If I were a scientist, I'd stick to the Goldman Sachs principle: bet on both sides.
"Believe in science, believe in God" seems to cover all the possibilities and gives you the best chance for a cheery afterlife.
For a time, it was thought that astrophysicist Stephen Hawking had also left a tiny gap in his credo window for a magical deity. However, he has now come out and declared that there is no God.
He gave an interview to Spain's El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.
Hawking said: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
It seems that both religions and science have all concluded that nothing can be know of the conditions before the Big Bang and that they all now have Gods of the Gaps.
That to me is reconciliation but leaves theists out in the cold as tey must then admit to believing all kinds of supernatural garbage that they cannot prove.
Hi D L What do you mean by "Both Religions?"
Both mainstream religions and science.
I guess my grammar is poor.
The mainstream religions accept evolution right to the big bang and have put God in the Gap before the big bang.
Science have done the same in terms of showing what was before the same big bang by saying that their math breaks down before that same instant before the big bang and have their own God of the Gaps.
God and dark matter, IOW are analogues to each other and are both Gods of the Gap.
Science might have a chance of finding their God, as a scientific theory, but I do not think religion ever will.
One of the things Hawkings said is there was nothing including time before the 'big bang'
I don't think theoretical physics is a form of religion, but may be informed from religious beliefs.
Perhaps commonality and the media involk god when theoretical physicists come across something not yet understood.
I agree that naming science religion is to stretch that word out of shape but some theists are doing so.
That and even state-ism for those who favor the state over religions.
When attacking back, they do not seem to mind bastardizing the English language.
DL, I agree with you as well. Language doesn't provide the ability to describe many things.
Fuck again my post got chopped off. I'll try to repost.
I understand that there are 7000 languages in the world. As languages become extinct ideas, thoughts and views of the world become uncommunicable.
I had a more appropriate post that was a couple of paragraphs - but was chopped into a word or two of the first sentence.
Communicating on AU has become very difficult.
I hear you. I guess the owners have not felt an update to be worth there while.
Admittedly, the volume is not as large as in some other places and costs are always a factor.
Other sites seem to shrink as well.
Too bad there is no site that could be used to redirect seekers of such sites around.
The few I have found are also in need of an updating.
Oh well. Let's be thankful for what there is.
This is an interesting group.
Indeed be thankfull for the communications available.
As I said, " Let's be thankful for what there is."
Those I have met are interesting enough, sure.
I do not know if I would call the three of us a group. That is all I meant.
I'm just grateful that there is a group where you can make friends and exchange ideas without those ideas being dumped on but are discussed and looked at. As for arguing with creationists and other believers I've done that ad Infinitum.
I have had poor results in trying to persuade Christians that their view of substitutionary punishment is immoral.
Do you agree and what type of argument have you used against that?
it's very hard to know if you have convinced any believer. But the absence of proof argument seems to hit home the most. Cheers DL Regards Stephen.