What if God and Science could be reconciled completely? Would you investigate further for your self?

Question

I am not suggesting what is referred to on this site as "fundie" dogma. I have a unified theory of all things developing and I have given it a name "One". I am completely certain that this forum does not provide me enough space to offer my argument.

One thing I am certain off is disagreement from every angle. So, this is a poll of sorts; how many people by percentage would be willing to investigate an argument that provides a unified solution to man’s biggest questions? How many would be free thinking enough to consider such an argument?

Elvis-I did not say religion you moron.

Searcher-Makes 1 out of 11 so far to actually answer the question.

Neil makes 2

Jeff- where did Cain get his wife?

4 maybe 5 out of 16.

Answer 1

I think that, if current trends "flesh out", science could point the way to a cosmic God. Religion and science are incompatible but God (if he exists) and science have no hindrances between them.

Stephen Hawking WAS an atheist who is now a theist. A large part of that conversion was disdain for the arrogance displayed by many atheists. They scoff at the idea of God because there is no evidence for Him. However, as Hawking pointed out, if all scientists thought that way, black holes never would have been discovered. There was no evidence for them.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle points to a mystical side of quantum physics that stretches credulity and suggests "mind" as a component of the material universe.

Matter emerges from nowhere and disappears again. Subatomic particles can’t both be and be known to be. Matter shifts from existing to only having the potential to exist.

Our human acts affect what is true at the quantum level. The act of measurement distorts what’s being measured. Human consciousness itself seeps into the discussion of quantum physics. Consciousness, mind, data, whatever you want to call it, is beginning to factor into quantum physics and even black holes.

These trends remind me of Albert Einstein's cosmic God. Although he didn't believe in religion or a personal God, he did believe in a cosmic God, as evidenced by one of my favorite quotes of his:

"Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." ~Albert Einstein

Given the way life is so tenacious, adaptive, and varied here on Earth -- almost as if it has a mind of its own -- I wouldn't be surprised that we find life is abundant throughout the universe. And that life does have a mind of its own . . . a mind hinted at by the mystical aspects of quantum physics . . . a mind that is part and parcel of the material universe . . . a mind that is as close as you can get to God.

Answer 2

Science would have to agree among themselves for I have watched many documentaries of did the ark really exist, and they bring in usually two or three views of experts on the topic and when the program is finished its usually left up to you to decide which of these expert seemed or was more convincing.

So there is dissention amongst the learned scientists as to what constitutes proof of this or that.

If I can still keep an open mind and listen to the arguments and solutions presented I think I could be open minded about a find that they have found and science has shown for a fact this almost everyone agreed on that a great flood did occur taking samples from all continents of the earths crust and it clearly shows it. Its always the timing of it because they don't understand that the Bible is not chronologically correct.

Answer 3

I don't believe that anyone can say with absolute certainty about the existence of God, on both sides of the fence. Although I am persuaded that no god exists based on what I find to be overwhelming evidence, and therefore no reconciliation is necessary, I am always willing to entertain any novel theory as to how such a being can be contemplated to be in conformity with scientific principles.

Of course science and religious theory can be roughly reconciled if one tries hard enough to do so, but the question is what compels someone to try to acheive that, other than to justify their own religious beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

Answer 4

Both are already complementary to each. Only a little gap of mystery is there, which will remain as it is. Science works ar gross level whereas spiritualism is at subtle level.

Since works on logic, and logic is based upon illogic. How can you define the word Logic, if illogic is not there? In the scientific world, “Wave/Particle Duality of Light” is an interesting example, where minutest known substance, has two contradicting properties of wave and particle. Essentially this means that sometimes a wave acts like a particle and vise versa! From scientific perspective, this is illogical because, wave is a process of an energy whereas particle is a mass.

Answer 5

Religion, that being, belief in a deity with dogma..employs a different method of seeking knowledge about the universe than does science.

Religion asks and answers questions about the purpose and role of humanity in the universe and defines many answers based on subjective reports and subjective experience. While things of a subjective nature CAN be very real, they can also be delusion. One cannot "prove" to another the exact nature of a subjective experience. An important aspect of religion is to attempt to connect to something beyond our mere mortal existence and to find purpose for life.

Science is the best method man has yet devised to seek knowledge about the processes of the universe. It says nothing about God one way or another because science is essentially a method of inquiry..and the scientific method relies on objective data being applied to the steps of the method to formulate theories. Germ theory, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory all explain processes observable in the universe around us. With new knowledge, new theories are formulated.

Until such time as there is discovered objective data to be applied to scientific method to either negate or support an Omnipotent Creator Deity..God is outside the bounds of science.

Scientific method has debunked some aspects of various religions' dogmas, and sometimes given credence to others. If an aspect of dogma is challenged or threatened by objective physical data, perhaps it is an aspect of dogma that needs to be reexamined and perhaps discarded.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that one day some form of objective data will be discovered to take God beyond the aspect of faith..

Something interesting to consider, essentially, that's the Jewish messianic age concept..from Jeremiah, when all on earth know who and what God is without relying on the teaching or reports of others. It won't be a matter of faith if scientific method supports the existence of God with observable, tested data. It will be a matter of knowing based on the physical evidence.

Shalom :)

Answer 6

I have a unified theory called the Goddess. She reconciles science and spirituality perfectly - She's a living, parthenogenic female and the Universe is Her body. She functions in a manner best described by Chaos Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Evolution is the birth process on a planetary scale (0ntogeny recapitulates phylogeny). All life is connected within Her, so everything we do affects us the most.

I could go on, but my point is, you haven't done anything new - you've done something ancient that people have known since before they were anything you'd call "people."
Humans took a giant step backward with the advent of the patriarchal religions, but many of us are coming home and realizing that Nature is a religion in Herself.

Answer 7

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has you beat:

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

Answer 8

I'm not sure many would understand such an argument. I also do not know what you mean by "God". If it is the Abrahamic deity, you are chasing your tail, as this deity cannot be even presented coherently to be reconcile with anything. If not, fire away, I'm easy to contact.

Answer 9

It depends if the argument had any merit on the surface for me to look into it deeper. I have seen many speculative "theories" on here...but most are posted as satire.

If you don't have enough space for the whole argument, why not summarize?

Answer 10

There is no need, or any benefit to be gained by, "reconciling" science with religion. Ultimately, science wins because science has the fossils, the models, the tools, and most of all, the Doubt, that is required to live an honest life in the real worls.