Are we making a mistake not believing in God or Superhuman intelligent?

Question

I mean when will science end or even begin? Answers about pre-big bang are unsatisfactorily explained. And the idea of a big bang emerged from knowing the universe is expanding, and therefore 'Must' have started from a point before the expansion and speeding. What if the expansion and speeding rather started at a point in time when the basic bodies were already there?

I don't think the God of religion is there but surely the Superhuman of nature must be there somewhere even if he/she/it isn't like human.

Answer 1

i'm not sure, but why jinx it!

Answer 2

Here is what all sciences do. They make a model for some aspect of reality that should hold under certain conditions. When the model has been thoroughly tested and seen to hold, it is called a theory (before that, a hypothesis). These models are NEVER proven. That is what science is about. Making concrete statements that will hold under certain circumstances, but it is impossible to know if they hold under all circumstances.

It is not the physical sciences place or function to talk about "truth." As science evolves, it can explain more and more things, but it will never explain everything. We cannot test every condition to "prove" a physical theory; all we can do is say that it holds up under the circumstances we've tested it under. In that sense, science may have had a beginning but it will never have an end. Still, something being verified many times is enough for most rational people to accept them as true even though they are not proven in an absolute sense.

This is very much like the case that you accept "the sun will rise tomorrow" as a true statement even though you cannot prove it. A scientific way to go about it is to state under what conditions it will rise tomorrow (the Earth continues spinning at the same rate, that the sun has enough fuel to continue burning, etc.) and check to see if those conditions hold. ASSUMING that those are the only conditions that affect the situation, if you find that they do hold then you can accept that the sun will rise tomorrow as a scientific fact. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily true though because there will always be things that you can't account for, such as a spontaneous and massive nuclear war breaking out that destroys the Earth overnight.

Hopefully that helps you see that there will always be things that are beyond the reach of science because it is impossible to test or even know ALL the possible conditions that might have a potential to influence a result.

That is where beliefs come in. We cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we believe it anyway. We can accept what can be experimentally verified as facts, but the things we cannot test, only hypothesize about, will remain in the territory of beliefs. What, if anything, created our universe will more than likely remain beyond the grasp of science for all time, so believe what you want about it. That's all anyone can really do.

Answer 3

Here is a simple way to understand that an intelligent force is behind the creation of all living things.

Any living thing needs a way to understand it's surroundings. The very first lifeform, in order to know up from down, left to right, here to there, needed basic understanding of what these things were in order to initiate these basic movements, and what the results of these basic movements would help it to accomplish.

Now, of course, some things that are alive don't move at all, but do grow, like trees. Yet, when a seed is planted, after bursting from it's shell, it extends it's roots (veins) into the earth, (and how does it know to do this?), then branches upward towards the sun and sky.

Here's something else. If, at the very beginning, when the VERY first living thing came into being, how did it ever survive all of the chaos that likely would have killed that one living thing off? Did randomness brew up another life-form millions of years later? Were there several, perhaps, billions of these basic life-forms existing at one time, in one conveniently cozy spot, that would ensure it's survival, even in the earliest stages of the developing Universe?

It seems that the earliest life-form would have not lasted too long, and would have been snuffed right out of existence by the very same chaotic processes that brought it into being in the first place.....BUT......that didn't happen.

So, there must be some other reason why we are all still here. :)

Answer 4

You are still left with the same problem all you did was change the location.
If all of this was intentionally created by God/Superhuman : you are still left with the very significant problem of who or what created God/Superhuman?
I have invented a new Law to cover such situations : it called The Law of The Lesser Absurdity . The LLA states then when confronted with two inherently absurd arguments you must choose the one that is the least absurd.
To wit;
what is less absurd: a primitive universe made of of really small pieces that eventually and sanely evolve into more sophisticated pieces
Or a highly evolved sophisticated life form that just shows up ready to go to work ?
Using the LLA I chose the primitive universe

Answer 5

Before putting this question, you should define the terms.
"not believing in God"... But what is that God? And what it means to
"believe"?

God is very, VERY far from this Earth; and all his problems.
God is ABOVE and DIFFERENT from any creature--including the man.
We cannot define God, as He is.-
Therefore, a "talk" about God is both useless, and a blasphemy...

There is a God? We should think at Him as a Creator. Us, the humans,
we are not able to CREATE anything, without using something which
has already been created! Between us, and Him, there is a distance so
big that it cannot be measured in astronomical units... Perhaps the
metaphor "legendary distance" might express it--with a certain imprecision.
From this "creationiste" perspective, He is also the One who has forever
established "the laws"--discovered by the scientists.

For any other explanations we have to wait for the Son Of Man--who has
been predicted--; and whose appearance is imminent...

Answer 6

Atheism is a BIG mistake. If one lands on a deserted island and sees inscribed in the sand (E =MC2) one would be constrained to believe that it was done by an intelligent presence. A million monkeys, with a million typewriters could never produce "Gone with the Wind". No,.. one has to admit that something like an ordered universe, infinitely more complex, Must have arisen by the machinations of a superior entity.Call HIM GOD.
,Somewhere, or everywhere in this vastness of island universes there needs be a group more intelligent than any other. The leader of this group is the prime mover that we call GOD.

Answer 7

Yes , it is a grievous mistake.because:
1. what was much much before big bang?
2. what is on the other side of the walls of this universe?
3. why do wars come to an end?
4. why do miracles happen in the fields of medicine and surgery?
5. what is happening at the centre of big bang?
6. why is there always a 'why' at the end of every scientific discovery? (or why is science ever progressing/ why are we not able to understand nature comletely?)
7. why there still evolution going on?(even humans have not stopped evolving)

Answer 8

And what if you are wrong. Science exists to explain the most likely reason why facts exist. Sure, we can speculate that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe with all of us in it just a few minutes ago, but the facts indicate otherwise. People who refuse to accept facts such as that the universe is expanding, the earth is ancient, and life forms have and continue to evolve are simply ignoring truth. Fortunately, most of us live in countries where they don't require you to believe in fantasy.

Answer 9

It's a bigger mistake to believe anything blindly without honest reasoning and logic being one's primary guide. Science included.

Science prefers to be occasionally proven wrong than live in a world of deluded half-truths..

Otherwise, every religion is the ONLY true religion.

There's really no valid point in using science to approach a question that cannot be evaluated by the tools of science.

Science is not concerned with any beliefs that have no way of being tested because they have no substance to test.

Logic cannot lead to religion and defend itself. And when such beliefs over the wide spectrums of religions and the historic origins and connections between their beliefs are sorted out with honest logic, none is any better than the other.

Science and religion do NOT mix well. Anyone who thinks so does not understand science well enough to wage such an argument with competence. To whatever extent they do mix, science still suffers as a result, since blind superstitious beliefs offer no measurable benefit to scientific analysis, but dilute its quality to an unacceptable degree and slow down progress.

History, past and present, is the best single, best and most embarrassing argument against it, since its negative qualities, at every instant of history up to the present moment, infinitely outweigh any visible benefits.

One doesn't need religion as an excuse to kill people with the delusion of a clear conscience any more than it is needed as an excuse to treat people respectably.

As for the big bang being "unsatisfactorily explained", it depends on the intelligence, science training and external beliefs of the person evaluating the evidence. One person may see the evidence differently than another, just like in a jury trial, the same evidence can often lead to more than one conclusion. Even if only one conclusion can be true, who is to say which one, if any, of those assumed possibilities is correct?

In science, we can't allow religious convictions to influence our reasoning to whatever extent it can be avoided. Good science has never resulted from religion. I would rather trust a vaccine to ward off polio than believe a preacher who says [insert your favourite deity] will protect me if all I do is blindly believe.

Do a 5-year, controlled clinical study of modern medicine vs faith healers treating the same illness (such as some form of cancer) and then tell me faith is better for healing upon observing the outcome - without lying!


If the Amish ruled the world, peaceful as they are, would there be automobiles, electricity, modern communications such as telephones, photographs and movies, radio and TV, research into terrible diseases that lead to discoveries that cured untold millions that faith-healing consistently failed to help, airplanes, space travel and any other kind of modern scientific research?

Most likely, we'd still be living in 15th century. Is it worth giving up modern science just to live in that kind of 'peace'? Some people think so.

Lots of religions seem locked in a rigid time warp and still want to believe its hundreds or even over 1000 years ago and refuse to yield to the realities of an evolving world which is one main source of continuing conflicts.

When one considers what would have happened if religious psychopathology had won its murderous and hateful battle against science and true knowledge, we would still be living in a world where diseases are caused by evil spirits and witches and natural disasters caused by angry deities, etc. - a world far too terrible to contemplate as places where religion does rule daily proves to the whole world with its evil cruelty and repression.

There was once a time when religion and government were one and the same entity - it was called 'The Dark Ages' and for good reason.

Many religions teach that life after death is better than life on Earth and the very malignance of their existence makes that true by default.

Answer 10

The universe is not in fact expanding and is in fact slowing down. Watch this video and see what real, modern day scientists say about the big bang theory and the creation of the universe. It's free, about 45 minutes long and very, very enlightening.

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

Answer 11

Just because we don't know about how something happened doesn't mean we need to invent some explaination at random. I personally don't know what makes flowers the colours they actually are- think I'll invent some faeries to paint them by moonlight with magic paint. Yep, that'll do for me.