emotional

Think of it: Evolution - an algorithmic process. Have you ever encountered an algorithm without a programmer of the algorithm?



Again: the algorithm of evolution; where did it come from? If nowhere, then that's an extraordinary claim and has the burden of proof. More simple, more logical to say evolution was actively programmed from the beginning.



Exactly! The origin of the universe transcends space, time, matter and energy. It is supernatural. That's the definition of God.



Oh, if you feel "god" is such a loaded word then you can use another in its place.

Theism has never been taken seriously by scientists. Science, it seems, exist only to please materialists, atheists, naturalists. There has never been a single scientific finding to support theistic beliefs. For my part, I believe this is because theistic beliefs such as Christianity are mostly wrong. But I don't think they're wrong in everything.

Indeed, I live in a depressing age of science, where, on the one hand, traditional theism has been refuted, and, on the other hand, a more advanced belief of God and afterlife has not yet been proved. Since this is my rotten luck, I have to retreat into faith. But I have hope that future generations will have a new picture, a comforting picture, just as it had been in the Middle Ages, only without the superstition of traditional theism.

Wyz_sub10

It's a process that can be described algorithmically. When programmers design a simulation...say, Sim City...they use an algorithm. That doesn't mean an algorithm dictates the growth and development of real cities, it just means you can use math to simulate the process.

There is no claim, much less an extraordinary one. I'm not claiming it comes from anywhere, which is what you seem to be taking exception to.

If you introduce a programmer, it makes sense that it is one who started a ball rolling with no idea of where it'd end up, and did not intervene to correct any problems arising afterward.

That's possible, of course, but it certainly doesn't fit the description of any god I've heard of.

With the laws in place, the system does not need programming or direction after abiogenesis. Now, you may come back to the question, "who established the laws?" of "where did the laws come from?" or "why are the laws what they are?"

At this point, that question remains unknown - as does the question of whether the laws could have been different, or (more exotically) whether different laws exist for different universes.

But intorducing a "who" simply creates infinite regress. It makes just as much sense to say the universe created itself, as it does to say an eternal being did so. In any case, this is a fascinating question. I have always thought so.

I know. But that definition really means nothing when you consider that everyone applies that definition to "their" god. Plus, once we've established that such transcendence is possible, god becomes superfluous - if you choose to keep him in the equation, it's for reasons other than necessity.



But I can't. Unless you feel that anything that transcends physics is "god". If so, once again, the concept because meaningless because the definition is far too vague and ill-defined.



I can't even accept that you really believe this. You can pretty much close your eyes and point to a book in the library to find one written by or about a theistic scientist. Maybe today that is more true, but even at a place like TalkOrigins.org you will find a high rate of theists among the staunch "evolutionists."



I think this is an incredibly unfair comment. Science doesn't exist to "support atheism". I can't imagine what matter of "scientist" would be concerned with proving the non-existence of god.

All the science being done in healthcare is concerned with improving the quality of life for people. Maybe you consider this materialistic, but I'm not sure what you think science should do.

Medicine helps health. Architecture helps build. These are irrelevant to atheism.

As for supporting theistic beliefs, that is almost impossible, as it lives in the realm of the supernatural, supposedly supported by faith.

But you can bet your life that when whispers of Noah's Ark being found begin to ripple, every theist on t.v. and the Internet proudly displays the banner of science.

In my experience, science is only good for theists when it tells them what they want to hear, whether it's a "lost day in space" or the location of the garden of eden.

Quote:

For my part, I believe this is because theistic beliefs such as Christianity are mostly wrong. But I don't think they're wrong in everything.

But I'll guess that the things you think are right are basically unprovable through scientific means.



I don't think it's depressing. Science, after all, isn't limited to the pusuit of god or solving the "ultimate question." I, for one, am fascinated by medical progress and, as a hobby, by astronomy. You could take these to mean what you will in answering the "ultimate question"...or you can just take these at face value - interesting aspects of humanity.

That's a tall order. The nature of theism is faith and transcendence beyond the physical world. By definition there is only so much science can do to paint a comforting picture.

I suspect that's why most religions got out of the science business hundreds of years ago, and why the Church of Christ Scientist never really took off, even after the scientific revolution, when theism was still the norm.

emotional

I get it.



That's the Deistic God. Though now I'm having doubts about his existence as well.



But they don't use God in their theories.



Apparently Richard Dawkins thinks science exists to banish all gods. Science as a replacement for gods.



"Supported by faith"? You realise this is a contradiction in terms? Faith is no support at all. Something is either supported or taken on faith. The fact that I believe something is no support for its reality. Only evidence is support for the reality of something.



I'm not asking that much. All I ask is support for life after death. Perhaps that's too much to ask as well. It seems to me science is in the direction of portraying the worst picture of life as possible: merciless predation, blind indifference, and a common fate of oblivion for all living creatures. Things just have to be so bad!

Wyz_sub10

It's difficult to separate what one wants to believe from what one is compelled to believe. Most of my high school-early university life was spent trying to rationalize, and find scientific support, for god. I couldn't.

No, but how could they? Many thinking have ascribed certained unexplained phenonmena to god. But you cannot really write an equation that reads"e=mc(god*2)". What "value" does god have?

All you can do, if you believe, is to suggest that god pulls the strings or sets up the rules. You cannot really say "god does this and then that occur."

Dawkins is quite outspoken (some might argue too outspoken). But his scientific writings are scientific writings. I would hardly say his career amounts to lobbying against religion. (although he has been known to do so)

My point is that if he made god the centerpiece of his science, his science would not really be science.

I don't see a contradiction here. "Support" simply means the motivation or impetus to accept something. If I support my wife's decision to do 'x', then I am providing something intabgible, but still something that she can use as an impetus for a decision or action.

No, but you can derive support for something based on teachings or writings or your own gut feeling. The validity of that support may be questionable, but that doesn't mean you don't find it supportive of a position.

In any case, it's semantics.

I think it may be. How could such a thing be measured - if it's not physicial, then it's not physical. If it could be measured or some connection made, it could be argued that the person is not really dead.

I suppose one could receive absolutely clear signials from "beyond", like those frauds on t.v., but for real. But that doesn't happen, so...

I don't see this at all. Science is in the direction of learning more about us and our surroundings, and trying to affect change where possible/desired.

The meaning or value of life has nothing to do with science, but with what we assign to it.

In any case, I don't think "merciless predation" is something either science endorses or society accepts.