How can one still have faith in God and still believe in science?

It's impossibru.

>>9017263
You either believe humans only have value insofar as other predators at the top of the food chain grant them value or you believe humans have inherent value in the fabric of the universe.

If the former, then you should object to the present state of evolution we are undergoing with the advance of AI that will replace the common human. You should be going to war fighting for your survival or else you will be bred out.

Otherwise, if you believe humans are inherently valuable by the will of a creator, then you wouldn't be alarmed because your purpose can only be taken away be He who gave it.

>>9017263
We can fly.
We can throw flames from our hands.
We can unleash lightning from our fingertips.
If God had nothing to do with it, wizards like us wouldn't exist. ^-^"

>>9017263
>The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
I have learned time and time again about physics, evolution, biology, chemistry, and time and time again I realize that we don't actually know jack shit. I'm waiting for the day, in the next decades, that humanity makes such a profound discovery of the creation of our universe that it completely blows out of the water everything else we thought we knew.

The most obvious and normie way to look at it is the good old question of "what created the big bang?" What caused the concentration of matter into one area? What caused everything, every atom, every nucleus, every bond, what caused all of this to somehow expand?

We don't know. Because the truth is, we have no fucking idea what could have happened before the big bang. What could have happened before time started ticking. Even if we follow Aristotle's belief that the universe has existed forever.... how the fuck?

Read up on theories of the universe, as far as you can understand, and relish in the fact we know fuck all and you'll die hundreds, if not thousands of years before we fully wrap our brains around what the fuck is actually going on.

>>9017263
You don't "believe" in science like a religion, you popsci faggot. Science is a tool that you use.

File: 1431549554614.png (139KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1920x1200px

>>9017263
>believe in science

Only fedoras 'believe in science'. We study science & math.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (223KB, 1900x1080px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1900x1080px

What if god exists because it was created by humans? or maybe from humans?

What if god is like Multivac in Asimov's The Last Question. An all knowing being that can only exist at the end of the universe. All knowing means it knows what you're thinking right now at this moment, and knows every thought you will have in the future and past. Since it knows what your thinking, you could talk to it simply by thinking, or praying. While it can't do anything right now to help you, it can effect the next iteration of the universe it creates to help out.

>>9017263
the Creation of David is freaky

>>9017335
False dichotomy, there can be inherent meaning without god.

>>9017263
Why not? God can be above empirical world.

>>9017263
>believe in science
>believe
that's where you failed

>>9017263
because god is the truth.

>John 14:6 - I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

>>9017263
In every frame of reference, there will always be some notion of what is absolute (god), and some notion of the way things work (science).

Atheists do not and can not truly deny the existence of a god, they only swap science with religion, in a manner of saying that if something consistent with their worldview then it's , that if you can make something work it's justified.

File: rules.png (15KB, 656x185px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 656x185px

>>9017634
>Atheists do not and can not truly deny the existence of a god, they only swap science with religion

can we please get a mod in here. tired of this Science VS Religion garbage

>>9017655
Trying to censor the truth, eh? Fuck off to reddit.

File: untitled.png (66KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 292x173px

>>9017741
>evangelizing on the /sci board

>>9017263
Who made the Big Bang and set all the physical and mathematical laws?

Not believing in God is just a naive attitide that conflicts even your own morives ans principles. You believe everything can be explained rationally with evidence. Evidence clearly favors existence of God, yet you (and people lije you ofc) oppose God just because you feel do.

The more you know, the more you'll learn everything is made of God in all its perfection.

>>9017744
If you weren't illiterate enough to be able to read my post, you would see that I'm not arguing in favor of any religion, but rather describing what the concept of god itself is.

>>9017762
It's hilarious how militant atheists bash religion but don't even know how life itself came to exist.

inb4 religion

>>9017767
>If you weren't illiterate enough to be able to read my post
>illiterate

you friend are scientifically illiterate (proper usage) and should take yourself back to a board where its appropriate for you to discuss your religious cosmology.

File: epicfirstlight_DSC_2015186.jpg (175KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 720x720px

>>9017769
>don't even know how life itself came to exist
https://youtu.be/U6QYDdgP9eg

Easy: God made all physical laws and metaphysical entities like mathematics.

>>9017771
... and you are literally illiterate because you seem unable to even understand English.

>>9017778
damn that's a really really good explanation for the origin of life.

How can creationists even come back from that?

>>9017634
By the way, I want to be clear I'm not trying to evangelize, but rather explaining the meaning of the word "god". It all has to do with what one's notion of what is absolute is.

In religion, "god" (the man in the sky) is taken as the absolute ruler of the universe, whereas in atheism, science takes the place of that.

If we were to believe that the laws of physics are simulated and some man in the sky is really calling the shots, then worshiping science would just be another way of worshiping the man in the sky.

>>9017995
bullshit
this is you:
>Atheists do not and can not truly deny the existence of a god, they only swap science with religion

>>9017263
the complexity of everything :/

>>9017778
really gets your noggin joggin

>i already know this shit nigga

File: 24302_web.jpg (43KB, 400x512px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x512px

>>9017448
Was Michelangelo a closeted atheist?

>>9018269
If anything it just means he was a pro at symbolism.

File: DEMIURGE.png (107KB, 766x996px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 766x996px

Christianity and Materialism are one and the same.

>>9017263
Notice the shape of a brain (in light red) around God. God was product of human mind all along.

>>9017263
numbers are real

>>9017263

Atheists want to believe in Ayy lmao's, but they don't want to believe in Ayy lmao's powerful enough to create a universe (given the fact that space is never ending and there are quite literally an endless amount of beings out there supposedly.)

To me, "God" would be the ultimate scientist. If he were to truly be the one to create all of this, then he would have to know how, he would have to know the calculations and scientific knowledge to do all of this. With that being the case, I'd say that it's pretty easy to believe in both.

>>9019982
>Atheists want to believe in
>believe in

this is where you failed and how everyone knows you're retarded

>>9017263
One who believes in God could say, that God created universe to follow some rules. And science is about finding out and understanding those rules.

>>9017263
Deist, yes.
Theist, no way.

>>9017785
nonono, first bugabuga-poo made god

>>9017263
>still believe in science?
jesusfacepalm.jpg
Science isn't subject to your belief any more than algebra is.

>Come to this thread expecting a shitstorm and circlejerk
>pleasantly surprised that it's full of reasonable people discussing the subject at hand in a relatively rationale fashion
>no crazy creationists
>no fedora-tipping atheists

Well done /sci/, I'm impressed

>believing in science
science isn't some force that makes the world what it is. Science is a mechanism used to explain as much as we can.
I don't see how having faith in God detracts from this.

>>9017263
If you can prove the universe just exploded into being from no source but quantum chaos I think it's fairly evident that you also cannot disprove the event not happening repeatedly, or concurrently, or randomly.
Which raises the question of 'What's a multi -universal time scale?

>>9017452
proof pls

I'm a Catholic botanist, but I agree with Brother Consolmagno in his quote:
>Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it fromcreationism, which at the end of the day is a kind ofpaganism– it's turningGodinto anature god.

>>9020558
>there can not be meaning without god
>yes there can
>WHOOPS IM GONNA NEED PROOF
there is no way to prove there can be meaning at all

>>9017263
Yes, but the god youre refering to is the one who programmed the mathematical structure the entire universe is built on starting from the big bang, so i guess he isnt a god, as much as he is a creator, but not a creator in the sense of individuality, but in the sense of the one who started the process

>>9020573
well that wasn't very convincing

>>9020580
too bad. if you think you're talking about anything when you talk about something as inocuous as "intrinsic meaning" then you need to stop shitposting

>>9018023
Thats right, im not the guy you replied to, but that is indeed right

>>9018023
that's right. no one can disprove god, you can't disprove unfalsifiable bullshit

>>9017263
Earth is stupid for trying to name God.
Somethings up there and we still mean nothing in the universe. He knows and we should too.

File: 1491789876555m.jpg (361KB, 1024x1021px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1024x1021px

If pi is infinite than all things must exist....including ...insert anything.

If infinite ratios exists than zero must exists. Non-existence must also exist ...insert anything.

God is best thought of in negative terms...for example. God is NOT infinity. God is NOT existence.

The point is God is that thing that is beyond description. In a sense, consiousness,....but as was said...God is NOT conciousness.

So the question of god and science is so utterly irrelevant its a sad elementary borderline idiotic conversation for mental fapping and bickering

Tao is tao

...when one just cannot let go of a
juvenile belief system, no matter what
logic and evidence show

>>9020662
>unfalsifiable

take your popsci shit back to /reddit/.

>>9020782
I like the picture you posted.
I dont like your reasoning
Good to see that you start every sentence with a capital though.

Science examines "god´s creation". The mistake in the popular method of putting god in the gaps between our knowledge (e.g. all I don´t understand must be god) is that god get´s smaller with time. Most humans tend to make the mistake to see god above them, while he most likely is the sum of all parts of his creation. He will never speak to you, he can´t see you and he can´t read your thoughts, but if you see yourself as part of god then again he can do all these things. Through you. We all are the universe experiencing itself. Millions of years of evolution lead to a brain that is capable of asking itself the question that it can´t answer itself. "Why am I here?". We will never be able to answer this question, because the answer lies outside of the dimensions we can experience with our brain. This lack of capability triggers our intellect, because we are used to being able to use it to answer all questions. We get into thought loops (then what created the big bang? what was before it?). We build machines to find the answer. See the Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy. This is the question the universe is trying to find out currently. Do your best to come up with an answer, because there is no being above you that can answer this question.

If you believe in god, yourself, something entirely different, doesn´t really matter in the end. Humans always made up gods and will continue to do so. As they say "Gods created man and man created gods". You and god are the same. Your body consists literally of stardust that got created in the big bang, along time and all other matter and energy. Why would you stop to believe in yourself because of science? Science is a tool we created to learn. That´s what we are here for. Experiencing and learning.

>inb4 /x/

File: 960.jpg (111KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 960x540px

>nothing means anything bro
>where on a rock floating in space bro
>just chill bro
>but if you believe in God we gotta problem bro
Fuck my friends, rick and morty took them from me

>>9017263
>believe in science?

One does not "Believe" in science.

One accepts overwhelming evidence.

>>9017263 By having a screwed up terminology.
Stop calling it 'God'.

>>9021283
>science can't accept someone else got something right first
>decide to rename/rebrand it so science takes credit
Just like what happened with Planet X/Niberu

>Conspiracy Theorist: There's a planet beyond our solar system hidden to us called planet X.
>NASA: Planet X does not exist!!
>Conspiracy Theorist: YES IT DOES!
>NASA: Pluto is no longer a planet. Take that. How do you feel now
>Conspiracy Theorist: I feel bad. Why'd you have to do that to Pluto.
>NASA: Breaking News. There may be evidence of a planet hidden to us just outside out solar system. We're calling it Planet 9!

>>9017263
The need for a prime cause and the appearance of order/fine tuning in the universe
A solution to the hard problem of consciousness.
Essentially this >>9017390
Also,
>>9017452
>inherent meaning
No

>>9021288
>>science can't accept someone else got something right first
Well nobody of those religious folks "got it right".
>>decide to rename/rebrand it so science takes credit
It's not for "taking credit" but a necessity for proper, serious thought.

We need to know what we're talking about; we need to create shared definitions of what we're thinking about.

>>9021264
>rick and morty
>>>/r/eddit

>>9020498
people nowadays seem pretty level-headed about the science vs. relgion debate, the current topic to rage about is race relations

>>9017263
>believe in science

That's for people who watch Bill Nye on Youtube. Scientists do stuff. We study and examine, predict and propose, assess and potentially reformulate the original idea.

There is no belief involved in this at all.

File: 13977638945146.png (34KB, 240x144px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 240x144px

God cant be studied scientifically because there is no evidence that god exists.

this topic belongs on /pol or /x

>>9021676
This. It's hard to refute what does not exist.

>>9020782

Pi doesn't contain every sequence of integers

>>9017263
By avoiding cognitive dissonance.

>>9017263
Believing in science leads to believing in lies like evolution, it is the devils creation.

File: a5CaqSQ.jpg (64KB, 451x604px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 451x604px

Easy. Just keep God out of science's reach.

>>9017263
Easy. God created the universe and set in place laws to govern it. Then he walked away and let shit go down for a bit.

easy they exist in completely different domains

>>9017263
The first gulp from the glass of science will make you an atheist. But, at the bottom of the cup, God is waiting for you.

>>9022781
I never understood why people take science as proof there is no god. If anything it just proves that atheists use science as a religion. They could be handed evidence that everything we know was created by a designer from a higher dimension and they'd jump through every logical hoop they could to avoid calling it god.

>>9017335
Your concept of value is fundamentally flawed. There is no inherent "value" nor is "value" derived from anything.

>>9017263
Easily. It doesn't matter how scientifically literate you are, people who are secure in their own intelligence are generally more willing to accept the irrational side of the human experience. We are all going to die, therefore people believe weird and wacky ideas. Cognitive dissonance is the most relatable thing in the fucking world and only fedora wearing brainlets are dumb enough to think this has anything to do with intelligence.

>>9022824
>those mental gymnastics and buzzwords

Good god you are retarded

File: ID.jpg (19KB, 320x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x323px

>>9017762
>Who made
Noone knows. Wow that was a hard.
And if there was nothing to begin with (no "physical and mathematical laws")
what stopped something from just appearing?

science: your feels are not reasonable evidence
religion: your feels are totally reasonable evidence


>>9017655
this a lot tbqh

>>9022841
I too am smart enough to not have any deep seeded irrational beliefs.

File: falcor__the_luck_dragon_by_bahamutdeusmodus-d5xdjy4.jpg (91KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x850px

>>9022801
>it just proves that atheists use science as a religion

If a person decides not to believe in monsters under the bed then they are doing what Atheists do when they reject belief in gods. And that has nothing to do with science (a systematic and dependable way to determine what can and can not be shown to be true).

>>9024837
>If a person decides not to believe in monsters under the bed
Just look under the bed.

>rejecting the belief in a God
Not the same thing

>>9017263
>mutation and replication of DNA is responsible for evolution and divergence of species
>DNA has next to no chance of coming into existence without action by an enzyme as it is incredibly complex
>an enzyme is also an incredible complex molecule and cannot be created by random chance, only through coding by a gene
>therefore, an external being (maybe a god, maybe ayylmaos, maybe Elon Musk simulation) had to have created it in the first place

That's my take on it, and why I still have religious faith despite studying in a scientific background

>>9024846
>Not the same thing
It's entirely the same thing. When people decided not to believe in God, they looked at all the places that accounts indicate should contain traces or other evidence of God, just like you look under the bed for the monster. We checked a gazillion such indicated places and found zero traces. That is what experimental disproof looks like.

>>9022880
>Noone knows
No shit. The fact that we don't know allows you to imagine all of the possibilities of why it is i.e a God

>>9024869
>they looked at all the places that accounts indicate should contain traces or other evidence of God
I'm not talking about God from religious text. I'm merely talking about the existence of a God, whatever that is. The universe is essentially beyond the limits of human comprehension. Outright denying the existence of any God as an atheist is no different than claiming there is one with certainty

File: 1dxet4.jpg (51KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 670x377px

>>9024891
so do you believe in literally everything that can be possible? does your cosmology include belief in everything until it has been proven not to exist?

And if not they why do you cherry pick some un-provable/not-proven things to believe in and not others?

do you believe that there is a race of pink unicorn gods that exist in a different dimension and never interact with our universe? Because if you don't believe in the pink unicorn gods then you're cherry picking one unproven/unprovable thing to believe in over others for literally no logical reason.

>>9024920
Nice strawman. A nice Donald pic, too. Back to /pol/

>>9024874
Yes, the hermeticists call it "The Law" or "The All", and they don't need to pretend it is a sentient being or anything like that, it just is; without end and without beginning. Christianity is a dumbed down version of Hermeticism; it's babies first spiritual venture.

It's irrelevant either way if you want to make predictions about the world we live in.

>>9017263
Charles Darwin considered it absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist

>>9017263
Be Jordan Peterson.

>>9024837
>If a person decides not to believe in monsters under the bed
yeah this can't be done

>>9024891
>Outright denying
God is a purely abstract human concept, backed by no real world evidence whatsoever, and can thus be discarded as nonsensical. For somebody to deny it scientifically, it would first have to have a basis in reality. Agnostic atheism and theological noncognitivism are the only objectively viable position on this matter.

File: 1477683227534.png (84KB, 245x316px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 245x316px

>>9021084

>>9021291
>need for a prime cause
Why is there a need for this?

>appearance of order
Why does this necessitate a god?

>fine tuning
Anthropic principle

>solution to the hard problem of consciousness
>I don't understand this thing, so I'm going to make up another thing I don't understand and that means I've solved my problems

>>9024949
You don't know what a strawman is.

>>9024859
>he doesn't know RNA has catalytic and coding properties
Laffin at u rn

>>9026268
No u

>>9021704
Show me evidence some form of god does not exist. The theory is as poorly disproved as it is proven. God exists, because our universe can't simply pop up and spawn, something made it happen.

>>9026650
Look guy if you're going to go around demanding that everyone prove everything they say then you should refrain from talking so much unprovable shit. The universe didn't need to be intentionally created for it to have been caused by something. You need to demonstrate your claim that god is the only good explanation for the universe otherwise you look like a big dummy.

>>9026650
>Show me evidence some form of god does not exist.
It's a metaphysical concept that doesn't exist in reality. Why would you disprove something completely based on subjectivity? (philosophical wanking is not proof btw)

>God exists, because our universe can't simply pop up and spawn, something made it happen.
And you deducted that how exactly? Where is your evidence? This is basically wishful thinking and is not an argument in any capacity.

File: gj.png (200KB, 400x379px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 400x379px

>>9026650
>Show me evidence some form of god does not exist.

so do you believe in literally everything that can be possible? does your cosmology include belief in everything until it has been proven not to exist?

And if not they why do you cherry pick some un-provable/not-proven things to believe in and not others?

do you believe that there is a race of pink unicorn gods that exist in a different dimension and never interact with our universe? Because if you don't believe in the pink unicorn gods then you're cherry picking one unproven/unprovable thing to believe in over others for literally no logical reason.

>>9017448
it is called "coincidence"

>>9017263
You don't believe in science. Science is by definition true, whether you believe in it in or not. It seeks to answer questions about the world using extensive testing and evidence.

That having been said, there are some questions that have yet to be answered (and some that may never be). If there's not enough evidence to formulate a theory, then people are welcome to BELIEVE whatever they want to believe.Belief steps in whenever there hasn't been any conclusive evidence one way or another.

So to answer your question OP, a good scientist must always realize that his or her own beliefs may very well be wrong, and the only way to find out the truth is through science. But this need not imply that he or she cannot have faith that his or her belief is correct. One knows they could be wrong but has faith that they are not.

>>9028289
>science is by definition true.
Jesus fucking Christ. No. Absolutely not. How the fuck do you even come to think this?

>>9028289
>belief steps in when there isn't conclusive evidence.
Actually belief steps in whenever the believer wants it to. It's a question of values, not everyone cares as much as you do that their worldview is totally objective and substantiated empirically. I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes even scientists have irrational beliefs tied to their experience growing up/getting old/whatever.

>science is by definition true
Woah.

>>9028289
>a good scientist must always...
>science is by definition true.

The absolutely mind numbing misunderstanding represented by this comment is triggering enough, but are you seriously attempting to suggest what it should mean for someone to be "a good scientist"? God damn.

>>9028708
>>9028721
>>9028824

Please explain what's wrong with that statement. Is it that you're uncomfortable with the word "definition"? Fine, how about "science is epistemologically as close to truth as one can get" more up your alley, math fags?

>>9029220
That is actually a lot better, good job. You thinking that the distinction is somehow overly technical makes you retarded. The whole point of science isn't to be certain about everything, it's to quantify the uncertainty that we have. Insisting that nothing is certain and that obtaining truth scientifically is impossible isn't being pedantic, it's paramount to how you approach things scientifically.