not here but maybe somewhere. You make a good point, they could easily complement one another.

yeah, good point about them being complimentary, billy, but then again... just because they aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean that one implies the other. and as far as shit appearing out of nowhere is concerned - if god has been around forever, time without end, then why not the universe without god? perhaps it's matter and energy that are eternal, never created and never destroyed. but still you're right in saying that they aren't opposed in the slightest.

we all came from pod people, anyone who denies it is a queer or frenchman.

the only problem with believing that science and religion can coexist, is that how do you explain them so that they work together. religion says that a god created everything, including man, and the stories don't include anything about dinosaurs. but science shows that dinosaurs existed, and that the time earth was created, doesn't agree with when religion says it was created.

Thats like saying. Well Darwin said we evolved form monkeys into humans! and then claiming there was nothing between. The problem is taking it too literally. The original scripture laid down by the early jews was pretty simple stuff considering how unadvanced society was at the time. SO they wrapped thier beliefs in little cutsey stories for the uneducated illiterates to understand. kind of like how Jesus would never come out and say, "dude, if you are too good to help other people and pass them by when they need help then you are a scumbag and wont go to heavan because youre morally bankrupt" no instead he told a story about a wounded traveler who was aided by a kind sumaritan. Same differnce.

If you dig into the roots of the belief though its that the universe and exisetence was created by a greater being. Thats all. Thats the belief. The rest is cosmetic. So dont take the fact that the bible or koran dont mention dinosaurs to mean that all Christians and Jews and Muslims who believe in creationism are morons because thier holy literature forgot to mention it.

I myself do not beleive in any religions, but I am not sure how I feel about the originas of life. I know for a fact though that nothing comes from nothing, so something had to make us, and the only thing moderatly comforting about that is that it seems to take intelligence of some kind to put us together as well as the laws of nature. If there was nothing to make those laws, then those laws wouldnt exist which is why to me science without the creamy philosophical religious center is just a hollow explanation.

Like explaining how a gunshot killed someone without ever mentioning a gun or bullets.

as far as the orgin of life is concerned science is about as fuzzy on the subject as most religious theories

would all of this silly monkey buisiness stop, please be well informed about evolution before trying to debunk it. A huge pet peeve is the disbelieve in a scientific idea without real understanding of it. I am fairly educated in the sciences and i know we didnt come from monkeys. Almost (i say almost because no idea is ever 100% agreed on in the scientific community) ALL of the scientific community believes that we did NOT come from monkeys but have a common ancestor with them. Look into the African Rift valley geography when it changed and the vegetation and topography and what kind of adaptations would be benificail there. Look into mitochondrial DNA. Look into cytochrome C. Look into cellular structure in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. extreme tangent here sorry, but dont debunk something by stating invalid assumptions on it.

Science CANNOT have an opinion on a diety's existance or lack there of. If you cannot create an experiment in which you can try to disprove things. (there is a scientific bias to try to try your best to prove things wrong. Nothing is EVER proven, things are only supported). You cannot set up an experiment to prove or disprove god, well until you die i guess. It is not within the realm of science to even try to claim anything about god. That's why intelligent design while it may or may not be very valid IS NOT SCIENCE. You cannot disprove it so it is not within the realm of science. sorry, another tangent.

So how can you hold a unit of believe that includes both god and science? Science is used to understand how things work once they are around us and NOT things that we may wonder and cannot test or better said cannot try to disprove; that's where philosophy and religion come in. My history teacher i think said it best. You dont answer "because god made free fall have a constant acceleration" on your physics test. Nor do you look into the physics book to understand the meaning of life.

not for nothing but what do you think a common ancestor implies, its not as if that anscestor was unape/monkey like, whos talking about monekys anyway?

you right science cant have an opinion, opinion's arent science, it certainly is possible for science to create a theory for the existince of god, finding supporting evidence for that theory is a problem, which is pretty much why its still debatable, the existence of god that is. On the other hand people that do science can have an opinion one that can be used to support a hyposthsis based upon that indivduals expertise

"You cannot disprove it so its not in the realm of science", what? So the theory of relativity isnt science. This statement is also a direct contradiction to the three previous sentences of your post.

Science is used to explain how things work once they are around us? What about the things that were never around us but theorized to exist and then latter discovered, anti-matter for example, so a valid assumption is that the evidence of gods existence hasnt been discovered. I can not think of anything better to eventually prove the existence of god then the scienetific method. That is if it can be proven.

You are right that it is a valid assumtion that god's existance has not been discovered if you mean that substancial solid evidence has not been found for the support of that idea.

What i meant by you can't attempt to disprove it. I kind of meant you just cant test it either way. Sciene is about testing. my apologies for not having things come down from the brain to the typings. With the availability of resources around us, we cannot make a scientific inquiry about god. It doesnt work that way, at least yet

The theory of relativity is not proven. NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN, but a shitload of math and other postulations have supported it without much if anything to disprove it. I mean there is a scientist forgive the lack of source but you're welcoem to look it up to prove me right or wrong who theorizes that the speed of light isn't constant. That it actually slows down when nearing a black hole. There is math behind that but its not nearly strong enough to debunk relativity. The point is that you can at least try to come up with evidence that things work another way. The same with anti-matter. It is heavily based in math too. They are ideas supported with evidence and opposing arguements for each of these fall short by bunches. With these you can try to do the math or set up an experiment to prove it wong. If you set up an experiment to try to disprove it, if the attempt to smash the idea keeps failing the more support the idea gets. You cannot set up an experiment to find out if God exists. maybe that clarifies, maybe it doesnt. Maybe in the future we'll have some random form of advances that helps us to detect a diety, but for now we cannot go out and search for evidence with the means we have.

Personally i'm not against the idea that there's a God, just so I dont come off with that bias. That's why religion is about faith. If you were stuck on proof then it wouldnt really be faith.

The universe was always there.It had no beginning and will have no end.

It is only the evolution of planets and light from a planet we now know as the sun, that sparked the big bang due to the creation of gravity. In gravitys early days, it was a lot more powerful. The moon was a lot closer to Earth and was getting closer. When everything came together. The sheer speed created a repulsion that is still ongoing today. The moon is getting further and further each year.


Without the collision, we would not exist.
There is no God or devinity in a Heavenly setting. We live our lives, we suffer, we get promoted, reproduce,retire and die.

That is my point exactly in fact if it were proven it is no longer science it is a law or fact ie newtons laws they are not science they are facts.

Anti Matter exists by the way its been proven in a lab

Science is about finding a means to search for evidence that supports a reason for things unexplained

the evidence from an experiment in a lab supported the idea of anti-matter. they concluded through testing that what they made was antimatter sure.

But those tests, to grossly simplify (very terrible simplify) are like testing if a lightbulb works. You've got to hit the switch. You conclude that the lightbulb works in this particular case and your test, which may not have produced a working light bulb bud did, supports the idea that the lightbulb works. But you set up a test in which your hypothesis can fail; that's what science is about. That's what i meant by there has to be the option for setting up an experiment where failure is an option.

Science does NOT have facts in the way most people use the connotation of it. You know, just like its a "fact" that there are 9 planets in the solar system like we wera all taught in elementary school. What science has instead of "facts" are the closest way we have to understanding the universe.

Do you know how things become a law in science?
Someone comes up with an idea after experimentation or observation. Someone else tries to replicate an experiment, looking at possible lurking variables. They all try to find a way to prove the fucking thing wrong. It holds up, cool its a validated hypothesis. The god damn thing wont be proven wrong, and support for it just keeps building thorugh these failed attempt at debunking it, Well god damn its holding still.

Further testing, further attemps at killing it fail and it may become a theory. If a theory can be seen in everyday life and events like gravity, then its known as a law. Science comes from the ability to set up an experiment where its possible to try to prove it wrong. ITs okay if it fails but science is NOT THE SEARCH FOR SUPPORT.

and yet if it doesnt fail it makes for good support

question if the unvierse is completely random you could never write an equation to explain it. however if you could (as Science tries I think its called physics) would that not indicate that the universe isnt random it has design by defintion would that not indicate an intelligence that created that design. Wouldnt that be fair evidence for a god like being. If this is true does religion and science not compliment each other

but there is complete randomness according to physics. take an electron's path. there's an area its most likely to be found in, but within it it is completely random. It's where resonance structures come from and why aromatic rings are so uncharacteristically stable etc. At least as far as we know its completely random

Also, there are too many variables in the universe for our meager little minds to be able to understand especially the entire relationship between everything in the universe. So to think we'd be able to make a universal equation is a stretch.

Take the Heisenburg pricipal the part where you can't tell an electrons speed and position at the same time. You can tell one or the other. Reason being is the tools used to measure are is light and that itself in little packets bombards teh electrons. Its like trying to see where and how fast a person is running from too, while using hurling bowling balls at them. Physics knows it can only understand so much. So even with something as simple as an electron we cant even do all of the variables at once.

While i'm not saying your arguement is or isnt valid, i am saying that in most likelyness, if there even is an equation for the universe we 1. probably wouldnt be able to study it esp with the means we have and 2. our little minds would have a hard time grasping it. and since your idea is based on the ability to be able to search for this equation and the outcome intelligent design vs not then depends on the outcome of that search. It doesnt really work b/c the ability to search for that equation doesnt exist yet.

I thought Eisnstein spent the twilight of his years trying to find just such an equation.

I dont disagree with you but not knowing or not being able to measure something does not invalidate a theory - a thoery stands on the fact it can neither be proven nor disproven. Of course wther or not it is accepted is an entirely diffrent matter. As you pointed out there is compelling obsevations to support randomness. But as you said are they really random?

Read one of the above posts on how a "theory" comes to be. It is the exact opposite of existing with or without being able to test it. What you have is an untestable idea which by definition can't even count as a hypothesis because its not testable. And as far as being sure about the randomness, its as best as we understand molecular orbital theory. there's a lot involved with it but yeah, as far as i know in literature and in books on the subject, even with things like dipole moments there is complete randomness within the particular "level" of the cloud, or orbital it's in. Nothings ever sure, but its the best we got for now.

but VSPER and the rest of the physics behind atomic theory probably are a bit too offtopic to have a real discussion here.