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.
The vast majority don't represent the truly innovative thinkers of the scientific world.
Many scientists in the 7th, 8th and 9th century era, who actually laid down the very foundations of modern day science, were actually believers in God.
There have been some discussions about this in the past when Fundamentalist religion was trying to claim scientific credibility. The stats (despite their attempts to fiddle them) seemed to indicate (as i recall) that it was about 15% god believer/religious in science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Many scientists in the 7th, 8th and 9th century era, who actually laid down the very foundations of modern day science, were actually believers in God.
For example, the founding father of Algebra.
But the work they did was through science - not through religion. And I believe that the scientific work done by muslims was during the most enlightened, tolerant and scientifically advanced period in its' history (1), after which a wave of religious -based fundamentalism swept that all away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
as if there are no scientists after Darwin who are also believers.
You are missing the point. Before Darwin, there was no other explanation but Goddunnit. Darwin was the first to come up with a explanation that did not require an intelligent creator. After that science was not locked into a god as the default -theory anymore.
Taking the resort under the shelter of "I don't know" - Aren't we doing it a little too early?
And mind you, there is nothing wrong with it. I have done it many times.
*But* you may actually know a couple of things before you throw in the white towel of "I don't know".
so lets dive into it.
Scientifically, logically, and philosophically thinking: If we start the process of reverse engineering and take the route of going back and start finding out, "that OK, this thing came before this thing, and this came before that, and this thing came before that, and this came before that... and we keep on going, and going and going .... then we may probably see two scenarios.
1 - We get into an infinite loop. We keep on going trillion and gazillion upon gazillion years of reverse engineering but it will never end because we are locked into an infinity.
2 - The second and more interesting possibility is that, say we actually DO FIND what started it all. Say we call it X.
In our process of reverse engineering, we reached to a point where there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!
And we see that X came first.
Now the question is: Who created X?
If X was created by something else then X is not the start and hence X did not come first. Which is not true because we know that X came first and there is nothing beyond X.
The other option is, X created itself.
This is ridiculous. You cannot decide to create your own self when you don't exist.
So the only logical answer is, whatever came first, whatever started it all (X, in this case), did not actually come. It was always there. It has no start. Nobody created it. It was always there.
And finally, since you agreed that "You don't know" - then I suggest you should stick with it when you are asked if God exists or not?
Since you don't know, you can't deny it, unless of course, if you keep putting pressure on that poor spleen.
You can not claim you have the logical answer when you miss a few options out.
Many scientists in the 7th, 8th and 9th century era, who actually laid down the very foundations of modern day science, were actually believers in God.
For example, the founding father of Algebra.
Gods, plural. They were not all Christians. You will find most of them were also men. And if you ask the relevance of them being men, then you have found the problem with your argument.
Science and religion work together. Isaac Newton is just one example. Scientific development was not possible without religious faith.
newton was a nut bag. I don't care what he believed.
But he did have one good quality. he tested everything. He followed, rightfully so, the notion that if you can sse it in a 3 inch box, it will work in a 3 foot box, a 3000 thousand foot box, and beyond.
anybody that would follow a guy like newton for the sole reason the were good at one thing and a atheist is part of the problem.
again ozzy, religion and science can go together like accounting and art. I wish more religious people knew that. people that deny religion and science can work together can't see past that any more than a dog can see past you telling them to "go outside now and tinkle ... I am leaving.". and its thinking, "but that look on your face when you step in it ... priceless."
tht data that they so demand tells us that rational people can work together just fine.
weather they are rational priest or scientist. In fact, rational people can say, 'I think you are right, dude couldn't have woke up and flew away. We have to change that." rational people can say, "yeah, we are definitely part of a larger more complex system."
why do we sit by and let the two ends of a boo stick tell us? well, we are working and teaching our kids about personal accountability and that all choices have natural consequences ... don't blame others, fix it yourself.
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.
