God vs science

[TAG]

I was always wondering how some scientists can believe in God , i assume if you believe in science ( trying to understand the world and believe that the world is explainable) that it denies the existence of God ( all is god creation and cant be explained).
Einstein is a good example of a scientist that believed in god.
what do you think ?

[Banned]

Considering myself a pious person,I would say that God is more reliable to have faith in.As the thread starter has mentioned it already,some things cannot be explained by science like the reaches of this universe and where it ends.None of us know the truth and probably,none of us will ever come to know about it.For me,the world is an illusion and we humans have a misapprehension of everything that we see as existent.

[Real]

Science (All is explainable, we explained the big bang and will discover all universes secrets).

I voted for this, but I'm sure Humanity will not live to discover everything. Self-destruction may be closer than we think.

Considering myself a pious person,I would say that God is more reliable to have faith in.As the thread starter has mentioned it already,some things cannot be explained by science like the reaches of this universe and where it ends.None of us know the truth and probably,none of us will ever come to know about it.For me,the world is an illusion and we humans have a misapprehension of everything that we see as existent.

Some things cannot be explained by science? The origins of life, the reaches of the Universe, the end of it, everything we cannot explain today, will be discovered tommorow. 40 thousand years ago the human believed the lightning storms were manifestations of the gods' emotions or the gods themselves. Today we know it's a simple reaction between two clouds involving electricity. Today the great mystery around the origins of life is something that makes us believe in God or think about it. But tommorow it will be simply explained by a 10 year old boy. We just have to wait for scientists to do their job.

[Drtad]

I believe that there is no contradiction between science and religion. Thus, you can believe in both.

[leeho730]

Or neither.

Science is not something that we believe. Science is the tool that we use to understand the Universe; we do not believe in hammers in the toolbox, we do not believe in microscopes in the lab; we hypothesize theories, we do not put our faith in them.

And most importantly, science is falsifiable, with suitable theories and evidences. For example, in some cases, we can falsify Darwin's theory of natural selection (but it is generally accepted that evolution is real).

Religion, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. We cannot falsify the resurrection of JC or existence of Heaven or Hell; we thus believe in them. It is not something that can be proven or rejected.

Although both science and religion are our tools to understand the Universe, their mechanisms are fundamentally different.

For me, science. It has proven to be more reliable than religion (with a possible exception of Buddhism; I have a tremendous amount of respect for it). But I do not believe in science.

[TheKwas]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

Just we are all on the same page with Einstien. He was not a religious man in the way many like to portray him.

[Gaidin]

I was always wondering how some scientists can believe in God , i assume if you believe in science ( trying to understand the world and believe that the world is explainable) that it denies the existence of God ( all is god creation and cant be explained).

Science has yet to comment on God as there have been no repeatable, testable, and falsifiable occurrences dealing with God to hypothesize on.

Scientists can believe in God as individual people if they so wish, but their field has no comment to give.

[LSJ]

I believe in science all the way. But I also believe in a god-like force. The two do not contradict, because science never comments on the origin of matter from which the universe was created. I believe in a nameless indescribable god, not God, so it works out. Plus science teaches me how to augment matter and figure out the trajectory of my rocket launchers. I just rely on a god to fill the void that science cannot fill.

[Simetrical]

The poll would perhaps more accurately ask whether one believes in religion or scientism, the belief that science is the answer to most questions of importance and that there's no other way to uncover the mysteries of the universe.

[TAG]

I believe in science all the way. But I also believe in a god-like force. The two do not contradict, because science never comments on the origin of matter from which the universe was created. I believe in a nameless indescribable god, not God, so it works out. Plus science teaches me how to augment matter and figure out the trajectory of my rocket launchers. I just rely on a god to fill the void that science cannot fill.

Actually lately they are
and the Big Bang theory ?

[LSJ]

The Big Bang theory only covers the creation and expansion of the universe, not the origin of the matter from which it was created. It refers to an incredibly dense and unstable singularity, which eventually "exploded" and released the matter and energies. So, it relies on the matter and energy previously existing - thus it does not explain where the energy came from.
The singularity had to have forces making it unstable, and with density there must be physical substance; but substance has to come from somewhere... that's where science stops.

[Yosemite]

Dude wanted to put both but was too fast.

[chris_uk_83]

The way I see it, there is nothing to dispute the existence of an all powerful God who created the universe and humanity etc. But He must be bound by the rules of the universe, therefore He must have had complete knowledge of these mechanisms and known how to manipulate them to His own ends.

Therefore God created man; using evolution. God created the universe, using the big bang. What science deals with is the 'how', in my mind both God and science have no conflict at all, God simply uses mechanisms - that science subsequently discovers - to do things. One day maybe science will find out how He did that in the first place and we'll finally come face to face with God. That'll be an interesting day!

[Simetrical]

The Big Bang theory only covers the creation and expansion of the universe, not the origin of the matter from which it was created. It refers to an incredibly dense and unstable singularity, which eventually "exploded" and released the matter and energies. So, it relies on the matter and energy previously existing - thus it does not explain where the energy came from.
The singularity had to have forces making it unstable, and with density there must be physical substance; but substance has to come from somewhere... that's where science stops.

Science has stopped there for now. It may continue to find antecedents to the big bang (e.g., brane theory); of course, it might not, but don't bet on it. This kind of "God of the gaps" argument tends to be a losing proposition, because science tends to figure things out that people say it never possibly could.

[Beiss]

Science doesn't explain everything. Yet. Maybe it never will. Neither does God. Some people think the fact that science doesn't explain everything is reason enough to believe in God. I need a better one. I don't need God to explain any of the things science can't explain. For all those things, I'll just settle with "we don't know" until science finds an answer.

For me, science is almost like a religion. I accept the things that are commonly considered to be true, because someone has proven them. I don't really care enough to actually check if they are proven. I only question them if I feel there's contradiction - if I feel it doesn't make sense. With religion, there are just way too many contradictions and interpretations of everything. Science allows for "we don't know. Yet. Maybe we never will".

Er, I don't know why this thread was even started. The debate will go on forever and threads like this usually end up with people getting hurt. I don't know why I even posted.

[NaptownKnight]

I have faith in God, and the things that are unexplainanble by science are easily explainable by God.

[Beiss]

Give me one example of something that is explainable by God and not by science. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious.

[NaptownKnight]

Give me one example of something that is explainable by God and not by science. I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious.

Ok an easy one. Science can not explain how big the universe is or if there is life in the universe other than us. God can, God made the universe and he put his limits on it and God made life an if there is other life in the uni than God made them and knows about them.

[Gaidin]

God can, God made the universe and he put his limits on it and God made life an if there is other life in the uni than God made them and knows about them.

And God seems to have a fetish with not explaining anything about this information.

How useful.

[NaptownKnight]

And God seems to have a fetish with not explaining anything about this information.

How useful.

We dont need to understand. I understand humans have a cetain curiosity driven craze about explaining everything, me personally I like to hear about them but I know everything is easily explainable through God.