Really? The deeper I got into my study of science, the more I saw God in the world around me. I remember sitting through a lecture by Dr. James Watson (who won a Nobel Prize for stealing the discovery of DNA from Rosalind Franklin), where he claimed that DNA made him more secure in his atheism. That baffles me. To me, the incredibly complex replication mechanism and the idea that you can have a molecule carry a message that tells a cell how to put proteins together to form an organism strongly hints at a creator. I don't think anyone really understood what eternity meant until Einstein came up with the theory of relativity.
1. Because without doubt the belief and searching the belief will always be at least partly superficial. 2. If God is love, I'm not sure what kind of proof you are looking for, but I think most people can believe it exists. 3. Those that know love know God. That's what the bible says. At the time they are fighting they don't know love, so no matter what they claim, they aren't really doing it in God's name, but may believe they are. Plenty of believers will disagree with my simplified answers, but that's a basic idea of what I believe about God. I'm not saying that I'm definitely right, and I know that I have a ton more to learn.
finalsbound's parents are the reason I stopped believing in God. Well, that and the cult I grew up in. But that pretty much sealed the deal, what those people did to their daughters is unforgivable. Breaks my heart to this day and will continue to haunt me for the rest of my life. I recently had to admit to my mother that I don't know where I stand, and that I don't have her faith. I have to be myself and choose my own path, pursue what is best for me and nobody else. That was the most painful thing I've ever had to do, but at the same time the clarity and the freedom of letting go of what somebody else wants for your life and not being afraid anymore to hide what you truly are... that is priceless. It must be achieved. I know Jesus was a good message, and I can dig a lot of what he said... but if belief in God causes human beings to destroy one another out of fear and ignorance, then that is not something I can subscribe to. Peace and love, thats all we need. Not some blood-thirsty prick in the sky shaking his fist at you for indulging yourself in Earthly pleasures.
hawking could be right or wrong about this, but there are about 10,000 other reasons that prevent me from believing in god aside from what he is saying here. many top physicists don't really give that much credit to hawking these days and a lot of what he says is purely sensationalist. it does make for catchy headlines though...
I strongly dislike this argument because it's just the modern version of prehistoric peoples finding gods in certain star clusters, volcanoes, or the sea etc.
Touche, my friend. Although, to be accurate, finding god in those things is not the same as stating that their existence mandates god's involvement, which is a better statement of my original complaint.
Because you choose to, not because it is evident. (Not that there is anything wrong with that) I agree, philosophically profound. But where does anyone see an expression this message today? Certainly not in any major organized Christian religion I see. Really only in the small, selfless charities that are fully committed to their cause.
If God wants to be evident, I think He should have to come and live on this stinking planet as a man and put up with the same stuff we do.
Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice made the same observation in 1969-70 and made a lot of money in doing so.
Science/Technology is the main reason religion is dying but at the same time Jesus could've used science/technology to correctly spread his message.....paradox indeed. If Jesus was born in this 'age', nobody would believe him.
You know a lot about chemistry, rhad. Doesn't it seem incredibly unlikely that DNA and RNA could have happened by chance? I'm not saying that it proves the existence of a god, and it definitely doesn't prove the existence of my God, but it seems really unlikely to have occured without a creator.
I think without being able to do laboratory experiments in which we take many young planets like the Earth free from life and wait billions of years to see how often life happens "by chance" it is impossible to know how likely or unlikely it is*. But it only had to happen a grand total of one time to explain all the life that we know of in the entire universe. * We could also wait a few decades until we are able to remotely detect biomarkers on a large number of planets and determine the frequency that way.
Difference between science and religion: 1. Faith-based VS Fact-based. Science and religion both strive for the truth, but their approaches are different. One comes from the heart, the other comes from the brain. Religion fills a spiritual void for its believers; science answers the intellectual curiosity of humankind. 2. One-to-many VS Many-to-one. Religion is preached by hierarchical structures. There exists a source of authority, whether its a holy book, holy relic, human figure, or a combination. Information trickles downstream into the mass followers. Science is form by communities. There exist experts that peer-review new findings to be adept into the general consensus. Information trickles upstream into this collective body of consciousness. 3. Personal VS Universal. Trust in religion can often be boiled down to a personal feeling, an unexplainable deep bond with greater manifest(s). This feeling is not something that can be easily transfer from one host to another. It can be describe in words but not recorded in digital format. Religions are exclusive from one another. There exist many religions in the world that collectively present a very conflicting, diverging world view. No one knows whose dogma is globally right, but that will not affect an individual's faith in a personal level. In each subject area, there exist science body that governs its knowledge using universally shared language such as mathematics, logic, axiom, and empirical data. Modern physicist dreams off finding the Theory of Everything in attempt to explain the fundamental interaction of nature. Likewise, scientific conflicts are meant to converge into a new and better framework. 4. Human VS Nature Religion revolve around human. Animals, non-sentient beings, inanimate objects don't have their own religion. they are simply objects that existed to populate the surrounding of a human-dictated system. Science attempts to explain the nature, in which human is just part of the system. The physics, biology, and chemistry that governs an insect also applies to a human. 5. Past vs Future (specific to Christianity) When the world begins, it is paradise on earth. When the world ends, it will be an apocalypse. Religion studies historical literature to gain better understanding of the golden age in the past, and what it is to come. Knowledge can be trace to an origin. There was the dark age, then comes enlightenment. Science creates new technology, new ideas to speed up the evolution of the human race. Knowledge is derived from the unknown. Knowledge is also the source of more unknowns.
No matter how unlikely you think it is #1 DNA is a after all a fairly straight forward organic chemical compound, you have carbon combining into amino acids that are reactive with other chemicals in their vicinity and #2 you have trillions of chemical reactions going on on trillions of planets every second for billions of years. You know, if you play 50,000 hands of poker, your probably going to hit 4 aces at least once. But if you are the guy that got it, it seems like a miracle.
