is the concept of "GOD" necessary to explain things ?

Question

just inquisitive

Answer 1

::Good question. It would seem that it fits the order of things that we have a part.

Some simple questions--

Who made the first pen, car, computer, gun, sword, telephone, plane. etc. etc.
Many were probably on the verge of making
the first but, one got the credit.

So to in life, there are super human inventions that cannot be simply explained away. The most sophisticated computer systems have been compared to a worms brain in comparison to 1 human brain.

Making it simple --Sir Isaac Newton had an encounter with a atheist friend, please note the scenario:

*** gh chap. 6 p. 54 The Source of Good News—“God” ***

Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton. On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, “Who made it?” Newton answered, “Nobody!” The atheist replied, “You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius.” Newton then said to his friend, “This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!”

A more complicated matter:

*** ct p. 48 From “the RNA World” or Another World? ***

In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains."

A simple Bible passage makes it very clear

(Hebrews 3:3-4) “. . .. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”

So no matter what we consider--a rule, a law, a concept , a science etc. there has to be a maker.

Answer 2

No, but it is often used by the religious to explain what we cannot currently explain.

While we can ask "What caused the USA to be created?" and not get a response of, "Because God told the founding fathers that it should be so," harder questions that only have theories for answers (such as "who killed the dinosaurs?" "how was the universe created?" and "how did life on Earth come to be?") are often answered through the mention of God (or a god).

If you are a pantheist, then yes, the concept of "God" would be necessary to explain things, since they consider "God" to be synonymous with "nature," using them interchangeably.

However, God has always been used to be the explanation for the unexplainable (even though the idea of such a being is unexplainable in the first place, ironically). For example, long ago people believed that diseases were caused by a god that was angry at them for something they did, since those people had no concept of germs or microorganisms. Now, however, we know that bacteria and viruses (for the most part) create diseases, and that these diseases were contagious. That's probably why no one sees an outbreak of AIDS and shouts, "Those people DESERVE this fate, because it is the punishment they have been given from God (or a god)!" (Well, MOST people wouldn't shout that.) We understand disease better now, and, because of that, we have stopped explaining it through a mythical being.

Similarly, gods were used to declare how humans were created. For example, the Bible tells Christians that Adam and Eve were created by God as the first human beings. Back when Christianity was born, people believed this declaration literally, since evolution and the like were undiscovered. Now, however, most people accept that evolution occurs and that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, which led to the story of Adam and Eve to become unnecessary. This is similarly why moderate Christians nowadays declare that it is to be seen symbolically, not literally, despite the fact that this can lead to someone saying that the entire Bible is symbolic in nature.

So, it is not NECESSARY to explain things through the concept of a god. However, people often use it to explain what they cannot explain, since they dislike acknowledging that they might not know (or they just are afraid of the unknown).

Answer 3

No. Science may not have all the answers of where we come from, and probably never will (I don't think it will be possible to understand exactly the laws that governed the universe before the Big Bang). It's a mystery! But for me, this mystery is not a "God".

As for why we are here, I don't think there is a particular reason for that! We just are, that's all! It would be too long to explain here, but that's basically what I think.

Answer 4

Yes, it definitely is..
Technology and sciences are always trying to reveal things, but there are some question that will remain questions coz humanbeing is not capable in answering them.
the concept of God did not by mistake happen to be the past-culture's ways of answering things they dont understand. God is simply a real concept that everybody universally will accept once they experience it by themselves.

Answer 5

Not really. The concept may eventually be needed but at the moment it is generally used when someone doesn't want to say "I don't know" or "We can't explain it"

Answer 6

Only if you demand a complete explanation and then only if you are willing to let that concept of god change with time.

Answer 7

Only to our primitive barbarian ancestors and those today who carry their obsolete genes. The rest of us will use our cerebral cortex (the rational and thinking part of our brains) to see objective reality, unfortunately, we're the minority of the earth's population.

Answer 8

If you feel like you need to be able to explain everything, then yes.

If you are comfortable knowing that you cannot explain everything, then no.

Answer 9

No, and neither is science.
I don't think we should explain the unknown until we know.
However, we can hypothesize using fact and imagination.

Answer 10

Personally, I don't think so, but you should try debating a Christian presuppositionalist.