General Question

Myndecho's avatar

If science proves how God isn't necessary for any event in the universe, how will religious people take it?

Asked by Myndecho (945 points ) March 29th, 2009

Including the creation of the universe.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

114 Answers

aviona's avatar

They’ll be like “Nuh uh, look it says so here, in the Biiible.”

or

Mass suicide.

DrBill's avatar

Because something is not necessary, does not mean it does not exist, or did not participate.

essieness's avatar

Exactly what @aviona said.

fireside's avatar

The Baha’i faith believes in a harmony of Science and Religion, so I guess it depends on what you mean by “religious people”.
——-
“If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.”
`Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

seVen's avatar

It won’t happen because science doesn’t have spiritual eyes/sense of higher dimensions as gifted faithful have, well maybe just those scientists of faith.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

Probably the same way uber-scientists will when they realize there’s a God. “Oops, my bad.. guess I was wrong”.

Tangent_J's avatar

if it is strong, it won’t be shaken..if faith falters, then the individual was probably questioning their faith to begin with

essieness's avatar

@Tangent_J I think @Myndecho meant if/when science proves it. As in, they win. In that case, faith would be irrelevant.

Lupin's avatar

They’ll say it’s a test. Like finding a fossil.
Just walk away and don’t argue. or click the “stop following ” button

Tangent_J's avatar

@essieness but if your faith is strong, the faithful won’t concede victory…that is how faith works…you don’t need proof

essieness's avatar

@Tangent_J I get it. They would have faith… in something that has been blatantly disproven. That’s not far fetched now that I think of it.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@Tangent_J People of faith aren’t retarded. If science were to undeniably prove something like this .. I’d certainly accept it. The thing is, it will never happen.. so the whole question is moot.

cwilbur's avatar

If there’s proof, I think a lot of people are going to be doing a lot of re-evaluating.

The best I expect science to be able to do, as far as proving that God isn’t necessary, is to say that there’s no evidence of His existence. Scientists tend to understand the notion of proof quite well, and the only way they can prove that something does not exist is to demonstrate that it is impossible for that thing to exist.

JamesL's avatar

Ignore it as they do with most everything that runs contrary to their holy beliefs.

bea2345's avatar

Proving that God “isn’t necessary for any event” does not disprove His existence. Perhaps the universe is a sort of perpetual motion machine (consider the meaning of perpetual) and it is much, much more strange than we can ever imagine.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@essieness I’ll be the first one you can taunt if it ever happens. I won’t hold my breath. xD

bea2345's avatar

The question was, how should religious people take it? I agree with Tangent J. True faith is not easily displaced.

Tangent_J's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater – i didn’t say anyone was retarded, I was addressing what faith is…belief without proof…we have proved that dinosaurs existed and that man didn’t walk the earth at the same time, yet people still believe that everything was created in seven days…

Introverted_Leo's avatar

The only way science can prove that God isn’t necessary for, say, the creation of the universe is to re-create its own universe itself…from nothing.

Buena suerte, science.

Introverted_Leo's avatar

Of course they are!

crisw's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater

See, that’s the difference between science and faith.

If you could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a god existed, science would accept it and go on. That’s how science works.

On the other hand, people of faith are already believing in something for which they have absolutely no scientific evidence…on faith. Actual data and logic won’t change their minds.

Look at creationists. They haven’t s factual leg to stand on regarding evolution…yet they still blather on.

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@crisw You and others are making the mistake of thinking it’s blind faith. I’ve said it time and time again.. were there no empirical evidence affirming my faith.. I would not have it.

Ivan's avatar

As if religion ever listened to science.

JamesL's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater
Faith by definition, is blind. You happen to be making an assumption about them, just as you think they are.

You state that you have empirical evidence affirming your faith. Due to my curiosity, would you mind educating me on what this empirical evidence is?

crisw's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater

I’m pretty new here. Where can I find this empirical evidence that you speak of?

ABoyNamedBoobs03's avatar

People of faith(God based faiths) are, in all honesty, silly to me. I mean no offense by that, if you have faith you have faith, no harm no foul. I’ve just always been the kind of person that needs proof, so it seems very strange and illogical to believe something even though there’s no tangible evidence.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

I’m not going to get into the pointless argument of whether or not gods exist. Instead, I’ll share some facts from the book When Life Nearly Died, The Greatest Mass Extinction of all Time by Michael J. Benton.

Back before paleobiology was an accepted discipline of science, the discovery of fossilized dinosaur bones led to a lot of problems among the great scientists of the day. From 1842 to around 1990, there were at least one hundred different theories on what caused the dinosaurs’ extinction. Some of the these involved: slipped discs, AIDS, mental disorders, the carnivores ate themselves out of existence, methane poisoning from dinosaur flatulence, climate too hot, climate too cold, climate too wet, climate too dry, uranium poisoning, sunspots and asteroid entrance into the boisphere, and dozens of others.

My point is, science is self-correcting, and a product of ongoing research, ever-changing, and it will continue to diversify as we learn more and more about our univers, as well as our place in it.

Proving the existence (or non-existence) of gods is hardly anything real science strives for. There is just too much other stuff to explore. This question seems to me to be an attempt to stir up a religion/science debate, but I hope I am wrong. What people of faith believe is of no consequence to me, as beliefs are, and should always remain, personal.

fireside's avatar

@evelyns_pet_zebra – who are you and what did you do with evelyns_pet_zebra?

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@crisw It’s fairly easy in theory.. just go back in time.. be born as me.. and live my life. Easy right?

@JamesL Have you ever played the trust game? You know.. where you fall back and a friend catches you.. it’s said you have trust in them if you drop and allow them to catch you.. well.. the thing is.. you knew your friend was there to do the catching in the first place.. it’s the same with faith. It’s not as if I sprouted a faith in a flying spaghetti monster on a whim and decided to perpetuate it unreasonably.

I see no definition of faith that says it is blind.. only that it doesn’t require proof. Empirical evidence.. being what it is.. doesn’t fit the label of “proof”.. yet it suffices for those with faith.. because they have faith.

As far as telling you what my empirical evidence is.. it doesn’t really work that way.. it has taken my lifetime to reach the point I’m at.. if you really want to hear my life story perhaps it’s something for a different thread. Your empirical evidence has led you to believe the things that you do just as mine has led me to believe what I do.

Introverted_Leo's avatar

“This question seems to me to be an attempt to stir up a religion/science debate, but I hope I am wrong.”

I agree. It’s pretty much gonna be dribble from here on out.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@fireside, ha ha great reply, and it’s still the same old me, I’ve realized arguing about religion is utterly pointless. And yes, I find a few of these other atheists quite annoying, almost as much as the more adamant religious types. There are so many other things to explore in my life, and wasting time on something like whether or not gods exists just seems pointless.

crisw's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater

So. basically no- like any other person “of faith,” you don’t really have any evidence for why your belief is correct, other than you think it is and it’s pleasing to you to hold that belief. So, in reality, your belief (whatever it is) is no more valid than any other religious belief.

If I believe that leprechauns are playing in the bottom of my garden and that I had tea today with the Three Bears, then obviously, that belief is “true” in the sense that I accept it as such and don’t question it. However, that certainly doesn’t provide any evidence whatsoever, in the scientific sense, that either the leprechauns or the Three Bears exist. Similarly, just because you believe in a god doesn’t mean that gods exist. And that’s why it’s truly blind faith- it’s guided by something that really isn’t tangible or demonstrable to others.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@Introverted_Leo I think the word you want is ‘drivel’ as dribble would be a basketball term. :-)

crisw's avatar

@evelyns_pet_zebra

To each his (or her) own.

It’s an important issue to me. As long as monstrosities like Proposition 8 can pass because of the grasp that religion has on society, it will continue to be so.

fireside's avatar

So, still no clarification on what “religious people” means?
I guess we’re supposed to assume that 5+ billion people would have the same reaction?
Or should we start cataloging expectations of individual responses?

NaturalMineralWater's avatar

@crisw Sigh. I guess you just don’t understand. Hopefully one day.

crisw's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater
Well, as long as you don’t attempt to explain, I probably will not understand. I require actual evidence before I believe something.

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@crisw exactly, to each his own.

fireside's avatar

@evelyns_pet_zebra & @Introverted_Leo – I thought dribble worked well since it was fairly childish : )

Benny's avatar

They’ll ignore it. Just like they do now.

Introverted_Leo's avatar

…How can you ignore something that hasn’t even happened yet?

crisw's avatar

@Introverted_Leo

I think Benny’s point is that many of them already ignore the scientific evidence for anything that doesn’t fit exactly into their world view.

mattbrowne's avatar

Science can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. Science can’t prove the reason for the existence of the universe or multiverse. Why does it exist? Science can’t answer that. To a certain extend this might be compared to the incompleteness theorems. In mathematical logic, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, proved in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest. The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics.

In a similar way, the existence of God can’t be proven by science either. It’s a matter of belief.

Myndecho's avatar

@mattbrowne
And I did say that in the question.

JamesL's avatar

@NaturalMineralWater
Yes, I know the game. Were you raised a theist? If you were raised in the United States, whether in a religious household or not, Faith is looked at in a positive manner in that society. So in essence, one would already have an inclination to have Faith.

In reality, that is what Faith is. We can try to rationalize it all we want but in the end, it is still irrational.

I think we are having a misunderstanding on what empirical evidence is. If it were truly empirical evidence, our beliefs would be similarly aligned. Either way, how is it something that cannot be answered if it is such a deeply held belief?

Mind you, I had Faith for about 18 years of my life. I hope none of this is taken as an insult. I am merely trying to have an intellectual conversation with no emotion attached, as that would hinder the discussion. Thanks.

fireside's avatar

I just found this quote from someone who was an avowed atheist from age 15 to 33:

A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis

JamesL's avatar

@fireside
That is a fallacious quote by Lewis. He assumes that those who are non-believers refuse to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. It is not about the unwillingness to believe, but about the acceptance of rational and logical thought. This leads to many of us non-believers having an existential crisis.

fireside's avatar

@JamesL – how is it fallacious if it is his opinion? I can think of a lot worse people’s opinions that are still not fallacious, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

Just because some people can’t see “God’s glory” as other people do, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. Just like some people really like liver and onions, but it is just not for me.
——-
“Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.

“As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? ... Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute” – `Abdu’l-Bahá

crisw's avatar

@fireside
“Just because some people can’t see “God’s glory” as other people do, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.”

Sure. But that also means, in an equally valid argument, that just because some people can’t see the leprechauns (or tooth fairy, aliens, invisible pink unicorn, etc.) as other people do, doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. It’s exactly the same argument.

fireside's avatar

You are saying his opinion is fallacious. I am asking how that can be.
He had his own existential struggle for 18 years and came to that conclusion.

What is so wrong with him coming to his own conclusion just because it doesn’t match yours?

mattbrowne nailed the crux of the issue here.
Science can’t prove there is no higher power, and religion can’t either.
So what is wrong with people forming their own opinion.

Why does someone else’s opinion create an existential struggle within others?

Do you see “Love”?
Can you prove that it exists or doesn’t exist?
Does it matter to you if someone believes or disbelieves in Love?
What if Love is just some mass delusion, would it change anything?

crisw's avatar

@fireside

Define “fallacious,” first of all.

Secondly, I could care less what people believe in their own private universes. It’s when their beliefs affect others that I have a problem. And many religious people have a nasty habit of inflicting their beliefs about issues such as gay marriage, abortion, evolution etc. upon all of us.

As far as “love”- sure, I can support a theory, in the scientific sense, that it exists. I can correlate reported experiences with physiological data, such as hormonal release, brain waves, pupillary dilation, etc. to present a unified theory, with measurable data, that it does indeed exist. However, just because love exists in a measurable way doesn’t mean that I have any proof that thus, Cupid or Aphrodite exists.

Similarly, we can show that “religious experiences” produce measurable and repeatable physiologic, etc. data. However, we cannot conclude from that data that a god exists.

fireside's avatar

Ok, first, fallacious
1. Containing or based on a fallacy: a fallacious assumption.
2. Tending to mislead; deceptive:

Where is the fallacy within Lewis conclusion? Can you prove the fallacy?
Is he intentionally trying to mislead, or is he writing down a philosophical statement?
Do you think that his conclusion could be arrived at by any means of logic?

Secondly, I could find people that think California’s ballot initiative process, in itself, is monstrosity. So, before blaming people for voting based on their beliefs, why not take a look at the system that would deny rights to a same-sex couple based on majority opinion? Or why not play the same game and find a critical mass of people who support the initiative? The fact is that same-sex couples are still in the minority and, as such, do not have as much lobbying power. Right or wrong, is that a fault of religion?

Lastly, is there any proof that the Higgs field exists? Does that lack of proof mean that scientists are not going to look for it? Should they discontinue any search for things that are not already visible and can be pointed to in a tangible way?

Belief in God does not equate to discrimination of others.

bea2345's avatar

@crisw how nice it is that monstrosities like Proposition 8 are being challenged even as we speak.

JamesL's avatar

@fireside
It is fallacious because he is making incorrect assumption. Refusing is the key word in his statement. It does not matter whether it is his own opinion or another person’s, it is still fallacious.

There is no evidence for “God’s glory”, so why assume it due to tradition?

While the belief in God does not directly equate to discrimination of others, it clearly opens the door for it.

crisw's avatar

@fireside

You seem to be skirting around my main point. There is no independent, measurable, observable evidence that a god of any type exists.

As far as the Higgs boson goes, verifying or disproving its existence is a big reason that the LHC was created. Science will take the data from the experiments done there, and that data will be analyzed. Based on data- not feelings, suppositions or hunches- theories will be changed. Like any other valid theory, the existence of the Higgs boson is falsifiable.

Ivan's avatar

@fireside “Just because some people can’t see “God’s glory” as other people do, doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.”

I scoff at the notion that atheism is some sort of inability to do something. An equally valid argument would be to say, ‘just because some people can’t see that God doesn’t exist as other people do, that doesn’t mean he’s there.’

fireside's avatar

I still haven’t seen proof that an individual experience of “God’s glory” is untrue.
What are you assuming the phrase to mean?

“While the belief in God does not directly equate to discrimination of others, it clearly opens the door for it.”
And by assuming you know more about people’s individual experiences than they do, are you being discriminatory or prejudicial? Couldn’t it just as easily open the door to a more compassionate caring individual?

“You seem to be skirting around my main point.”
I’m sorry, i thought your point made to me was that the quote was wrong. And yet you haven’t told me how it is wrong because you still haven’t defined what Lewis meant by the words he chose. You just said it was wrong.

“I scoff at the notion that atheism is some sort of inability to do something.”
I never said Atheism was an inability to do something. There does seem to be a lack of understanding in this thread (and other God vs no God debates) about other people’s point of view though. Which seems just as wrong as the decried actions of “religious people”- another phrase which still hasn’t been defined either.

But if you want to have a knee jerk reaction to “religious people” go right ahead and make blanket assumptions about their actions or beliefs. It just seems a bit prejudicial to me. But maybe that is based on your past experiences and observations.

crisw's avatar

@fireside
“I still haven’t seen proof that an individual experience of “God’s glory” is untrue.
What are you assuming the phrase to mean?”

As I explained earlier, I have no doubt that such a person feels he is experiencing “God’s glory.” Another person in the same circumstances may feel Vishnu’s glory, or Allah’s glory, or Cernunnos’s glory. All are having very real feelings. However, these feelings do not, in any way, give any evidence that what they are thinking about exists.

As far as the quote, I agree with Ivan and did not want to be repetitive.

And, once again, I don’t care what people believe as long as they keep their beliefs in their own heads. But when they make silly decisions that affect others based on those beliefs, then the beliefs should be questioned. And, overall, there is the question of whether, in our lives, we should search for what really is true-whether or not we like that truth- or whether we should accept beliefs that are, in essence, delusions. An adult human who believed in Santa Claus or werewolves or monsters under the bed would be, quite rightly, viewed as delusional, no matter how much that person actually felt that those beings existed, no matter how much he felt that he had experienced their presence. In fact, the more certain he was of such beleifs, the more delusional he would be judged to be. I haven’t ever gotten an adequate explanation for how these delusions differ in any way from a belief that gods exist. So, to you, how are they different? Rather than explaining it, most theists will responds “How insulting that you are calling me delusional and comparing God to Santa Claus!”- which does not, of course, answer the question.

A possible difference in ideas here is that I think that truth is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. Something is not ever “true” only because someone believes it is- there must be actual, demonstrable, repeatable evidence of its truth.

fireside's avatar

So how is making blanket assumptions about a wide group of people not prejudicial?
I don’t think that has been answered.

And have we defined God yet?
Merriam Webster calls God “the supreme or ultimate reality”

Do you think there is no supreme or ultimate reality?
Would me believing that there is a supreme or ultimate reality make me delusional since we haven’t got proof of that?

Why question belief in God, if what people believe doesn’t matter to you? Why not just question voting habits? Do you think by taking a confrontational stance you will create that change you seek? Do you think that becoming as discriminatory and intolerant as your perceived oppressors is the right path?

Ivan's avatar

@fireside “Why question belief in God, if what people believe doesn’t matter to you? Why not just question voting habits?”

I think the idea is to question everything.

fireside's avatar

@Ivan – that was a response to “I don’t care what people believe as long as they keep their beliefs in their own heads. But when they make silly decisions that affect others based on those beliefs, then the beliefs should be questioned.”

Benny's avatar

@crisw I would add that if the LHC doesn’t find the Higgs it will be much more interesting than if it does. It will give theorists a lot more pHD theses

fireside's avatar

Coincidentally enough, I have described God as being much like the Higgs field before

But it is interesting to see how people bring their own misconceptions to the discussion and assign them to others.

crisw's avatar

@fireside

I really wish you would answer the question. How is a belief in God any different than any of the other beliefs I have mentioned (Santa Claus, werewolves, etc.) and why is it any more valid? Do you have a direct answer?

fireside's avatar

I believe that God is the supreme or ultimate reality.
I don’t think we have an answer to that yet.

I believe that my parents put presents under the tree and said it was Santa.
I do have an answer to that.

Ivan's avatar

@fireside I don’t mean to speak for Cris, but I believe she was saying that people are free to believe whatever they wish until it starts aversely affecting other people. Nevertheless, I think it’s important that everyone be able to rationally defend their beliefs. I think that challenging your previously held beliefs is the most healthy thing you can do.

As per your most recent comment, are you suggesting that you only believe in God because you are unable to explain something?

fireside's avatar

No, i believe in God because I see an interconnection between all things and to me that name we have for that is God.

crisw's avatar

@fireside

Ivan is correct about the intent of my statement.

So is this interconnectedness you perceive a supernatural entity? I also can beleive that all things are connected, but I don’t see any reason to call that “god.” The concept of god presupposes a supernatural entity with superhuman powers, interconnectedness does not.

fireside's avatar

See, here is where you are assigning your presumptions to my beliefs.
That is prejudice.

But I’ve answered this question before

crisw's avatar

@fireside

I am not “assigning” anything. I am trying to clarify what you believe.

crisw's avatar

@fireside

Thanks for the added question link.

I have met people who went by that definition before. I think you have to agree that it is very different from the definition used by the folks in any church on any Sunday.

fireside's avatar

Sure, but “religious people” come in all shapes and sizes.

If someone asks the question after the condemnation and ridicule, they are the one who is not being tolerant and they are displaying the exact characteristics they rail against.

mattbrowne's avatar

@fireside and @crisw – There’s a huge difference between God and Santa Claus.

Santa Claus is based on a legend (passed along via oral traditions before being written down). Saint Nicholas of Myra might be the primary inspiration for the Christian figure of Santa Claus. He was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Anatolia, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor, in particular presenting the three impoverished daughters of a pious Christian with dowries so that they would not have to become prostitutes. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity.

God is not a legend. If you believe in God his powers were responsible for the big bang or the existence of anything in the first place. No human witnessed the big bang directly. No one met God directly at the time (unlike people meeting Saint Nicholas of Myra). Fairies might also have their roots in real human beings with magical powers (perceived as magic at the time, like the healing powers of certain plants).

Many legends or myths in the Bible are based on events that happened in earlier human history (many related to cataclysmic events people couldn’t explain).

Like @fireside said, God can be seen as a supreme or ultimate reality. That’s entirely different concept compared to Santa Claus or fairies.

crisw's avatar

@mattbrowne
“Santa Claus is based on a legend (passed along via oral traditions before being written down”

I agree. The same is true of the Bible.

“God is not a legend.”

How do you know this?

“If you believe in God his powers were responsible for the big bang”
That’s a big if. I could also say it about any supernatural creator-god type being and have it be equally true.

“God can be seen as a supreme or ultimate reality. That’s entirely different concept compared to Santa Claus or fairies.”
The problem with such depictions is that they remove the essential characteristics of a god. If you pare the belief down to “ultimate reality”- whatever that is- then of course people will say it exists. But that’s a very different concept than a creator god or any type of god that actually plays any active role in the universe.

JamesL's avatar

@fireside
We happen to be using the capitalized form of God, which refers to the Judeo-Christian God. As I am sure you know, the Bible is highly discriminatory.

fireside's avatar

@JamesL – Though the capitalized form of God was first used to refer to the Judeo-Chrsitian God, that is not the case anymore.

Capitalized, “God” was first used to refer to the Judeo-Christian concept and may now signify any monotheistic conception of God, including the translations of the Arabic Allāh, Indic Ishvara and the African Masai Engai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)

Benny's avatar

@fireside I use the capitalized “God” when I am talking about a specific god, and a lower case “god” when using it in a sentence. For example, I might say the God Apollo was the god of the sun. Or something like that.

mattbrowne's avatar

@crisw – “God is not a legend.” How do I know this? By definition of the concept of God. We are not talking about Robin Hood or King Arthur. I’m not saying the following definition of God is exactly my definition but it might give you a general idea:

God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing the sole deity in monotheism. God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

King Arthur is a legendary British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early 6th century. The details of Arthur’s story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.

Legends are based on real encounters in the real world.

z28proximo's avatar

Not necessary? Really? So you’re saying that if I take a box full of computer parts, throw them out of a 5 story window, that when it crashes and hits the ground that the peices will come together into a sweet gaming rig? That’s what the big bang says. I don’t have that much faith.

crisw's avatar

@mattbrowne
“Legends are based on real encounters in the real world.”
I accept this as legitimate. Therefore, it seems that legends have more backing in observable realities than gods do- not less. So, under such a definition, Santa Claus and Robin Hood are both more real than the Christian God.

crisw's avatar

@z28proximo
“That’s what the big bang says.”
Um…I don’t think you understand at all what Big Bang theory says, as it doesn’t claim anything like that at all.

JamesL's avatar

@fireside
My, how the time flies…

Benny's avatar

@z28proximo Agree with @crisw If you want to know what the Big Bang really says, we’d be happy to help you understand, but it’s nothing like throwing a computer out the window and getting a gaming console. Absolutely nothing.

z28proximo's avatar

So some basic building blocks of life just happen to get zapped and come together to form life and a complete planet and ecosystem that is in absolute harmony and works so well. This perfection of nature just came about by accident? So you’re saying that the big bang wasn’t an accident? It was controlled and meticulously built and put together very precisely by someone like a gaming rig? You mean..like God? Or….it was an accident?

crisw's avatar

@z28proximo

That is a huge exaggeration.

And the origin of life has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

And no scientist thinks that any of this happened by “just random chance.”

Do we want to have a serious discussion about what people really think or just throw around hyperbole and exaggeration?

z28proximo's avatar

The rest of the universe is NOT the “garden of eden” as he says. It’s not supposed to support life. There’s a reason for diseases but I’m not getting into that philosophically with anyone. People used to live longer before the flood, when a layer of the atmosphere rained down and removed a large amount of protection from outside radiation. Since when were we supposed to be super humans who could detect every light spectrum with our eyes, and identify every gas with our noses and never age? We wouldn’t respect the aging process or have the same value for fragile life if we were that awesome would we?

Still, back to my first point. So you are admiting that we were created then? But just by a stupid God? Or is it still an accident? Say all you want that this world can crumble at any moment, but even your man here said that this life thing has been going on for over 3.4 million years. That’s 3.4 million years of pretty great “accidental” conditions to lead to life as it is today. Regardless of how much you say life sucks, it more incredible than anything to say it’s an accident.

If it’s not an accident, then who designed it?

crisw's avatar

@z28proximo

“There’s a reason for diseases but I’m not getting into that philosophically with anyone.”
Why? How are we to know the “reason” if you don’t elucidate it?

“People used to live longer before the flood, when a layer of the atmosphere rained down and removed a large amount of protection from outside radiation.”
Please show us the scientific support (and Answers in Genesis is not support!) for this assertion. Scientists have data to support their assertions- where’s yours?

“So you are admiting that we were created then? ”
Um, who are you talking to? I don’t think either James or I said that.

“But just by a stupid God? Or is it still an accident? ”
No, neither. You still aren’t getting it. Science doesn’t say that life is an “accident.”

“If it’s not an accident, then who designed it?”
No one. It didn’t require a designer.

z28proximo's avatar

Just bottom level, something is either an accident, or on purpose. Were is life in this?

JamesL's avatar

@z28proximo
This (”...a complete planet and ecosystem that is in absolute harmony and works so well. This perfection of nature…”) runs contrary to your next post. You speak of philosophy but are committing a major fallacy known as a straw-man. You are jumping from one extreme to another while ignoring all the grey matter in the middle. My man happens to be a leading astrophysicists, and I am positive that you would have already come across him if you have researched the origin of our universe objectively. Not once have I stated that life sucks, as this is all an assumption made by you because we happen to be atheists.

z28proximo's avatar

No you didn’t. Actually you didn’t say anything at all. I was talking about stupid desgn, the video you sent me to watch. He points out how it’s not perfect at all and sucks, that’s what I referred to. I assumed you agreed with him, right? I’m not going back and forth, I see the perfection of this balance. It’s not either extreme. You still haven’t answered the only question I ever wanted answered anyway. Accident or on purpose. Or just what is it then if it’s not either of those. How can it be anything else?

crisw's avatar

@z28proximo
“Just bottom level, something is either an accident, or on purpose.”

No- “purpose” implies purposeful thought, so this is just not true.

If I put a magnet near another one, the first will attract the second. That is not an accident, not does it imply purposeful thought. It’s just the way magnets work.

Similarly, as one example, certain types of molecules attract other molecules. It’s not an accident; it’s how they work. And, as the molecules attract each other, they form more complex molecules. No accident, and no purpose needed.

crisw's avatar

@z28proximo
I also think you are missing the entire point of the video. No sane Creator would create the absurdities we see in the physical and biological world. Everywhere we look, we see not the ordered hand of creation, but the jury-rigged evidence of unintelligent design. You cannot look at just the few examples that you think demonstrate harmony and good; the world is too full of things that make no sense as the product of a creation, but perfect sense in the light of natural processes.

JamesL's avatar

@z28proximo
Neil states that life sucks? Trivial either way. If you are not going back and forth how is it that you speak of perfection in nature, while saying that we are not supposed to be able to do such things as you listed? That is contrary…perfection is perfection. Crisw covered it very well and it would be redundant for me to go on further. Researching the origin of the universe is the best way to educate oneself on the subject.

mattbrowne's avatar

@crisw – Of course legends have more backing in observable realities. To me God isn’t about getting some backing. It’s a matter of belief and one possible approach to handle the “Why is there a multiverse?” and “Why is the universe the way it is?” questions. But there’s no proof for any of the potential answers. We are limited in our knowledge and we must accept that.

TheKNYHT's avatar

Science is about verifiable data within the framework of our physical universe, therefore it cannot prove or disprove the existance of God since He is neither physical, nor confined to the limited number of dimensions that we humans inhabit (3.5 to be exact).

Ivan's avatar

@TheKNYHT Notice that the question doesn’t suppose that science proves God’s nonexistence, it supposes that science proves that God isn’t necessary.

Benny's avatar

@TheKNYHT @Ivan I prefer taking the point of view of Dawkins, who has said that the existence or non-existence of a god is an extremely important scientific question to answer. Let’s say, for example, that a god set off the Big Bang, or if a god guided biology to its current evolutionary path—that’s important. Ivan’s read this from me multiple times before, but I’m perfectly willing to accept credible scientific evidence of the existence of God. But it MUST be credible, verifiable scientific evidence.

In direct answer to Myndecho, though, I would argue that if science proves God is unnecessary (which some would argue it already has), the religious would ignore it and continue in their belief structure.

bea2345's avatar

@TheKNYHT 3.5 dimensions? Could you explain?

TheKNYHT's avatar

@bea2345 Well there are the 3 dimensions of length, width and height. You can travel in either direction along these vectors as far as you like (provided you don’t run into any solid objects, heh). However, time being a fourth dimension is one that we travel unilaterally, that is only in one direction: forward only.
Can you remember tomorrow? : p

TheKNYHT's avatar

@Ivan picky, picky
; p

Ivan's avatar

@TheKNYHT We may not be able to travel through time as freely or as easily as we can through space, but remember that time and space are really the same thing, spacetime. Time is relative, so we can travel through it at different rates, and it is also theoretically possible to travel backwards in time.

Benny's avatar

@ivan—I was watching a National Geographic on TV and they were interviewing this guy who claimed he could make a time machine by having lasers pointed at 90 degree angle from each other (making a square light beam of lasers). He claimed that if you had powerful enough lasers it would form a time warp wormhole vortex that could let you go back in time. I had a cow.—

TheKNYHT's avatar

@Ivan I concur and congradulate you on your excellent grasp of physics. Yes! Space/time continuum is a more proper scientific phrase, and certainly time is as much a part of our physical universe as space and matter. Time can be effected by mass, acceleration, and gravity.
Essentially however we at present (so far as we know) are unable to travel backwards in time; quantum physicists the last I heard, determined that it would take more energy than is contained in the universe to send material backwards through time.
Does this still stand or has there been more theorems written?

Ivan's avatar

@TheKNYHT

It would certainly take an enormous amount of energy to travel back in time, far more than what we currently have access to. As far as exactly how much, I don’t know.

fireside's avatar

@Ivan – we need 1.21 gigawatts, a DeLorean and room to get up to 88mph to travel back in time

mattbrowne's avatar

@fireside – And a couple of Libyan terrorists to get us the plutonium ;-)

Loried2008's avatar

xD how could they prove it? There is only theories in Science.

Loried2008's avatar

Good question though! religious things always get rises out of people

Ivan's avatar

@Loried2008

Proof does not exist. Theories are all we have.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther