Science is going to toss god into the dust bin of time

It appears science is coming to the rescue to save us from the many faked up god beliefs. What would a world do if everyone became self reliant and stopped sitting on their thumbs

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Will science someday rule out the possibility of God?
One man believes so, and says most of the mysterious can already be explained

-----

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."

Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules; further, belief in the afterlife helps people grieve and staves off fears of death.

science is just a religion in its infancy. They will find the creator when they stop over looking it,experience it though? that may be longer

That's funny, because i saw a thread earlier talking about how science was about to prove God exists. Hahahaha, this debate will never end my friend.

Indeed.

"The French philosopher Voltaire, a skeptic who destroyed the faith of many people, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth. Voltaire died in 1728, but the Bible lives on. The irony of history is that 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society moved into his former house and used his printing presses to print thousands of Bibles. "

Source: The Evidence Bible

Physics axiomatically says that the cosmos consists of nothing more than electrones, protons and other particles that obey some physical laws – while at the same time denying anything of ‘spiritual’ nature. In that context, no wander scientists cannot find ‘evidence’ for God or clues for the existence of any kind of ‘Purpose’ in our existence. After you have axiomatically accepted that a system consists of A, B and C only, how do you expect to find D anywhere?

An answer to this question, if you please.

LINK

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Physics axiomatically says that the cosmos consists of nothing more than electrones, protons and other particles that obey some physical laws – while at the same time denying anything of ‘spiritual’ nature. In that context, no wander scientists cannot find ‘evidence’ for God or clues for the existence of any kind of ‘Purpose’ in our existence. After you have axiomatically accepted that a system consists of A, B and C only, how do you expect to find D anywhere?

An answer to this question, if you please.

LINK

Just because science "accepts A,B and C" does not mean they are not looking for "D"....

Definition of god - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme...

First of all Yes i am religious but to a certain degree, i am more so open minded & acceptable towards peoples right to debate using their opinion, Myself i do believe in a higher supreme as what knowledge we have. Now we know their are other planets out their sustainable of water on its surface, What if in years time we found another planet sustainable to hold life, What if that planet was so advanced in its technology & knowledge that what we have on this planet is not even a start of progress towards a advanced world. Anyways this discussion is very complex so i don't think science will ever rule out god

reply to post by Awen24


That gave me a good laugh. Reminded me of Dane Cooks "God Bless You" joke.

Gee, one guy says that science will answer everything, and suddenly we can assume the ridiculous claim made in the title of this thread is true?

(Goes to chuck his religious beliefs in the bin... wait a second...)

Hmmm.

Some versions of quantum gravity theory that have been proposed by cosmologists predict that the Big Bang, rather than being the starting point of time, was just "a transitional stage in an eternal universe," in Carroll's words. For example, one model holds that the universe acts like a balloon that inflates and deflates over and over under its own steam.

Oopsies, we've a problem right there.

The universe is expanding at an increasing rate (Source) which has been confirmed with recent observations by Hubble. That means that the universe is NOT cyclical, and this "balloon that inflates and deflates over and over" theory is rubbish. I don't know why it's even mentioned.

Oh, there's another theory mentioned.

Other versions of quantum gravity theory currently being explored by cosmologists predict that time did start at the Big Bang. But these versions of events don't cast a role for God either. Not only do they describe the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, but they also account for how time was able to get under way in the first place. As such, these quantum gravity theories still constitute complete, self-contained descriptions of the history of the universe.

Yeah, this is the Larry Krauss A Universe From Nothing claim, which has been demonstrated to be invalid. A universe cannot "come from nothing" via quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics is "something". After being dressed down for this inane claim, Krauss admitted that the title of his book was invalid, and was chosen as a "hook to get you into the book." In other words, he lied to sell more books. (Source)

So, OP... *yawn*

Originally posted by RobertF

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Physics axiomatically says that the cosmos consists of nothing more than electrones, protons and other particles that obey some physical laws – while at the same time denying anything of ‘spiritual’ nature. In that context, no wander scientists cannot find ‘evidence’ for God or clues for the existence of any kind of ‘Purpose’ in our existence. After you have axiomatically accepted that a system consists of A, B and C only, how do you expect to find D anywhere?

An answer to this question, if you please.

LINK

Just because science "accepts A,B and C" does not mean they are not looking for "D"....

Why axiomatically exclude something while simultaneously claiming to look for it?

Science and religion are simply two illusions of the same thing. If there is a god why would it say "Do not study creation and do not learn"? vice verca why is science so against the idea of some things being "beyond" our knowing?

Science in my point of view has always been the definitive truth from the human perspective, but something started everything, and "God" is a general idea of the universal force driving creation.

but in all reality you seriously cant fool yourself into believing this is the only planet with life, or that even on a fundamental level a being so supreme and omnipotent will really give you even his most worthless 2 cents regarding your earthly existence? i mean truly ponder the idea of a universal god for a minute, doesn't it make sense that the being is on a whole different level entirely where our petty thoughts and desires are simply taken into account as much as we take into account the feelings and thoughts of our skin cells?

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Didn't Voltaire say the same thing centuries ago?

*waiting*

Science has thrown out god a long time ago. That's where materialism and determinism come from. Not saying it's right, it's just what they did.

According to Einstein E=mC2. So there was either mass or energy in the beginning.

The the god particle has the mass. So, god is but a tiny particle. Science defines both mass and energy.

We have already solved thousands of mysteries which were previously unknown and could only be explained by saying that God(s) must be behind it.

Yes, there are still thousands of unexplained mysteries, but don't blame os for not knowing, we are still young and learning. If we didn't focused on war and all other stupid, useless problems, we could know and archive so much more.

I refuse to believe in a God because I don't see the reason to believe in a Creator of all..
I agree, I don't know why, I don't know how. But saying God is behind everything is will only raise more questions.
This what now seems unexplainable to us may be perfectly explainable in the future. Just like they could not explain why we had solar eclipses and how we thought we were the middle of the Universe and everything turned around os. Now we know better.
And in the future, if we have gotten smarter, through evolution or other causes, we could answer those questions which now boggles our mind.

Originally posted by rambo1112
And in the future, if we have gotten smarter, through evolution or other causes, we could answer those questions which now boggles our mind.

Well, you can toss "How does something come from nothing?" into the pile that we can never answer, because our method of study, methodological naturalism (aka: science) says that it is impossible, and we can never observe what the state of the universe was in prior to the Big Bang.

Doesn't matter how smart we get (and evolution, for human beings, is effectively done,) the limits of science are such that there are, and always will be, some things that cannot be answered. The trick is to convince us that questions that can't be answered are pointless, and we can see efforts already underway in that arena.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

Psychology research suggests that belief in the supernatural acts as societal glue and motivates people to follow the rules;

I thought societal glue came from national pride and following the rules came from fear of going to prison?

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Physics axiomatically says that the cosmos consists of nothing more than electrones, protons and other particles that obey some physical laws – while at the same time denying anything of ‘spiritual’ nature. In that context, no wander scientists cannot find ‘evidence’ for God or clues for the existence of any kind of ‘Purpose’ in our existence. After you have axiomatically accepted that a system consists of A, B and C only, how do you expect to find D anywhere?

An answer to this question, if you please.

LINK

And the answer is: We are electrons, protons and other particles that obey some physical laws. Millions (actually billions) of people WANT to believe in something beyond what there is, and beyond what we are. Wanting something to be true, with no evidence whatsoever, is a fantasy. We can be one with the planet. We can be one with our lovers and our children. But this is just a feeling. There's no higher plane of connectedness that we can verify.

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
According to Einstein E=mC2. So there was either mass or energy in the beginning.

The the god particle has the mass. So, god is but a tiny particle. Science defines both mass and energy.

Why does God have to be a particle? That kind of implies that you would have to believe that everything in the universe has evolved from God?

Where is this god particle? Science may define something to its own satisfaction, does not mean they are right about it.

Let me share with you something from Dr. Joseph Leaser, M.D.

The Folly of Scientific Consensus

The Great Chromosome Consensus Controversy One of the most egregious examples of consensus science involved the number of chromosomes that human beings have. For many years it was the consensus that humans had 48 chromosomes - 23 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes. When I was in school all of the standard biology text books taught this. We had developed a method of isolating individual chromosomes and mapping or displaying them on a sheet of paper. These pictures of chromosomes were published in all of the scientific text books of the time. It was unequivocally stated that the chromosome maps displayed 24 pairs of human chromosomes - a total of 48. Some chromosomes resembled each other but there were enough unique characteristics to identify the different chromosomes. The established consensus was that there were 48 chromosomes. No one dared question it - the evidence was in front of your eyes - much like the consensus on global warming. Unfortunately, for scientific truth, the consensus was wrong - we actually have 46 chromosomes. Potatoes have 48 chromosomes not humans. So powerful was the scientific consensus that despite the evidence in front of their very eyes - actual photographs of stained chromosomes - no one would challenge the accumulated and accepted wisdom. Were the scientists blinded by the weight of perceived expertise or were they so intimidated by their famous peers that they would not acknowledge what they actually saw? Fortunately one brave soul had the courage to call attention to what he actually saw - there were 23 pairs of chromosomes - 46 total - not 24 pairs. The extra set of chromosomes on all the chromosome maps was actually a duplicate of one of the other sets! Wow! You can guess what hit the fan. But he persevered and was found to be correct. How could all these famous, powerful, intelligent scientists - professors, researchers, MDs - have missed such an obvious fact? How could such a blunder have been repeated year after year? This is the power of consensus science. You challenge the conventional wisdom at great peril.

Why keep agreeing with science that daily shoots itself in the foot, hobbles around to shoot the other foot, then attempts to walk, saying it has no pain?

Science cannot disprove God. Science, by its very nature, merely explains the "hows", not the "whys". The best part about science is that it changes as new discoveries are made. When Christians speak of God's invisible qualities, these previously unknown discoveries are what they are referring to. Who knows where technology will take us in 100 years? We don't even know what's at the bottom of the ocean floor. Truth is multidimensional and does not change. What we understand to be truth, however, does.

Science is a great way to learn about the world but far too many people are turning it into a religion. Many people point to Galileo's execution and the Dark Ages and the corruption of the Catholic Church as "proof" of God's nonexistence or hostility towards science. I say that science and God are one in the same. Galileo's discoveries were an important and necessary cog in shifting our understanding of the universe to the currently accepted world paradigm. But he was not a martyr for Scientism.