Denise Yeo

What I meant is that Science [so far, excluding the little progression of the GCN] is limited to what happens in the known physical Universe. Science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, and hence will not be able to explain "everything", since "everything" varies from person to person. "Everything" to a believer of faith may include the non-existence of God, and we cannot prove the non-existence of something. Just because you cannot prove the non-existence of something, does not mean something exists, and just because you cannot prove the existence of something, does not mean that something does not exist- since that would be a fallacy of ignorance. Science, in this case, takes up the stand that since God's existence has not been proven, God does not exist, and same goes to everything else which hasn't been proven to exist. Religion, on the other hand, takes up the stand that since God's non-existence cannot be proven, God exists. The conflict between science and religion lies between something like randomness vs divine intervention. I correct what I have said before, that Science can eventually prove everything. Science can indeed prove everything, but "everything" would mean everything physical and known, rather than abstract ideas like consciousness. It is indeed true, what you have said. It is like what happened when Niels Bohr was younger- he would stare into a pond and think about how fishes in the pond were oblivious to an observer out of the pond, and that sunlight came from outside the pond. However, I think that since we are aware of the Universe and things beyond our galaxy, we will be able to figure it out eventually. On the other hand, I think that if we like the fish in the pond, unaware of observers from outside the Universe, or wherever they may be, then I do agree with you that Science will not be able to prove everything. As I said in my reply previously, I believe that Science will be able to prove everything known and physical but not abstract concepts. Alan- I won't probably be on this forum for very much longer, but thank you for starting this topic It has got me to think a lot about what I believe life and Science has for us.

Alright thanks for your views, I'll be sure to check them out

Well, what I think the objective of Science is is to give intelligent life forms, us, a greater and more specific understanding of the Universe. What religion and God presents contradicts the Big Bang Theory, Darwin's Theory of Evolution and many others. I personally do not believe in religion and the existence of God, because I feel that religion impedes our curiosity of the Universe by allowing us to accept 'because God made it that way' as an answer to unknowns. What religion does here is to substitute an unknown in an equation with the 'because God made it that way' argument. This argument is difficult to prove otherwise when you are trying to convince a strong believer of God that God does not exist. However, what I feel is that if you are someone who is agnostic or believes in both God but does not let religion affect your acceptance of more than likely true theories like the Big Bang theory, you would think of Science and religion as true and accept that Science and religion just have not come to a common ground where both may be true. If you are an atheist, you would probably think of religion as complete bullshit [pardon my language]. However, you could think of religion as something that provides hope to someone. Perhaps you may find it unbelievable, but many religious people do think of the 'because God made it that way' and 'God did it for the better' argument as valid and take it as consolation which helps them move on from emotional stress. Not everyone who is religious is out to go against Science. If you are a devout religious, no one is blaming you for having your own faith and beliefs. But I suggest that you accept the logical reasoning of Science and not impose your views unto others. This goes the same to all atheists as well. What everyone in this forum has to accept is that different people have different views. Yes, I believe that Science could eventually explain everything without having God in the equation. But then again, I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven right or wrong with Science unless Science is able to reach out to what happens before and after life and death, heaven and hell. Even so, Science will only be able to prove what is said in religious scriptures and believed events or phenomenons wrong, but as for the existence of God or a creator, it is not likely. What I am saying is merely my own view, so please do not take offence.

Hi all I'm Denise, a 14 year old from Singapore. I've decided to start exposing myself to more advanced Sciences and I was thinking of starting by reading scientific journals/magazines.. I've been reading Yale Scientific Magazine, but I was thinking if anyone had any suggestions for me to subscribe to a monthly magazine/journal. I'm more of a biology student, but I wouldn't mind physics at all since I just want exposure to deeper Sciences. So please recommend me some journals/magazines! Thank you

Hey everyone, I'm Denise, 14 this year, Singapore

How do you build a chemical car applying the equation "CaCO3 + 2HCl -> CaCl2 + H20 + CO2" ??