Does science negate the need for a god?

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

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

Message

jlf1961 -> Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 6:40:40 PM)
Okay, rather than dig up an old thread from last year, (I admit that I am too lazy to search for the thing) I decided to bring up the question. 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. Stephen Hawking said there is no god. On the Discovery Network series "Curiosity" he went so far as to say science proves there is no god, and never could have been a god, since time began at the same instant as the big bang. His statement was to effect, that since there was no time before the big bang, there could not have been a creator because there was no time for the creator to exist. The universe is at least 13.7 billion years old. The Universe came into existence when an infinitely small yet also infinitely massive singularity in which time itself could not exist expanded or exploded. He points to quantum theory that states that particles can appear, disappear and reappear at random as an explanation. So, in an instant when time itself does not exist, a massive singularity blinks into existence and thus the Universe is created. Problem, if time does not exist, and in fact at this point NOTHING EXISTS, how then can a singularity wink into existence? Well, if there is no god, who wrote the laws of physics? What set the order of nature in the Universe? Aquinas wrote that while "all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists."

Kaliko -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 6:55:16 PM)
I'm a big believer in science, not religion. I think what we consider divine will eventually be explained away by science. But....that doesn't answer the question as to how all those scientific explanations came to be in the first place. 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. I do believe that we are given our sense of morality for a reason, whether it has been developed through nature or nurture. I do believe that, while there may not be a specific reason for my specific little life on this planet, that there is an ultimate reason for....existence at all, of anything. (Otherwise, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.) I think science will eventually explain away all our questions except the one it can't. And I think Stephen Hawking may have been a tad rushed to conclusion in his proclamation that there is no God. I wonder if he ultimately means that God might not be the God we traditionally picture. For all we know, "God" may be science itself. (I know that makes no sense. That's kind of the point. I think it is way, way beyond us to even make guesses.)

littlewonder -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 6:57:30 PM)
For me personally a God exists with science. For me personally they are one and the same. I watched the the same series and while I find Stephen Hawking to be incredibly intelligent and one of the best minds of our time, he's still an atheist with his own set of beliefs for whatever reason that play into his scientific theories which I take into account every single time i read his works or hear him speak.

Marini -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 6:58:15 PM)
Interesting post. 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. The big bang theory Jeff? Let me know when someone can explain, the beginning of all these theories, where/and how did it all start? Out of thin air? Jeff, why not also ask, "Does GOD negate the need for science??"[sm=mrpuffy.gif]

CrazyCats -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 7:18:00 PM)
It is a very human way of understanding the universe: "Who wrote the laws of physics" Human governments write laws, thus it is authority who writes laws. Gad is an authority, thus he wrote laws. Minor amusement about logic aside, scientists are human beings. They have opinions and perspectives just like any other human being. I have issue with the way Hawkins presents some of his points, since he is presenting them as facts. Our current level of knowledge is not advanced enough that we know what happened prior to the big bang, if anything happened at all. There are a huge number of hypothesises, all backed by a good deal of math. Trouble is, we cannot make objective tests yet, so they cannot become theories. Personally, I am an atheist. If there is a creator god that cares, I have never seen any actual evidence of it. Even doubting Tomas was shown in the Bible. If it is stated without proof, I can dismiss the idea without proof. The logics of a God make no sense to me. If there had to be a god to make the universe, where did it come from? Who designed god? It just spirals from there... Who's god's god's god's creator? And if god made himself, just to make the universe, why not just say the universe created itself to create us? Or for that matter, why the Christian god? Why not the Hindu creator god? They at least had a feel for the age of the universe. {Edit for minor typo.}

Owner59 -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 7:23:44 PM)
No. Most of the god fearing folks I know don`t see any conflict. Taking the old books as literal and bending logic to their dogma(s) isn`t possible for them or me.Or necessary. It then becomes more political and less spiritual. IMHO,you don`t have to believe the dogma to be connected with god. It`s just something you feel inside.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 7:57:19 PM)
quote: Personally, I am an atheist. If there is a creator god that cares, I have never seen any actual evidence of it. Even doubting Tomas was shown in the Bible. If it is stated without proof, I can dismiss the idea without proof. The logics of a God make no sense to me. If there had to be a god to make the universe, where did it come from? Who designed god? It just spirals from there... Who's god's god's god's creator? And if god made himself, just to make the universe, why not just say the universe created itself to create us? Or for that matter, why the Christian god? Why not the Hindu creator god? They at least had a feel for the age of the universe. I don't think I could have expressed my own views on the subject any more perfectly than this.

Marini -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:08:53 PM)
Has anyone else noticed that whenever we have a thread on religion, we tend to hear the same sort of comments? {yawning} Has anyone noticed that it is always the atheists/non-believers that want to endlessly debate the prescence of GOD? If you really don't believe, why are so many non-believers obsessed with this discussion?[sm=boohoo.gif] I have a yet to see a believer, start a thread questioning whether there is not a GOD. lol Things that just make me go hummmmmm {okay, back to the usual, same old, comments} [sm=goodnight.gif]

rulemylife -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:15:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko I'm a big believer in science, not religion. I think what we consider divine will eventually be explained away by science. But....that doesn't answer the question as to how all those scientific explanations came to be in the first place. 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. I do believe that we are given our sense of morality for a reason, whether it has been developed through nature or nurture. I do believe that, while there may not be a specific reason for my specific little life on this planet, that there is an ultimate reason for....existence at all, of anything. (Otherwise, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.) I think science will eventually explain away all our questions except the one it can't. And I think Stephen Hawking may have been a tad rushed to conclusion in his proclamation that there is no God. I wonder if he ultimately means that God might not be the God we traditionally picture. For all we know, "God" may be science itself. (I know that makes no sense. That's kind of the point. I think it is way, way beyond us to even make guesses.) So then we should just blindly believe in what is "way, way beyond us to even make guesses"?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:19:35 PM)
quote: Problem, if time does not exist, and in fact at this point NOTHING EXISTS, how then can a singularity wink into existence? Your problem is that you, like all most of us, see time from a self referential point of view...it seems to march forward independent of everything else. the physics concept of time is quite different. It is a 4th dimension, subject to the same forces as the spacial dimensions. At a singularity the curvarture of space-time is infinite, with zero size and infinite density. That doesnt mean that time "didnt exist", just that it was gravitionally bound and infinitely small. The singularity doesnt "wink into existence", it existed and the universe winked into existence FROM the singularity. I havent heard him say that god could not exist, not seeing the show your talking about. I would assume what he said is that if the entire universe came from a singularity, nothing could exist within it because it was infinitessimly small and infinitely dense....including time. To the subject question...depends on the person. If you already don't believe in god, physics comes closer to an explanation of the physical world every day and doesnt demand the existence of a god. If you already believe in god (and have a "need for a god") science isnt yet able to change your mind, because visualizing something from "nothing" and the nature of time from the physics viewpoint is very easy to dismiss.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I have a yet to see a believer, start a thread questioning whether there is not a GOD. What about this one? IIRC jilf IS a believer.

jlf1961 -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:22:26 PM)
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.

Marini -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I have a yet to see a believer, start a thread questioning whether there is not a GOD. What about this one? IIRC jilf IS a believer. Really? Hummmmm

rulemylife -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:24:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Has anyone else noticed that whenever we have a thread on religion, we tend to hear the same sort of comments? {yawning} Has anyone noticed that it is always the atheists/non-believers that want to endlessly debate the prescence of GOD? If you really don't believe, why are so many non-believers obsessed with this discussion?[sm=boohoo.gif] I have a yet to see a believer, start a thread questioning whether there is not a GOD. lol Things that just make me go hummmmmm {okay, back to the usual, same old, comments} [sm=goodnight.gif] And what is your point? Have you noticed it is always the believers that start these threads?

Termyn8or -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:26:21 PM)
"Well, if there is no god, who wrote the laws of physics? What set the order of nature in the Universe? " That's your paradigm to break. I'm surprised you haven't done it yet because you seem pretty sharp. T^T

rulemylife -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:28:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Interesting post. 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. The big bang theory Jeff? Let me know when someone can explain, the beginning of all these theories, where/and how did it all start? Out of thin air? Jeff, why not also ask, "Does GOD negate the need for science??"[sm=mrpuffy.gif] By a magical guy in the sky.

Kaliko -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:31:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini Has anyone noticed that it is always the atheists/non-believers that want to endlessly debate the prescence of GOD? If you really don't believe, why are so many non-believers obsessed with this discussion?[sm=boohoo.gif] Oooh! Oooh! I can answer this! Because I WANT to be proven wrong! I would LOVE it if I could be convinced that there is a God, and my soul will fly up to heaven, and my father can hear my prayers. I read book after book after book on it, from all different viewpoints, because I WANT to feel that comfort that so many people of faith seem to have. And I've tried religion. I dove into it head first and completely embraced it, and still I couldn't quite believe.

Marini -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko ooh! Oooh! I can answer this! Because I WANT to be proven wrong! I would LOVE it if I could be convinced that there is a God, and my soul will fly up to heaven, and my father can hear my prayers. I read book after book after book on it, from all different viewpoints, because I WANT to feel that comfort that so many people of faith seem to have. And I've tried religion. I dove into it head first and completely embraced it, and still I couldn't quite believe. Thanks for an honest answer. IF you really don't believe, I doubt any mortal on this earth could change your mind.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:36:34 PM)
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

Termyn8or -> RE: Does science negate the need for a god? (8/7/2011 8:37:52 PM)
"As I have said before, I will never believe that SOMETHING comes from NOTHING. " You have to temporarily abandon all human knowledge. There really is nothing. The protons, neutrons and electrons that make up the elements do not exist as matter. Matter doesn't matter. There is no such thing. It is all energy and these subatomic particles are intersections which happen naturally, and their force is what creates what we percieve as matter. When you think you touch a piece of wood, what keeps your hand fom going through it is force, energy. The matter you percieve does not exist, only it's properties to reflect light, and force, that force which you apply when you grab it. When you lift it you apply enough force to overcome the force of gravity, which is a natural propensity for energy to produce when enough of it joins together in phase or whatever to create somehing big, like our planet for instance. No matter here, just energy. Got it ? If you don't think force can do it, try playing with some magnets. Thee is no matter in the universe, but you didn't hear it here. T^T

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875