Thread: So You Think Science Says God Dosn't Exist?

And do you see the difference between what people think and what is going around? The world goes its own way, no matter you believe in some kind of things or not... A bit of cruel, but who ever have said that life would be beautiful?

Awsome..... do it man do it. Just because we know how somethings works doesent mean something greater didnt make it. I want to see it man =).

If you have scientific proof that God exists, please show it to me. I would really like to see it.

Originally Posted by Universal

If it happens according to Revelations, I immediately will start believing the teachings of Christianity, I will shout that with great enthusiasm to God, I will ask for forgiveness for all of my sins, and I will voice to God and Jesus my relentless devotion to them and my harsh stance against the forces of Satan. If it happens according to the Koran, I immediately face Mecca with a towel on my head and start praying to Allah. If it happens according to Zoroastrianism, I go to the library and find out just what on Earth Zoroastrianism is about and act accordingly. I will do whatever I am supposed to do to be right according to whatever version of God turns out to be real. Until any of that happens, I stand by my former point that for God to be everywhere, his penis would have to be in everybody's asses, including his son's.
[/b]

Actually, science can only be used to prove that something is. It cannot be used to prove that something is not. In science, either something is proven to be or not proven to be. Not proven to be is not proof that it isn't possible. That is the way real science was designed. Never to dismiss the impossible, only to confirm what can be confirmed.

My beef with science these days is the way people use the word willy nilly without understanding.

“Isn’t science great!” is my biggest pet peeve. When talking about a tech toy or a chemical reaction. Like science is making the chemical reaction. Funny.

You're right, we can never confirm for 100% sure that something does not exist. At least when it's so vaguely defined as any god is. However, there is much to suggest that the god(s) as defined do not exist.

To highlight my point, saying that we can never 100% confirm god's non-existence is tantamount to saying that we can never confirm without a doubt that we don't all have a race of tiny aliens living under our skin plotting to take over the world.

As for your bold statement, Keeper, I'd very much like to see what you have. And for the record, I've never called anyone of a particular religion, nor religious people in general, stupid.* Though, sadly, the stupid appear to be woefully overrepresented in the religion section of this message board.

*True at time of writing, but not any more LOL

Science doesn't say anything about god. Science presupposes naturalistic explanations for phenomena. Anything supernatural isn't within the realm of science. Science would have got nowhere if "goddidit" was a viable explanation. It's fun when you realise that everything science has discovered was previously explained by "goddidit", so its proved to be a worthwhile restriction.

However, science can disprove certain rigid religions - based on their faulty explanation of natural phenomena. For example: if you're a young earth creationist science tells us you're wrong - because the world is not 6000 years old. If you're a hardcore biblical literalist, science tells us you're wrong, cause the bible tells of many things that we know are false (thanks to science).

However, if you're a liberal theist (or deist/pantheist), science has nothing to do with proving/disproving god. In fact, as long as you're willing to accept it when science proves a belief of yours wrong, there's absolutely nothing stopping someone from being religious and scientific.

I guess my point is that saying "science disproves god because of x" is just as stupid as saying "Science bowes before God, and exults him to the Highest". Logic, which is different from science, could be used to try prove/disprove god (insofar as god is defined). But that's another story.

Anyway, who wants to take bets on what keeper's got for us? Fine tuning? Intelligent design?

Originally Posted by spoon

Anyway, who wants to take bets on what keeper's got for us? Fine tuning? Intelligent design?
[/b]

I was thinking more along the lines of the improbability of a habitable planit existing in the universe, and the improbability of life actually occurring on that planet.

Or perhaps he'll query the "big bang" therory and say something about where the original singularity came from.

Or perhaps he'll query the "big bang" therory and say something about where the original singularity came from.[/b]

i dont believe in god but i think if he tries say the two argument about the universe he should not be lazy and read this link http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm just click on the chapter to read. the big bang itself is complete rubbish a better theory is of the steady state theory in william sidis book animate and inanimate this work is of true genius. off subject william sidis is a genius among genius at the age of 11 he enter harvard he has the mathmatical skill at 7 to beat top professor at university he even corrected their mistake at age 7 in his most famous book he predicted dark matter 80 year before it is discovered which is funny because even now scientist have no clue what dark matter somebody has to beat this book into their heads. william sidis is proof alone that religion is crap the smartest person in the world how interllectul power would seem alien to other did not even hated religion calling stupid and for lesser mortal i.e. weak people.

OMGHZ, HE HASCH TEH FACSTTS!~111

and proper use of the english language? No : (

-

Funny how even on the internet christians are getting more extremist. It used to be 'I just believe in my god, let it be' now it turned into 'YOU WILL BOW DOWN TO MY GOD >: (".

Scientific christianity is as much of an oximoron as religious logic, smart g.w.Bush and large midget.


---------------

EDIT:

All I am going to do is edit my post, so this topic stays small, and hopefull dies. (What a silly thing, to only post some silly links if enough people post. It sais nothing about their intrest, just about their curiosity.

I just see it that god made everything n science is just how 2 explain how what he made works... and i recon he’d be a bit more leyd back then most people i talk to think

wow now maby its read able lol i cant type 4 crap

Hey, you can type fine... it's just the spelling and grammar... . But seriously, the suspense is killing me. My money's on ID.

..papa needs a new pair of shoes..

How much do you want to bet that he never posts the links He probably just wanted to stir up the atheists, like throwing a rock into a wasp nest and running.

Originally Posted by DuB

How much do you want to bet that he never posts the links He probably just wanted to stir up the atheists, like throwing a rock into a wasp nest and running.
[/b]

please, give me a little more credit.

well it is true i dont plan to IMMEDIATLY post the links, I want to see how much attention this thread will recieve. I want a clear view on how open minded everyone is, and I will post the links soon. Just not right now, or buy the end of the week (camp, you see)

I want to get everything in order first.

Think of it this way, if its not posted by the end of the month, then I'm a lier, and no-one need ever listen to a word I say again.

...

If I DO, however ... (<--probably inapropriat )

just show us... you&#39;re/(and if you wish...) we&#39;re not getting anywhere like this...


why do you want to know how open minded we are?

i just don&#39;t get it...


ps: what (kind of) God are we talking about anyway?

The problem you face, Keeper, is that almost any evidence you post supporting the existence of God, could equally be used to suppport the existence of a omnipotent alien time-traveller who has travelled from the future. This, of course, particularly in relation to any ideas about the beginning of the universe, creates many logical problems of its own. But, the point is, that however many logical problems it creates, so does the concept of God&#33; So, really, the two explanations are about the same in terms of deductive coherency.

Well my physics teacher is a christian. And I&#39;m sure if we ever came up with seemingly 100% definate proof of darwin&#39;s theory of evolution it would simply be seen as a test of faith to christians around the globe. So no, I wouldn&#39;t say that science says God doesn&#39;t exist.

...dude, we HAVE 100% proof of Darwinian evolution. Finches and islands, anybody? Fossil record? Genome mapping? The problem is that people are too busy forcing themselves to stare the other way. (Technically, natural selection is still only a theory, but we know that at the very least, natural selection plays a role in evolution, the only question is whether there&#39;s any other effects at play.)
The funny thing is that "Intelligent Design" is a nearly exclusively American idea--Go over to Europe or Asia, and even the hardest of the hardcore Bible-bashers believe in evolution; they just believe that evolution can coexist with their particular religion.

Well... nothing is ever 100% in science. But evolution does have more (independent streams of) evidence going for it than gravity. It&#39;s as proved as anything will ever be.

Originally Posted by Tsen

...dude, we HAVE 100% proof of Darwinian evolution. Finches and islands, anybody? Fossil record? Genome mapping? The problem is that people are too busy forcing themselves to stare the other way. (Technically, natural selection is still only a theory, but we know that at the very least, natural selection plays a role in evolution, the only question is whether there&#39;s any other effects at play.)
The funny thing is that "Intelligent Design" is a nearly exclusively American idea--Go over to Europe or Asia, and even the hardest of the hardcore Bible-bashers believe in evolution; they just believe that evolution can coexist with their particular religion.
[/b]

What? Evolution is not 100% proven. You can&#39;t study evolution directly unless you are alive around for 1000 years and slowly analyze changes in the animal. I mean look a humans 2000 years ago, we weren&#39;t to much different back then, then we are now.

All you can study is adaptation, or survival of the fittest, natural selection, and etc, and honestly, though related to evolution, it does not prove evolution at all, which is why I think Darwin&#39;s proof is inconclusive.

No, that&#39;s a load of bull. We&#39;ve SEEN, DOCUMENTED and ANALYZED several examples of species transitions. We&#39;ve documented and PREDICTED several evolutions. Here&#39;s how that works:
We have Fossil A, and Fossil C. Fossil C shares some characteristics of Fossil A, but has several distinguishing properties. We can infer that there must be some intermediate--a Fossil B which shows the same characteristics of Fossil A, but with less pronounced elements of Fossil C present as well.
Next, evolution is entirely falsifiable--all it would take is ONE fossil of a modern species--say a hippo--out of place chronologically. If there was a SINGLE example of a species in the wrong strata for its time period and Darwinian evolution would have to be reworked. But we NEVER have found a single fossil that does this. We keep looking, but the more we look the less likely it seems.
Next, we have things like endogenous retroviruses--DNA traces from viral infections that stay in the genome of a species for thousands of years after they initially infected the host. This can directly show family relationships because each infection is unique--the DNA is transcribed in a fashion that is, for all intents and purposes, random. The transcription isn&#39;t perfect, so the flaws make each infection identifiable.
The infections that are transcribed to the DNA of the genome are even rarer--so it&#39;s not an everyday happening.
Well--here&#39;s why this is significant: When one species gets an infection, the inactive viral DNA can be passed on for thousands of years afterwards--in some rare cases, almost 100,000 years. All species descending from this species inherit the inactive viral DNA. In this way, endogenous retroviruses provide a great way to determine relationships between species, and for estimating when the species diverged from their parent species.
And guess what? Humans share endogenous retrovirus infections with gorillas and a few other great apes. That is conclusive PROOF of common ancestry.

"Evolution has been observed, just never as it&#39;s happening"

- Richard Dawkins

P.S.

I&#39;m not sure if that quote is on his Wikipedia page, but if you&#39;d like, I can dig up where I got it from. It should also be noted that this is quoted from memory, so exact wording may differ.

About DNA. I saw, last week, a (translated from BBC) documentary about how evolution may be more than just random acts of DNA activation. It seems that parts of DNA can be activated based on the experiences of the parent generation(s)

Here’s the link

http://www.radio-canada.ca/actualite/v2/de...008&xTheme=

Le fantôme dans vos gènes
La transmission de l&#39;hérédité ne serait plus le seul fait des gènes. L’alimentation, les traumatismes ou les angoisses seraient déterminants dans le déclenchement de l’action de certains gènes, découvrent les spécialistes de l’épigénétique. Ces déclencheurs ou inhibiteurs se transmettraient d’une génération à l’autre même si leurs causes ne sont pas reproduites. Tout ce que nous mangeons, vivons et éprouvons serait susceptible d’affecter le destin de nos enfants et de nos petits-enfants.

En raison des droits d&#39;auteur, ce reportage de la BBC n&#39;est pas disponible sur Internet.[/b]

Translation:

The ghost in your genes
Heredity transmission is not the sole purpose for gene. Food, trauma or anxiety would be determinant in triggering the action of certain genes, so have found the (??Bio)geneticists. These triggers or inhibitors transmit from one generation to the next even if their causes (The causes of the trauma) are not reproduced (In the life cycle of the inheritor). All we eat, live and experience would affect the destiny of our children and grand children

Because of copyright laws, this report from the BBC is not accessible on the web.

Two things of interest in the documentary:
One scientist found that, when one generation suffers from bad nutrition, the DNA to create smaller headed children is toggled to prevent fatal injury to the mother.

Another study found that victims of holocaust, suffering from great stress, transmitted the stress to the following generations. And yes, it is said that the children where not told of the horror suffered during the time period by the parents or grand parents.

Originally Posted by Mark75

"Evolution has been observed, just never as it&#39;s happening"
[/b]

Actually, evolution in fruit flies and grasshoppers is observed right now as it is happening.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/muta...tant_flies.html

That bit at the first was really interesting--
So it turns out Lamarckism is right, at least partially, eh?
Interesting.

Originally Posted by Tsen

That bit at the first was really interesting--
So it turns out Lamarckism is right, at least partially, eh?
Interesting.
[/b]

Yes, scientists had an inkling studying in migratory patterns of the Monarch butterflies that migrate from Ontario to Mexico.

Little is known but I saw another discovery channel report that scientists found that mid way, through the trip, a new generation is hatched and the parents die.

At fist they though they made the whole trip to Mexico and laid eggs there and the siblings would hatch there and come here for the summer to lay eggs for the next northern generation.

Even then, it was suspected that the information for the trip was transmitted to the following generation. This was confirmed (or proved more plausible) when the migration path was changed, forcing this issue about a trip map transfer as opposed to a genetic fluke that occurred eons ago, causing the trip to be hard coded in the behaviour.

Another point I forgot to mention on the BBC documentary. If memory serves, they suspect that Male experience may cause triggers in the Female chromosome. So the “ghost” is not confined to chromosome it hitched a ride on.

I guess the “guided evolution” concept is not that far fetched anymore.