Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
Every tongue will confess, every knee will bow.
You cannot prove evolution. You cannot account for the minds of men. And most religions worship one god. However there is only one God.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Strictly, you can't prove any scientific theory which uses induction - and that's most of them.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
How's that hunt for the God particle, going?
Oh look a face.._Higgs-event.jpg
You Didn't Build That.
Science cannot prove how the universe/world was created. Evolution does not account for that.
The crux of the matter is that science cannot explain how the universe, or even life itself, started. No amount of mixing amino acids in a petrie dish has created life.
Why do you believe there isn't a God?
"I don't believe in god because it doesn't make sense".
Does Quantum Mechanics make sense to you?
Because, fundamentally, it doesn't to me, despite having studied and used it for years.
I suppose based on that, we should get rid of it, right?
As I pointed out in my post above, your (or anyone's) ability to make sense of God doesn't have any bearing on whether God exists or not - and it certainly doesn't constitute prove of his non-existence.
Quantum Mechanics doesn't make sense to me, but it could be written out and explained to me to where I think I would have a better understanding. God cannot be proven to me, it would take the second coming of Jesus, which religious people have believed would happen in their life numerous times but has yet to happen. I've read the bible and so much of it was unbelievable,. However, the teachings and morals of Jesus was something I could understand and believe in, which is why I would suggest the Jefferson Bible, over the Holy Bible. I am not suggesting to get rid of religion.
As an agnostic do you think that the Romans could be right with their gods, or Hindus could be right with their gods, or the Aztecs were right with their gods, etc. Can they all be right?
Let's remind ourselves of what started this discussion - it was your assertion that there is no God.
So far, it would appear that your only defense of this stance is that the religions you are familiar with appear (to you) to be confused, contradictory and unbelievable and because of that, it must be the case that there is no god (or gods).
That isn't much of an argument.
Over the centuries there was much debate about the nature of light - was it a wave or did it consist of particles. The two views were, for a time, confused and they appear to contradict one another. When Einstein developed Special Relativity, he attributed properties to light which many found to be unbelievable.
But none of that made a bit of difference to whether there was such a thing as light.
Get my point?
As to your question about gods from other pantheons - yes, as an agnostic, I acknowledge that the entities described by those views might individually or all exist. But that isn't really saying much since I also acknowledge that Big Foot, Ghosts, unicorns and just about anything you could possibly conceive of might exist as well.
The nature of light is something that can be verified through science. Before Newton law's, gravity still worked, even though man had no understanding of how/why it works. But Newton law's can be tested and proven, as well as the nature of light, man's idea of god(s) cannot be proven, there is no test or formula that equals god(s), thus can't be proven, thus he doesn't exist.
What light really is is still not understood and some important folks in science have suggested that it never will (see Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics).
Newton's theory of gravity is recognized as an approximation to General Relativity which will probably be understood to be an approximation of whatever theory replaces it (probably some form of Quantum Gravity) - so no, Newton's version of gravity isn't "proven".
If God shows up tomorrow, and shows himself to everyone on the planet, wouldn't that constitute proof of his existence?
I think so. So yes, there is a way to prove God's existence.
You seem to be suggesting that if something can't be couched in the language of science, then it doesn't exist. I disagree with this.
For example, I doubt very much that the fundamental nature of consciousness will ever be reducible to a form that is amendable to the methods of science.
Either way, this is an assertion on your part - you would have to defend it to add weight to your argument.
But that doesn't prove god(s) existence. There is a way to prove everything if you have a good imagination, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Proof is only proof if it exists and can be presented. When it comes to science I wouldn't doubt anything, just look how far science and technology has progressed in the last one hundred years. Look how much has changed just in the last decade.
I never said anything I've written is proof that God exists.
Again, I'm an agnostic on the topic of God - why would I be trying to argue a point that I don't even hold.
In addition to apparently failing to understand what an agnostic is, I think you are missing my main point. See my comments in the post below.
Science once thought hand washing and other sanitary measures did nothing to prevent disease. Science once thought bleeding people would cure them of fevers and other ills. Does this make you doubt science?
Condoms are a good thing if you live a promiscous lifestyle. My religion has taught me a better lifestyle, monogomy.
My point was that science is as imperfect as religion, not God, can be. Your argument seems to be that science explains everything perfectly and has the answer to everything. I was pointing out that it is not perfect. My modern day example would be global warming.
You seem to worship science the way I worship God.
I know that it probably was never discussed here or many other conservative media, but the "climategate" scientist were cleared of wrong doing. http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-not-excited-anymore-about-debunked-climategate-scandal/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1&hp http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html. Science has a lot of answers, which no one has yet to answer my question about if there is one god then why are there so many different religions? I do have more faith in science than I do in God.
Those scientists were cleared by themselves. Keep up with things 24.
There are many scientific theories, does that invalidate science?
It makes me trust science even more. It was only through research and discovery that we learned otherwise.
Science has not proven how the universe was created, but we do have theories. As science continues to discover, an answer may some day be achieved. Evolution explains not how the universe was created, but how life on earth can be traced back through ancestral species.
Religion does the same thing as "science." It fulfills a need. That need is a basic understanding of the universe itself.
Just like science, Religion is an attempt to describe and understand the natural world with little knowledge. Nether science nor religion can "prove" how the universe was created, or how life formed, or how (or why) it changed, it all has to be taken on faith.
As happens in most human experiences, the understanding of the universe isn't an "ether/or" situation. I wouldn't be surprised that the truth is a combination of the two different philosophies, a combination of "science" and "religion." The two philosophies, although seemingly in opposition to each other, are actually closely related, so much so that they are inseparable.
I look at it this way: The universe was created by something, it can't just spring into existence by itself (energy can be nether created or destroyed, only transformed, at least in this universe). There must be a creator somewhere. If science looks hard and long enough, we'll discover that creator, and we'll do so because we were CREATED to do this.
Life isn't an accident, it has a purpose otherwise it wouldn't exist (conservation of energy, remember?). We don't know what the purpose truly is, and religion is one way of offering suggestions as to that purpose. Science is the means of discovering if those suggestion are true or not. The two are inseparable. For if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't even have the questions that science tries to answer.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I agree with your view about the duel roll of science and religion in understanding the universe and I also agree that neither will ever provide ideas or theories which can be proven.
Regarding your use of the idea of conservation of energy, I would say that is a theory which seems to hold within our universe but there is no way to know if it applies outside of it. The conservation of energy is very closely tied to the idea of time and since (as we currently understand it) time started with the Big Bang, there is no reason to believe that energy conservation held at that moment.
Speculating about the nature of origin of the universe using ideas from within our universe (like energy conservation or things like cause and effect) is hard to justify since there is no reason to believe that any of those ideas apply to the Big Bang or what came before (if the idea of "before" even has any meaning in that context).
I'm not certain I understand your argument. Are you saying that scientific discovery will eventually lead to a Creationist conclusion?
ever built, in the history of man, maybe not.
Stuff like: The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI). Magnetic resonance tomography (MRT)
As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical basis, and at a time in history marked by a great return to biblical faith.
ADK because I believe in God, science never be able to prove there isn't a God, or answer other fundamental questions about the origin of the universe and how life is created.
Rad, I mean this with the utmost respect - I have no idea what your post means. Could you clarify please?
ADK, I don't think science can prove the existance of God. God shows himself when and where he wants to, and if he doesn't want to be seen and interfere with our free will, he'll be unseen.
But since I believe he does exist, it also cannot prove that he doesn't exist.
I majored in Biology in college, and everything I learned in my science classes, bio, chem, and physics, convinced a young, skeptical me, that life and our universe didn't come to be by way of chance.
I always feel when I get into these discussions that it's like trying to talk about the space time continum (sp?) on Star Trek. I know what I mean but have difficulty making myself clear. Sorry.
Oh no worries. I knew you had something to say, I just didn't know which point you were referring to. I don't have to repeat my position, because you surely know my beliefs by now, but I do enjoy discussing this topic respectfully. We'll never change one another's mind, but hopefully we can understand where the other comes from.
I know I can't disprove the existence of God, and I'm not interested. I find evolution fascinating, and though much of our existence remains unanswered, I can't deny progress is being made regularly in piecing together our origins.
Since you were a Bio major, do you still follow evolutionary progress? I recently started reading the book Anarchy Evolution that brought my attention to Tiktaalik. Any chance you've read up on the subject?
Check your pm's.
... this started here.
and here ('cause Mike Bratton should be involved)
I finally came around to checking out the links you provided to the original exchange ("way back" in December 2010) leading to your new forum -- nice!
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.