scientific reasons for believing in god?

Scroll to see replies

Yes, sorry, this is the kind of question that needs to be asked to keep the discussion on track!

It's a struggle to think where God could possibly be found in the 21st century apart from outside of our universe. And why should there even be anything outside of our universe anyway?

We'd maybe have to observe a complete breakdown of the laws of classical mechanics in some everyday situation where God has supposedly intervened where there can be no physical explanation for it happening, literally none.

To disprove God, nothing so radical, scientists just need to keep doing what there doing and it'll come around quite naturally.

Thanks for the answer.

So simply, one must give adequate examples of situations in which science cannot explain? And for the latter, carrying on proving things with science.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 561

mangala

Original post by Rtdsv

Thanks for the answer.

So simply, one must give adequate examples of situations in which science cannot explain? And for the latter, carrying on proving things with science.

Posted from TSR Mobile

no. just because science cannot yet answer a question, that does not automatically mean that god did it. you have to prove that god did it

Reply 562

username2385417

Original post by mangala

no. just because science cannot yet answer a question, that does not automatically mean that god did it. you have to prove that god did it

Help me think of a situation that would cause me to think "hmmm well maybe..."

I'm struggling, you can tell.

Reply 563

mangala

Original post by leavingthecity

Help me think of a situation that would cause me to think "hmmm well maybe..."

I'm struggling, you can tell.

i heard a good one before about how the mind both exists and doesn't, if you understand what i mean. that's probably the hardest thing for science to explain, but just because it's a difficult thing to get your head around doesn't mean god must have created it

Reply 564

username2385417

Original post by mangala

I personally see no reason why the mind and consciousness cannot arise from a system of electrical impulses and chemical reactions within the brain. It's maybe not so nice a thought to have but I would say that even a mothers love for her child is simply this played out. I would expect most people to disagree with this, even if they are/appear pro science. Like everyone I try to discuss this with has told me to shut up...

Reply 565

Rtdsv

Original post by mangala

no. just because science cannot yet answer a question, that does not automatically mean that god did it. you have to prove that god did it

How could you prove that God did something when the other is persistent in saying it has to be from something other than God and results in waiting until theres a scientific explanation even if there isnt one?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 566

mangala

Original post by Rtdsv

dont understand u

Reply 567

Rtdsv

Original post by leavingthecity

Isnt this a similar concept to dark matter etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 568

frankieboy

Original post by leavingthecity

I agree with this.

There is and I suspect never will be, a scientific reason for believing in God. The first question would be - which God? With so many on offer.

However, logic can give you a reason for not believing in God, as I suspect science will also be able to eventually.

God is just an ancient superstitious explanation for things we don't understand in the meantime. Particularly, mathematical coincidence, which people always seem to attribute to God. For example "How else do you explain the fact that we exist" etc.

I have never seen any compelling evidence for God. People keep claiming explanations, but these explanations never really live up to their claims.

Sooner the world wakes up and incorporates aetheism, the better all round for mankind IMHO. But I don't think that'll ever happen. The pull of superstition and fear is too strong.

Reply 569

username2385417

Original post by Rtdsv

Isnt this a similar concept to dark matter etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's certainly a little dark! But no, not related. Dark matter is still yet to be observed matter that physicists believe composes the majority of matter in the universe. Supposedly 30% of the effective density of the universe is matter, but less than 5% of this is baryonic matter- the 'light' stuff.

We can't observe dark matter, but measuring the amount of matter within our galaxy which we are able to do because this matter interacts via gravity, tells us that there is far more matter here than we have to date accounted for via direct observation.

Reply 570

blackcurrent101

Original post by mangala

scientific, logical evidence which points towards the existence of god

convert me from atheism

no need for evidence
that's the point of believing in God :h:

Reply 571

username2385417

Everyone;

Tell us, if you can remember them, moments you experienced when you realised that the world was a non- trivial, non-mystical place where God probably never existed....or moments of realisation/learning that built on your atheism/agnosticism.....

Simple as it is F=ma was one for me

Reply 572

username2385417

Original post by Ishea16

no need for evidence
that's the point of believing in God :h:

Why should anyone though? What wrong would a believer be doing in simply asking for evidence?

Reply 573

blackcurrent101

Original post by leavingthecity

Why should anyone though? What wrong would a believer be doing in simply asking for evidence?

lol a believer wouldn't ask for evidence though

Reply 574

username2385417

Original post by frankieboy

Yeah probably a pipe dream, the world becoming atheist. But think how far a little education would go in some of our schools! Especially those where the majority come from more disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds or come from religious families. A way to nip in the bud fundamental religious ideologies?

Reply 575

username2385417

Original post by Ishea16

lol a believer wouldn't ask for evidence though

No, that's a language game you're playing there...you can believe in something and want evidence too, obviously.

Reply 576

mangala

Original post by Ishea16

no need for evidence
that's the point of believing in God :h:

doesnt make god real though

Reply 577

frankieboy

Original post by Ishea16

lol a believer wouldn't ask for evidence though

Which is why it simply stays as "belief" and not "knowledge".

I "choose to believe" in Santa Claus. And unicorns. And no one can actually prove they don't exist.

Difference is that Santa Claus and unicorns aren't the basis of half the world slaughtering the other half. Or living their lives in superstitious fear. Or trying to induct other people into their religious cults.

Talking of which -

Christianity is the biggest, most successful religious cult worldwide. Closely followed by Islam. I have to admit, I admire the power of these organisations, especially when it comes to the smokescreening of logic when challenged. They really have hooked people in good and proper. The psychological trickery offered by these cults is incredibly impressive and I can fully understand why people are taken in by it.

Reply 578

blackcurrent101

Original post by leavingthecity

No, that's a language game you're playing there...you can believe in something and want evidence too, obviously.

I don't play games
believing is a choice
you can believe in anything

look at the sky, doesnt that make you think
that maybe you should be feeling the presence of God
instead of wanting to see him with your eyes

Reply 579

frankieboy

Original post by leavingthecity

No, that's a language game you're playing there...you can believe in something and want evidence too, obviously.

In my experience it's useless arguing.

These cults have thousands of years of the cleverest minds working out pseudo logical smokescreens for even the most difficult and logical of arguments against them. They, in effect, have it all wrapped up.

There is no logical or scientific argument that you can present to the contrary of these cults which they cannot refute with one platitude or another. They have better defence than Floyd Mayweather.