God vs Science

[betsy]

• 'God vs. Science'

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks

oneof his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment.

'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can

cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that...'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.

Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does

he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed

to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says.

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time

to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in

this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created

everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the

principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?

Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks

away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell

me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ,

son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to

identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not..'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?

Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that

matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,

science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has

with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His

own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room

suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have

lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white

heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'.

We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't

go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we

would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or

object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat

is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero

(-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word

we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we

can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the

opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding

like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it

isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of

something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing

light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's

called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness

darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be

a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to

start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you

explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You

argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.

You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can

measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity

and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that

death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of

life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your

students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,

of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes

where the argument is going.. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and

cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not

teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar.. The student remains silent until the commotion

has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other

student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks

around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the

professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone

here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain,

touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.

So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable

protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures,

sir?'

Now the room is silent.. The professor just stares at the student, his

face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man

answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with

life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it

Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in

The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These

manifestations are nothing else but evil..'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does

not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like

darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of

God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man

does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that

comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no

light.'

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you

finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'

PS: The student was Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921...

Taken from Living Truth Forum on Facebook.

[TimG]

Interesting perspective. But it is purely fictional and has nothing to do with Einstein:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

[pinko]

• 'God vs. Science'

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks

oneof his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment.

'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can

cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that...'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.

Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does

he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed

to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says.

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time

to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in

this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created

everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the

principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?

Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.

'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks

away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell

me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ,

son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to

identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not..'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?

Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that

matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,

science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has

with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His

own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room

suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have

lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white

heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'.

We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't

go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we

would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or

object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat

is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero

(-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word

we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we

can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the

opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding

like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it

isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of

something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing

light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's

called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness

darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be

a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to

start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you

explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You

argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.

You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can

measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity

and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that

death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of

life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your

students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,

of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes

where the argument is going.. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and

cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not

teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar.. The student remains silent until the commotion

has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other

student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks

around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the

professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone

here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain,

touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.

So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable

protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures,

sir?'

Now the room is silent.. The professor just stares at the student, his

face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man

answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with

life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it

Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in

The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These

manifestations are nothing else but evil..'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does

not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like

darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of

God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man

does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that

comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no

light.'

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you

finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'

PS: The student was Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921...

Taken from Living Truth Forum on Facebook.

What point are you trying to make?

By the way have you read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins?

[The_Squid]

Phony stories about Einstein is supposed to prove God's existence?

Now there's a stretch!

Call it what it is.... faith. A belief in something despite a complete lack of evidence. And that's OK... it is what it is....

Faeries, mythical sky gods with lightening bolts in their fists, ghosts, God, Allah and thousands of other man-made myths are all in the same category. What myths one may believe is mostly based upon when and where one lives.

5000 years ago in Egypt you would have worshipped Ra and a cat-god. Religions change with the times...

[WIP]

Phony stories about Einstein is supposed to prove God's existence?

Isn't it amazing that fundies who are at war with science see nothing wrong with using the technology made available by scientific progress. Anyone who's at war with science should follow it through and give up their computers, GPS, cell phones, cars, fly in airplanes.....in short, go back to the horse and buggy like the Mennonites.

And, the latest homily in that Chick Tract doesn't even follow the science of their own Bible, since the writers of the Old Testament believed that cold and darkness were distinct physical properties, not the absence of heat and light.

[betsy]

Whether fiction or not, the rebutt of the young lad was only logical, and only showed how the atheist professor was preaching his opinion.

[CANADIEN]

Isn't it amazing that fundies who are at war with science see nothing wrong with using the technology made available by scientific progress. Anyone who's at war with science should follow it through and give up their computers, GPS, cell phones, cars, fly in airplanes.....in short, go back to the horse and buggy like the Mennonites.

Actually, the buggy is the technology that existed at the time the Mennonites were founded. In other words, the result of science.

And, the latest homily in that Chick Tract doesn't even follow the science of their own Bible, since the writers of the Old Testament believed that cold and darkness were distinct physical properties, not the absence of heat and light.

But then, the Bible is not a science book.

[Oleg Bach]

God does not give a shit if you are good or evil - this is trival stuff to the all mighty..it is us that bicker about who is superiour and who is not..who should rule and who should submit..as for God and Science - they are the same damned thing....and if you are a real believer in the cold and distant entity called GOD...you will not come up with crap like "How can there be a God when he lets an innocent child die" - or "Why do bad things happen to good people"? This has nothing to do with God...it is all about people.....as for the "innocent child" perishing...To God there is no life or death - He is eternity...as we as seasonal creatures look at God as a HUMAN - He is not..nothing worse than a Christian or others crying at a funeral..They are disgusting and have no faith...If you believe properly in God - there is no death....just life to enjoy.

[pinko]

God does not give a shit if you are good or evil - this is trival stuff to the all mighty..it is us that bicker about who is superiour and who is not..who should rule and who should submit..as for God and Science - they are the same damned thing....and if you are a real believer in the cold and distant entity called GOD...you will not come up with crap like "How can there be a God when he lets an innocent child die" - or "Why do bad things happen to good people"? This has nothing to do with God...it is all about people.....as for the "innocent child" perishing...To God there is no life or death - He is eternity...as we as seasonal creatures look at God as a HUMAN - He is not..nothing worse than a Christian or others crying at a funeral..They are disgusting and have no faith...If you believe properly in God - there is no death....just life to enjoy.

I don't share you belief in the entity you describe as god. Having said that as long as you aren't attempting to impose that view on others I believe in live and let live.

[Oleg Bach]

I don't share you belief in the entity you describe as god. Having said that as long as you aren't attempting to impose that view on others I believe in live and let live.

That's very good or Godly of you....what cleared the picture for me is when I was researching a dictionary that was almost two hundred years old...the old spelling of GOOD was simply GOD....simple! I look at the God factor from a logical pragmatic view.....the vastness of existance...the trillions upon trillions of light years and beyound beyond....IF myself...on this speck of dust with that little bit of grey jello in my head - has self awareness...then for sure the vast endless universe also thinks...and that is good...or GOD....what's wrong with granting nature a consciousness?

[pinko]

That's very good or Godly of you....what cleared the picture for me is when I was researching a dictionary that was almost two hundred years old...the old spelling of GOOD was simply GOD....simple! I look at the God factor from a logical pragmatic view.....the vastness of existance...the trillions upon trillions of light years and beyound beyond....IF myself...on this speck of dust with that little bit of grey jello in my head - has self awareness...then for sure the vast endless universe also thinks...and that is good...or GOD....what's wrong with granting nature a consciousness?

You are free to attribute whatever you want in defining life and our place in the universe.

[WIP]

Actually, the buggy is the technology that existed at the time the Mennonites were founded. In other words, the result of science.

You're right, but I don't think that technology led to a war on science. When I read this crazy thread I started thinking back to about a year ago when I read that the conservative wiki - Conservapedia, has started adding articles that have advanced the attack on evolutionary theory to include ones that try to debunk general relativity and quantum mechanics as 'unchristian.' The technologies provided by 20th century physics is acceptable (they don't object to using these devices), yet they want to dumb down their followers from learning anything about physics as well as biology!

But then, the Bible is not a science book.

One of the big surprises for me, when I started reading about the history of science, is that most theologians and church leaders of the past, did not like the concept of trying to prove and learn about God through scientific discovery. They felt that stories and events in the Bible were of no value to the average Christian if they couldn't be applied to the individual as an allegory of personal struggles (the whole story of endtimes and judgment were re-interpreted as referring to the death, salvation or damnation of the individual).

Religion is about receiving knowledge through revelation, whereas science is about building a base of understanding from the ground up. That, in itself is a good reason why any believers should be wary of smudging the boundaries and trying to use their religions to make scientific claims.

The problem today of the "god in the gaps," has more to do with Newton, Kepler, Descartes, and a whole host of Christian scientists that thought they could find something in nature that was so amazing, that it couldn't be explained through natural methods. And this has started a process where fundamentalists look for gaps to prove the limits of science, and end up either having to reject science or reject their religious understanding if new scientific discoveries find a way to explain the natural processes occurring in that gap.

A lot of people....maybe even a majority of people, are going to go by their intuitions about the world we live in and assume it's designed with a purpose; where some will conclude that if there's no evidence of design or designer, there's no point to just assuming one exists. Personally, I'm more concerned with how people apply their beliefs than what they actually are.

[betsy]

This makes a complimentary accompaniment to the anecdote of the so-called fictitional Einstein given above. Except nothing here is fictitious.

UK HEADLINE:

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

So Hawking has reached his conclusion. Perhaps this time it will certainly earn him the Nobel Prize. For all his brilliant theories....I was surprised to learn he hasn't won one yet. Apparently, here's why:

Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

[dre]

This makes a complimentary accompaniment to the anecdote of the so-called fictitional Einstein given above. Except nothing here is fictitious.

UK HEADLINE:

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

So Hawking has reached his conclusion. Perhaps this time it will certainly earn him the Nobel Prize. For all his brilliant theories....I was surprised to learn he hasn't won one yet. Apparently, here's why:

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

Why would proof matter to you?

[Bonam]

Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved.

As does the work of almost all modern theoretical physicists, the theoretical physics being explored today is far outside the regimes that we can directly observe and measure in experiments so far. The theoretical predictions advanced by Hawking and other physicists will be proven or disproven in the future, as our experimental capabilities advance. For example, once several years worth of data of the LHC full power operation has been gathered, there are several fundamental questions in modern physics that will be answered experimentally.

Back to Hawking, scientists believe they have already observed one of his most famous predictions, Hawking radiation, though further experiments are of course still needed:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19508-hawking-radiation-glimpsed-in-artificial-black-hole.html?full=true

[kimmy]

Whether fiction or not, the rebutt of the young lad was only logical, and only showed how the atheist professor was preaching his opinion.

However, it's interesting that the purveyors of this fiction, this modern-day Aesop's Fable, attached the magic name Albert Einstein to it. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is never more fallacious than when the authority in question never even said what is claimed.

When he began to apply his theory of relativity to the universe at large, Einstein discovered he had a problem: how to explain how the universe was stationary? His theory said it couldn't be. He pondered the problem and came up with a "cosmological constant", a galactic fudge-factor that could explain why the universe could be stationary in spite of what his theory told him.

Later, when astronomers proved that the universe isn't stationary but in fact expanding rapidly, Einstein called his "cosmological constant" the biggest blunder of his life. Why? Because he had modified his theory to accommodate a widely held assumption that turned out to be completely false.

If Stephen Hawking is so smart, how come he never won a Nobel Prize? hmmm? How smart could he be if he never won a Nobel Prize?

Everyone talks about how great Beethoven was. Beethoven wasn't so great. He never got his picture on bubblegum cards, did he? Have you ever seen his picture on a bubblegum card? Hmmm? How can you say someone is great who's never had his picture on bubblegum cards?

-k

[betsy]

betsy said:

If Stephen Hawking is so smart, how come he never won a Nobel Prize? hmmm? How smart could he be if he never won a Nobel Prize?

-k

Kimmy, if you will quote me, please quote my exact statement. OR clearly state that your quoted statement above is how you would interpret my statement. Claiming that said statement was my exact statement is downright dis-honest and misleading.

Furthermore, you only equate yourself to the religious wild-eyed dude you disparaged as being "looney"...with apparent no credibility. What's the difference then between him and a liar? When both have no credibility?

For the record, here is my statement.

So Hawking has reached his conclusion. Perhaps this time it will certainly earn him the Nobel Prize. For all his brilliant theories....I was surprised to learn he hasn't won one yet. Apparently, here's why:

Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved.

Edited February 2, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Clearly some of the replies that followed after my Hawking post failed to see the ironic connection between the so-called fictitious Einstein anecdote, and reaction to Hawking's conclusion......

...or it just clearly demonstrate that they see what they want to see....

...or displaying the art of going the usual roundabout-usual twisting about - distorting - going off-except-to-the-point being presented....

...or that truth is relative (at least that's how Kimmy demonstrated it. Perfectly showing the typical mindset of some liberalists/secularists. It's okay to deliberately distort, right?)....

...or all of the above.

This is not about Hawking or Einstein.

Hawking has never had a proven theory, and yet his conclusion is welcomed with open arms.

With so much confidence even in the face of zero proven theory.

With so much understanding.

Without any question.

Accepted as fact.

Their messiah fiercely defended!

Oh such wondrous faith you all so proudly display.

Your god will be so proud of you.

I rest my case. Thank you very much.

Edited February 2, 2011 by betsy

[pinko]

Clearly the replies that followed after my Hawking post failed to see the ironic connection between the so-called fictitious Einstein anecdote, and reaction to Hawking's conclusion......

...or it just clearly demonstrate that they see what they want to see....

...or displaying the art of going the usual roundabout-usual twisting about - distorting - going off-except-to-the-point being presented....

...or that truth is relative (at least that's how Kimmy demonstrated it. Perfectly showing the typical mindset of some liberalists/secularists. It's okay to distort, right?)....

...or all of the above.

Hawking has never had a proven theory, and yet his conclusion is accepted with open arms.

Without any question.

Accepted as fact.

Their messiah fiercely defended!

Oh such wondrous faith you all so proudly display.

Your god will be so proud of you.

I rest my case. Thank you very much.

Which god is that?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand why some religious people think that they have to comply with the realm of science as well as holy magic.

If there's a scientific reason for it, then is it really a 'miracle' ?

If science can explain it is it really 'faith' ?

[Wild Bill]

Hawking has never had a proven theory, and yet his conclusion is welcomed with open arms.

With so much confidence even in the face of zero proven theory.

With so much understanding.

Without any question.

Accepted as fact.

Their messiah fiercely defended!

Oh such wondrous faith you all so proudly display.

Your god will be so proud of you.

I rest my case. Thank you very much.

Again Betsy, you show that you have no idea what the term "Theory" means in the scientific community.

Hawking's theories are accepted because they fit the facts already discovered so beautifully! That's what SCIENTIFIC theories do! You seem to think that a scientific theory is merely any old crap of an explanation. Someone throws it out and then you wait for some evidence to prove it.

It doesn't work that way at all. Rather, when a scientist sees some aspect of the Universe and wonders why it exists or how it works, he formulates a theory that can explain things while AGREEING WITH EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW!

Better yet, a theory should also make predictions about how associated aspects also work - again, without contradicting what we already know. Those predictions are what are often used to help prove a theory. Sooner or later we discover evidence and we can see if it fits those predictions.

Hawking's theories are no exception. They jive with everything already known and make predictions about what we hope to discover.

To properly understand the theories of someone like Hawking usually requires a good knowledge of his subject. This is where those who cling to their Bible can't compete. Again, Hawking's theories do not prove or disprove the existence of a God. Yet many of those who believe in a God take exception, since along with their idea of God comes their Bible, which they take to explain how their God actually did everything! In effect, their Bible is a "magic wand". It doesn't have to explain anything beyond saying "God did it."

I posted about this before. From my POV, it is YOUR side that is picking the fight! It's as if your God gave you people a brain to learn about HIS works and you choose instead to cling to primitive myths and tell HIM how he did it all!

As long as fundamentalist Christians take this stance, they can never win. Things will only get worse for them. Every day forevermore Man will discover more and more about the Universe, using Science as one of his tools. This means that every day fundamentalists will have to deal with more and more contradictions.

One of my childhood friends grew up to be a highly placed priest in the Orthodox Church. We talked about this Science/Religion conflict many times. His church seemed very rational about the subject. He explained how in the Orthodox Church they have a fixed list of items they must believe in and everything after that is considered theological opinion! This allowed them to successfully dodge all the fights over evolution and whatnot. They never had a problem with Galileo.

It might be productive to talk to some in that Church. After all, they've been around longer than any other Christian faith. It stands to reason they might know a bit more about some things than some of the johnny-come-lately faiths...

Edited February 2, 2011 by Wild Bill

[TimG]

I look at it this way: even if a creator does exist we have to assume he does not exist for the purpose of scientific discovery. We would be still living in the dark ages if people waved their hands and said 'god did it' whenever faced with an intractable problem. Only by assuming that god does not exist we can expand our knowledge. Of course, if god does exist there may be problems that will forever remain intractable but that does not mean we should not try to come up with scientific explanations for those problems while acknowledging the limits of those explanations.

The problem is only with people that think science and religion faith are mutually exclusive (this includes people on both sides of the debate).

Edited February 3, 2011 by TimG

[betsy]

I look at it this way: even if a creator does exist we have to assume he does not exist for the purpose of scientific discovery. We would be still living in the dark ages if people waved their hands and said 'god did it' whenever faced with an intractable problem. Only by assuming that god does not exist we can expand our knowledge. Of course, if god does exist there may be problems that will forever remain intractable but that does not mean we should not try to come up with scientific explanations for those problems while acknowledging the limits of those explanations.

The problem is only with people that think science and religion faith are mutually exclusive (this includes people on both sides of the debate).

I believe that God exists whether proven by science or not. My belief is cemented by my faith.

That being said, I have nothing against science for indeed science is a gift from God. Again, that is my belief.

This topic is just a stark and undoubtedly clear depiction that there are those atheists (stressing that means not all atheists) who hunger for the discovery that will prove that there is no God. If you scroll back to all the topics that dealt with religion/evolution etc., those who tend to possess such rabid hunger for the confirmation that there is indeed no God also bear such hostility towards God, religion or anyone professing to believe in God. Intended insults to God, deliberately seeking to offend and ridicule believers into either acquiscence or silence in expression of belief. These are the ones who parrot scientists-writing-books by usage of such redundant, unimaginative phrases like "Spaghetti Monster" or "Pixie-in-the Sky"....which amuses me actually for, as if there is no other creative way to express such contempt. They could've come up with more creative insults than just mimicking and parroting!

Those hostilities piqued my curiosity. These attitudes I ended up analyzing.

Some of these atheists offered valuable insights by saying how they were let down by religion....or by religious people. Most of these hostilities stem from their anger. They have anger issues with religion....with religious people.

Some of them perhaps put their own expectancy on God....expecting God to behave the way they envisioned Him to behave.....and were utterly disappointed/rebellious when God did not meet their own expectation.

These anger is being expressed on those who maintain their belief in God...and on God.

Nothing more like a petulant child who wishes to hurt his parents for not giving him what he wants.

I say that there are those atheists, and these types are predominantly among them, who pinned their high expectation on science. To them, science is the one that will knock down this ridiculous belief in God.

Those who are so insecure of their own atheistic belief really hunger for this confirmation. There must be a struggle deep down inside these folks (that nagging thought way, way back there in the deep recesses of the mind that just wouldn't be quieted, that keeps insisting... that there might indeed be God)....continuous wrestling with this uncomfortable notion. So they cling and avidly follow every bit of scientific theories that will bring them closer to that discovery that will rid them of this discomfort forever.

This topic only mirrors the fanaticism, the similarities in faith between a believer in God, and a believer in science. Ironically, the comparative reaction to Hawking made it so clear.

These atheists are mostly former believers of the Christian faith.

To some, atheism has become so religion-like....with science as its god, the scientists like Dawkins and Hawking similar to a messiah who will bring them redemption. Redemption is to be confident in the knowldge that there is indeed no God.

These atheists are hurting.

Perhaps, who knows....they hurt because God is knocking....but they aren't listening.

Edited February 3, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

If I'm not listening to God, he's doing a poor job of communicating. That's His fault.

At any rate, I don't hunger for the disproving of God. I can't see, at present, any way in which the existence of a god could be disproved, and I don't consider it relevant anyway.

And while there are undoubtedly some self-professed atheists who feel as you describe, most atheists are not such because of some petulant Father-issues. That sort of dime-store psychologizing is actually deeply disrespectful.

Of course you think they're wrong, Betsy; that doesn't mean they're all angry children with father issues who have a religious faith in science.

Edited February 3, 2011 by bloodyminded

[pinko]

Betsy:

You state:

"I believe that God exists whether proven by science or not. My belief is cemented by my faith."

That is fine but why have you setup your position based upon the premise God vs. Science?