You have your beliefs, I have mine. I mean, you say miracle like it's some dirty word. Doesn't it make sense, MAYBE that instead of the bigbang randomly happening, that MAYBE a higher being created it? I'm not talking about the christian, muslim, hindu, whatever god, but simply a being, that created everything that we currently observe? I guess it just plain makes sense to me.
If something must have a creator in order to exist, then the creator must exist and therefore must also need a creator. You can go ahead and define the creator as not needing a creator itself, but then why can't the universe also be defined as not needing a creator? It's just as easy to say that the universe exists without needing a creator as that a creator exists without needing a creator-creator.
I'm not going to watch that whole thing, but I love that one of his opening statements is "Scientists love mysteries. They love not knowing." That, it seems to me, is the number one fundamental difference between a "Man of Science or Religion" as the thread title states. Religion, it seems, is the opposite of that. There's no such thing as "I don't know" in religion. Just look at the fact that the origins of the universe gets brought up as a point against science. Science doesn't truly know the origins of the universe, all we have are a collection of hypotheses and limited evidence. Religion jumps on top of that mystery triumphantly shouting that it has the answer, that one god or another is responsible for the great "I don't know" at the origin of the universe. As if simply having an answer, no matter how poorly supported, makes them better by default than "I don't know." I can't speak for everyone, but an honest "I don't know" seems to me far better than a fictional "I have the Truth!"
If you're talking about a being then which nothing greater can be conceived (God), then wouldn't he have surely created himself? I mean there can't be a being which created the being then which nothing greater can be conceived, because then that would be the being then which nothing greater can be conceived.
Logic would not apply, therefore stop rationalizing something that is beyond your comprehension. The idea of God is a being that is incomprehensible and some other characteristics, but you're not meant to understand Him completely. Anyways, I don't see theology, science, philosophy as being mutually exclusive. All are searches for the truth, the ultimate truth for which all humans are subject too. Obviously, people disagree, but all will point the same way, or should rather.
That is not what they say. The big bang event is described as merely when a singularity containing what is essentially the basic version of the universe expanded. We do NOT know what happened then, however it is not a something out of nothing that we are talking about. Rather, the reason we cannot understand this at the moment is that we have no current method of determining the way a singularity would work, and thus any guesses are merely that, without a testable way of demonstrating that. Therefore, the big bang theory is not meant to say how the universe was created, but rather to say what happened as close to the beginning as is possible. Evidence for this theory is available if you look it up. On a different note, I am an atheist, and for the sole reason of I can find no good reason to believe in god. There is no evidence that such a being ever has existed, and every religion that attempts to make it (God, I refuse to use "Him" as it seems slightly misogynist) seem real tend to create contradictions and false logic. Also, saying that god did it solves nothing, and does nothing to improve our understanding of the universe; understanding that has the potential to improve our way of living. So it is NOT better to say that god did it just because we do not know NOW how things happened. The argument I saw somewhere in here is that if there is a universe it must have a creator (creation has to have a creator) is false because: 1) it takes the predetermined position that the universe is a creation, not a naturally occurring phenomenon 2)It assumes the universe needs a creator, but not god. This is blatantly ridiculous, as it just adds in a step that is unnecessary. Another thing that is dishonest to use for either side is the argument that certain people were evil and (theist/atheist) and thus all of them are evil. Oh and just FYI hitler was a christian not an atheist(this is said due to a comment pg11 by natetendo). However Stalin was an atheist not a christian. You cannot point to either of these people and say that they are representative of either group, and therefore they have no standing within a debate about these topics. Another thing is the religious texts (bible, qur'an) are merely circular reasoning, as they are said to be written by god, and this is said by the bible, which is declared as god's word, which is stated by the bible which is proved by its being gods word....and so on. The religious books like that cannot in honesty be used to prove anything as they have that circular reasoning. Another thing that leads me to be atheist is the defensiveness of religion in which it takes offense at even the simplest of criticism, and their feeling of... entitlement, saying things like "this is a (religion) country" ignoring the vast numbers of people that are not of that religion. Just a note, I try to stay away from criticizing (or targeting) individual religions, and try to remain away from ethnic bias, namely the way some people will use a certain country as an example. Now to address some other posts I found to be false: While effect and cause may be good, this does nothing to further any argument for your side, as it is just as plausible that someone who was FOR EXAMPLE a radical muslim, who believed that being a terrorist was good would lose his faith and choose not to hurt people anymore. Neither story would or should further any argument. "Science can prove pretty much everything except the existence of God, but at the same time it is impossible to disprove it" The inability to disprove does not prove. Also, there is basically no such thing as proof of non-existence, therefore the fact that it cannot disprove means really nothing at all. The fact that it cannot prove it means significantly much more, as proof for existence is quite easy, as it is any evidence whatsoever that indicates it is there. Wow, that is the most confused statement I have ever seen... Something creating itself is logically impossible. The thing is, religion is not truly a SEARCH for truth, as nothing changes in religion, it is just the same doctrine laid down again and again that is expected to be followed regardless of how it may contradict anything that is known. In a search you have to be gaining new knowledge. This does not happen in religion.
I still see, and think that Religion was only ever used to explain occurences around us that at one point could not be explained. Hence why now that we actually understand some of it, we start to see all these contradictions.
Actually, religion is a continual search for truth. It is a spiritual journey of discovery about one's self and God.
It's funny that you consider it a "continual search for truth", and yet the only thing you consider pointless to re-evaluate is the existence of god. Continual search for truth.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Looking at religious examples on a case-by-case basis, I see lots of instances where this is true and lots where this is false.
I found a pretty good article on the "who created God debate." Linky Pretty good read and it summarizes my thoughts pretty well. It covers a couple of varying opinions briefly too.
Thing is the religions are not changing. What you say here is basically the people learn more about their religion and how they will practice it, and in a way I do agree, that they do attempt to learn more about their system, however the religions do not move forward. Heres the equivalent: In the case of religion they learn about the content of the religion In the case of science you learn about the content of science that is known before Heres where the difference comes in: In the case of religion, you expand your knowledge to the point you can understand the stuff quite well. After that, your only option is to then teach others what your opinion on the stuff. In the case of science, you expand your knowledge to the point you know enough to begin to find new information and expand the collective knowledge of everyone. You can also choose to teach students about what you have learned. Basically, a religious man who knows everything about his can only teach. A scientist who knows a lot can search for more things, and learn new things, as well as teach. Oh and sorry if my post sounds biased, it is sort of inevitable based on my opinions.
But the pursuit of spiritual truth and the pursuit of scientific truth are two different courses of study. There is no reason one can't accomplish both of your examples. Also it is pretty crazy to assume that one can "learn" everything about religion. True faith is a life long journey and believe me there is a lot of learning that goes on and it goes on until your death. So technically a religious man can teach and learn as well. And a religious man can teach and learn the same things as a scientist. It's a bit strange to consider the two as mutually exclusive. Sorry if that came out confusing, I'm very tired and am about to head off to bed.
^This. The two can exist together, except when it comes to THE question: how did it all start. One would be foolish to say that evolution doesn't exist, look at the fish in caves who don't have eyes, or how humans on average are almost a foot taller than humans roughly 100-200 years ago. Whether we all came from some amoeboid sludge or not however, (which I personally don't believe, Charles Darwin himself said 'the human eye is too complex to have evolved on its own.') I would categorize as a part of THE question.
You apparently haven't read the entire Darwin quote. Don't worry, that's pretty common among people who only look to creationist/religious sources for information about evolution. "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real" - Charles Darwin
If you understand evolution and how it works, and add in a few hundred million years, that seems perfectly reasonable.
Abiogenisis is the leading theory there yes, but the chances of the conditions for that to be able to occur are so remote I find it hard to believe that the earth just 'got lucky' the physics behind how this planet is able to support life are astounding.
Improbability does not make it a miracle when it happens. Science doesn't make a policy of finding evidence that things did happen and then turning around and going "Nah, I don't think that was probable, it must not have happened." That would be ridiculous. Plus, the odds that life would develop aren't that bad at all really. The number of planets in the universe is even more astounding than the chances that Earth would have the conditions to support life. No matter how small your made up probability of life occurring is, the number of planets in the universe is large enough to more than compensate for, I promise you. The scale of the universe is just too large for our brains to handle. The Scale of the Universe If that doesn't put you in awe, I don't know what could.