I see what you mean. I think that religion and science can coexist, in some way. I would like to express myself more, but English is not my first language and I don't really know how to say what I want to say lol fml. Thank you for expressing your opinion politely though.It's ironic that the flying spaghetti monster is mentioned in the OP, since it's deliberately designed to demonstrate that the god hypothesis is basically untestable and therefore not a real hypothesis. It's not really possible to prove there isn't a god afaik, however you can construct some damn strong arguments why there probably isn't.
Personally I see no reason to believe in a god, simply because I don't know of any decent evidence supporting the idea. The idea that reality couldn't exist without some god is simply not founded in reason and actually strikes me as lazy thinking tbh. Like there are people out there right now trying to work out these sorts of metaphysical questions by observing the world around them, it's not as though we can't attempt to find answers this way and we should because then we'd have a better reason for our beliefs than "idk, I just assumed".
Another thing is that I legit don't understand why you can rationally claim one religion is more valid than the other. To me they're all on equally shaky grounds so it's not just that they have to argue god(s) exist but also why their religion should be considered more accurate than the next. Christianity vs islam is a good example, since they're both based on a holy text about some dude who was supposedly divine and did a bunch of divine-type stuff, so why believe one over the other? It should be painfully obvious that I've read neither of those texts, but hey that doesn't stop a shitload of other people from making that decision so... *shrug*
Until I see conclusive evidence of the Loch Ness Monster existing, I won't believe it exists. Likewise, until I see conclusive evidence of a god existing, I won't believe one exists. It's pretty simple, really,
Yaaas, I like this theory :)I think there is something "out there" that science can't yet describe or measure, like some other parallel or astral unidentified world that we aren't able to find with what we currently have. So, something massive and indescribable that can be described as a "God" is out there that has some form of control on our realm. Who knows, I can't really know for sure.
How does science operate on faith? The whole point of science is that it's either grounded in evidence or it makes predictions that can readily be tested. Sure, you can argue that a scientific study in isolation could potentially be created using fabricated evidence or something similar, but these things don't exist in isolation- even if that experiment is not replicated to ensure its accuracy, future studies will build upon it and if something doesn't add up then prior studies will be examined and inaccuracies discovered. Science doesn't depend on faith because the system ensures that every claim is held accountable. Sure, the system is not perfect (for instance, psychology is a mess in terms of replicability), but it's overall pretty damn good. And frankly, we don't need faith to determine the accuracy of scientific knowledge because a lot of it gets used to make products that form part of our lives, products that actually work.Let me ask this how do you separate religion and science as distinct entities? They both operate heavily upon faith. To think there is a sky daddy that watches all is ridiculous and takes a large amount of faith.
What also takes a huge leap of faith is to assume that the universe was once nothing at all and suddenly BOOM wow now its a universe from absolutely nothing. BANG oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!
When you begin to truly understand what many scientific theories suppose and instead of taking it at face value-you analyze it, you start to see some very strong similarities between science and religion. They are in the end one in the same; a simple belief system that operates upon faith and are there to instill moral and intellectual fortitude. I dont really understand why there is a struggle for a dominant train of thought when they both are not only flawed but ultimately up to the individual to decide which works better for themselves.
How does science operate on faith? The whole point of science is that it's either grounded in evidence or it makes predictions that can readily be tested. Sure, you can argue that a scientific study in isolation could potentially be created using fabricated evidence or something similar, but these things don't exist in isolation- even if that experiment is not replicated to ensure its accuracy, future studies will build upon it and if something doesn't add up then prior studies will be examined and inaccuracies discovered. Science doesn't depend on faith because the system ensures that every claim is held accountable. Sure, the system is not perfect (for instance, psychology is a mess in terms of replicability), but it's overall pretty damn good. And frankly, we don't need faith to determine the accuracy of scientific knowledge because a lot of it gets used to make products that form part of our lives, products that actually work.
Science and religion cannot be equated because of how they treat knowledge. Religion doesn't search for answers, instead claiming it's already found them. Furthermore, faith shields certain beliefs from critical thinking. Science doesn't claim to offer all of the answers and actively seeks to further understanding of the world through observation and evidence, while sparing nothing from critical thinking.
The example you give regarding the creation of the solar system/earth/life honestly doesn't suggest any understanding of how that actually occurred. If you find it so dubious, perhaps you can deconstruct the mechanisms thought to be underlying those processes and explain why they're so suspect?
There's evidence for these - a hell of a lot more than religion. Yes it's a theory but its not like people are pulling crap from nowhere. The 2nd half of this makes this look even worse because there's lots of evidence for "oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!". You really can't say that religion, which is largely evidence-less and science are really the same.What also takes a huge leap of faith is to assume that the universe was once nothing at all and suddenly BOOM wow now its a universe from absolutely nothing. BANG oh look we got some planets, some solar systems, aw look that one has water, this one over here just happens to be perfectly placed for intelligent life to evolve; how lucky are we?!
There's evidence for these -
This sounds sensible and all, but upon closer thought I don't think it holds water. For something to be impossible to measure, it would need by definition not to have an impact on our universe. If it influences, it has an impact, and impacts can be measured. If there is a god/spiritual dimension/whatnot that subtly directs our universe, it would leave evidence all over the place in the form of violations of causality. And if said god/spirits/whatnot had directed our universe to the degree that certain people claim (such as physically moving objects so that "the right person" can find them at "the right time", or more straightforwardly, healing injuries), somebody would have gathered some pretty solid and tangible evidence for it long ago.I think there is something "out there" that science can't yet describe or measure, like some other parallel or astral unidentified world that we aren't able to find with what we currently have. So, something massive and indescribable that can be described as a "God" is out there that has some form of control on our realm. Who knows, I can't really know for sure.
Science does not operate on faith until it is proven, because it is never proven. It operates on the most comprehensive interpretation of the best evidence available until a more comprehensive interpretation is put forth or better evidence arises, at which point any useful knowledge gained from the previous interpretation must be accounted for by any new one. The assumption that the a priori acknowledgement that every scientific theory is almost certainly flawed in some way does not diminish the utility of the knowledge gained from it is foundational to science and distinguishes it from religion.I understand enough to know that what we consider the laws of physics to be literally out the window at the point of singularity. The premise that the universe as it is-obeyed common laws of physics before it was as we know it today is flat out bunk and also completely assuming to boot.
I see your points and they are good but your bias is showing. Science does indeed operate on faith until it is proven, that's why scientific theory is regarded as scripture to the disciple of science; regardless if it is just hypothesis or not. In science's attempt to denounce God, there may be an agenda. I'm no expert and I have more questions than answers but people have a right to make up their own mind. If someone chooses to take up beliefs that do not align with the beliefs of others it is perfectly okay. You don't have to agree just try to see where I'm coming from, that is all I ask.
I totally agree. Also, we do have a concept of what is good and what is bad, but who says that for him it's the same?One question I want to ask lol, I am a psychicist but I still cannot help but wonder, why are humans so arrogant? Aren't there things that humans just cannot understand or comprehend? If so, can't there being an omnipotent being be one of them? Isn't the bottom line that we either assume that there is a God or not, you literally cannot say any one side can be more sure than the other? Or is that not the case? One thing alot of people here going on about science not operating on faith, ask yourself, is Gravity certain lol? No it isn't, we are just told that at school but there are many examples that one can give that show Gravity doesnt make sense and cannot be proven.
Oh and for anyone who has the thought "If God exists then why is there suffering, imbalance etc.?" That in itself is arrogance, if God is the supreme creator then he does whatever he wants surely? How can you as a human try to understand why he allows things to happen if you are limited but he is not?