Humans share genetics with all other living things because we and it were all created from the dust of the earth, which came from the water. It is clear as mud (pun intended). Genesis 1:2 KJV And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 2:7 KJV And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; Genesis 1:2 KJV And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Science steals credit for what God's Word plainly teaches.
God has nothing to do with science what is this man talking about If science looks into religion you find out it’s not real science is about proof not fantasy
@@ldho4027 No it does not. The single sentence contains 2 different ideas that are not in conflict. It is impossible for them to conflict. Watch the play on words for your answer. Does pronouncing ice-cream as your favorite desert conflict with hating the rain? Think on that carefully.
tell that masses that god is real, a large majority will agree without doubt. Tell them that paint on a chair is dry, they'll touch it first to see before siting down.
@@jeffreypeterson3238 And that's exactly the problem. When someone tells me that the paint is dry i have the means to determine whether it's true or not. I know what the chair is, what paint is, and what it means for paint to be dry. When someone tells me about God I'm required to accept several unfalsifiable claims about the 'supernatural' and 'spiritual'.
@@ToriAdventures yes that's because science can't prove metaphysical. Are you sure you can feel the bench? How do you know it's actually there? There is a theory of existence known as immaterialism. It supposes that everything thing around us is an illusion. That the observer has created everything in his mind. Funny thing is, the theory, although improbable, CANNOT be disproven philosophically. So you need to have FAITH that you are experiencing true reality and not some form of hallucination. I'm just doing the same thing with my faith in God.
@@jeffreypeterson3238 Of course you need some amount of faith to assume that the physical world is real, there is no way to disprove solipsism. So we both need to take a leap of faith in that regard. You take another leap of faith when it comes to belief in God. I just don't find any further faith-leaping to be necessary. I have subjectively experienced the world, I've yet to experience the immaterial.
@a Evolution and natural selection have already been proven and still occur today. Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true. 99% of all animal species have gone extinct since the beginning of life. This is a result of trial and error, not "intelligent design".
@a Natural mutations dependent upon an organisms environment, over many generations may help or hurt it's survival. Take humans for example. Our adaptation to walk upright allowed us to utilize our hands and lead to increase brain activity. We then begun using stone for both tools and eventually weapons. Early humans had the running stamina for literally chasing their prey until they literally died of exhaustion. This trait is also present today as healthy humans can easily compete in marathons that most species would die of. What other evidence are you looking for? I could explain evolution in animals as well.
Albert Einstein said this: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.
So he believed that god is the universe and everything is god or a part of god. He wasn't a christian or a particular religion, he just believed that there must have been or is a god.
This is the best parabel I've ever read. He implies and is humbled before intelligent design but he doesn't claim a fundamentalist God. Like Feynman he was willing to accept the mystery of not fully knowing the answers. Einstein liked Spinoza's idea that there isn't a differentiation between Nature and God.
Or Infinite Intelligence in Nature. If you want to call that 'god' then go ahead. "Man created God in an effort to explain Mystery." Physicist Richard Feynman
Atheists don't have to disprove God as they aren't the ones who claim it. The burden of proof is on the religious claimants. Also Atheists can't hate what they don't believe in. What I can say is "I despise all those people who wrote the Bible, Koran, and the Hadith. May they rot in hell, if there was one.
You hit the nail on the head by stating that, "The burden of proof is on the religious claimants." This occurs in science on a daily basis. Theories must be proven to be correct, or at least the best current explanation for particular phenomena. I do not believe in a god, therefore I do not have to prove whether or not a god exists. If a religious person believes in a god, then he or she MUST prove that said god exists by providing publicly verifiable evidence to the existence of this god. Just as a scientist MUST prove by providing publicly verifiable evidence that his or her theory is indeed the best model for particular phenomena.
***** SO the BILLIONS on BILLIONS of believers in the world that would say YES a God exist. wouldn't count toward a fact that god is real and inside mankind. My point being if billions of people believed in anything else in the world with as much confirmation and heart as religion it would be a fact you would have to disprove. Example: Dogs and kittens are cute, most people we can both agree in this world would agree, then john the frog lover come along and says "I think there evil". I would have to come up with proof there cute???? How the hell would I test cuteness, maybe cuteness doesn't exist. No confirmation in numbers is proof. Sorry thats how the world works. A lame example I know, but its late. And what kind of fucking proof do you want for a god? If I gave you a lock of jesus hair carbon dated it to proof it was old enough, you would still call it bunk. What could I possibly give someone, and tell them, hey this is proof of god. ITS NOT REALLY A QUESTION YOUR LOOKING to get answered. Your just trying to end the convo/enquires. Its not a claim its a is, water is blue, cars drive, sun is hot. It not really a open debate. Know you can say all you want you don't believe or do believe in something that's great, and fine. But don't shift the burden of proof when your the minority or crackpot not believing in facts.. That's like saying "the earth is flat" (which people believe) Then getting pictures from space and mathematical formulas showing the earth is round and you still ending the conversation saying. There is no evidence its round, those formulas are bunk. Man im all over the place, Good night. Don't take my comment as a attack, I just like debate questions, Like is god real, is farming humane, is a vegan diet healthy, is space infinite ect. Please its all in good fun and not personal.
Adrian is right. If you're in a study group and you come upon a question where 4 out of 5 of you choose c and the 1 person chooses answer a, you don't fo around asking each of of the 4 to why they chose c. You ask the 1 person why they chose a. So it's according to the demographics, since the majority of people are affiliated with a religon, the minority (atheists) must 100% disprove the option of religon. And that my friends, is impossible.
Aaron Anderson It would all depend where the study group is held. If it was held in China and India it would be 10/1 against belief in God (I take it we are all speaking of Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, and are either Jewish, Muslim, or Christian.) About 3.6 billion are claimed (I say "claimed", as my church would claim I am a Christian as I was Christened, but I am an Atheist) to believe in God. So your "4 out of 5" argument doesn't wash. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
3 things to I've learned through life about beliefs: 1: believe in what you want to believe because you want to not because someone said too 2: dont judge others about thier beliefs 3: dont push yours onto someone else Edit: i changed the first one because it made no sense
@@andrewgriffin5037 Evangelical religion to be precise. Most believers DO respect points 2 and 3 and form the so called Silent Majority. Sadly, their very silence allows the loony literalists to falsely claim their tacit support.
I am a Christian but I immediately like this scientist. He is very educated, tolerant, and peaceful. He also clearly understands that science cannot answer everything; just the ones enfolded logic and empirical thought.
Exactly my point science can’t explain everything that’s why God is God, there’s a limit to what we humans can know,we can’t know everything because if we do then Gof won’t be so superior after all, for example there’s alot of things a teacher knows that the student will never know and the minute the student gets to know what the teacher knows then the teacher won’t have to be so superior to d student even humans don’t want the next guy close to them to know all they know one must be superior that’s how things work, scientists are humans and there’s a limit to the things humans can know
@@carpo719because a scientist can only arrive at a conclusion based on the best available evidence. The religious need (and have) zero evidence, just belief.
This has nothing to do with having anything to prove. This is about people having faith, which itself is a threat to science because science requires evidence. Scientists can't take anything on faith.
AllCanadiaReject Here you're obviously talking about controlling others' ideas, which is deadly backward, because having faith has nothing to do with doing science, therefore you have nothing to do with anyone's faith. The really biggest problem with atheists is with this mentality which appears in the speech of many popular atheists, such as Dawkins, while they pretend not to intrude anyone's personal beliefs. And if you're going to argue that some believers do so, I'll say that we all know that they're wrong, if they're the ones who started it, and the majority don't intrude themselves into anything like that.
StraightAhead135 Granted, I should have said "this is about SCIENTISTS having faith" which is absolutely wrong. A scientist can not have faith and still call themselves a scientists. If they are going to take something on faith, such as an invisible sky wizard, then what else are they going to take on faith? It's only because some scientists have faith that creationism is still around and people believe in it. We can not have faith in science. Faith is a threat to science.
AllCanadiaReject Scientists are absolutely free to have faith wherever they want, as long as it doesn't effect the scientific credibility of their theses. Do you assume that having faith directly affects the scientific process? I think that's absolutely wrong and illogical. Scientists' faith is a personal issue. If I believe in God, that won't in any way make any obstacle to discover laws of motion or the human genome, and I think you know these two examples and who managed them or at least contributed to them remarkably.
Physics? Why physics? I'm just saying that I disagree with him on the question of the existence of a god. He says he's experienced or observed evidence of the existence of god. I have not, and my life and morals function perfectly well without the assumption. That's all.
Well, isn't this interesting. For obvious reasons, I can't answer on behalf of all non-believers, just as you can't respond to any challenges I make on behalf of all believers. I speak only for myself. I don't know why you think atheists "can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited". Not only do I not see a reason to assume that the chain of causality could not in principle extend infinitely in the past (a view that I do not share with many of my fellow non-believers, mind you), but the evidence for the Big Bang makes the beginning of space-time and all matter and energy a near certainty in my mind. Your entire post seems hinged on the idea that both believers and non-believers are tied to some form of the eternal, and I simply contradict you on that point, unless by eternal you mean something other than existing forever in the past and future. In fact, now that I think about it, your first few sentences make no sense. Even if atheists at large DID in fact agree that causality cannot extend into the past eternally, wouldn't accepting the eternality of matter be akin to saying that material causes extend into the past eternally, contradicting the first statement? Where did you get the idea that that is A) the predominant view of atheists? and B) a logical step to take? "Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence." This bit confused me, likely because I am quite tired at the moment. Could you please rephrase? I don't want to seem like I'm ducking a challenge, I'm genuinely baffled by what you're talking about.
***** Your definition of eternity is foreign to me, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. And although I'm not sure I completely agree with your definition(s) of matter/energy, I'll grant them as well for the sake of argument. "Eternity is incompatible with the mode of being possessed by matter and the factors and attributes necessitated by its nature." Using **your** definitions, I still don't see why it could not be the case that, in principle, the universe governed by natural laws and consisting of matter and energy existed forever. *That's not the case I stand by*, but I do wish to note a disconnect between the 2 ideas and how they do not necessarily contradict each other. Why could the existence of matter not be immutable and stable in the past and future? But that's small crumbs compared to my bigger problem. Again for the sake of argument, I'll grant you both your apparent contradiction between eternality and mass-energy, AND your defining of god as having the traits consistent with your idea of eternity. Just because you can imagine and/or define a god with this trait, how does that prove he exists? As I said before, nothing in my life has ever given me reason to think that there was an immutable intelligence lurking behind the facade of the universe. Until I see any evidence leaning one way or another, Allah, Yahweh, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Mithra, Shiva, and numerous other potential gods are as unlikely as any other, which is to say, quite.
***** I had a very long response typed out and before I could submit it, the whole thing disappeared. I'm now pretty frustrated. I'll try to cover the points I did before I lost the post. You keep strawmanning my position, so I'm going to drop any attempts to argue for the potential eternality of matter. You seem to be taking my attempts to play devil's advocate against your points about an eternal universe *even though that is not my position at all* as my position, so I'm just going to state my views. Small point before I move on: you seem to be trying to suggest that "non-beings" are a thing in the universe, which is impossible by definition. Most atheists, I would think, *do not try to claim that the universe is eternal.* As I said before, the evidence for the Big Bang is too thorough and convincing. Because I do not hold the view that the universe or matter are eternal, I am not even going to attempt to answer your first challenge (that "an eternal being [would] be subject to change and cessation, which is impossible.". It does not represent my view and I don't have an answer to the question. The second challenge is also not a response to my actual position, but I do want to comment on it and the final question. "Second, if the elements comprising the energy/matter/universe/natural forces/ etc are eternal by virtue of their essence, how is it possible that they should enter the *embrace of death* and disappearance? And if, conversely, they lack life in their essences, how can life *surge forth* from them?" I bolded the words that really caught my eye. Are you suggesting that matter itself is alive? Because that's not how life works. Death can only be experienced by something that is alive. Therefore whether or not individual atoms and molecules can "die" is dependent on our definition of life. From a scientific perspective, life is simply a self-organizational and self-replicating configuration of matter. From this we can see that individual particles cannot die because they do not have life. Also, more importantly, life does not "surge forth" from matter, because life is not like water soaked into a sponge: you can't just squeeze the life out of matter. Here's an analogy. Would you say that circuits "surge forth" from wires? No, of course not. You can take wires and arrange them into a circuit, because wires are the component parts of circuit. A "circuit" is just the word we use to describe a certain observable pattern of wires. Life is another such pattern, only its component parts are molecules. I wanna end on this: you use a lot of words like "cessation," "essence," etc and you have already defined "eternity" and "matter/energy" in some pretty unusual ways. These terms have very specific scientific meanings, and by pulling them out of those contexts you're making the terms very vague. Please define the terms you use before you use them.
The problem between religion and science, on US at least, is that none know their place, starting in schools: Science should have their place on science classes (physic, biology, chemistry, etc...); God should be debated on Philosophy classes. And that's all. Good video, by the way, but the title should be ''Why It's So Hard for Some Scientists to Believe in God'' because those who believe are no less scientists than the ones who dont. Religion doesn't explain nature and science doesn't explain belief.
Eric Masters The problem is that Science never make religious claims, but Religion makes Scientific claims that are demonstrably wrong and they try to impose this on schools and the rest of us.
The reason it's titled the way it is is because if you believe in something that inherently makes you biased toward everything you view makes you, inherently, not a scientist.
Marius Gulbrandsen "Science never makes religious claims" Really? Haven't you ever heard of Dawkins? In his books he clearly tries to make some religous conclusions on the basis of biology. And looking at the world with the paradigm of the existence of God is no more biased then looking at it with the paradigm of His non-existence. I wholeheartedly agree with Eric Masters. I, myself, live in Poland, where the vast majority is catholic and here we have very little extremists from both sides: no creationists demanding introdiucing "intelligent project" to school programmes, and no crazy scientists mocking religious people, bousting that they proved that "there's probably no God". Those who want can attend religion classes where the matters of religion are discussed. So maybe this whole craze about evolution and God is just U.S. stuff :)) Nevertheless I thik that science is recently getting more and more dogmatic. For example the research on the origins of life seem to be no longer interesting. Biologists and chemists be like: "who cares how exactely this whole RNA and proteins thing get started... Probably just a matter of a really long period making it probable..." Seriously? You call that scientific approach? Why not to try to make it happen one more time in something that is called EXPERIMENT. Or if it should take too much time or money - just show calculations proving it could happen with a decent degree of probability. From what I know (I may be wrog - I'm not God) there is no such study. Because no one figured out a mechanism probable enough. To clarify: I don't consider it to be the proof of God's existence, I merely wanted to point out that some scientists start to resemble fundamentalists they despise so much.
Abbot Gregor Mendel (1822-84), Augustinian friar and founder of genetics. Together with Darwin, he laid the groundwork for the study of life sciences in the twentieth century.
I agree that great scientists can be religious; it a measurable quantifiable fact (and I say that as a non-beliver). My suggestion however, is adding at the very end to "religion doesn't explain nature and science doesn't explain belief" is "...yet ! " :)
I am a christian...for now. But there is a couple of things we all need to understand. Just like how athiest say, the only reason we believe in God is because "its all just in our head" or "its just faith not reality" well you also need faith and it could all just be in your head to believe God ISNT real. Nobody should have the audacity to come up to me and tell me he isnt. So to make it fare, we shouldnt go up to you and tell you he is. Therefore, stop mentally harrassing each other and lets all move on with life. But let me break this up to you. Believing in God is a little more wiser than to not believe in him. Yes we are not fully sure if hes there, but the tons of evidence we have is undeniable, yes there a very good possibility of him being real, theres very small chances he isnt. My point here is, stop fighting if the only thing you can answer is "idk". We have a lot of proof and evidence that is completely undeniable. I have one last thing to say, if your so sure our God is "fake" then why fight against us ignorant people. Whats your purpose on trying to contradict religion. JUST MOVE ON WITH LIFE. Athiest dont only ruin your thoughts by making you doubt in God, they just do it the wrong way and without conciusness because they DONT KNOW either! LMAOOO
why is it in youtube, when someone says they believe in a god, they just get hate by buthurt people? its like they dont like his opinion or something but go out of their way to ignore his reason why.
ravenboy99 First of all thank you for standing up for atheists in your previous comment. Secondly, this is the internet, everything can be said without any consequences (well almost everything). Also, believing in an abrahamic god, e.g. a god that can actually do stuff and intervene in our everyday life, is kinda ignorant; this is because of our indifferent universe, we're a speck of dust in it, there are things out there that can instantly wipe us out. When you (not you personally) read the facts and what we managed to get a glimpse of, so far, you clearly see how religions where made in the name of money (manipulation of the masses) and definitely not for the well being of all humans. Thing is, there are bad people that are atheists and bad people that are theists, both being equally toxic to society. I think these are the "lowest form of humans": people that live above others, and not alongside.
LOL. When you grow up and stop hiding behind silly made-up childish names you might be able to understand the fact that no-one has ever found life outside our immediate bit of the solar system.
spantzas saptnas "First of all thank you for standing up for atheists in your previous comment. " No problom, happy to do it. even though im just agnostic, but i disagree with the rest of your comment *a bit*, but im not in the mood for a internet debate, sorry. but i'll leave answering this " so far, you clearly see how religions where made in the name of money (manipulation of the masses)" Thats more to do with Abrahamic religions then any other I know of, what of buddhism? the prosper of money is wortheless to them, so is sikh and hindu, basically eastern religions teach immaterial needs are of useful while western teachs immaterial needs are necessary, thats what i learned. heck christianity started out only wanting to be prepaired for a coming apocalpse but still wanting to be virtous as possble (hospitality, pacifism, alms giving, etc.) its just power that grew the greed, and they got roman empire powerful, so they lost their touch of living meek.
"Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God?" It is hard to believe in something that has not been adequately defined and cannot be tested in a laboratory. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to NOT believe your own experiences (and call it/them "God").
While I respect Francis Collins as a great scientist, I think his perspective on religion is a bit misguided. If religion is a method to obtain truth, then mere wishful thinking and making things up out of thin air should also be considered as a means to obtain truth. Religion is not a means to obtain truth. Religion only pretends to be a truth seeking tool. If we grant what Francis Collins suggests, which is that science cannot answer the important "why questions" like why is there something rather than nothing, merely making up comforting answers, like a celestial omnipotent being desires creatures to love, is not an answer. If science can't answer the question, it does not mean, by default, that religion can answer those questions.
Some few things to think about... Buddha was made into a god by the Asians, even though he himself stressed he was not... i am Asian by the way... Akhenaten changed Egypt forever bringing up the "one god" idea, and had an elongated head, much like an alien... many people have whole-heartedly gone through every religion and have said that Christianity is the highest "righteousness"
I like this question and I like your views on it. I also believe that because our society likes to complicate so many things, we fail to see the simplicity of lifes so-called mysteries. For instance, "Why are we here?", "What's our purpose?". I think we're here to simply LIVE in as much harmony as possible, with the LIFE around us. Our purpose is to experience and support the ongoing cycle of life, with as much harmony as possible. Secondly, I find it ridiculously egotistical to think that a "Creator" made us so we can feed he's ego even more, by making rules that would possibly condemn you to suffer eternity for not praising him or using his name in vain or working on the sabbath day....etc...How vicious and cruel, is that? Survival can be sometimes vicious and cruel, but not always. It serves as motivation to live in harmony with some pleasurable and comfortable benefits, as well as a sense of belonging, which is a connection with the life around you.
It is a FAITH. It doesn't have to be true to everyone. Just cuz atheists think that an unproven being is questionable, doesn't mean that Christians should get offended, everyone was raised with different ethical values
Eunice Linares When those “ethical” values tell you to kill those who are not like you or believe in different ideals, that’s when religion becomes a problem. It’s okay to think what you think, just don’t make it law.
@@israelcastelan4012 im not making it a law, and what kind of "ethical" values make you kill. If you know what ethical means, and have a clear sense of morality, you should be able to navigate this world smoothly. Also when you think you are better than others enough to kill them, you already know since the person thought they were better, they are not bright
Eunice Linares The Crusades justifies killing in the name of God. It was okay to kill the canaanites and ameklamites and any other people in the name of God. Stone cheating women and many more. The argument is always used that religion is the center of morality.
@@israelcastelan4012 if religion was the bases of morality, then governments like the U.S would be useless, but the reason they are a very succesful country is because their forefathers understood that you dont need religion to make the right choices. Also you are contradicting yourself since you said it was wrong for your "ideals" to make you kill
Eunice Linares I didn’t understand that last part but that’s my point. I agree with you. I’m saying that people claim that if you don’t have religion then you don’t have morality.
Believing something without evidence is only harmful. People 'believe in' science because science provides evidence. Your belief of science has no bearing on its accuracy. If someone believes something in science, sometimes, you don't have the absolute proof but you look. Then, others will review your findings and find the absolute truth.
Empirical science can't provide any normative observations. Simple as that. You have to start with normative, baseless assumptions about what we "ought" to do and science will help you find the best way to do it.
Jeffrey Li The problem with math and science is the approach we take. Now we try to use the rules of the Universe, that we can see, to define what happens to things we cannot see. To solve this problem we must figure out what is at the base of everything and build up.
There are a lot of skeptical claims in your statement, but even if we assume that we can reduce everything to axiomatic events then we'd only have a description of how the Universe works, not why it works. Where is the meaning in such a model?
You have faith that we can find meaning once we know the basics, it's not something that has been scientifically proven, or even can be proven using science. In other words, your normative assumption is that there is a base and that it will lead to meaning
I don't think "faith" does anything to answer the questions: Why am I here?... Why is there something instead of nothing?. I think those actually are scientific questions. A scientific question doesn't necessarily mean that there has been an answer to the question. How can faith answer those questions, I mean actually answer them? And yes, the video is correct; science actually does do damage to the validity of many religions. For example, we know via science that there was no Adam and Eve, at least in the literal sense.
Yeah, the last time I heard the question, Why is there something instead of nothing?, the question came with an answer: God. And that was followed by my being told that the Quran is the word of that god.
Religion provides answers, but they are baseless answers. Once upon a time the question might have been, Why does that person having convulsions? And the religious answer was, "Satan has entered his body." Science came along and we now know it was an epileptic seizure.
Yeahh I used to live in haiti not the most scientific or modern ace and each time somebody had a seizure people were saying ohh the devil or someshit and just standing their and watching or doing some fake take the devil out of him shit
We don't need anything other than science to pursue human curiosity. What is dark matter? We don't know. So just because we don't have a scientific explanation for what it is, or any way to even begin studying it, doesn't mean we won't. If humans have a reason for being here then it will be discovered some day, but until that day we are just slaves stuck on this small unimportant rock in the middle of the universe.
Really? Show me the proof that we don't have a reason. As of right now I don't think humans have a purpose. But that doesn't mean that someday we won't find out if we do or not. We are here because of randomness (as far as we can prove) and maybe that's all there is, but maybe not. We may never know for sure.
'Why are we all here? Why is there something rather than nothing?' How can language be used in such a way as to have meaning rather than just as a string of mere words meant to convince others we are wise?
The universe does not owe you an answer as to why we are here it's a stupid question, or what's the meaning of life. The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be, is the meaning of life same for everyone? I don't think so and I hope not.
Evi W lol. You did wach the video, right? What is it exactly that makes the question stupid? Its difficulty, perhaps? Hardly a reason to dismiss it entirely.
Is the meaning of life same for everyone? I hope it is. And that this life goal for everybody is to love each other. Because if one assume he can just pick the meaning for his life as he wants, he could end up with some very nasty ideas, like: I will please myself regardless other people suffering. Would you say he found the right meaning of life? Of course the society may stop him but it doesn't always happen, does it? Sometimes other people start to share this evil person's belief and support him hoping to get something out of it. This scenario has already happend many times. So i think this question is crucial.
That's one way to look at it. The other is that faith without evidence doesn't exist. (Since the universe operates on logical axioms, it would be impossible to have an unfounded belief in a strictly mechanical universe.) Ergo, the elements of any belief which is in your mind was put there by observable evidence. And then you have Descarte's ontological proof.
For something to be scientifically proven the evidence has to be objective, not subjective. The evidence has to come from the external world and be up for testing and confirming. Faith is not evidence for something itself because people have faith in contradicting things. (faith that Christianity is right vs faith that Islam is right)
I agree that faith as an abstract concept is not necessarily in conflict with science. However, when we apply this idea to the real world, what actually matters is the compatibility between science and specific faiths, not faith as an abstract concept. When you consider individual real world religions, you will find none is compatible with science.
The reason for the incompatibility is prob because knowledge (science) is what causes sin and most religions are against sin, thats why they try their best to exclude Science and because of that, most of the religions make no absolute sense when compared to the real world that depends on Science itself.
heres some Biblical Facts for anyone who is interested. Also, remember that 2nd Timothy 3:16 states that " All Scripture Is God Breathed" and so,. here 1. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7) affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true - “He hangs the earth on nothing.” 2. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3) Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. 3. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15) Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago. 4. When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13) For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water. 5. Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-15) Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste. 6. Oceans contain springs (Jobs 38:16) The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors! 7. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6) Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea. 8. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17) Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalms 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator’s presence - “in Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalms 16:11) 9. Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17: 11,14) Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function. 10. The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24) The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe - namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change. 11. Noble behavior understood (John 15:13 ; Romans 5:7-8) The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest. 12. Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7 ; 3:19)Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements - all of which are found in the earth. 13. The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2 :1-2) The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as God said way back in Genesis. 14. The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3) Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence. 15. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1 ; Hebrews 1:10-12) Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct. 16. The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22) At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical. 17. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36) Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. 18. Light can be divided (Job 38:24) Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago - God declared this four millennia ago! 19. Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8) Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury - the father of oceanography - after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas. 20. Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5) God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21 :22-23) Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen
Wow. That must have taken you a while. It took a while to read. So, assuming for the sake of argument that all of that is true, what do you think accounts for atheism? Obstinance? Evil? Atheists pride themselves on being skeptics, not fools. Surely if this were all true and provable there would be a mad rush by atheists to convert. I think that the problem is that non-believers have difficulty accepting evidence that comes only from an ancient book of unknown authorship. They seek corroborating evidence from a neutral source. If you have the time or the inclination to engage on this topic I would dispute some of the assertions you make with only a cursory glance. However there is no point in a discussion in which we simply exchange "yes it is" and "no it's not" arguments.
What is it that tells you all not to accept all this as evidence? What explanation do you have that would explain how the ancients would know ALL of this before we even had the technology to understand?
When you study Science you use text books as affirmation why then is The Bible not refutable for believers to study? Especially when it explains in detail not just how (which again we have come to understand and lines up with this doctine) but it also explains why.
Mary Lokey Considering people believe what even some of the ancients say is fact is scary enough.Considering the bible is written from the inspired word of God,you would think an all knowing all powerful being would have told them to put in his book that in the future things will change.Then again I suppose there is only so much an all knowing all powerful being that created time and space would know.
There should be made a clear distinction between philosophy and religion/theology. I think one could be a scientist and a philosopher, but not a scientist and a true religious person - becouse there is a huge conflict between science and religion of any kind. Faith is not something 'good' per se, quite the contrary. And a philosopher will always admit that he's teory about the world is not complete and will not take things as true based solely on faith.
Faith doesn't allow one to question his religious beliefs. I think philosophy, not religion, allows one to ask 'a different set of questions'. But in philosophy there is always room for error and improvement; in other words, for science.
+atllantiss The other way around. Science is completely built on philosophical beliefs, and scientists with bad philosophy have proven themselves to be absolute morons that happen to be good at math, they're also tasteless and reason why there is shit like "the pale blue dot" around. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has a better model of reality than any scientific view (with the only flaw I can think of is that he gives too much merit to flux) and he wrote that in the 19th century, yet nobody discusses it, why? Scientists have become philosophically retarded, they once weren't. Einstein was a scientist good at philosophy and many scientists before him, they're all remembered as great men OUTSIDE of science. Nobody's going to remember Neil deGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye 40 years later.
***** Science is based on empiricism, rationalism (BOTH PHILOSOPHICAL SUB-BRANCHES YOU DUMBFUCK) and other philosophical presuppositions you stupid piece of shit. Reality is merely what we perceive and science is just another method of questioning, they all fall under philosophy, as do your statements. "backwards day" Here you profess a shit-tier philosophy, the sort of linear-time progress Enlightenment crap that things get only better as time passes and everything in the past is inferior, yet if you were good at critical thinking you'd see that is anything but the case. You're the best evidence that there are so many stupid motherfuckers around who act smart yet don't know shit and should be forced to learn philosophy or be executed, or at least shut the fuck up when your mind is absolute garbage. I know why you hate philosophy, you're one of those scientific fundamentalist who capitalizes the word truth and made a false god out of 'objective reality', existentialists philosophers showed not only the tremendous flaws in such thinking, they also showed how people who adhere to such thinking are weak-willed decadents, which is why there's a trend on philosophy-disparaging nowadays, speaks a lot how weak-minded society has gotten.
+Joe Schmoe See Daniel Dennett. There's a place for philosophy. If it wasn't for Socrates (or Plato, at any rate), science wouldn't have advanced like it did. In fact, the earliest scientists were all philosophers. Philosophy literally refers to a love of knowledge or thinking - every scientist actually should be a philosopher, in the broad sense of the word. Those that are not are bean-counters. I suppose they're needed, but they just supply data - it takes philosophy to actually advance science.
I don´t know if anyone will answer that, but when talking about the "devil's problem" you have to separate intelectual(and debatable problem) from emotional(subjective)
The Devil IS his property. He allows him to roam for now so that humans can make a choice between the two. Don't worry! Hippity hoppity is coming soon!
faith, want to know answers yet too lazy to think too hard about it. faith, excuse why its not crazy to accept something with no evidence like big foot. faith, reason to ignore reason because i'd rather believe what makes me feel good rather than whats more probably. and for those a little more extreme faith, a reason for murder. faith something an all powerful god would not require his loved creation to have, but instead could reveal himself which wouldn't take away our free will.
M X, who is they? And are you aware of how many scientists, proportionately, believe in the God of the Bible? Reality is found in books by Alvin Plantinga & John Polkinghorne regarding science and faith.
@@michaelbrickley2443 those are scientists who hate being such mortal sacks of meat and usually have a past of childhood indoctrination so they hold on to the nonsensical belief in a supreme being who just somehow exists for eternity transcending space and time so they are only half way idiotic 99 percent of you believers are genuinely the dumbest most illogical people on earth
A scientist spends 70 hours a week in his lab, staining cell cultures with different dyes as he tries to uncover the secrets of his physiology, without once considering why he is interested at all. After all, why bother when the earth is nothing but a speck of dust in an infinitely large and ultimately meaningless universe? A philosopher spends 70 hours a week, tortured by this reality, and comes to the only rational conclusion; that we must live as if there is a meaning, even if it does not appear apparent to us.
No offense intended, Religious or scientific beliefs aside, Faith is terrible pathway to truth. A person can believe anything on faith. It leads to vastly different views and independent truths about reality based on personal preference. That might work for religions, but for science there is no room for your preferences or faith claims. Faith is the excuse people give, when they don't have evidence for what they believe. It's not a pathway to truth, Its a pathway to gullibility.
The biggest problems with religion and faith isn't that it they exist, it's that it is permeating to the political and educational sphere without the explicit knowledge that it is not representative of reality as we see it. In other words, people have stopped separating what they want to be true to what is true, thus creating this clash of two fundamentally different processes of thinking. You cannot hammer a nail with a piece of paper, but with religion you can simply look at a hammered nail and claim it was with a piece of paper. The problem becomes when people are homeless awaiting to build a house based on a belief rather than a tool. That's when conflict arises.
SubconsciousGatherer must reason be the only value to perceive the universe? Part of his point was that the scientific method can not explain everything, that there are some things science cannot describe. How do you describe what red looks like to a blind person that has never seen? You can explain and reason on how the eye and the mind perceives the color red scientifically, but how can you explain the experience of seeing the color red?
Another pattern-seeking mammal searching for designs. Creating semantic codes behind cause and effect. The apex of intellectual egocentrism, taking refuge in solipsism and animism. I have a respect for Collins, but he is just wrong here.
Those are scientific questions, because nature was created by that God, as a part of his plan, which is "why we are here'. The reason there is something instead of nothing is because when there was nothing, there was God, and he decided that there would be something.
Yes, I agree with this kind of neutral thinking. Science deals exclusively with the behavior of matter in space-time, which is a very narrow belt within a much wider rainbow of existence. Had our brain evolved either hazardously or deterministically, it could only have done so for survival and reproductive purposes and not for dealing with further realities. On the other hand, the spiritual realm lays outside such materialistic conception of space-time.
No, science deals with _anything_ that can actually be shown to be true or false. If you accept something that can't - at least in principle - be examined by science, then you are simply demonstrating that you don't care about truth in that regard. Which brings up the question - _why_ don't you care whether that belief is true or not?
You are using buzzwords to sound smarter. There is no proof of the spiritual realm. If there was a way to measure, quantify or interact with spirits then it would be in the domain of science.
It's a fallacy to suggest that religious apologists are continually grappling with questions such as 'why am I here' etc. Most are simply slaves to their inherited sacred texts and have no real thirst for truth at all.
Can’t have competing religions; science vs. Spirituality. Science has become its own religion and will brook no competition, like the legacy religions. The weak will always need a crutch to go through life. This is what religion provides to those people who feel they need it.
This is not true. I don’t believe in science, I understand it’s probability. I have evidence- confidence it it’s repeatable outcomes. There are areas that are discoverable and those are where curiosity blooms. Only someone who is religious would put that on science. Science and religion can work together, that’s a fact and documents (see the enlightenment) but at that time religion didn’t seek to dominate and fill the gap that science created. Evolution was widely accepted!
Yes, fair points I wouldn’t argue with. The scientific method is well established method of understanding, no argument there. I was thinking more about some people’s reliance on science as a general concept that has all the answers to everything in the universe. Science does not know everything, contrary to what some people would like to think
1 corinthains 1:18 the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are being destroyed but the power of God for those of us who are being saved it is in scripture: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and I will reject the intelligence of intelligent 1 corinthains 1:22-23 jew ask for signt greeks look for wisdom but we preach christ crucified which sandal to jew and foolishness to gentiles
You better watch out, you better not cry Better not pout, I'm telling you why Santa Claus is comin' to town He's making a list and checking it twice Gonna find out who's naughty and nice Santa Claus is comin' to town He sees you when you're sleepin' He knows when you're a wake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake Oh! You better watch out, you better not cry Better not pout, I'm telling you why Santa Claus is comin' to town. - Santa
We need more scientists like this man. I truly respect his ideas about an intelligence behind this universe. It doesn't mean God controls everything thing on Earth.
ProfessorBorax Exactly what I said. When it comes to science, the worldview of the person interpreting the evidence determines how they interpret it, and one's worldview is based in philosophy, or how one views reality.
Another question I ask especially of artist and of creative people. Why is it so hard for creative people to believe that they could have been created themselves?
Because there's no evidence? Ok you think they should believe they were created by a god? Which one? And if you think everything needs a creator - why is god allowed to be an exception? Why is god allowed to create itself, or allowed to have always existed - but the universe is not allowed? The real answer is they were created by evolution. We know the answers there, evolution is one of the most well backed up theories ever, especially in terms of the diversity of evidence. As for how the universe was created? We know pretty well all things considered after the first fractions of a second of the universe. Again very well backed up. Before that? The answer is simply we don't currently only. That's it. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you get to make up an answer. They're just able to admit that they don't currently know those answers. Why aren't you willing to admit that we just don't know?
Like Einstein, the further back you go the more scientist believed in God. What we are witnessing today is not an issue of science. It is a trend where you better not believe in God when Atheist at uni decide if you get a career or not. All the great scientists were Muslim at one point in time.
Aquinas' arguments are basically "We don;t know how x could have happened, so lets just say god did it" - it's not "scientific" at all. For example, he states that there must be a first cause, but that in itself must be causeless. There's no reason at all why that would have to be "God". Let alone the Hebrew tribal wargod Yahweh that he believed in.
The conflict is really about the boundary of "nature". If your definition of nature includes "everything" then science is all you need because the only kinds of questions that there are to answer are questions about "nature". If you hypothesize that there are things and therefore questions that fall out side of nature that need other tools to approach... well that's a claim. We know that nature is real (the other stuff, not so much). So for me it makes sense to connect all questions back to nature. The questions about God need to connect to what we know about nature if their answers are going to have any actual value. Denying that need to connect back to nature undercuts any utility of pursuing answers to those questions. It all falls apart pretty quickly. Questions about "why" can be seen as questions about causes. That brings them into the realm of the natural and undercuts them getting a special category out side of nature. PS. As humans we know that we have overactive agency detectors that register a lot of harmless false positives. But where do we ever see a "mind" in the absence of a functioning nervous system? Fine tuning arguments aside ... I smell special pleading.
The problem, of course, with the reasoning that science and faith are not incompatible arises as soon as faith becomes a religion based on a text which does not fit facts
I’m a Christian but I love science. I, at first, thought both can coexist but now I don’t really see it. I still believe in Christ but I do question stuff about my religion.
LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR GOD For those of you struggling with the concept of the existence of a CREATOR GOD and who do not want it rammed down your throat with the BLIND FAITH approach of religious fanatics, perhaps this logical line of reasoning will help you make a more informed decision…one not based solely on blind faith alone but based also on the FACTS and the evidence that we do SEE. Speaking as a TRIAL LAWYER of thirty years and accustomed to always relying upon the BEST EVIDENCE, and speaking as an experienced ALT medicine researcher, I have studied the arguments for and against the existence of a CREATOR GOD for many years and from the perspective of various scientific disciplines. There will still be some element of BLIND FAITH involved but this opinion is also based on INCONTROVERTIBLE, UNDENIABLE and IRREFUTABLE FACTS. HERE IS WHAT I MEAN I have examined the EVIDENCE of the complexity of our magnificent DESIGN OF LIFE, and I see a machine with unlimited capacity for self-repair and maintenance and with numerous back-up and FAIL SAFE systems. Our design of life has a HARD DRIVE, a set of detailed programs called DNA and a built in factory which can manufacture materials that we need from scratch. The “ evolutionists “ want me to believe that this just developed by itself? Are they kidding? Instead, based on my observations, and borrowing an expression from my thirty years as a trial lawyer, I came to the conclusion that; From the PREPONDERANCE OF PROOF and on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, it is much more LOGICAL to conclude that our DESIGN OF LIFE is the work of a CREATOR GOD or an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER and the product of an INTENTIONAL design rather then just the result of RANDOM chance and the mere passage of time. For example, when you examine our INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM, one of TWO such systems that we have, the other being the ADAPTIVE immune system, you learn that it takes on average twenty (20) separate and distinct chronological chemical steps, executed in perfect SEQUENCE, to illicit even one immune response. If a major system, like the LYMPH system fails to eliminate lymph fluid in its normal way, it is backed up by a hidden fail-safe system which we are not even aware of and which will kick in and allows LYMPH to excrete through the skin. Recently we discovered another program hidden in our DNA which we were unaware of whereby the body cleanses itself of pathogens and even cancer cells when we go through an extended FAST. This has been dubbed AUTOPHAGY, it has won a NOBEL prize for it’s discoverer, and it raises the prospect that there are other such wonderful programs hidden in our machine which GOD has installed into our hard drive and software which only come into play in emergency and special circumstances and which we have yet to discover. Just look at an anatomy chart of the structure of our MUSCULAR system. You have multiple over-lapping layers of muscles criss-crossing at different levels and at different angles, each pulling in different directions and having a specific action and a role in movement. I want some evolution theorists to explain how the SUPRA-SPINATUS muscle developed according to the principles of conventional “ evolution theory”…evolution theory is sheer and utter NONSENSE. It makes no sense that such a complex DESIGN OF LIFE is merely the result of RANDOM CHANCE. If you said this about any other manifestly magnificent design structure… you would be called BRAIN DEAD. The evolutionists’ THEORY about random chance acting over long periods of time, which is still an UNPROVEN theory, is as ridiculous as the suggestion that if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters long enough then eventually, over a long enough period of time, they would also produce the complete works of SHAKESPEARE ! What do the “evolution” theorists want us to believe? That a bolt of lightening hit a primitive pile of doo-doo four billion years ago…and BINGO…eventually here we are? This is patent NONSENSE and violates plain COMMON SENSE. The MAIN arguments in the theory of EVOLUTION are so fragile and tortured that they can be dismissed with numerous arguments, but this following simple argument is more than enough; If EVOLUTION alone explains our existence then how come APES are still swinging in the trees? There is no valid or convincing answer for this FLAGRANT CONTRADICTION within that “ theory ”. Saying that we “ split “ off from a common ancestor would still not explain why the other ape line did not build skyscrapers before we did. As President Lyndon B. Johnson once said; “ You cannot SUCK and BLOW at the same time”. Either we “evolved” from the more primitive APES or we did not. The fact that APES still exist or that they did not build skyscrapers before we did…cannot be explained by this theory. There are MANY, many more such contradictions, caveats and exceptions pitched by this unfounded theory of evolution but this is enough by itself to discredit it. Finally, my overall message is that; We are no longer primitive camel drivers or sheep herders and we can accept the possibility and probability that the CREATOR GOD is an actual, real and physical being in whose “ image we were made “, as it says, and not just some imaginary, intangible or mystical entity. GOD’S GREAT DESIGN OF LIFE SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED WITH One of the main consequences of this perspective about the origins of our design of life being the work of a CREATOR GOD or INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is that mankind should reconsider the way the mainstream medical community deals with catastrophic illnesses and cancer and the constantly newly emerging pathogens like the COVID-19 virus which has baffled the medical community and paralyzed the entire planet. The obsession with toxic drugs, burning radiation and slashing surgery is a flagrant and INEFFECTIVE failure. We should consider looking for a new and paradigm shift in the way we deal with these diseases and try to explore new ALTERNATIVE sciences which do not interfere with some of the very elements of this design of life that GOD gave us to protect us and eventually look for ways which just provide it with a little help it needs to work at it’s optimal potential. It is mankind’s divine duty and privilege to try to find better ways to deal with these illnesses and cancer and pathogens, like these new viruses, and stop what I call the WANTON SLAUGHTER of so many of GOD’s children of all ages where millions of people die every year because of the current primitive state of knowledge about this design and methods which interfere with it, which should be an embarrassment to our medical community. One such non-intrusive and non-toxic ALT science is that of DR. RAYMOND ROYAL RIFE who back in the 1930’s cured many diseases and killed numerous pathogens and virus using only RADIO FREQUENCY to destroy them. His methods were proven so obviously effective in a controlled clinical trial at USC in 1934 where he cured 16 out of 16 terminally ill patients, 14 with Cancer and 2 with Tuberculosis, that the A.M.A tried to buy shares in his company. When RIFE refused, the A.M.A. banned his method, and prosecuted doctors using it. Unlike other wild and unproven “ conspiracy “ theories about suppressed secret CURES, these groups ended up in a COURT battle where all of this evidence is a matter of public record. Efforts to revive the science of RIFE and his methods have failed to date because they have not EXACTLY duplicated his ORIGINAL work and have not used his original killer frequencies or the other elements of his treatment protocol. This is what we should be exploring along with various forms of OXYGEN therapy, WHICH have also been proven effective…which is an initiative which I am relentlessly working on trying to make into a reality as my way of trying to serve the CREATOR GOD. I hope that these arguments help some of you to finally resolve this issue and to accept the LOGICAL conclusion of the existence of a CREATOR GOD…and if so, then welcome to the team !
Yeah Bruh. If a belief said "It rains because God order it to" and you want to argue by saying "No, it's actually caused by water evaporating and coming down again" It's like saying "The package got to you because i send it" and countering it by "No, it's actually because the atom of the pack travelling from your place to mine" It's completely irrelevant and adds no impact to the result
You made me think of Moorish Spain and early Islamic scientific development where there was a perfect equilibrium between theology which lead to scientific curiosity and innovation in complete Harmony.
The collapse (death) of the Ψ-wave Schrödinger function forces physicists to use the mathematical "renormalization method" to revive the situation. . . . Isn't the "method of renormalization" similar to the "method of reincarnation"? . . . Mathematicians use the "method of renormalization". . . Religious believers use the "method of reincarnation". . . Both believe . . . death is not the end of existence
@@zaxbitterzen2178 Yet there are more deaths made in the name of Science then in faith. A example is the many executions from the Soviet Union and what the Nazis did.
*Welcome to the comment section, most of you clicked on this video, to see the comments. But lets be honest here you knew what was in the comments already.*
Karl Schuch Makes you think believers in the creator aren't offended when unbelievers question God's existence. However atheists are offended when you question Evolution. What are atheists afraid of another world view!
Royal bloodline Russell Duke of Bedford prince I’m pretty sure everything you just said somehow violates your beliefs... christianity is a fairytale. A story to make people feel better. That’s what should always be taught
@@Corzappy atheism is a delusion which no one questions it. Have you ever doubted the non-existence of God? If you are open-minded, then what are your criterias for proving God's existence?
laapache1 if your argument is "God can't be measured by science thus he doesn't exist" then you have a problem my friend. You see, science measures regularities in nature, God would have to exist before those regularities in order to make them, thus God is outside or separate of the regularities he's made. And since science only measures the regularities God is separate from, we can conclude why science can't "measure" or detect God himself.
Allen Law It depends on how meaningful your comment is. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln lived a life of obscurity, believing he had nothing important worth saying. It's always worth commenting because it allows you to find out if you have anything meaningful to share with others. A lot of RU-vidrs start out thinking they won't matter much and then realize they matter to a lot of people... Which goes to show IMO, that each person's value is really defined by the people they interact with, not their own self confidence or ego/identity. Many actors realize this throughout their career... What you mean to yourself is often different than what you mean to others. (Which of course includes your thoughts and feelings)
+Orion Xavier Which then brings us to Leonard's mum comment to penny that most actors value themselves through the eyes of others. Which really made sense to me since Actors' popularity is heavily based on others
I am a christian and i love science, Astronomy would happen to be my favorite. It amazed me when i learned that all elements come from the stars. The more we learn about our universe, the more questions i have but i am not going to put my God in a box.
SprintGlide, modern science was founded by Christians. Newton had a deep faith as did many others. There are more scientists who believe in something but the world is trying to get us to disbelieve. Hmmmm....I wonder why
@@michaelbrickley2443 modern science was founded by a population of Europeans that was forced to be Christian by torture, imprisonment, threat of unemployment, forced exile, and other unethical means. Christianity had a demonstrable hatred of Greek science, philosophy, and democracy, and destroyed priceless Greek writings on these subjects. (Ironically, some of these were preserved during the brief Golden Age of Islam.) After 1000 years of brutal theocracy, Europeans began to revisit and continue the banned work that their forefathers had started around 400 B.C. This was called the Renaissance, i.e. the rebirth of what was alive before the church killed it during the Dark Ages. The very fact that Christians take credit for what they killed off on the European continent, and suppressed for as long as they could is ludicrous.
@@EzerEben False. Many of those scientists were not Catholic, did not live in Europe, or lived after the era of religious intolerance, so the so-called "religious torture" would not apply to them. Also, applying motives or reasons for believing, without evidence, is just grasping for straws. Francis Bacon was Anglican. Einstein was a deist. Newton was an unorthodox religious man who subscribed to Arianism. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic who lived after the era of religious intolerance.
@@christianbarrera4283 I fail to see what's wrong with that. Does it prevent viral load and moisture particulate in aggregate or not? Literally only question you should be asking, alongside preventing holistic infection rates. Data, numbers first.
Was it just to intervene in Libya? Is there a just war and what is it? Science cant tell you, but is "I dont know" a good answer? Propably not. Innocent people die, if we just dont answer. Both secular philosophers and theists dont seem to be stupid when answering relevant questions, that science alone cant answer.
Newton said gravitational waves existed in the 1700s. We found proof in 2015. Scientists were confident that metal eating bacteria existed 100 yrs ago. We found proof in 2020. Christian's better watch their mouths before they try to insert God into everything because Scientists will never give up no matter how much Christians want them too. We might discover what caused the Big Bang in 50 yrs or in 200 yrs or 1million yrs.
@Jaidon Brown Isaac Newton was also an alchemist. He was very smart, but stuff like that shows that even smart people can be incredibly dumb outside of their field. Him believing in God, is not proof of God.
@Bellysniffer The truth isn’t always going to be a happy thing. You cannot refuse the truth just because it doesn’t make you happy. To do so would be childish.
I grew up in a religious family, we went to church 4 days a week if I recall...yet even at 13, I had questions about God, and the Bible that didn't make much sense to me. As I learned more about Physics, and other sciences I realized that my intuition was spot on... However, the more I learned about quantum mechanics, I realized there very well may be a creator, or creators. Not in the Bible sense of God, but considering how things work at the subatomic level one has to believe there is something governing the Universe. Too bad science cannot or will not look deep into consciousness itself as I feel it is the 5th force of the Universe.
Two things. 1) neuroscientists are looking into explaining consciousness and have been for quite some time. Also robotics engineers are as well as they are trying to build artificial intelligence. 2) There are 4 forces of nature because if we were to subtract one than our universe would fall apart immediately. If we were to remove all life from this earth than the universe will still function. There was a time when life did not exist after all, therefore it cannot be a 5th force of nature. But it is a very interesting emergent byproduct.
+felizz happy I would substitute the word "might" for "must", but sure, I'm open to the idea. I just haven't experienced anything compelling enough yet to actually start believing in one.
Why isnt everyone a scientist? you people who drive cabs, work at macdonalds, build homes, save animals from being raped (Im talking about you people who are fully capable and it is within your means) dont you guys find it just so unfathomably interesting? dont you guys wanna help us get closer to the answer? the answer to the biggest question mankind has faced since we existed. "What the fuck is this place!"
There is a fundamental difference between acknowledging that science (as we currently know it) cannot answer certain questions and proposing out of the blue an answer and demanding other people to live their lives in a specific way simply to comfort your proposition. I personally have no issue whatsoever with any religious beliefs that a certain person may have, so long as it does not demand anything of other people. As an early career scientist, I am not convinced by any of the existing religious arguments for the questions that science cannot answer. "We exist because God", or "be nice to other people because God commanded it" is not a sufficient argument for me. I would rather have "I don't currently know why we exist" and "I want to be nice to other people because that's how I'd want to be treated in their shoes" than a blanket appeal to a higher authority. Similarly, with the constants being so 'finely tuned', as someone who's run his share of monte-carlo simulations, it could just be that we are the one in an astronomically large number of universes that happens to have the right constants. Maybe physics will develop to a point where we can intelligently talk about these questions. It's not just shrill attacks on science that leads many scientists to not be religious. Most of them are genuinely not satisfied by the arguments made by existing organized religions.
