2007-11-27 01:30:32 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
the idea of god has no scientific bases and I am afraid Fancis of Assis is way out of date with the probabilities and mathematics. Used probabilities it is quite possible and even likely that life will arise when the conditions are suitable. This is not a good forum to go into this but Richard Dawkins has explained this. I think it is in The Blind Watchmaker. Read it he is a very good writer
And I don't think I would bother with anything in Watchtower because anything they say is not designed to see the truth just to justify their strange views about life
2007-11-27 02:33:17 · answer #1 · answered by Maid Angela 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is interesting how many people reject the idea of evolution on the basis of statistical improbability, but the conditions and procession of the process are in error. Certainly, if random probability were the ONLY factor operating, it would be a near 0% probability that a blob of primordial ooze could spontaneously form into a human. However, as systems organize at low levels, the physical laws and biochemical systems that arise from the interactions which at first may have been random, begin to guide the organization of the system at the higher levels. There are guiding principles, and it is not random chance from beginning to end, however statistical quantum mechanics may be. The very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (general relativity) operate on principles that scientists are now attempting to reconcile and quantify through string theory and other more advanced theories. These do not strike me as the "throw the dice and pray" method. It is simplistic to believe that random chance governs everything when larger forces and described systems which CAN be quantified would override the randomness in a given system.
However, this says nothing about God. I also don't understand how people can logically pit God against science. In order to do this, one must put one in terms of the other. To my knowledge, this hasn't been done yet. Call me when someone manages this! Cheers!
2007-11-27 02:02:29 · answer #2 · answered by Black Dog 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Scientific proofs only work authoritatively to prove or disprove things in a lab and are testable and repeatable. Therefore, God's existence could never be proven nor disproven by anything in a lab. In philosophy there was a whole effort in the early 20th century by various factions including the 'logical positivists,' the 'verificationists' and 'the falsificationists' to establish a strong distinction between science and religion. Do a google search, you will see that they failed miserably and that science and religion are hardly as distinct and opposed as your question suggests.
2007-11-27 01:38:59 · answer #3 · answered by Theoden 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I LOVE a believer's idea of a "mathematical proof!"
WOW.
Umm, isn't the probability of a god more unlikely than anything else? Seriously, what is more improbable?
There is no evidence of anything supernatural, this includes "God" and "miracles."
All the "evidence" that you will see here comes from preachers who got fake Ph.D.'s from bible colleges in Texas.
In the world of credible academics there is only one guy who has a real degree and promotes "intelligent design." It is generally accepted that this man is a whore who takes this stance to get money from conservative think-tanks. I wish I could remember this man's name; oh well, he is the only one with a real degree.
To all you believers, your pastor is a liar and loves taking money from you credulous suckers. Stop fearing death and accept the fact that your existence is finite.
(Am I the only one terrified of "clysh" and her answer? Who thinks these retarded and overly contrived apocryphal stories are meaningful? Do they really believe that people who hold opposing views do so lightly and without support, or reason? The only reason thinkers back down from believers is that we recognize a lazy mind and an intellect insufficient to grasp the most simple of philosophical or scientific concepts. I don't try to teach a cat Shakespeare and I have found that this is analogous to reasoning with anyone who believes sans evidence.)
2007-11-27 01:38:33 · answer #4 · answered by The J Man 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well this broadens the God debate a bit. First we need evidence there is a God and then, if he does exist I, for one, want evidence that he has legs. I know, I know, loads of thumbs down for me from the God brigade!
2007-11-27 01:55:09 · answer #5 · answered by Ern T 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
god doesn't have a leg to stand on against sort of proof.
2007-11-27 02:44:35 · answer #6 · answered by daveygod21 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes of course he does. You cannot show by any scientific process that God does not exist, nor can you show that he does exist. Even The Great Richard Dawkins knows and acknowledges that!
PS If anyone knows such a proof, I'd love to see it
2007-11-27 01:36:29 · answer #7 · answered by za 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes. Science and the Bible can definitely be reconciled. Here is an article that has some very interesting information on the topic:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm
2007-11-27 01:41:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science is a search for the truth, and every scientist usually arrives at the conclusion: "The universe shows intelligent design". For example if you saw a complex machine and you asked "Who made that?" and someone answered "Nobody, it made itself!" That's just like saying the universe made itself.
Check out Lee Strobel's book "Case for a creator".
2007-11-27 02:10:31 · answer #9 · answered by Fabian19 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Actually, science has a leg to stand on, because of God.
2007-11-27 01:37:31 · answer #10 · answered by C Sunshine 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋