Science gives us answers to how the universe operates, but it doesn't answer the question of how the universse and matter originated. In fact natural laws contradict the idea of the universe and life creating itself. Natural law says;
1. there has to be a beginning to everything.
2. something cannot come from nothing.
How then can science ever explain the beginning without contradicting everything it stands for?
And why does science, or even evolution, have to contradict the idea of God? To say science disproves God is a ridiculous statement. God cannot be proved or disproved by way of science, so therefore no one can deny the possibility of his existence.
With all that said, science provides proof of what...reallity? Well what is the reality of reality? Science can't prove we're not just some computer program controlled by creatures from the "real world" (like the matrix).
EVERYTHING is based on faith, and NOTHING can be fully proven.
2007-02-02 10:35:40 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I should have also made this clear with the 2 natural laws I stated above-
God exists in a supernatural realm, where there are "supernatural laws". God invented "natural laws"- he does not abide by them. He doesn't need a creator because he has always existed, he had no beginning.
2007-02-02 11:07:32 · update #1
What you are talking about is not science.
Science does not give us answers to how the universe operates; science is a method to observe and describe natural phenomena and suggests the relationships between them.
Natural laws (let us assume that you mean the laws created by Newton) do not contradict the idea of the universe and life creating itself. It describes relationships between oberservable phenonema which are enhanced by later scientific discovery ... Advance to quantum physics and you will find that things do not require a beginning and an end. There is an illusion of nothing from which something comes and that is called an "unknown origin." Just because we do not know from whence a thing arrives does not mean that it is supernatural in origin.
Again, science does not explain the beginning of anything, it is a method that observes and describes the relationship between a thing and its place among other known phenomena. For instance, the Big Bang theory is an attempt to observe and describe our universe, not to explain the origin of the universe.
There is no contradiction between the methodology of science and the idea of god. If a god is an idea, the explaination is the same for every idea. Ideas are constructs of mind and do not necessarily imply truth, observation, or falsity and cannot be proved or disproved by the methods of science. I am not an idea. That I have a soul is an idea. I can be observed and described. A soul cannot.
The methods of science do not disprove god, they just observe that evidence for god cannot be observed. The methods of logic do actually negate the necessity of god in regards to origin and development of natural phenomena, not the existence of god. We wait for proof.
Reality can be described as a consensus by most that a thing or phenomena is able to be observed and described. When I say the sky is blue, we may agree that it is blue and that is consensus reality. When I say the sky is blue and that it is flat, we cannot agree and therefore a flat sky is true for only one person.
The methods of science cannot prove that something is "not." To say that the world is not like the matrix is not possible for the methods of science.
Indeed everything is based on a kind of faith called probability. But there are enormous things that can be proved. The color of the sky, for instance. Ask every english speaking person you know what color the sky is and all of them will agree that it is blue or, if you prefer, all will agree that the name for the color of the sky is "blue." We can also use the scientific method to oberserve and describe the way that light reacts when passing through the atmosphere.
Nobody needs the idea of god. But many people do have an idea of god. To believe in the idea of god is a choice, not a requirement.
2007-02-02 11:08:47 · answer #1 · answered by voodooprankster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never have.
"1. there has to be a beginning to everything."
I hope your not going to contradict yourself in the next breath and say god started everything.
"2. something cannot come from nothing."
What created god?
"God cannot be proved or disproved by way of science, so therefore no one can deny the possibility of his existence."
No one can say for 100 certainty that god does not exist. But you do not need proof to not believe.
How much proof do you have leprechauns don't exist? Do you deny the existence of leprechauns?
"Well what is the reality of reality?"
That is one meaningless statement.
"Science can't prove we're not just some computer program controlled by creatures from the "real world" (like the matrix)."
Why not?
"EVERYTHING is based on faith"
Is gravity based on faith? You really have to get a grip.
2007-02-02 18:48:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, you are right, you might be in the matrix. In fact, the matrix mythology is at least as internally self consistent as the god mythology. However, there are internal inconsistencies in both. That is to say, each mythology ultimately contradicts itself.
Science is intended as an internally self consistent mythology by definition. That is to say that the science mythology changes the myth when contradictions appear.
Given the choice among the three, I'll choose the science mythology. That way I don't have to worry contradictions such as why a perfect designer would purposely create imperfection which then causes the designer to purposely destroy his creation.
You can continue to believe in your god myth and matrix myth. They are very similar. The above contradiction applies to both. And if you think about it, something neither god or the matrix want you to do, what is the difference between sitting in heaven feeding god with your worship and sitting in the matrix feeding the matrix with your energy?
2007-02-02 18:45:58 · answer #3 · answered by Dave P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What Natural law are you quoting? Because it sounds very much like an armchair philosopher's theory. For instance, a circle has no beginning and no end. And according to your rule no. 2, there can never have been nothing, including God, because of rule no. 2...
Science says nothing about God, since any kind of deity is a supernatural entity. Science does not deal with supernatural things, since they can not be measured or interacted with (almost like they don't exist...).
If nothing can be proven, and everything is based on faith, we know nothing. Any moronic theory is as good as one that delivers.
2007-02-02 18:51:28 · answer #4 · answered by ThePeter 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't say science contradicts a supernatural being, I say it contradicts THE BIBLE.....big difference.
PS-Your two "Natural Laws" have a HUGE flaw in supporting your "God" theory. If everything has a beginning and a creator, then God must have too. If there is a God and he did not have a creator, then your two "natural laws" are invalid.
-Everything is based on faith?!!!!!!!!!!!!! SINCE WHEN??? Do you not KNOW that 2+2=4??? You want me to prove it? because it can be. Almost everything we know about life and science can be proven, to say that it is all a matter of faith is just plain silly.
2007-02-02 18:38:18 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think you make an interesting point.
For those, such as Leviathan, that don't believe in faith, how often do you ask someone to instill some in you? Should they not do so until it can be proven? If it can't be, does that necessarily mean that it's not true? I agree that there are some things that can't be fully proven.
And to Moiraes Fate, I don't feel I've been tortured into believing there's a God, I do so by choice. So I'd thank you kindly not to speak on my behalf.
2007-02-02 21:32:13 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Both statements you wrote disproves any concept of an immortal God. God, if following natural laws, must have come from a greater being in order to exist, and could not have therefore always existed/ come from nothing.
There is a great difference in between the faith in my belief that Australia exists and the faith in another person's belief that god exists. Also, I don't base my life or concept of morality on the basis that Australia exists.
2007-02-02 18:41:51 · answer #7 · answered by manic.fruit 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually your 2 statements are only correct in the current state of the universe. Before the big bang, it is entirely possible that something can come from nothing or that something doesn't need a beginning.
2007-02-02 18:47:59 · answer #8 · answered by Alucard 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It does not so much contradict anything of the sort.
Religion is a choice based on intuition.
The atheist asks why and had no good reason to believe in God.
Little to do with science.
2007-02-02 18:43:25 · answer #9 · answered by rostov 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything is based on faith? Nothing can be proven.
Well I don't believe you can type on a computer (I know you can't spell) so I guess there's no question here for me to answer.
I must have imagined the whole thing.
Great idea, buddy.
2007-02-02 19:01:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋