science vs religion?

[syo]

Again, why do you believe that? And why must that start be the same for everything? And why must it be eternal? And why must it have intelligence?

NONE of the basic questions have been answered. You have a particular viewpoint but have clearly NOT considered any other.

because it's Logical.

 

[Polymath257]

because it's Logical.

I would say it is an illogical leap to an unproven claim.

 

[ChristineM]

that's the point. god made the natural processes that made hydrogen. you want proof? the proof is that this is logical.

That is not proof, it is opinion. Otherwise you could show the logical steps in making that statement rather than missing out the actual proof and inserting the answer you want.

Do you want a couple of dictionary references so you can learn to differentiate? Or are you happy as you are?

 

[syo]

I would say it is an illogical leap to an unproven claim.

That is not proof, it is opinion. Otherwise you could show the logical steps in making that statement rather than missing out the actual proof and inserting the answer you want.

Do you want a couple of dictionary references so you can learn to differentiate? Or are you happy as you are?

I strongly disagree.

 

[Polymath257]

I strongly disagree.

Well, give reasons for your disagreement. A simple statement of disagreement doesn't help the discussion much.

 

[ChristineM]

I strongly disagree.

That's up to you, you made a statement concerning logic, please show the logical steps you took to arrive at the conclusion.

Bear n mind, logical, not opinion or what your preacher told you as a but valid logical steps.

 

[Polymath257]

that's the point. god made the natural processes that made hydrogen. you want proof? the proof is that this is logical.

That is a claim, but you gave no proof. Exactly how do you get from there being a natural process to there being a deity that created that process?

You claim it is logical, but give no actual logic to support your position. What are your assumptions? How do those assumptions lead to your conclusion? How do you justify your assumptions?

Perhaps you should go take a class on logic.

 

[syo]

Well, give reasons for your disagreement. A simple statement of disagreement doesn't help the discussion much.

That's up to you, you made a statement concerning logic, please show the logical steps you took to arrive at the conclusion.

Bear n mind, logical, not opinion or what your preacher told you as a but valid logical steps.

the truth is that the universe works based on rules, and the rules apply to all the universe. who set the rules? a hydrogen is formed after a set of steps. who made the set of steps?

 

[ChristineM]

the truth is that the universe works based on rules, and the rules apply to all the universe. who set the rules? a hydrogen is formed after a set of steps. who made the set of steps?

So what are the steps you claim? It's a simple enough question. You made a claim of logic. A logical conclusion is arrived at following a set of logical steps. What are the steps?

You cannot simply say a result is logical without showing the logic that lead you to the conclusion, or anyone could just say anything is logical (pink polka dot fairies are logical for example) and the speaker would expect the world to believe.

 

[leibowde84]

I asked if, by that term because I used space instead, can one imagine that. Also, relating to the OP, that would probably be why there are many mystical religions because it could be hard to imagine "space" without matter.

We don't have to imagine it. We can see it. Infinity, on the other hand, does not exist in reality. Or, at least there is no evidence that it does.

 

[leibowde84]

the evidence is actually what sounds logical.

But, the idea that something is "infinite" is, by definition, illogical. So, how do you explain that?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We don't have to imagine it. We can see it. Infinity, on the other hand, does not exist in reality. Or, at least there is no evidence that it does.

I completely forgot about this thread and my points. I meant to say universe rather than space. We don't know how far the universe stretches. We can just make educated guesses. A lot of religions tend to tackle the nature of the universe because if you think about it long enough, some can't imagine us being here just because. There has to be "something greater" pulling things together. So there has to be a Something. If you took all matter and I mean all matter from space (the absence of matter), and you're left with a void, how does that void poof something into existence? and even more so calling this void god?

 

[WalterTrull]

My void against your void.

 

[leibowde84]

Any creation scientist would put God and the Bible first. He was a scientist second. This is part of having faith. It becomes the most important part. An atheist scientist would put science and man first. This makes all the difference. Just a little faith goes a long way and makes all the difference.

But, assuming that a supernatural God exists without empirical evidence spits in the face of science. Remember, science is nothing more than the use of the scientific method to arrive at greater understanding of the physical universe. So, where would God even fit into it?

 

[leibowde84]

This is not what I asked for. I am asking for an explanation or claim from Hawking himself.

 

[leibowde84]

I completely forgot about this thread and my points. I meant to say universe rather than space. We don't know how far the universe stretches. We can just make educated guesses. A lot of religions tend to tackle the nature of the universe because if you think about it long enough, some can't imagine us being here just because. There has to be "something greater" pulling things together. So there has to be a Something. If you took all matter and I mean all matter from space (the absence of matter), and you're left with a void, how does that void poof something into existence? and even more so calling this void god?

OK, but that only points out that our scientific understanding isn't there yet. There are a lot of things we do not currently understand naturally that we will, surely, someday figure out. It makes no logical sense to presume to know the limits of future scientific discovery.

 

[Polymath257]

the truth is that the universe works based on rules, and the rules apply to all the universe. who set the rules? a hydrogen is formed after a set of steps. who made the set of steps?

Why do you think the steps were made by a 'who'? For that matter, why do you think the *rules* have a cause (since causality is another type of rule)?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

OK, but that only points out that our scientific understanding isn't there yet. There are a lot of things we do not currently understand naturally that we will, surely, someday figure out. It makes no logical sense to presume to know the limits of future scientific discovery.

That's like playing god or trying to find the top of the mountain. Instead of trying to find something greater, if it doesn't benefit us because we do die, why not be concerned of what's here in the present. How can the future benefit us when our death is not predestined?

It's, how you say, a foregone conclusion.

It's one thing to look "advance" in science. It's another to add the god concept to it. The former I understand. I'm just not a science person. The latter, I don't.

 

[syo]

So what are the steps you claim? It's a simple enough question. You made a claim of logic. A logical conclusion is arrived at following a set of logical steps. What are the steps?

the steps are everything necessary to form a hydrogen. the steps preexist the hydrogen.

Why do you think the steps were made by a 'who'?

that ''who'' preexists the hydrogen.

 

[syo]

But, the idea that something is "infinite" is, by definition, illogical. So, how do you explain that?

infinite is illogical?