What do you think happens after death?

[TheGame]

There's a reason science and religion has managed to co-exist this long. The fact that science cannot disprove that there's a creator, even in all of its advancements.. is the reason religion still exists.

People are free to believe what they'd like, but there's no factual evidence that disproves that there's a god.

Don't get me wrong, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it exists. Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

What?

Not to sound like an ass, but please explain what science hasn't been able to answer.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

What?

Not to sound like an ass, but please explain what science hasn't been able to answer.

Well for one, the origins of life. Right now science's explanation have been:

1) A mistake or coincidence (a theory even science of probabilities does not support)

2) Aliens (and in that case, who made them?)

Both of those theories are based on pretty lousy "science", to be honest. For me, science seems to create 2 questions with each answer it discovers, and even most of what is treated as proven science is actually just a leading theory. Part of my issue with the scienbtific community is how they tend to treat leading theories as facts, and I find that counterproductive to the scientific process.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by TheGame

There's a reason science and religion has managed to co-exist this long. The fact that science cannot disprove that there's a creator, even in all of its advancements.. is the reason religion still exists.

People are free to believe what they'd like, but there's no factual evidence that disproves that there's a god.

Don't get me wrong, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it exists. Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

The burden of proof is not on scientists or the non religious.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a God does exist. Saying, "You can't prove it ISN'T there" is not a logical argument. It's a fallacy.

So until someone can prove there IS god, there's no reason to believe there is one.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The burden of proof is not on scientists or the non religious.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a God does exist. Saying, "You can't prove it ISN'T there" is not a logical argument. It's a fallacy.

So until someone can prove there IS god, there's no reason to believe there is one.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

Interesting point. I'm assuming you say this because it would destroy the need for faith, and the awe and mystery that the unknown of God creates?

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly.

I thought that the leading theory was after the Big Bang occurred the "right stuff" (which is the molecular make-up of our universe) allowed life to flourish.

http://www.livescience.com/strangene...ting-life.html:

Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

If you don't discredit Evolution, then who is to say the right reaction could not have created life?

This evidence or theory does not rule out a divine creator setting life into motion, it is just is a very reasonable explanation for where life may have possibly originated.

There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility).

Just because it is nearly impossible does not make it impossible. I probably won't win the lottery, but it is possible. My understanding is this argument is difficult due to the unknown origins of the universe. So, what "hard science" supports God? Science is not looking for God, it is looking for understanding of the world around us.



I just want to say that science is not theology. Science does not seek out to disprove God, it seeks out to explain the natural phenomenons in our Universe. Science has very little stakes in the Ontological nature of our universe. Theories like Evolution (which is as much of a "Theory" as Gravity is) or the Big Bang do not discredit a divine creator that set things into motion.

Science has taken on this mistaken identity of being Anti-Religious because it has disproved a number of things firmly supported by the religious community; the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun is the center of the universe, the universe is a constant thing, evolution, etc.

But this ignores and negates the philosophical questions of existence and places the focus on Scripture or certain religious denominations. My beef with brilliant minds like Dawkins is that his wisdom is in science not philosophy, so he has NO business discussing philosophy.


EDIT: There is some new science looking at the Afterlife or Near Death Experiences...but I believe the Catholic's policy is the Afterlife is something that can only be obtained when you have truly passed. Also I believe the Bible describes the Afterlife as intangible to human thought/imagination.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

More importantly, you're comments show a big misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. You sound like the people who say, "Oh evolution! It's only a theory." Religion is not a theory, and neither is god.

Where are your statistics coming from that make the existence of an all powerful being more probable than all life being created from accident? I find the latter to be more likely - that a group of atoms combined in just the right way to form a single cell organism. At least that is explainable. The existence of a god is not explainable.

If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?

I don't see how my statements lead you to believe I don't know anything about religion or religious people. I wasn't born atheist, but I have become a person of reason and fact. I understand that religion and religious people require a certain amount of spirituality - but since I do not believe in spirituality, I cannot use those terms to express my argument.

You're trying to put me into a catch 22 - I can't use reason to argue my point because it is against the nature of religion, but I can't use religion to argue my point because it contradicts my point.

[TheGame]

I'll say that I generally agree with Strangler's stance in this thread. Lately I've not been in the debating mood, so I'm not really going to sit here and go down point by point and argue with Vamp and KG.

But there's one point I want to touch on..

If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?

No. Just like you're not obligated to believe that a god created us, nor are you obligated to believe in 'random chance' or evolution. It's a choice.

But the search for evidence, and the further understanding of how energy works.. usually leads back to the same fact. Its much more likely that someone or something created life. Random chance is possible, but its more of a stretch to say random chance created energy from nothing without a hand to push it in the direction it went. To me that's both illogical, and goes against what science has discovered.

I know its cliché, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Saying god created chickens to give birth through eggs may sound crazy to you, but to me it makes more sense then saying they were created by accidents and random chance from nothing. And science has yet to find a shred of evidence that disproves my belief on the subject..

[Vampyr]

Heh, aren't religious people the ones that believe something came from nothing? XD

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Heh, aren't religious people the ones that believe something came from nothing? XD

Not necessarily, but this goes back to the human construct of time. God could either exist outside of time, or in multiple dimensions of time.

[KillerGremlin]

I know its cliché, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Saying god created chickens to give birth through eggs may sound crazy to you, but to me it makes more sense then saying they were created by accidents and random chance from nothing. And science has yet to find a shred of evidence that disproves my belief on the subject..

Take Biology. Microorganisms can split or multiply. All it takes is some good primordial tidal soup. And there is a whole cannon of science - Biology - which supports the claim that microorganisms can reproduce. And if you want facts I can dig them up. In labs microbiologists have been able to witness reproduction of single-celled organisms. They have mapped DNA and compared human DNA to other animals (as well as other animals to other animals). There are remnants of single-celled organisms in you and me too. I'm not a Bio Major, this is my GF's territory, but I think if you really seek answers you should take biology. (And again, this STILL doesn't disprove God. It merely provides a logical explanation to some phenomenon in our Universe).

Also, your use of words like "accidents" and "random chance" are misleading. It seems the universe is actually quite receptive for life. Jupiter's moon Europa appears to have enough oxygen to support Earthly life (NASA). Mars may have bacteria on it, and our Moon has water on it! And that's just within our Solar System. There are BILLIONS of galaxies out there with TRILLIONS of stars.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Take Biology. Microorganisms can split or multiply. All it takes is some good primordial tidal soup. And there is a whole cannon of science - Biology - which supports the claim that microorganisms can reproduce. And if you want facts I can dig them up. In labs microbiologists have been able to witness reproduction of single-celled organisms. They have mapped DNA and compared human DNA to other animals (as well as other animals to other animals). There are remnants of single-celled organisms in you and me too. I'm not a Bio Major, this is my GF's territory, but I think if you really seek answers you should take biology. (And again, this STILL doesn't disprove God. It merely provides a logical explanation to some phenomenon in our Universe).

Eventually I'll have to take classes on that subject, my main two majors have been Philosophy and Economics. (Persueing both, but got my AA in liberal arts, then went to work... )

But anyway, the only thing I can really say to that, is that experiments are also created.. As are the environments in which organisms are studied. So as you said, it doesn't disprove creationism. At the end of the day, it boils down to if everything became how it is now by design, or by chance.