did life come to be?
When Earth evolved to be the Earth we know today. Each body in the universe has its own unique characeristics. The Earth's unique characteristics & factors like atmosphere, water, & etc. help deveolped such unique and complex characteristics of Earth; Life. All these unique factotrs of Earth plus the elements of the universe created after the Big Bang made life on Earth and most likely in other parts of the universe as well.

Explain the origin of the organism from which all life eventually evolved?
All life forms did not originate from one organism insead the elements we know today that was created after the Big Bang created complex evolution for a very very long time which then turned into different life organisms which have evolve to all the life we know today in our planet.

where did the materials for an explosion big enough to create the universe come from? What exactly spurred the explosion?Before the Big Bang, the Universe was as small as an atom. This remarkably small universe is so unimaginably dense & hot. Therefore Big Bang isnt Science's explaination of how everything started but how everything evolved so fast to beome the Universe right now.

What exactly spurred the explosion?
The very small universe before the Big Bang consisted mainly of Neutrons, Electrons, & Gravity. It was believed to be that gravity have loosen up and broke away from this elements which in turn created the big bang out of such a small but ultra dense and ultra hot energy.

The laws of physics state that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. So then how does it exist?
The Bing Bang emited vast amount of energy upon its swift expansion. For billions of years after the Big Bang when the Universe's temperature cooled off enough for the Neutrons. Protons, & etc to be stable, energy turned into mass. According to Einstein, if mass can create an energy then energy in contrast can create mass.

So in my opinion I think the ultimate question that Science have yet to discover is: Where did the very small Universe before the Big Bang came from?

For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Zagrius

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.MattUD1

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

I believe in god and certain science.Proobie44

You omit the science that conflicts with your beliefs? That's called cherry-picking my friend.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Zagrius

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

I'm an agnostic so its like, science yes, GOD there could be something

watch Donni Darko

God and science? Raises hand. yes i do.

in fact, most catholics do. This is according to the teaching of the catholic church. :) just to inform you, the infamous big bang was formulated by a catholic priest. :)

They are not mutually exclusive...

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.MattUD1

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

Don't know if I know one personally. It's not like I ask acquaintances if they believe in God.

God and science? Raises hand. yes i do.

in fact, most catholics do. This is according to the teaching of the catholic church. :) just to inform you, the infamous big bang was formulated by a catholic priest. :)

rowzzr

True, the man was a priest & scientist, how ironic. Though he wasnt the only person that formulated the Big Bang.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Zagrius

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Dracargen

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

According to my logic (which would make it twisted from your point of view), they can't.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Zagrius

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

According to my logic (which would make it twisted from your point of view), they can't.

Eh, logic is subjective anyway. Logic is coming to a conclusion based on previous experience: Theoretically, you could logically come to the conclusion that the moon is made of cheese.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Dracargen

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Please, indulge my fantasies. I've been waiting for scientific proof of God.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.mikeg0788

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Please, indulge my fantasies. I've been waiting for scientific proof of God.

Scientific method =/= scientific proof, and I explicitly said an individual person. If you are already under the mindset that there is no proof of God, you will never believe anything I say anyway.

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Dracargen

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Please, indulge my fantasies. I've been waiting for scientific proof of God.

Scientific method =/= scientific proof, and I explicitly said an individual person. If you are already under the mindset that there is no proof of God, you will never believe anything I say anyway.

Because I've heard, and experienced, it all before. "Just look at the trees, that has to be God!"=/=scientific method

Eh, logic is subjective anyway. Logic is coming to a conclusion based on previous experience: Theoretically, you could logically come to the conclusion that the moon is made of cheese.

Dracargen

If the universe is a chain of cause and effect, and a true infinity cannot exist, there must have been a first cause. again, no experience necessary.

Nope...I don't think religion should have a place in this modern world. I do, however, acknowledge its influence.jointed

I wouldn't go THAT far. While I disagree with many of its principles, it does offer a good moral compass for some. For instance, my parents were on the verge of divorce, but their strong connection to our church kept them from going through with it.

Because I've heard, and experienced, it all before. "Just look at the trees, that has to be God!"=/=scientific method

mikeg0788

"There is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist!"=Just as bad.

I've never hear dthat argument anyway. . .

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

Because I've heard, and experienced, it all before. "Just look at the trees, that has to be God!"=/=scientific method

Dracargen

"There is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist!"=Just as bad.

I've never hear dthat argument anyway. . .

The problem is, I haven't yet supported any side yet.

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Dracargen

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Please, indulge my fantasies. I've been waiting for scientific proof of God.

Scientific method =/= scientific proof, and I explicitly said an individual person. If you are already under the mindset that there is no proof of God, you will never believe anything I say anyway.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]For me personally it seems that 'God did it' is just another way to say 'I don't know'. As for God and science co-existing, I don't see how that works, but what do I know.Dracargen

But that idea is un-scientific. I don't see how you can agree with the scientific method, then make up stuff that contradict the way it works.

It is possible for an individual person to use the sceintific method to come to the conclusion that God exists.

According to my logic (which would make it twisted from your point of view), they can't.

Eh, logic is subjective anyway. Logic is coming to a conclusion based on previous experience: Theoretically, you could logically come to the conclusion that the moon is made of cheese.

So what previous experience could get you to conclude that the moon is made out of cheese? And how can you "find God" through the proper scientific method?

So what previous experience could get you to conclude that the moon is made out of cheese? And how can you "find God" through the proper scientific method?

Zagrius

You look at the moon. It looks like cheese. Therefore, it is cheese.

Faulty reasoning, I know, but an example nonetheless. If you have no knowledge of how the moon is made, or of how it has to be made, then it is possible to conclude it is made of cheese.

What exactly is the "proper" scientific method?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

Because I've heard, and experienced, it all before. "Just look at the trees, that has to be God!"=/=scientific method

mikeg0788

"There is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist!"=Just as bad.

I've never hear dthat argument anyway. . .

The problem is, I haven't yet supported any side yet.

Niether have I.;)

since the Bible is constatly proving science then yes.