God comes in handy in place of "i don't know" but don't want anyone to know you don't know.
I cannot think of any other reason for god.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
God comes in handy in place of "i don't know" but don't want anyone to know you don't know.
I cannot think of any other reason for god.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't call recurring to God an unnecessary hypothesis so much as an unproductive one. Once you've resorted to a "God did it" then there is really nowhere else to go, in terms of conceptualization.
God is the ultimate black box - a phenomenon that cannot be explained and does nothing to help explain anything else.
God is the ultimate black box - a phenomenon that cannot be explained and does nothing to help explain anything else.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
The theist says God created it all and your scientific theories are unnecessary. Explain why your reasoning trumps his.
Because you believe in science?
Once again, necessary for what goal? That hypothesis doesn't help with developing predictive theories, which is my main goal (for understanding).
Bird123
Well-Known Member
There is more Unknown than known about the universe. A true scientist works at Discovering what actually exists. Being open to all possibilities is an important factor in Discovery. Can God really be ruled out if one is open to all possibilities? I think not.
I say work at Discovering what actually exists, being open to all possibilities. I would not worry about God. Why? Science is walking toward God. Science will bump into God after enough Discovery regardless of any believing or not believing.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
I am inclined to agree.
"GodDidIt" is not an answer to much of anything.
"I Don't Know" is much more useful.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
More because science does much more for life than religion.
No matter what physicists bring, it always seems to require a creation and creator; something to act and something to be acted upon just like ourselves.
Well, the point of deifying something really isn't to explain things about the physical universe, so there's that...
One of these days I need to make another thread about mythos and logos. The comparison of the OP strikes me as similar to finding calculus irrelevant to the cooking of food. I mean, yes? If you're trying to use calculus when making dinner you've got a problem there. Very much the wrong tool for the job.
One of these days I need to make another thread about mythos and logos. The comparison of the OP strikes me as similar to finding calculus irrelevant to the cooking of food. I mean, yes? If you're trying to use calculus when making dinner you've got a problem there. Very much the wrong tool for the job.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Imagine a world where 200 years ago all religious discovery had stopped. No religious books have been written, no new religious insights gained.
Imagine an other world where 200 years ago all scientific discovery had stopped. No scientific books or journal have been written, no new scientific insights gained.
Which world would you want to live in?
ajarntham
Member
Inclined to agree, in large part because when I've heard God offered as an "explanation" for something, it generally does not seem actually to explain it. For example, I've heard people say that atheists can't explain or account for the existence of logic, whereas for believers, there's no problem: "logical laws exist because they are a reflection of God's nature." I've never heard them go on to clarify what "reflection" means in this context, so, as an "explanation" of logic, it doesn't seem any better than "Logic exists because something something God something, QED."
EsonauticSage
Between extremes
No, I think God is a misunderstood and misinterpreted reality.
I think god is unavoidable, the meaning or name just changes. For example, in science “evolution” is the god who forms and it is basically the same as old mother earth goddess. God is basically the ultimate reason and at least in scientific point of view, everything has always reason. Scientist just think Bible God is not the ultimate reason.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Maybe unnecessary for science.
Certainly necessary for a (spiritual) seeker or a holistic scholar.
Certainly necessary for a (spiritual) seeker or a holistic scholar.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
For understanding what? Is your main goal to understand the limited world of conscious reality as depicted by your left brain? If so, there's an entire world of right brain instinct and intuition that is "unnecessary" to science. Yet we know that world exists because we experience effects that science can't explain.
Last edited:
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You've missed the point. The question -- Does a higher power exist? -- is independent of religion.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You've missed the point. The question -- Does a higher power exist -- is independent of religion. The fact that most religious people believe in a higher power doesn't change that.
I'm not taking a position against science. I'm saying it has limits.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
God is not an unnecessary hypothesis.
Let's do math.
0+0 = ?
If there is nothing there, nothing can create nothing.
"But evolution explains..."
Sorry, nothing plus nothing is still nothing. I wonder how you think things can exist much less evolve without one ( btw, to have a being capable of evolving is MORE complex not less than simply plopping down full evolved humans).
To put it bluntly, scientists believe in either some meteor coming along and outsourcing life (where'd the meteor come from?) . Or evolution somehow explaining gaps where there is no cosmology. Or a Big Bang like creation using naturalistic science laws (yet again we have a big question mark because you somehow have to explain how these physical laws existed before a physical universe; gravity does not exist when nothing has mass and nothing is there to attract to another thing for instance). Or abiogenesis (which again has no cause, not to mention it only happens in a lab under controlled and planned conditions, that is it happens by DESIGN).
Yet they accuse theists or grasping at straws.
Only one of these has a question mark.
Last edited:
On the contrary, the right brain simply processes the same basic sensory data, but in a slightly different way. I have no idea why you think it is 'unnecessary' in science. The right brain is a bit more devoted to non-verbal and social interactions. So?