It's clearly evident that as science has evolved and we begin to learn more and more about the world around us, the concept of gods has changed dramatically from literal beings to metaphysical entities.

The gods of old were all concerned with filling in the gaps in our understanding. The extent to which these gods are involved in distinctly human concerns, such as crops, death, fertility, etc, demonstrates a complete lack of supernatural divinity. At the time humans had no way of explaining how the sun evidently moved across the sky, how crops would grow at certain times of the year, and other such things which today we take for granted.

As scientific understanding has evolved, the concept of god has had to become far less specific. This is because many of the things that were explained by gods has now been overtaken by simple natural processes. The things that we have trouble understanding now are very complex concepts, such as what happens when we die, how the universe first came to exist, etc. Gods are still being used to explain these things, as we can't yet satisfactorily explain them with natural processes. Because the science involved has become far more complex, as have the gods. God is now a metaphysical entity, existing in infinite realms with infinite powers, and certain human qualities such as love and understanding. It's not enough any more to pull the sun across the sky; our gods have to be able to allow us to live after we die and have a plan for us all. This is quite simply a comfort to many people who hate the thought that when you die, you're dead.

Regardless, the trend shows that the placement of a god in the gap of our understanding will always be superceeded, eventually, by a scientific and natural explination. It happened when we realised we weren't the centre of the universe. It happened when we discovered evolution. It happened when climate and weather analysis realised that we could predict natural disasters. Just because the gods have become more complex, eventually science will wittle away at all they have until there is nothing left.

God IS dead, and science has been caught red-handed.

I view current beliefs in the same light as those beliefs in the early fertility goddesses, sun (and season) gods, gods that put alcohol into wine, threw lightening bolts and gods born from virgin birth. That is: that their gods only existed where human understanding ended, which was (is ever) only a temporary barricade.

As a Darwinist and atheist, my initial vague atheism being solidified after learning about evolution, I believe that god is firmly in the coffin. And, for me it was Darwin who did the ground work, allowing Dawkins (among others) to eloquently hammer the final nail.

I can't see how believers can understand evolution and refute it or allow it to exist without forcing their god to the furthest of reaches to await a slow death.

In my own heart, no. Unless there is legitimately evidence that God doesn't exist, I will believe in Him.

That being said, science is killing organized religion around the world. People fail to realize that God is not some magical being that controls everything, but is a divine overseer who ensures good triumphs over evil.

I'm not going to argue science over religion or religion over science. The argument is becoming progressively more mute as science attempts to become "religious" and religion as such aspires to be more "scientific". Science is as much theory and speculation as religion is superstitious and imaginative. They both begin from the human impulse "to know" but they also both fall short of the end to which they offer themselves as means to (ie. absolute or complete knowledge.)

Not that there is anything wrong with this. Both science and religion offer a asset to the human experience in the effort to not only make sense of the world and events around them but also to engage peacefully with those with whom we share this existence with. At the same time, they have both in various ways proved ultimately detrimental to that process as the multiple religious conflicts, the disasterous potential of our bombs, and the totalitarian ideological programs that have evolved from both of them will attest.

Science will always, like religion, pursue a monopoly on knowledge and, as has been pointed out already in this argument, to "fill the holes" where religion formerly resided. I don't know about you, but the idea that the human species will one day have a complete and absolute knowledge of any and every facet of our existence and all the "holes" where our knowledge was once incapable of venturing are then filled and covered over, is terrifying. In the same way, the "believer" who so confidently lays claim to the absolute knowledge of the "God" or "gods" who currently occupy these "holes" as a result of the Enlightenment projects, the industrial age, and the rise of technology is equally as problematic and terrifying as the ambitious scientist.

Metaphysics, in one way or another, is a vital component of the human condition. So also is the scientific method to the acquisition of stepping blocks for the ascent of human knowledge and understanding. The claiming of "factual" conclusions and the concession of the nuances and spaces in the cosmic vibrations of existence are both equally important to our experience of this thing we call life.

The danger and death starts when the conflict is set between the two and they are made to clash. The collision creates tension and thus violence.

Although, in the past we have argued that the clashing of particles and ideas is the condition for new birth, I think it is time for humanity to respect the unchartable depths of our imaginations and dream in the belief that this does not have to be the case.

Science is not able to kill God. Science is about explaining observed phenomena, none of which can specifically disprove God.

What science may succeed at is dismantling literal religious interpretation. But with fanatics constantly downplaying science (global warming, evolution, etc.) that day may be far off.

during the enlightenment scientists were using science to try and understand God.

many scientific theories were created while trying to learn more about God and his works.

scientific progression teaches you about the Universe, but does nothing on theism itself. even though atheism existed then, they were deists. all science did was create alternative theories to God.

science is merely the act of observation and has nothing to do with the supernatural,therefore the argument between religion and science is a non argument

How? There is nothing in science that either proves or disproves God. In fact, if someone would like to explain how this experiment could even be set up, I would like to hear about it.

Sure, science can and has contradicted specific mythos of certain religions. Many followers have come to the understanding that the point of mythology is not litteral truth, but rather figurative truth.

If anything, science ultimately encourages new forms of spirituality. For example, check out how followers of the Law of Attraction validate their beliefs with quantum physics.

Those that want to believe that science is 'killing God' have an indefensible position because their initial premise, "There is no God" is not provable.

The spread of cynicism and disbelief is not a proof; it is merely a current trend. Disbelief is popular among certain segments of the population, but no one has cited any evidence that scientists are becoming convinced by their own research that God is dead.

God exists. Our acceptance or rejection of His reality does not change His mind. He is gracious to all. The fact that we can communicate our ideas as we do on this forum is an evidence of His grace. He allows us to struggle with OUR reality. We are the ones trying to find the truth -- not Him.

Just one example of scientific evidence that the unique Creator is particularly interested in man. Only man out of all the mammals on earth that have a similar respiratory system can speak. Air from the lungs is pushed into the larynx across the vocal cords -- and produces not only sound, but words that contain complex, abstract ideas. Such as "How can I know God?" With same physical apparatus, when a person finds peace and happiness in the discovery of God, his heart appropriately can add to those words, melody. So that words are turned to song.

Those who choose not to believe in God can not sing His praises. Disbelief is an ironic proof of God because it shows that man is granted by Another the ability to see, to reason, to acknowledge, to follow, or to reject His gifts and His kindness.