Science vs God
Science has tried to explain everything in existence, but how can science make certain assumptions directed towards Creationsm when science itself contradicts its own method (scientific method) by not being able to test it's own hypothesis.
Side Score: 85
Side Score: 107
The definition of science is...
Learning and understanding the world around us, assuming all things have a natural cause or reason.
By definition, science will never be able to prove that God is non-existent. If you say that God is false, there is no evidence to support that claim. God is supernatural, so he can't be experimented for.
This shows you have no reason to believe in God.
I have personal reasons why I believe in a God, and part of that is faith.
Please tell me it is actually something other than the fact that you made up a being that can't be tested.
I didn't make up a being. The being already existed, so I can't really make up a being when it already exists.
'Magic' used to be thought of as God's powers and Darwin, Ptolemy's theories proved true by SCIENCE. Logically as there is no evidence, what you are saying is that this proves that God doesn't exist? Things we couldn't explain before we understand better now, science is not an assumption- but believing God exists is!
This is not a valid argument. One would only expect to find life in a universe that supports it. The fact that we live in a universe that is conducive to life is by no means evidence for an intelligent designer or any other God. The laws of physics are what they are. Would mind proving an evidentiary application of the laws of thermodynamics which supports the existence of a much larger internal being?
Take all the letters from the book War and Peace (all letters from A to Z) ... how many letters are in the book .... how many commas and periods are in the book ... what about the capitol letters vs lower case letters .... once you have all these letters and punctuation gathered ... pour them all into a big box / close and seal the box and shake the box for about 1000 hours (or however long you wish) spill the box of contents onto a gymnasium floor and spread out evenly ........ what are the odds you have that the book War and peace would be intact / in order / all letters in place with proper punctuation and ready for all to read .......... THAT L&G;are the odds that life can accidently emerge from matter alone http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/
Your analogy ignores the laws of physics and chemistry as well as environmental conditions that would, for the sake of this analogy, encourage the adherence to certain words and grammar rules.
Also, you forget that it doesn't have to form "War and Peace", but rather any legible form. AND that we have an unknown number of tries that could well be up into the trillions.
How can we observe what happened in Genesis? We have the same problem, but different solutions.
Your solution is to trust the word of an ancient book, operating under the assumption that the people who wrote it were divinely inspired by a deity or by angels, neither of which can be demonstrated to be actual entities. You continue to trust this revealed information thousands of years after the fact, despite conflicting religious texts from other parts of the world whose stories are different than yours, but assume yours is right, even though no religious text can be confirmed to be factually or even morally superior to any other.
Unless and until God can be demonstrated to exist and directly inspire the Bible, the text is open to the same level of scrutiny and skepticism as any other such text. Misunderstandings, personal bias, lies, errors in translation, and explanations for misunderstood phenomenons that do not line up with observed reality.
My solution is to trust people who live and speak right now, who document their methodologies and open them up to scrutiny and replication. And most importantly, people who use are willing to change their beliefs/hypotheses/etc. when evidence and observation demand it.
The evidence verifying evolution is SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable than that provided by the Bible. We have seen numerous cases of speciation, why have traced allele frequency variations in countless lifeforms between many generations and populations. We know, historically, that we have personally manipulated countless lifeforms through selective pressure, and have found no reason why natural selection should not work as hypothesized. Evolutionary principles have allowed scientists to track down "missing" species. Evolutionary principles have been used in numerous successful medications and medical treatments, and easily explains why some populations are more or less susceptible to localized diseases and other forms of illness.
But the only reason you site for not believing is that nobody was there. Which is an accusation that believers have to face up to as well.
While I believe in science, I can't eliminate the possibility of a divine creator. It really seems so amazing that we could exist due to a billion coincidences occurring between the big bang and today. Do you really believe that we emerged from the primordial soup and somehow our chromosomes developed and differentiated over time? It is a real stretch isn't it?
Logically, anybody who has a good sense of understanding cannot accept that science is winning not god!
God's existence has come with scientific clues! In the Holy Qur'an there's mentioned a vast number of scientific evidences all of which were written about 1400 years ago! 1400 years ago when nobody was educated nor intelligent enough to discover such an information!
and that's one of the important reasons why god not science
I have said before, something's we can't not see or touch it to know it is there. Yes we can do study's on wind, and air. But faith is something we all have, regardless of what the faith is for. I.e landing a job, or having faith in your self to pass that exam. We have faith in the people around us. Are partners, husbands wife's. We put faith in then everyday. We can not see faith, we can not touch it. But we feel it. God is a feeling inside us. A small voice that tells us if we are doing good or bad. Most of us have ignored that voice so many times. But this voice, the feelings I have right as I have t make a choice, it tells me what is right and what is wrong. We all have this, and if you believe in god as I do, then I know this is gods way of talking to be. I don't need any person no matter on how many years of school that have been in, to tell me to prove that god is real or not. I don't need physical concret proof. I have proof, and it's all around me. It is around everyone, they just need to open up and allow it in.
Wouldn't God be losing?
Science couldn't figure out how to send a man to the moon 100 years ago.
Science couldn't figure out how to send a man into the sky 200 years ago.
Science couldn't figure out how to send a man around the globe 600 years ago.
God has been losing ground for quite a while. Logically, he will continue losing ground as science advances.
There is no requisite need for this conflict, however if forced to choose, I will take the side that strives for verification, the side that is willing to change its beliefs when they are proven wrong, the side that has actually provided tangible good and completely changed society ever since agriculture became a thing.
...but how can science make certain assumptions directed towards Creationsm when science itself contradicts its own method (scientific method) by not being able to test it's own hypothesis.
A hypothesis by definition has to be testable, although due to issues of practicality on some subjects this may be conceptually instead directly at any given time. But your statement that science can't test hypothesis is definitively wrong.
True. However, I choose to favor the fact that God created everything rather than what most scientist claim. Furthermore, there isn't any form of observation, especially when scientist just like religion scholars base their results off of the same evidence. Science says there was certain mutation in animals and even us -monkeys to humans- but no scientist can prove their claim through observation because no one was there to observe. Observation is apart of the scientific method. Therefore, in theory, science makes claims that don't agree with it's own step by step method.
I choose to favor the fact that God created everything
Did you observe it personally? If you are going to hold one group to a set of standards, then you need to hold yourself to it.
especially when scientist just like religion scholars base their results off of the same evidence.
No they don't. Religious folk often ignore evidence that shows that their beliefs are ignorant. Scientist change their beliefs according to changing evidence.
Science says there was certain mutation in animals and even us
Not JUST mutations. Evolution has numerous mechanisms by which it slowly molds life forms. Anyway, mutations are a viable part of the process as all life forms have them. A human will develop around 30 or so throughout their lives.
-monkeys to humans-
Nobody claims we came from monkeys. We are relatively closely related, but just because I'm related to my cousin doesn't mean one of us descended from the other one.
but no scientist can prove their claim through observation because no one was there to observe.
Ahem....we have observed speciation numerous times, in a variety of life forms, both in labs and in nature.
We can observe it more completely using genetic markers, and, to a lesser extent, fossils.
We have historical evidence that modern dog an cattle breeds and most modern food vegatables were artificially molded into their current forms by thousands of years selected breeding which has a similar effect to what happens with natural selections (except for being focused and faster).
Therefore, in theory, science makes claims that don't agree with it's own step by step method.
The entire theory, from Darwin down to modern studies in genetics and taxonomy are based 100% on observation. What do you think you are talking about?
Please explain this contradiction because i see none at all. I side with science, the method that has a centuries old history of being honest, accurate, prolific, and productive. I choose the side that asks questions and seeks answers through a method that removes human error and bias the best it can over a system where one mustnt ask questions and just accept. i choose the side that creates a never ending chain of predictions to make and discoveries to strive for instead of one that makes no predictions and holds us back from exploration. I choose evidence, not blind faith.
Reading the bible and studying it yourself will also raise more questions.
You're absolutely right. I have read the bible and i do have many questions. How did people live to over 900 years old at a time where the average age was like 35? How did underwater plants survive the pressure from the global flood? Why are there absolutely no records of any mass hebrew slavery in egypt? Why are there no extrabiblical witness testimonies of the resurrection? See these are the types of questions i ask because i dont presuppose that everything im reading is infalliable truth.
Do your homework on the bible as well. However, when you read it, don't approach it one sided. Actually, try to see it from several different angles.
Sure ill try to see whatever metaphor you wanna point out from whatever angle you want me to but at the end of the day a metaphor is just a metaphor. What i care about are the parts of the bible that youre supposed to take literally like genesis and the resurection. And when i read these things the only angle i refuse to read them from is the angle of "what im reading is absolute unquestionable truth". That isnt intellectually honest and that doesnt get us anywhere as far as understanding reality. What you should be doing is reading it and asking questions. Thinking critically. Does this make sense? Does this reflect reality? Does any of this contradict either itself or what we know about history, physics, ect? And when you do that you find that it is not an infalliable book of truth but a book of myths written by ancient peoples attempting to explain the world they lived in and create a rulebook for their society. Nothing more. I urge you to check out the skeptics annotated bible to see what im talking about.
Let's not throw around big words like "honest, accurate, prolific, and productive" with science. Science is a set of tools. Do scientists not lie, disagree, or become counterproductive simply because they using these tools?
The best system to remove human error is to combine reason and faith. Science is clearly limited to the realm of reason. Science does not speak to love, justice, or virtue. It is helpful by revealing how things work, but it cannot tell us how to live well.
Science as a process is itself unbiased. Scientists, those who do science, are still human beings, so of course they can lie. But that doesn't invalidate the scientific method whatsoever. And yes, scientists disagree with each other all the time. That's what progress is. One person producing one set of results, another person producing different results, and then trying to find out what is contributing to the inconclusiveness. Additionally, scientists are not always right. They do not know everything. And yes, they sometimes manipulate the data to support their hypothesis. This is what makes the peer review process so valuable. Should one decide to intentionally manipulate their data, the scientific community will eventually find out through experimental replications, review of the unethical researcher's statistical analysis, or questionable research methods. This is what makes science the best method to understand the world in which we live.
As to your points about love, justice and virtue... those are all human constructs that science is not equipped to deal with nor concerned about. However, science does speak to love.. In that it is most likely due, in part, to a release of oxytocin in the brain.
Let's not throw around big words like "honest, accurate, prolific, and productive" with science. Science is a set of tools. Do scientists not lie, disagree, or become counterproductive simply because they using these tools?
Those are actually pretty basic words but ok ill tone it down for you. Science is the persuit of knowledge through the scientific method. I accept what a scientist tells me if they have the appropriate credentials because basically why should i not? If a geologist studies rock layers his entire life and is telling me that "hey theres no evidence of a flood" then why should i not believe him? Hes an expert. HOWEVER, if youre paranoid about being lied to as i see you clearly are you can cut out the middle man and actually just go straight to the evidence. You dont have to have a scientist explain anything to you, you can just look up the journal of their findings and experiments and read it right there for yourself. Also, if a scientist does lie there are dozens of their peers to review their stuff and show that theyre wrong. Science is self correcting like that in that it is a community of peers attempting to prove eachother wrong. I agree there are scientists who can and do lie or use dishonest tactics but it isnt hard to figure out who the liars are and whos telling the truth if you just look at the raw evidence. And guess what? Creationists always have either zero evidence or take others evidence and bastardize what it means.
The best system to remove human error is to combine reason and faith.
How? Faith is probably the worst thing one could use to determine truth as it is almost always wrong. If you believe things on faith it is because there is zero evidence for them and things that are true typically have evidence for them. So if youre using faith you are literally avoiding the truth. Also how can you combine reason and faith? Theyre polar opposites. Reasonable people follow evidence to conclusions, people with faith do not, they just believe without or in the face of evidence. Theyre entirely incompatable.
Science is clearly limited to the realm of reason.
Why should we believe anything for which there is no reason to? Why should we believe there is even a realm outside of reason to begin with?
Science does not speak to love, justice, or virtue
Thats no its job thats society's job. Morality is an evolving concept. However we actually can trace the evolution of them through history and biological evolution. Morality is linked to science in a few ways.
It is helpful by revealing how things work, but it cannot tell us how to live well
again that isnt its job. That is society's job.
Science, in the last 400 years or so, has taken us to distant planets, eradicated some of the most appalling diseases which have faced humanity, mapping the very building blocks of humanity, allowed man to fly, and discovered more and more about the very structure of the universe. It has given us the modern computer on which I am typing these words, the Internet on which I am publishing them and the router by which I am connecting to said Internet. Every single day, we use the fruits of science to make our lives easier. Your television, your car, your telephone: all produced via the tools of science.
And what has religion done in all that time? Nothing of value that I can see. Instead, it has given us war, persecution, mass murder and horror on a scale which defies belief. It has been the force behind some of the most horrific terrorist attacks and conflicts that we have seen in recent times.
Which one do you think I support?
Could you be more specific here? Not being able to prove a hypothesis is not in violation of the scientific method; hypotheses remain hypotheses until they can be verified by significant data, and said data verified by peer review. If they were referring to it as a theory when it hadn't been at all vetted, that would oppose the scientific method- but hypotheses do not.
Test their hypothesis through observation. No scientist was there to be able to observe the claim that many make when dealing with evolution of certain species. When dealing with my previous statement, I'm simply asking for which side you would favor. The way I see it, God created man. Furthermore, man created science. Now, man believes more in their own theory than in who created him. Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
If you're referring to the theory of evolution, you're actually incorrect in several ways- regarding what can be observed, regarding what has been observed, and regarding what needs to be observed to draw conclusions. Numerous observations have been made that support evolution, and none have been observed that actually refute it. I'm not going to present an exhaustive list here, but rather just a couple particular points. Significant genetic drift in the genome of unicellular species have been observed in response to selective pressures that were leveraged against them; this provides a very handy analogue to natural selection.
The mechanism of natural selection and its changes in the genome of various species is not under dispute; this has been proven rather solidly.
This does not constitute proof, per se, of speciation- however, there is some pretty strong evidence for that. The presence of vestigial structures in modern species and their striking similarities to functional organs in related species strongly suggest a common ancestor- and natural selection is a proven mechanism to effect these changes. Furthermore, even the most disparate species on the planet have significant overlap in their genetic code.
Maintaining a direct creationist perspective in light of all of this is therefore fundamentally flawed; it is to assume that god is wasteful, lazy, and unimaginative; vestigial structures represent a drain on the creatures resources while conferring no actual benefit, and a creationist perspective that takes these, as well as genetic overlap into account is basically stating that god did not create species individually, but instead modified each from a basic genetic template.
Basically, maintaining direct creationism requires attributing several qualities to god that most creationists would be opposed to. As such, indirect creationism (God created the first lifeform and used natural selection/evolution as a tool to shape that life into the various forms we're familiar with) is a more rational perspective that still allows a concept of god that is in-line with most theology.
The way I see it, man created God as an explanation for what he did not know. Man later created science as a method to uncover actual explanations for that which is unknown. From that perspective, Isaiah 55:9 is completely irrelevant.
The contradiction that you see only comes from thinking that science can only make a hypothesis about the one event. What science does is make hypothesis about the parts of Creation. One hypothesis is that amino acids can form spontaneously. So, you create a test that does just that and find out that amino acids could form from separate molecules. So, you can test hypotheses even if the event has already happened.
Plus, you can take what Creationists believe and check if it violates physics.
Evolution has been observed already, you lose. Some species evolve faster than others. There are lizards that have evolved and you can compare the 2 new types of lizards together and find that they have changed.
You never made an original claim actually. You wrote an indecipherable message that I had to figure out.
my main claim is that scientist must observe according to the scientific method.
That is different from what you wrote. You wrote that a hypothesis can't be tested. A hypothesis is only part of the overall story and you put them all together to get the full story.
No scientist was able or will be able to OBSERVE evolution.
Evolution is not a hypothesis. Evolution has different requirements. Each requirement is a hypothesis. Those have been tested and observed, like mutations.
You are right. No scientist will ever be able to observe macro evolution. That's because evolution takes millions of years to occur and the human life span is not that long. This does not in any way make the theory of evolution unscientific. Rather, the theory of evolution is based entirely on observations; from the Darwin's finches to genetic markers. I think where you may be misguided is your concept of what a theory is. A theory is derived from a set of many, many experiments (all of which contain testable hypotheses), and it is used as a framework to explain the results. A theory doesn't need to be observed directly for the scientific community to consider it valid. As long as there is enough evidence supporting the theory, the scientific community will consider it to be a logical explanation for how things work and why we observe one thing instead of another. Moreover, theories have the power to make predictions about the world, and the theory of evolution is no exception. Darwin successfully predicted the existence of Morgan's sphinx moth of Madagascar more than 40 years before it's discovery using his theory of evolution as the theoretical framework for his hypothesis.
Now i don't know if there is or isn't a god. because i have never seen, touched or have herd him in my whole life. but i have seen, herd and touched science . and i strongly believe in science. but if god is real, were is he? because i don't see him. ill believe it when i see it. there are no facts to prove he is real. what the bible? some book someone found? the bible is just an excuse for people who didn't know how the world came to be.
if u support god u must surely think he is the one who created everything even u .ok how do u live oxygen for breathing oxygen is related to science then u say god makes u live not science that is oxy.then hold your breath for 5 mins can u hold.why cant u? bcz no oxygen but god is present everywhere he could help u right.so science helps
it's undoubtedly science only because science proves everything that is acceptable and real.. in my opinion it's not like god which no one has proved of his being or not being there and it's not acceptable and true.. see when a person's beloved tells him/her lies or he wants to verify it doesn't he first believe on what he saw before eyes because it can't be false.. similarly i don't understand how people can believe on the thing GOD which they have not seen until now..
I find Science a bit more reliable because it can explain a lot. It makes more sense to me, even if it contradicts itself. I find it a bit more understandable and more explainable. It seems that there can't always be an answer for everything, but Science gets closer to answers than a supernatural being does to me.