Does Science Argue for or against God?

[Real News Links]

Once again: Not one person has refuted anything in this video:

Does Science Argue for or against God?

Why are we here? Literally. The latest science says we shouldn’t be. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of Intelligent Design or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question and comes up with a very unexpected and challenging answer.

 

[Lagboltz]

Once again: Not one person has refuted anything in this video:

Does Science Argue for or against God?

Why are we here? Literally. The latest science says we shouldn’t be. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of Intelligent Design or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question and comes up with a very unexpected and challenging answer.

Rather than "science says", what you should have said is that "some scientists" said. It's called an "appeal to authority."

In essence, what SETI was looking for are civilizations so intelligent and advanced that they could send messages from one galaxy to another galaxy. That far exceeds our ability. The inverse square law is against that. If they used highly focused beams, they would have to repeat the same message quintillions of times to quintillions of different stellar systems that moved or may not even exist once the light reaches their original target. Time wouldn't be on their side. The failure of SETI does not prove anything.

Then there is the fine tuning of parameters argument Eric gave. Yes it is amazing. The anthropic principle addresses that, but it doesn't really diminish the awe of the mathematical universe. If we want to think about what is behind all this, we shouldn't use the word "God" because that word carries many different meanings for different cultures. What science does not prove is that the entity behind the creation of the universe hears prayers, decrees cows as sacred, or otherwise micromanages our lives.

Rather than praise and sing to the "artist" of the universe every Sunday, I think a much finer liturgy is to study the art in all it's magnificent detail - namely using science. But not everyone can spend the time or money for that sort of education.

Science neither argues for or against God.

.

 

[pjmret]

op: It says that sciene says the chance life exists at all is less than zero

also op: never refuted.


you're too stupid to realize that the first statement is scientifically incorrect. there is no "chance less than zero". so no, science would never say that because its literally 100% incorrect from the start.
hahahah
hahahah

you're so stupid.

 

[pjmret]

lagboltz: "Science neither argues for or against God"

correct, since "god" isn't a scientific concept, but a theological one, its beyond the scope of science to argue for or against it.

 

[Lagboltz]

op: It says that sciene says the chance life exists at all is less than zero

I have found that many people who use science in an argument for religion simply cut and paste stuff that they don't understand, and then summarize it with a statement full of holes.

 

[pjmret]

I have found that many people who use science in an argument for religion simply cut and paste stuff that they don't understand, and then summarize it with a statement full of holes.

in terms of a "hole" in the argument, "chances less than zero" would in fact, be a black hole, from which no intelligent discussion can escape the event horizon

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Does God argue for science, or anything else?

Regards
DL

 

[Lagboltz]

Does God argue for science, or anything else?

Regards
DL

Does God argue at all?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Does God argue at all?

Yes, I like to lose arguments and learn something new.

I do not get that joy anymore.

Regards
DL

 

[lawland]

Those who don't invoke God in a fundamentalist sense, or to control others, tend to do so with wonder. Many scientists, especially particle physicists (theoretical or empirical), also share a similar sense of wonder and sometimes invoke God, but not the God of scriptures. God is a great concept for as long as questions such "Why is anything at all?" remain open-ended.

 

[Boris Norris]

I think you should all have a reality check about this god rubbish.
Science and physics has never wasted a minute researching that rubbish.
There is no evidence a god exists or created anything.
Faith does not equate to fact. But if you to place your life in the hands of a supernatural nothing, knock yourself out but don't tell me it will give you eternal life. That is bullshit.

 

[Lagboltz]

Those who don't invoke God in a fundamentalist sense, or to control others, tend to do so with wonder. Many scientists, especially particle physicists (theoretical or empirical), also share a similar sense of wonder and sometimes invoke God, but not the God of scriptures. God is a great concept for as long as questions such "Why is anything at all?" remain open-ended.

The wonderment of physicists who want to delve into the metaphysics of the big bang should not even use the word God.

The puzzles that involved inflation, vacuum energy, the CMB, etc., are all part of understanding the mechanism behind the origin of the universe. There is always one last mechanistic question; how did this all happen. The entity behind this should not be called God because the word carries a lot of historical baggage such as association of the Bible, prayer, singing hymns, and God's micromanaging human events.

The fundamental mechanism should also not be called "first cause" or "intelligent design" because of prior religious use. Science should come up with a new word for the fundamental quest to explain the how or why of the universe.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Does Science Argue for or against God?

Why are we here? Literally. The latest science says we shouldn’t be. It says that the chance life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of Intelligent Design or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question and comes up with a very unexpected and challenging answer.

Gagging on Gaia

Both Postmodern Science and Postmodern Religion believe that Nature is supernatural. Christians who are wary of mindless pagan Animism should consider Nature to be Satan's Realm and that calling a natural disaster "an act of God" is a sacrilege.

Nature is a crime against humanity.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Those who don't invoke God in a fundamentalist sense, or to control others, tend to do so with wonder. Many scientists, especially particle physicists (theoretical or empirical), also share a similar sense of wonder and sometimes invoke God, but not the God of scriptures. God is a great concept for as long as questions such "Why is anything at all?" remain open-ended.

Pro-Life Is a Fetus Fetish Preached by Puritanical Control-Freaks

I like Einstein's metaphorical statement "God does not play dice," even though it refutes most of his own irrational science. A similar non-fanatical usage was a coach's comment on the longest field-goal ever, "Dempsey didn't kick that football; God did."

 

[lawland]

Pro-Life Is a Fetus Fetish Preached by Puritanical Control-Freaks

I like Einstein's metaphorical statement "God does not play dice," even though it refutes most of his own irrational science. A similar non-fanatical usage was a coach's comment on the longest field-goal ever, "Dempsey didn't kick that football; God did."

It's interesting that Einstein's statement "God doesn't play dice" was made partly in reference to the approach that is today called quantum entanglement, a view of the universe not entirely compatible with his theory of general relativity. Yet, today, quantum entanglement is being seen as a potentially good way to probe the nature of the physical universe (venture capitalists, however, seem more interested in entanglement for its potential in building a quantum communication system, which perhaps also explains the uptick in interest in this field among the scientific community).