Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God? (priest, spiritual, spirit)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, because the idea of God is based around faith, and the minute faith dies, then there is no more hope for humanity.
I get it, I myself am a big fan of science. I was such a big fan that I use to be an atheist myself, and was an admitted agnostic for many many years. I now consider myself a man of faith and of God. It wasn't because I found any evidence that God exist, but I found out that the power of God is not in "proof" but in "faith". People don't believe in God because they feel they can prove he exist, but they believe in God because they need to believe in something.
I know during my years as an atheist, despite being very well educated, I simply didn't feel I belonged to anything. I just existed, and I never found a reason or purpose for existing. I think I have gradually returned to my faith, and i'm all the happier for it. I still will always read about science and the nature of the universe and such. But in my personal life, I can't live without faith and God's glory. It's an odd thing for me, but its me.
As to how I started my path on the way back to God was my unrequited curiosity of physics and mathematics. Mainly mathematics. Now I am not professional mathematician, but as I started to learn about proof theorem, one fundamental thing put me back on the path to God. To believe in physics, the math behind it, and the proof, we are only limited to our human observation of physical phenomena. And how can we, as humans trust that our experience of reality is what should be measured? When I found out that no one could answer that question, I conclude that the belief in science was a thing of faith as well. You must have faith in human measurement and observation, because that is the starting point towards "proof". It didn't take a day, but it made me an agnostic, and eventually I have gotten back into believing in a God. Now the Christian God may not be the God who exist, but he's the God I believe in. My faith is a choice, and it has made me a happier person, and I feel a certain level of peace inside me because of it. A certain harmony and peace I have never felt believing in anything else.
So as long as this is the case, science can never replace the glory of God for many people. And yes I still study science, as a matter of fact, I'm scoping out string theory ebooks on Google play I want to buy for my tablet.
There is a break in logic. If the universe had a beginning than what happened before that?
Given the universe's current form is all we know had a "beginning" and "time" is one of the attributes that was formed at that point... the concept of "before" you cling to with such desperation might not even be all that valid. If time was not an attribute then I would love to hear you explain how we can have "before" and "after" and "causality". All the things your argument so desperately needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
And if there was nothing how did something get here?
Who said there was nothing? We simply do not know that. All we know is that the current form of the universe had a beginning. What it was "before" that is still a total mystery to us.
Even then however all you are doing here is playing "God of the gaps". Asking questions no one has the answer to is not useful when arguing about the possibility of there being a god. Ignorance is not evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
You can’t go from absolutely nothing to something
We do not know that either. Actually current science is suggesting perhaps you every much can. I recommend watching the one hour talk by Laurence Krauss on the subject on your tube. It is called, "A universe from nothing".
No, because the idea of God is based around faith, and the minute faith dies, then there is no more hope for humanity.
I get it, I myself am a big fan of science. I was such a big fan that I use to be an atheist myself, and was an admitted agnostic for many many years. I now consider myself a man of faith and of God. It wasn't because I found any evidence that God exist, but I found out that the power of God is not in "proof" but in "faith". People don't believe in God because they feel they can prove he exist, but they believe in God because they need to believe in something.
I know during my years as an atheist, despite being very well educated, I simply didn't feel I belonged to anything. I just existed, and I never found a reason or purpose for existing. I think I have gradually returned to my faith, and i'm all the happier for it. I still will always read about science and the nature of the universe and such. But in my personal life, I can't live without faith and God's glory. It's an odd thing for me, but its me.
As to how I started my path on the way back to God was my unrequited curiosity of physics and mathematics. Mainly mathematics. Now I am not professional mathematician, but as I started to learn about proof theorem, one fundamental thing put me back on the path to God. To believe in physics, the math behind it, and the proof, we are only limited to our human observation of physical phenomena. And how can we, as humans trust that our experience of reality is what should be measured? When I found out that no one could answer that question, I conclude that the belief in science was a thing of faith as well. You must have faith in human measurement and observation, because that is the starting point towards "proof". It didn't take a day, but it made me an agnostic, and eventually I have gotten back into believing in a God. Now the Christian God may not be the God who exist, but he's the God I believe in. My faith is a choice, and it has made me a happier person, and I feel a certain level of peace inside me because of it. A certain harmony and peace I have never felt believing in anything else.
So as long as this is the case, science can never replace the glory of God for many people. And yes I still study science, as a matter of fact, I'm scoping out string theory ebooks on Google play I want to buy for my tablet.
I hate to admit it, but that's the best 'Faith' argument I am likely to see. I personally feel that it's utterly misguided and it would not do for me at all, but I can see why you opted for it and why it's good for you and, if you don't try to force it on others (as I'm sure you don't) I can respect your right have those beliefs even if I don't much respect the beliefs themselves.
I hate to admit it, but that's the best 'Faith' argument I am likely to see. I personally feel that it's utterly misguided and it would not do for me at all, but I can see why you opted for it and why it's good for you and, if you don't try to force it on others (as I'm sure you don't) I can respect your right have those beliefs even if I don't much respect the beliefs themselves.
Yeah I have to second that.
As to branh, he was probably not atheist nor agnostic. We really need find a word that describes folk that walk away for awhile, backslidden only applies if you have done the full conversion already so maybe Theo-partialist which as it suggests, partial to theism?
A theo-impartialist would be the opposite in that that person really does not give a crap.
This could be a good way to describe folk that were brought up in religious homes but then decided to go wild for awhile. While there is nothing inherently "bad" about going wild and sowing wild oats etc. there is still that guilt by association folk feel because they are not following the faith they were indoctrinated with.
I was like this in my twentyteens and then got sucked back in. In that time I would have been pretty impartial to theism not giving a hoot one way of the other and attended various churches with a number of GFs but the motive was to get laid not become religious. That was not and is not atheism nor agnosticism which I see bandies about by many converts. IMO one really becomes agnostic or atheist when you have really delved deep into the scriptures and church history. This then leads to gnostic atheism which in my definition is "knowing" it is BS or very questionable.
Our poster here probably is not uber dedicated and I would hazard a guess , many like him (or her) merely go through the motions and what folk tend to label as cafeteria christians, couple of times a year, weddings, baptisms and funerals. (Just a general observation) In the same way there seems to be a scale from meh to militant for atheism, the same should hold true for theists.
The folk attending more orthodox churches tend to be xians only for one hour a week and the rest of the time you would not tell if they were theists or not. These are the types that make up a huge percentage of folk that self identify as xian on census forms and the ad populum fallacy so often offered as some sort of proof that theism is true.
According to the various doctrines floating around, these are not considered dyed in the wool christians but only paying lip service to the faith. Evangelicals will quickly inform you these types still need saving.
Yep. The thing that strikes me as important is not to shove these bods away with: 'you are now a god - believer - you turncoat you ' - but to arm -around -the -shoulder understand that a faith - choice is admitted rather than trying to argue that there is a logical and evidential justification for it.
The important distinction is that Faith is a personal choice, whereas evidence and logic is a universal discipline. The difference is that there is no case for imposing faith on others through the educational and science media as a worldview but, since science and logic is the worldview (though many pretend that it isn't) an attempt to justify God or religion through evidence and logic is a threat to have them taught (imposed/indoctrinated) through education and science as evidence - supported reliable fact, and I ain't gonna put my arm around that shoulder.
According to science the universe started with the Big Bang. So if there was nothing before that how could something come from nothing? So either a person goes with scientific faith because it does involve faith or the faith involving a Being above it all who put the laws of nature in place to form the universe.
Science has no such faith. Science observes, then formulates falsifiable theories to explain what has been observed. What you are doing is starting from a rigid conclusion and then sniffing around for things that might support it and you are finding nothing.
none of us know that is true, but some of us have beliefs
None of us know all the answers, so I'm stating that it was Magical Pixie Dust. Why don't you believe in Pixies? Your creator is no different and carries no more weight than the Magical Pixie. Please present to me one VALID reason that I should elevate your creator over the Pixies, just one and I will relent.
Now the Christian God may not be the God who exist, but he's the God I believe in. My faith is a choice, and it has made me a happier person, and I feel a certain level of peace inside me because of it. A certain harmony and peace I have never felt believing in anything else.
I read all of your message. I congratulate you on being was seems to be a theist who does not shun science or people who do not share your beliefs. I am curious as to how you reconcile your belief in a Christian god with some of the basic Christian doctrine such as heaven, hell, salvation, election, etc. I am a former Christian, now atheist. Yes, there are many good things about a church family, fellowship and belief can be comforting...but, I could not reconcile the doctrine PLUS believing in things that I knew were either untrue or completely unsupported by evidence.
Science has no such faith. Science observes, then formulates falsifiable theories to explain what has been observed. What you are doing is starting from a rigid conclusion and then sniffing around for things that might support it and you are finding nothing.
"Observing" what happened 13 or so billion years ago doesn't require some level of faith? Who are you kidding?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
' - but to arm -around -the -shoulder understand that a faith - choice is admitted rather than trying to argue that there is a logical and evidential justification for it.
