is it science or God?

Whether a higher power might fulfill those roles may not necessarily be the case. Given the vastness of the universe it would be sheer ignorance to admit that something, possibly akin to a higher power, much larger than ourselves does not exist. Whether or not it's God is another story. It's like the belief in a flawlessly cut diamond. if we go by most carving standards it might seem like what we're dealing with is something that is essentially perfect. But if used something like a super powerful microscope to scan the diamond's surface we may just as well find flaws we thought never existed. So to say that omniscience and omnipotence are roles necessarily adopted by this higher power is difficult to put forth. We could spend a millennium examining something we think to be God without being aware of its real and existing flaws.

Well put, but there's still the problem of whether its intentions were willful/intelligent.

 

White Rook and Guardian i've just read through your posts to this conversation and i would like to say this to you guardian. You say that counting from infinity to zero is impossible and vica versa, you say that nothing from nothing is impossible and you say that time must be finite but what you fail to realise is that these are all just human concepts for things that no one understands. Human concepts mean nothing in the face of the unknown. You use time, logic and science to back your point and the same with you white rook but what you both don't get is that this is something not even the worlds greatest sciencists can define as truth or lies because it's unknown.

Our perception of time, physics and logic go out the window because for all we know it has nothing to do with those. Time physics and logic are human concepts created to understand the things man wanted to understand here, on earth. Time has no meaning in space, neither does physics nor does logic. For all we know the big bang could've been a weapon from a highly advanced civilisation, surpassing our race by an unfathomable amount, that caused the universe to reset itself and starting life from the beginning.

Have you ever seen the movie, the matrix? That is based on scientists who created a theory stating that this world could all just be a highly advanced Computer Simulation of the human race thats so advanced, complex and perfect that no one would ever discover it was a computerised civilisation.

The Universe will remain a mystery to us for quiet awhile and i'm not saying that a God governing existance is out of the question but the way your going about proving it, i feel is, not accurate.

 

I'm going to have to call you out on this one. From a conceptual philosophical viewpoint time does not necessarily have meaning. We could have just as easily constructed a clock and day that goes for a countless number of hours. But even if we did that the actual "metronome" of the universe would maintain a consistent "tick". The planets would revolve around their respective stars in some conceivable and logical pattern. Our perception of time certainly is independent and unique, but that's why it is OUR perception.

I'd also like to add that science has posited an acceptable and reasonable concept of time. Whether or not they're actually right is certainly up for debate, but given how our solar system exhibits a specific pattern it's the best possible explanation of time. If it turns out that it's wrong then the concept will be revised.

And the Matrix was simply an adaptation of the Cave Allegory. While it certainly does promote skepticism of how we sense and perceive things, it has no place in discussions where our perceptions and senses are assumed to be correct. So while you do put forth a interesting idea about our perception and concept of time, it's something that is currently working and accepted to be true. To go any further you're going to have to argue that it is entirely false, completely flawed, or something along those lines. But seeing as there seems to be a logical entailment between out concept of time and, say, our orbit around the Sun. the odds are a little against you to say the least.

We're simply using the best possible tools and current understanding we have of existence to motivate a discussion. It would be sheer ignorance to not attend to the already existing scientific patterns in our universe that we have come to identify. More over, given how small and insignificant we are it would be similarly ignorant to doubt the existence of something much bigger than ourselves out there. We may all end up being completely wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't eventually learn something here. Or hell, maybe somehow someone here has it spot on.

 

We know up to 10-43 second of it.

Well no **** it isn't. I was remarking on Danny's argument that "All life is createrd by life". So from HIS argument the universe is infinite. Not my argument, but his.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that life must come from life. Since your God is a form of life he had to come from another source of life. Then you turn right around and say that a creator does not need a creator? Are you crazy?.

>_>
Um, no not really. My argyment is still standing. I never said the universe has always been here. I said according to you and Danny "Life comes from life" therefore God would have to have a creator. There would be no first cause.

Since science is incapable of proving a being outside of the universe God cannot be observed.

 

Did you actually read that? That only says that we happen to have a first distinct period of what happens 10^-43 after the Big Bang started. We still have no clue what came before it or how the universe came to be there.

Well you must be lying through your teeth because Danny never said anything about "All life is created by life". He only stated how it seems like the universe has a solution for everything. From what I've seen in this thread, nobody has said that phrase.

Are you ignorant to half of the things I wrote in that post? I'm seriously starting to believe that you are. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. If something comes into existence, then there must be something else able to bring it into existence. Nothing comes from nothing. But God is unlike the universe and life because God did not begin to exist because God is eternal. He exists outside of time, and has neither beginning nor end. If he was a form of life that exists in time then of course he would need a creator but he doesn't therefore he doesn't need a creator.

>_> I never said that you didn't say that.

[/QUOTE]

Just because he can't be observed doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.

 

Well, actually, many findings in quantum physics prove that this isn't always the case. With particles appearing seemingly out of nowhere and all that.

Also, energy can't be destroyed or created.

Time didn't exist until the Big Bang, so asking what happened "before" it is pretty meaningless.

 

That being said, the concept of time does not have a beginning at all. Therefore, anything can have existed for eternity, material or supernatural. We're in the dark on what that is, and what it has done, and Christians ask us questions that we admit can't solve (yet) believing they have won the debate. They don't seem to realise, however, that "A wizard did it by making things go poof." isn't a valid explanation to provide foolproof conclusion either.

This is a major difference between the two factions. Sooner or later some form of "belief" comes into play regardless of which side you lean to. It's simply a matter of being rational and accepting a coherent, experimentally devised but more complex theory, or the "quick-and-dirty" convenient method that does things by pointing everything back to God.

As for me, I'm consistent and pragmatic. I have seen math, physics, biology and chemistry solve many problems. I've seen them being the foundation of every bridge I cross, every medicine I take and every car I drive. I've seen it solve problems, so I believe (there, I said it) that it can solve this one. I haven't seen prayer or any supernatural phenomenon solve or accomplish anything, so I don't have any reason to believe that it can.
All unsolved questions aside, if you'd ask me for a reason why I'd pick science over religion any day, it's because science has been beating religion out of the water in many territories before whereas the opposite hasn't happened all that often, if at all.

 

Oh really? Me lying through my teeth? All thess quotes below are pretty much saying that everything has a creator.

Which means "God" has to come from somthing.

And somthing has to create that somthing that creates everything.

So in short somthing must have created this "God".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay if we have no clue then why are we randomly guessing what came before in the first place? Why are we guessing that some Deity did it?

You make a good point; however this argument can be applied to anything.
For example "Just because you can't see the faires doesn't mean that they don't exist.", or "Just because you can't see the Flying Sphagetii monster doesn't he does not exist", and "Just because you can't see the invisible pink unicorn does not mean she doesn't exist.".
Do you believe in faries, flying pasta, and invisible pink unicorns too; just because you can't observe them? If you don't believe in those then why is your man in the sky different?

First let me point out that you are not only saying that he exists out of time, but also out of space (The theory of relativity). If there is no time God could go anywhere; however if there is no space then there is no room for anyone. Therefore God can't exist out of spacetime.

Also you say that God has no beginning, nor end.
Everything that exists has a beginning, for example stars, fungus, humans, planets, and ideas. And:

Since God did not have a precurser he cannot exist, because:

 

This doesn't make any sense from what I'm reading. I said that God exist outside of time and also space because of the theory of relativity. That doesn't mean that they don't exist if God exist outside of them. Maybe I'm reading it wrong so can you go further in depth on that?

All of those things that you mentioned are finite so they will eventually end but God is eternal and infinite so he doesn't end. In your posts, you argue that God can't exist because he would need a creator and that person would need a creator and it would keep on going on forever from there which could only apply to him if he were finite. But I say that God is eternal. God didn't begin to exist like everything else because he has always existed.

Well of course science is going to beat religion in many territories because they are two different entities that encompass two different subjects. Science is the gathering of knowledge or in common context, the natural sciences. Religion is philosophy which studies fundamental problems such as existence, knowledge, values and reason. In a nutshell, science is outward study, philosophy is inward. Not only are they able to co-exist, but it is necessary that they co-exist. What most likely cannot co-exist are those who over-extend either science or religion to encompass each other.

 

Space can be measured in centimeters, square-feet, miles, kilometers, area, ect. You need space in order for there to be somthing.
Space is how much is measured, and time is how long things take to get across that space; such as the speed of light for example.

If you don't have a garage you can't have a person in it. Outside of time and space is nothing. The void outside of time and space is non-existant because there is no space. You can't even have an atom outside of time and space because there is no where else to go.

Again we have no proof that anything is infinite. I have not heard of any organisms that are eternal. We only have finite beings and matierals to observe.From our observation of everything in the universe we have not found that anything has occured without having a beginning.
Your God is no exception to all other species of life. All species live, and then die. Unless we have a God to study we can't accuratley speculate that any being cannot have a beginning or end (and by study I mean hear, see, smell, taste, and touch).

 

While you're correct from a physical standpoint, metaphysically we might conceive of of something outside of what we consider conventional space and time. While that solves the infinite regression of a god being created by something, and that something coming from something etc. it does create a major problem: namely, how something outside of time and space--that is, not interacting with it-- can interact and have a direct effect on it.

 

Ever heard of the NORA-principle? It's a principle proposed by Stephen J. Gould that states that religion and science both have their areas of expertise, called "magisteria". The gist of it is that science tries to "explain and deduce", while religion (or spiritualism in general) tries to "understand and give meaning". Kind of like what you're saying. It is for example meaningless to try and see a meaning behind cell division, maybe as pointless as trying to explain why some feel the presence of God.

So yes, that principle mentions they can co-exist, but to each their own. They are friendly neighbours as long as each one stays on his side of the hedge. Unfortunately for you Christians, this also means that religion is in no place to explain the origins of the universe and life, since these are categorized under science. According to your own theory (and Gould's), you have no business in such discussion. Get off our lawn!

(Not to say we haven't trespassed in your territory, mind you. Scientists have tried to prove the existence of and locate the "God module" in the brain. Admittedly, progress is shaky at best, comparable even to the creationism "The G-man did it, don't ask me how!" argument. Perhaps we really shouldn't touch each other's fields?)

So now you have implied that the "science vs God debate" is irrelevant.
Makes me wonder what you're still doing in this thread actually.

 

Gonna have to agree with what you have said here. The only thing that irks me is that religion only tries to "understand and give meaning" because by definition religion is a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe. Whether the beliefs are true are not is another thing.

While the origins of the universe and life are indeed under the jurisdiction of science. Religion doesn't try to do that instead it give meaning and reason as to why the universe began to exist out of what seems like nothing. Scientists say that the Big Bang is how the universe came into existence and developed into what it is today. I ask why we and universe exist? The Big Bang may have caused us to exist but why do we exist? Get what I'm trying to say? It all sounds better in my head I guess. Christianity and the Bible by itself aren't saying anything against science, it's just how people interpret it that causes conflict. I have no clue which interpretation is correct or not because it's a very subjective. I do agree that we really shouldn't touch each other's fields but who knows how long that will take.

Of course I have business in this discussion because people are trying to disprove God's existence with science which you have already stated as meaningless and that would mean that science is overextending itself into territory that is outside of its jurisdiction.

EDIT: Edited the post to try and make it more understandable.

 

Sounds like too broad a definition to me. Explaining existence is a vague concept, one which encompasses a whole heap of things, including how it came to be (which you said below is not for it to say).
I'd rather say that religion tries to explain the purpose of existence, i.e. understanding it. The usage of the term "explanation" can cause this kind of confusion, but I do think I'm on the right track on this.

Yeah, I understand what you mean.

Indeed, I do not agree with actually trying to disprove God. It seems impossible to me, as impossible as it is to prove his existence.

 

The biggest misconception is that Science can't create. It just explains how things in this world came to be. Everything from what different cells consist of to what happens when we mix A and B. Even though I may be atheist/agnostic/I-really-don't-care-for-believing-in-religion-atm it angers me that people say that science did or did not create life, people, everything etc. If it really was evolution then it was natural selection and everything, not science it's self.

Anyway, I believe both, possibly, in the sense that there was some being that started something which resulted in a chain reaction. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go pray to some god.