I'm not religous, but i was just wonder how you use science to prove religon is null and void when science is just as imperfect as religon, 100 years ago i could have qouted the best sceintists in the world to say that dinosuars were terrible, slow moving, cold blooded lizards or that the atom is the "smallest" thing is the world. Even today we don't know what dinosaurs were like or what the "smallest" thing is. no offense to you all it just occures to me that your fighting flawed fire with flawed fire.
2006-08-23 13:47:56 · 13 answers · asked by balrog_tc 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
ok... so what is the point of proving god is not nessecary, does that mean he doesn't exist or should be beleived in?
2006-08-23 14:26:09 · update #1
Oh please. Implicit atheists are the science based ones - those who don't claim to demonstrate God null and viod. Merely unneccessary.
So what about the best scientists in the world and what they said? That's the POINT of science! Get it wrong sometimes! Fix it! Self correct!
And by the way - science proposes MODELS. The elementary atom is still a good model in some cases. (eg. gases)
2006-08-23 13:54:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sorry to answer this question, I am religious, but I'll answer it as if I wasn't religious.
Science doesn't need to prove religion is null and void. It's religion that needs to prove it's correct. It doesn't make sense to accept something just because you can't disprove it. I can't disprove prove MANY things, should I believe everything that I can't disprove? Let's say that I can't disprove any religious belief, does that mean I should accept all of them? Even the ones that contradict themselves?
Very commonly, religious people will use nonsensical arguments to make their points. Science is often just combating those religious points that don't work because they are illogical.
We should be looking at the evidence, and only believe those things that we have a reason to believe.
The "flawed fire" comes into play when people use illogical arguments to prove points. There is a thing called sound logic, which has never changed.
2006-08-23 21:03:44 · answer #2 · answered by Michael M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In as much as I was not around to see how everything came into being (and neither were you),I say, "I don't know ..... YET!" To assume that some god, my less than intellectual ancestors made up, instantaneously farted the universe into being, is absurd
Science strives to find the truth and amends it's beliefs when new information adds or diminishes those beliefs. Religion has absolute truth formulated by men long ago who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons. I'll take the science side, thank you.
2006-08-23 21:01:30 · answer #3 · answered by iknowtruthismine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's silly to use science to either prove or disprove God. Science is successful because it depends on natural laws. If natural laws don't apply (as in the case of a SUPERnatural God), science can't apply.
Any arguments about the existence of God are fundamentally philosophical, not scientific.
2006-08-24 15:28:26 · answer #4 · answered by Zhimbo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will agree that science has not disproven the existence of a God. It has only made it less likely by disproving certain elements that were formerly held as truths, according to major religions.
We feel certain that there is more than what we know now. Just don't know what it is.
2006-08-23 21:02:35 · answer #5 · answered by Ivan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ahhh, you just proved our point. Our opinions change with the available evidence. Religion does not.
And we don't (at least, I don't) claim religion is null and void. It should just stay out of our government laws and science interpretations.
2006-08-23 20:55:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No one can proove God existince to other... it is a choice to believe in Him or not, similar to a choice to believe in the facts or not.
You either choose to believe in the facts as they are or in the truth as you see it.
the fact is that the facts and evidence points to God.
THe Theory of Evolution conflict the facts in many ways, scientific law says that energy cannot be created or distroyed, only changed from one form to the other. THis fact contradicts the Evolution theory of universal origins, that states that the universe, matter, laws, energy came from nothing from oddless chance. This theory is in direct violation of scientific law.
But when you rule out the theory, the only logical and scientific fact is that God exist and He created everything.
God bless you and yours,
A Christian, and lover of physics.
2006-08-23 21:03:06 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. Agappae 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
actually it was less than 100 years ago but that's beside the point. I agree it's foolish to try to use science to disprove God's existence. I think it's perfectly acceptable to use science to prove God isn't necessary though.
2006-08-23 20:51:03 · answer #8 · answered by Jake S 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
***To all you science based athesists.? ***
Science does not prove religion null and void.
Science is just incapable of positively verifying
the actual existence of the religiously miraculous,fantastical and at times nonsensical claims of religion.
Have a blessed day
2006-08-23 21:04:11 · answer #9 · answered by zurioluchi 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Religion is just an old form of government meant to keep people in line and to explain what they didn't know.
We know how the world works, we have better forms of government, we don't need religion.
Religion is a toxin to a perfectly working brain.
Trouble yourself about global warming...not this.
2006-08-23 20:56:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋