is it science or God?

Small Posssibility to Recover =/= A miracle.

Like Cyanide said, Complexity =/= Design. Example: Tangled wires.

No proof of that. There's the possibility that some other form of life, shoudl it exist otu there has the ability to "reason".

There is no proof of god's existence. If there were it'd be the single greatest discovery in the history of man, and I'd have heard of it at LEAST. "sort of" is the key part there.

 

1. Millions of diseases and deformities at birth, making the child's life a living hell?
2. Completely random barrenness of other planets?
3. The ability to reason in the same way found in monkeys, suggesting evolution?

 

If you don't mind me stepping into your conversation,

I don't believe in the "Lord". I think that science speaks for itself and is what we see today. Maybe the people who do believe in the "Lord" say that he is the starting point, but, can there be another reason? Sure, lets go with that. ;)

 

This is an example of where religious arguments lean towards the side of laughable hypocrisy. Deists can always say "God did it," but the moment an atheist or questioner says that science can't explain such an event at the moment, the instant assumption is that the latter person in the argumen has lost. Well I'm going to leave it at this: some "miraculous recoveries" can be explained by biomedical science, others can't. It proves nothing, merely "makes you wonder."

Erm... Explain?

We're more developed than other organisms. Simple as that. Besides, many animals do have the ability to reason, though they can't always act on this reason. Dogs whimper for the return of their masters, apes are taught to solve simple puzzles: to say that humans are the only organisms that can reason is frighteningly ignorant.

If this were to be a truly valid argument that he made, I'm sure it'd be pretty big news. The article is probably filled to the brim with bias as well if your religion teacher showed it to you.

 

Ah the Idea of science vs God.
I like to think of it as yin and yang.
God is translated as the imagination, while science is logic.
Without imagination you cannot create, nor hypothesize somthing new.
Without logic your imagination runs wild, and incases you from reality.
Therefore both are nessecary.

Now of course if you are asking how the universe was created I'd have to say that it was created according to how the Big Bang Theory proposes. I have somewhat of a Deistic idea of what might have happened before the Big Bang, but so far it seems unlikley.

 

You mentioned nothing about design in your previous post. You claimed that the complexity of the universe was evident of the presense of a "higher being". The simple truth is that it is not. I'm not denying the point you're making, but you just put words in my mouth.

Um, that article is probably the least convincing I've ever read, and I've read "The Blind Watchmaker". Is there any link to exactly what this guy used to "prove" god? Sorry, but:

...doesn't cut it with me. All I'm seeing here is a guy saying "Science proves god!", and a load of biased sources agreeing with him. Again, sorry, but I'm far too cynical to swallow something like that.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't believe in a God. There is something that drives the universe, and yes, it's something that science can't explain yet, but it's an entirely random, brainless, unconscious force. To say that it's a 'God' is to say that there are people that can understand it, and that there are motivations for its actions, and I just can't do that.

 

Gotta agree with this man on this one. He's basically just regurgitating some physics lingo and saying it means a god must exist, when he isn't showing any of his specific steps in logic that brought him to his conclusion. I'm not buying unless you can show me that.

 

"Higher" is a tricky word to use because we can never know what it is like to have the conscious experience of a monkey or a bat. And because we can never fully understand the awareness possessed by other organisms other than ourselves, we can only infer or form approximate understandings of these things. And while they might seem to on the level of being "lower" than ours, we can't provide a definitive answer as to whether or not reasoning is different between something like a human or a monkey.

it first requires a definition of reasoning. if such a definition entails the processing of relevant information in the organism's environment to arrive at some form of mental state that is directed at something, then the processes that are occurring in the monkey's head are functionally the same as a human's. You'd have to provide a specialized form of defining what it means to reason in order for it to only apply to humans. But doing so would prevent it from being an objective definition. In short, you really can't say that reasoning for a monkey is really all that different from how we reason if you want to talk about a comprehensive understanding of reasoning in both.

This right here pertains to what i said in the above. By defining reasoning to be above and beyond anything else other than being a human is to give a narrow and incomplete definition of reasoning. What you are describing is the phenomenological aspect of human reasoning--that is, what it is like to reason as a human. Of course this type of reasoning can't apply to anything else other than a human because you need the conscious experience of a human to have it. Showing that there is a unique experience to human reasoning says nothing about how it might be "higher" in any way.

Sure, but you're assuming design. Your retort is just as empty as the thing that prompt it.

 

I believe there is no god but if there was there would be nothing good, unique, or special about it.

 

Well I beleive it's a bit of both everything is too well planned to be coincidence (Such as food chains) Yet thinking abut if it was god who made god unless science was involved?

 

I am a big debater on this subject and mostly it's with myself. I use to believe in a higher power, but with me I guess faith doesn't cut it. If I can't see the physical evidence behind something then I can't believe in it. Don't take this the wrong way, I believe in evolution. I am not saying that there isn't a god . . . I am saying that I don't have enough faith to believe in him/her. I am not one to say hey you don't believe the same as me so I hate you, I don't do that. Infact I respect people who can still have that kind of faith. Anyways aside from rambling on, I am going to have to go with science on this matter. I do believe god to be a sort of figure, that which you can rely on to ease your grief when a loved one dies or something like that but until cold hard proof is laid before me I cannot believe in god. I am not an athiest, because I don't believe in god doesn't make me an athiest. Although this is leading to another matter, classifying but i'll save that for somewhere else. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you more if you don't hate me.

 

I believe in what I can see as physical truth, so that means, no God. Bl

Science is the cold-hard truth. I gotta go with the facts.

 

Well, science hasn't flat out disproved the possibility of there being nothing akin to a higher power or god. Given it's current limitations it can't even begin to tackle the problem. It has only put forth a much more empirically acceptable alternative to creationism. Just because evolution works doesn't mean that there is no god.

 

Science-Its a bit more convincing than "God Rules all,God Created All,Simple As" dont ya think???

 

it doesn't rule out any compatibility of evolution begin set in motion by a higher power. Although it's essentially aimless, the outcomes might be considered intelligent in design.

 

This is one answer that no one has been able to answer. If science is truly correct, how did everything form? Someone or something had to create something for it to start, wouldnt it make more since if god made everything? Answer that for me.

 

The current view put forth by science neither presupposes the existence or non-existence of a god. something like that can't be ruled out. And to answer your question: Whether or not some form of higher power was responsible for all of existence contributes nothing to making sense out of that existence. Why would you think that either answer some how makes sense of everything? If it turns out that the big bang was responsible for all of existence then we simply exist as a result of a probabilistic event. If it was found that some higher power (depending on how we define higher power that could include the big bang) might be responsible for all existence, given our current limitations, would more or less fail to understand it in any conceivable means. Moreover, unless direct interference takes place (a highly unlikely event), we'd be no better off now than we are with most current religions taking a shot in the dark as to who/what that higher power is.

 

I get where you are coming from, however, if what I interprite (I cant spell) the Big Bang to be, then it would be nothing exploded and formed more nothing, which exploded again to form something. How would nothing exploding form something? If that isnt the case, then how would the universe's being created have started? It seems highly impossible that there always was something in this place we call home, although you could use that to argue that god just was as well. It seems as if there is no explaination as to how we came to be, we just are i guess.

 

I know that it hasn't disproved God. I was simply saying that since I don't see God or feel God, that I don't believe in him/it.​

I'm pretty sure the Big Bang started with a single star and kind of... exploded into a million. I dunno...
What's wrong with that? Why does there have to be an explanation for everything? What's wrong with the idea of evolution? We started out as bacteria you guys 8D​