As Science Learns More, God/s Are Needed Less

[LittleNipper]

How does this fact prove that God exists?

Uummm.... what?

How does lack of like elsewhere prove God exists?

VERY SIMPLE, if life is a natural process that simply happened --- than it should occur most anywhere, and the lifeforms would evolve accordingly to fit various environments. Don't you watch any SCIENCE FICTION? Anyway, if life only exists here, then that is every indication that it was designed for this environment and a design involves a DESIGNER, and a DESIGNER means GOD. Do I really have to think for everyone here. And I thought atheists were free-thinkers. What they are is rather FREE of THINKING! All they know how to do is have gay sex and have the gall to call Christians stupid....

And as for JEWS ---the Egyptians didn't wipe them out. The Phoenicians didn't wipe them out. The Babylonians didn't wipe them out. The Assyrians didn't wipe them out. The Romans didn't wipe them out. Russia didn't wipe them out. And even NAZI Germany didn't wipe them out. The odd thing is that GOD in HIS word stated that anyone who went after the JEWs would face consequences... And oddly --- ALL those powerful nations are gone. I suppose that you know that to be a coincidence

 

[MikePrime]

If you watched the video I posted then you are in denial. It is also silly for you to think that intelligence is a numerical value.

I don't have to think intelligence is a numerical value to understand that we are smarter than other animals, you're making it too complicated.
We manufacture cars, go to space, created vaccines, understand microbiology.
You don't need numerical value to say something is better. Ancient men couldn't measure the size of the Earth with accuracy but they could say that it was bigger than the rock in their hand as a fact. I can't numerically measure the fighting capability of Muhammed Ali or the basketball skill of Michael Jordan but I can tell you they were better than their competitors.

It does matter. You are using entirely the wrong words.

Nature was around before humans, yes, but mathematics was not. You can't very well claim that the human concept of "adding" somehow existed before there were humans to conceive of counting things.

You are conflating concepts. I can describe nature to you in Spanish. You can certainly tell me that nature was around before humans but you can't very well tell me that Spanish was somehow around before humans. Science uses math to specify entities and relationships in nature. Yes, the nature predicted by science was around before humans, but science and math were not.

Math was not discovered. Math was created by man.

Wrong. call number 2 what you want, call it ekitu, call it mmmsfe, call it an emoji, putting what "2" sticks next to "2" sticks is and always was "4". That is math, and its not a human concept, its the law of the universe. Math is a human word, but its principles are not invented. The system of "math" was not invented. We didn't make "2" plus "2" become "4", we discovered it and gave verbal sounds and written symbols to represent II and distinguish it from I or III. Addition, subtraction, the Pythagorean theorem are not made by man, the words are. 400 million years ago, area was still length times width.

Give me an example. Suppose that tomorrow we were to learn with certainty that the universe was created by the invisible flying pink spaghetti unicorn. What would change and how, besides the foreseeable round of B-grade movies?

If they created us, say from their own DNA or another creature, we would be able to understand what are intellectual capabilities might be, what we capable of as a species because clearly we haven't reached our peak.

Also it would create panic, Only religion can be right, or even none of them and that would create conflicts, envy, self hatred, possibly war.

The relationship might reveal something as well, If they are all loving benevolent protector than there will be a sense of tranquility. If we are slaves of some sort that would ruin our spirit.

 

[IB daMann]

I believe in free will over fate.

Do you believe in random chance? Do you believe that if I roll one six-sided die 100 times, the outcome is already determined and God knows what the outcome will be, or does God not know the outcome because the result is not predetermined?

If God knows the outcome of every event then obviously there is no free will is merely an illusion because everything is already determined. If there is free will then decisions must not be already determined and God must not know the future outcomes.

I also think things happen for a reason if that contradiction makes any sense .

Did you just say that every effect has a cause?

he says that there is no time before the Big Bang. how does he know there was nothing before the Big Bang? He doesn't

Correct, he doesn't know ... HOWEVER ... would it make any difference at all if there were something before the singularity (Big Bang)? If it's all the same, isn't it easier to go with the simpler model? If one goes with the simpler model, isn't one presuming there was nothing prior to the singularity?

But I respect him and of course he's ridiculously intelligent,

He was before he lost it and became a babbling fool.

Rest In Peace, even though he doesn't thinks he's resting lol

 

[IB daMann]

GOD created TIME.

... and NEWSWEEK and SPORTS ILLUSTRATED.

 

[MikePrime]

Do you believe in random chance? Do you believe that if I roll one six-sided die 100 times, the outcome is already determined and God knows what the outcome will be, or does God not know the outcome because the result is not predetermined?

If God knows the outcome of every event then obviously there is no free will is merely an illusion because everything is already determined. If there is free will then decisions must not be already determined and God must not know the future outcomes.

My opinion is that time is only linear because it's a human limitation. With that I think that the timeline had already happened, even though we are in the present. So I think that when somethings happens its part of the structure, but the choices that happen are yours, you do have free will, its just that it has already happened and been played through.

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not God designed the timeline.

Though I am of the opinion that "God" or our creator is just a far more advanced species that probably has the ability to not be restricted by time or space, gravity. or at least less restricted.

Correct, he doesn't know ... HOWEVER ... would it make any difference at all if there were something before the singularity (Big Bang)? If it's all the same, isn't it easier to go with the simpler model? If one goes with the simpler model, isn't one presuming there was nothing prior to the singularity?

I guess it wouldn't matter in the sense that everything before the Big Bang was destroyed. Though what if there are many universes, many bangs.

What if there was never a bang. The speed of the expansion of the universe is said to not be constant, so how we do we know it actually banged.
Im actually asking, I don't remember the theory behind it.

He was before he lost it and became a babbling fool.

Why do you say so? I wouldn't say that I was a huge follower of his work.

 

[Bodi]

VERY SIMPLE, if life is a natural process that simply happened --- than it should occur most anywhere,

You are just guessing... what you said is as ridiculous as some life evolved to live in extreme cold so that should occur most anywhere... but no, polar bears and penguins live at the Poles while almost not life whatsoever lives on glaciers or in the snow covered Himalayas.

and the lifeforms would evolve accordingly to fit various environments.

We have explored the planets in our Solar System. You seem to have no idea how big he Universe is. If only one life grew on one planet in one galaxy then there would be around 400 Billion life forms out there.

Don't you watch any SCIENCE FICTION?

This is not Star Trek mate...

Anyway, if life only exists here, then that is every indication that it was designed for this environment and a design involves a DESIGNER, and a DESIGNER means GOD.

No. It does not mean it was designed at all. I would also challenge why God created hundreds of trillions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies if life was only meant to be on this one planet. It makes no sense. Of course, God allows the rape and murder of infants... so a shitstain like that might do anything for any reason.

Do I really have to think for everyone here.

Just start trying to think for yourself so you can post less stupid shit.

And I thought atheists were free-thinkers.

Nope. Just, on average, way more intelligent than brainwashed Followers.

What they are is rather FREE of THINKING!

Did you Pastor come up with that as you all looked at each other, nodding and giggling about your righteousness?

All they know how to do is have gay sex and have the gall to call Christians stupid....

All atheists are gay? Is that your argument? LOL

And as for JEWS ---

Why did you ALL CAPS the Jews? You hate them or something?

the Egyptians didn't wipe them out. The Phoenicians didn't wipe them out. The Babylonians didn't wipe them out. The Assyrians didn't wipe them out. The Romans didn't wipe them out. And even NAZI Germany didn't wipe them out. The odd thing is that GOD in HIS word stated that anyone who went after the JEWs would face consequences... And oddly --- ALL those powerful nations are gone. I suppose that you know that to be a coincidence

Every group faces consequences and all of the past Empires that are no longer here failed for various reasons... Troy was wiped out and it had nothing to do with Jews while the Arabs have been messing with the Jews and are doing just fine... in fact, they are billionaires running much of the world.

I suggest that you go find some online high school courses and start your education over. Begin with some basic science and history. Challenge your Pastor with facts and only accept facts in return... none of this silly bullshit that you are countering with is acceptable.

Besides...

 

[Bodi]

If God knows the outcome of every event then obviously there is no free will is merely an illusion because everything is already determined.

That is ridiculous. A person that knows the future does not determine the present. If I can see the future as easily as the present and know that a person jumps off a cliff then I did not affect their free will to not jump off of the cliff if they wanted.

If there is free will then decisions must not be already determined and God must not know the future outcomes.

You need to explain why God must not known the future outcomes for it to no longer be Free Will.

 

[Questerr]

I know what science is. Apparently you do not.



Apparently you don't understand Darwin's theory as well.


... but then you claim the Darwin's theory somehow discredits ID. You contradict yourself, most likely because you don't understand Darwin's theory and you don't know what science is.

Hint: Science has no use for "supporting evidence."

You are aware the modern Theory of Evolution has almost nothing to do with Darwin, right?

 

[Greenbeard]

That is ridiculous. A person that knows the future does not determine the present. If I can see the future as easily as the present and know that a person jumps off a cliff then I did not affect their free will to not jump off of the cliff if they wanted.

Most people's conception of free will hinges on some hazy indeterminacy that's unique to future events and allows each of us to pick from some set of possible worlds and actualize one of them. But if you have perfect knowledge of the future, that means the future is something of which one can have perfect knowledge, and thus there are never any other possible worlds.

At this moment from your vantage point in the present, do you have 'free will' about what you had for breakfast yesterday? I imagine not. You may take comfort in thinking that at some point you did (i.e., when yesterday's breakfast was still in that hazy indeterminate future state), but certainly at this point you have no ability to make a choice about it or change it. It's locked in. Now if you imagine perfect symmetry there with the future and that someone can have as perfect knowledge of tomorrow's breakfast 'choice' as yesterday's, then that 'choice' is as locked in as yesterday's and there are in fact no alternative possibilities.

Doesn't 'free will' require some nonzero possibility that the person in your example not jump off that cliff?

 

[Gordy327]

GOD created TIME.

That's nice. Prove it!

 

[Gordy327]

Depends what you mean by "understanding of...why" here. You could make exactly the opposite argument from the same set of facts, that the more we uncover structure to the universe the more we need an unknown/unknowable ultimate source to account for it.

Needing a source or something like that (some cite god) is not an explanation. It's more of an assumption and/or emotional need. There's nothing wrong with honestly saying we don't know and might never know.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's nice. Prove it!

Prove there was no time before your Big Bang

 

[Gordy327]

Prove there was no time before your Big Bang

I made no such claim, so I do not incur the burden of proof. You're engaging in a logical fallacy now.

 

[Greenbeard]

Needing a source or something like that (some cite god) is not an explanation. It's more of an assumption and/or emotional need. There's nothing wrong with honestly saying we don't know and might never know.

No, there's nothing wrong with saying the answer is unknowable, agnosticism is a fine position.

But you're asking what's "needed" to feel like we understand something about reality. You can make a metaphysical commitment to scientific realism: the entities that populate our best scientific theories are real things out there, and they--and the relations between them--fill in some of the gaps formerly filled by the god-of-the-gaps. But you don't actually need to make that commitment, you could easily take the philosophical position that we're doing a better and better job of uncovering the mathematical structure of the universe, but the actual entities that instantiate our best theories are subject to re-imagining.

A century and a half ago a fool might've told you a story ("explained") about how you saw a light because a god smiled at you, and a brilliant scientist might've told you a story ("explained") about how you saw a light because of a vibration in the luminiferous aether. But both stories, both explanations of the universe, would've been wrong. People like stories--you can call that a predilection for assumptions or an emotional need, but they like to feel that they can conceptually grasp basic things about how the universe works. And it may be that you can't ever really do that, even with better and better scientific formulations. But people will still want some kind of conceptual story. And even if one can fill in some of that want by deciding to commit to scientific realism, there's still a giant, fundamental missing piece of where the rules of the game are coming from.

In other words, by eliminating lots of small gaps, we may be uncovering at least one very big one. And that leaves plenty of room for personal philosophical reflection--we can't escape that, even with a really good physics textbook.

 

[Gordy327]

No, there's nothing wrong with saying the answer is unknowable, agnosticism is a fine position.

But you're asking what's "needed" to feel like we understand something about reality. You can make a metaphysical commitment to scientific realism: the entities that populate our best scientific theories are real things out there, and they--and the relations between them--fill in some of the gaps formerly filled by the god-of-the-gaps. But you don't actually need to make that commitment, you could easily take the philosophical position that we're doing a better and better job of uncovering the mathematical structure of the universe, but the actual entities that instantiate our best theories are subject to re-imagining.

A century and a half ago a fool might've told you a story ("explained") about how you saw a light because a god smiled at you, and a brilliant scientist might've told you a story ("explained") about how you saw a light because of a vibration in the luminiferous aether. But both stories, both explanations of the universe, would've been wrong. People like stories--you can call that a predilection for assumptions or an emotional need, but they like to feel that they can conceptually grasp basic things about how the universe works. And it may be that you can't ever really do that, even with better and better scientific formulations. But people will still want some kind of conceptual story. And even if one can fill in some of that want by deciding to commit to scientific realism, there's still a giant, fundamental missing piece of where the rules of the game are coming from.

In other words, by eliminating lots of small gaps, we may be uncovering at least one very big one. And that leaves plenty of room for personal philosophical reflection--we can't escape that, even with a really good physics textbook.

Philosophical analysis is fine for thought experiments and such. But it ultimately is a subjective view of reality. Science looks objectively.

 

[devildavid]

While science is indeed giving us unprecedented new knowledge of how the universe works, to rely on it completely and without question is not a good thing either.

Science is very fallible- many theories that were once accepted as the norm gets proven wrong later on, so the best way to live with it is with constant skepticism.

Sure, depend on science, but remain open-minded to other possibilities.

What other possibilities are there than what the scientific study of the physical universe can discover? Science employs a skeptical method, and is open to skepticism.

 

[devildavid]

No, there's nothing wrong with saying the answer is unknowable, agnosticism is a fine position.

But you're asking what's "needed" to feel like we understand something about reality. You can make a metaphysical commitment to scientific realism: the entities that populate our best scientific theories are real things out there, and they--and the relations between them--fill in some of the gaps formerly filled by the god-of-the-gaps. But you don't actually need to make that commitment, you could easily take the philosophical position that we're doing a better and better job of uncovering the mathematical structure of the universe, but the actual entities that instantiate our best theories are subject to re-imagining.

A century and a half ago a fool might've told you a story ("explained") about how you saw a light because a god smiled at you, and a brilliant scientist might've told you a story ("explained") about how you saw a light because of a vibration in the luminiferous aether. But both stories, both explanations of the universe, would've been wrong. People like stories--you can call that a predilection for assumptions or an emotional need, but they like to feel that they can conceptually grasp basic things about how the universe works. And it may be that you can't ever really do that, even with better and better scientific formulations. But people will still want some kind of conceptual story. And even if one can fill in some of that want by deciding to commit to scientific realism, there's still a giant, fundamental missing piece of where the rules of the game are coming from.

In other words, by eliminating lots of small gaps, we may be uncovering at least one very big one. And that leaves plenty of room for personal philosophical reflection--we can't escape that, even with a really good physics textbook.

Science does not tell stories. It describes the physical universe and how things function. That we need to use words even in science does not make science merely story telling.

 

[devildavid]

Initially, that's how all science is created.

No, it is not.

 

[upsideguy]

Science does not tell stories. It describes the physical universe and how things function. That we need to use words even in science does not make science merely story telling.

Agreed. That all said, too many want to speak of the dichotomy of science and God, as if you can believe in one and not the other. I see the harmony between science and God.

I am a strong Christian that believes in science. As a Christian, I see no threat of science, but see it very aligned to my understanding of the world. I repeatedly see science proving the majesty of God.

If you believe in the God Almighty, all powerful, you believe in a God that is beyond the physical universe as we know it; whereas, to date, science deals with the physical. I am not alone is seeing this harmony.

34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians

Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths. Robert Boyle 1627 – 1691. Said that a deeper understanding of science was a higher glorification of God. Defined elements, compounds, and mixtures. Discovered the first gas law - Boyle's...

www.famousscientists.org

10 Famous Scientists Who Believe That God Exists

Copernicus was a famous astronomer who lived and worked in Poland. He was the first scientist to propose the first-ever system based on mathematics that planets revolve around the sun. After studying at several universities in Europe, he was made a Canon of the Roman Catholic Church, in the year of

www.sciencetimes.com

9 Groundbreaking Scientists Who Happened to Be Christians - RELEVANT

As Cosmos continues to turn heads and give this country a (much needed) renewed interest in science, the old debate about science and religion has come

relevantmagazine.com

One of the World's Most Powerful Scientists Believes in Miracles

NIH director Francis Collins, winner of the 2020 Templeton Prize, answers questions about God, free will, evil, altruism and his Christian faith in a 2006 interview

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[Greenbeard]

Philosophical analysis is fine for thought experiments and such. But it ultimately is a subjective view of reality. Science looks objectively.

Yes and no. It's impossible to interpret any science without taking various philosophical positions. An equation is objective, but translating it into a conceptual understanding of reality takes philosophical leaps. As I mentioned above, scientific realism itself is not some objective default, it's an affirmative philosophical position. Take quantum mechanics, where the formalism is not in question (and is objectively quite accurate in a prediction-making sense), but the interpretation of the formalism and how to understand what it's telling us about what the universe is "really" like has been a source of heated--and unresolved--debate for a century.

Science does not tell stories. It describes the physical universe and how things function. That we need to use words even in science does not make science merely story telling.

Well, I don't know what "merely story telling" is meant to imply but it's certainly about story telling. Beyond practical application, the whole point is to come up with a conceptual feel for how the universe works.

 

[Chase Morgan]

He was a smart dude at one point. I recommend his thesis which you can download here.

At risk of offending those who hero-worship Stephen Hawking, his disease reduced him to being a babbling moron. He lost it. It was sad to watch but all reference to his intellect necessarily refer to the days he still had his mind.

Unfortunately, no. He became stupid and was deprived of his dignity. If you are a Stephen Hawking fan, read his PhD thesis and remember him as he was when he had his wits about him.

So you're saying that Hawk was a bible-thumpin' jesus freak before he became a "babbling moron"??? LOL

What is the value of your view?

Nothing really ... except that it's from a guy with a Mensa-eligible IQ...

Your statement is rather silly on its face. Your imagined world devoid of any gods is, by definition, a product of your imagination. Given this information, what should a rational adult conclude about your alleged "no gods"?

Lol, uh, no it's not.

There still isn't even a speck of credible or compelling evidence to prove that a god exists.

I'm simply playin' the odds ... which, I believe, are heavily in my favor.

My man Tice does a nice job explaining our position...

 

[LittleNipper]

So you're saying that Hawk was a bible-thumpin' jesus freak before he became a "babbling moron"??? LOL



Nothing really ... except that it's from a guy with a Mensa-eligible IQ...



Lol, uh, no it's not.

There still isn't even a speck of credible or compelling evidence to prove that a god exists.

I'm simply playin' the odds ... which, I believe, are heavily in my favor.

My man Tice does a nice job explaining our position...

This is in response to Tyson. He simply fails to understand the penalty of sin and who deals it out: https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/does-god-send-killer-hurricanes-and-earthquakes

 

[Gordy327]

This is in response to Tyson. He simply fails to understand the penalty of sin and who deals it out: https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/does-god-send-killer-hurricanes-and-earthquakes

Sin is just a silly concept with fear tactics tacked on.

 

[Chase Morgan]

This is in response to Tyson. He simply fails to understand the penalty of sin and who deals it out: https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/does-god-send-killer-hurricanes-and-earthquakes

LOL … I think you've been 'takin' for a ride', nipps...

 

[Bodi]

Most people's conception of free will hinges on some hazy indeterminacy that's unique to future events and allows each of us to pick from some set of possible worlds and actualize one of them. But if you have perfect knowledge of the future, that means the future is something of which one can have perfect knowledge, and thus there are never any other possible worlds.

At this moment from your vantage point in the present, do you have 'free will' about what you had for breakfast yesterday? I imagine not. You may take comfort in thinking that at some point you did (i.e., when yesterday's breakfast was still in that hazy indeterminate future state), but certainly at this point you have no ability to make a choice about it or change it. It's locked in. Now if you imagine perfect symmetry there with the future and that someone can have as perfect knowledge of tomorrow's breakfast 'choice' as yesterday's, then that 'choice' is as locked in as yesterday's and there are in fact no alternative possibilities.\

Yesterday happened and tomorrow has not. Yesterday's locked in does not mean there is not choice regarding tomorrow.

Besides, the whole argument is a waste because it is about God simply knowing what we are going to do. If he does not interfere in our choice them it is still free will, regardless of who already knows what we are going to choose.

Doesn't 'free will' require some nonzero possibility that the person in your example not jump off that cliff?

No.