Will Science ever fully disprove Religion

[Hazardous]

I put this here, instead of the Cage for 2 reasons. 1) to avoid spam. 2) to avoid flamming. Just because someone does not share your view, does not make them wrong. Instead of the name calling and such, use facts.

Now the question here is will Science ever fully disprove Religion? If you go back hundreds and hundreds of years, religion was the end all be all. Most scientific studies were illegal. Within the past 50 years, we have seen a huge boom in the scientific community, and had major discoveries. Where people use to see the world as flat, and that everything revolved around us, we now know none of that is true. This was done through science. Ancient people use to think that "God" lived in the clouds, and that there was nothing outside of earth at all, also proven to be wrong, as there is plenty out there. The exploration of the universe can go on for many lifetimes, and we will never know everything there is to know. Now I recently watched the mini series "Stephen Hawking: Into the Universe" And I have to say I was blown away by it. Sure there was a lot of that stuff I already knew, but other stuff in it I couldn't believe the knowledge of this guy. Where people use to say God made the earth, we now know it was formed other ways. Even the Vatican has opened a department where they are searching for live on other planets. That's a big step for them. But back to the question at hand..

This may come as a shock, as I've made my views on religion quite clear.. But I don't think anything, not even science, will fully end religion once and for all. The reason for this is not everyone in the world has access to science. All they have is their faith. That no matter the discovery made, people are going to believe what they want to. Look how long it took just for the Vatican to come to terms with the fact that there MAY be live outside of this planet.. Now try to tell someone in a third world country, who has nothing buy faith to go on, that they are wrong. They won't buy it. No matter what proof is given to them. I've debated people on this before, and have had to defend either side, but deep down I don't think even the power of science could do it.

Anyone else got anything to add to that? Agree? Disagree?

 

[Furyof5]

No, science can not do so. In order for science to disprove the existence of God it would have to be everywhere in the universe at once and in the theoretical different dimensions/universes. If they could indeed do that they become omniscient, which in fact makes them themselves Godlike. Its pretty paradoxical.

Also contrary to belief Religion has never stated there is no life outside of Earth, actually they count on it. God doesnt exist on Earth and is "life" and then there are Angels and other beings according to different religions. This form of life doesnt exist on Earth and thus in a way is extra terrestrial. They simply dont have to believe in ET or little green men.

Also a lot of what you said isnt accurate. Stating:

Ancient people use to think that "God" lived in the clouds, and that there was nothing outside of earth at all, also proven to be wrong, as there is plenty out there.

Many different religions beleieved in many different things, that Gods were stars, that they lived on different worlds, that they lived in the sky, that they were the moon and sun, than they lived in different magical realms, not that they "lived in the clowds", that was more that people preeching would say in an attempt to communicate it to their church goers, or when they hadnt seen space yet they thought that thats what everything above the stratosphere looked like.

Im not sure if you have ever actually read the bible but it explains a lot of science and explains the purposes of stars, it states the Earth is round and floats in space, it talks about a lot of different sciences. Its not the religion responsible for the persecutions of peoples studying science but the ignorant people whom didnt understand their own religions.

One of the reasons for the persecutions was to maintain power, they didnt want people to actually read the bible because it would make the Pope seem like he should have less power than he had at the time, and it would make people realize that in Christianity everyone on Earth is equal in the eyes of God, and thus he wouldnt have as much power over them. So if someone read and tried to use science to even prove the bible such as Copernicus were persecuted when all he was trying to do was help the people better understand "Gods Creation."

Science and religion can actually go hand in hand, or else the Bible wouldnt talk of it and encourage its followers to "Love god with their hearts and minds" or to be able to "answer those whom ask you why you believe".

Christianity encourages science, and science can never disprove Gods existence, thus it can not get rid of religion.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I don't think that science ever can nor ever should replace religion for people. There are basically two ways to view whatever aspect of life you are considering: things that are fact-based and things that are emotion-based. I think most of us need a little of both to maintain our sanity and make sense of the things that go on all around us in this sometimes crazy world we all live in.

Science is a powerful tool, and is becoming more powerful by the day with the development of technologies and the advancements in education. Looking at life through black and white eyes only, accepting only pragmatic aspects of life without looking at all of the nuances around the black and white, that is not always good and not always healthy in my mind.

People face adversity all of the time. Illness. Death. Hardships. If I recall correctly, our OP here has had some hard times recently. You have to have faith, you have to have religion sometimes, to make sense of it all and to keep everything in some sort of balance and perspective. Having gone through some trying times myself, without faith and the belief that such faith will get you through adversity is extremely important in my mind. Trying to explain away hardships by science alone is not a healthy balance of life in my opinion.

Having said this, the days of blind faith in religion are pretty much over. But I think there's a place for both in everyone's life if they so choose. The science to be logical and sensible about the worrld around you, and the religion to help you deal with it.

 

[The Jabroni]

I watched the Stephen Hawking special as well, and it was incredible. However, I do (though barely) believe that there is a possibility, though extremely slim and probably non-existent, that science could completely disprove religion. The reason why the possibility is so slim, however, is that the answer involves time travel to the past. The only way to disprove religion completely is to go back and verify what really happened; to see if Jesus was really resurrected; to see if the world was made in seven days; to go to a time before time when all there was was (or wasn't) God.

However, this is a double-edged sword. If it is possible (Hawking says it's not, and he's probably right) to travel backwards to these times, it could also prove everything 100 percent true. Jesus may have made his posthumous appearance and God may have created this earth by power of will alone.

But, in all honesty, the idea of time travel to the past is an idea that will most likely never be realized (due to impossibility, probably). In this idea, however, lies the only true way to disprove religion. Scientists can try as they will, but the only way to prove or disprove the contents of holy books is to go back to the times that sparked their creation and this will probably never be a reality.

So to answer the question, science will most likely never disprove religion, though it will try. Why? Because the only means to reach a definite answer will probably remain the work of fiction and Michael J. Fox films.

 

[Hazardous]

No, science can not do so. In order for science to disprove the existence of God it would have to be everywhere in the universe at once and in the theoretical different dimensions/universes. If they could indeed do that they become omniscient, which in fact makes them themselves Godlike. Its pretty paradoxical.

But were we not told that God created the universe? So if science can prove that this was not so, what does that do to religion? Same with life, and evolution? If religion teaches creation, and evolution is proven correct, what does that do to them? I just think that no matter what is proven, some people will ignore it, and believe what they want, therefor religion will still be around.

People face adversity all of the time. Illness. Death. Hardships. If I recall correctly, our OP here has had some hard times recently. You have to have faith, you have to have religion sometimes, to make sense of it all and to keep everything in some sort of balance and perspective. Having gone through some trying times myself, without faith and the belief that such faith will get you through adversity is extremely important in my mind. Trying to explain away hardships by science alone is not a healthy balance of life in my opinion.

You are correct, I have been going through some really shitty times. But no, I have not turned to religion. That was one door I shut many many years ago, and could not go back to it. I do not follow a religion, nor do I accept one, or any god as my own. I have my personal views on why things happen, and I don't voice them very much, due to the fact that where I live is a VERY christian area. But I don't hold any resentment against people of any faith either. As long as they don't try to put theirs above any other. Or pressure me into joining theirs. But I also feel that no matter what science proves, people will hold on to any idea they like.

 

[Furyof5]

But were we not told that God created the universe?

Me personally? No.

So if science can prove that this was not so, what does that do to religion?

Religion in general? Nothing. Also science CANT prove god didnt have a hand in creation or didnt create it. The majority of the scientific creation stories require just as much faith as Religion itself.

Same with life, and evolution? If religion teaches creation, and evolution is proven correct, what does that do to them?

As I said, for religion, nothing. It doesnt do shit, people will just change their belives, as they do today. Also scientific theories are not facts, and many of them verge on being hypotheses. What do scientists do if their belief is proven wrong?

I just think that no matter what is proven, some people will ignore it, and believe what they want, therefor religion will still be around.

This is true too.

You are correct, I have been going through some really shitty times. But no, I have not turned to religion.That was one door I shut many many years ago, and could not go back to it.I do not follow a religion, nor do I accept one, or any god as my own.

Why not? Maybe if you accepted Christianity you would be much happier and come to understand your life and your reason for existence.

I have my personal views on why things happen, and I don't voice them very much, due to the fact that where I live is a VERY christian area. But I don't hold any resentment against people of any faith either.

Well good, resenting people makes you bitter inside.

As long as they don't try to put theirs above any other. Or pressure me into joining theirs.

The funny thing is science does this exact thing. In many ways secularism is actually a religion. They have their own beliefs, a creation story, and even to an extent their own gods, be it themselves or those in charge. So when scientists say "You must accept this, its a proven fact" they are pushing their beliefs onto you. Its pretty ironic.

But I also feel that no matter what science proves, people will hold on to any idea they like.

Of course they will, individual perception defines our individual realities. If we accept god or dont its up to us. In the end we are only saving ourselves or helping ourselves to better understand "Why?".

Edit: I didnt notice some of this wasnt to me, but I guess I have it answered anyway.

 

[Davi323]

I tend to think that science tells us how God created the universe, while the Bible tells us why. I totally understand why a lot of scientists get annoyed at Christians, because there are serious issues on both sides in understanding each other, when there doesn't really have to be. Science and religion can peacefully coexist. The Bible is not, nor ever has been, a science textbook. Those who try to use it as such are either misguided, or simply fools. The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the Earth, tells us why, but in no way whatsoever tells us how. This is where science comes in. Science is able to fill in some of the missing pieces, by telling us how it happened, the processes, etc...but cannot explain why. Basically, I would argue that Religion gives us God's motives, science gives us God's methods.

Think of God as a lumberjack, who felled a tree. A scientist would look at the fallen tree objectively and conclude that the tree fell down because the sharp bits of the sawblade or chainsaw ripped through the trunk. The scientific perspective would tell us the literal cause of the tree being felled. Religion would say, sure, the chainsaw caused the tree to fall, but the only reason the chainsaw was able to do that was because the lumberjack was holding it. Both viewpoints are correct, in their own way. The chainsaw chopped the tree down, but the lumberjack also chopped the tree down. My view would be that the tree fell because the lumberjack took the chainsaw to it. The lumberjack provided the motive, the intent to chop the tree, while the chainsaw provided the method used to actually accomplish it. Both are responsible.

As a Christian, I believe that God created the entire universe...which means God also created the laws that govern the universe. God created humans with the intelligence and curiosity to explore this wonderful creation. God created us for this purpose. So, if you can mentally accept that premise, doesn't it stand to reason that God is delighted when we figure out a little more and a little more of the mysteries of God? Learning about creation, using our God given intelligence to discover how things work scientifically, helps us better understand our role in the universe, and it helps us understand our creator. God wants us to figure out how the universe works. From that, it seems logical that scientific principles are true. The earth really is that old, because science tells us it is that old. It seems rather unlikely that God would create us with all this intelligence and curiosity to explore, only to trick us with fake aged fossils, artifacts, evidence of an ice age, etc. That seems counter-productive to discovery. If God didn't want us figuring out his universe, He wouldn't have made us so smart. He did make us that smart though, so it seems reasonable to conclude that God wants us to continue our scientific awakening.

The OP wonders if science will disprove religion...I wonder if that is even the right question...science is not capable of disproving it, nor is religion capable of disproving science. Each on their own, only provides half the story. For some people, half is enough. For some Christians, knowing why God does something is all they need or want to know, and turn a blind eye to anything that challenges them. They are wrong. For some in the scientific community, knowing how something happened is all they need or want to know, and simply don't care about a purpose, a meaning to it. They are just as wrong. The question therefore, should really be what can science and religion both teach us about the universe?

 

[Hazardous]

I tend to think that science tells us how God created the universe, while the Bible tells us why. I totally understand why a lot of scientists get annoyed at Christians, because there are serious issues on both sides in understanding each other, when there doesn't really have to be. Science and religion can peacefully coexist. The Bible is not, nor ever has been, a science textbook. Those who try to use it as such are either misguided, or simply fools. The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the Earth, tells us why, but in no way whatsoever tells us how.

Now I'm glad you came in, I am, because I did want practicing member of the Christian faith to state their views on this topic. But I did see one thing in there that I did have to ask about. I can very easy just go look it up, but I would rather ask you personally. Not knocking your faith either, I'm not. I'm glad you have what works for you. It didn't work for me, and I saw too many things I didn't like about it, but that was my choice. But anyway, you said this:

The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the Earth, tells us why, but in no way whatsoever tells us how.

Does it not talk, somewhere in Genesis I believe, about God creating the world in 6 days? Now anyone who believes that, that's fine.. All the power to you. But I believe it took more then 6 days to just "Make". Only due to science showing that it took millions of years to form before life came to form.

As a Christian, I believe that God created the entire universe...which means God also created the laws that govern the universe.

This may be, or may not be. The only law that can not be broken, that I know of anyway, is that nothing can surpass the speed of light. Not sure if there are any others.

God created humans with the intelligence and curiosity to explore this wonderful creation.

Again you said created though. Not that we evolved. This is where a lot of the divide comes in. Which theory is right in Creation/Evolution.

It seems rather unlikely that God would create us with all this intelligence and curiosity to explore, only to trick us with fake aged fossils, artifacts, evidence of an ice age, etc. That seems counter-productive to discovery.

And this was my big issue when I was younger, and a few family members were trying to force religion on me. I was a kid, so of course I loved dinosaurs. We played with them, colored them, they were our favorite things. And they were telling me that it was other men trying to dis-prove God and religion that planted those bones in the ground. I hated that, I didn't like anyone talking about my dino's like that! As I grew older, I did see that not all religious people think this. There are some really hardcore Catholics that still do. I know, dated one.

The OP wonders if science will disprove religion...I wonder if that is even the right question...science is not capable of disproving it, nor is religion capable of disproving science.

See, and this is where I think you are wrong. The reason I made this thread to begin with, was due to something I saw yesterday.

Stephen Hawking will be Larry King's guest on Friday night. In his latest book Hawking claims God didn't create the universe and aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Now being that he is often called the smartest man alive, and the figurehead in modern science, this really could drive a bigger wedge between the science community, and the religious one.

As I said, for religion, nothing. It doesnt do shit, people will just change their belives, as they do today. Also scientific theories are not facts, and many of them verge on being hypotheses. What do scientists do if their belief is proven wrong?

Agreed! They are not facts.. Until they have physical proof. Then how can you discredit it? For some, when they are proven wrong, they move on to something else. Others will work on it, and see HOW they are wrong, until they do find the right answer.

Why not? Maybe if you accepted Christianity you would be much happier and come to understand your life and your reason for existence.

No. Again, that is something I tried, and it did not appeal to me. I'm very happy that you have something like that for you, but Christianity, nor any other religion felt right to me.

So when scientists say "You must accept this, its a proven fact" they are pushing their beliefs onto you. Its pretty ironic.

I agree, to a certain extent. The only time I have seen (in modern times) a scientist say "This is a proven fact" is if they have actual physical proof to back it up. But even still, I don;t think any amount of physical proof can make everyone give up religion and accept that we just are. That no one created us. I don't believe that this is possible to do, as it would take too much out of peoples lives. For some it would take away their reason for living.

 

[Xemmy]

Religion cannot be ended by science for the same reason Education and Teachers can't fix all stupid people. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the easiest analogy. Most religions (the major ones) have already been disproven by Science. God is an Unfalsafiable hypothosis. If we search every spec of the universe and find no God, then people could just say that he is outside of nature. If they say God is Blue, and we Find no blue God, then they will say God is pink. However, The Christian God IS a Falsafiable Hypothosis. We know his properties. He made the universe in a week, and flooded the Earth destroying most the land life on Earth.

Science has disproved those properties, therefore the God that goes along with those properties does not exist either. So automatically I've wiped out the 3 desert Dogmas.

Virtually any Religion with a creation story that does not align with what Scientists have proven to be history can be disproven with this method.

So that just leaves Deism. Deism is a brand of faith, but it is not Religion. It's a reasonable position, just one I find highly unlikely. And Science will never be able to counter act this position.

If luck is on my side, Religion will no longer be mainstream in a couple hundred years.
While Science can disprove Religions, it cannot stop those who are neurologically disordered from believing in them. Science can't wipe it out, but it can contain it.

(If you're a Theist reading this, I can understand an insult here and there, because it's quite obvious this is offensive. Just don't riddle your response with all insult and no argument.)

 

[Davi323]

Does it not talk, somewhere in Genesis I believe, about God creating the world in 6 days? Now anyone who believes that, that's fine.. All the power to you. But I believe it took more then 6 days to just "Make". Only due to science showing that it took millions of years to form before life came to form.

Yes it does say the world was created in 6 days. However, I do not believe that it is meant literally 6 24 hour days. It can't. Instead, it is a poetic telling of creation, written in a language designed to be understood by its audience. When the height of technology is having a bronze tip to your spear, and civilization consists of small huts made of clay with straw roofs, and you don't have any sort of education, what are you possibly going to understand about how long time is? How are you going to understand the concept of millions of years? Short answer: you won't. So, the book of Genesis catered to its audience. millions of years become days, because they could understand days. Further, since God exists outside of time, there is no reason to assume that a day to God equals a day to us. Days that don't refer to literal "days" are used all over the Bible in describing when something happens. The Earth was NOT, repeat NOT, created in 6 conventional 24 hour days, as we understand them. The Biblical 6 days of creation are poetic in nature, not literal.

The only law that can not be broken, that I know of anyway, is that nothing can surpass the speed of light. Not sure if there are any others.

The only law that beings who were created as part of that universe cannot break, you mean. God created light, therefore God cannot be limited by it. God exists completely outside of time, is everywhere, in every time, all at the same time. WE are limited by the speed of light, but the rules simply do not apply to God, since He exists outside of time. When you exist outside of time, what difference does the speed of light make?

Again you said created though. Not that we evolved. This is where a lot of the divide comes in. Which theory is right in Creation/Evolution.

This is the easiest to explain. Who ever said that when you create something, its instantaneous? I don't know why people assume that when God creates something, its with a snap of His wrist, and BOOM suddenly it is there. Why is it impossible that evolution was the method used to create humans as separate, intelligent beings? The Bible says that God created man in His own image. Okay, does that mean purely physical, or does that refer to humans being endowed by God with eternal souls? Bible doesn't really say for sure. It has been assumed that it meant in totality, and I don't think that is a completely justifiable position. God created seeds as well as trees. When God created vegetation, did He simply wave his hand, and the earth was covered in foliage? Or could it be that God caused the seeds to be implanted in the ground, and then after a period of time, those seeds grew into the trees? In the same way, God created life on Earth, knowing that time would eventually divide sea creatures, mammals and birds, knowing that they would divide even more to into specific species, and that one of them would eventually evolve into man (one of the things about existing outside of time is being omnipresent, God knew the entire sum of universal history before He ever created it, so He would know how it was all going to play out). Again, if the Big Bang gives us the method God used to create the universe, than evolution might be the method used to create "man". God has infinite time in which to create His universe. Our concepts of time don't apply. What takes millions of years to us could seem a mere second to God. Humans can be created and humans could have evolved. I do not believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It goes back to the lumberjack felling a tree, and a chainsaw felling a tree. Motive/Method.

Stephen Hawking will be Larry King's guest on Friday night. In his latest book Hawking claims God didn't create the universe and aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Stephen Hawking is incredibly smart. But, he isn't smart enough to even begin to have a true understand of God's nature. None of us are. It's like an ant trying to fathom the nature of humans. God is so beyond our level of comprehension, we are only capable of understanding but a fraction of God's infinite wonder and majesty. Stephen Hawking is only human after all, which means he has flaws just like everyone else. Remember, once upon a time, the so-called smartest men alive believed that the Earth was flat, and that the sun orbited the Earth, not the other way around.

However, attempting to show that the universe COULD have been created without a divine presence is not exactly the same as proving that there was no divine presence. My DVD player turns itself on sometimes for no reason at all, probably due to a faulty circuit somewhere inside that detects the wrong IR frequency coming from something else, and interprets that as "power on". Stephen Hawking would be able to view the circuit board, find the flaw, and explain why it is possible that the DVD player is capable of turning itself on without any intervention. That is the nature of his argument towards the Big Bang. That it could have happened all by itself, so God isn't needed. Yet, that possibility does not rule out the possibility that I can turn my DVD player on using the remote control, with purpose. In the same way, while Hawking can describe how the universe could have come into existence without God, he cannot conclusively prove that God's hand had no part in it. Motive/Method.

In summary:
Method = Science tells us HOW God does something, but does not tell us WHY.
Motive = Religions can tell us WHY God does something, but does not tell us HOW.

Big Bang = method God used to create universe, not an in-all-be-all in and of itself.

Days of creation = not literal 24 hour days, but symbolic, Genesis written in language that would have been understandable by the original target audience...who were for lack of a better term, scientifically dumb.

Evolution = method God used to develop life on Earth, because God cannot be limited by OUR concepts of time, nor does creating something mean that creating has to be instant.

 

[Remix]

Can science ever 'disprove' God? No. for one simple reason.

God cannot be proven one way or another. It's incredably unlikely that he does exist, but ultimately it comes down to faith that he is there. Various methods of dating rocks have put the earth at many millions or years older than young earth creationists believe it is. And yet there are still a large number of people who believe the earth was created 6000 years ago.

When it comes down to God, proof is impossible because ultimately faith is an opinion. Do you believe in God, or not. Those who do not can point at the scientific evidence that means there is no need for a God for the universe, Earth or life to exist. Those who do can point to miracles and passages of the Bible. Either way, proof is impossible.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Well I think that you need to realize that your OP is stating two different things: first, if science can prove that god doesn't exist and secondly if science indeed prove the non-existence of god, religion or faith will disappear as a result. Being said that, I'm going to answer to the thread in two parts.

Will science ever fully disprove religion? IMO, yes! I think it is just a matter of time. I don't know where, who, how or when but by logic I think it can be proven. This is my logic.
Million years ago, when man was just getting awareness of his environment he discovers fire right? Basically he learns how to "make" fire. Therefore, he is the "master", the "creator" of fire. He control's fire. However, when a lightning strikes, he can see it above him, in the sky. He is aware that he didn't "create it", therefore he asks to himself "if I didn't do it..then who could do it?" Yep, there is the answer, God.

Now with that logic, it took us many many years (432749847 to be exact...kidding, I don't know the exact amount of time) to discover that the lightning is a natural phenomenon caused by different factors (I'm sorry I suck completely at science).

Anyway, I'm sorry for all the blablabla but here's my point: if it took us gazillion years to understand the phenomenon of a lightning, it's going to take us 4760326573824123541360549135413 years to understand how the universe was created. So yeah, I do think that science will eventually prove that god doesn't exist.

Now, if science fully disprove religion, people is going to stop thinking that there is a god? I hate to admit it, but probably NOT. As some other poster stated before me, if we prove that there isn't a blue god, that he isn't blue nor exists, people will continue to say that he exist only that he is pink. And that my friend is a vicious circle that we can not break. In fact, people wouldn't want to admit it because, well they could go nuts and ask to themselves "what's the point of my life" and therefore becoming nihilist amongst many other things. Sorry getting off topic, but that's my point and I need it to say it.

And this is for you hateshabforever, I'm an atheist, I don't belive in divins beings. But I do believe in people. My faith is people, I'm a socialist NOT COMMUNIST BUT SOCIALIST so my bet is always on people.
Not everyone needs religion, I'm more than happy being without it,but yes some people does need it. My point is: not always. Sometimes, your backup is friends, family, music, art and in idiotics cases drugs, alcohol amongst others....

 

[Hazardous]

Before I start, I would like to say you are truly one of a kind my friend. Not too often I have herd a Christian speak on things of this sort, in this way.

Yes it does say the world was created in 6 days. However, I do not believe that it is meant literally 6 24 hour days. It can't. Instead, it is a poetic telling of creation, written in a language designed to be understood by its audience. When the height of technology is having a bronze tip to your spear, and civilization consists of small huts made of clay with straw roofs, and you don't have any sort of education, what are you possibly going to understand about how long time is? How are you going to understand the concept of millions of years? Short answer: you won't. So, the book of Genesis catered to its audience. millions of years become days, because they could understand days. Further, since God exists outside of time, there is no reason to assume that a day to God equals a day to us. Days that don't refer to literal "days" are used all over the Bible in describing when something happens. The Earth was NOT, repeat NOT, created in 6 conventional 24 hour days, as we understand them. The Biblical 6 days of creation are poetic in nature, not literal.

I must say, this is the first time I have herd it described in this way. My brother went to a Catholic school, and when I was visiting one day and brought this up, they looked as me like I was some nut off the street.

The only law that beings who were created as part of that universe cannot break, you mean. God created light, therefore God cannot be limited by it. God exists completely outside of time, is everywhere, in every time, all at the same time. WE are limited by the speed of light, but the rules simply do not apply to God, since He exists outside of time. When you exist outside of time, what difference does the speed of light make?

But again, this falls into the "Faith" idea. Those who do not believe in such a being, do not see it this way. For how is someone who does not believe in a god, supposed to believe he exists outside of time and space it's self. I think this is where the "Seeing is believing" phrase comes into play.

This is the easiest to explain. Who ever said that when you create something, its instantaneous? I don't know why people assume that when God creates something, its with a snap of His wrist, and BOOM suddenly it is there. Why is it impossible that evolution was the method used to create humans as separate, intelligent beings? The Bible says that God created man in His own image. Okay, does that mean purely physical, or does that refer to humans being endowed by God with eternal souls? Bible doesn't really say for sure. It has been assumed that it meant in totality, and I don't think that is a completely justifiable position. God created seeds as well as trees. When God created vegetation, did He simply wave his hand, and the earth was covered in foliage? Or could it be that God caused the seeds to be implanted in the ground, and then after a period of time, those seeds grew into the trees? In the same way, God created life on Earth, knowing that time would eventually divide sea creatures, mammals and birds, knowing that they would divide even more to into specific species, and that one of them would eventually evolve into man (one of the things about existing outside of time is being omnipresent, God knew the entire sum of universal history before He ever created it, so He would know how it was all going to play out). Again, if the Big Bang gives us the method God used to create the universe, than evolution might be the method used to create "man". God has infinite time in which to create His universe. Our concepts of time don't apply. What takes millions of years to us could seem a mere second to God. Humans can be created and humans could have evolved. I do not believe the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It goes back to the lumberjack felling a tree, and a chainsaw felling a tree. Motive/Method.

Then why is the idea of Evolution usually shunned by the christian community as "garbage"? All I have ever herd from religious folk is how "Creation is right, evolution is wrong" or that "it's just stupid to assume we evolved from something else". This is the first time I have seen someone of faith say that evolution may be indeed right.

Stephen Hawking is incredibly smart. But, he isn't smart enough to even begin to have a true understand of God's nature. None of us are. It's like an ant trying to fathom the nature of humans. God is so beyond our level of comprehension, we are only capable of understanding but a fraction of God's infinite wonder and majesty. Stephen Hawking is only human after all, which means he has flaws just like everyone else. Remember, once upon a time, the so-called smartest men alive believed that the Earth was flat, and that the sun orbited the Earth, not the other way around.

Again, this falls back onto the faith aspect of it all. To say something like that to someone who does not believe in the idea of one being having the ability to create everything that ever existed, would be seen in the same light as if I were to claim that Superman was based off a real person. It would be seen as rubbish. This is where the big divide comes into play I think. That people of faith have their beliefs, and people who don't believe in any of that have theirs. Neither side is willing to budge. I've seen Christians go on for hours about how "there is evidence of God all around us" and also seen the non-religious go on about "There is no proof of God outside of that book"

However, attempting to show that the universe COULD have been created without a divine presence is not exactly the same as proving that there was no divine presence. My DVD player turns itself on sometimes for no reason at all, probably due to a faulty circuit somewhere inside that detects the wrong IR frequency coming from something else, and interprets that as "power on". Stephen Hawking would be able to view the circuit board, find the flaw, and explain why it is possible that the DVD player is capable of turning itself on without any intervention. That is the nature of his argument towards the Big Bang. That it could have happened all by itself, so God isn't needed. Yet, that possibility does not rule out the possibility that I can turn my DVD player on using the remote control, with purpose. In the same way, while Hawking can describe how the universe could have come into existence without God, he cannot conclusively prove that God's hand had no part in it. Motive/Method.

Actually, I think he'd tell you it's broken and to buy a new one.. HAHA. But no, You're right in the fact that he doesn't know for sure what happened, or what will happen. But at the same time, is not both sides in the same boat? Christian's/Jews/Muslims, and all the other religions, have their idea of how the universe came to be. But none have FULL evidence of it. The people of faith have their view on it, and the people of no- religion have their view. None are wrong, as none can fully be proven wrong. Yet. As I said, I watched that episode of "Into the universe" and it blew my mind. Some of that stuff I had never herd before. Yes, it's true that it is just what they assume had happened, but is that not what religion is too? Based off of what people believe?

In summary:
Method = Science tells us HOW God does something, but does not tell us WHY.
Motive = Religions can tell us WHY God does something, but does not tell us HOW.

Only for those who believe in God. For others they see it as
Method = Science telling us how things came to be on their own, without any "Divine intervention"
Motive: There was none, it was just the natural course of things.

Big Bang = method God used to create universe, not an in-all-be-all in and of itself.

Days of creation = not literal 24 hour days, but symbolic, Genesis written in language that would have been understandable by the original target audience...who were for lack of a better term, scientifically dumb.

Evolution = method God used to develop life on Earth, because God cannot be limited by OUR concepts of time, nor does creating something mean that creating has to be instant.

Threw all three of these together, so for the last time in this post I could say it. Only those of faith believe that there was a "Higher Power" that played a part in all of it. For the rest, they see it as just the way things happen. Chemical and physical reactions, some big, others at a Sub-atomic level. That there wasn't any one being that did it, but rather the Universe did it all it's self

But you are a shining example of why I'm on the side of Science never abolishing Religion. As it doesn't matter what Science says, the religious people will adapt with the times, and still have their beliefs. I'm not going to say they are wrong, as that would be pretty ignorant in it's own right. I do not know the answers, no one does. Maybe one day someone will know, dunno. But I do see a lot of Christians (I'm not picking on your guys, it's just the only religion I've been around my whole life, so herd this stuff more from them then anyone else) saying that these Scientific theory's are garbage, and moronic. Well no, they are wrong in that. I could say you can't knock something you don't understand, but then I know I would be told that I don't understand God, therefor I can't knock the theory of him. This is why I don't see science taking out Religion.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

No, and it would be a preposterously faithful (and coincidentally, contradictory) thing to do so (or to try to).

Science sells doubt, not certainty – religion is the other way around. That's why they conflict, and that's why the most rational scientists don't seek to disprove god, but rather to disprove the idea of "certainty" about him, most notably by refuting the "holy writ" that claims it's infallible message is all the proof you need of the certitude of god.

They might deny a celestial father or creator entirely, but they base these claims on the unlikelihood of his/her/its existence, not on the undeniable "proof" that he/she/it does infact not exist.

Only a fool knows what he doesn't actually, and couldn't possibly know.

 

[El Rev sXe]

No, and it would be a preposterously faithful (and coincidentally, contradictory) thing to do so (or to try to).

Science sells doubt, not certainty – religion is the other way around. That's why they conflict, and that's why the most rational scientists don't seek to disprove god, but rather to disprove the idea of "certainty" about him, most notably by refuting the "holy writ" that claims it's infallible message is all the proof you need of the certitude of god.

They might deny a celestial father or creator entirely, but they base these claims on the unlikelihood of his/her/its existence, not on the undeniable "proof" that he/she/it does infact not exist.

Only a fool knows what he doesn't actually, and couldn't possibly know.

Science sells doubt, not certainty? Well I hope that you are only talking about the religious point of view. Cause, you know, the objective is to either prove or DISprove something and to know not why, but how. Science sells certainty because they don't leave things to a "superior being" but to a natural, logic process. Not trying to be disrespectful btw.
Now, if you are talking about selling "doubts" I think that only applies in a religious way. You know that it makes doubt those who believe in god. Or at least that's how I interpret your post.

Talking about that, I don't undesrtand IDM what do you mean with the last part, "only a fool...". It can be interpreted in a lot of ways, but I want to know what do YOU mean with that.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Science sells doubt, not certainty? Well I hope that you are only talking about the religious point of view. Cause, you know, the objective is to either prove or DISprove something and to know not why, but how. Science sells certainty because they don't leave things to a "superior being" but to a natural, logic process. Not trying to be disrespectful btw.
Now, if you are talking about selling "doubts" I think that only applies in a religious way. You know that it makes doubt those who believe in god. Or at least that's how I interpret your post.

Talking about that, I don't undesrtand IDM what do you mean with the last part, "only a fool...". It can be interpreted in a lot of ways, but I want to know what do YOU mean with that.

Science sells certainty when certainty can be had—that the earth orbits the sun, and that cancer is a terminal disease—and doubt where certainty cannot.

It is impossible for any scientist on earth to "disprove" god, just the same as it is impossible for any believer to prove him/her/it, and any scientist who vehemently denies the existence of god and claims he/she can prove it is no better (or no worse) than their counterpart in the preacher they're combatting who lays claim to the same impossible "knowings".

What I meant by saying only a fool knows what he does not know is that essentially, only a fool is "positive" about that which he cannot possibly know beyond any shadow of doubt. You would be quite hard-pressed to convince me otherwise. That is to say, anyone claiming they "know" god exists or conversely does not is not only a fool, but a lunatic or a liar, because it is absolutely not possible for anyone to have the knowledge of such a thing while the rest of us simply aren't privy to it.

What's more likely here – that the laws of physics, space and time pause to allow random mortal mammals to "know" god, or that anyone who believes that is possible is suffering from delusions?