Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why not God?

  1. May 25, 2010 #1
    Every time I read a physics or modern science magazine, it always talks about evolution, our universe forming from others, and other secular stuff. Why cant God be considered as a possibility. I mean its not as if all modern scientists dont believe in God. Some of the greatest scientists are openly monotheistic (Stephen Hawking, Robert Penrose, ALBERT EINSTEIN, Michio Kaku.)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2010 #2
    It is better to read "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, because, I think, it answers why God is not a possibility. In my opinion, it is not the great Scientists whom we have to look for answers, but the theories, results, work from them have to be read, tested and accepted by us.
    A scientist's personal life and belief has nothing to do with Science, I believe. We have the right to doubt any scientific theory, test it and accept if it is convincing to us. This holds good for religious belief !!!
     
  4. May 25, 2010 #3
    Because I don't believe in a talking snake, a man who lived in a "Fish", a man who fed thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish, a man who parted the sea with his hands, and we have something like 97% DNA to Apes... Kind of figures the theory of evolution to be much more true than believing in a made up religion such as Christianity. I believe the story of Jesus was made up, to establish what is now the LARGEST religion in the world, Christianity. I simply put my FAITH in Science & Fact, not Fiction.

    Read: Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
    Watch: Religilous

    I don't care, nor mind what anyone believes in, but for me, it's a dilusion to the real world, a sense of comfort for the masses. Or simply, most young people as children are often brainwashed by TV, Parents etc to believe in things like this, instead of having the chance to make up there own mind.

    When I have children, they will NOT be baptised & I will NOT be getting married in a church, nor do I want a "Church" Funeral, or any talk of God at my death / marriage.

    Life is Material, Not Supernatural.
     
  5. May 25, 2010 #4
    Countdown to thread closure.
     
  6. May 25, 2010 #5
    You can acknowledge that it's a possibility, but where do you go from there? What hypotheses are there to test? None. All you can do is say "it's possible", then move on to testing other theories and hypotheses that can actually be tested. In other words, if science did what you asked, nothing at all would change. It would be exactly as it is now.
     
  7. May 25, 2010 #6

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Because then there's not much point in doing the research - if the answer is god did it.

    Of course it makes the exams a lot easier if you can answer, "god did it" or "whatever god wants it to be" for every question.
     
  8. May 25, 2010 #7

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Scientific tools are incompatible with god. Scientific tools are based on repeatable experiments and measurements, according to theologists and church god is unmeasurable.
     
  9. May 25, 2010 #8
    Sensible answer: Becuase the supernatural is not science. If you start sticking 'the big man' into unexplained things willy nilly, where do you stop? We might as well go home now and have the rest of time off trying to discover things.

    My answer: Becuase god is total bollocks... that's why.

    Flippant answer: Why God? I noticed you capitalised it, rather than leave it as a generic god.
     
  10. May 25, 2010 #9

    fluidistic

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Einstein declared himself as agnostic. Since when agnostic people are considered as "openly monotheistic"?
     
  11. May 25, 2010 #10
    It bothers me when people say they're agnostic. Just say atheist. It's the same thing.
     
  12. May 25, 2010 #11

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    To one significant figure they are the same!

    Really christians and atheists aren't that different, christians don't believe in 1000s of gods, atheists don't believe in 1000s +1
     
  13. May 25, 2010 #12
    It's manifestly not. The weakest form of atheism is a much stronger position to hold than even the strongest forms of agnosticism.
     
  14. May 25, 2010 #13
    Not by definition the two words mean different things. Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheist means without belief in theism.

    Agnostic has come to mean 'sitting of the fence', which is a perfectly valid position to take up. It's honest saying "I don't know".
     
  15. May 25, 2010 #14

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It is honest when it is honest, but it is dishonest when it is just to cover your lack of courage.
     
  16. May 25, 2010 #15
    Indeed. Not quite the point that I was conveying.
     
  17. May 25, 2010 #16
    I'm afraid it is quite a qualitative difference: Christians believe in a supreme being that actually even knows about us and influences our lives. Atheist do not believe even in the concept of "God".
     
  18. May 25, 2010 #17
    It was an ironic statement.
     
  19. May 25, 2010 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Succinct answer: god CAN be considered - just not by science.
     
  20. May 25, 2010 #19
    You mean to say, the courage to take a stand on a principle that you can not prove scientifically without a doubt. An agonostic is taking a more objective view. As an agnostic, I say that I will try to follow the evidence as it is given to me. How is it less couragous of me to not jump off the "fence" and say that there is not God or god without absolutely knowing for sure. That would be roughly equivalent to saying that there is a God or god without having the evidence to prove it. At the moment I try to live based on what I know.

    Maybe one day we'll find a cave on a distant planet that says "God's house" and find it empty. Then I can step off the fence.
     
  21. May 25, 2010 #20
    Uhmmm, I think you misunderstand what the word atheism means. It doesn't mean a position against existence of god, it means lack of belief in gods. You do get those 'radical' or 'fundamental' atheist who go around giving lectures in which they say 'god doesn't exist' but those are ALWAYS to do with a specific concept of god, whether it be christian or hindu or ancient egyptian. I don't think I have ever seen an atheist come right out and claim 'universal knowledge' that there 'is no god(s)'.

    I'll repeat if you didn't get it, atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of belief and saying 'I don't believe god exist' isn't the same as saying 'god does not exist' (in a definitive sense on the concept not as an opinion or a definitive stance against a religious concept of a particular god)
     
  22. May 25, 2010 #21
    The atheist is also without knowledge. The agnostic is also without belief. What's the difference?
     
  23. May 25, 2010 #22
    Atheism as defined by Merriam-Webster

    2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

    This definition is broad enough that you can make it as mild or extreme as you hold your own convictions. I have met both, those who simply don't believe in a god, and those who don't think anyone else should either.
     
  24. May 25, 2010 #23
    No, the atheist bases their unbelief ON knowledge, that's the key difference in my opinion. Agnostic literally means 'no knowledge' they are at this conclusion becaues they don't have the knowledge to make a claim of belief or unbelief. They are 'neutral' in their beliefs. Atheist is nobelief theist is belief. simple.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2010
  25. May 25, 2010 #24
    Why do you always insist on arguing about things that just aren't subjective? We assign meanings to words, and put those meanings in thnigs called dictionarys.

    Atheist and agnostisiam have two totally seperate meanings and definitions. Saying they are the same isn't true.

    You can use boths words to describe a single person.

    gnostic atheist - someone who has considered what he knows and has come to the active conclusion there is no god/s. (also known as strong atheism, I believe this is also as flawed a position as saying there most certainly is a god)
    agnostic atheist - either soneone who hasn't/can't make their mind up. Or hasn't considered the evidence. (a baby would fall under this category)

    agnostic theist - you don't know if something exists but believe anyway.
    gnostic theist - you've condiered what you know and come to the colcusion that god must have done it. (I'd argue that it's always flawed reasoning, but still flawed or not those people believe for a reason).

    (someone else can probably come up with a better description).
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2010
  26. May 25, 2010 #25
    What knowledge could an atheist possibly have on the non-existence of god? Children don't have to learn anything to become atheists, their parents have to teach them about god for them to start believing it.

    That's an interesting way of putting it. It also goes far beyond the definitions of both words. I haven't seen a definition of agnostic that doesn't sound like just an extenuated definition of atheist. You combined agnostic with theist and atheist, you didn't use it by itself. Where did you get all this extra information to clarify the definitions?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook