Atheism vs. Theism

[Malenfant]

I actually don't. Unless a person compartmentalises, they are often difficult to resolve (although it depends on the religion). I've watched a lot of attempts lately to establish a dialogue between theists and scientists and it rarely works. You end up with two sides just talking at each other and nobody walks away having learned anything really.

 

Thats bang on actually. The Theists wont allow anything to compromise their beliefs, and the scientists dont have anything to learn from an opinion that is based on a belief. Scientists want facts. Religion cannot deliver those. never the twain shall meet. its blind faith versus fact.

 

I'm not saying it's not possible or that nobody has managed it, but the two viewpoints remain fundamentally at odds: one uses systematic methods to verify observations, gather evidence in order to form conclusions; the other starts with conclusions and has little need to justify them with anything other than faith.

 

Cheers,

 

Begging the question, how can faith move on and change? as science changes and moves forward (and sometimes sideways!) with every new development, the theists just cling to the same notions they have had for a couple of thousand years. With no new updates from god or prophets, whats new? As we discover new facts about life and the universe, it stands to reason that after each discovery, theists are turned to and asked 'how do you explain that then?' but all they have are the same old answers.

[Malenfant]

...quite.

 

It worked wonderfully for the Soviets didn't it?

 

thats a whole other thread in itself!

 

I dont agree with forcing people to recant their beliefs, but I am generally against religion.

 

Forcing my beliefs on others is not something I would ever do. Especially as one of the things i truely despise is on the occasion people have tried to convert me into believing. I would therefore never try to convert a theist into an atheist.

 

I respect other people's beliefs and opinions, and I expect them to do the same. I just dont agree with religion, but I dont belittle people who are religious

[NoIDidn't]

I don't think my sentiment is entirely unfounded, however. Very few people read the books of their own self professed faith, and instead leave it up to their Priest or Pastor's interpretation. Which is a crime against the good book. I don't think Vertex was necessarily saying "well, it is stupid in itself to believe in a god" as it was "in my opinion believing in a god is stupid" and he'd bring up his points. The best responses he would get were totally out of character for someone who was very well learned in Christianity. Ultimately, The Kingdom of Heaven is a Kingdom of Conscience, was not the message being given.

 

The Bible is a great book, it is our story, much like the Baghavad Gita, the Koran, or any other of the great classic creation myths. The Bible unlike the Baghavad Gita, or even the Koran actually tells so many stories that one can look at, and see the conflict in themselves. Even if it was written mostly by the Apostles, condensed and translated by monks three hundred years after much of the scripture had been lost, its flawless as far as a compendium goes. Yes, the bible often does contradict itself, but its generally the stories of the old testament that conflict with the stories of the New, but the old stories to the men of that time were seen as just as important, and rightfully so. However, there are so many better examples of what one should do in the New Testament, that the Old Testament should probably be written out of the Bible entirely, or separated. Actually, it was really only the KJV that actually put the Old Testament with the New Testament, you won't find such Bibles in existence in most non English Speaking Countries.

 

Atheists are people too! . They haven't evolved to be any different than a theist. And as you believe they'd be better off in believing in your god, or my god, they think we'd probably be better off believing nothing. Its really a great argument in favor that each and every one of us is only .0001% different from the person standing next to us.

 

Even as an Agnostic, I don't not believe in the same God as any Christian, I just prefer to keep god righteous and mysterious, and perfect. No human interference on describing exactly what god *is*. I'll leave that to god to keep on shining down his rays of goodness, and I'll just enjoy it.

 

 

I am not so sure about what you meant in the bolded sentence.

 

I don't like to quote bible verses or use biblical references when dealing with someone that is likely to just ignore it or make excuses for it (like was done with the spaghetti monster nonsense). My statement about thinking that their lives would be better with a god was tongue in cheek, but I suppose that could be lost in this medium.

 

Its easy to say science explains everything but not give any examples of this "everything" in the posts. As I have said here before, I have my BS degree in Math. I did research involving physics and planetary motion and a little bit of quantum physics. I know these things are different from the biological sciences, but it is science. And this science is based just as much on using the imagination as the facts that they have already proven. I really appreciate your comment about wondering "what if". If scientists didn't ask "what if", we would not have a lot of the knowledge that we have today.

 

I can accept the possibility that God doesn't exist, but I wonder if some of the more vocal atheists can accept or even imagine the possibility that God does exist? I think I already have my answer using the logic that they so often employ in this forum. Belief doesn't depend on facts. This has been proven over and over in many instances (tea partiers anyone? ). The rationale that they seem to have is that if they can't touch it, its not real. And if its not real, they see no point in believing in it. But this is my opinion, I'm sure it probably goes a little deeper than that and I just don't understand. Which is cool. I don't mind not understanding everything.

 

I started a thread not too long ago about the benefits to society that some religious practices have been. But the resident atheists shot it all down as *excuses* to be ignorant because other cultures had already figured it out. So what South American cultures had already figured out was going to be transferred immediately to Middle Eastern cultures without the benefit of the technologies that we have available today? It was really a fruitless conversation because some people are so against religion that they simply refuse to accept (like the field of psychology seems to be doing) that religion and spirituality can have some benefit to humans.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with atheists or people of other religions for that matter. What I do have a problem with is the implication that religious people are somehow ignorant for their believes. I saw an atheist on Bill Maher (I don't remember his name, I apologize) basically say that the scientist that led the team that mapped the human genome was ignorant because he believed in God. This man obviously was motivated by both his belief in God to uncover the wonders of creation/life on Earth AND by the desire for scientific knowledge. But because of his belief in God this atheist had the audacity to say that he was stupid. I'm not kidding. There was no need for this kind of disrespect. I was very disappointed to hear such a view, but it seems to be the one shared by the more vocal atheists as of late. And its a shame, too. They are starting to sound more and more like the very fundamentalists that they criticize so often.

[FleshNBones]

"First of all, there is no answer to explain the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of the big bang. Something must have caused the big bang. before the big bang, there was no time, and therefore no sequence. Because there was no sequence, nothing natural could have happened that caused the big bang. Therefore, whatever caused the big bang must have been supernatural."

 

This alone is false -- much about modern quantum mechanics can help explain the Big Bang and time. Saying "there must have been a creator of the Big Bang" is a dangerous assumption and is just as dangerous as saying "humans are too complex -- we must have been created."

Do you know what the scientists call it? They call it a singularity. In other words, it is a point of zero volume, and infinite density. They cannot model it, and they can't really understand it.

 

mbeewood was probably right when he called it supernatural. If something on the outside triggered it, then it is beyond our observable universe. A universe with zero volume probably wouldn't have room for anything to occur on the inside. Without time, the event couldn't happen.

The point of this thread is to figure out how, with a very good knowledge of science, anyone would still throw in with the concept of a God.

Are you as knowledgable as you think you are?

[Vertex]

Do you know what the scientists call it? They call it a singularity. In other words, it is a point of zero volume, and infinite density. They cannot model it, and they can't really understand it.

 

mbeewood was probably right when he called it supernatural. If something on the outside triggered it, then it is beyond our observable universe. A universe with zero volume probably wouldn't have room for anything to occur on the inside. Without time, the event couldn't happen.

Are you as knowledgable as you think you are?

 

Of course. If you read my other posts, I mention the singularity. It's not entirely incapable of comprehension, either. Again, we can model much of it with quantum mechanics.

 

Again, though, theists and atheists are likely never going to arrive to a conclusion, since one requires proof for a claim, and the other makes the claim without proof.

 

However, this is NOT why I made this thread, and it upsets me that people keep trying to turn it into a conversion debate, of sorts.

 

My question is why theists are theists despite the scientific proof and explanations that essentially show that a belief in God is not necessary to explain anything about our universe. Everyone seems to be dodging the question for some reason. Are theists merely throwing in with the "God of the gaps" argument? Again, how much of the Bible is true when we can reveal much of it to be demonstratively false? How much are we going to claim is real and how much of it is allegory or meant to be a moral interpretation (which does NOT imply an objective truth)? If we discount the Bible, what's left? Faith in the word of a few from long ago? What exactly are you putting your faith in, and why are you putting in such a faith in that direction given the science that we've discovered?

 

I always have trouble seeing how anyone can throw in with such a belief with all the evidence available.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Vertex

[FleshNBones]

Of course. If you read my other posts, I mention the singularity. It's not entirely incapable of comprehension, either. Again, we can model much of it with quantum mechanics.

Wrong! You cannot model the singularity. If we could, it wouldn't be called a singularity.

 

I am pretty sure the common belief is that time did not exist.

 

The problem with time existing before the big bang is that it would have been an infinitely long wait for the big-bang to occur. Obviously, it didn't take infinitely long.

Again, though, theists and atheists are likely never going to arrive to a conclusion, since one requires proof for a claim, and the other makes the claim without proof.

I think the consensus is we thiests aren't trying to prove anything to you or others like you. We do not need your validation.

However, this is NOT why I made this thread, and it upsets me that people keep trying to turn it into a conversion debate, of sorts.

 

My question is why theists are theists despite the scientific proof and explanations that essentially show that a belief in God is not necessary to explain anything about our universe. Everyone seems to be dodging the question for some reason. Are theists merely throwing in with the "God of the gaps" argument?

Was the question asked? You did make the argument that science could explain everything. It is obvious that science cannot explain everything.

Again, how much of the Bible is true when we can reveal much of it to be demonstratively false? How much are we going to claim is real and how much of it is allegory or meant to be a moral interpretation (which does NOT imply an objective truth)? If we discount the Bible, what's left? Faith in the word of a few from long ago? What exactly are you putting your faith in, and why are you putting in such a faith in that direction given the science that we've discovered?

Have any thiests cited the Bible in this thread?

I always have trouble seeing how anyone can throw in with such a belief with all the evidence available.

Are you trying to get the thiests here to validate the choice you made?

[NoIDidn't]

My question is why theists are theists despite the scientific proof and explanations that essentially show that a belief in God is not necessary to explain anything about our universe. Everyone seems to be dodging the question for some reason.

 

Actually this is the first time that I've seen you post this question in this manner. If you had at the very beginning of this thread, I think you would have had several people tell you that they agree that you do not need to have a belief in a god to explain the scientific explanations of the origins of our Universe. However, that does not mean that we'd completely agree that the scientific explanation is all that there was to it. It just means that there are several acceptable ways to theorize about the origins of the Universe and life in general.

 

Besides that, you didn't even present the above question when you started this thread at all. You wrote this:

 

As a hardcore atheist, I simply want to state a few opinions and raise these questions:

 

Opinions:

1. I am okay with anyone's religious belief as long as it is not imposed on me, and as long as I am not discriminated based on my beliefs. I also extend the same concept to others.

2. I believe science and logic is the only way to examine the universe -- any "mystery" or "enigma" is simply something we do not yet know.

3. Dangerous opinion, but here goes: I feel that those who are not atheist simply do not understand all the arguments in favor.

4. I believe we can explain everything (and I do mean everything) without the need for a God or external force -- I am very much against the "God of the gaps" argument.

 

And so, my questions:

1. If you are indeed a God-believer, why are you?

2. If you are religious and yet still understand all points in favor of atheism, why do you still choose theism?

 

You didn't start off seeking any consensus. You asked why theists believe as we do, nothing at all about what you say you asked above. Its easy to claim that people are dodging a question you didn't ask until now.

[Malenfant]

I can accept the possibility that God doesn't exist, but I wonder if some of the more vocal atheists can accept or even imagine the possibility that God does exist? I think I already have my answer using the logic that they so often employ in this forum. Belief doesn't depend on facts. This has been proven over and over in many instances (tea partiers anyone? ). The rationale that they seem to have is that if they can't touch it, its not real. And if its not real, they see no point in believing in it. But this is my opinion, I'm sure it probably goes a little deeper than that and I just don't understand. Which is cool. I don't mind not understanding everything.

 

 

I am an atheist and i'm not at all willing to accept the possibility that a god exists.

 

Not because i want to get into an argument about proving or disproving either scientific or religious beliefs, but simply because i have no faith whatsoever. I dont 'feel' any benevolent presence.

 

When I have had conversations about god with religious people they tell me that they instinctively 'feel' that a god exists. that is their reason for believing.

I dont believe anyone religious would say that they dont posess that feeling. Surely that is the basis of the 'faith'?

 

No argument can make me 'feel' that there is a higher presence, therefore how can I entertain the idea? Its not about compelling arguments for me.

[Malenfant]

I am pretty sure the common belief is that time did not exist.

 

The problem with time existing before the big bang is that it would have been an infinitely long wait for the big-bang to occur. Obviously, it didn't take infinitely long.

 

how on earth can you say anything about what happened before the start of the universe?

 

this argument is non-sense. Time is only a constraint that we apply to the universe to allow us to record and observe it, and it isnt a constant.

[FleshNBones]

how on earth can you say anything about what happened before the start of the universe?

 

this argument is non-sense. Time is only a constraint that we apply to the universe to allow us to record and observe it, and it isnt a constant.

I believe Stephen Hawking made that argument.

[Malenfant]

I believe Stephen Hawking made that argument.

 

i dont get your point. its not an argument anyway, just stating a fact.

[FleshNBones]

i dont get your point. its not an argument anyway, just stating a fact.

Actually, it was a logical argument illustrating the problem with the idea of time always existing.

[Malenfant]

Actually, it was a logical argument illustrating the problem with the idea of time always existing.

 

I understand that, I dont understand how it relates to theories about god.

 

I was only pointing out that the observation you made about time before the big-bang was incorrect. that no-one knows and we cannot judge anything about before the big bang.

[Vertex]

Actually this is the first time that I've seen you post this question in this manner

....

You didn't start off seeking any consensus. You asked why theists believe as we do, nothing at all about what you say you asked above. Its easy to claim that people are dodging a question you didn't ask until now.

 

The question's right there in the OP. I'm asking why theists believe what they do even if they have a full understanding of the atheistic arguments. "Scientific proof and explanations that essentially show that a belief in God is not necessary to explain anything about our universe" is part of such an atheistic argument.

 

Also The singularity is common held to be an occurrence of simultaneous time-events. It's not so much an "absence" of time but rather a unified simultaneous execution of time at once, or the "start of time." That's why it doesn't make much sense to ask what came "before" it. Even if this by some chance happens to be incorrect and there is indeed such a thing as a "before," nobody can possibly answer it with certainty unless we develop more sophisticated models that may elucidate some sort of fundamental property about our universe that explains exactly what time is. Right now, that model is quantum mechanics.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Vertex

[FleshNBones]

The question's right there in the OP. I'm asking why theists believe what they do even if they have a full understanding of the atheistic arguments. "Scientific proof and explanations that essentially show that a belief in God is not necessary to explain anything about our universe" is part of such an atheistic argument.

Science is far from being able to explain everything in our universe so there is plenty of room for God.

Also The singularity is common held to be an occurrence of simultaneous time-events. It's not so much an "absence" of time but rather a unified simultaneous execution of time at once, or the "start of time." That's why it doesn't make much sense to ask what came "before" it. Even if this by some chance happens to be incorrect and there is indeed such a thing as a "before," nobody can possibly answer it with certainty unless we develop more sophisticated models that may elucidate some sort of fundamental property about our universe that explains exactly what time is. Right now, that model is quantum mechanics.

The expansion was an occurance of simultaneous time-events. The singularity with zero volume did not have events.

Well, you haven't read anything by Steven Hawking. That much I am sure about.

 

Do you still think we theists are ignorant?

[mbeewood]

Scientists want facts. Religion cannot deliver those.

Your opinion is not an opinion based on any facts.

never the twain shall meet. its blind faith versus fact.

I'll just assume by "blind faith" you mean religious belief. In no way is it somehow religion VS science. Science is the study of the observable part of existence, religion is studying the part that isn't. They compliment each other quite well. Stop trying to bring up "science vs religion", they do not contradict each other in any way and it makes you sound like a moron.

 

 

Begging the question, how can faith move on and change? as science changes and moves forward (and sometimes sideways!) with every new development, the theists just cling to the same notions they have had for a couple of thousand years. With no new updates from god or prophets, whats new? As we discover new facts about life and the universe, it stands to reason that after each discovery, theists are turned to and asked 'how do you explain that then?' but all they have are the same old answers.

 

What's your point? Why does religion have to change?

[NoIDidn't]

I am an atheist and i'm not at all willing to accept the possibility that a god exists.

 

And this is a problem for me because how can you claim to have a thoughtful conversation with someone when you refuse to do what you are asking them to do?

 

No one has said "accept" the possibility that a god exists, I said "consider" the possibility. I consider the possibility that God doesn't exist on a regular basis. Refusing to consider the possibilities just makes you sound narrow-minded and even fearful of being wrong.

 

I am not afraid of being wrong about the existence of god. At the end of the day, I will have enjoyed the gift of life whether there is anything after it or not.

[Toki]

That is his right. God or no, the Universe is quite a strange and wonderful place, to be seen and experienced in the ways one should desire. If a god does exist, then it is just as well you not know about it.

[NoIDidn't]

That is his right. God or no, the Universe is quite a strange and wonderful place, to be seen and experienced in the ways one should desire. If a god does exist, then it is just as well you not know about it.

 

Of course, its his right to not believe in a god. You didn't read me saying anything otherwise. I said "consider". Its simply an academic exercise - not a statement of belief from him to "consider" the opposite of his beliefs.

 

I don't see how anyone can claim to be so open-minded about science but be so closed-minded when it comes to religion/faith/god.

 

Consider means to use one's imagination, not commit his mind to believing in something that he does not. Geesh.

[627]

here's an idea

what if God exists, but he is evil. he gave you all these impossible guidlines to follow to make your life miserable and eventualy he will send you to hell anyway

he lied about loving you and the eternity of happiness bit

 

if he is all knowing and all capable, why not? what are you guarrenties that there is an afterlife? besides your hopes?

[Malenfant]

Your opinion is not an opinion based on any facts.

 

religion by definition is built on faith, not facts. god does not prove he exists for therefore faith would be pointless. its the argument that theists use to cover the fact that there is no actual evidence of god. IE no facts.

 

I'll just assume by "blind faith" you mean religious belief. In no way is it somehow religion VS science. Science is the study of the observable part of existence, religion is studying the part that isn't. They compliment each other quite well. Stop trying to bring up "science vs religion", they do not contradict each other in any way and it makes you sound like a moron.

 

I was replying to another post about science & religion. i didnt bring it up.

To atheists, (not agnostics) science and religion do not compliment each other because we do not believe in god. how can we be expected to consider religious arguments when we do not believe?

 

Theists have to find a way for the two to combine, because theists know that science exists. they cannot deny its presence.

atheists, however, can deny the presence of god. thats the difference.

surely you can see that this is true?

I'm not actually trying to pursuade you that god doesnt exists, merely giving my view.

Strange that you're getting so angry about this, maybe these arguments are offending you? and BTW callng people names makes you appear ignorant, not me.

 

 

What's your point? Why does religion have to change?

 

because the world moves on and people become more educated. what was fact for people 2 thousand years ago is not neccessarily fact nowadays.

[Malenfant]

Of course, its his right to not believe in a god. You didn't read me saying anything otherwise. I said "consider". Its simply an academic exercise - not a statement of belief from him to "consider" the opposite of his beliefs.

 

I don't see how anyone can claim to be so open-minded about science but be so closed-minded when it comes to religion/faith/god.

 

Consider means to use one's imagination, not commit his mind to believing in something that he does not. Geesh.

 

i have not always been an atheist. When i was younger I was agnostic, and gave this subject a lot of consideration.

 

so i have already considered the possibility that god exists, and have come to my conclusion.

 

so dont assume that the atheists have not given this subject very carefull consideration in the past. just because they have already arrived at their own conclusions and reach this thread with a fully formed opinion, does not mean we are closed-minded.

 

i'm fully aware of what 'consideration' means. you really are very patronising yet you have no idea about my education, age or life experiences.

 

i dont see any of my posts insulting people or patronising them.

thats not something i would resort to in an apparently intelligent argument.

 

[Toki]

Of course, its his right to not believe in a god. You didn't read me saying anything otherwise. I said "consider". Its simply an academic exercise - not a statement of belief from him to "consider" the opposite of his beliefs.

 

I don't see how anyone can claim to be so open-minded about science but be so closed-minded when it comes to religion/faith/god.

 

Consider means to use one's imagination, not commit his mind to believing in something that he does not. Geesh.

 

Consider the daffodil, and while you're doing that, I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

 

As Malefant stated previously, most atheists aren't raised atheist, they have already gone through the consideration aspect, and are done with it, so it's a rather non-argument.

 

I understand the close-mindedness, they have reached their conclusion whether for good or ill. Most atheists are born into a religion, find out their religion isn't the religion for them, become agnostic, and then eventually "cut" the umbilical chord so to speak. Whereas Fundamentalists become attached to their religion and refuse to listen to reason.

 

You and perhaps even me, like the majority sit somewhere in the middle of the road. We've drawn a line in the sand, where we condemn religion for overextending its reach, and are angered by those within the scientific community who wish to join the debate, and think there isn't a line at all. Who are they to tell us there isn't a god? as it is obvious, they long ago chose to extinguish that part of themselves, and listen only to reason. Reason has often arguably created just as much, if not more misery than blind faith, when a leader of either diaspora has risen to power. they have their Stalins and Hitlers, to our Renee De Chatillons, Pope Clements, and Henry the VIIIths (amongst a great many other characters from both sides). It has also been by our virtue as a species, we choose these men in the worst of times. The suspicion or outright anger directed at them both runs deep, however you will find very little difference between these leaders who have operated on the extremes of both sides. (Kind of got a running thought process on this one...)

 

I say this because it was reasonable to do a lot of terrible things, lets not deny it, and the world most certainly has not been better off for it. Now... it comes full circle... God... a figment of our imagination? perhaps. Perhaps not. And its none of their business quite frankly. As it is none of our business but to smirk and think funny thoughts when they come striding in on their white horses to tell us small minded folk God Doesn't exist and our lives are all for lack of a better term, without purpose and meaningless. What sad individuals. So while they're all banded together telling themselves how logical and great they are, while the other side all bands together and says how blind and sinful they are, and they should all be made to hang on crosses and torchered until they repent before some supposedly kind god who has a serious S&M Fetish. I suppose I can make my life meaningful, with a god who is of my own making, who tells me I should consider that nobody else is exactly like me...

 

God I hope this made sense...

[Malenfant]

Consider the daffodil, and while you're doing that, I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

 

As Malefant stated previously, most atheists aren't raised atheist, they have already gone through the consideration aspect, and are done with it, so it's a rather non-argument.

 

I understand the close-mindedness, they have reached their conclusion whether for good or ill. Most atheists are born into a religion, find out their religion isn't the religion for them, become agnostic, and then eventually "cut" the umbilical chord so to speak. Whereas Fundamentalists become attached to their religion and refuse to listen to reason.

 

You and perhaps even me, like the majority sit somewhere in the middle of the road. We've drawn a line in the sand, where we condemn religion for overextending its reach, and are angered by those within the scientific community who wish to join the debate, and think there isn't a line at all. Who are they to tell us there isn't a god? as it is obvious, they long ago chose to extinguish that part of themselves, and listen only to reason. Reason has often arguably created just as much, if not more misery than blind faith, when a leader of either diaspora has risen to power. they have their Stalins and Hitlers, to our Renee De Chatillons, Pope Clements, and Henry the VIIIths (amongst a great many other characters from both sides). It has also been by our virtue as a species, we choose these men in the worst of times. The suspicion or outright anger directed at them both runs deep, however you will find very little difference between these leaders who have operated on the extremes of both sides. (Kind of got a running thought process on this one...)

 

I say this because it was reasonable to do a lot of terrible things, lets not deny it, and the world most certainly has not been better off for it. Now... it comes full circle... God... a figment of our imagination? perhaps. Perhaps not. And its none of their business quite frankly. As it is none of our business but to smirk and think funny thoughts when they come striding in on their white horses to tell us small minded folk God Doesn't exist and our lives are all for lack of a better term, without purpose and meaningless. What sad individuals. So while they're all banded together telling themselves how logical and great they are, while the other side all bands together and says how blind and sinful they are, and they should all be made to hang on crosses and torchered until they repent before some supposedly kind god who has a serious S&M Fetish. I suppose I can make my life meaningful, with a god who is of my own making, who tells me I should consider that nobody else is exactly like me...

 

God I hope this made sense...

 

total sense. and I respect completely anybody's beliefs and would never want to change them, let alone attempt it.

 

I only retaliate when i'm told i'm not thinking. and I only join in the discussion when i feel people are being mis-understood, or I can help to clarify a point.

 

its funny how i'm defending myself to someone (other poster) when all i was doing was explaining the atheists point of view, i dread to think what kind of reaction i would have got if i'd started saying anything against religion!

[Vertex]

Science is far from being able to explain everything in our universe so there is plenty of room for God.

The expansion was an occurance of simultaneous time-events. The singularity with zero volume did not have events.

Well, you haven't read anything by Steven Hawking. That much I am sure about.

 

Do you still think we theists are ignorant?

 

You are totally mincing my words. Please re-read them again. The simultaneity stemmed from the singularity -- I'm not saying "this is what happened in the singularity itself" but rather a variety of events occurred from it. I've read Hawking plenty -- please don't mince my words in order to set up a straw man argument. Either way, science is certainly far from a full understanding (when can we know, anyway?), but under that obvious structure, there is ALWAYS "room for God." Like I said earlier, if you're defining God to be supernatural, then no amount of natural science will ever be enough. We can always say "we can never be sure that there's something else we don't know how to explain with science" and therefore you can always say "there is plenty of room for God," but you've set up God in a way that can never be falsified, and this goes against the fundamental principle of a hypothesis. You define God as "above science" without really explaining how this works.

 

 

 

Anyways, back on topic, the whole "science and religion" thing being complementary always bothers me. They only complement each other if you associate "religion" with the unknown, but to an atheist, the unknown is simply the unknown. Science continually aims to uncover the unknown. But in the mean time, I feel as if instead of looking at the scientific facts as evidence against a theistic claim, theists simply move the goalposts. That is what I do not understand. If your claim is demonstratibly false or explainable through another well-known scientific construct, why continue to hold onto an outmoded belief?

 

 

As an aside, guys, stop throwing around insults in this thread. Keep things civil. I never understood why people assume that a religious debate automatically means "people are trying to convert each other and change beliefs." Religious debates exist to get different points of view. It's clear people have their decisions set in stone, more or less, and this thread is meant to uncover some of the underlying beliefs.

 

 

Toki: My response would be that "reasonable" is different from "logical." People can feel that things are "reasonable" on a moral scale. Science does not pertain to morality. The kind of "reason" or "logic" an atheist would use has nothing to do with emotion or the impact of "reasonable thinking," even if it happens to be associated with people who took a dark path. People can bring up Stalin and Hitler all day, but they didn't do the bad things they did BECAUSE they were atheist. Most people seem to misunderstand what "logical" or "rational" really mean.