This claim is incompatible with any current world religion that I know of.
I have some different beliefs than others in my religion.
If we can find God in science then we would have to have a way to observe, test, and demonstrate the validity of God
There are many things we believe in science that we can't test for. Can we prove the big bang happened? We can believe the big bang happened, we can try to do all the math and logic to figure it out but in the end its all still a guess.
If anything, you are finding God, not in science, but in spite of, science.
If you want me to say that I believe God created science than we just get back to the gaps argument. I find this argument dumb because if you believe in God obviously you believe God created everything so your filling all the small gaps is pointless because God made all the big ones. If you believe God is ultimately behind everything than of course your going to say any small gap can be solved with God.
Yes, actually we can. We make predictions about what our universe would like if it were formed by varying methods. Then we observe specific parts of the universe and determine what models the facts fit. When all the facts fit only one model then we can consider that model accurate.
We can believe the big bang happened, we can try to do all the math and logic to figure it out but in the end its all still a guess.
To some extent, yes. However there is a HUGE difference between taking a shot in the dark and basing your conclusion on mountains of evidence. Sure, neither one can be said to be 100% proven, but use a little common sense, which is more accurate?
If you want me to say that I believe God created science than we just get back to the gaps argument. I find this argument dumb because if you believe in God obviously you believe God created everything so your filling all the small gaps is pointless because God made all the big ones. If you believe God is ultimately behind everything than of course your going to say any small gap can be solved with God.
Huh? Can we try that again, only make it coherent this time? I don't see how it is relevant to what I was saying. Perhaps I failed to make my point clear. What I was saying is that your belief in God CANNOT be through science. If anything it is IN SPITE OF everything science has helped us understand.
I firmly believe that science and God are incompatible, that they are mortal enemies, and that eventually we will reach such a point of understanding of the natural world that we will put down religion forever.
Huh? Can we try that again, only make it coherent this time?
I think he's trying to get at my argument of God either being the god of the gaps or superfluous. If so this is a complete misunderstanding of what I said. Gaps in our knowledge exist when we lack evidence. We can fill those gaps if we find evidence and expand our knowledge of the subject. Just stopping at "God did it" can at worst stunt this process of expanding our knowledge.
As for first believing God exists, this is nothing more then a baseless assumption. With science one must accept the possibility of being wrong and we don't start with a conclusion and try to make everything fit that conclusion as being done there, we follow the evidence where it leads.
We can't test God because he is in a completely different dimension altogether. He only interacts with us through our body, mind, and soul.
If God interacts with things in this reality we can test for him.
Also this idea of God being in another dimension is nothing more then moving the goalpost. There was a time it was believed God was just above the Earth and even came down and walked around from time to time. (The tower of Babel was once regarded as historically accurate) We got above the clouds and suddenly God was somewhere out in deep space. We have peer so far into space we can make accurate predictions about it's age based on what we see, and not surprisingly God was again placed just out of view in some other dimension.
[quote]Deists believe in a god without any religion.[quote]
thank you...i can appreciate that. certain things can be far fetched, but i believe in most of the stuff, and i definitely believe in a superior being.
To some extent, yes. However there is a HUGE difference between taking a shot in the dark and basing your conclusion on mountains of evidence. Sure, neither one can be said to be 100% proven, but use a little common sense, which is more accurate?
You can't either 100% disprove God. I don't remember any of the statistics but the chance that the universe formed the way it did and the first cell was created is tiny. So we can chose to believe that we were unbelievably lucky or we can believe a supernatural figure made it this way. I'm going to add that i do have doubts about Gods existence but for now i still believe
Sorry for my last post, i wrote it at 2:00AM and went to sleep directly afterwards. My point i was trying to convey was i don't want to say i believe God created science because i feel like you would bring up the gaps argument, but i find the gap argument dumb because I'm not saying God is behind "whatever you can't explain" in science, I believe God is behind everything so science is included.
On another note, If more people believed that science and God can't coexist than why does almost every religious private school teach both?
Because science is a required course if I'm not mistaken.
That, and it would be quite embarrasing if the school was pouring out students who were shouting out that you need to stone gays, enforce slavery, that the sun revolves around the earth, that people can live in whales, and that the earth is 6000 years old. Oh wait...
