Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Could science explain the existence of God?

Announcements Posted on
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The ancient Greeks knew that Earth is round over a thousand years before the Koran was written. perhaps the Arabs had heard about it. :rolleyes:
    wheres ure evidence u have no proof
    the only proof is the Quran
    surat lukman
    do ure research and read the quran or listen to dr zakir naik videos
    i was like u iswell in the past - rejecting islam and religion
    but listen to dr zakir naik hes very good
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGrTOzzOyI
    • 58 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If God existed then it'd be as much as scientific question as any - it's fundamentally a question about the nature of our reality, which science attempts to delve into. "God exists" is a claim that can - at least in principle if not in practice - be verified experimentally. The supernatural is only the supernatural because it has not provided us enough evidence yet to verify its existence - as soon as it does so, it enters squarely into the domain of the natural. If evidence of ghosts was ever found, or reincarnation, or any supernatural phenomena, we'd start to refer to it as natural phenomena. 'Supernatural' just means alleged phenomena for which we are lacking in evidence.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As far as I'm concerned science is the most reliable tool we have when it comes to understanding the world we live in, but it has a several hurdles it needs to jump over before it can piece together how all of this came to be. Until that happens I don't see how anyone, theists or atheists can dismiss or rally behind anything.

    This question is beyond us in the same way that algebra is beyond bacteria. For now at least.
    • 23 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wwelol)
    so wat bout nostradmus that fool who claims the world will end in 2012
    an absolute bull**** prophecies

    and that will never happen

    and how did the quran mention how the earth is a sphere and not flat?
    surat lukman
    look it up
    or listen to dr zakir naik videos

    trust join islam
    before its too late

    i reveted after listening to dr zakir videos
    Nostradamus doesn't claim that the world will end in 2012 - that's a claim made based off the ancient Mayan Calender, which doesn't say anything about it being the end of times, just the end of a cycle.

    As has been said - the ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical, well before the qur'an was written. If you want to argue that as proof of a God then start worshipping Zeus.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Nostradamus doesn't claim that the world will end in 2012 - that's a claim made based off the ancient Mayan Calender, which doesn't say anything about it being the end of times, just the end of a cycle.

    As has been said - the ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical, well before the qur'an was written. If you want to argue that as proof of a God then start worshipping Zeus.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDrxvLExOa4
    listen to him and revert to islam
    before its too l8
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wwelol)
    ok so how did the quran written over 1000's of years ago mention how the earth was a sphere and is not flat?
    By all means, provide the quote.

    But nevertheless, even if it clearly mentions this, the idea had been generally accepted by the Greeks long beforehand and by many astrologers since the 1st century. So if the Quran really does describe the Earth as spherical, I'd hardly find it remarkable.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wwelol)
    wheres ure evidence u have no proof
    the only proof is the Quran
    Got a feeling you're trolling but just incase:

    Why don't you let me google that for you?
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wwelol)
    wheres ure evidence u have no proof
    the only proof is the Quran
    surat lukman
    do ure research and read the quran or listen to dr zakir naik videos
    i was like u iswell in the past - rejecting islam and religion
    but listen to dr zakir naik hes very good
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eGrTOzzOyI
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheric...assical_Greece
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Not at all - I didn't say it is wrong (although I believe it is), I said that society considers it to be wrong, what society thinks and what is right are not always the same thing.
    So you agree that society is a fallible source of morality? There is an absolute?

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    According to society at the time - those who opposed slavery were wrong, according to current society - those who are pro-legalisation of drugs are wrong - were/are they? Not necessarily, just that society sees them as being wrong.
    You note that morals change over time. How can we then ever decide what is really wrong and what is right even on a personal level? Is my guess just as good and valued as yours? (If it is, why do you engage in debates? Who cares what you think, and why do you expect your opinion should be of any value to anyone else?)

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    No it wouldn't. My "logic" is simply that what is deemed moral or immoral is the opinion of society, but - opinions change. I didn't say society is right, I didn't say we should follow the morality of society - I simply said that what is considered moral or acceptable is based on how the majority of society thinks.
    Does it not bother you to think that society could be wrong about everything and that all your morals are baseless? And what is it about the majority that is so decisive? It's all just numbers which are rarely accurate or even honest. 55% say X is right. 45% say X is wrong. Therefore X is right and considered the social norm for morality. Why can't the minority be just as correct as anyone and a similarly acceptable basis for morality? And what is the value of this statistic if tomorrow 30% say X is right and 70% say it's wrong?

    In all moral debates, should we simply tell the minority to shut up? Is that your solution to ethics?

    Lastly, do you realise how pointless that little text you have up there is? "You're wrong, get over it." All you are saying is, "You're wrong according to me, get over it." I don't find getting over that particularly mortifying.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Both, noting your use of the word should instead of must. But you must not perpetrate slavery, not for moral reasons but because society has imposed legal sanctions against you if you do (though those laws have been imposed for moral reasons).
    However these legal sanctions are unjust and biased. It's just someone's objective view which happens to be contrary to mine. What do I owe society to accept these rules? Why is society worried that I think differently? Why am I judged for perpetrating something I honestly believe to be morally correct?

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Society decides, - in its laws, obviously. In a reasonable society the laws dictate your behaviour, not morality. The laws (i.e. society) don't generally dictate how you should think. Those laws are written to protect people as a whole, and society itself, not individuals primarily. They may be written as a consequence of a generally-held morality or they may be written arbitrarily. Fairness doesn't come into it.
    But society is fallible. It can't act as an ultimate moral authority. It is simply different people imposing their own subjective moralities on others.
    (And what on earth is a "reasonable" society?)
    Then, as you well know, people are judged by what they think. If I tell someone I'm racist or homophobic or Nazist or whatever, people will judge me for the way I think even though I don't necessarily attend demonstrations or conventions or otherwise act offensively. Even you judge me for the way I think. Why?
    Also, why do people as a whole and society need to be protected? Surely this is all just survival of the fittest? What is about human life or human-created institutions that we should value so much to protect each other and them? Aren't we all animals and life void of meaning? Why does all this matter?

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Christians in some countries in mediaeval times believed that trial by combat was morally right. Christians today would disagree, I believe.

    Likewise, trial by ordeal was widely accepted and wasn't forbidden by the Christian pope until the early 13th century. Does that mean it was somehow objectively moral before that point? I don't think so. Do you? It was accepted by society as morally right and was allowed to take place. It is now not accepted by society and is illegal. Interestingly, even though trial by ordeal was banned by the pope, this did not include one special kind of trial by ordeal - the Inquisition. Trial by ordeal for those accused of heresy remained OK according to the Christian hierarchy. I wonder how you stand on its so-called objective morality?
    Just because morality is objective does not mean that everyone interprets it in the same way, which is quite obvious. It means that we can know what is right and what is wrong, we can know absolute truth, and that we can be sure that what is right today will be right tomorrow. The fact that a high authority such as a church made a mistake in a moral law does in no way disprove objective morality. It simply shows that objective morality can be interpreted and applied in the wrong way. It says something about the people interpreting morality, not morality in itself.

    The church is not my ultimate authority in morality and setting an example because, since it's an institution run by human beings, it's fallible. The ultimate infallible authority is God.

    By the way, the fact that we deem immoral concepts such as trial by combat or by ordeal, far from being an embarrassement for the supporters of objective morality, is really an illustration of objective morality in action. As a Christian, I can always evaluate any notion in the light of the Word of God and determine its ethical status. You can't. You may agree with me that these were bad practices, but you don't know why.

    Also, I believe Catholicism is a Christian heresy so what the Pope - being a human being and as fallible as anyone else - decides to do is not a very strong indicative on the general position of Christians. Nor is it in his place to decide on what is moral and what is not, just as it's not the problem of the 'majority of the society.' I would contradict myself if I suddenly declared the Pope's opinion to have more weight than anyone else's.
    • 23 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverSun)
    So you agree that society is a fallible source of morality? There is an absolute?
    Yes, society is fallible - hence the anti-drug line and the pro-slavery line that has been held before, but no - there is not an absolute source.

    You note that morals change over time. How can we then ever decide what is really wrong and what is right even on a personal level? Is my guess just as good and valued as yours? (If it is, why do you engage in debates? Who cares what you think, and why do you expect your opinion should be of any value to anyone else?)
    Yes they do, so what is right and what is wrong is down to simply our opinions on matters. There is no objective right and wrong. The whole point of a debate is "here's my opinion, here are my reasons for thinking as such", then defences to challenges to those reasons - the point is not to prove you are objectively right, just to convince people that your opinion is more likely to be correct.

    Does it not bother you to think that society could be wrong about everything and that all your morals are baseless? And what is it about the majority that is so decisive? It's all just numbers which are rarely accurate or even honest. 55% say X is right. 45% say X is wrong. Therefore X is right and considered the social norm for morality. Why can't the minority be just as correct as anyone and a similarly acceptable basis for morality? And what is the value of this statistic if tomorrow 30% say X is right and 70% say it's wrong?
    No, because my morals are based on my opinions on matters, not what society thinks.
    It's not that the majority are definitely right - it's that in any civilised society the majority's opinion is how the country is to be run. The minority can be right, yes, but that's not how democracy works.

    In all moral debates, should we simply tell the minority to shut up? Is that your solution to ethics?
    No, and I never said it was.

    Lastly, do you realise how pointless that little text you have up there is? "You're wrong, get over it." All you are saying is, "You're wrong according to me, get over it." I don't find getting over that particularly mortifying.
    You realise that relates to my avatar, not to what I say?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Yes, society is fallible - hence the anti-drug line and the pro-slavery line that has been held before, but no - there is not an absolute source.
    Then how do you define fallibility if there isn't an absolute?

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Yes they do, so what is right and what is wrong is down to simply our opinions on matters. There is no objective right and wrong. The whole point of a debate is "here's my opinion, here are my reasons for thinking as such", then defences to challenges to those reasons
    The only thing you are proving in a debate is that you are subjectively right. Why is that important to anyone?

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    the point is not to prove you are objectively right, just to convince people that your opinion is more likely to be correct.
    "More likely to be correct" - according to what/whom? You keep talking as if there is an absolute.

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    No, because my morals are based on my opinions on matters, not what society thinks.
    It's not that the majority are definitely right - it's that in any civilised society the majority's opinion is how the country is to be run. The minority can be right, yes, but that's not how democracy works.
    So it doesn't actually matter what society thinks?

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    You realise that relates to my avatar, not to what I say?
    Yes. But I hope you realise that the punchline you use, whatever it is connected to, makes you look like a fool when laid beside what you are saying here.
    • 4 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverSun)
    Then how do you define fallibility if there isn't an absolute?



    The only thing you are proving in a debate is that you are subjectively right. Why is that important to anyone?



    "More likely to be correct" - according to what/whom? You keep talking as if there is an absolute.



    So it doesn't actually matter what society thinks?



    Yes. But I hope you realise that the punchline you use, whatever it is connected to, makes you look like a fool when laid beside what you are saying here.
    Subjective doesn't mean that we are 50/50 and guessing. We take evidence, and arguments, and come to a conclusion that makes sense based on both sides of a discussion. If we can defend our side against arguments we become more and more sure it's a good conclusion. In this way we can decide through discussion what the best course of action is.

    Subjective morality simply states that there is no absolute rule, that situation and context matters, and that believing there is a single rule which applies to all situations of a certain nature, no matter where it is on the continuous spectrum of situations, leads only to problems of morality.
    • 23 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverSun)
    Then how do you define fallibility if there isn't an absolute?
    Woah there - there is no absolute. Morals are completely subjective - I've never argued anything else. You're the one who started using fallible - I'd prefer wrong, and it's my opinion that they are wrong. Occasionally it's a fact that people are wrong - like when someone says that LSD or weed are in any way bad for people, but overall, right and wrong are just opinion.

    The only thing you are proving in a debate is that you are subjectively right. Why is that important to anyone?
    Because ultimately the point is to convince people that your way of thinking is "right".

    "More likely to be correct" - according to what/whom? You keep talking as if there is an absolute.
    According to nothing. I've never argued there is an absolute, because there isn't, "more likely to be correct" as in "this is the right way to think".

    So it doesn't actually matter what society thinks?
    Right, you seem incapable of reading so I'll spell it out nice and slow:

    What. Society. Thinks. Is. Not. Always. Right. But. What. Society. Thinks. Is. More. Important. Than. What. The. Individual. Thinks. That. Is. How. Democracy. Works.

    M'kay? Kay.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Right, you seem incapable of reading so I'll spell it out nice and slow:

    What. Society. Thinks. Is. Not. Always. Right. But. What. Society. Thinks. Is. More. Important. Than. What. The. Individual. Thinks. That. Is. How. Democracy. Works.

    M'kay? Kay.


    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Woah there - there is no absolute. Morals are completely subjective - I've never argued anything else. You're the one who started using fallible - I'd prefer wrong, and it's my opinion that they are wrong.
    You said that society is fallible. If you prefer society is 'wrong,' fine. Bear in mind that 'fallible' means 'can be wrong.' So the substance doesn't change.

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Occasionally it's a fact that people are wrong - like when someone says that LSD or weed are in any way bad for people, but overall, right and wrong are just opinion.
    If it can be a fact that people are wrong then you are assuming an absolute. The absolute can be your opinion, but it's still an absolute. Is your opinion always correct?

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Because ultimately the point is to convince people that your way of thinking is "right".
    What you say there is completely meaningless. Why would anybody want to convince people? Why can't you let them be?

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    According to nothing. I've never argued there is an absolute, because there isn't, "more likely to be correct" as in "this is the right way to think".
    'Correct' implies the existence of a standard. Otherwise you are still saying "This is more likely to be correct according to me" and "This is the right way to think according to me." If you substitute 'correct' for 'my way,' you will be significantly more consistent, and what follows that will be much less interesting.

    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    Right, you seem incapable of reading so I'll spell it out nice and slow:

    What. Society. Thinks. Is. Not. Always. Right. But. What. Society. Thinks. Is. More. Important. Than. What. The. Individual. Thinks. That. Is. How. Democracy. Works.

    M'kay? Kay.
    Thank you. You keep contradicting yourself so it's hard to follow at times.

    Why is society more important than the individual? Why should we care about Democracy? (The answer is not 'Because that is how Democracy works.')
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Subjective doesn't mean that we are 50/50 and guessing. We take evidence, and arguments, and come to a conclusion that makes sense based on both sides of a discussion. If we can defend our side against arguments we become more and more sure it's a good conclusion. In this way we can decide through discussion what the best course of action is.
    This doesn't take into account the problem of bias. You don't come to a debate in a blank state, but you have already a net of beliefs which will influence what position you deem more reasonable and suitable. However, these other beliefs you have may be wrong.

    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Subjective morality simply states that there is no absolute rule, that situation and context matters, and that believing there is a single rule which applies to all situations of a certain nature, no matter where it is on the continuous spectrum of situations, leads only to problems of morality.
    Christian ethics does not entail a single rule which applies to all situations. Context matters. If you were setting what you call "subjective morality" over against Christian morality because the latter disregards context, you miss the mark. You say you don't want problems of morality. The best way to have problems of morality that cannot be solved is to teach people that there are no absolutes and that everybody is entitled to his own opinion, because then you will have as many legitimate moralities as there are people.
    • 23 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SilverSun)
    If it can be a fact that people are wrong then you are assuming an absolute. The absolute can be your opinion, but it's still an absolute. Is your opinion always correct?
    Not at all, and it can be a fact that people are wrong without there being an absolute standard for morality. Those who believe that the sun revolves around the earth are objectively wrong, those who believe that militarism is a good thing are subjectively wrong (i.e. wrong in my opinion).

    What you say there is completely meaningless. Why would anybody want to convince people? Why can't you let them be?
    Because if they can convince the majority that they are "right", then their opinions are more likely to be enshrined in law.

    Thank you. You keep contradicting yourself so it's hard to follow at times.

    Why is society more important than the individual? Why should we care about Democracy? (The answer is not 'Because that is how Democracy works.')
    Because the needs of the majority outweigh the desires of the minority - Democracy is important because it, in theory at least, protects against dictatorships.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The way I see it, both religion and science are valuable in that they each provide a different purpose.

    Science is empirical, it answers the majority of life's important questions concerning observable, tangible things. Religion, on the other hand, answers questions which can cause us emotional conflict, which science cannot. For example, "what happens after death"? I'm personally agnostic, yet can see that most, if not all religions, attempt to provide moral guidance.

    Science can not replace religion, and religion cannot replace science. They aren't really interchangeable.

    As for, "will science prove the existence of a God"? I really don't know. And which God? Different religions have different, sometimes contradictory, perceptions of God.

    I think science provides certainty, and religion provides comfort. After all, there are scientific theories that have been dis-proven that people continue to believe in - there are genuine people that still believe the world is flat, albeit a minority.

    I think, one day, science will be able to explain the universe and all that's contained in it, but whether that will prove the existance of a God is yet to be seen.

    Apologies for the long post - I'm an avid member of a debating club with a head full of thoughts.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    just watch that video and let me know what u think
Updated: August 8, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE results day

How to make sure you're prepared for Thursday

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.