if yes then give me examples a to why.

And if no?

If a person wants to believe in a god, he will find ways to circumvent any science that obstructs that belief. Some claim that the Christian God placed fossils in the ground to test the faith of Man, making them appear so old that they would suggest the Earth was not created 6000 years ago, as the Bible suggests, but many thousands of millenia before.

It's amazing, the power of faith.

it's impossible to prove that something does not exist
rather the onus should be on the religious to prove that god does exist, seeing as they are the ones who are making giant leaps of faith.

__________________
you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thinking

religion and science should stay separate.

but I must say that the more you know about certain parts of science, the harder it is to believe that there's a "god". I consider myself spiritual in the sense that I think about the universe and everything in it as well as my relationship to those things, but I find it highly implausible that there is a god in the sense that most westerners traditionally think of.

religion and science have to stay separate because science relies on reason, and religion does not.


I think science has come close to disproving that we have souls. You can lesion an area of a person's prefrontal cortex and turn them into a violent sociopath or what some people call a "soul-less" person. Everything we experience is a neurbiological reaction in your head.

If i placed a mild electric shock in your left temporal lobe right now, there is a high liklihood that you would have a "religious experience".
There is also an area of the brain taht when stimulated can evoke out of body experiences.
I'm a neuropsychologist, so i'm biased towards what I have studied and the scientific community

my ex boyfriend a scientist once told me that there is so much order in the universe that he believed in god. i think he said order, or hmm...or life just coming into existence thru randomn events.

i don't remember anymore what he said.

without religion i dont think we could have science and vice versa. life and everything we see in nature has to be balanced.

If God invented all the stuff that science tells us, that'd be pretty impressive. But I trust the science God created more than the books some people wrote about Him. I don't believe God would modify His creation just to trick Man into thinking He doesn't exist. To me, it's a lot more likely that the Bible is just wrong about some stuff. Actions speak louder than words.

and another problem I have with this scenario is the problem of who invented God?

the concept of god? we did. god (or whatever you want to call it) itself? the thing that binds everyone and thing? that wouldnt exist without everyone and thing, would it? so i suppose in a roundabout way we created the creator?

no, I know we invented the concept of god, but my question to people who want to philosophize about the concept of god is always who created it? The actual being, spirit, w/e that people believe in. Did it will itself into existence or what?

The same entity/process that we're quite happy to imagine jumpstarting the Big Bang.

"so i suppose in a roundabout way we created teh creator."

like in increments, feeding off one another maybe? just use your imagination.

based on you and Ophiel's responses, I think I'm not expressing myself very well so I'm going to take a little break from the thread. I'll try again later.

I understand what you're saying HK, but I'm just saying that science has more or less accepted the Big Bang theory without knowing what caused the Big Bang (which I would've thought would be one of the first questions you'd ask!), yet pillories the religious for assuming that God was just "there". True, scientists may be trying to uncover the reason it happened, but they're still assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct, based ass much on faith as anything else.

damnit I said I'd take a break but I just can't let this slide.
it is based on lots of evidence. now I'm out til later.

oh i'll step in. big bang is based on the observed expansion of the universe and the detected cosmic background radiation (the relic of the bang). probably other things too that an amatuer like me doesn't know about.

the first 0.0000...lots of 0s...003 seconds of the universe is not at all understood by current theories.

anyway god is usually (re)defined in such away as to be neither provable nor disprovable by science

__________________
they arrived dramatically at the space gun in an art deco-style autogyro

thanks kesh. btw, it's 10^(-43) seconds. (the planck era)

A biological reason for consciousness still hasn't been found, though.





The more I know about science, the more I actually think the concept of "God" is possible.

science proved where thunder came from, and it wasnt Zeus getting angry in Olympia.