Definition: "God explains what science does not adequately explain."
By this definition, does God exist?
If you think that science does not adequately explain everything then God exists.
If you think that science adequately explains everything, then God doesn't exist.
corollaries:
1. Since science adequately explains more things every year, the "power" of God diminishes as time passes.
2. If you think that science will never adequately explain everything, then God will always exist (He'll never die)
2007-11-06 04:24:43 · 12 answers · asked by I'm an Atheist 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I'm not sure that's really a new definition. People have used gods to explain what they didn't understand for years. However, I doubt theologists will happily accept that their god is really just a placeholder for knowledge...
2007-11-06 04:32:22 · answer #1 · answered by Cato 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Your definition operates on the assumption that a god can never actually show up, be physically present, and perhaps even be understood and explained by science.
Consider that many of the things we do regularly today would have been considered miraculous even a couple hundred years ago... is it really reasonable to believe that if there does exist some god that it will forever be beyond the description of science?
Perhaps a thousand years from now, theology will be an actual scientific field, describing the qualities of various gods known to exist, how they exert their power, how they came to be and how they come to die.
Or perhaps not. Either way, however, you seem to be making assumptions about what science can and cannot know that are more than a little unwarranted, neh?
2007-11-06 06:14:04 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If something isn't "explained" well, doesn't make something else "exist."
You are confused between a "definition" and a "statement" of opinion.
Science explains something else "better" every day, but they keep changing their minds, nonetheless. We used to think the atom was the smallest particle of matter, for example, until science evolved into something better and found better answers, which inevitably becomes a new revelation and new truth, almost every day. Can you really base your foundation of truth on something slithering, shivering and changing at an increasing pace? The Scientific Method is a "method" of discovery, comparison and of gathering data, not a basis of truth. The "truth" part is still left to the human mind to put the data together to form a conclusion.
In your question, or statement, and in science, we are seeking truth.
One person's idea of truth may not be another's. The same is true for reality. Now, your question leads me to a rather unavoidable conclusion: reality can exist without truth, but truth can not exist without reality. What do I mean? Reality deals with life; what you experience, what you see. However truth only exist in perception. You can live your life based on a lie; but you cannot walk in truth unless reality supports it. If you live your life believing the truth, that God is real, then your perception of reality (and therefor life) will be clear. If you live your life based on lies of no God, then your reality will be meaningless and without answer because there will be none.
In direct response to your question, if your perception is true then your reality is true. Therefore, if God represents Truth in your life, then the reality of your life is true and therefor complete as well.
One cannot exist without the other. They are both required and must both be aligned in order for absoluteness to take effect.
(I think I just confused three-fourths of the people on the forum)
2007-11-06 05:02:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Definition: "God explains what technology does not properly clarify." under this definition, god will become the reaction to human lack of awareness, and probable lack of awareness that is in basic terms non everlasting, through fact technology could come across the respond quickly provided via god, the nonanswer. If one needs to take a place the super imponderable subject concerns (the meaning of the universe) with "meaning," then the belief of a god or gods can fulfill the will in some degree. yet is it no longer attainable to be happy with the acceptance of areas of perpetual lack of awareness and enable it pass? i do no longer see how an expertise of the meaning of existence might in any way advance the get excitement from existence itself.
2016-10-15 06:00:44 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because science does not adequately explain something just means that scientists have yet to put enough time and/or effort into finding a solution. Maybe the question is considered to trivial to matter.
Science doesn't need a god, just time.
Ian M
2007-11-06 04:37:36 · answer #5 · answered by Ian M 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Define God as Sankaracharya expalined, through his philosophy of the unqualified monism. Then one can relate it to the laws of physics, law of conservation of energy and matter. Matter and energey are neither created nor destroyed, they simply change forms and through their changing forms every thing becoms. Unqualified monism says that the ultimate reality is the same, and is the only reality, all other things are illusion, since they are all temporary.
Both athiests and theists can be equally happy here.
You can also look at the materialistic philosophy of Maharshi charvaka. He was a materialist and an athiest, but he was a sage!
Buddha does not speak about God as existing........
You can have many friends in Indian Philosophy dear........
2007-11-06 04:36:18 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Girishkumar TS 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That definition is invalid in regards to the properties that God holds. Those who believe in God define him as having the property of always existing in every possible world regardless if others believe in him.... All you are saying is that you think God is a relational entity. It's an interesting theory but it takes God from being an Infinite being to a finite being and in doing so denies the very essence of God.
2007-11-06 04:58:00 · answer #7 · answered by Brooklyn Avenue 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
There should be no question as to whether or not God exists. Even if the universe was created by the Big Bang (which I believe is crap), someone had to light the match. Take a breath of air, does the air you breathe exist, just because you can't see it? The wind exists, and I can't see it, but I can see how it affects its surroundings. Think about it.
2007-11-06 04:35:03 · answer #8 · answered by Jerrius T 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Buddhist concept of 'fire in the belly'
'It is better to marry than burn with desire'
Faith extends beyond logic, yet faith can also be logical.
Science destroys in order to discover, God creates in order for humans to discover themselves
God exists where the human (soul) cannot any longer fathom
2007-11-06 04:51:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I like it, but I hope you don't mind if I prefer Spinoza's one of God/Nature.
The person who has given me a thumb down 99% doesn't even know who Spinoza is. Lol.
2007-11-06 04:52:18 · answer #10 · answered by remy2 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋