Can science prove this???....

Originally posted by AD5673

Do you have any proof that God really does exist? I mean are we suppose to swallow the Bible as true just because some priest says we should? There are strong arguments for both sides. There is no real proof that he exists and there isn't any proof that he doesn't. In terms of religion we are in a quandra. Society tells us he exist. Science points to the real possibility that we are a mathermatical probability in the great ecosystem of the Universe.

You dont have any proof that he doesnt. Look through out history. There is evidnce that prooves that Jesus existed. If Jesus exists...so does God. This should be moved to the religous forum anyway.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by AD5673]

just because jesus is real doesn't mean he is the son of god.

Can you prove that science exists?

Mathematics forms the basis of science but is in itself self referencial and axiomic, hence the basic premise of mathematical equivalency

1=1

but one what equals another what? no two equivalent objects can simultaneously occupy the same piont in the space time continuum, no two objects are in reality homogenous, the only real equivelancies lie in the notional.

One thing cannot equal another, each thing is referential unto itself, and itself alone.

Science is merely a paradigm as fragile and fallable as any other, it is in essence, a religion without a God. Our science and mathematics of today will be superceded in the future as has "scientific" knowledge of the past, in two hundred years most of what we call physics will be as obselete as an IBM 386.

And people will still believe in God...

ok this thread is like a ping pong table....okay you cant disprove either or prove the other....lets just settle with the facts that god and science do not mix and thats why religion and the court is seperate

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Majic
All science is based upon underlying assumptions which have never been proven.

Such as?

The more direct way to approach my statement is to attempt to find any aspect of science which is not somehow founded upon an assumption.

If you should chance to find one, please be sure to let me know about it!

What Was The Question Again?

Originally posted by Nygdan
One can't scientifically prove that any god doesn't exist. Science is entirely mute on the subject of gods. At most it shows that such and such a thing can be shown to happen with out involvement of a god. Even then people will still be able to say 'there is still a god doing all that'. How could science even begin to address that sort of question? It can't. Science isn't a threat to religion, its entirely seperate from it.

This seems to be a good summary of a reasonable stance on the topic. But it is by no means universal among scientists or people in general, hence the discussion here.

Also, my contention is that Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive, but have many common traits and are often applied to one another in discussions such as this one.

In other words, I consider such an intellectual boundary to be laudable in intent, but impossible to determine or maintain in practice.

The boundary between Science and Religion is fictitious.

A Religion By Any Other Name

As for my claims that scientists and layment tend to approach Science as a religion, that is, of course, no more than my assessment based upon my own experiences and observations.

However, much of scientific practice does conform to what many anthropologists would define as a religion, although a canonical definition of religion has yet to be accepted in anthropology.

When in doubt, I always love to drag out good ole' Merriam-Webster OnLine:

Main Entry: re�li�gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re�li�gion�less adjective

If we accept definition 4 as valid, it seems to apply rather nicely to the practice of Science as most people would understand it.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
. Our science and mathematics of today will be superceded in the future as has "scientific" knowledge of the past, in two hundred years most of what we call physics will be as obselete as an IBM 386.

But it will still work. Old computers still work and how they work is understood. Old science still works, its just not as good of an explanation as newer better science.

And people will still believe in God...

And it will still be beleif and it will still not work. People hundreds of years ago danced to make it rain and sometimes it did. People still dance for rain and sometimes it does. But irrigration systems with pipes and water management systems and an understanding of the hydrologic cycle seems to be a little more effective.

majic
If you should chance to find one, please be sure to let me know about it!

What assumptions are evolution, chemistry or even physics based on?

But it is by no means universal among scientists or people in general

I really have to say that I don't think a particularly large portion of scientists think anything different. They know when the monitor a reaction in a test tube that there are certain metaphysical questions that they can't answer. They understand that they can look at how a reaction proceeds but not 'why'

but impossible to determine or maintain in practice.

It seems to work very fine in pratice. One doesn't find papers published in scientific journals that try to answer metaphysical questions or arrive at faith based conclusions. Its not immpossible to do either of the above.

If we accept [system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ] as valid, it seems to apply rather nicely to the practice of Science as most people would understand it.
What do you think?

I think it doesn't apply to science, mainly because one doesn't hold scientific propositions because of faith. I also think that if one were to make it so this definition does include science, (ie redfine faith in someway or something along those lines) then the word religion becomes meaningless, becuase a preference for coca cola products becomes a religion, or anything and everything becomes a religion.

Not all old science works, everyday something new is discovered to disprove previous assumptions.

What about Radium Water, Deildrin, Heptaclore, DDT, 245T, Thalidamide, Dalcon Sheild, Asbestos products, PCB's and Hydrocarbons...

Science told us they were all safe...

Today with GMO we will see another generation of birth abnormalities which we are at the very moment being told are safe.

And just cause god doesn't work for you does not mean that god does not work for the Shaolin monks, or the Jesuits, or the Dali Llama.

It seems to me that this arguement runs at cross purposes in the confusion of God and religion.

The new "theory of everything" demands as a criteria that any theory must be able to account for the existance of the physicist who created it, the metaphysical has been a constituent of quantum physics since the work of Neils Bohr. The metaphysical role of the observer has never been as critical in scientific theory as it is today, and is the understanding of the cosmo as a purposeful holistic sytem. The self organising properties of the interconnected web of quantum energy in the universe, being tantamount to a scientific description of the mind of god.

The reality of modern scientific thought is more likely in the long term to prove the existence of god than to disprove it.

Religion however, like science is a crude attempt to describe the indescribable.

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
What about Radium Water, Deildrin, Heptaclore, DDT, 245T, Thalidamide, Dalcon Sheild, Asbestos products, PCB's and Hydrocarbons...

Science told us they were all safe...

Science verified under experiments that they acted in such and such way under such and such conditions. Thats what science does. It doesn't tell us that egg yolks are bad, it tells us that they have this much cholesterol and that in studies with these controls people with this much cholesterol were that much more susepctible to this set of symptoms etc etc.
The point is that the same experiments newton carried out will have the same results today, even tho the physical world is thought to be more complicated than newtonian mechanics would indicate. Whereas the prayers uttered by egyptian preists might've appeased anubis 4,000 years ago, today they aren't working for anyone.
Furthermore, a chemistry experiment in new york works the same in new dehli, whereas the offerings given to the gods in one aren't the same as the offerings given to the gods in the other.
Of course this is something of a hyperbole, but I think the general meaning can be understood. Science is objective (at least relatively objective if one wants to argue the point) whereas religion is entirely subjective. No chemical test for starch can change catholic dogma on the host becoming flesh. If it isn't meat siting there, then the 'substance' has been changed, something that science can't reach.

Today with GMO we will see another generation of birth abnormalities which we are at the very moment being told are safe.

And what studies suggest that?

And just cause god doesn't work for you does not mean that god does not work for the Shaolin monks, or the Jesuits, or the Dali Llama.

It seems to me that this arguement runs at cross purposes in the confusion of God and religion.

The new "theory of everything" demands as a criteria that any theory must be able to account for the existance of the physicist who created it, the metaphysical has been a constituent of quantum physics since the work of Neils Bohr. The metaphysical role of the observer has never been as critical in scientific theory as it is today, and is the understanding of the cosmo as a purposeful holistic sytem. The self organising properties of the interconnected web of quantum energy in the universe, being tantamount to a scientific description of the mind of god.

The reality of modern scientific thought is more likely in the long term to prove the existence of god than to disprove it.

Religion however, like science is a crude attempt to describe the indescribable.

I really beleive that if god was disproven through science then the world as a whole would be a much better place. Think about all of the barriers we would break down. By all means I dont mean to insult or offend any of you that are religiuos, but i think the world would be a much better place without religion. Or maybe somehow prove that there is only one god, that way everyone beleives in the same thing so there is no conflict in terms of religion.

No you are wrong. Secular beleifs in the 20th century (naziz & communists) alone have killed more people than all the religeons put together

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Also -- maybe someone made this point already -- when the Bible says that God took one rib from Adam to make Eve, yet both males and females have the same number of ribs, that in and of itself is enough to make me go

at the Bible. But apparently when you have such blind faith in something, you'll find anyway to justify it being true.

Get educated! If i lost a rib then would that mean that my kids would have one less. NO. It would not alter my dna

Originally posted by surfup


For example, if we find good evidence that Jesus didn't exist, then we could have an answer to your problem.
So to answer your question in three worlds: Possible, not probable.

Sorry that will never happen. There is far too much evidence. 2000 years is very recent history. You might as well question history itself.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by surfup
For example, if we find good evidence that Jesus didn't exist, then we could have an answer to your problem. But the chances of that happening are very low.

Actually, you can't prove a negative. However, I should point out that outside of the Bible there is no evidence that Jesus exists. There are no records of a possible uprising in Israel at that time, no records of his execution, no records from the people of the time. The oldest records are heresay evidence (as in Tacitus' "I heard from someone who was told by a Christian that this man named Jesus lived...")

So... on the contrary, there is no evidence that he existed.

Also are you suggesting that that because you maintain that there are no records outside the bible that we can disregard the bible?

By the way what about the gospel of mary magdilaine and other texts refering to Jesus which were not included in the Bible e.g there is a gospel by Thomas no?

I think the problem with this thread is semantics. Which is inevitable since no one can define what "God" is, and ideas about "God" are constantly changing. I cant believe in something that I couldnt even define. And as science discovers new things, intrepitations of God change too, just look at Christianity. "We'll, God wasnt being LITERAL when he said he created the earth in 7 days, after all, 7 days is 13 billion years in God time." "We'll....yeah, we evolved, God wasnt literal when he said he created us from dust, but God still guided evolution!" "Yeah, there never really was a worldwide flood, it was just a story to illustrate a point, to paint a picture." You can already see how science disproves beliefs held Christianity, but then Christianity evolves, it changes its interpretation of God.

Back to the op, science could never absolutely disprove anything, at best, it can see what works and what doesnt and go from there, improving our lifes. But who knows, maybe one day time travel will be possible, and we could go back and find out that Jesus never existed, or he did and that he was some crazy kook cult leader whos miracles were all frauds. I think if you take Jesus out of the equation, then you could disprove christianity, after all, its based on him.

I cant absolutely prove that anything is even real though, for all I know, my brain could be in a jar somewhere being fed memories, stimulus and such, and I would never know. Do I believe this? Of course not. Could I absolutely disprove it? No.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]

Originally posted by toneloke

I really beleive that if god was disproven through science then the world as a whole would be a much better place. Think about all of the barriers we would break down. By all means I dont mean to insult or offend any of you that are religiuos, but i think the world would be a much better place without religion. Or maybe somehow prove that there is only one god, that way everyone beleives in the same thing so there is no conflict in terms of religion.

No you are wrong. Secular beleifs in the 20th century (naziz & communists) alone have killed more people than all the religeons put together

The Nazis held theistic beliefs, their government wasnt secular at all. In fact, Hitler was Christian.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]

The Nazis held theistic beliefs, they werent secular at all. Religion has killed more people than secular beliefs.

They may have held theistic beleifs but they were hardly cruisaders.

Besides that the 20m killed by communism in the 20th century dwarfs the deth toll of all 'holy wars' put together.

Secular beleifs have killed more than relegious beleifs. If you wish to refute this then lets see some figures. There have been many wars over relegion but the dead would have numbered thousands, tens of thousands. Nowhere near 20m.

Originally posted by toneloke

The Nazis held theistic beliefs, they werent secular at all. Religion has killed more people than secular beliefs.

They may have held theistic beleifs but they were hardly cruisaders.

Besides that the 20m killed by communism in the 20th century dwarfs the deth toll of all 'holy wars' put together.

Secular beleifs have killed more than relegious beleifs. If you wish to refute this then lets see some figures. There have been many wars over relegion but the dead would have numbered thousands, tens of thousands. Nowhere near 20m.

I edited my post, because im not sure. Im not sure what the death toll is caused by religion or by secular governments. Im curious as to where you got the 20 million figure from, though. And im not sure what you mean by saying the Nazis were hardly crusaders...could you clarify? The nazis killed about 12 million people...

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I was wondering about religion the other day and had a long conversation with a couple of buddies. I said to them..."if you look at science and how far its gone in the last couple of years, dont you think that one day we will be able to disprove the Christian GOD?."

Can you prove or disprove that other Gods exist or not? Zeus, Allah, etc? nope. By definition, something defined outside of our universe can't be proven or disproven.

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel

Originally posted by toneloke

I really beleive that if god was disproven through science then the world as a whole would be a much better place. Think about all of the barriers we would break down. By all means I dont mean to insult or offend any of you that are religiuos, but i think the world would be a much better place without religion. Or maybe somehow prove that there is only one god, that way everyone beleives in the same thing so there is no conflict in terms of religion.

No you are wrong. Secular beleifs in the 20th century (naziz & communists) alone have killed more people than all the religeons put together

The Nazis held theistic beliefs, their government wasnt secular at all. In fact, Hitler was Christian.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Alec Eiffel]

There, you've gone and shown, people who want to kill, will kill. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is just a convenient excuse. Remove religion, and they will find another scapegoat.

About a post earlier on, someone said that God could not have come out of nothing, so God cannot exist. Here is an alternate theory (straight out of my mind, I am not saying it is right):
Why should God need to come from something? Why does God need to be created by something? He could always have been there. Always is not such a bad term, as it would involve before any sort of "time axis" would have been created. You said nothing cannot create something, right? Since there IS something in the universe, there must always have been "something" that could create the something there is now. Why can't that something be God?

There, you've gone and shown, people who want to kill, will kill. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is just a convenient excuse. Remove religion, and they will find another scapegoat.

Sure, I think in some cases people use religion as a political tool of some sort when they have lesser intentions in mind. But, Hitler was very sincere in his religious beliefs, he really thought he was doing Gods will by killing the jews.

About a post earlier on, someone said that God could not have come out of nothing, so God cannot exist. Here is an alternate theory (straight out of my mind, I am not saying it is right):
Why should God need to come from something? Why does God need to be created by something? He could always have been there. Always is not such a bad term, as it would involve before any sort of "time axis" would have been created. You said nothing cannot create something, right? Since there IS something in the universe, there must always have been "something" that could create the something there is now. Why can't that something be God?

You could replace God with universe and it would make more sense, adding God into it all only adds to the complexity of it, it resolves nothing, only adds more unnessecary problems and unanswered questions.

I edited my post, because im not sure. Im not sure what the death toll is caused by religion or by secular governments. Im curious as to where you got the 20 million figure from, though. And im not sure what you mean by saying the Nazis were hardly crusaders...could you clarify? The nazis killed about 12 million people...

What i mean by hardly cruisaders is that the second world war was not a holy one as most of the european participants were of the same religion.
The 20m mainly died of starvation in the early 20th century in russia. Apparently collectivisation killed 14.5m alone heres a link www.cnn.com...

[edit on 30-12-2004 by toneloke]

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
You could replace God with universe and it would make more sense, adding God into it all only adds to the complexity of it, it resolves nothing, only adds more unnessecary problems and unanswered questions.

Heck, that is an even better idea. That way you say God IS the universe, and it would make sense too, when Christians say "God is everywhere"