is it science or God?

Is it science or is it God? (don't get mad at me i'm just asking...)
Half of the world believes its God and the other half believe in science....of course on all these theories i think its both.....i think God created souls while science created us.......


Crazy huh?


this wasn't to offend anyone just give your opion! sheesh!

 

I believe it is both, but not entirely in the same sense as you.

You ask a quantum physicist what created the universe, and they will say energy. Define energy: it has always existed, always will exist, cannot be created or destroyed. You ask a religious person what created the universe, and they will say God (according to many religions). Define God: He has always existed, always will exist, cannot be created or destroyed.
Don't go bothering me about how this isn't proof of anything. It's just food for thought.

I believe there is some kind of higher being. The easiest way to put it is I believe science and "God" don't contradict each other, but instead work together.

 

I believe science and God coexist. I think God made science as kind of a backbone for his creations.

 

I really find it difficult to believe in any god or gods simply because of all the contradictions and inaccuracies in pretty much every holy book, so I have to go with science. Also, a small side note: statistically speaking, there are many many more deists than atheists.

 

Uh, statistically, the vast majority of the earth's populace is religious, whether they believe in a personal omnipotent god or something completely different. What are you talking about?

Anyway I'm not sure what I'd classify myself as now in terms of religious beliefs, but on the whole I think the scientific method is probably the best thing we have for establishing truth claims at this point. It's by no means perfect, and there's no such as absolute certainty of anything, but at least it actively tries to explain the universe according to what we can empirically verify and finds ways to put that knowledge to good use.

"God did it" isn't a particularly helpful explanation of things, it's a subjective assertion which could be true, but even if it, is it doesn't get us very far. An entity like that prevents investigation and further learning by its very nature. As it stands, to science, that explanation is worse than false; it's useless.

 

In a similar thread, there was a post by Nouveau Nova that sums up pretty well what I think of this topic

But in the end, it makes more sense to me to say that the universe and all of the phenomena in it was set in motion by some central designer instead of saying it was all random chance.

 

God, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Dao, Energy, Qi, etc.
All names for the same thing, the same concept in our lives. Just because one is considered more valid than another, doesn't mean we all aren't thinking of the very same thing.

 

It also doesn't mean it is necessarily any of the above, or actually "real" for that matter.

I see it as being science, as you have called it. I say this because all the evidence points that way. I live my life by what I know, and what I know to be right.

 

I'm saying that evidence in general voids virtually every argument for the existence of a higher power except for the "The <<Insert holy text here>> says so so it must be" and "I feel he exists therefore he does". Feelings are evidence to nothing.

In the past religion tried to explain everything, got miffed when science tried to butt in and eventually had to concede that science was right. Also, there is no faith in science, there is knowledge. Knowledge is based on objective evidence. I know the theory of gravity is right. I will know that it is right until (and there is very little chance of this happening) there is evidence to the contrary. And the funny thing is, all it would take is one bit of objective evidence to disprove a scientific theory such as gravity. And in the hundreds of years of research and searching there hasn't been any.

The same can certainly not be said for the existence of a higher being.

 

God exists in the cracks of reality which we cannot explain. He says "You can't explain this with mundane reasons, therefore the only way it could happen is through me!" Originally, he had a lot of 'evidence' for his existence, but as phenomena got explained, his standing decreased. Now he only exists in the biggest mystery of them all: the origin of the universe.

 

And now that the big bang theory is almost proven(with evidence such as red shift) God has merely been granted the honour of being a supposed domino toppler or the "first cause".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel's_Teapot

Just thought I'd toss this in here. You're right though, metaphysics is out of science's jurisdiction.

 

Trandcendance. The single biggest cop-out explanation in the history of man. "He's too great to understand/comprehend". Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. There's that and the logical impossibility of being Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. I'm also not a fan of "There's no proof he doesn't exist" argument. There's no proof that I'm secretly a 20-tentacled alien typing this message to you from a quazar 20,000 light-years from Neptune, but do you honestly believe that I am? That said, I'm not going to go and take a **** on someone's beliefs, it's their right to believe what they want (Something that many Christians don't seem to understand in my experience), even if I personally cannot understand it.

As to how we got here, I believe it was complete random chance. Sure, it's an indescribably small chance, but if we are in that chance, whose to say that it couldn't have happened? There's a theory that states "Everything that can happen, has happened" however, just not along the same timeline that we exist upon. See how I can't really justify me crapping all over Christianity when my theory about it sounds just as far-fetched?

 

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

 

What you're saying is that it's easier for YOU to accept something like that. Random chance not only had the current state of the universe as an option but a near infinite possible permutations. there is no "in the end"way to frame it because both equally explain the way the universe is now. It's like saying whether or not you happened to open the fridge and find grape jelly to put on your sandwich or you went out and gathered the grapes and made your own jelly to put on your sandwich: both equally explain how jelly got on your sandwich.

Both science and a god can essentially co-exist. Science does not rule out the possibility of an ultimate being somewhere within our universe. it's aim is to provide an empirical understanding of what the universe around is and how it works. It is impossible for science to currently rule out the existence or non-existence of a god. more importantly, science is a continual process that is always revising the information that it has acquired. Even if it does find a being that resembles a god, it would not mean that it would be a god. All it would mean is that by the current standards of scientific rigor are unable to look at every facet of that being. it could be the case that 1000 years later that science could find that being to be nothing more than an average life form. We could spent a millennium looking at a god-like being, and conclude that it is perfect despite the fact that it is just as flawed as we are.

And now we get to a problem. Our conception of perfection and what it means to be god-like is empty. we will never be capable of understanding what perfection is. What we might regard as perfect might be utter flaw in the eyes of some other being. if the universe was constructed by some other form of life, it was probably a being far from perfect. I mean, what sort of watch maker blames the watch for shoddy craftsmanship?

metaphysics serves to mostly defy much of our scientific conception of the universe.

That's merely an illusory comparison. If anything it demonstrates that the macro and the micro are governed by similar constraints or rules.

 

Obviously, there's no way to prove one or the other is the only reason behind anything.

Personally, I believe in both. It's stupid and ignorant to pretend that science isn't there and viable; I fully endorse science, and, unlike a lot of Christians, I'll give evolution a shot. However, I don't see how science can be the only thing out there. If it were, then what a horrible existance! No hope for an afterlife, no inner compass for right or wrong, pure existentialism...it's so depressing. What do you live for? Even if you just live for self, you still are let down.

This is what brings up my belief in God. As people, we seem to have an instinctual desire for something beyond. The Greeks had it, the Romans had it, the Egyptians had it, and the Israelites certainly had it. And, if you look at science, how complex everything from an atom to the universe is, I cannot see how there is not a God. Something as intricate as the world we live in could not be created by some impersonal chance.

As for how the two tie in, God is a practical God who uses science for creation. There's no way to take one away and not have the other.

I'm sorry, got a tad off-topic.

 

What about:
Miraculous Recoveries?
Meaningful Complexity in the Universe?
The Ability to Reason Unique to Humans?
I could go on. The existence of God has been (sort of) proven by a priest/quantum physicist. I'll ask my religion/science teacher for a link to the article.

 

"I don't know how it happened, so it must be God".

It doesn't really work that way. Also, a very small chance of recovery is still a chance. Given millions of people it's bound to happen sometime.

Complexity does not equal design.

...we got lucky? I dunno what this is supposed to prove.