Can Science and God Coexist?

Biology, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, fields of science that says no, at least not in the current incarnation of religion. Unless a religion is willing to neuter its mysticism, then it will always be at odds with the rational and sensible.Atrus

How do we determine whether or not something was created by an intelligent being? Indian arrowheads found in the dirt are just chipped pieces of flint or rock, yet scientists can determine that they had an intelligent creator. Living beings are far more complex than a chipped rock.

If SETI found a message from another star, the scientists would subject the signal to all kinds of tests to determine if the signal had an intelligent source, and one of those tests would be to determine if the signal contains some kind of codified information be it linguistics or instructions. Biological DNA is a code, with its own four letter alphabet, for the construction of an entity that is soadvanced that we still don't understand all of its complexities.

To say that these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator is the height of ignorance.

In what way do these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator? If anything, the preciseness of the values in these fields is evidence of a creator.

How do we determine whether or not something was created by an intelligent being? Indian arrowheads found in the dirt are just chipped pieces of flint or rock, yet scientists can determine that they had an intelligent creator. Living beings are far more complex than a chipped rock.

If SETI found a message from another star, the scientists would subject the signal to all kinds of tests to determine if the signal had an intelligent source, and one of those tests would be to determine if the signal contains some kind of codified information be it linguistics or instructions. Biological DNA is a code, with its own four letter alphabet, for the construction of an entity that is soadvanced that we still don't understand all of its complexities.

To say that these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator is the height of ignorance.

SIapshot

These fields already contradict the doctrinal mysticism in beliefs. Take Evolution, a fact, that stipulates that the biblical account of life on this planet is incorrect. Or Quantum Mechanics, which stipulates that notion of a Creator of the universe is nonsense and does not fit within the frame of what the universe is.

The study of Anatomy was in itself considered a heresy. So long as science corrects primitive mysticism it will always be at odds with the mystics.

You find the complexity of systems to indicate that there must be an intelligent creator but that level of connectivity is outdated, so outdated that men over 2000 years ago already suggested working alternatives. We call them emergent systems, or self-organizing systems.

Religion and science cannot co-exist in it's current form.

I think it's time for followers of Abrahamic religions to accept that most of what's in their books are metaphoric. It does disprove their religion.

And of course science and God can coexist. Einstein made it work.

Rhazakna

Einsteins view on religion was more pandemic and involved the Universe being Godlly in of itself, not a single Ominiscient being. He's been universally misinterpreted by these means.

i hate these threads :| gamerchris810

so do I.

can science and god coexist?

hmm, i'm more worried about whats for dinner tomorrow.

But I'll say sure.

The Real Question is can the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God exist along with Science.

If we take the Bible/Torah/Quaran as literal, and non-literal in many cases, it's clearly contridictory.

For both Science and God to exists mutually the definition of God must change to fit into the realm of the nature of the Universe. However seeing as we don't know the nature of the universe, it's pretty much useless and any definition of God we make is pretty much baseless.

These fields already contradict the doctrinal mysticism in beliefs. Take Evolution, a fact, that stipulates that the biblical account of life on this planet is incorrect.Atrus

Or Quantum Mechanics, which stipulates that notion of a Creator of the universe is nonsense and does not fit within the frame of what the universe is. Atrus

The study of Anatomy was in itself considered a heresy. So long as science corrects primitive mysticism it will always be at odds with the mystics.

You find the complexity of systems to indicate that there must be an intelligent creator but that level of connectivity is outdated, so outdated that men over 2000 years ago already suggested working alternatives. We call them emergent systems, or self-organizing systems.Atrus

religion and science cannot co-exist in it's current form.Atrus

[QUOTE="Atrus"]Biology, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, fields of science that says no, at least not in the current incarnation of religion. Unless a religion is willing to neuter its mysticism, then it will always be at odds with the rational and sensible.SIapshot

How do we determine whether or not something was created by an intelligent being? Indian arrowheads found in the dirt are just chipped pieces of flint or rock, yet scientists can determine that they had an intelligent creator. Living beings are far more complex than a chipped rock.

If SETI found a message from another star, the scientists would subject the signal to all kinds of tests to determine if the signal had an intelligent source, and one of those tests would be to determine if the signal contains some kind of codified information be it linguistics or instructions. Biological DNA is a code, with its own four letter alphabet, for the construction of an entity that is soadvanced that we still don't understand all of its complexities.

To say that these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator is the height of ignorance.

Randomness created all of it. Molecules that were slightly attracted to each other by there electrical charges. These molecules came together and are called amino acids. Some amino acids were attracted to each other by there charges and together they made proteins. Proteins are the building blocks of life.

[QUOTE="SIapshot"]

[QUOTE="Atrus"]Biology, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, fields of science that says no, at least not in the current incarnation of religion. Unless a religion is willing to neuter its mysticism, then it will always be at odds with the rational and sensible.crackajacks

How do we determine whether or not something was created by an intelligent being? Indian arrowheads found in the dirt are just chipped pieces of flint or rock, yet scientists can determine that they had an intelligent creator. Living beings are far more complex than a chipped rock.

If SETI found a message from another star, the scientists would subject the signal to all kinds of tests to determine if the signal had an intelligent source, and one of those tests would be to determine if the signal contains some kind of codified information be it linguistics or instructions. Biological DNA is a code, with its own four letter alphabet, for the construction of an entity that is soadvanced that we still don't understand all of its complexities.

To say that these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator is the height of ignorance.

Randomness created all of it. Molecules that were slightly attracted to each other by there electrical charges. These molecules came together and are called amino acids. Some amino acids were attracted to each other by there charges and together they made proteins. Proteins are the building blocks of life.

They alerady do. The bible escribes a lot of natural phenomona in theological ways.GIJesse77

Coexist? Yes.

Coexist peacefully? That's a bit of a strech...

[QUOTE="SIapshot"]

In what way do these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator? If anything, the preciseness of the values in these fields is evidence of a creator.

How do we determine whether or not something was created by an intelligent being? Indian arrowheads found in the dirt are just chipped pieces of flint or rock, yet scientists can determine that they had an intelligent creator. Living beings are far more complex than a chipped rock.

If SETI found a message from another star, the scientists would subject the signal to all kinds of tests to determine if the signal had an intelligent source, and one of those tests would be to determine if the signal contains some kind of codified information be it linguistics or instructions. Biological DNA is a code, with its own four letter alphabet, for the construction of an entity that is soadvanced that we still don't understand all of its complexities.

To say that these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator is the height of ignorance.

Atrus

These fields already contradict the doctrinal mysticism in beliefs. Take Evolution, a fact, that stipulates that the biblical account of life on this planet is incorrect. Or Quantum Mechanics, which stipulates that notion of a Creator of the universe is nonsense and does not fit within the frame of what the universe is.

The study of Anatomy was in itself considered a heresy. So long as science corrects primitive mysticism it will always be at odds with the mystics.

You find the complexity of systems to indicate that there must be an intelligent creator but that level of connectivity is outdated, so outdated that men over 2000 years ago already suggested working alternatives. We call them emergent systems, or self-organizing systems.

Religion and science cannot co-exist in it's current form.

1. So your beef is with the bible and not necessarily God?

2.Again, I ask you, in what way does quantum mechanics stipulate that the notion of a creator is nonsense? The bizarre nature of quantum physics is a long way from being fully understood.

3. No, I find that the current scientific system of denoting intelligence behind such primitive creations as arrowheads and radio signals is no more valid than applying the very same standards of scientific proof to life itself.

4. You sound just like a religious fundamentalist.

SIapshot

1. The Bible or any holy work is part of the religious belief system. For most it defines what their God is, without which the very word "God" would be nonsense.

2. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there haven't been experiments done to understand the universe in the quantum realm. All points and moments are contained within this universe, and there is no moment that is conceived as being outside this universe. In addition Quantum Randomness and Quantum Acausality indicate show that in the Quantum realm, particles arrive uncaused.

Physicists are looking for an earlier and earlier point 'before' the universe came into existence. It doesn't exist. Time itself came about after the universe was larger than a plack length. Instead they are looking at the universe as a self-contained mechanism where all points exist within it.

3. It's a stupid argument. Do you look at a cloud and then infer that somebody made it? Or is a cloud simply part of an ever complex and interacting system. Calling on 'God' is a lazy answer that doesn't answer the question. It also begs the question, what made God?

4. A religious fundamentalist argues with nonsense and circular arguments. I'm using reason and rationality. I'd ask where you sensible arguments are?

Fighting for peace is like ******* for your virginity.CuDDKiDD

couldnt have said it better myself :lol:

[QUOTE="SIapshot"]

[QUOTE="Atrus"]Biology, Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, fields of science that says no, at least not in the current incarnation of religion. Unless a religion is willing to neuter its mysticism, then it will always be at odds with the rational and sensible.crackajacks

How do we determine whether or not something was created by an intelligent being? Indian arrowheads found in the dirt are just chipped pieces of flint or rock, yet scientists can determine that they had an intelligent creator. Living beings are far more complex than a chipped rock.

If SETI found a message from another star, the scientists would subject the signal to all kinds of tests to determine if the signal had an intelligent source, and one of those tests would be to determine if the signal contains some kind of codified information be it linguistics or instructions. Biological DNA is a code, with its own four letter alphabet, for the construction of an entity that is soadvanced that we still don't understand all of its complexities.

To say that these fields of science oppose the existence of a creator is the height of ignorance.

Randomness created all of it. Molecules that were slightly attracted to each other by there electrical charges. These molecules came together and are called amino acids. Some amino acids were attracted to each other by there charges and together they made proteins. Proteins are the building blocks of life.

They already do.

science was developed to disprove religion :|blooddemon666

No it wasn't. Science was developed to improve our knowledge. It has nothing to do with religion. If in it's pursuit it happens to disprove religious theories and ideas, so be it, but to assert that science's aim is to disprove religion is not accurate.