concept of GOD in science

[cyruseternity]

What do u guys think... Who created the universe and all the other stuff...Is it God......What does science say about the existence of God...

[Delta1212]

Nothing.

[Strange]

Who created the universe and all the other stuff

 

Who knows. Maybe it wasn't created, it has always existed. Or maybe it wasn't created by anyone/anything it just came to be.

 

 

What does science say about the existence of God...

 

Absolutely nothing. Although science does disprove some of the claims made bythose who believe in God (such as young Earth creationsts).

[Phi for All]

Who created the universe and all the other stuff...

A creator isn't needed, and no evidence exists that there was one. Do you have a reason to invent one?

 

Is it God......

 

Whose god? All of them have an equal lack of evidence for their existence, so how do you choose which one you're wishing to be the creator of the universe?

 

What does science say about the existence of God...

The gods we've heard of all have some sort of caveat against being directly observable. This means science has no methodology to apply to an explanation of those gods, so they're considered supernatural, outside the normal parameters of our reality. And since science only deals with natural phenomena, science isn't the right tool to use when discussing the existence of gods.

[DevilSolution]

Science cant comprehend outside of its only tool, which is logic. Its a very powerfull tool when used to its full potential, such as engineering, math and computer science but it incapable of escaping itself. God, in whatever form exists in the abstract, the irrational and illogical. Take it for what is.

[swansont]

Science cant comprehend outside of its only tool, which is logic.

 

Logic is science's only tool? When did that happen? I never got the memo. No more empirical observation, then? Is that what you're saying?

[Phi for All]

Science cant comprehend outside of its only tool, which is logic.

 

I disagree strongly that science has only logic as a tool.

[DevilSolution]

 

Logic is science's only tool? When did that happen? I never got the memo. No more empirical observation, then? Is that what you're saying?

 

So if for arguments sake we all observed a flying spaghetti monster? it would prove its existence? even if our EM sensors didnt tingle? yes empirical data has credit, but so do illusions. amen

[swansont]

 

So if for arguments sake we all observed a flying spaghetti monster? it would prove its existence? even if our EM sensors didnt tingle? yes empirical data has credit, but so do illusions. amen

 

That's a straw man, and also a red herring. An illusion is not empirical evidence, but empirical evidence is part of science. Logic is not science's "only tool"

[cyruseternity]

Ok fine guys....but science also doesnt have a concrete evidence to deny the existence of GOD...?

[david345]

Does God have concrete evidence to deny the existence of a greater God? A God so powerful he can block all God's attempts to detect him. A greater God who is secretly testing god and his followers to determine whether they deserve to be sent to heaven or hell.

[Strange]

Ok fine guys....but science also doesnt have a concrete evidence to deny the existence of GOD...?

 

Correct. Science can't prove that Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the tooth fairy or invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

[Fuzzwood]

Ok fine guys....but science also doesnt have a concrete evidence to deny the existence of GOD...?

We don't need to. One of the wonderful things of science is that whomever makes a claim is also burdened to deliver the proof of whatever claim they made. With your reasoning I could claim that unicorns exist. Can you deny their existence?

[cyruseternity]

K..do u guys believe in quantum theory.

??

For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that this is a pen, for the opposite person to say, it is not a pen, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say there is no God, he should at least know the concept of God

God is certainly not a "superhero" with a steel armour and a sword in his hand.......u and i cannot describe GOD?.... Thats where science fails

[david345]

K..do u guys believe in quantum theory.

?? For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that this is a pen, for the opposite person to say, it is not a pen, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say there is no God, he should at least know the concept of GodGod is certainly not a "superhero" with a steel armour and a sword in his hand.......u and i cannot describe GOD?.... Thats where science fails

Can you prove god is not a superhero with steel armour and a sword?

[cyruseternity]

Certainly not.....i agree that for the sake of argument ive never seen God nor can i prove his existence......

But my question is how can u believe in quantum mechanics.....have u ever seen an electron going round the nucleus with ur naked eye....certainly not....its ur faith in those theories that is making u belive so and so....

[Fuzzwood]

K..do u guys believe in quantum theory.

??

For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that this is a pen, for the opposite person to say, it is not a pen, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say there is no God, he should at least know the concept of God

God is certainly not a "superhero" with a steel armour and a sword in his hand.......u and i cannot describe GOD?.... Thats where science fails

There is no 'believing'. The fact that you can read this message means that the theory is sound.

[david345]

There are detectors which can detect electrons. You have no detector which can detect god. Physics is also falsifiable. God is not falsifiable. The claim that we live in the matrix is also unfalsifiable. Many laws of physics have been falsified. I see no reason to waste my time on a unfalsifiable god who has no evidence to support his existence.

[cyruseternity]

U cant believe but in my hometown timbaktu there is a detector which can detect God... Go check urself..

Brother the whole quantum mechanics is based on assumptions..with the support of few experiment..... But that doesnt mean that the atom is the same as mentioned in the quantum mechanics....

[swansont]

Certainly not.....i agree that for the sake of argument ive never seen God nor can i prove his existence......

But my question is how can u believe in quantum mechanics.....have u ever seen an electron going round the nucleus with ur naked eye....certainly not....its ur faith in those theories that is making u belive so and so....

 

The "naked eye" requirement is artificial, and QM does not saythat electrons go around the nucleus. You may be thinking of the Bohr model, which was a stepping stone in developing QM, but was discarded because it's wrong.

 

Text-speak is considered crude and lazy on a discussion board. u is you, ur is your. Use the proper words, please.

[cyruseternity]

Thanks for teaching me how to rite......thanks a lot

Thanks for teaching me how to rite....i didnt knew it before

[david345]

Brother the whole quantum mechanics is based on assumptions..with the support of few experiment..... But that doesnt mean that the atom is the same as mentioned in the quantum mechanics....

Is your statement an absolute proven fact? Once again you are playing the unfalsifiable game. Yes it is possible that quantum mechanics is wrong. You are using the unfalsifiable "anything is possible" argument. Edited December 18, 2014 by david345

[Strange]

But my question is how can u believe in quantum mechanics.....have u ever seen an electron going round the nucleus with ur naked eye....certainly not....its ur faith in those theories that is making u belive so and so....

 

It is not faith, it is evidence. As noted, the fact that your computer works is some (small) evidence for it.

U cant believe but in my hometown timbaktu there is a detector which can detect God... Go check urself..

 

Without evidence, I find this claim highly unlikely. And "go check yourself" is not a scientific argument. (Even when spelt properly.)

 

Brother the whole quantum mechanics is based on assumptions..

 

No it isn't.

Thanks for teaching me how to rite......thanks a lot

Thanks for teaching me how to rite....i didnt knew it before

 

It is a shame you are unwilling to learn (both about science and how to write like an adult).

[cyruseternity]

Thats wat im trying to say...just like no one can prove 100% whether QM is true or false....if a new theory comes in which is more suitable surely the QM will be discarded....similarly no one can prove that god doesn't exist...it is just our faith...

Yes indeed you are willing to reject the possibility of God being there, simply because u dont want to open your mind to that possibility. So instead of desiring to believe in God, you are willing to believe that our Universe was the one which luckily produced life on a planet Earth, after billions of other attempts in other previous Universes for life

[david345]

Faith fails far more often then evidence. Many have lost their entire life savings because of faith in a unproven scam. I would bet my money on that which is testable and has been tested. I'm not going to waste my life on a wild goose chase.