Religion vs. Science

[HBK-aholic]

The age old feud, with people on both sides hating each other for centuries. I don't see why there's such a hatred by some for the other side. I mean, it's actually pretty easy to believe in God while still relying on science to explain most things. Can it not simply be accepted that science is our way of understanding how God has organised the world? Which side are you on? Or, like me, do you believe there shouldn't be sides, as both can work together?

 

[Uncle Sam]

I gotta say, Science is my pick. It's got the age advantage and everything. I was going to go on with a really long boxing metaphor but I genuinely ran out of ideas right there. I don't think anybody would really get "reach".

Can it not simply be accepted that science is our way of understanding how God has organised the world?

Well, it can. It's still a contradiction. Science is based on reasoning and evidence. To believe in God is irrational and you aren't supported by evidence. So, actually saying "I just have faith" makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Shadowmancer]

I have explained this before, Science can explain how but religion is the reasoning for why. Subtle differences there. Science seeks to disprove things but it also becomes the more dogmatic when arguing about religion. Science does not have a truth that occurs in anyway. If something has a flaw the hypothesis is rejected as being false, then they go back to the drawing board and start again. However I have found that Science fails to do this with religion and argues that God doesn't exist based on scientific proof. if anyone says anything about scientific proof they are talking out their arse, because Science can never prove things they can only disprove things.
The debate over Science vs. Religion has only come since the "Enlightening", I use quotation marks because I do feel that the name is not an accurate one and in someways humanity is worse off now than they were pre-"Enlightenment". But the actual debate is so dogmatic on the science side that it is comical to see. There are Religious nuts out there but within a rational discussion where flaws are pointed out within Science's hypothesis about the existence of a god, and it is a hypothesis as there is no evidence for whether god exists or not exists, the science side is more dogmatic within its statements and say that the other side is wrong, and not pointing out a valid flaw in the hypothesis.

You could say that I am middle of the road but leaning more towards the religious side, but within reason. i.e. Im not going to side with the entire thing against evolution as there are elements within the theory that fit reality though I do see an element of design on the life in general because sophisticated creatures do not pop up at random.

 

[Razor]

There is no conflict. It's imagined, really.

Religion is why we're here. Something Science can not, and never will answer.

Science is how we're here, what we are, who we are, and when we got here. It approaches these questions logically and under intense scrutiny, as it should be. These questions are important, and the knowledge we can gain is invaluable.

The problem comes when people try to declare Science as heretical, or against God, or declare that anyone who believes a Scientific principle is going to Hell. Then the condemned get pissed off and start spouting off, and it starts a horrible spiral that gets no one anywhere.

Take Evolution for example. I fully support the Evolutionary model. Someone might take exception to a few parts of it. That's just fine, that's what the Scientific community is supposed to do. They debate the findings, and build upon any weaknesses they find to try to stregthen them if they can.

It's when someone claims Evolution is ungodly that it gets people angry. And it's when people present Creationism as a Scientific Model that people get angry. Creationism (that a ominipotent being created us out of nothing) is not scientific, and has no where near the Scientific realm. It's an attempt by religion to answer the question of How, when it's not supposed to. It'd be like any scientist trying to scientifically disprove God. You can't. And any scientist who tries is going about it all wrong.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Religion is why we're here. Something Science can not, and never will answer.

I hope you're not suggesting that just because you can't find the answer to something, you make something up. It's how I got through GSCE Maths, but still...

It'd be like any scientist trying to scientifically disprove God. You can't. And any scientist who tries is going about it all wrong.

You can't prove a negative.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

The age old feud, with people on both sides hating each other for centuries. I don't see why there's such a hatred by some for the other side. I mean, it's actually pretty easy to believe in God while still relying on science to explain most things. Can it not simply be accepted that science is our way of understanding how God has organised the world? Which side are you on? Or, like me, do you believe there shouldn't be sides, as both can work together?

See, I feel the need to dive a little deeper into this argument, so that a clarification can be made.

Where as I side with science, and view it as a way that the Creator made the universe, I still need to clarify that I do believe in some supernatural Force that is responsible for our creation.

But where those of Faith get upset at me, is that where as I feel that there is some Supernatural Force responsible for our Creation, I DO NOT believe it is any Creator that has been described to us from any Organized Religion. Therefore, that is why I vehemently oppose religious groups, as none of them have any shred of proof to back up their claims.

In essence, I view churches as claiming to speak for God, when in reality, I don't believe anyone representing these religious institutions have seen God or know what the Creator wants. But at the same time, they have no problem taking our money to stay operational, and to pay the Pastor ... who for all we know, may simply be speaking for an imaginary Creator.

What logic tells me that has transpired over the centuries is that since the beginning of life, Man eventually took advantage of a society that was very primitive in its intelligence, when well over 90% of the population could not even read or write ... and they took advantage of a public that didn't know any better. And then eventually, Man created God in his image. And in doing so, the earliest form of politics was established, with Man claiming that he knows what God wants. Then, these individuals established organized religion.

Today, I view religion as a business, just like any other business. Priests need everyone to come to church each week to give money, to help keep the church operational. And where as I don't attend church, my family informed me that there are occasions when the Priest will interject a guilt trip to its parishioners to give more money to the Church, in his sermons. He also apparently lays a guilt trip on those that do not attend Church regularly. Perhaps, it is all too obvious as to why that is the case, to those that aren't religious. The more frequency people come to Church, the more money the Church takes in.

But going to Church makes make people of faith feel good about themselves, since in their minds they think they are doing God's work. They think they are washed of their sins, because the Priest simply tells them that God has done so. Apparently, the Priest can hear God forgive everyone, but the rest of the parishioners can't ... for some strange reason.

But going to Church also gives people a sense of purpose in life. They think they are truly doing God's work.

So, yes I do believe something outside the realm of our understanding created us. I simply feel that nobody ... not one person has seen or knows what our True Creator's intentions were. There may very well not be a purpose to life, which a lot of people can not accept. I have struggled with this possibility for many years, but yes, I feel that is very much a possibility.

But that is why the more we move towards a secular society, the happier I am. And it's not because I don't believe in a God. It's because I feel that none of the institutions established truly speak for God, or even know what the Creator wants. Given as much deception there is in our Society, I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask our Creator to show us some sign that:

1) He truly exists and is still living
2) Let us know what He wants, and let this come directly from His very own mouth.


Jesus, probably did exist. However, I don't believe Jesus is the son of God. Rather, I simply feel he was a very good man. However, despite being a good man, I do think its possible that this individual claimed to be the son of God ... which got him in hot water with the Romans.

One has to keep in mind that the New Testament has been found to be written at some time around 70-90 AD. Therefore, if Jesus' disciples did write the New Testament, then this would probably put them from anywhere between 70-90 years old, themselves. And given how less than 10% of the population even knew how to read and write back then, does logic tell us that those in the professions of Jesus' disciples, such as a Fisherman (for example) knew how to read and write.

Obviously, whoever wrote the New Testament, these individuals clearly were well-versed in both. Therefore, it is a safe assumption that these stories were either simply passed down through word of mouth, or they were completely made up, by experts in Literature.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I'm not diving deep into this.

The way I see it is that God left some things we can't comprehend to see if we would still place our faith in him. That's not to say science doesn't exist to prove it favor of creationism, rather that there has been much less effort and a complete overhaul in how it's presented.

And for anyone to ask if God (Creator) exists or not is humorous, look at the complexities around you and you should see proof enough. The way even the simplest of things operate didn't occur by accident or chance.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I dont see why they have to fight. Religion cant disprove science, becuase science is tangible, right in front of you. Science cant disprove religion, well, becuase its not based on anything tangible, save for artifacts found in various places all over the world.

Personally, I feel science is man's way of finding out the methods of which god took to do what he did. I liken it to finding a recipe for cookies. You see the steps taken to make the cookies, and you see the ingredients used to make the cookies. You knowing how and what, doesnt mean the chef didnt make them. You just have some insight of how it came about.

I chortle at folks who point to science as explanations for everything, but have no answer for why those things happened in the first place. Its more logical to belive that a bunch of shit just blew up for no reason and made the universe, than to belive a hells angles lookin motherfucker (god) created them, and did it all with reason? Id say they were equally logical, if not equally absurd.

So yea, I feel totally comfortable beliving in both. People are just all too excited to tell each other they are wrong. Funny its on a subject were either side will never give an ounce of ground on.

 

[The Instant Classic91]

Well alot of people are using the arguement, "you cant prove god doesnt exist" and to an extent they are correct, however this is a childish, infantile logic.
As Uncle Sam has stated, you cannot prove a negative.

If I walked out into the street and told people that there are pink unicorns living in dover, and demanded absolute 100% proof to the contrary, nobody could give me that, therefore based on that religious "arguement" I have proved there are pink unicorns living in dover, which is of course insane.

 

[X]

Well alot of people are using the arguement, "you cant prove god doesnt exist" and to an extent they are correct

No, not to an extent, they are in fact 100% correct.

however this is a childish, infantile logic.
As Uncle Sam has stated, you cannot prove a negative.

So it's childish and infantile to think that just possibly humans don't know everything there is to know? Pardon me, but I'm pretty sure that believing all of existence just popped up one day for no reason whatsoever is in fact insanely illogical and irrational. The universe just up and created itself did it?

If I walked out into the street and told people that there are pink unicorns living in dover, and demanded absolute 100% proof to the contrary, nobody could give me that, therefore based on that religious "arguement" I have proved there are pink unicorns living in dover, which is of course insane.

That's got to be one of the worst analogies I've ever read. To the contrary, you could in fact prove that pink unicorns do not live in Dover by searching the entire area and not finding any. You haven't proven anything. You very much have the means to prove that example wrong. Whereas with the existence of a God, you can't exactly take a bus to the Pearly Gates now can you?

I'm not even a religious person and hardly Christian in any way, but there most definately has to be something, be it a God or a spark or a more intelligent lifeform, that is responsible for our creation. The universe itself could be an evolved species for all we know.

Oh and are you serious with that Benoit picture? Yeah, nothing says hilarious like murdering your wife and infant son and then committing suicide right?

 

[The Instant Classic91]

No, not to an extent, they are in fact 100% correct.



So it's childish and infantile to think that just possibly humans don't know everything there is to know? Pardon me, but I'm pretty sure that believing all of existence just popped up one day for no reason whatsoever is in fact insanely illogical and irrational. The universe just up and created itself did it?



That's got to be one of the worst analogies I've ever read. To the contrary, you could in fact prove that pink unicorns do not live in Dover by searching the entire area and not finding any. You haven't proven anything. You very much have the means to prove that example wrong. Whereas with the existence of a God, you can't exactly take a bus to the Pearly Gates now can you?

I'm not even a religious person and hardly Christian in any way, but there most definately has to be something, be it a God or a spark or a more intelligent lifeform, that is responsible for our creation. The universe itself could be an evolved species for all we know.

Oh and are you serious with that Benoit picture? Yeah, nothing says hilarious like murdering your wife and infant son and then committing suicide right?

Hmmm the last point was clearly very relevant.

Bad analogy? Perhaps, thats your opinion, but I think youve missed the point.

My analogy was designed to argue that an inability to prove that god, yaweh, allah or any other deity or prophet does not exist is not an arguement for that they do, and is therefore pointless, present an arguement that they do, like any other scientist or scholar would have to do.

 

[X]

Hmmm the last point was clearly very relevant.

No, just an indication of your character.

Bad analogy? Perhaps, thats your opinion, but I think youve missed the point.

I've missed the point? Your following statement shows you clearly missed mine.

My analogy was designed to argue that an inability to prove that god, yaweh, allah or any other deity or prophet does not exist is not an arguement for that they do, and is therefore pointless, present an arguement that they do, like any other scientist or scholar would have to do.

A) I've already stated that the existence of a God is not something you can study or hypothesize on because God/a higher power isn't a tangible thing.

B) You want an argument? How about the one we've been giving again and again? The universe. That's my argument. How/why does the universe exist?

Obviously you can't definitively prove the existence of a higher power, but to even pretend for a second that science can explain all of the mysteries and questions of life, is he most ridiculious thing I've ever heard.

 

[The Instant Classic91]

No, just an indication of your character.



I've missed the point? Your following statement shows you clearly missed mine.



A) I've already stated that the existence of a God is not something you can study or hypothesize on because God/a higher power isn't a tangible thing.

B) You want an argument? How about the one we've been giving again and again? The universe. That's my argument. How/why does the universe exist?

Obviously you can't definitively prove the existence of a higher power, but to even pretend for a second that science can explain all of the mysteries and questions of life, is he most ridiculious thing I've ever heard.

Science cannot prove everything, I agree with you.
And I think I have chosen my words on this badly, I am not using the idea that a lack of definitive hypothesis is any indication of a lack of god.
And yes I agree with you that the universe in its infinant intricacy and beauty could be an indication of a higher power.
My point was this, organized religion is designed for people to blindly follow teachings and never debate, and when forced to argue, the arguements are generally fundamentally flawed.
And that is what I do not agree with.


And yes the benoit picture is very distasteful, so for the sake of simplicity I shall take it down.

 

[X]

My point was this, organized religion is designed for people to blindly follow teachings and never debate, and when forced to argue, the arguements are generally fundamentally flawed.
And that is what I do not agree with.

Which is why I've stated time and time again that I despise virtually every known form of organized religion on the planet. You can be spiritual without being a part of a church. So...wait, why are we arguing if we actually agree?

This debate is pretty toothless when you think about it, there's not really any valid arguments either side can make to prove their point.

 

[The Instant Classic91]

Which is why I've stated time and time again that I despise virtually every known form of organized religion on the planet. You can be spiritual without being a part of a church. So...wait, why are we arguing if we actually agree?

This debate is pretty toothless when you think about it, there's not really any valid arguments either side can make to prove their point.

Well it looks like we do, being spiritual but not "religious" which allows for debate and levels of introspection is the way it should be.

As whisper put it, the debate that has been going on for centuries and that is due to either sides inability to ever truly out argue the other efficiently, which leads to infinant arguements, but surely that just makes it more fun

 

[Tastycles]

Woah people. Everyone seems to be under the assumption that the Big Bang is some great mystery that is completely unexplainable by science. All I'm going to say is this time last month I had an exam on it, so it better fucking be explainable, otherwise I've been conned. Without meaning to be disrespectful, if I thought a significant portion of you would understand it, I can tell you the history of the universe from when it was 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old.

The time before that will be solved in about a year when they find the Higgs boson. When that happens, you can't disprove God, granted, but you can render him superfluous to explanation, which is basically the point of religion.

Science isn't contrary to religion, it is a religion. People put their faith in it every single day, and people take its teachings as fact. How many times have you heard an advert or something say "scientists say..."? Why? Because science now serves the same function in society as religion did 1000 years ago. It gives us meaning and comprehesion, which is something that humans innately search for.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, and I feel uneasy saying it to be honest, but a time will come in my lifetime when everything is explainable without God, so what's the point in believing? There's nothing wrong with believing in God, but there's nothing wrong with not believing in him.

As for organised religion, it's all bullshit. Humans are all corrupt on some level, and nobody is capable of acting without a vested intrest in something, so evidently the church is going to be corrupt. This is a statement of fact, not opinion, and if you disagree, pick up a history book.

In summation, the most religious man in the world cannot deny science. They cannot deny the laws of gravity, the distinction that people are living creatures and chairs aren't nor the fact that the un gives us heat. The greatest scientist in the world needn't recourse to religion. This means the world needs science, which would exist without any of us. A vacuum has scientific properties. Religion is a human construct. cats don't have religion, but they do have science. A cat learns by induction about its limitations, that's science. A cat does not prey to anyone.

 

[X]

Woah people. Everyone seems to be under the assumption that the Big Bang is some great mystery that is completely unexplainable by science. All I'm going to say is this time last month I had an exam on it, so it better fucking be explainable, otherwise I've been conned. Without meaning to be disrespectful, if I thought a significant portion of you would understand it, I can tell you the history of the universe from when it was 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old

Explain away. I won't pretend to be an expert in any scientific field, but you can explain anything really given the proper wording.

The time before that will be solved in about a year when they find the Higgs boson. When that happens, you can't disprove God, granted, but you can render him superfluous to explanation, which is basically the point of religion.

I've only just Googled the Higgs boson, so obviously you're much more informed on the topic then I am. Just from briefly reading an explanation of the Boson, I don't see how this can render a higher power as the creating force behind the universe superfluous.

Science isn't contrary to religion, it is a religion. People put their faith in it every single day, and people take its teachings as fact. How many times have you heard an advert or something say "scientists say..."? Why? Because science now serves the same function in society as religion did 1000 years ago. It gives us meaning and comprehesion, which is something that humans innately search for.

While science isn't contrary to religion, it's a very different field. Science is something tangible with hard evidence in front of you, it's not about faith. Faith is what real spirituality is about at it's very core.

I can't prove God doesn't exist, and I feel uneasy saying it to be honest, but a time will come in my lifetime when everything is explainable without God, so what's the point in believing? There's nothing wrong with believing in God, but there's nothing wrong with not believing in him.

Everything explainable without God? Even if you can explain to every last second and detail how the entire universe and any others were created, you still can't explain why. Spirituality isn't about seeking an answer to "how" our existence went about, but rather why.

As for organised religion, it's all bullshit. Humans are all corrupt on some level, and nobody is capable of acting without a vested intrest in something, so evidently the church is going to be corrupt. This is a statement of fact, not opinion, and if you disagree, pick up a history book.

Couldn't agree with you more if you chiseled that paragraph into my forehead. It's the same basic argument for why nationalism and Marxist Communism are inherently flawed. Greed is the constant in all of them.

 

[Murfish]

I can't speak as an authority as I'm still in high school and have only taken relatively elementary science, theology, and church studies courses. I will, however, try to explain my view in the best way that I can. I trust science. I understand that it explains more and more everyday and it does a damn solid job. I will also probably never say straight up that God or some form of deity doesn't exist, as I know that I can never prove or disprove it.

Now it's time for the argument. If the universe follows the laws of physics: gravity keeps chugging along, conservation of various things remains intact, and the atoms and sub atomic particles behave as they should; then how is 'God' affecting any changes in the world. If everything is behaving as science says it should and will, then there is no external force changing it. I can't go out and prove that; but if an exception had been found, then it probably wouldn't be a law or theory. Now say God does exist. According to what I just said, he could have only started the universe and done nothing since then to change the outcome of the universe. I find it more plausible that what ever necessary process to create the universe happened by chance(if that's the case whatever existence came before could have existed for eons, thus the odds of this x event increase), than that God created the universe and just let it stew for the rest of eternity. And if he did affect the universe, then science wouldn't have a basis as it could always be upstaged.

I also don't hate organized religion. I think that may of them have bad histories and some are making their own, but once they've developed they end up well enough. The current Catholic church rocks compared to its past incarnations.

 

[TwistofRKO]

All due respect to Tastycles, no slighting him intended in the post, but it doesn't require a masters degree to see the flawed logic in saying it's impossible to believe in God because you can't prove or disprove his existence and then say you know everything that happened from the beginning of time, when according to that theory humans didn't appear until billions of years later, meaning there's no concrete proof supporting that.

Seriously.

 

[jokeboy624]

I'd like to start out by saying where I stand. I'm a firm believer in science and I highly despise organized religion. I understand spirituality and how it definitely helps people get through life. I'm also an atheist. Now I haven't been on here very much and most of you have probably never read anything I've written, but I'd like to think of myself as a fairly decent guy with a good moral compass.

The reason I put all this in here is that I have a question for everyone, and I'm not asking this to be a dick, I'm genuinely curious. Why do you need a reason for the universe to exist? I'm completely comfortable believing that we are here just because we are, having followed the laws of nature to get to this point. I'm just curious to see how people got to their opinions in life.

 

[X]

The reason I put all this in here is that I have a question for everyone, and I'm not asking this to be a dick, I'm genuinely curious. Why do you need a reason for the universe to exist? I'm completely comfortable believing that we are here just because we are, having followed the laws of nature to get to this point. I'm just curious to see how people got to their opinions in life.

Followed the laws of nature? Where did those laws of nature come from? How can you possibly not be curious as to the reason for why this universe exists? Quite frankly it's rather unscientific to think that the universe and all of conciousness just exist because. How many things in nature and science exist "Just 'cause" without an explanation? This is a main flaw in siding with science in this argument. Science is all about logic and reason, and yet those on it's side in this argument seem to believe that human beings know everything there is to possibly know about the universe and that all of existence just up and popped up out of nowhere. That's insanely illogical and unreasonable if you ask me.

 

[jokeboy624]

Followed the laws of nature? Where did those laws of nature come from? How can you possibly not be curious as to the reason for why this universe exists? Quite frankly it's rather unscientific to think that the universe and all of conciousness just exist because. How many things in nature and science exist "Just 'cause" without an explanation? This is a main flaw in siding with science in this argument. Science is all about logic and reason, and yet those on it's side in this argument seem to believe that human beings know everything there is to possibly know about the universe and that all of existence just up and popped up out of nowhere. That's insanely illogical and unreasonable if you ask me.

I'm definitely curious where they came from, but what if it is a more "natural" beginning? There is no why to prove the existence/non-existence of God, as has been mentioned so many times both on here and throughout literature, science, the media, etc. And anyone that says we know everything now is naive, but would you just want to stop looking for the answer because you believe in God? By no means do I believe we know everything and if we did, that would suck because I would be out of a job.

And believing the universe just popped up out of nowhere is no more illogical and unreasonable than to believe that a supreme being just popped up one day and decided to make everything. We are entering a vicious cycle here because we are both making leaps of faith at this point.

 

[X]

I'm definitely curious where they came from, but what if it is a more "natural" beginning? There is no why to prove the existence/non-existence of God, as has been mentioned so many times both on here and throughout literature, science, the media, etc. And anyone that says we know everything now is naive, but would you just want to stop looking for the answer because you believe in God?

I'm not even talking about a God. I'm not talking about a white-bearded giant creating the Earth, I'm just talking about a higher power. A higher power does not automatically mean a "God", it just means a larger force at work then we are aware of. Is it not logical to assume that there are larger forces at work then our species is even capable of understanding? To believe humanity's findings are the end-all be-all of existence is absurd to me.

And believing the universe just popped up out of nowhere is no more illogical and unreasonable than to believe that a supreme being just popped up one day and decided to make everything. We are entering a vicious cycle here because we are both making leaps of faith at this point.

I never once stated to believe in an altruistic God of any kind, simply a higher power. Higher power = different from "God". Basically just re-read my last paragraph.

 

[jokeboy624]

I'm sorry; I did misunderstand your intent. I fell in the trap that as soon as religion is mentioned we are talking about God. I would never pretend to say that we as human beings could ever understand everything. We learn something new everyday about the world we live in which allows us to change our understanding, so to say that our knowledge is the be-all-and-end-all is ridiculous. I can't even say that we are going to hold the same truths tomorrow that we hold today, who knows what discovery we'll find.

On a smaller scale, we can't even be sure what happened before there were written records. All we can do is make educated guesses about the past so to think that we can know everything to a 100% certainty is naive. As long as you keep an open mind, what does it matter what you believe in?

 

[Tastycles]

No offense intended. I write opinon as fact, and I apologise for appearing dismissive.

Explain away. I won't pretend to be an expert in any scientific field, but you can explain anything really given the proper wording.

Ok, I'm going to assume a school level science education, and see where that takes me.

If we start at 0.(42 zeroes)1 second, that us when we understand from. At that point quarks and leptons were formed. When the universe was 0.(36 zeroes)1 second old, a period of inflation begun. This means that the universe expanded enormously over a period of 0.(34 zeroes)1 second. I don't know the precise dimensions off hand, but it is known. This is why the universe is almost identical on a large scale, because it went from being tiny to being enormous in such a small time that there wasn't time fr any differences to develop. There were small quantum inbalances though, and these grew with gravity.

As inflation finished and the universe cooled, the quarks fused to make protons and neutrons at around 0.000000001 seconds after the big bang. Then at about 2 minutes old, these neutrons and protons fused to make helium, and a tiny bit of lithium and barium nuclei.

That's pretty much it until the universe is 300,000 years old. At this point, we have nuclei, and those gravitational imbalances. At this point, electrons joined with protons and made hydrogen atoms, and the tiny quantum imbalances from before had grown quite a bit.

Then the hydrogen was attracte to the quantum imbalances and they compacted into star forming regions. When these stars were formed, we get galaxies, around some of the stars we get planets, and thus we have a fairly good accuracy.

Fast forward 5 billion years and the sun is born. Fast forward 500,000,000 years and the earth is born. About a billion and a half years later, complex organic molecules are formed, which evolved with time into rna, and eventually dna. You'll have to ask a biologist the precise order of the next few steps, but ultimately, you end up with me and you sitting on a laptop.

And that, in short, is the history of the universe.

I've only just Googled the Higgs boson, so obviously you're much more informed on the topic then I am. Just from briefly reading an explanation of the Boson, I don't see how this can render a higher power as the creating force behind the universe superfluous.

Because the Higgs particle is the one responsible for mass.If we understand that, then we unerstand why the quarks were formed. If we find it, we can find how it is born of energy, and thats it, there's nothing before, the energy comes from the singularity.

The obvious question to ask is "what about before that, why was there a singularity?", but this is where the misunderstanding begins. People see the universe as some eternal thing, and then the big bang happened, but that isn't the case. Time and space were born when the big bang happened. It doesn't make sense to ask why it happened, because nothing could have caused it, it is causally independent. There was no "before the big bang" because there was no time.

While science isn't contrary to religion, it's a very different field. Science is something tangible with hard evidence in front of you, it's not about faith. Faith is what real spirituality is about at it's very core.

It is about faith. Science requires inductive leaps. While they aren't as big as those in religion, they are there. I believe in evolution, a fundamentalist doesn't. If it was certain, then literally nobody coud doubt it. Maths is fact. There is nobody that could argue that 2+2=4, but there are people that will argue what it says in the bible is categorical fact and everything I've just said about the universe was wrong. It's not as big a leap, but it is necessary.

Everything explainable without God? Even if you can explain to every last second and detail how the entire universe and any others were created, you still can't explain why. Spirituality isn't about seeking an answer to "how" our existence went about, but rather why.

There isn't a why. The how is the why. People often ask this, but put simply, life is a quantum fluke. If it wasn't for quantum indiscrepancies, we wouldn't be here, an it is as simple as that. It's a very human trait to search for the meaning of life, but put simply, there isn't one. There are too many arbitary consequqnces and things in the universe that are visibile to believe in an intelligent designer. The moons of Mars are there, but it would effect literally nothing anywhere for anything if they weren't. Why would a creator put them there?

Couldn't agree with you more if you chiseled that paragraph into my forehead. It's the same basic argument for why nationalism and Marxist Communism are inherently flawed. Greed is the constant in all of them.

Absolutely, this is something I've said about communism always. Anarchy too. Be an anarchist if you want, but who's going to fix a pothole in the road in an anarchist country, people don't do anything for no gain.

All due respect to Tastycles, no slighting him intended in the post, but it doesn't require a masters degree to see the flawed logic in saying it's impossible to believe in God because you can't prove or disprove his existence

It's a good job I didn't say that then isn't it? I said belief in God is superfluous if you can understand everything without need to recourse to a creator. Surely you see that? If you don't need God to explain anything, then what's the point in God?

and then say you know everything that happened from the beginning of time, when according to that theory humans didn't appear until billions of years later, meaning there's no concrete proof supporting that.

Well there is actually. Turn on your television, put it on an untuned channel. Then you are watching the recombination of electrons on protons 300,000 years after the big bang. Then go to the natural history museum and look at the fossil record. Then you will see that concrete proof is all around us.