Serious scientist cannot believe in divine creator?
-
Originally posted by Phorum Noob:A typicall ID/Creationism science class: "Hello students, today we're gonna talk about gravity. GODDIDIT! Recess".
-
why not? a serious scientist should always question what's going on around him/hey and be more interested in what the answer is than whether the answer fits the theory, a theory being wrong doesn't mean it can't be there in the first place. a scientist lives life to be proven wrong and to delve deeper for answers - so long as they don't let the belief in god stop them accepting the answers they get to their experiments and questions...
-
a scientist that doesn't question on possibility is stupidOriginally posted by Jezmeister:why not? a serious scientist should always question what's going on around him/hey and be more interested in what the answer is than whether the answer fits the theory, a theory being wrong doesn't mean it can't be there in the first place. a scientist lives life to be proven wrong and to delve deeper for answers - so long as they don't let the belief in god stop them accepting the answers they get to their experiments and questions... -
A good scientist always suspends their 'faith-thinking' and activates their rational/skeptical-minds when conducting Scientific investigations/studies/analysis. Trying to force-fit result to a target believe is harmful to Scientific progress.
-
there is a difference with using science and mere-faith thinking to answer supernatural occurrencesOriginally posted by Phorum Noob:A good scientist always suspends their 'faith-thinking' and activates their rational/skeptical-minds when conducting Scientific investigations/studies/analysis. Trying to force-fit result to a target believe is harmful to Scientific progress.
most who follow faith as it is would say "ooh god did it"
there are two types of faithful men, one who just accepts it as a a work of god....
and one who not only accepts it as a work of god but he go through the trouble of how it happened scientifically......
like the parting of the red sea and such......
some people may gave scientific reasons for it happening.....and it should be accepted but why would it happen so coincidentally?
i believe that miracles and such do happen for their own reason....i also believe that they happen through logical laws decreed by "god" -
i'm guessing yours is the only right opinion too huh?
-
you talking about mine??Originally posted by Jezmeister:i'm guessing yours is the only right opinion too huh?
dunno, i'm just following the logic sense inside me.....
you may believe in your own logical sense.....
the only way to prove who is right and who is wrong is to wait for answers to drop from the sky.....then again we may be half right and half wrong too...huuuu -
When asked a question with an answer yet to be found, a fundamentalist would say, "God did it." A believing scientist would say the same thing, and continues with "Let me prove it to you," and discovers either a magical work of God, or an amazing work of nature.
-
Perhaps you need to know how our Universe was born.Originally posted by Catknight:Many of us living in the modern era believe that a man of science of logic cannot believe in so called intelligent designer out there and even if the scientist do believe , they will not said so in fear of being ridiculed by their scientific community as jokers.
So an italian scientist now deceased once said:"When I tell a young person: Look, there is a new star, a galaxy, a neutron star 100 million light-years away, yet the protons, electrons; neutrons and mesons which are found there are identical with those which are found in this microphone... Identity excludes probability. That which is identical is not probable... Therefore there is a cause, outside of space, outside of time, the master of being, which made being to be in this way. And this is God...
So in time does religions that one practised now will be the new enlightened sicence of our future? Did not jesus once siad so ye shall know the truth and so ye are gods?
This will answer your question, and I can tell you that the answer is not God. -
For the vid, the method he used to present his idea is too profound, at least for me. But there are one point from it that I think is worth noting - evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution requires a life form to begin with, so I was thinking of a possibility along the lines of creationism, that that basic life form required, which could be a single-cell organism or whatsoever, is a creation of God. Of course, that's up to the biologists to prove, but doesn't that mean both theories of evolution and creationism can co-exist?Originally posted by Alvin.Yeoh:Evolution is a blind clockmaker.
Intelligent design is very flawed theory because each time they hit a wall, they just run to god and say he did it. What kind of scientific theory can you make out of that cope out?
Some seriou scientist are very religious people, its just that they are smart or logical enough to separate out faith and logic and not decide to lump together to produce some crackpot theory that cannot be support.
To the threadstarter, religion is not the solution to our social ills. I ask you this, what is the cause of the crusades? Religion. What the is the cause of terrorism? Religion. So you telling me you want religion to solve our social ills? I'm not saying science is the solution either but religion sure as hell ain't one. -
Currently we only have theories.....Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Perhaps you need to know how our Universe was born. This will answer your question, and I can tell you that the answer is not God.
We still have loads of shet to learn and find..... -
There are theories and there are pseudo theories. Not all theories are equal. Scientific theories are not science fiction theories.
You cannot just say, 'theories', like beliefs are also theories and the thoughts of insane people can also be considered as theories. -
I believe what you meant by "pseudo-theories" are hypotheses. Theories are basically hypotheses that are thoroughly "experimented with" and observed to be correct and comply with facts. So I don't think a madman's words can be a theory on any day. A hypothesis to himself, perhaps.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:There are theories and there are pseudo theories. Not all theories are equal. Scientific theories are not science fiction theories.
You cannot just say, 'theories', like beliefs are also theories and the thoughts of insane people can also be considered as theories. -
...no I don't mean 'hypotheses', These are 'initial' speculation but are 'reality based'.Originally posted by LatecomerX:I believe what you meant by "pseudo-theories" are hypotheses. Theories are basically hypotheses that are thoroughly "experimented with" and observed to be correct and comply with facts. So I don't think a madman's words can be a theory on any day. A hypothesis to himself, perhaps.
When I say "pseudo-theories", I mean theories that people make up without evidence, facts and in conformity with reality. They come from the imagination or beliefs. Pseudo. Science fiction. Religious. -
i really hope you're not talking about the big bang lol i don't believe in god but i also don't believe that was the 'birth' of the universe... all that energy has to have come from somewhere, it didn't just appear from nowhere. personally i favour a view that seeing time as a constricting dimension is pointless, if you strip time from the equation everything makes a bit more sense in the fundamentals of existence itself lolOriginally posted by Darkness_hacker99:Perhaps you need to know how our Universe was born. This will answer your question, and I can tell you that the answer is not God. -
wtf is up with the stereotype depicting that anyone religious would throw away all logical reason and self thought?
being religious doesnt mean that anything and everything is dismissed with the escapist answer that "God did it."
being religious doesnt mean that we have to live like the Amish and reject all forms of advancement in technology and science.
God gave us brains to think for ourselves and to choose for ourselves, and we are by all means free to think of our own explanations for the phenomenon around us, a study which we have named science.
BUT all in all, science has yet to answer many questions, and we have also discover more and learn new things. so until then, wtf is wrong with living in the comfort knowing that God did it and that someday, we will learn the answers to it ourselves?
-_- -
... in daily living, that might not do you much harm, but when it comes to making decisions like making decisions when you do your investments and you have a lackadaisical attitude like that, take comfort in non-truths (not necessary untruths but non-truths because of the lack of evidence) you will be in deep sh!t.Originally posted by niquelicious:
BUT all in all, science has yet to answer many questions, and we have also discover more and learn new things. so until then, wtf is wrong with living in the comfort knowing that God did it and that someday, we will learn the answers to it ourselves?
-_- -
Divine is the cousin of "Divide"Originally posted by mudkipz:whats divine -
ah, but you are over stereotyping in this case..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... in daily living, that might not do you much harm, but when it comes to making decisions like making decisions when you do your investments and you have a lackadaisical attitude like that, take comfort in non-truths (not necessary untruths but non-truths because of the lack of evidence) you will be in deep sh!t.
why should there be a lackadaisical attitude when tackling such problems? Why should a religious believer face such a hindrance in tackling such decisions?
IMO, the steps a religious believer would take wouldnt be much different from a non-believer: you do your research, weigh the pros and cons, conduct an analysis and come to a conclusion that will help you with your decision.. but if you are really stuck and conclusion-less, what is wrong with resorting to "Faith?" A non-believer would also resort to making a guess or not do anything at all.
End result is the same, but its the process that differs. and i dont see any possible compromise in effectiveness in both cases -
There's a difference between being "open-minded and considering all theories" and "being so open-minded that your brains fall out."
We don't know how the universe was created. We are not even sure if "created" is the right word to use.
The more we learn about the universe that we live in, the more we realise that not only is it stranger than we know, it may be stranger than we can know.
But that doesn't stop us from trying.
There are many areas of science that we do not understand. We can describe behavior and make predictions based on mathematical tools. However, we do not really understand what is going on.
There is no reason for a god hypothesis. It doens't contribute anything to our knowledge. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence against the God hypothesis.
The problem with any supernatural claim is that there is no way to evaluate it. One person says that the Jewish god did it. Someone else claims that the Flying Spagetti Monster did it. Who is right? And ultimately does it matter? Both are useless hypothesis. -
And what makes you think the parting of the Red Sea really happened?Originally posted by Deino:there is a difference with using science and mere-faith thinking to answer supernatural occurrences
most who follow faith as it is would say "ooh god did it"
there are two types of faithful men, one who just accepts it as a a work of god....
and one who not only accepts it as a work of god but he go through the trouble of how it happened scientifically......
like the parting of the red sea and such......
some people may gave scientific reasons for it happening.....and it should be accepted but why would it happen so coincidentally?
i believe that miracles and such do happen for their own reason....i also believe that they happen through logical laws decreed by "god" -
?Originally posted by Phaze:And what makes you think the parting of the Red Sea really happened? -
it doesnt matter to you because you dont see any impact of God in the world today..Originally posted by Phaze:There's a difference between being "open-minded and considering all theories" and "being so open-minded that your brains fall out."
We don't know how the universe was created. We are not even sure if "created" is the right word to use.
The more we learn about the universe that we live in, the more we realise that not only is it stranger than we know, it may be stranger than we can know.
But that doesn't stop us from trying.
There are many areas of science that we do not understand. We can describe behavior and make predictions based on mathematical tools. However, we do not really understand what is going on.
There is no reason for a god hypothesis. It doens't contribute anything to our knowledge. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence against the God hypothesis.
The problem with any supernatural claim is that there is no way to evaluate it. One person says that the Jewish god did it. Someone else claims that the Flying Spagetti Monster did it. Who is right? And ultimately does it matter? Both are useless hypothesis.
you dont need to have some big cataclysmic event to show the existence and presence of God. like, dude, God is cool man. it aint cool for him to pop out to blatantly show his almightiness and say "i am t3h creator and i pwnz all of u" theres definitely more beauty in him working personally with others to win the hearts of each one personally.
and ultimately, being a believer is a very personal thing, coupled with personal experiences and more. so saying that God doesnt matter is like saying your buddy best friend who you owe alot to is non existent.. -
The thing is, scientist readily admits that they do not know, when they do not know! Believers on the other hand, like you say resort to 'to "Faith"'.Originally posted by niquelicious:ah, but you are over stereotyping in this case..
why should there be a lackadaisical attitude when tackling such problems? Why should a religious believer face such a hindrance in tackling such decisions?
IMO, the steps a religious believer would take wouldnt be much different from a non-believer: you do your research, weigh the pros and cons, conduct an analysis and come to a conclusion that will help you with your decision.. but if you are really stuck and conclusion-less, what is wrong with resorting to "Faith?" A non-believer would also resort to making a guess or not do anything at all.
End result is the same, but its the process that differs. and i dont see any possible compromise in effectiveness in both cases
The decisions will be different and the outcomes will be different, if you go with the attitude, 'I don't know' rather than 'By Faith, I know.'
BTW I am not just referring to 'religious believers' many atheist fail to note that they are using beliefs rather than rational thinking to arrive at decisions, just that they do not do 'religious beliefs'. -
wrong again..Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:The thing is, scientist readily admits that they do not know, when they do not know! Believers on the other hand, like you say resort to 'to "Faith"'.
The decisions will be different and the outcomes will be different, if you go with the attitude, 'I don't know' rather than 'By Faith, I know.'
BTW I am not just referring to 'religious believers' many atheist fail to note that they are using beliefs rather than rational thinking to arrive at decisions, just that they do not do 'religious beliefs'.
by 'faith', i am referring to by faith, one would believe that God knows.
but at the same time, they STILL do not know and still WANT to know..