RE: Does science negate the need for a god?

RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kaliko -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:38:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife So then we should just blindly believe in what is "way, way beyond us to even make guesses"? Yes. Weren't you listening? :) I suppose that's my own version of faith. I have faith that humans can't explain away with science the ultimate meaning of existence, and that we are full of ourselves when we (okay, Stephen Hawking) say something like "before the beginning of time, time didn't exist." Oh, come on...how do we really know that? That being said...the questions are provocative. The most important questions there ever are. Someone asked me once why I'm so interested in space sciences. I told her that I believe that our answer to the meaning of life lies within science. She said "So that's why you like to read about this stuff? Because you feel the need to know the meaning of life?" I said no, but I feel the need to search. I don't claim to know that God has a place for me in heaven, and I don't claim that there was no existence of time before the universe was created. But....I would love to know!

Termyn8or -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 9:00:18 PM)
"I have faith that humans can't explain away with science the ultimate meaning of existence" I have just given you all the pinnacle of scientific knowledge, that there really is no such thing as matter, that it is all force. Energy that can reflect light and deflect forces applied to it. Don't get fucked up here, this is really the truth. But even with that, I can't begin to explain the meaning of existence, not just how it started and all this bullshit, but WHY. The big bang was kinda simple. Too much energy in the same place at the same time. Now figure THAT out. This matter/energy shit I had figured out thirty years ago. I believe that is beyond our understanding at this point in history. T^T

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 9:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or there really is no such thing as matter, that it is all force. self contradictory

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 10:12:26 PM)
quote: I have faith that humans can't explain away with science the ultimate meaning of existence it has no meaning, none whatsoever, and that is why people invented god, because they can't deal with that reality. existence has no meaning, no purpose, no reason. it just fucking is. why do you <generic you> need any reason to be alive other than to live. isn't living reason enough? and if you want a whiff of magic, something miraculous, well which is more of a miracle? some invisible omnipotent being created everything according to a plan to achieve some fucking obscure purpose, or that millions and millions of random chance occurances had to happen in just exactly the right order to result in you? think that fucker through, think about how fucking amazing a thing that makes your existence. that's why living is all the purpose i need in my life, i'm a fucking miracle.

Termyn8or -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 11:35:27 PM)
"f contradictory " For you. Though I KNOW you are never going to understand this, I want other people to know. Actually if you can get some really good pot I might be able ot do it on the phone. But EVERYONE ELSE. this is how it is. The fucking cells in your eyes, your ears, your hair, your feet, the atoms which make them up are made of nothing but energy. Period, got it ? This is not bullshit, no scientific body can argue against it and in about fifteen years they will find out and prove it and I guess justify their salary. Actually believe it or not about ten percent of the people on this planet know this, but what the fuck would we do with it ? Willie, if you became aware of just the little bit of shit I know, you could become a force to be reckoned with on this planet. That's why I am unsure of sharing too much with you. T^T

Kirata -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 11:50:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather i'm a fucking miracle. Of all the different kinds of miracles, those are the best. [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 11:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or in about fifteen years they will find out and prove it Excuse me, but physics found that out and proved it years ago. Other folks, of course, knew it thousands of years ago. [:D] K.

Termyn8or -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 12:13:58 AM)
I was busy and missed it ok ? T^T

Kirata -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 12:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I was busy and missed it ok ? I was just sayin. [:D] K.

lickenforyou -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 1:21:03 AM)
I don't understand how believing that something can't come from nothing is a reason to believe in a god. Because you're then left with the question - where did the god come from? If the god has always existed, then that, kind of, negates your reason for believing. I agree that there had to be something before singularity. Where did singularity exist? I'm just not satisfied by telling myself that there is a god out there and he is taking care of everything. It's too simple of an answer for an incredibly complex question. It's beyond complex, it boggles the mind. Even if you believe that time isn't linear, everything must have a beginning. How could there always have been something? Yet, there did always have to be something. But, to answer the question, for me, science does negate the need for a god. The answered and unanswered questions are more wonderful and awe inspiring all on their own.

rulemylife -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 2:52:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 That point is one that Hawking's theory ignores. There could be nothing before the big bang since time did not exist until the big bang happened, there was only a quantum singularity in which time had stopped. The problem then becomes, if nothing existed before the big bang except this singularity, that was clearly stable, neither expanding or contracting, then what caused it to explode into the universe? As far as us knowing what was before the big bang, I would like to point out that religion by its very nature defines god. God is omnipotent, yet we seem to limit him in many ways. I heard it best described as putting god in a box. If we, as humans continue to define what is and what is not God, we are limiting him in our very beliefs. I chose to believe the god of my understanding exists outside of time. Time by its very nature would limit God in my opinion. For me your thread title says it all. The NEED for a God. I forget who said this but it goes something like this, "If God didn't exist he would have to be invented".

rulemylife -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 3:08:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife So then we should just blindly believe in what is "way, way beyond us to even make guesses"? Yes. Weren't you listening? :) I suppose that's my own version of faith. I have faith that humans can't explain away with science the ultimate meaning of existence, and that we are full of ourselves when we (okay, Stephen Hawking) say something like "before the beginning of time, time didn't exist." Oh, come on...how do we really know that? That being said...the questions are provocative. The most important questions there ever are. Someone asked me once why I'm so interested in space sciences. I told her that I believe that our answer to the meaning of life lies within science. She said "So that's why you like to read about this stuff? Because you feel the need to know the meaning of life?" I said no, but I feel the need to search. I don't claim to know that God has a place for me in heaven, and I don't claim that there was no existence of time before the universe was created. But....I would love to know! Yes, I was. But explain to me your search process.

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 3:33:43 AM)
quote: Even if you believe that time isn't linear, everything must have a beginning. check out heather's weird idea: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3800460/tm.htm

crazyml -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 3:39:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: If you really don't believe, why are so many non-believers obsessed with this discussion? Explaining the concept, refuting common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are sometimes 'fervent': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk Quoted for truth and for the benefit of any people of faith on this thread.

Moonhead -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 4:34:53 AM)
FR (and somebody's probably said this before) Science doesn't negate the need for a God because the need for a God, whatever else it might be, isn't a rational decision people make after examining all of the evidence. Doesn't matter how much evidence there is that reality just doesn't work that way in the light of that...

petslave2b -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 5:29:18 AM)
"On one hand you have at least one scientist who says that the universe is explained and there is no god. There are other scientists that have worked under the idea that it is not up to science to decide if there is or is not a god." jlf1961, Science is concerned with observation, experimentation and explanation, gods have simply never entered the equation. Also through history and psychology we know none of the anthropocentric gods exist, which only leaves the agnostic/deist concepts of gods, and those have no other source than the old myths. "Well, if there is no god, who wrote the laws of physics? What set the order of nature in the Universe? " jlf1961, Why did someone have to write the laws of physics? Why can't the laws of physics simply be the nature of the universe? Now while science shows us in many ways that there are no gods, this obviously doesn't negate the need for gods. Believers have never let knowledge get in the way of their beliefs. "he's still an atheist with his own set of beliefs for whatever reason that play into his scientific theories" littlewonder, Stephen Hawking may have beliefs as a person, but he has no beliefs as an atheist, as all "atheist" means is no belief in gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, there is no set of beliefs. Also what plays into his scientific theories is his years of research and the wealth of humanities knowledge that came before him. "As I have said before, I will never believe that SOMETHING comes from NOTHING. Even in "The Big Bang Theory", they have NO explanation for when or how it began." Marini, Do you believe in gods? Gods tend to magically come from nothing. The thing about gods is they are stuck in time, the time they were created. Scientific discovery is an ongoing process, just because you don't have answers today, doesn't mean the answers don't exist. "Jeff, why not also ask, "Does GOD negate the need for science??"" Marini, Because that question has been answered countless times throughout history. Gods did not provide the computer you are using. All the gods combined cannot negate the need for science. "I would like to point out that religion by its very nature defines god. God is omnipotent, yet we seem to limit him in many ways. I heard it best described as putting god in a box. If we, as humans continue to define what is and what is not God, we are limiting him in our very beliefs. " jlf1961, You were so close. We do define what gods are, because we make them up. We don't limit gods, gods are limited by the fact they are creations of the limited imaginations among us. G "What about this one? IIRC jilf IS a believer. Really? Hummmmm " Marini, Yes, it should be blatantly obvious the OP was written by a believer, and even more obvious when coupled with the post directly above your own. "I have faith that humans can't explain away with science the ultimate meaning of existence" Kaliko, You are, of course, assuming there is an ultimate meaning to existence. "Excuse me, but physics found that out and proved it years ago. Other folks, of course, knew it thousands of years ago." Kirata, While it is very popular to insert modern knowledge into old cultures, it's fiction. It also demeans the accomplishments the old cultures actually made, and the accomplishments humanity has made over time.

Kirata -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 4:29:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petslave2b Kirata, While it is very popular to insert modern knowledge into old cultures, it's fiction. It also demeans the accomplishments the old cultures actually made, and the accomplishments humanity has made over time. You need to find a different venue for this clown act of yours in which you post a pretentious review of multiple comments and then correct or dismiss them one by one on the basis of your imaginary superior knowledge. Nobody is "inserting" anything into anything. Except you, of course (figure it out). The letters of the Sanskrit alphabet are called the matrikas, the "mothers," because it is said that the universe we experience arises from the activity of sound (vibration). We find the same metaphor reflected in Genesis, where deity "speaks" the worlds into existence. Trika Shaivism foregoes the metaphor completely and states the general case explicitly: The universe arises as a result of the activity of spanda shakti ("spanda" is vibration, and "shakti" is pure energy), which corresponds exactly with our current knowledge in physics. The fact is, you are the one who is engaged in demeaning the accomplishments of ancient cultures by dismissing it as a "fiction" to imagine that they could possibly have known what they were talking about. Apparently you fear that it would demean our own accomplishments to give credit where due. K.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 5:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote: If you really don't believe, why are so many non-believers obsessed with this discussion? Explaining the concept, refuting common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are sometimes 'fervent': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk Quoted for truth and for the benefit of any people of faith on this thread. Thank you (and another opportunity to offer benefit ;-) Btw, isn't that such a great piece? When I have a hard time explaining my feelings to people, I have them watch that video. It says what I have to say better than I could.

Termyn8or -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 5:49:21 PM)
""If God didn't exist he would have to be invented". " His name was Nietzsche. Interesting though I saw a bumper sticker years ago. it said : Nietzsche : God is dead God : Nietzsche is dead Don't get me wrong, I don't even know what it means to believe IN something. But I thought that was pretty cool. T^T

StrangerThan -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/8/2011 6:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko To me, it seems only logical that there is something pre-big bang, pre-universe, high above and beyond our level of understanding, and it would be arrogant of us to think we could ever know what that is....until it's time for us to know what it is. That point is one that Hawking's theory ignores. There could be nothing before the big bang since time did not exist until the big bang happened, there was only a quantum singularity in which time had stopped. The problem then becomes, if nothing existed before the big bang except this singularity, that was clearly stable, neither expanding or contracting, then what caused it to explode into the universe? As far as us knowing what was before the big bang, I would like to point out that religion by its very nature defines god. God is omnipotent, yet we seem to limit him in many ways. I heard it best described as putting god in a box. If we, as humans continue to define what is and what is not God, we are limiting him in our very beliefs. I chose to believe the god of my understanding exists outside of time. Time by its very nature would limit God in my opinion. And the problem with Hawking is the same problem that exists with most of the sciences. Sooner or later, you'll see a headline about a discovery rewriting "all we knew about". Insert your favorite branch after the quotes. Happens at least a couple of times a year. Whereas before all we knew was rewritten, some folks sat around positing what we didn't know as absolute truth. It's kind of like.. the KT boundary, you know where all the dinos and lizards supposedly died. Odd thing about it is, I can't ever remember seeing or reading about fossils pulled from that boundary. Lots of them before, none after, and none at. Seems odd to me that when most things died, there seems no evidence other than the lack of fossils afterward. It's almost like they were already gone by the time we smacked into an asteroid. From nothing, comes everything.. sounds like a moment of creation if you write it differently. I'm no physicist but insisting time did not exist prior to the big bang isn't much more than a convenient way of saying, I don't know what happened before and since I don't, I'll assume nothing. Shrug. Science negates the need for god if you didn't believe in the first place. If you did, there's really no point where one is exclusive of the other.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625