Comrade Brian said:I'm an Atheist too.
But maybe you couuld combine the two, 'God' created the monkey which evolved into man. An almost already human monkey that is.
Zebulon said:This is an extrapolation of another thread, but I think should be allowed to be it's own discussion.
Why can't science be religious?
Why can't evolution be God's hand at work? Why can't the creation of the universe come from the Big Bang? Why can't all the beauty of the observable universe be both scientific AND religious??
I honestly don't think the scientific community would have a problem with this. I for one, LOVE the idea that everything in the universe MEANS something. I don't believe in God, per se, not as humans have interpreted him, but the idea of something greater than myself giving the universe some underlying order... that's cool by me!
Can the scientists here see themselves working with this? Can the religious amongst us see God's hand in science?
Zebulon said:How about "A higher power created the rules, and everything has unfoled as it should since then." ?
That pretty much sums it up. Occam's Razor is a wonderful thing. :mrgreen:
Zebulon said:How about "A higher power created the rules, and everything has unfoled as it should since then." ?
alex said:To say that a higher power created the rules is to imply that there was a plan for creation. In fact, creation of life happened by very random circumstances.
Zebulon said:Actually, life exists due to very SPECIFIC circumstances, right down to the very fabric of the universe. Alter the physical laws of this universe, even slightly, and life here could not exist. Some even argue that life exists BECAUSe of the laws of the universe, that's it's inescapable with the laws of physics we have as an extrapalation. It's THAT tied in.
Zebulon said:I'm not saying that their needs to be a "plan" for creation. I'm simply saying that the addition of a "creator", whatever that might be, does nothing to undermine the scientific beauty that is the universe we live in.
Zebulon said:Why can't the physical laws of this universe BE God?
alex said:The circumstances may be "specific" but they were still random. There was no plan to create those specific circumstances. They just all fell into place on their own.
Connecticutter said:My problem with this statement is that you seem to be saying it as scientific fact. The circumstances of the existance of everything is not really a scientific question, as there are an infinite number of things for science to explain before coming to any conclusion about it. The question of "why" is mostly left to philosophy and religion.
I happened to see a poster with a quote I liked just a few hours ago:
"Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
alex said:Anything can be a scientific question. The collecting of evidence proves or disproves it.
"Why" is the perfect question to ask in science. For example: "Why do some humans have curly hair and some have straight?" This can be answered using a scientific method. "Why do some people have blue eyes and some have brown?" This can be answered applying the scientific method to genetics.
Science works in the sense that it is a continuous process. It has no problem being wrong and correcting itself in order to get closer to obtaining the answer to any question. We are getting closer and closer to understanding where life came from because of this.
nkgupta80 said:the idea of some higher force can exist, and can somewhat be speculated through logic. However, going any further in defining God is doing so without any possible proof. When one says that God is loving, or creates a mythology around their God, or gives God human emotional characteristics, that is totally unprovable.
nkgupta80 said:the idea of some higher force can exist, and can somewhat be speculated through logic.
nkgupta80 said:However, going any further in defining God is doing so without any possible proof. When one says that God is loving, or creates a mythology around their God, or gives God human emotional characteristics, that is totally unprovable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?