What would I require to believe in God?

Yes, my statement was overly broad. What I meant to say was that nothing about the natural universe is outside science’s purview.

Science can prove how things did happen just as concretely as it can prove anything else. Scientists construct hypotheses just as they would for any other area of science, and those hypotheses are borne out, or not, by evidence that’s later uncovered - the fossil record, for example, or new discoveries in astronomy. As with any other scientific theory, it may turn out to be wrong, and as with any other scientific theory, we cannot tell if it really is an accurate description of how things happen (or will happen, or did happen) until we encounter contradictory evidence that disproves it, or further supporting evidence that confirms it.

I agree, though, that a discussion of what science is is getting rather off-topic. I only continue it because misconceptions of what science constitutes are one thing that I see causing a lot of arguments from people bashing science, or claiming it doesn’t apply, or going on about things being “only a theory”.

No, there’s no difference between scientific “laws” and “theories” except how certain we are about them. Laws are not immutable and guaranteed to be correct, they’re merely theories that have stood up to a lot of scrutiny and not been disproven. “Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation”, as it’s known, was proven wrong by general relativity. We still call it a law largely because it works very well for the everyday experiences we most commonly work with.

Just to be clear: Any scientific theory or law can be disproven. If that was not the case, it would not be scientific - having clear criteria for being disproven is part of what being a theory entails. The only area of scientific enquiry that deals with conclusively proven, absolute truths is mathematics.

When you talk about things that science doesn’t cover, you use laws and morals as examples. I agree, science doesn’t directly cover those, but that’s because science is all about describing how the universe works, and laws and morals aren’t.

However, when it comes to explaining how the universe works, there’s absolutely no reason to suppose that there are areas of this that are mysteriously ‘off limits’ to science - anything that we can observe, we can investigate scientifically, and formulate theorems about, and explain. That’s the point I was trying to make when I said that nothing is outside the purview of science. God, if it exists, is certainly part of this, and there’s no reason that claims of god - when it comes down to actual concrete statements about things that happen in our universe - should be outside the purview of science.

I enjoy seeing good scientific reasoning put to use on this site. For the most part, this actually appears to be a lucid and intelligent conversation. Kudos!

(I’ll be amblessed for a second: John 3:16!)

Askegg, you asked for feedback on your logic. That leads me to ask this (rhetorical) question: Is science really the be all and end all of useful knowledge? If it is, it seems to me that there will be several unanswered questions, even in key areas of life (or should I say especially in key areas of life?).

You asked bimjob to establish that there is a need for the “why” of life. He didn’t answer, so I will give it a try.

I submit that fundamental questions in the areas of ethics and law (or even ethics in law) are absolutely necessary for civilization. These are primarliy philosophical questions that mankind has been asking since the beginning of recorded history, and is not likely to stop asking in the forseeable future.

These questions (and answers) are key for maintaining stable societies, and many have tried to adress them over the centuries. I submit that the most successful and coherent of these have been the religious (specifically Catholic) philosophers (particularly Aquinas, Von Balthasaar, Pope John Paul 2 etc).

Regardless of your willingness to accept their teachings as absolute, I think that they are worth your time in study. The coherence, lucidity, and completeness of their thinking is nothing short of miraculous. Furthermore, the things that they consider are of the most basic and necessary elements of human society and human law.

If you want specific examples of necessary questions that cannot be scientifically proven (and therefore require extra-scientific answers), I will be happy to oblige.

aarthur01: Well put, but I disagree.

Nothing is outside the purview of science. Science is simply the process of rational enquiry into the universe, and application of logic and reason to that world to form testable theories about how it works. There’s no reason to suppose that some part of the universe is immune to reason which has served us so well in explaining it so far.

Yes, there are areas of knowledge that science has not yet explored. This does not mean “god did it”, it just means we don’t have a rational answer to those questions yet. You can posit god as an answer to these questions, but there’s no reason to give that answer more credence than any other.

I agree that there have been many people throughout history that have professed religion and have yielded valuable insight, some of which we continue to use today, but I would argue that generally, such insight comes despite religion, rather than because of it. Where it is because of religion, its founding principles generally require belief in the given religion, and thus makes it a bad choice for basing a society on. For example, the christian set of morals and ethics (if there can truly said to be one set of ‘christian morals’).

It is possible to derive equally valid sets of morals and ethics on a secular basis, simply by starting with some principles the majority of members of your society are likely to agree with, and working from there. The US constitution attempts to do this, for example.

arachnid: Again, another example of science ‘rewording’ its theory as it is shown to be invalid! They came up with this crap because of all of the controversy over the fact that their precious theory violated every physical law they held dear. I am aware of the “expansion” double talk, no matter how you look at it, the theory still violates the laws of physics.

The word ‘expand’ means: 1. To increase the size, volume, quantity, or scope of; enlarge.

Since matter and energy cannot be created, where did all of the matter come from to ‘provide’ for this expansion?

All science does with theories like this is create new words. It has no evidence, no substance, no truthfulness, and no facts to back them up. Whenever they are questioned about this, some ‘theoreticist’ creates a ‘bigger’ word. All this does is buy some time while the real scientists look into what is being said. Then there is a mad dash to create and even bigger word and buy more time.

Two examples: Evolution became Punctuated Equilibrium Bang became expansion

Im sure I will really be impressed when they supercede Punctuated Equilibrium.

bbb: What are you basing your figure for the speed of the expansion of the universe on?

Also, one thing many people don’t properly understand is that the big bang wasn’t a whole lot of matter expanding into an existing space - it was the universe itself expanding from a very small volume into a large one - space itself expanding, not just matter travelling through space. Think of it as a balloon being blown up very rapidly.

Responding to your later post: By your analogy, then, believing in the christian god is just as faulty as believing in a specific alien race that we’ve never encountered - since we can’t test for either, both of them are completely unfounded assumptions.

Thank you for your reply, Silverwings.

However, you have failed to provide a way to differentiate an eternal universe from one created by a deity.

I don’t believe in evolution just so I can do whatever I like. I believe it because there is a mountain of evidence supporting it. I could fire “you only believe so you can avoid hell. You are afraid of god”.

If god loves us so much, then why throw us into eternal hell for the simple act of not believing? Seems like harsh punishment for an all loving god, especially when he knew it was going to happen.

Furthermore, if god loves us so much why not just destroy Satan? Why is free will SO important that he refuses to rid us of evil? Think about it - to an ALL knowing god our free will is just an illusion - he knows exactly what will happen until the end of time and has done since before he created everything - right?

“Now, there is something I need to say before I get a whole bunch of complaints saying that the evidence of George Washington’s leadership in the military and government is nowhere near as compelling as evidence that God created the universe. The people who make that claim are absolutely right.”

Absolutely false. For the existence and works of George Washington, we have multiple, independent accounts by reliable witnesses. We have artefacts - his writings, paintings of him, etc. He was known directly by so many people and indirectly by so many more that it would take a conspiracy encompassing every american contemporary (and then some) to fabricate his existence.

In contrast, ‘evidence’ for god falls into two camps: The Bible, whose provenance is questionable, and even if you believe the provenance, you don’t have to believe the content. Then there’s various ‘arguments for god’, which don’t actually constitute evidence, and are basically arguments from incredulity - something seems so amazing, the creationists claim, that it couldn’t possibly have happened on its own. Even if we were to accept them as valid arguments (which they’re not), they wouldn’t prove the existence of the particular god the proponents are arguing for anyway.

“If there is no ‘creator’ (personal or impersonal), then there is no real basis for morality (as Jefferson implies in the Declaration of Independence).”

Also false. There’s no reason a moral code has to be handed down from on high. Even most christians are happy to accept moral and ethical guidelines that don’t originate from the bible. All morals and ethics are is an agreement a society makes with itself about reasonable ways to behave. The fact that they’re not handed down by some supreme being doesn’t make them less valid - if anything it makes them more valid, as they’re a code agreed upon by the people who are expected to follow it.

“Can we really afford to treat this qustion by the scientific method alone?”

Why would you not? You’ve pointed out that the scientific method isn’t the only way to gain certain types of knowledge, such as historical knowledge (agreed), but you’ve failed to show that the scientific method is in any way inferior where it is possible to use it. Science is the best tool we have for explaining how stuff works. To not apply it to a particular question is aribrary and denies us a clear view of the world around us.

arachnid:

That statment about science and mathematics is interesting. When I was in school, they told me that scientific laws refered to specific mathematical relationships that have been proven through experimentation. (Thus the universal law of gravitation would refer to the proportionality of the force exerted on both objects relative to their mass and distance). So, the mathematical relationship would be set in stone, but the underlying theory would be open to further understanding. I understand what you are saying and it makes sense.

In speaking of morals and laws as examples of things that science doesn’t cover, I was trying to answer two statements at once. First you had said “nothing is outside the purview of science.” I was trying to demonstrate that that statement was not entirely correct.

Along this same line of thinking, I should point out that science’s job is to demonstrate/postulate how things DO happen. It does not have the power to prove how things HAVE happened. As you note, scientific theories are not set in stone, and things may have happened diffenerently than we currently suppose they did. In any case, science cannot conclusivley prove how things did, in fact, happen. Insofar as it is not testable via the scientific method, it is not possible for science to fully explain it. It may demonstrate underlying principles, but it cannot give an account of actual events.

The second thing I was trying to do by introducing the topic of ethics and law was this: I was trying to answer askeggs statement: “in order to answer the ‘why’, you first need to establish that there needs to be a ‘why.’” I think that that could be an interesting and fruitful discussion, but he has to be the one to take us there (because he is the one who asked the original question, and it would be off topic).

When I made the statment, “does not have the power to prove how things HAVE happened,” this is what I mean (and it goes directly to the heart of the original question):

Science cannot prove the specifics of history. It does not have the power to prove conclusively that George Washington led the Continental Army, or that he was the first President (for example). These are not disputed facts, but they are not provable via the scientific method. Our belief that they are true is dependent upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not repeatable; it is not controlled; yet there are few reasonable people who would deny the veracity of these assertions.

Now, there is something I need to say before I get a whole bunch of complaints saying that the evidence of George Washington’s leadership in the military and government is nowhere near as compelling as evidence that God created the universe. The people who make that claim are absolutely right. However, it demonstrates the principle that there are things that are not provable using the scientific method.

I have no objections to the use of the scientific method. It is an indespensable tool without which our entire known way of life would be literally immpossible. However, I do object to the claim that it is the only valid source of knowledge. As I pointed out in my first post, the relying on science excluvely for knowledge leaves serveral unanswered questions.

Furthermore, it should be clear that this question of the origins of the universe, and the origin of life specifically can have serious implications. If there is no “creator” (personal or impersonal), then there is no real basis for morality (as Jefferson implies in the Declaration of Independence). On the other hand, if the Christian God (for example) is really the God that Christians claim he is, then that has significant implications for how we live our lives. Based on the possible gravity of these two possibilities (and there could be an infinite number of contrasts depending on the religion you choose for the second example) I must ask another rhetorical question.

Can we really afford to treat this qustion by the scientific method alone?

“They came up with this crap because of all of the controversy over the fact that their precious theory violated every physical law they held dear.”

Firstly, changing your ideas based on the evidence before you is the only rational response. Only those who refuse to alter their idea based on long held dogmas are burying their heads in the sand.

Second, any theory that violates ANY other theory is quickly dismissed. Are you seriously suggesting the entire scientific community is keeping the truth hidden? For what purpose?

“…I am aware of the ‘expansion’ double talk, no matter how you look at it, the theory still violates the laws of physics.”

Riiight. So physicists sit around shooting the breeze, when one of their mates walks in and says he has a crazy idea about a big bang. Everyone in the room says “Wow! That violates everything we know about the universe and its origins! Let’s promote it as the truth so we can do whatever we like.” Are you honestly suggesting this scenario is plausible?

“Since matter and energy cannot be created, where did all of the matter come from to ‘provide’ for this expansion?”

The big bang makes no comment about where the matter came from - just that it expanded. As you have pointed out, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it stands to reason that the matter in this universe was all present at and before the big bang.

“All science does with theories like this is create new words.”

New concepts require new words to convey meaning. We have a much larger quantum of words today that we did 500 or 1,000 years ago. That is the nature of progress.

“It has no evidence, no substance, no truthfulness, and no facts to back them up.”

So you say.

“Whenever they are questioned about this, some ‘theoreticist’ creates a ‘bigger’ word. All this does is buy some time while the real scientists look into what is being said. Then there is a mad dash to create and even bigger word and buy more time.”

Urgh.

“Two examples: Evolution became Punctuated Equilibrium”

Not quite. PE challenged evolution as a better explanation of the data we see before us. It lost when no supporting evidence for PE could be found.

“Bang became expansion”

Most people equate “bang” with an explosion, which it was not. Expansion is a more accurate term. Is it wrong to try and clarify matters?

“Im sure I will really be impressed when they supercede Punctuated Equilibrium.”

Let me get this right. You believe that nothing happens for a long time because everything is in perfect balance. Then, for reasons unknown, everything suddenly changes to a new perfectly balanced system. New species come into being, old ones die, the geographic spread changes, the populations shift, etc - all on a whim. You honestly think that this is a much better explanation than the gradual change over time combined with competition for limited resources?

Askegg”

In your initial question you asked if your standards are too high requesting some sort of scientific ‘evidence’ for the support of a God.  Let me ask you this question!  Since science ‘demands’ that everything goes through its rigorous authentication, why is it that the Big Bang Theory is immune?  Science made the laws according to which everything else is to be ‘judged’; tell me how these Big Bang assertions passed?

2nd law of thermodynamics says basically that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang says that everything that existed before the Big Bang came from an infinitesimal point of matter, about the size of a hydrogen nucleus. Since matter cannot be created, where did all of the matter come from that created the estimated 100-200 billion stars (and subsequent solar systems) come from?

1st law of thermodynamics basically says that matter, in its existing state, cannot change unless acted upon by an outside source. However, the Big Bang says that this infinitesimal speck of matter, that contained all of the existing matter and energy that ever existed, somehow “exploded”, eventually becoming all of the stars, planets and galaxies in our Universe. Since there was no available energy outside of this speck, what acted upon it to cause it to explode?

Another law of science that is broken and unquestioned by the Big Bang theory advocates is the law of inertia. Basically it says: “An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”
What unbalanced force caused all of this exploding debris to start circling stars and become solar systems and galaxies in our Universe? And how did this unbalanced force cause them to be so organized in nature?

Another problem with the unquestioned Big Bang Theory is that Einstein showed that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. The closer an object gets to traveling to the speed of light, the denser it becomes and it warps time causing it to slow down. How then did the Universe, during the 1st billionth of a second, expand so fast that we are able to look through the Hubble and see what the Universe looked like 2 billion light years ago?

Unlike you, I don’t require an elaborate experiment, just an intelligible answer!

First of all you cannot run a test to find out that God exists because he is not in this universe. Second of all humans cannot even find any life in the Universe and there are more than 70 sextillion, or 7 times 10^21 stars in the observable universe alone. If humans cannot even find life in our universe how can they find God outside of our universe? So are you saying that since humans have not found extraterrestial life, then extraterrestial life does not exist? Our telescopes are not large enough to spot life in different galaxies or even in our galaxy around other stars. Our spacships aren’t fast enough for intergalactic or even interstellar travel. It would take 100,000 years even to reach the closest star to look for life around extrasolar planets, with our current technology. So, just because humans lack the advancement to seek out extrateresstial life that does not mean it doesn’t exist. Humans have no way to test if there is life anywhere in the Universe. Do you think humans can find life 156 billion light years away? That’s a lower estimate of the diameter of the universe. If they can’t even do this how can they spot God outside the universe. You cannot run a test to even see if there is life besides us, in the Milky Way galaxy which is a mere 1,000 light years thick and 100,000 light years wide. If humans lack the advancement and technology to run even a very simple test like this, then how will they run a test to see if God exists which would be infinitely harder?

BBB, * “There is no Anti-christ there is no Satan.! That’s just a story people tell their kids to make them go to sleep.”

So you DO think it’s reasonable to summarily dismiss outlandish unprovable ideas after all. Since you’ve already admitted god is unprovable, you’re only 1 step away from being an atheist.

No offense, Silverwings, but I really get tired of people saying that I’m an atheist because I don’t want to be accountable. Personal responsibility is very important to me and I strive to live a moral life. Why are people amazed when we get so angry?

I AM GOD.

There! Now there are 2 gods :)

Seriously - is that a real argument you are putting forward? Does someone have to claim to be a god before they can even be considered one? Does claiming you are a god, prove you are a god? No.

Who the f*ck is Satan? Is he from some kind of fairy tale? There is no Anti-christ there is no Satan.! That’s just a story people tell their kids to make them go to sleep.

elone: The Big Bang theory is not immune to examination any more than the rest of science. The common view of what the Big Bang theory says is a misconception, though. The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, starting from a point - it was the expansion of the universe itself. All your objections are explained very well here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

It’s unfortunate that the Big Bang isn’t easy to explain to a layperson (I count myself as one too), but that doesn’t affect the validity of the theory.

Non overlapping magisteria?

While I partly (mostly?) agree with you, I should point out that a creator might have left some indications of creation. These fingerprints certainly fall under the scrutiny of science.

Moreover, in order to establish the “why”, you must first establish that there indeed needs to be a “why”.

Your basic assumption is faulty. Science deals in testable, and falsifiable suppositions. Religion deals in faith and absolute, inflexible beliefs. One can believe in both at once because they cover two different areas of our human experience; simply put the HOW and the WHY.

Elone, yeah right, physic scientist forgot all about that. thermodynamics, is the level we are at. The Big Bang conforms to quantum level.

bbb, you’re right about extraterrestrial life, That doesn’t mean a myth made up by humans is real. God is an entity of extremely low probability.

The universe has precis properties we should expect if there is no planned design, and no purpose.

Silverwings lives in a fantasy world where she doesn’t have to look for answers anywhere, except from a book writen and compiled by supersticious men 1700 years ago. She thinks that science and seeking more knowledge is the devils work. But she has no problem using science (computers and the internet) to come on here and spread her propaganda.

Well the Universe has not existed forever, if it did then we wouldn’t be able to see more than 13.7 billion light years away. The way I would prove this is that during Inflation the Universe expanded about a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, Quattourdecillion times faster than the speed of light, which is the fastest known natural speed in the universe. Thus since Science cannot find anything that can travel a Quattordecillion times faster than the speed of light they cannot explain inflation. Since they cannot explain inflation there Big Bang Theory is flawed and only a Supernatural force like God could have created Inflation since He is the only one who could make matter travel a Quattordecillion times faster than light.

I should point out that a creator might have left some indications of creation.

He did, the evidence is all around you. But, man chooses to explain away everything. If he did not, then, he would be accountable. He does not choose to be accountable to anyone, except himself.

Satan provided the theory of evolution, and this is what man chooses to believe in, simply because he does not want to be accountable.

However, that is not going to be an adequate excuse.

“Well the Universe has not existed forever, if it did then we wouldn’t be able to see more than 13.7 billion light years away”

No - it’s been 13.7 billion years since the big bang. No one knows what was before that. There may be higher dimensions (some say up to 11), there may be multi-verses, we may be going in some kind of cycle. Who knows? One thing is for sure - there is no clear path directly to a creator, let alone any one deity in-particular.

“He is the only one who could make matter travel a Quattordecillion times faster than light.”

I don’t suppose you can actually prove that? I suspect not, so it’s really just a statement of belief, not fact.

In response to arachnid:

This is the definition of science as I understand it. It employed controlled, repeatable experiments in order to empirically observe natural phenomena in order to draw conclusions about the causes and working processes of those various phenomena. I understand and respect the work of this type of study, and I welcome many of the advances that come from it. This type of knowledge has a prominent place among all knowledge and reasoning of human experience thus far and rightly so.

However, there are certain limitations regarding the types of things that can be studied via the controlled, repeated experiment (I.e. the scientific method). Because of these limitations, scientists gather as much data as they can about certain phenomena, and synthesize the information that they know and things that may be supposed; the end result is known as scientific theory. Unlike scientific laws which are unveiled and proven via the scientific method, theories are not absolute, and can be changed. This mutability is both necessary and reasonable as askegg noted above. Not everything can be proven via the scientific method, but intelligent and reasonable people still think about those things because they intriguing, and in some cases, they are necessary.

Based on this definition, we can conclude that science answers fundamental questions about how and things work and why things are the way they are. However, it is beyond the purview of science to determine the way that things “should” be. It cannot determine right and wrong as such, because that determination is not within the bounds of its definition.

You have said that there are areas of knowledge that science has not yet explored. I submit to you that there are areas of knowledge and reason that it cannot explain, because they require elements of reason beyond those that are merely quantifiable. At the same time, I assert that both the asking and the answering of such questions are absolutely essential for the reasonable and responsible governing of peoples. In order to governments to pass laws that are “necessary and proper for the execution of … [their] powers,” then they need to have a standard to judge necessity and propriety (US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, pp. 18). I contend that that standard is outside the realm of scientific reasoning.

Regardless of what set of ethics a government or a people adopts (religious or otherwise), it must adopt something. At some point that government of people will have to decide what is right and wrong in order to determine the proper course of action. The point I am trying to make is that there has be a right and wrong. If there is no such thing as the right thing to do, then presumably a government has no business doing anything. On the other hand if nothing is wrong, then there is no reason why a government shouldn’t do anything it wants. (This last point is the one of greatest interest to me.)

All these mental gymnastics are fun, but they are off the topic of the question asked. I would like very much to give the examples that I promised askegg, but he has to ask for them (because he’s the one who asked the original question.) If he doesn’t ask, you can start a new question about the role of religion and ethics in government, and I can put them there.

Oh yeah forgot the second part of the question. Well nobody but Krishna has ever claimed to be God, so there are no other Gods.

good response jimahl. I have noticed that silverwings doesn’t answer any question unless she can respond with her propaganda. ‘satan provided the theory of evolution.’ and don’t forget satan gave us the easter bunny and santa. lol. silverwings. you slay me.

Science? Big Dumb Theory? What have Science with believe in God to do? U think u are so Smart to understand God and his power and intelligence? So u measure with God? And u want to prove that God Exist,so i if know that God Exist is that not knowledge and has nothing to do with believe?

Knowledge and Believe are not same,Science and Faith is not same!

You don`t believe in God so u search Answers in Science,so why u want to proof God if u don´t believe in God? Your Question is Your Answer:What would I require to “believe” in God? BELIEVE! TRUST! FAITH! You search Answers in Science? You don´t believe u want to know! You think we are so intelligent so we can Understand God? We are the same Barbarian People like over 2000 thousand years ago and worst thanks Science we own now nuclear Bombs and Thanks Science is the World today so like it is. Believe or not in your Big Dump Theory,don´t proof God cause Your Theory makes you not believe in God,don´t measure with “God” cause u are “Human” living in this World and cant Imagine God,that´s why its call it Believe or Faith! Read The Bibel and compare the events that was happen and will be,its the best and only truth and science book that exist. You can find your proof there and where the World is now. God Bless You!

You should Ask or I m asking You:Why some People are Evil and others are Good? Explain that with Your Science,and u get the Answer on Your Topic question,i m sure that Your Science has no Answer!

Science=Power,Weapons,Cash…..give that all together to Human=Beast=Destruction! Facts from the Past,proofed many times.

Believing in Big Bang Theory makes u not sad? When u think about this that when u die u don´t exist anymore must be very sad or not? U are gone,death forever.

Such People must be very scary when the last Hour of life will come,or? They dieing without hope. U don´t think that Your Science Theory makes u looking poor and Sad?

I hope for u the best,and i hope your faith to Good will rise so u can also Die with Hope and not Poor and Scary.

Wish u all Best.

Bye!

PS:I will not respond anymore cause i think there is nothing more to Discuss.

I wish i could respond to that forum,so my responds are for all BBT Scientists.

Same stupid Theory like Darwin´s Evolution Theory,millions of people dies in India and Afrika cause of his Theory,cause it was just a Theory,right?

I declare that kind of people for Psychotic and no link to reality!