Religion attempting to disprove science

I agree.

I honestly believe that scientists are willing to believe in a god should they find evidence to support His existence. But I don't think that it will ever happen.

Exactly. Dues Ex Machina.

The thing which always gets me is how religious people seem to live by the paradigm:

"Lack of disproof for the existence of God implies the existence of God."

This is about as logically flawed as it can get, and if such an inference were used for other more day-to-day aspects of our life, its inherent flaws are very evident and you would be called a nutter.

Think about it. I could apply it almost any way I wanted. Let's say I wanted to prove that a donkey with four heads and fifty legs lives on Jupiter (incidentally this donkey has evolved to be able to exist successfully on a gas giant). Well, due to the distance of Jupiter from us and the thickness of its atmosphere, we are not able to state conclusively that such a donkey doesn't exist (i.e. we have no disproof), hence by the above paradigm, we have implied that the donkey must exist. Does this not sound flawed to religious people? If it doesn't, then I don't believe you, if it does, then how on Earth can you justify your belief in God above all else?

Regards,

I found this posted on a religious chat forum. The person is attempting to use the laws of physics to explain why there is no explanation for our existence other than creation.

Feel free to post your views after reading the post. (Sorry that it's so long)

''When I discuss evolution with the "educated" scholars of academia they are wholly sold on the idea. I have tried to use the bible in my arguments with them but since they don't believe in it, the bible is foolishness to them. I have found great succeess, however, with using scientific laws to disprove evolution. I use three simple laws of science:

1. 1st Law of Thermodynamics (The law of conservation of energy)
2. Newton's 1st Law of motion (the Law of Inertia)
3. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the disorder of an open system)

Simply put, these three laws state that within the confines of a closed system (in our case the Universe, all things that exist), energy cannot be created or destroyed, nothing happens unless an outside force acts upon it, and all systems in the Universe will evenutally decay. These three laws go totally against the theory of evolution. This is why evolution is still a theory. Scientist, much as they have tried, have never been able to rationalize evolution against these three laws.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy (or matter) cannot be created or destroyed. This means that everything in the universe that exists has existed from the beginning of time and that the universe could have have created itself. There must be an outside force to create the universe. The only thing outside the entire universe is a supernatural being.

The 2nd law states that nothing happens unless it is acted upon by an outside force. In the case of the universe, the Big Bang theory is impossible. The theory goes that everything in the universe once existed in the one very small piece of matter. Then, all of the sudden, it exploded and produced the universe. The only possible way this could have happened is for a force outside of the universe to make it happen. Once again, the only force outside the universe is a supernatural being.

The 3rd law states that every system in the universe will eventually decay. The theory of evolution is the exact opposite. Evolution states that disparate systems (separate, unlike and distant particles or chemicals) spontaneously came together to form life. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that this is impossible. Take a look at anything in the entire universe: sun, moon, stars, a wrist watch, any living creature. All of these things eventually decay and breakdown. Nothing that we know of today or at any time in history has ever "created" itself. If evolution were truen then, in theory, you could take all of the parts of several watches, put them in a bag and after a few million years of shaking, you would have a fully functioning and working watch. We all know this is insane and would never happen. In fact, after that much shaking you would have a bag of metal dust. Same is true with life. The only possible answer to the creation of life is, once again, a supernatural being.

I have found these arguments to stop scientific academics in their tracks. They cannot explain how evolution can be true and still violate these simple and true laws of physics.''

There's so much stuff we don't know about yet in science... and although it's dangerous to extrpolate, science is providing us with lots of new answers each year, and i believe will continue to do so, and religion is providing us with none. Science is in my view a sort of philosophy where reason and logic, with the aid of various calculations and rules as evidence, provides arguments for and against things... the strongest argument put forward, which stands up to logical thought and argument is accepted. Should a more logical argument/reasoning be found it will eventually prevail. With religion the problem is this is this and stays this way... i mean they must have taken a step back at some point and admited god doesn't hurl thunderbolts from the sky... eventually they'll admit the same of god himself. But i think the best we can hope for is agnosticism, before they make a break for switzerland to stash the church cash, having admitted it all.

Science has rendered religion obsolete. It is an artefact - a memorial of a bygone age where faith provided illumination for aspects of existence incomprehensible to humans. No longer neccessary - humankind has moved onwards.

Sure, it looks like things are going this way, but when religion still plays a fundemental part in many peoples lives, what you have said is not an accurate representation of how things actually are.

Sometimes I wonder whether certain religious groups are on a completely different wavelength. I often find their beliefs totally incomprehensible. The other day, I listened to a radio extract of two American christians talking about their views on the september 11th tragedy. What surprised me was that they both believed it to be caused by God, punishing the world for the existence of atheists, non-christians, abortionists and even homosexuals! Clearly, this doesn't represent the views of the majority of christians but it just goes to show the extremist views of some of the more orthodox members of the christian faith.

I was having a debate with an atheist, who normally is quite well-versed on different beliefs.
As a reply to one answer;

"But Christians killed Jesus."

Believe me, it can go both ways.