Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

scientific reasons for believing in god? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    x


    I think a lot of people think science is a lot more concrete and black and white than it actually is.

    A lot of people don't seem to think that the field of science does make huge mistakes. They are told something and then accept that immediately as gold standard.

    The idea of the big bang is a lot less solid than people seem to think. They're told, this is what happened. Well, no...this is what we think happened, so far.

    Human knowlege (aka science) is very, very limited. So are all the models and methods we have for explaining the world around us.

    As for scientific evidence for God. There isn't really any and certainly nothing solid. There also isn't really anything against him either.

    In relation to Christianity, it is generally accepted (from non bilblical sources afaik) that Jesus was a real person, was a carpenter, a jewish rabbi and that he lived at the right time and in the right place. Whether he was the son of god or not is another story.

    As for God, by his very definition means he can't be tested for. He exists outside of time and space. That alone places him far beyond human comprehension as he doesn't play by our rules in any way. Humanity has a miniscule viewpoint on reality, even smaller when you think we can't see/detect a lot of what may potentially be out there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I think a lot of people think science is a lot more concrete and black and white than it actually is.

    A lot of people don't seem to think that the field of science does make huge mistakes. They are told something and then accept that immediately as gold standard.

    The idea of the big bang is a lot less solid than people seem to think. They're told, this is what happened. Well, no...this is what we think happened, so far.

    Human knowlege (aka science) is very, very limited. So are all the models and methods we have for explaining the world around us.

    As for scientific evidence for God. There isn't really any and certainly nothing solid. There also isn't really anything against him either.

    In relation to Christianity, it is generally accepted (from non bilblical sources afaik) that Jesus was a real person, was a carpenter, a jewish rabbi and that he lived at the right time and in the right place. Whether he was the son of god or not is another story.

    As for God, by his very definition means he can't be tested for. He exists outside of time and space. That alone places him far beyond human comprehension as he doesn't play by our rules in any way. Humanity has a miniscule viewpoint on reality, even smaller when you think we can't see/detect a lot of what may potentially be out there.
    We really have to stop telling people how little we know in this way, as it really minimises our achievements and makes it sound like we know far less than we do. When people loose faith in what they know they turn to religion and superstition, and sometimes refuse to believe the science that is thereafter presented to them.

    Humans have actually done an incredible job of understanding the universe. The key point here is that our world is undoubtedly a mathematical one, and humans happen to have an impressive ability to understand that maths. Science is not 'human knowledge' then in that sense. Maths is independent and real, if there ever was a gold standard it's proof by mathematics. If there ever was black and white, it's in the suggestions of mathematics. Yes science makes mistakes....they're called theories, which are then overturned when proved wrong....but , and this is the thing to be applauded regarding our race, we are hungry enough to overturn our scientific mistakes and pursue real physical law. I mean, we can look inside an atom and see a fundamental particle, as in one that is likely not divisible; the smallest things in the universe. QED tells us an incredible amount about nearly everything we see around us explained by how light interacts with electrons. We can calculate the size of our universe and describe some of the conditions present a tiny fraction of a second after it's creation. I'm telling you stuff you know, but what do religious texts offer that can even compare? Poetry and metaphors, yet still people cling to these! They are not even completely at odds with scientific theory!

    There certainly is no scientific evidence for God, however there is an ever growing body of evidence that assures us that he is not who he has been made out to be as creator/intervener in the religious texts we are still putting our faith in.

    Yes Jesus existed, he had a day job and also went around spreading a world view that was ahead of it's time, and is one that I actually really quite like the principles of.

    When a person says that God is outside of time and space and doesn't play by our rules, it has the feel of a cop out. It feels like the religious, having learnt some uncomfortable science, have tried to warp and stretch their beliefs around it. It's become linguistics versus mathematics.

    As for not being able to see/detect a lot of what is out there, this applies to the physical universe and should not be so casually conflated with what we don't know of God; because we are making progress, we are seeing more and more everyday. It may not be a mystery forever. In theory at least, there may come a day when God has no where left to hide.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    We really have to stop telling people how little we know in this way, as it really minimises our achievements and makes it sound like we know far less than we do. When people loose faith in what they know they turn to religion and superstition, and sometimes refuse to believe the science that is thereafter presented to them.

    Humans have actually done an incredible job of understanding the universe. The key point here is that our world is undoubtedly a mathematical one, and humans happen to have an impressive ability to understand that maths. Science is not 'human knowledge' then in that sense. Maths is independent and real, if there ever was a gold standard it's proof by mathematics. If there ever was black and white, it's in the suggestions of mathematics. Yes science makes mistakes....they're called theories, which are then overturned when proved wrong....but , and this is the thing to be applauded regarding our race, we are hungry enough to overturn our scientific mistakes and pursue real physical law. I mean, we can look inside an atom and see a fundamental particle, as in one that is likely not divisible; the smallest things in the universe. QED tells us an incredible amount about nearly everything we see around us explained by how light interacts with electrons. We can calculate the size of our universe and describe some of the conditions present a tiny fraction of a second after it's creation. I'm telling you stuff you know, but what do religious texts offer that can even compare? Poetry and metaphors, yet still people cling to these! They are not even completely at odds with scientific theory!

    There certainly is no scientific evidence for God, however there is an ever growing body of evidence that assures us that he is not who he has been made out to be as creator/intervener in the religious texts we are still putting our faith in.

    Yes Jesus existed, he had a day job and also went around spreading a world view that was ahead of it's time, and is one that I actually really quite like the principles of.

    When a person says that God is outside of time and space and doesn't play by our rules, it has the feel of a cop out. It feels like the religious, having learnt some uncomfortable science, have tried to warp and stretch their beliefs around it. It's become linguistics versus mathematics.

    As for not being able to see/detect a lot of what is out there, this applies to the physical universe and should not be so casually conflated with what we don't know of God; because we are making progress, we are seeing more and more everyday. It may not be a mystery forever. In theory at least, there may come a day when God has no where left to hide.
    I'd really like to have a debate in person, much easier. I cba to type long posts, they become convoluted, shame.

    I don't view God and Science at odds with one another. The concept of God does not fit into human rules, that's not a cop out, that's just the way it is.
    I'm also not beliting achievement.

    Remember though, there were a few times when we thought the world was millions of years old, though perfectly good scientific methods. It's just that we haden't discovered somthing else first. There isn't anything wrong with that, that's progress but it reminds us that we're not always right and we don't always hold all the peices of the puzzle.

    This leads to: We must not be overconfident in science. I see this a lot. It is fallible, because people are fallible. We've been around such a short time it's not even funny.

    Inquisative question: Does the concept of God scare you? In that there is somthing that may potentially exist that operates outside our rules and cannot be tested for?

    Please be honest, no judgement here.

    Side note: I've always thought the Universe, for its scale, would be much older than it is. Seems young, has always bugged me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't actually believe in time, hence the universe is 'ageless' imho!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    As God created the laws of science and logic, his being is free from the restraints of science and cannot be proved using science and logic < that's convenient
    As God is Omnipotent and free from imperfections, it would be a flaw of His to be restricted by science. Science itself is flawed and ever-improving.
    New research contradicts claims of scientists from the past decades.
    “Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand.”
    ― Dan Brown
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No worries evidence for, nor any against. God can either simply be ingrained into the universe, such that it makes no difference to what we observe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)
    As God is Omnipotent and free from imperfections, it would be a flaw of His to be restricted by science. Science itself is flawed and ever-improving.
    New research contradicts claims of scientists from the past decades.
    “Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand.”
    ― Dan Brown
    i understood it when the first guy said it, it's still very convenient that science can proof everything else EXCEPT god.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutellme)
    No worries evidence for, nor any against. God can either simply be ingrained into the universe, such that it makes no difference to what we observe.
    there's no evidence against the fact that i have an invisible pet dinosaur either, doesn't make it at all true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    i understood it when the first guy said it, it's still very convenient that science can proof everything else EXCEPT god.

    SCIENCE IS FLAWED!!!
    It cannot prove everything
    There are so many undiscovered things out there you cant use science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)

    SCIENCE IS FLAWED!!!
    It cannot prove everything
    There are so many undiscovered things out there you cant use science.
    science is flawed, but blindly trusting what a random book says is flawless. okay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    Peroxi, as a knowledgable person, i'll assume that you appreciate whereas standard physics is a first degree knowledge, philosophy, and in this case 'metaphysics' is a higher level science. And thus takes precedence and priority over physics, in any such, 'bar room debate'.But then you already knew that right??
    Okay, this is ludicrous. Once again here's the definition of pseudoscience/pathological science: pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

    Science is not pseudoscience. Consequently metaphysics =/= science. Metaphysics is one of the most dangerous examples of pseudoscience there is. It cannot under any circumstances be considered scientific or as you put it "a higher level science" because it does not follow the scientific method. In fact, metaphysics and other fields of philosophy are characterized by their use as attempts to answer questions which cannot currently be answered empirically. Science on the other hand is the pursuit of answers and knowledge by using the scientific method and reproducible, empirical evidence.

    Therefore, no field of philosophy (including metaphysics) can ever be regarded as more important or be given higher priority than physics or any other field of science in any debate whatsoever. The simple fact is that science uses evidence, whereas philosophy uses conjecture.

    (Original post by john2054)
    a quote from the wiki article that old guy provided us with...Theories in physics like the Butterfly effect from chaos theory open up the possibility of a type of distributed parameter systems in causality. The butterfly effect theory proposes:"Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system."This opens up the opportunity to understand a distributed causality.

    What this means for the lay person (you and me, and the standard tsr user), is that time can move backwards and forwards in the quantum, and thus 'real big and lived universe', with equal validity and reliabilty.

    The obvious example of this with regards to history, is 'war is written by the winners', so for example, whilst 'some' republicans may see vietnam as a victory, with time and common sense, this has come to now be regarded as one of the biggest defeats America has suffered. This also brings in to the science of politics, anthropology, the media and terrorism, all of which you need to have studied to fully understand this example.
    This made me laugh even harder than that last post of yours! Forgive my tone of superiority as I don't mean it that way but, I am far from being a lay person. You clearly fall under this category but as a chemical physicist I do not.

    I am familiar with the chaos theory and the Butterfly effect. You however are not, so please do not humiliate yourself further by attempting to lecture me about it - honestly, your interpretation of it as allowing time to flow backwards is laughable to say the least! The Butterfly effect is simply a metaphorical name given to the well known fact that small environmental factors are capable of having a large effect on systems as a whole. Here's an example: rolling a die. When you roll the die there are several tiny factors affecting it's trajectory, here's a simplified list:

    1) The direction of air flow around the die
    2) The atmospheric pressure around the die
    3) The material of the die (polar bond locations and strengths, as well as many other things all play a small part in how the die interacts with the air around it)
    4) The weight of the die
    5) The angle of the die
    6) The force exerted on the die when it was thrown
    7) The air composition around the die
    8) The surface areas of particles in contact with the die
    9) The air temperature around the die
    10) The height the die was thrown from

    As you can see, there's a lot of factors affecting it! This is why no matter how many times you roll the same die, the probability of it having the same trajectory is negligible. That is what's known as the butterfly effect.

    As I hope you have realized from this, the butterfly effect and chaos theory do not permit objects to travel backwards in time. In fact, going backwards in time is a physical impossibility as doing so would require speeds higher than the speed of light. A speed which it is physically impossible to exceed (or even reach for objects with mass). As you approach this speed you gain mass, meaning that you will continue accelerating, but will never reach the speed of light. You can therefore never go backwards in time.

    Quod erat demonstrandum.

    (Original post by john2054)
    as the majority of the worlds population do believe in some kind of diety another, be him Christ, Allah, Shiva or Buddha, if we were going to be fairly democratic and take an overall vote on the issue, you would lose there as well. Okay??
    1) The Buddha is not considered a deity. I should know, I'm a Buddhist! In fact the "religion" of Buddhism is not actually a religion at all. It is a philosophy and a way of life, nothing more. This is why Buddhism is able to coexist with religions, it does not contradict any religious views.

    2) Since when was science and/or fact a democracy? Ideas are either right or wrong. There's is no grey area and no room for debate. Besides, the opinions of a few billion Homo Sapiens' are worth nothing in the grand scheme of things. Opinion has no effect on whether something is correct or not therefore whether the truth is outvoted or not is irrelevant.

    [QUOTE=john2054;62777159]I'm sorry if you are stuck with this debate up in your ivory tower [\QUOTE]

    Why be sorry? It's very comfortable up here.

    (Original post by chemting)
    Do you think religion is needed for order now? or do you think morals, values and order can still be achieved through atheism.
    Of course it can! Morals are the result of logic and evolution, nothing more.

    We help people because in the end it benefits us, as the person we've helped will then be more inclined to help us should we ever need it. We also help people because it increases our species' chances of surviving hard times. We don't kill people without reason because doing so would hinder our species' survival. In addition to this it would only disadvantage ourselves most of the time so it is clearly more logical not to do it. We don't steal because again, it would disadvantage ourselves most of the time. I could go on like this for all morals but I think I've made my point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)

    SCIENCE IS FLAWED!!!
    It cannot prove everything
    There are so many undiscovered things out there you cant use science.
    Not yet, but as technology and science advances we become able to explain more and more phenomena. The fact that some things are currently out of our reach does not discredit science in any way.

    If you cannot reach something you build a ladder. It is the same with science. Believing in a fictitious deity to provide an answer for every question will only prevent you from building these ladders, so you will never reach the actual answers. You'll be doomed to spend the rest of your existence ignorant of everything around you. Why some people would choose this is beyond me, it seems like such a waste of your finite lifetime.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    there's no evidence against the fact that i have an invisible pet dinosaur either, doesn't make it at all true.
    Exactly. I was just showing how it's pointless discussing the existence of God.

    I cannot claim for certain you don't have an invisible pet dinosaur (which also has no mass/heat signature or any other way to be detected). But you can't claim for certain you do.

    Religion is more worthy of discussion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutellme)
    But you can't claim for certain you do.
    Well, he can. It is no more outrageous than claiming that Mohammed flew on a horse over Arabia, or that Jesus fed 5,000 from almost no food at all.

    (Original post by donutellme)
    Religion is more worthy of discussion.
    I don't see why. One superstitious belief or unsupported claim is worth just as much as another. Nothing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutellme)
    Exactly. I was just showing how it's pointless discussing the existence of God.

    I cannot claim for certain you don't have an invisible pet dinosaur (which also has no mass/heat signature or any other way to be detected). But you can't claim for certain you do.

    Religion is more worthy of discussion.
    why is religion more worthy of discussion?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well, he can. It is no more outrageous than claiming that Mohammed flew on a horse over Arabia, or that Jesus fed 5,000 from almost no food at all.



    I don't see why. One superstitious belief or unsupported claim is worth just as much as another. Nothing.
    (Original post by mangala)
    why is religion more worthy of discussion?
    Because religion actually affects our lives and has a measurable impact. Religion is what you probably mean when you refer to God.

    Whether God exists by himself or not doesn't make a difference. It's like you compared to an ant. The ant isn't affected by your existence unless they make a doctrine which means they have to build ant mounds in your honour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I'd really like to have a debate in person, much easier. I cba to type long posts, they become convoluted, shame.

    I don't view God and Science at odds with one another. The concept of God does not fit into human rules, that's not a cop out, that's just the way it is.
    I'm also not beliting achievement.

    Remember though, there were a few times when we thought the world was millions of years old, though perfectly good scientific methods. It's just that we haden't discovered somthing else first. There isn't anything wrong with that, that's progress but it reminds us that we're not always right and we don't always hold all the peices of the puzzle.

    This leads to: We must not be overconfident in science. I see this a lot. It is fallible, because people are fallible. We've been around such a short time it's not even funny.

    Inquisative question: Does the concept of God
    scare you? In that there is somthing that may potentially exist that operates outside our rules and cannot be tested for?

    Please be honest, no judgement here.

    Side note: I've always thought the Universe, for its scale, would be much older than it is. Seems young, has always bugged me.
    I'll have a shot at making this, er, not long. I agree long posts make me loose the will!

    The laws of the universe are not human rules. Though I would expect God to exist outside of our universe somehow, if he interacts with it in any way, I would also expect there to be some proof, some suggestion of that. Instead I see two bodies of evidence; one, and the most compelling IMO, moving on the direction of being incorporated into a Grand Theory of Everything where the existence of things can be explained by a single set of equations, maybe one. The other at every turn presenting us with more questions than we find answers to with a suggestion that there exists something beyond our universe. Neither support in the slightest way the God of any of the major religions.

    I think we can be very confident in science, we've just got to admit it and move on when we spot our mistakes if that makes sense.

    "We've been around such a short time it's not even funny" is excellent, do you mind if I use it? I don't know what it is about this sentence but I like it a lot.

    Inquisitive answers: I used to be a Christian. No, doesn't scare me . Actually feel a wonderful peace when I'm calculating the parabolic motion of a projectile or memorising the Standard Model and may rap to myself "it's like that, and that's the way it is". Seriously tho, I believe in the good and unique parts of our humanity, but I don't get spiritual about it. IfGod does exist, then he does. I am not arrogant enough to say he absolutely does not, or does.

    Yeah universe does seen young, though only because the brain thinks universe= enormous=massive numbers involved=years existed must be biggest number I've ever seen. What do you mean that's not strictly Cosmology?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Not yet, but as technology and science advances we become able to explain more and more phenomena. The fact that some things are currently out of our reach does not discredit science in any way.

    If you cannot reach something you build a ladder. It is the same with science. Believing in a fictitious deity to provide an answer for every question will only prevent you from building these ladders, so you will never reach the actual answers. You'll be doomed to spend the rest of your existence ignorant of everything around you. Why some people would choose this is beyond me, it seems like such a waste of your finite lifetime.
    Also, I find it super grating when science sceptical religious people then nick bits of new science and try to use it for their own purposes like "see...we told you so! Mathematician over there says the concept of infinity is problematic! The universe MUST have been caused!"

    Nope.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by m.al-hussain)

    SCIENCE IS FLAWED!!!
    It cannot prove everything
    There are so many undiscovered things out there you cant use science.
    better than "I'm stupid, therefore god"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    better than "I'm stupid, therefore god"
    Well said, well translated.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.