sorry just testing this out it wasn't working for me sorry about the kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk lol

Hi Hillingford. This is a very interesting topic that I have already investigated using (ironically enough) philosophy. Since philosophy is about "open questions", or questions that we currently can't answer, and since god is still a question we currently can't answer (either as fact or fiction) then it makes more sense to tackle this question philosophically.

This is an argument I came up with a little while back about science and god and it goes against the idea of keeping god and science away from each other and so far I haven't been able to argue against it. I'll write it in standard form because it's easier to understand it that way and it's good practice for me.

1. If something truly exists than it must be normal for it to exist.

2. If it is normal for something to exist then it must be a part of nature.

3. Therefore: If god exists then it must be a part of nature.

4. Physics is the study of nature.

5. Physics is a scientific discipline.

Therefore: If god exists, it is well within the boundaries of scientific inquiry.

Feel free to criticize this argument if you can. I'd like to make it as strong as possible and to do that, I'll need to hear some criticism.

I agree with these postulations K_R.  Nature should be approached in a holistic way just as medicine should treat the mental, emotional and physical bodies simultaneously. However, with that said, the philosophers and spiritual leaders in our history have claimed that God is more than just it's physical manifestation.

For instance,

With these words, in the guise of God the Father, Shri Krishna claims that His true self is not entirely exhausted by His manifested form. The whole universe may be pervaded by God and manifested as nature, but God still remains as something more.

If one regards and experiences God as the self-creative Universe--as I do--then there is no conflict between science and religion.

Hillingford, tasty topic :3

I think that reality is, by its very nature, unknowable and that all of our experiences are best guesses. Science is uncertain. The term 'God' for me is an extremely vague concept but one that is made up of concepts that we can talk aboot. These concepts we can make decisions on, while the term 'God' is...rather vague. So, we can talk aboot (and try to find out) some 'self-organizing principle of universe' or 'a guiding pattern' or some such...but to call these 'God' is to miss out on potential discussion, to me, too easy.

One of my favourite definitons of science comes from the physicist Niels Bohr, "the unambiguous description of human experience in words of the common language." So, science includes both the objective world and the subjective world.

Good thoughts there, K_R!

On to Neo's riff:

Being agnostic here, does this have to mean 'God' at all? Could it mean precisely what it means and not 'God', whatever that means? Plus then, where does your responsibility lie?

Could it also be that this whole notion of 'God' has been corrupted into meaning something Real 'out there' instead of, perhaps, what it 'really is' or 'was orginally made for', that of 'a set of beliefs and codes that, when followed, has these certain results which we choose to call 'God'''?

Fantasizing aboot a small medium at large,

Inannawhimsey

An interesting philosphy K.R.

1. If something truly exists than it must be normal for it to exist.

What is normal?

A lot of the universe may exist that we may not be aware of due to the limitations of our 5 senses. Does this mean it is normal? Certainly not from our perspective.  However it may be quite normal if we were more knowledgable of how the universe really functions.  If something is not observable by the five senses, or by present scientic instruments, then it does not exist as far as science is concerned.   

I don't agree,  Hillingford,  that science can be  used to disprove the existance of God anymore than it can be used to prove the existance of God, even though some people may attempt to.

Pilgrim

Thanks Pilgrim,

I would say that that's correct. If we can't observe something with our senses or instruments that transcend our senses then we can't say it exists. However, theoretical physicists can get around this by using math. It was a theoretical physicist that calculated the existence of quarks inside of protons and neutrons and eventually, an experimental physicist was able to find them. Another theoretical physicist has calculated that subatomic particles exist in 11 dimensions (8 of which we can't exist in because they are so "curled up" that only things as small as electrons can exist in them) but no experiment has been able to confirm this so it is not accepted as scientific fact. This doesn't mean that it will never be confirmed/denied though. It just means that it can't be right now. So, like the quark, and the 11th dimension, god can (if it exists) be found and quantified (provided we can develop the proper technology to view it, which might also rely on a theoretical physicist calculating what god is).

PS. I should also clarify that by normal, I meant that if god exists, it's not a crazy or supernatural or metaphysical thing. If it exists, why should it be weird for it to exist? It must be a normal thing for it to exist if it does, meaning it is a natural phenominon quantifiable by science.

I do not see science and God at odds with each other, because if God indeed exists supernaturally, God can not/will not be proven or disproven empirically. Different scientists have evaluated their physical surroundings very differently - some suggesting that the absence of God in the natural reveals that there is indeed no God, while others invoke the supernatural from observing the 'fine-tuning, beauty, and order of the universe'. The jurisdiction of science is the tangible, natural realm. The statement "no supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible" isn't able to be tested scientifically. Thus it isn't a scientific finding but rather a philosophical presupposition. Since when does physics become metaphysics?

KR wrote: "If we can't observe something with our senses or instruments that transcend our senses then we can't say it exists."

On the same token, you cannot say it does not exist. If you do, you are taking a leap of faith because it is based on an unprovable assumption. Also, points 1-3 of your argument are problematic because they 'presuppose' that the natural realm is all there is in reality, yet this assumption is unprovable by your own means of the necessity of having to 'prove' the physical.

Galileo Galilei wrote --- I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense experiences [observations] and necessary demonstrations [experiments]; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible.

I don't really have time to be posting this, but as BOTH a scientist and a theologian, I can't help but scream inside when science and religion are pitted against each other by fundamentalists of either camp.

Science can't prove anything to be true, it can only prove hypotheses to be false.  I say that as a scientist.  There is always room for some event to prove that the hypothesis is false, or at least in need of tweeking.  Take Einstein's E=mc².  We now know that it was very close, but there are some correction fators missing that account for relativity.  Sure, we've got a formula that works just perfectly -- for now.  We're still busy both discovering and monkeying around with the universe, so we don't know if or when our current formula will need further correction, or even abandonment in some special circumstance.

Pure science makes no attempt at explaining 'why' something happens.  That, ultimately, is the realm of philosophy and religion.  Science can only answere 'how' questions.  Sure, we can say "Why does the apple fall from the tree", and we can give answers like gravity, or evolutionary answers like if the apple falls it is more likely to be eaten and the seeds spread over a greater distance, increasing the chances of one taking root.  But these are not truly answers to "why".  They are actually answers explaining how it happens, or how it might have come to happen.  "Why" is essentially not a scientifically testable question.

In my experience (scientist friends note: experience is not essentially testable), science attempts to describe HOW God's creation works.  It can not test all questions.  And my experience is further that there is a loving, creative 'presence' that is even more mysterious than our universe.  Some say we have 5 senses.  This is only because they are neglecting the research on things like intuition, quantum holograms, and the scientific findings showing that many forms of prayer have scientifically demonstrable results.  Some people see auras, which are scientifically known to exist (as a matter of fact, you can photograph them).  It is too bad that those whose senses have not recognizably "seen" (detected) the divine, insist that it is not there, and slip into the very fundamentalist thought that they seek to discredit in their religious fundamentalist counterparts.

Wish I had more time.

Blessings to all.

Then you are taking a leap of faith of the same magnitude. If you criticize mine, how can you justify yours?

Points 1-3 are logically valid. I logically deduced that everything in reality is natural. You can't argue against the validity of my argument. You have to argue against the soundness of one of the premises.

KR wrote: "Then you are taking a leap of faith of the same magnitude. If you criticize mine, how can you justify yours?"

If we would invoke scientific discovery, we are both making leaps of faith, since the scientific method only works within the natural realm. The ability to prove the 'supernatural' is therefore not in the province of science. For this reason, neither you or I can empirically prove or disprove God's existence or non-existence. The notion of God is that God is immaterial in nature, existing in the spiritual realm. You assume that the natural world is all there is because it is all we can sense, but this cannot be proven via the scientific method - it is therefore a philosophical presupposition. Thus no atheist can ever emphatically claim that 'there is no God' using merely the scientific method. Considering metaphysical arguments on the other hand, strong arguments have been posited both ways.

KR wrote: "You can't argue against the validity of my argument."

Oh. I guess I misunderstood you when you said:

"Feel free to criticize this argument if you can. I'd like to make it as strong as possible and to do that, I'll need to hear some criticism."

Like I said before, your premises cannot be said to be even generally accepted (the first two statements themselves are ambiguous) and most importantly, are narrowly based on the unprovable presupposition that the natural realm is all there is in reality. So your deductive reasoning is doomed from the get go and thus, your conclusion is misleading.

Not according to the argument that you still haven't been able to attack.

Yes you did misunderstand. An argument is valid if when all the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion must also be true. In other words, the argument is logically consistent. Premises 1-3 are a hypothetical syllogism so they have to be valid.

Even if an argument is valid, that still doesn't mean that it's sound. An argument is sound when the premises are true (meaning that the conclusion is also true if the argument is valid). The only way to criticize a valid argument is to argue against one of the premises. You can't argue against the relationships between multiple premises because that means criticizing validity.

Well if something exists then wouldn't it be natural for it to exist? If we define the natural realm as normal the normal realm then that means that anything that exists in it must be normal.

If god exists then would it not be normal for god to exist? If it is a weird thing for a god to exist then why would it? There must be some logical reason for a god to exist if one does and if there is then it must be normal for god to exist. This means that god is normal and at the same time natural.

Moving to the next part of the argument, if we agree now that god is a part of nature (which should make sense now) then we should also agree that god should be quantifiable by science, since physics is the study of nature and god (according to my argument) is a part of nature.

KR- I am bogged down with homework right now, but I will get back to this response ASAP, so stay tuned ;). Just thought you should know so you didn't think I had abandoned this discussion.

I just stated on another thread that science is on the verge of proving that energy (basic cosmic energy) is creative.

E=God?

Hi Killer_Rabbit79

ERrrrrrrrrrrrrk.  Sorry the brakes really grab on this model.

This is where language becomes a bit complex because there are some presuppositions that are happening which I think are in error.

The divide between natural and supernatural are akin to the differences between structure and superstructure.  That is that they are complimentary terms and not antithetical terms.

In the structure/superstructure paradigm we have a unit that is considered to be a whole in and of itself.  Like a hospital building.  We then have elements on the roof of the hospital like A/C units, ventilators, heat exhangers and the like.  They are part of the building but they are not necessary to make the ediface stand, they are superstructure or additions to the structure that increase the building's useability.

In the nature/supernature paradigm we have nature, that which we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear for the most part.  That can stand on its own.  There is also an overwhelming drive towards the spiritual/supernatural.  The supernatural/spiritual are not required to make the natural work they are additions to and in their own way up the value of the natural.

Supernatural is a term which like Evangelism comes with a great deal of baggage.  It has come to be a grabbag idea for causes which are unexplainable.  Flight 19 disappears without a cause in the Bermuda Triangle is it supernatural?  Is it natural?  Hard to tell since we have no wreakage to work with right?  One plane going down is not that unusual, all planes going down is unusual.  All planes going down without any sending out a mayday?  I think that borders on the freakish but it could be natural.

Your syllogism works well if we presume that God, must be contained on a natural level and be subject, as Spirit, to all natural laws.  And yet, as valid as it may be it comes up short in that it fails to take into account that we have no way to measure all of natures additions.

So, looking and not finding it is logical to assume that what is being sought "might" not actually exist.

It is just as plausible that looking and not finding means one has not looked everywhere that can be looked and this, from a theological perspective seems to be the more likely outcome.

How does spirit manifest itself?  What colour is it?  How much does it weigh?  What does it smell like or taste like?  If spirit were to make a noise what would it sound like?  And here is the kicker, if we cannot describe or identify the answers to any of that what makes the answers unnatural?

They might be uncommon in the extreme but would that automatically make them unnatural?

The huge rejection of "supernatural" with respect to God comes primarily from an extremely heavy focus on Jesus' signs and wonders ministry (A ministry that Jesus' didn't appear to get all that excited about) or other miraculous events contained within scripture.

Nature and Supernature may just be levels of awareness similar to light.  We now know that light belongs to a spectrum which includes visible and invisible elements.  The visible we name with colours.  Some of the invisible we name with colours but not all of the invisible have been named with colours?  Why not?  They exist naturally don't they?  They impact upon life don't they?  These invisible colours exist even though we cannot, without special equipment, detect them or their immediate effects upon the natural world.

What prohibits God from relating to us as light relates to us?  Why would anyway that God relates to us outside of our means to easily detect be unnatural if that is, in fact, how God has always related?  And if God can or does relate to us in ways that we cannot readily detect even with scientific apparatus why does that make the supernatural contact more unnatural than natural.

Friend Panentheism knocks around a supernatural understanding but talks of lure as God's way of moving us toward the realization of God's kingdom.  What is the lure?  What colour is it?  What does it smell like?  Can I hold it in my hand?  If that lure is natural, according to the syllogism you have put together  you'd be able to provide answers for it or Panentheism would.

Which works only if we accept nature is all we can see and touch in some means.  And yet, even if we accept that premise which science routinely demonstrates as being faulty we are forced to conclude more logically that just because we have not found something yet it doesn't mean that the something does not exist.

Did the electron exist prior to the electron microscope?  Sure it did.  You just couldn't see one.  We still don't know what colour they are or what they smell like.  The only thing that has changed has been our awareness of.

Prior to our being aware of them they existed.

What proves that God cannot exist even now without our being aware of it?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi RevJohn,

OK. I can understand how `normal` and `natural` would be shaky words to be using. I`ll try to come up with some definitions for clarification.

How do they up the value of the natural? And why would they exist if they aren`t necessary?

I`ve heard about the explanation for this. I can`t remember exactly what caused it but methane was coming out of the water and was all over the atmosphere and when those old planes with the open engines flew into the atmosphere there, they sparked the methane which set the whole plane on fire. I think the cause was either volcanic activity or a melting ice sheet that had methane trapped in it from prehistoric times. I`m more sure it was the latter. Either way, the natural explanation was there, all we had to do was find it.

The syllogism`s job is to show why god (if it exists) is a part of nature. I did this by saying that everything that exists must be a part of nature. I never said that all nature is quantified, just (in the last part) that it`s quantifiable. We should be able to quantify all nature but that doesn`t mean we have or will.

We have been able to measure the mass of an electron. We should be able to find the mass of spirits if they exist. And my argument is saying that everything is natural so nothing can be unnatural.

Supernature literally means `beyond nature`so that`s why it`s unnatural. What if everything was natural though? Then it can`t be supernatural because it`s too busy being natural.

If it exists then eventually we should be able to. They might not have colour though, it depends on the wavelength of the energy they release. They could radiate gamma for all anyone knows.

The premise is that everything is quantifiable, not quantified. Just because it hasn`t happened yet doesn`t mean it will never happen. It also doesn`t mean that it will happen but that`s not the point. The point is that all nature should be quantifiable by some means, even if we don`t, and will never have them.

We can`t smell them because there aren`t any smell receptors for electrons in our noses. They`re too small for that. However, if I were to guess, it would probably smell like getting electrocuted.

When an electron shifts orbitals in an atom, you can calculate the wavelength of the photon released, however that`s not the colour of the electron, but I don`t think they have colours anyway.

That wasn`t the goal of the argument. It was just to show that god should be quantifiable by science, even if we never find the means.

Hi Killer_rabbit79

Fair enough.  Leaving it at that.  We still haven't proven the non-existence of have we?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Wow... I am really enjoying the exchnages of ideas and information going on here. This last little bit between revjohn and killer_rabbit79 is exciting (in an intellectual/thelogical sense). You guys should get together and write a 'point/counter-point' book. The comments by 'Geo' and 'Lissimore' (as well as everyone else) are great.

I think most scientists, at least the ones I know, think that the existance of God is unprovable and therefore a waste of time to attempt to try.

As well, they merely suggest that  whether the Universe was created by a deity or not, the Universe is as it appears and therefore we need to work within that framework. It is what it is, regardless of WHAT created it.

The kind of religion science rightly opposes is religion that asserts scientific validity. It has none.

The kind of science that has no validity is the "scientism" that denies spirituality whilst trying to present itself as a surrogate faith. It is false.

Science does not understand the universe.

Religion does not have a handle on the mind of God.

The best of both science and religion give us greater (wonderful) opportunities to express our flawed humanity in ways that are better, kinder and more sustainable than those of the past. Both present us with challenging learning curves.

It is us — the mortal meat in sandwiches or our own making — who so often screw up our thinking in relation to both because we are mentally slovenly and spiritually negligent.

It is us who let the opportunities slide. We don't look after body or spirit very well. We crush other people through negligence and self-concern of sorts that are sanctioned by neither science nor religion. As for the planet… maybe that'll yet be forced upon us.

I also find it frustrating that people would think religion and science are in contest with each other.

God's creations are more appreciated when science can explain the intricacies of how things work (or even a part of it)...When I walk to school each morning, I always marvel at the movement of the willow tree and its leaves...and how the lighting adds to its ethereal beauty...

Also, people insist on taking God out of the equation (especially when debating on some aspect of science) because they do not think what the Bible claims could be true.

All facts are facts. However...it's our interpretation that makes the difference. We each have our presuppositions...many of Christian's are based on the Bible while the Atheists are left with naturalism/logic/etc. By taking away our presuppositions, we can not support our alternate interpretations of the facts.

Truth can not be determined or separated from God because it was Him who created all things.‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30).  Non-Christians are not neutral, so their own beliefs are 100% biased as well.

^ ^

John I was a bit confused on one comment - as you know I reject supernatualism - process/relational theology suggests a naturalistic understanding of the divine - God has the aim and is in relation to the world, is in it naturally - in the same way we influence those outside ourselves - intersubjective -and the world is in God - intersubjective - as well we internalize the feeling of reality  and make it our own - intra subjective.  Just as God also has intra subjective experience. God is diapolar - is and is connected - and is different from the world but related to the world - and the world is ( not a divine thing) and has its trajectory and is related to God.  To use a metaphor - you are you and I am me and we are also connected- related - influencing - and been influenced - this is how things become - God is not an exception to this metaphysical rule.  Thus is not supernatural.  For there is no need for this type of metaphysics.

You will note here a understanding that what is is a product of relationships - coming into being - thus becoming preceeds being - what is is also perishing - the difference with God is degree of difference not kind - God is eternal relating - relational.

 The lure is, to use metaphorical language because that is all we have, is the lure to intense and novel experience - to more beauty and justice and compassion - this is the character of God - pure love.  Now for those who are reductionists this will not work - for those whose metaphysics ( clothed as science) is materialism - sensationist doctrine of perception - this reformed naturalism does not work.

Lissimore shows how the issue of science and religion is a false question - much work has been done showing how false the science verse religion question is - one of the best is Ian Barbour - Science and Religion and of course Whitehead Science and the Modern World. is a classic.

One of my favourite quotes (and yes I have many) is this from Albert Einstein

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.

The converse can be equally true; science and religion have within their capacity to diminish our humanity when one thinks itself superior over the other, leading us all to oppression.

Personally, I prefer freedom....

LB

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.     Albert Einstein

It was Thomas Aquinas that really started the idea of natural theology for Christianity and the study of nature revealing information about God.  "Renewing Your Mind" has a series they just did on Aquinas.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Renewing_Your_Mind/archives.asp?bcd=1...

 "Science brings men nearer to God."  - Louis Pasteur

Right from the creation....

"If I had no other data than the early chapters of Genesis, some of the Psalms and other passages of Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the same picture of the origin of the universe, as is indicated by the scientific data." Nobel Prize-winning physicist Arno Penzias (Big Bang Theorist)
 

The Bible had it right from the beginning and if you look at the probabilities being genereated on the creation of life on earth then it is no wonder you get men like Chandra Wickramasinghe  and Richard Dawkins talking about Panspermia (life coming from another planet)....

I think it is not in the minds of man for Jesus said we would know the truth and it would set us free and is not the truths of science also part of God's creation.  The Bible over and over tells us God is rejected from the heart.  The Pharisees stood there and watched Yeshua the Messiah heal and even raise the dead (Lazarus) and they rejected and eventually crucified him.  God says he wants us heart, mind and spirit... not just one.

Luke 10:27
And he answered, " YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

I think these represent the best quotes I have seen recently.

"There is no incompatibility between science and religion... Science shows that God exists." - Prof. D. Barton, Nobel Prize Chemistry

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes" - Pope John Paul II
 

" Many people have a very outdated picture of what science tells us about the world. " John Polkinghorne (Prof. Thoretical Physics and Christian priest)   
 

Some material for those that are interested.

Case for the Creator - Lee Strobel
http://bookstore.fotf.ca/default.aspx?prodid=P00507B

Belief in God in the Age of Science - John Polkinghorne
http://www.amazon.com/Belief-God-Science-John-Polkinghorne/dp/0300099495

Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship - John Polkinghorne
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Theology-Unexpected-Kinship/dp/B00...

Science: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium - John Polkinghorne
http://shop3.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/48cc3fd301a82eba272445...
 

Hi Mosquito,

Genesis was not even meant to be historical or factual. The creation story was only meant as a mythos. Even panspermia is a better explanation for the origin of life on Earth that Genesis chapter 1. Although, I don't agree with panspermia because it still doesn't explain how life formed from inorganic molecules, it just evades the question that we need to be answered.

It is not a fact that Jesus performed any miracles. I can understand why the Pharasees would've wanted Jesus put to death. Technically, if he called himself the son of god, he was a blasphemer.

Science cannot show that god exists, at least not if god is a metaphysical entity. Science cannot reach beyond the physical realm. However, if god is a natural entity, then god should be quantifiable by science, however we have no empirical evidence that demonstrates the existence of god or spirits or souls, so Dr. Barton is wrong here.

Also, one of the laws of thermodynamics states that the universe favours chaos, but things that are designed have order to them, so how can something chaotic in nature have been designed? There can't be a designer so there can't be a god (if that is how you define god).

Religion doesn't do that, it just hinders scientific progress. Philosophy can "purify" science in this way but religious fanaticism just gets in the way. A good example of this is George Bush vetoing the bill to legalize stem cell research. However scientists have found out how to manufacture blood cells from stem cells, which is a great achievement, and it would probably have been discovered much sooner if Dubya wasn't such a nutjob.

Hmm,  I agree that science should not be used to try and describe/prove/disprove God, just as theology shouldn't be used to prove/disprove science.  Allthough I think that the morals of religion, and the knowledge of science, and work hand in hand.

I think there enough religious scientists in the world to show that obviously science isn't doing a good enough job of disproving God.

Assalaam Alaiykum

-Omni

Agreed, panspermia is just an evasion of the fact they have no workable theory that can explain the even most basics of the creation of life or even the cell membrane alone.

Where did you get the ideas that it wasn't historical?  Why is panspermia a better explanation than a part of the Bible that was written 3,000 years ago?  God said let the be light we see that it took Hubble and Penzias and others to come to the realization that in the first few picoseconds of creation light, subatomic particles and energy plasma came into existance?  Genesis is a executive summary* of the creation.

* executive summary - an summary dumbed down to the level a business executive could understand it.  :-)

Just where did you come up with that idea too?  Even the Jewish Talmud says Jesus performed magic.  Can you explain why the apostles went from hiding to preaching in the square and being persecuted? The texts were written within a decade or two by witnesses that were persecuted by the Jews, mocked by the Greeks and within 30 years were being used as human candles in Nero's garden. 

Lee Stroebel went out and interviewed experts on the ancient texts like Daniel B. Wallace and Edwin Yamauchi in his book "The Case for the Real Jesus".  It is basically a "Coles Notes" summary of the evidence but you seem unfamiliar with the Bible and its integrity so this may be helpful.

The Case for the real Jesus - Lee Stroebel
http://bookstore.fotf.ca/default.aspx?prodid=C00526B

Can science explain the first cause of the universe, the creation of life etc.?  Science is about creating a repeatable and explainable phenomenon and is good for the naturalistic examination of God's creation.  Science can only show us so much and then we look where the evidence has left us,  as we see in the writings of Thomas Aqunias and John Polkinghorne (Phd Theoretical Physics) and Alister Mcgrath (Phd Molecualr BioPhysics) faith in God is a small step.

So do you think that Mengela's experimentation on the Jewish men, women and children was appropriate?

Then why do you think it is appropriate for the harvesting and exploitation of an unborn child?

I don't know who Dubya is but if he is against the exploitation of the unborn he is obviously smarter than you give him credit.  Science in many ways has given us gains and also created a means to a more depraved end.  Science without a conscience is nothing more than a sure way to a debase and depraved existence.  I always find it amusing that someone would think that religion hinders progress and yet most of the gains in freedom and often science are from religious people.

Crawford Long, one of the three Americans who discovered anaesthesia was a Christian.

James Young Simpson, who championed its use in Britain was asked by a reporter what was his greatest discovery, he replied, "When I learned Jesus Christ had died for my sins."

Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project is a devout Christian and very interesting to listen to.

Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei both wrote on theology.

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
"Science brings men nearer to God."  - Louis Pasteur

"So many of my colleagues are Christians that I can't walk across my church's fellowship hall without tripping over a dozen physicists."   William D. Phillips  awarded the  Nobel Prize in physics

" Many people have a very outdated picture of what science tells us about the world. " John Polkinghorne (Quantum Physicist and Christian priest)   

Have you ever looked at what science is telling us?

Belief in God in the Age of Science - John Polkinghorne (Phd Theoretical Physics)
http://www.amazon.com/Belief-God-Science-John-Polkinghorne/dp/0300099495

 Many hate and deny the name of Jesus because of the implications on their lives.  Is it that you don't want to look?  Are you open minded enough to look at the evidence? 

I could name a long list of those that were athiest until they looked at the integrity of the Bible... C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath, Malcolm Muggridege, Lee Stroebel, Josh McDowell and Anne Rice are afew examples that not only made that step over the line to faith and became proclaimers of God and Jesus.  It was a book on archaeology that changed the direction in my life, I found if they were wrong about that then what else and the more I study the Bible the more I see why the world hates it so much, it is true.  It shows we are accountable and have all fallen short and that we must humble ourselves to be saved and man's pride is the true interference with progress.

Killer, all I have read is your first post... God (if he exists) is definitly not here, living on Earth, walking in the cities like anyone else (and if so, no one knows) If he exist, he must be farther in the galaxie or in another world or just somehow invisible to the eye. How can science prove something that isn`t there? It`s like trying to prove that the plants on another planet that we never explored were blue. That is why science will never proove God. Not because he doesn`t exist but just `cause he isn`t here directly. I know this has nothing to do with the post but when I read your post I felt like saying this. I do not have anything against you though, arguing is just something that I like.  

mosquito, there is absolutly no reason why a person who believes that evolution is how god created us is somehow against god or jesus.  thats just ridiculous.

There are workable theories. We know that the atmosphere that the Earth had 3.8 billion years ago had the composition and temperature to be able to make nucleic acids. Researchers are in the process of getting more information as well.

From people here. Scholars who read the Torah in Hebrew agree that Genesis was not meant to be historical.

Because panspermia is science, while Genesis is just a story. Panspermia was developed based on reason and empirical evidence while Genesis was made as an ignorance filler. Also, Ockham's razor says that the simplest inductive argument is the best and Genesis, which assumes god exists, is not as simple an explanation as panspermia, which does not assume that god exists.

I came up with that idea using my critical thinking skills. You see, there are these people that don't believe everything that they read because they have this thing called an autonomy, which they use to decide what things they read make sense and what things don't. I'm one of those people.

I'm not gonna read an entire book just because you tell me to. Give me some evidence up front like I'm giving you. I'm a university student so I don't really have the time to read beyond my textbooks.

Maybe science can't explain them because they didn't happen. Maybe the universe and life were not created. Maybe the universe always existed and maybe life formed on its own from the chaos of the universe.

Do you think the world would be better off without organ transplants? Mengela's science may have been grossly unethical but you can't say that it was for naught.

We may be able to cure MS. Stem cell researchers have recently discovered how to manufacture blood, which means donors won't be as necessary.

Abortion in general should not be outlawed because we are in the midst of a global population crisis so any unwanted births we can stop should be stopped. Also, if a fetus is unwanted by the parents then it's probably going to grow up in a miserable environment and may end up growing up to be a criminal.

Dubya is George W. Bush. (hahaha, I made a funny) He's proven to the world that he's not smart at all. And we don't need religion to regulate science. Brock university has a research ethics comittee that has to approve every experiment before it can be done. I'm assuming they aren't religious. Philosophy is a much better tool in this case because philosophers use reason to make ethical decisions, while the religious must follow the rules of their sacred texts.

"Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret."

~James Randi, scientific skeptic

"evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

~Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."

~Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist

"Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

~Francis Crick, molecular biologist

There are plenty of people in this world who believe that science doesn't point to god.

Are you open-minded enough to look at the evidence against the idea of god? I was.

btw, what evidence? The bible is not evidence because there is no guarantee that it was divinely inspired. Saying that god exists because the bible says so because it was written by god is circular logic. And since there is no empirical evidence for god's existence, science can provide no support to the idea of the existence of god.

I could probably find even more names of people who turned to atheism and agnosticism because their religion didn't make sense. I can name many of my friends. It was a book on pseudopsychology that inspired my atheism, but then reading about neuroscience only strengthened my skepticism. Neuroscience has actually found the soul before theology (and it's only been around for a couple hundred years). It's called the brain. If the soul doesn't exist, then why should I believe anything else that religion teaches? Then I discovered philosophy, which will cover anything science can't, and it does a much better job than theology because, like in science, logic is necessary.

 K_r: I'm interested in where you get this first precept, 'if something truly exists it must be normal for it to exist'.  'Normal' is basically a flawed, human way of looking at things.  Einstein himself said common sense is just a bias.  The Sufis, for instance, focus a lot of their teachings and exercises on jerking one out of the 'normal' way of thinking.

As for physics and math, you should look up Lee Smolin.  He is one of a movement of new physicists who say that theoretical physics has divorced itself too far from evidence, and that a lot of string theory makes about as much sense as literal religion.

Pilgrim: God can't be disproven OR proven empirically?  Here's a hypothetical scenario: what if some physicist devises a machine that can detect things in some sort of new radiation, some sort of ethereal light - maybe a dark matter telescope or something, I don't feel like thinking up a lot of details right now (gasp!) and detects another plane of existence invisible to our ordinary senses, one in which there is a big guy who created the universe watching us and listening to our prayers and running some Earthling cult while he's at it - exactly like the Judaeo-Christian God in every way.  Then would you say science can't prove God?

It really depends which kind of God we're talking about.  Science can prove or disprove kr's kind of God - also most of the fundies' kind of God, arguable.  It can't prove or disprove a transcendent God.

JRT: Yup, Galileo was pretty awesome. 

Lissimore: While we're on Non-Overlapping Magisteria, I ought to bring up another point from Dawkins, because I think it's a good one: who says religion should be the basis of moral judgment?  Why?  How about rational philosophy, or just listening to your conscience?

LB: Einstein was also VERY awesome.

mosquito: Panspermia DOES make about as much sense as God.  Until we get some real evidence, just the fact that there are a few martian bacteria on asteroids is too little evidence to jump to conclusions on.  Just because they got here doesn't mean they caused life.

One thing you should be careful of; to quote that song, 'the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so."  Why is it not a fact?  It has only ever been 'proven' by hearsay from people writing long after Jesus's death, and only from Christians - for instance, you never see it in any Roman record.  Stories get embellished over time.  It happens.  That's not to say it's a fact that the miracles didn't happen; it's just to say we don't know.

Also, I'd be interested to see an instance in which religion has purified science.

Oi, wait up - you DON'T know who Dubya is???

Well, I guess the world 'normal' is not the best word because it is kind of subjective. Basically, what I mean is that if something exists, then it shouldn't be wierd for it to be existing. It should make sense with the rest of the universe. That is why supernature is problematic, because if something is beyond nature, then how can it exist? Everything in nature makes sense but if something exists beyond nature that it is 'unnatural', which suggests that supernature should not exist. So if we translate this to god, that means that god can't be supernatural if it exists. If it exists then it must be a 'normal' part of the universe; it should make sense for it to exist. Therefore, god, if it exists, must be a natural phenominon.

String theory is not something I'm familiar with but I'm sure that since there's little-to-no empirical evidence for it, the scientific community is treating it as such. However, theoretical physicists that find mathematical evidence can make surprising predictions.