Calm down guys! There is nothing to quarrel about here. The simple truth is  that god is a myth which actually it is.  Mathematics is a prove of what god didn't create. Hehehe.

Want to know what happened before The Big B.ang?Explanation.  Before matter exist we know time began with Cosmic origin. We know time and space can change due to gravitational process. Through gravitational theory we now know that time and space were so distorted that there exist a boundary called SINGULARITY at which Time and Space was infinite, where Space and Time could not have continued. These theory is supported by evidences in today quantum theory to better understand things we cannot see with our nake.d eyes. How things happened in the sub-atomic level, religious people might as well called it invisible(maybe invisible god -hehehe).

The origin of the universe is palpable that Big B.ang is the beginning yet Big B.ang has a beginning in the theory of Singularity, where time and space could not have continued( which god tries to hide from us).

Anyway, it is still not clear  how this  Singularity comes( only through Theories and mathematical postulations)about just as how come about god is unknown to religion people. There are evidence there can not exist any being whatsoever in such state, at least in a physical process.   We know that there is nothing supernatural in the natural. So, Stephen Hawkin was right in his own understanding because there are lots of evidence that the religion gods don't exist, or whatever, you can speculate that the origin of that Singularity as god, it is okay but not the one religion people talk about.

I think I have to stop here first.

Enigma:

Sums it all up, doesn't it?

And irony of irony, the same poster (in the same post) warns someone else to beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  

Sums what up? I'd advice you to take the time to follow the thread and not simply make blind leaps or you may end up in a well.

After responding to the belligerent and the interested parties, I think I'll simply leave the hanger on that loves to pop up and act as a praise singer.

Rhino.5dm:

How can nothing form something? Honestly i go with the creation a zillion times. Its even safer to conclude that we dont know who create the earth than the idea of just popping out from NOTHING.

My new BMW just pop out from NO WHERE! NOTHING?!! This is delusion at its peak.

Give me GOD any time, anyday. . .Apes & monkies are not my choice.

The classic "God of the gaps" argument.
I cannot explain so goddidit.
How very "intelligent".
Unfortunately, when you reduce the arguments of the theists to their bare minimum, this seems to be what they are saying - God did it.

Zodiac61:

Unfortunately, when you reduce the arguments of the theists to their bare minimum, this seems to be what they are saying - God did it.

When the typical atheistic argument is to begin with nothing and magically bring about everything 'tentatively', does that begin to make any sense to you? It probably does - because there are far more gaps to fill in atheistic arguments than they can explain to themselves.

justcool:

@thehomer and co.

Please stop killing science. You guys make science a guessing game. Science does not deal with "May," "might," and etc. Be honest or informed enough to know that when the word "may or Might" is attached to a theory, that theory is not yet science. At best you might say that it is a scientific speculation. Yet a speculation is a speculation; it carries no more weight than other speculations.

Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

Please show me any scientific laws or theories that say "may." Science deals with the exact. Please consider this statement: "A body at motion May or 'May not' remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force" Does this sound scientific?

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. As aforementioned probability is an intrinsic part of the scientific process. . . .  

If only enthusiast will leave science alone! Today, in their quest to fight the religious they make a mockery of science. A few decades ago there was a scientific speculation that the universe ‘might’ not require a beginning. Hardly did scientists make this speculation than enthusiast picked and used it to fight the religionists who believed that the universe was created and hence had a beginning. Today we know that the universe had a beginning, the big slam. It’s as if science is confused, they say one thing today and another tomorrow. But the fault does not lie with science, the fault lies with enthusiast who would pick up every stone of scientific speculation and throw it at the religionist as facts.

The big b.ang does not establish that "the universe had a beginning". t. What it states is that the cosmos - our four-dimensional space-time, if you will - can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. One might thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning", but I would have to note here that this is an assumption on your part: the fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become "universes". The singularity is not a beginning in the normal sense, but rather places the limit on what we can deduce from observation The cosmic singularity represents an event horizon beyond which physics cannot readily penetrate; it does not necessarily entail "the beginning". A "beginning", perhaps, but the beginning? Not established.

Please let’s separate science from personal views and any form of speculation.


Thanks.

I saw you trying to inject some obscured an vague God as well in your post, no?. . . . Is there any EVIDENCE for a supernatural creator controlling things? The answer is NO. There's no evidence that a supernatural creator controls chemical reactions, and there's no evidence a supernatural creator generated the singularity. So there's no point in considering it. There is NO name or signature of any of the Gods that men worship any where in the universe, all we have are mindless forces acting on their own in haphazard  or predictable forms most of the time.

Unknown causes are simply unknown causes. Up until now, science has demonstrated itself the best method we have for elucidating previously unknown causes, so science will be what is used to investigate the causes of the singularity which science itself discovered. NO God or religion has any explanation for the singularity and non will. . . .Science discovered the singularity and only science can explain it further.

The discovery of the big b.ang by science as all new scientific discoveries at once both answers many past questions, and presents new questions and gaps. Some religious people stand ever ready to insert their Gods into all newly discovered gaps. It's the same game over and over. . . . .

wordtalk:

When the typical atheistic argument is to begin with nothing and magically bring about everything 'tentatively', does that begin to make any sense to you? It probably does - because there are far more gaps to fill in atheistic arguments than they can explain to themselves.

Which atheistic argument states that everything came from nothing?. . .

mazaje:

Which atheistic argument states that everything came from nothing?. . .

Please tell me: what is the atheistic argument?

wordtalk:

Please tell me: what is the atheistic argument?

That Gods (Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Sango, Betu, Zeus, Rhama etc  ) the thousands of them that are worshiped by people both in the present and in the past do NOT exist. . . . .They are simply a creation of men.

^^ what is the atheistic argument for the universe?

wordtalk:

^^ what is the atheistic argument for the universe?

Does atheism have any arguments for the universe? It doesn't. . . .Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God/Gods. As for the existence of the universe atheists like any group of people have various beliefs and arguments, which range from I don't know(I belong to this group) to those that follow the scientific explanations. Since atheist do not believe in the God/Gods that men worship they do not believe that any of them created the universe. . . .

Let's leave Atheist out of this and discuss about science and god with regard to the origin of the universe.

The title of the thread is misleading though. The Origin Of The Universe would do better.

mazaje:

Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. As aforementioned probability is an intrinsic part of the scientific process. . . .


The big b.ang does not establish that "the universe had a beginning". t. What it states is that the cosmos - our four-dimensional space-time, if you will - can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. One might thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning", but I would have to note here that this is an assumption on your part: the fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become "universes". The singularity is not a beginning in the normal sense, but rather places the limit on what we can deduce from observation The cosmic singularity represents an event horizon beyond which physics cannot readily penetrate; it does not necessarily entail "the beginning". A "beginning", perhaps, but the beginning? Not established.

I saw you trying to inject some obscured an vague God as well in your post, no?. . . . Is there any EVIDENCE for a supernatural creator controlling things? The answer is NO. There's no evidence that a supernatural creator controls chemical reactions, and there's no evidence a supernatural creator generated the singularity. So there's no point in considering it. There is NO name or signature of any of the Gods that men worship any where in the universe, all we have are mindless forces acting on their own in haphazard or predictable forms most of the time.

Unknown causes are simply unknown causes. Up until now, science has demonstrated itself the best method we have for elucidating previously unknown causes, so science will be what is used to investigate the causes of the singularity which science itself discovered. NO God or religion has any explanation for the singularity and non will. . . .Science discovered the singularity and only science can explain it further.

The discovery of the big b.ang by science as all new scientific discoveries at once both answers many past questions, and presents new questions and gaps. Some religious people stand ever ready to insert their Gods into all newly discovered gaps. It's the same game over and over. . . . .

@mazaje

I don’t need to reply to this. Every line show lack of knowledge of the basic concepts of science. Seeing the way you guys talk down on religionists, I had expected at least a little scientific knowledge from you.

If you think that scientific laws are not immutable but follows the voodoo concepts of ‘might’ and ‘may’ then suit yourself. I will not offer you any help there. Obviously you fail to grasp the difference between, scientific laws, speculations, and Hypotheses.

Also you use the word universe without knowing what it means. Find the difference between the scientific terms, ‘cosmos,’ ‘universe’ and ‘cosmic singularity’

If somebody tells you that a man has a beginning, would you reply by saying “NO! Prior to his conception the man existed as sperm and ovaries in their parents’ gametes.

If somebody tells you that the ice in your fridge had a beginning, would you reply by saying “NO! Prior to the ice the water existed as liquid” This reply clearly shows that you do not know the difference between liquid and ice.

Find out what the world “universe” means scientifically. What are basic elements of the universe? (Space, time, matter, and energy) Do they exist in the comic singularity as separate elements? I will not spoon-feed it to you, get informed! And leave religionists alone.

Thanks

mazaje:

Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. As aforementioned probability is an intrinsic part of the scientific process. . . . 

I hope you understand that your ideas about the origin of the universe do not even qualify as an accepted hypothesis. Besides you don’t use hypothesis to fight religionists. You don’t use science in the making to fight another field of human endeavor. Hypotheses should speak against hypotheses within the scientific concept. Only when it as confirmed as valid truth can one use it as the way you guys.

What grows and changes is man’s perception of the scientific concept. The concept remains adamantine, unchangeable, and exact. When hypothesis fails or turns out to be wrong, it is the hypothesis that is wrong and not the laws of science(laws of physics) that changed. In the laws of science(laws of physics, laws of the universe) there is no ‘may’ or ‘might’.

Scientists make speculations and hypotheses in their quest to grasp these laws, but the laws remain unchangeable, rigid, and adamant. There is no scientific law that deals with ‘may’ or ‘might’. The same conditions, without any thing changed, will produce the same results. This is how nature , the laws of physics, or the laws of science works; there is no 'might' or 'may'. Only in shamanisim and voodoo do people or things somtimes disappear into the thin air or sometimes appear from nowhere, definetly not in science where every has an explanation.

Next time you are 5+5 =? Can you say that the answer ‘may’ or ‘might’ or ‘might not’ be 10.

You cannot give me one scientific law (not hypotheses or speculations) that contradicts the concept of the universe having a creator.

Thanks

How can you talk about creation without putting the creator in copy? Science is now MAY or MAY-not?

mazaje:

Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

I couldn’t let the bolded part slide by. It is statements like this that convinces me that you guys are out to fight God or religion not necessarily because of science. Why do you guys fight “the allegedly non-existent God” so hard to the extent that you throw anything at Him and His believers? Are you sure that you are not trying to quite or deaden a certainty within you; this may very well be the case since I don’t see you wasting so much time fighting Santa clause and the tooth fairy or disputing their existence.

Also I notice that the religionists, (Davidylan for example) do not insult science or regard it as myths. He respects science but only argues that the notion of the universe not having a creator is not even good science. This is being gentlemanly, educated and gracious. But you guys give no credence to religion or believers or God. You easily call them gullible dreamers, and their ideas delusions.

But keep in mind that the greatest of human achievements all have only thing behind it – the desire for God. Almost in all cultures, the most sophisticated and longest-living achievements all have one thing in common – the desire for this supposedly non-existent God. Look at the ancient temples(from the Incas to the Egyptians) Look at the pyramids.

Science itself was born out of the desire for God. The desire to learn about nature so as to know the creator better. This is what gave birth to all fields of knowledge,-- from philosophy to science.

Looking at history one can only conclude that it is the desire for God or the desire for the supernatural that brings out the best in humans. It drives even to feats of such unimaginable greatness. The ancient religionists (who you easily call fools) built structures thousands of years ago, structures the most knowledgeable scientists today cannot rebuild. Look at Egypt, Look at Athens, Look at Rome, and Look at Jerusalem. What do you see?

It is these same religious fools who had run the world for years without annihilating it. Yet today, in the face of your almighty science, the world faces the greatest danger of annihilation. Dude are you kidding me!!!??

The greatest literatures that have always existed did not spring from science but from religion or the desire for God. The greatest art works and etc. Dude look around you before talking!!!! It was these deluded fools that wrote book that have helped humanity survive for years. Look at the Bible! Look at the Koran!

The words spoken by Jesus (a believer in God) had affected mankind, and have changed the history of mankind, in a far more profound way than all the modern scientific discoveries put together.

All the laws of every country in the world today have only thing in common—they all sprang from man’s desire for God. Actually it is this desire that gave birth to civilization.

Granted there has been atrocities committed too due to this desire, but the good that came from it far outweigh the atrocities; as one can easily see today that everything good in the world today sprang from this desire.

Compared to religion, modern science has not achieved anything!!!  Dude look around you!

If only you guys would at least show some respect to believers and their beliefs, the same respect that Davidylan shows science, then you would appear less ridiculous, less emotional, and more educated than you do now.

You guys appear only as religious attackers or anti-believers not scientists, since you  are more eager to attack religionists and call them dreamers than to back your argument with good science.

Thanks

^^^^
I don't want to respond to your comment before but I am tempted to do so after scrutinizing it with open mind. I think the whole issue is centered around how much reality this god his to the physical perception of what we know the physical universe to be. There is nothing supernatural in the natural - that's true from every evidence of science, because one can't see something with the na.ked eyes or doesn't know how it operates doesn't mean it is supernatural, only right to find out what it entails yet is the best alternative.

In my opinion why this religion bashing has become a habit is that the religion individuals used to force this ideology or rather doctrine on people. I really hate it when somebody tries to shove anything without physical evidences on my throat. The truth is not far fetched that the gods or god the religion people talk about is myth. every religion in the world has almost the same story with the same lines, they are full of legendary. Yes! Religion has contributed more harm than modern science. Through out history religion stands on the root cause of almost every war. From WWs to the internal disputes in most countries.   

By far religion is what I wouldn't want to agree with when it comes to the understanding of our universe. We can quite speculate(flipping my two fingers)that what is elusive about the origin of the origin of the universe is a god but not the god the religion people talk about. That's one point which we shouldn't confuse with another.

Yes! the religion books couldn't explain the origin of the universe as well left alone to question their stand too. In the beginning God created heavens and earth, to me that only expresses that the books only talk about the creation of heavens and earth not the beginning. Sorry to say that creating in itself proves that something already existed to create something from. That's where science comes in. science is not all philosophical as that words have trumpeted through out the world but most practical way to observe these evidences in a clearer and more physically important.

These supernatural and all encompassing god the religion people are talking about is only limited with what we have seen in the books. Please, most of the things there are contradictory and not scientifically proven or rather have observable physical entities.

No scientist is saying that science is almighty but it is the most tangible tool available to have a better understanding of the physical world at the moment or else I would like to know about any other if available. With all exigences, I would like to say there is nothing that proves religion god really exist in the physical universe rather in people's heart and mind without refutations.

Thank you!

I know this was directed at mazaje but I'll respond to it and others.

justcool:

@mazaje

I don’t need to reply to this. Every line show lack of knowledge of the basic concepts of science. Seeing the way you guys talk down on religionists, I had expected at least a little scientific knowledge from you.

If you wish to comment on tone, have you taken the time to see the way religionists have been talking? I don't see you rebuking them.

justcool:

If you think that scientific laws are not immutable but follows the voodoo concepts of ‘might’ and ‘may’ then suit yourself. I will not offer you any help there. Obviously you fail to grasp the difference between, scientific laws, speculations, and Hypotheses.

Yes they are different so what?
On scientific laws, they have their limits and are not absolute. Once you accept that they are not absolutes, then you simply have to admit that there are probabilities involved. Also, you may want to take a look at the way scientists present their data and make inferences using cautious language. Science is not just a long statement of various laws.

justcool:

Also you use the word universe without knowing what it means. Find the difference between the scientific terms, ‘cosmos,’ ‘universe’ and ‘cosmic singularity’

These are also different, so what?

justcool:

If somebody tells you that a man has a beginning, would you reply by saying “NO! Prior to his conception the man existed as Fluid and ovaries in their parents’ gametes.

If somebody tells you that the ice in your fridge had a beginning, would you reply by saying “NO! Prior to the ice the water existed as liquid” This reply clearly shows that you do not know the difference between liquid and ice.

These are bad analogies because neither the entire universe nor the singularity it arose from are anything like what you're trying to compare them to.

justcool:

Find out what the world “universe” means scientifically. What are basic elements of the universe? (Space, time, matter, and energy) Do they exist in the comic singularity as separate elements? I will not spoon-feed it to you, get informed! And leave religionists alone.

Thanks

All we do know is that there was a lot of energy concentrated at that singularity.

justcool:

I hope you understand that your ideas about the origin of the universe do not even qualify as an accepted hypothesis. Besides you don’t use hypothesis to fight religionists. You don’t use science in the making to fight another field of human endeavor. Hypotheses should speak against hypotheses within the scientific concept. Only when it as confirmed as valid truth can one use it as the way you guys.

There are various hypotheses and they will remain that until there is better evidence deciding one way or another or evidence that points in an entirely new direction. This doesn't mean that they cannot be discussed especially when they have their strengths.

justcool:

What grows and changes is man’s perception of the scientific concept. The concept remains adamantine, unchangeable, and exact. When hypothesis fails or turns out to be wrong, it is the hypothesis that is wrong and not the laws of science(laws of physics) that changed. In the laws of science(laws of physics, laws of the universe) there is no ‘may’ or ‘might’.

Science is a human construct and not some property of the universe. You are referring to something else.

justcool:

Scientists make speculations and hypotheses in their quest to grasp these laws, but the laws remain unchangeable, rigid, and adamant. There is no scientific law that deals with ‘may’ or ‘might’. The same conditions, without any thing changed, will produce the same results. This is how nature , the laws of physics, or the laws of science works; there is no 'might' or 'may'. Only in shamanisim and voodoo do people or things somtimes disappear into the thin air or sometimes appear from nowhere, definetly not in science where every has an explanation.

You're also forgetting the other religious practices that abound. Anyway, you're forgetting the information we've received from the quantum world about the disappearance and reappearance of particles. And the fact that something like the electron is often described as being found in a certain orbital meaning that the exact location is based on probability. This of course introduces where one "may" find an electron.

justcool:

Next time you are 5+5 =? Can you say that the answer ‘may’ or ‘might’ or ‘might not’ be 10.

This too is not an appropriate comparison because while mathematics (like logic) is a core tool used in science, if is not often considered a science.

justcool:

You cannot give me one scientific law (not hypotheses or speculations) that contradicts the concept of the universe having a creator.

Thanks

This is an argument from ignorance because not presenting a hypothesis for the absence of a creator does not mean that there is a creator.

Justcool! Oga how body now? Shoutout to David, Homer, Maz & others.
Anytime I see a topic like this, I always go back to the single best posts on NL on this topic IMHO from the-seeker and JC here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371029.0.html (EDIT - wrong link fixed )

I've been enjoying watching from the sidelines, but all4naija sounds like a cool dude and he makes me wanna jump in . . .

---

all4naija:

In my opinion why this religion bashing has become a habit is that the religion individuals used to force this ideology or rather doctrine on people.

And its funny how pancakes get flipped on their own behinds . . . this topic is about an atheist trying to force and pass off his own beliefs as scientific doctrine 

I really hate it when somebody tries to shove anything without physical evidences on my throat. The truth is not far fetched that the gods or god the religion people talk about is myth. every religion in the world has almost the same story with the same lines, they are full of legendary. Yes! Religion has contributed more harm than modern science. Through out history religion stands on the root cause of almost every war. From WWs to the internal disputes in most countries.

   . . . yes. And I'm glad you said in your opinion sir, and which since is an opinion lies alongside on the same playing field as all other opinions.   

By far religion is what I wouldn't want to agree with when it comes to the understanding of our universe. We can quite speculate(flipping my two fingers)that what is elusive about the origin of the origin of the universe is a god but not the god the religion people talk about. That's one point which we shouldn't confuse with another.

This point would be best attended to by the atheists! They're the ones whose defense mechanisms fire on overdrive at the mention of the word "God", immediately evoking thoughts of any negative associations they might attach towards religion. Champions of 'reasoning' tell us we should "keep an open mind". But I see no better example of a slammed-closed-shut mind, than one that dismisses the possibility of a God existing. An oxymoron if I ever saw one

These supernatural and all encompassing god the religion people are talking about is only limited with what we have seen in the books. Please, most of the things there are contradictory and not scientifically proven or rather have observable physical entities.

And I always wonder what is the scientist's (of which I am one by the way) concern with what is contained in religious texts? Why this endless antagonism towards a group of people who believe in seemingly impossible things? Why should a scientist be irked & bothered at the idea someone has the audacity to believe in miracles?

  I believe in the laws of nature - I also believe miracles are possible. And everyday I go into the lab to perform my experiments, I follow the laws of nature. I do not dare breathe in concentrated acetic acid (it will jack up my respiratory functions) or touch carcinogen materials (I will surely regret it) without gloves or cook egusi without palmoil (that just won't taste right ) . . . and at the same time, I also believe there is a God that can break these natural laws anytime He wants to suit His purpose, resulting in a miracle - wetin concern another scientist with another's personal beliefs that do not affect anyone else but me?

No scientist is saying that science is almighty

  clearly, you have not listened to mr Hawkin.

but it is the most tangible tool available to have a better understanding of the physical world at the moment or else I would like to know about any other if available.

Exactly sir! the PHYSICAL world. The concept of a "GOD" is by light years and quantum leaps far beyond the scope and reach of science. Science will never be able to prove that a God exists no more than a telescope can measure the content and moral inclinations of a man's heart. So why are anti-religious jihadists like Hawkin hell bent on flinging around enough scientific jargon in the faces of regular folks like us, in the hopes to obfuscate and marry two disciplines that should remain divorced, all in a bid to bamboozle us? I call that intellectual dishonesty. Attempting to pass off inconclusive scientific speculations as conclusive evidence against a spiritual belief . . . I would have respect for him if he simply said it for what it was - his opinion on whether or not God exists - And that it holds no more weight than mama sunday who sells akara and believes in God.

With all exigences, I would like to say there is nothing that proves religion god really exist in the physical universe rather in people's heart and mind without refutations.

And I would argue that the 'physical-ists have no business in the first place apprehending the spiritual - I would argue that its peoples hearts and minds that are meant to question and decide for themselves whether or not a God exists . . . not an over-reaching scientist who has clearly departed from the mothership of the physical, driven by his disdain for religion, and is attempting to force his own beliefs that are not based on any experiments, as scientific fact. Ahn ahn which kin ojoro be that? I may not have a pHD in astrological physical mechanical mysticology - but I know BS when I see it .

@all4naija
Thanks for addressing my post; I will address the issues you raised accordingly.

all4naija:

^^^^
I don't want to respond to your comment before but I am tempted to do so after scrutinizing it with open mind. I think the whole issue is centered around how much reality this god his to the physical perception of what we know the physical universe to be. There is nothing supernatural in the natural - that's true from every evidence of science, because one can't see something with the na.ked eyes or doesn't know how it operates doesn't mean it is supernatural, only right to find out what it entails yet is the best alternative.

Science is confined to the physical and can never rise above the physical into the non-physical. When one tries to do that he deviates from science and ventures into the realm of metaphysics.

Since science clearly defines its boundaries as being within the physical, science has no say in the non-physical! Science cannot confirm that there is no supernatural, neither can it prove that there is a supernatural. Such is simply not science.

Anybody who employs science to prove or disprove God or the supernatural is simply a pseudo scientist.

The supernatural and the natural exist side by side; the physical realm and the ethereal realm exist side by side and not intermingle with each other. It is very misguided to look for the non-physical in the physical world or with physical means.

Just as it is misguided to use science to search for God or the non-physical; it is also very misguided to use the religious books or religious stories as science. The two worlds stand next to each other, side by side.

It is wrong to call all religious stories myths just because they don’t correspond with science. When the story is about a non-earthly or a non-physical event, it simply misguided to use science to voice an opinion on it. If it as an event that happened on earth, then this is a different case. You can’t use science to prove that heaven, God and etc. do not exists; these things are non-physical, beyond the realm of science. No religionist ever claimed that God is physical; if they do that is very misguided.

People experience God with their non-physical perception; this is simply beyond science since its non-physical. Just because somebody lacks this sensing, this non-physical dimension, does not give him the right to claim that it does not exist or the people who experience it are dreamers. At best he can say that such experiences are not physical!!

all4naija:

In my opinion why this religion bashing has become a habit is that the religion individuals used to force this ideology or rather doctrine on people. I really hate it when somebody tries to shove anything without physical evidences on my throat. The truth is not far fetched that the gods or god the religion people talk about is myth. every religion in the world has almost the same story with the same lines, they are full of legendary. Yes! Religion has contributed more harm than modern science. Through out history religion stands on the root cause of almost every war. From WWs to the internal disputes in most countries.    

It doesn’t matter what some religionists have done in the past; that doesn’t make it right for pseudo scientists to repeat the same thing. The fact the some people committed murder in the past does not give you the right to commit murder today.

And worst of all, they do this under the false pretense that they are scientists or propagating scientists ideas. This is hypocrisy and very harmful to science. Just as religionists in the past committed atrocities under the pretense that they are doing God’s will.

Today we (whether scientist or religionist) should have learnt from the past and become honest enough to call their personal beliefs what it is.

all4naija:

By far religion is what I wouldn't want to agree with when it comes to the understanding of our universe. We can quite speculate(flipping my two fingers)that what is elusive about the origin of the origin of the universe is a god but not the god the religion people talk about. That's one point which we shouldn't confuse with another.

Yes! the religion books couldn't explain the origin of the universe as well left alone to question their stand too. In the beginning God created heavens and earth, to me that only expresses that the books only talk about the creation of heavens and earth not the beginning. Sorry to say that creating in itself proves that something already existed to create something from. That's where science comes in. science is not all philosophical as that words have trumpeted through out the world but most practical way to observe these evidences in a clearer and more physically important.

Why would you employ religion when wanting to understand the physical universe? Religion is directed to the spiritual while science is directed to the physical! Would you take your wife to a priest when she is in labor? NO! You take her to a doctor. Would you go to a doctor when you want baptism? NO! You go to a priest.

Does the doctor have the right to say that baptism is invalid just because he can’t perform or understand it? NO! Does the priest have the right to call the doctor a dreamer just because he (the priest) does not understand science of medicine? NO!!

Why is this so hard for people to grasp? The religious books do not explain the science of the physical world or physical universe; they explain the spiritual. These books are spiritual not scientific; it would be very misguided of you to use them as science book.

This is the mistake that some religionists make when they try to present the Bible or the Koran as science book. Very Misguided! These books are meant to be absorbed or understood with the non-physical in you, the spiritual not the physical brain. Science books on the other hand are meant for the comprehension of the physical or intellectual brain.

all4naija:

These supernatural and all encompassing god the religion people are talking about is only limited with what we have seen in the books. Please, most of the things there are contradictory and not scientifically proven or rather have observable physical entities.

No scientist is saying that science is almighty but it is the most tangible tool available to have a better understanding of the physical world at the moment or else I would like to know about any other if available. With all exigences, I would like to say there is nothing that proves religion god really exist in the physical universe rather in people's heart and mind without refutations.

The true believers make it clear that God is non-physical. This should be enough to silence science when it comes to the issue of God. Genuine scientists know this and remain within their boundary. Pseudo scientists step beyond this boundary and try to use science to disprove the existence of the non-physical!,  It is these pseudo scientists that are at fault here. By the same token, a religionist would be at fault when he tries to use the bible to dispute the laws of science. He simple has gone out of his element, like a fish out of water he will soon stifle to death.

Also, the non-physical is not limited to the religious book. Some people have experienced them. I have experience some of them; I have had so many non-physical experiences that makes me convinced of the existence of the non-physical. However these experiences were experienced with the non-physical in me, my spirit.

Also, it might interest you to know that while I’m a believer in God, I’m not religionist. I don’t ascribe to any religion. Although an engineer, I have a minor in science(chemistry), and I worked as a chemist for years. So while not an authority, I am not a novice in the field of science.

all4naija:

Thank you!  

Thank you too!

justcool:

I couldn’t let the bolded part slide by. It is statements like this that convinces me that you guys are out to fight God or religion not necessarily because of science. Why do you guys fight “the allegedly non-existent God” so hard to the extent that you throw anything at Him and His believers? Are you sure that you are not trying to quite or deaden a certainty within you; this may very well be the case since I don’t see you wasting so much time fighting Santa clause and the tooth fairy or disputing their existence.

No, have you seen what his believers actually believe and do? Presenting arguments against a particular God concept is a form of argument known as proof by contradiction.

justcool:

Also I notice that the religionists, (Davidylan for example) do not insult science or regard it as myths. He respects science but only argues that the notion of the universe not having a creator is not even good science. This is being gentlemanly, educated and gracious. But you guys give no credence to religion or believers or God. You easily call them gullible dreamers, and their ideas delusions.

Are you sure of that? You may wish to ask him what he considers evolution to be. Are we talking about the same davidylan? His posts are still available you know. The fact that you may consider yourselves to be on the same team doesn't mean you have to excuse the sort of behaviour he displays. The problem with God is that one hasn't seen good reasons for paying attention to talks about him.

justcool:

But keep in mind that the greatest of human achievements all have only thing behind it – the desire for God. Almost in all cultures, the most sophisticated and longest-living achievements all have one thing in common – the desire for this supposedly non-existent God. Look at the ancient temples(from the Incas to the Egyptians) Look at the pyramids.

This is a problem with the God notion. You have not yet pointed out the God you're speaking about yet you lump all religions together as doing whatever it was that they dis as being unto God. The Egyptians believed their pharaohs were Gods, do you? The Incas believed in Hanan Pacha, do you?

justcool:

Science itself was born out of the desire for God. The desire to learn about nature so as to know the creator better. This is what gave birth to all fields of knowledge,-- from philosophy to science.

This is the genetic fallacy. Pointing out the origins of the scientific quest does not mean that there was a God driving it. If you think so, then consider how far away God has receded in the face of advancing knowledge.

justcool:

Looking at history one can only conclude that it is the desire for God or the desire for the supernatural that brings out the best in humans. It drives even to feats of such unimaginable greatness. The ancient religionists (who you easily call fools) built structures thousands of years ago, structures the most knowledgeable scientists today cannot rebuild. Look at Egypt, Look at Athens, Look at Rome, and Look at Jerusalem. What do you see?

Have you forgotten that it also readily brings out the worst in humans? You cannot claim one and ignore the other. One thing you need to realize is that we have by far surpassed the building capabilities of those ancient religious people. What you should keep in mind is that we are deliberately preserving those structures with the aid of science of course.

justcool:

It is these same religious fools who had run the world for years without annihilating it. Yet today, in the face of your almighty science, the world faces the greatest danger of annihilation. Dude are you kidding me!!!??

And your point is? Have you also considered that today, we also face some of the best times in human history? You may note that we are lucky that those religious ones did not have the tools that we currently possess because the destruction would have been really terrible.

justcool:

The greatest literatures that have always existed did not spring from science but from religion or the desire for God. The greatest art works and etc. Dude look around you before talking!!!! It was these deluded fools that wrote book that have helped humanity survive for years. Look at the Bible! Look at the Koran!

And those books are some of the things rapidly driving the modern world to destruction as you can probably see on your news station. I would be happier if those books were put in their place as human created literature.

justcool:

The words spoken by Jesus (a believer in God) had affected mankind, and have changed the history of mankind, in a far more profound way than all the modern scientific discoveries put together.

Really which words were said by him that you think were so new and that could not have been said by someone else? Even if this were true, so what? So what if he was a believer in God?

justcool:

All the laws of every country in the world today have only thing in common—they all sprang from man’s desire for God. Actually it is this desire that gave birth to civilization.

This is again one of those statements that are suspicious. Which God is this? Have you considered that those laws came about because they are needed for a society to survive?

justcool:

Granted there has been atrocities committed too due to this desire, but the good that came from it far outweigh the atrocities; as one can easily see today that everything good in the world today sprang from this desire.

This statement is simply untrue since we know that lots of good have been done and have come about by people who do not believe in any Gods.

justcool:

Compared to religion, modern science has not achieved anything!!!  Dude look around you!

I wonder what you were looking at when you said this. I'm guessing you were looking at a machine connected to the Internet which enables you to communicate with someone at the other side of the globe. Please tell me which religious accomplishment can perform a feat similar to this.

justcool:

If only you guys would at least show some respect to believers and their beliefs, the same respect that Davidylan shows science, then you would appear less ridiculous, less emotional, and more educated than you do now.

Sorry, I may show respect to believers but not their beliefs especially those beliefs that are outrageous and ignorant.

justcool:

You guys appear only as religious attackers or anti-believers not scientists, since you  are more eager to attack religionists and call them dreamers than to back your argument with good science.

Thanks

Things may look that way but it really depends on your perspective. Many non-believers are content to go their way but these religious people based on outdated and ridiculous ideas keep showing why these beliefs often shouldn't be simply ignored.

@Justcool

First of all I want to thank you for those analysis of comments from you. One thing is that your views are from a scientific peripheral and I am glad you did that with what you quite understood.

Yes science is beyond chemistry and engineering you mentioned which didn't touch much on this matter of the origin of the universe. There are branches of science which have dived into this matter in a clearer pictures, which one of them is quantum science. It has gone far to explain a lot about things in our universe that would rather seemed invisible, how they interact, react, etc(explaining in layman terms).

The spiritual matter you are talking about is not a really something about the supernatural but state of man ability to develop inner feelings like love, patience, tolerance,etc and interact with his community. I think is an ability. There's nothing supernatural about it. We all possess that energy to interact with our environment which most people don't know. The metaphysics you made mentioned of is nothing supernatural either but a more concentrated way of using the energy in an entity to communicate with the environment, it more or less like the spirituality you are talking about. There is nothing spiritual there. Remember some of us were once believers or our parents were. We were once beclouded too so, don't think this not believing in god is just based on framed up ideology, were as it is not ideology at all.

Those experiences of yours if well analyzed carefully you find out they are not actually what you think they are. The mother nature is very powerful and full of wonders. These don't meant they are supernaturals. You can see how mathematics can play out in these and living god of religion defenseless in so many areas.It would have be thought god made mathematics.

Science is confined to physical as such because the universe is of physical entities, there is nothing supernatural in what we are living to say the least. I once gave a simple example with a telephone call from a distance country, without proper understanding of how it operates some individuals would deem it a miracle but it is not. These are how the things we don't understand about of universe are - just because they are elusive don't mean the are supernatural or spirituals.

On the final note, science is getting gradually revealing most of these things we don't have proper understanding of - science, by elementary definition, is discovery. It didn't  prove here is no other world neither did it prove there is another world than the physical but, prove all these things are truly not what would be a guess work with infinity's only probable.  


Thank you once again.

justcool:

I couldn’t let the bolded part slide by. It is statements like this that convinces me that you guys are out to fight God or religion not necessarily because of science. Why do you guys fight “the allegedly non-existent God” so hard to the extent that you throw anything at Him and His believers?

When did any God appear to you personally and told you that it has a gender and his gender is male? When did that happen?I don't have time for your BASELESS speculations about an imaginary construct that has NO evidence for his/her. Your evidence to show that the universe was created by one entity that is male and wants to be worshiped by Homo sapiens ? As for believers I just as them simple question because I notice they are always defining their various Gods in such a way that they eliminate their own potential defeaters to the "no evidence" argument.

Are you sure that you are not trying to quite or deaden a certainty within you; this may very well be the case since I don’t see you wasting so much time fighting Santa clause and the tooth fairy or disputing their existence.

Lack of belief in Santa Claus does NOT affect my life personally in any way. . . .One of the reasons that I can't visit Nigeria is because I am an atheist and weather you believe it or not some people believe that I deserve to be harmed in Nigeria for being an atheist, some Christians here have even threatened me with violence here on nairaland for being an atheist and that is a well known fact. . .No believer in Santa Claus has ever looked down on me or treated me badly for not believing in Santa. Generally I can see my country Nigeria dying because of religion and some of the silly beliefs it inculcates in people. Religion is like racism cos it segregates people.

Also I notice that the religionists, (Davidylan for example) do not insult science or regard it as myths. He respects science but only argues that the notion of the universe not having a creator is not even good science. This is being gentlemanly, educated and gracious. But you guys give no credence to religion or believers or God. You easily call them gullible dreamers, and their ideas delusions.

This statement of yours is FALSE, Davidylan is always fond of calling well established scientific facts that go against his religious beliefs myths and nonsense. . .

But keep in mind that the greatest of human achievements all have only thing behind it – the desire for God. Almost in all cultures, the most sophisticated and longest-living achievements all have one thing in common – the desire for this supposedly non-existent God. Look at the ancient temples(from the Incas to the Egyptians) Look at the pyramids.

This statement is very False. . . .How has the desire for God helped man in building the airplane ,finding cure for diseases or discovering electricity? When the religious authorities were holding power and hearing from God in the past what were they commanding people to do? Kill unbelievers and sacrifice them as burnt offering to their various Gods, no? How have the Pyramids of Egypt helped humanity compared to say the mobile phone a human achievement has saved lives and has contributed to humans greatly? Apart from wars and segregation what exactly has religion contributed to humans compared to science and the scientific process? Read the bible or the Koran and tell me how it has helped man to achieve anything great. Books that tend to rubbish the human knowledge and cast aspersion on it. Even to day the best societies are the secular societies NOT the religious societies. . .How has religion helped people solve their problems?. . . .By telling them to pray and trust in some imaginary friend to come and helped them,no?

Science itself was born out of the desire for God. The desire to learn about nature so as to know the creator better. This is what gave birth to all fields of knowledge,-- from philosophy to science.

Another false statement. . .Name one scientific theory or law that talks about God?. . . .Which scientific statement talks about the universe having a creator? Pls your evidence that the universe was created by one entity is WHAT?. . . .Scientific knowledge came about as a result of inquiry into how the NATURAL world functions, God/Gods belong to the so called supernatural realm and as such have nothing to do with science. . . .

[quote[b]]Looking at history one can only conclude that it is the desire for God or the desire for the supernatural that brings out the best in humans.[/b] It drives even to feats of such unimaginable greatness. The ancient religionists (who you easily call fools) built structures thousands of years ago, structures the most knowledgeable scientists today cannot rebuild. Look at Egypt, Look at Athens, Look at Rome, and Look at Jerusalem. What do you see?

[/quote]

Really?. . .Have you ever read the bible or the Koran? Half of the bible is all about violence, from slavery to genocide all in the name of God, I don't have to talk about the Koran because we can see what Muslims are doing today because of their religious beliefs. . .When I look at ancient Rome I see Ignorant savages and the monuments they built. . . .Look at their cities, they had very high walls, You dare NOT venture out of the city walls alone, if you get caught by another tribe you will be enslaved or killed. . .Modern day scientist are into solving problems that affect humans not building Pyramids and high walls that are of no use to humanity. . . .Of what use are the ancient walls to humanity?. . . .Now we look at the Pyramids and laugh at the foolish beliefs the ancient Egyptians have about the after life, no?. . . .Can you compare the computer and how it has helped humanity develop with the pyramids?. . .I laugh in ancient Greek. . . .

[quote]It is these same religious fools who had run the world for years without annihilating it. Yet today, in the face of your almighty science, the world faces the greatest danger of annihilation. Dude are you kidding me!!!??

Let me tell you something, despite the fact that we have deadly weapons like the nuclear weapon, the world today is much less voilent as it was duing the time of Moses assuming the stories in the bible are true. . . .Pls read the old testament and see how violent they people are, they believed that their  own disobedient children needed to be stoned to death. . . .They believed that their neighbors that worshiped other Gods deserved to be annihilated completely or enslaved permanently and they wrote about it and said they got their injunctions from their God. . .Read the Koran. . . . .When Europe was under the Church some people refer it as the dark ages. . . .Scientific knowledge came with enlightenment. . . .

The greatest literatures that have always existed did not spring from science but from religion or the desire for God. The greatest art works and etc. Dude look around you before talking!!!! It was these deluded fools that wrote book that have helped humanity survive for years. Look at the Bible! Look at the Koran!

How has the bible or the Koran helped humans survive for years? Many people around the world have been surviving without the bible and the Koran, no? Before those books came into existence millions have lived and survived, no?. . . .The Christians that murdered millions  in the past as a religious duty and the Muslims that are still murdering people today in the name of Allah are getting their inspirations from where?. . . .The greatest books that have helped humanity to solve its  problems are the physics, chemistry, biology, mathematical, economics and history text books, not some crazy religious books with bogus stories that only encourage segregation and nothing else. . .

The words spoken by Jesus (a believer in God) had affected mankind, and have changed the history of mankind, in a far more profound way than all the modern scientific discoveries put together.

Really?. . . .How has the words that were spoken by Jesus helped humanity in any way? The words spoken by Jesus that helped to cure diseases or help humans to better understand the the cosmos or improve efficiency is WHAT?. . . .What did Jesus say that others before him have not said both believers and unbelievers alike?. .  .How have the words of Jesus helped in man in solving drought problems or help man to improve fertility?. . . .

All the laws of every country in the world today have only thing in common—they all sprang from man’s desire for God. Actually it is this desire that gave birth to civilization.

Really? Laws were made to enhance order in the society, modern societal laws in advance societies like g[i]a[/i]y rights and equality of the sexes are against some religious laws, no?. . . .Modern laws have nothing to do with God. . .

Granted there has been atrocities committed too due to this desire, but the good that came from it far outweigh the atrocities; as one can easily see today that everything good in the world today sprang from this desire.

What are the good things if I may ask. . . You have failed to list any. . .

Compared to religion, modern science has not achieved anything!!!  Dude look around you!

Science is what gives you the life you live today and  makes your life much more easy , from the technology that allows you to read this post, to the electricity that allows you to iron your shirt and to the car you drive, to the airplane that is going to take me to another continent tomorrow to the medicines that keep you healthy and have given humans longer life, even to the way your food is produced, processed and preserved to the space telescope that has helped us know much more about the universe, . Man has used science  to tame animals, to increase his efficiency, improve and increase fertility , cure mental illness and help him solve his problems. . . So think twice before you knock the scientific fraternity  I repeat imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has. Name one thing that religion has done for humanity that benefits all humans like electricity a product of science. . . .Name one product of religion that has helped humanity the way the computer has helped humanity. . . .

If only you guys would at least show some respect to believers and their beliefs, the same respect that Davidylan shows science, then you would appear less ridiculous, less emotional, and more educated than you do now.

You do not know what you are talking about if you say davidylan respects science. . . .He only respects the science that agrees with his religious myths else the well established scientific facts are myths as far as he is concerned. . .

You guys appear only as religious attackers or anti-believers not scientists, since you  are more eager to attack religionists and call them dreamers than to back your argument with good science.

Thanks

You are just jumping every where without even making any sense at all. . . .

LOL @ thehomer and Mazaje

I don’t need to reply your last posts. Your posts speak for themselves!! Be honest enough and admit that you are attacking God, the non-physical, and believer; just stop using science as tool for your attack because in so doing you make a mockery of science.

I am not on Davidylan's side but I haven’t seen him talk down on science the way you guys do on religionists and their beliefs. He never attacked science as a whole; he attacked some scientific hypothesis and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are many scientists that don’t believe in evolution too. The fact that he doesn’t believe in evolution doesn’t make him a science hater.

But even if he does, science is supposed to be a field of knowledge not a personal God. You get offended when somebody attacks your god(science) the same as a religionist gets offended when somebody attacks his personal. What then makes you different from a religionist? In so doing you clearly show that you are not scientist. You are just a religionists trying to degrade science into a religion.

You guys said some very funny things! The modern science which was born yesterday had been preserving the pyramids which had stood for thousands of years? Wow!! Talk about anachronisim! Somebody made mention of electricity. Well, it might interest you to know that the ancients discovered electricity. Find out how the Egyptians lighted the inside of the pyramids. The other talked about communicating from side of the glob to another via internet. It might interest you to know that the ancients did such communications and went even further! Please tell me how the ancient cultures were able to align their temples with the stars far far away from the globe?

It is the desire for God, for the supernatural that gave birth all forms of development even science, if you claim you cannot see the connection, I will not spoon-feed it to you.

While would I different which god did what to you guys. You guys simply attack religionist, those who believe in the supernatural; those who you call deluded fools. And I showed the great feats that they achieved, now you want me to tell you which god did what. Does it matter? Didn’t you claim that no gods exist?

If somebody asks “what’s the science behind an airplane flying?” You tell him is ‘may’ or ‘might’. Or ‘might not’. This is hilarious!!!!!!!!!

Your running away from people who want harm you; and your coming here to bash God because of that is simply cowardice.  This is your personal problem which has nothing to do with God or science. I know a lot of atheists in Nigeria living comfortably among the people.

Even if you say that not all great feats were inspired by the desire for God, the fact remains that these foolish religionists have done contributed enough in all field of human endeavour to deserve your respect! After all, the best scientitsts that we ever had were mostly theists. One can actually say that theists make better scientitists than atheseists bassed on histroy.

Leave science alone or at least get the basics before trying to use it as a tool.

^^^ Well, the case was proven here on another thread not too long ago that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion.

all4naija:

@Justcool

First of all I want to thank you for those analysis of comments from you. One thing is that your views are from a scientific peripheral and I am glad you did that with what you quite understood.

Yes science is beyond chemistry and engineering you mentioned which didn't touch much on this matter of the origin of the universe. There are branches of science which have dived into this matter in a clearer pictures, which one of them is quantum science. It has gone far to explain a lot about things in our universe that would rather seemed invisible, how they interact, react, etc(explaining in layman terms).

The spiritual matter you are talking about is not a really something about the supernatural but state of man ability to develop inner feelings like love, patience, tolerance,etc and interact with his community. I think is an ability. There's nothing supernatural about it. We all possess that energy to interact with our environment which most people don't know. The metaphysics you made mentioned of is nothing supernatural either but a more concentrated way of using the energy in an entity to communicate with the environment, it more or less like the spirituality you are talking about. There is nothing spiritual there. Remember some of us were once believers or our parents were. We were once beclouded too so, don't think this not believing in god is just based on framed up ideology, were as it is not ideology at all.

Those experiences of yours if well analyzed carefully you find out they are not actually what you think they are. The mother nature is very powerful and full of wonders. These don't meant they are supernaturals. You can see how mathematics can play out in these and living god of religion defenseless in so many areas.It would have be thought god made mathematics.

Science is confined to physical as such because the universe is of physical entities, there is nothing supernatural in what we are living to say the least. I once gave a simple example with a telephone call from a distance country, without proper understanding of how it operates some individuals would deem it a miracle but it is not. These are how the things we don't understand about of universe are - just because they are elusive don't mean the are supernatural or spirituals.

On the final note, science is getting gradually revealing most of these things we don't have proper understanding of - science, by elementary definition, is discovery. It didn't  prove here is no other world neither did it prove there is another world than the physical but, prove all these things are truly not what would be a guess work with infinity's only probable. 


Thank you once again.

 

@all4naija

I know science is not limited to chemistry and engineering; I only told you about my background so that you think that you dealing with a person who knows nothing about science. I keep abreast of the most recent scientific discoveries, and I have actually met some very eminent scientists personally.

Just because you don’t feel, perceive something, or find it within the range of your perceptive ability does not mean that that thing does not exist.

There is no way science can speak about the non-physical; it’s simply beyond science.

There is an old saying that “who feels it knows it!” You cannot make pronouncements on my experiences especially when you don’t have such experiences.

It’s like a dog telling a human that the color green does not exist just because the dog is incapable of seeing the color green.

Or like a human telling a dog that certain high frequency sound, which dogs hear very well, do not exist because the human cannot hear or perceive such sounds.

Everybody most remain within his/her range of perception and should not call others fools or pronounce judgment on the perceptions that he/she is incapable of.

He should simply say that he had never experienced such, or that such experiences are not within the realm of science.

Thanks

justcool:

LOL @ thehomer and Mazaje

I don’t need to reply your last posts. Your posts speak for themselves!! Be honest enough and admit that you are attacking God, the non-physical, and believer; just stop using science as tool for your attack because in so doing you make a mockery of science.

You don't need to reply to it because the truth is you don't know what you are saying. . . .You have absolutely no evidence to back up any of the claims you are making out of thin air. . .I repeat, your evidence to show that the universe was created by a male entity who interacts with humans , wants to be worshiped and speaks the human language is WHAT?. . . .I really don't deal with baseless assumptions and myths. . . .If the universe was created, how do you know that the creator is one and not many creators? Do you have any evidence for this assumption of yours?. .You see, you don't know anything, you are just parroting baseless assumptions that are completely bogus, you don't have any evidence for what you are saying. . .You are simply lying to yourself with the claim of some special knowledge. . .

I am not on Davidylan's side but I haven’t seen him talk down on science the way you guys do on religionists and their beliefs. He never attacked science as a whole; he attacked some scientific hypothesis and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are many scientists that don’t believe in evolution too. The fact that he doesn’t believe in evolution doesn’t make him a science hater.

Read his post, not just evolution but astronomy and other field of science that does not agree with his deeply held mythical beliefs. . .

But even if he does, science is supposed to be a field of knowledge not a personal God. You get offended when somebody attacks your god(science) the same as a religionist gets offended when somebody attacks his personal. What then makes you different from a religionist? In so doing you clearly show that you are not scientist. You are just a religionists trying to degrade science into a religion.

Science is not my god, I can't angry when some one attacks science. . . Its overwhelming contributions to humanity is there for all to see. . .Science is not a religion. . . .It is just a field of knowledge. . .I accept some of its position and discard some of it. . .Those that follow my post know my position. . .All I know is that science has contributed more to humanity than any God or religion. . . .And that's the fact. . .

You guys said some very funny things! The modern science which was born yesterday had been preserving the pyramids which had stood for thousands of years? Wow!! Talk about anachronisim! Somebody made mention of electricity. Well, it might interest you to know that the ancients discovered electricity. Find out the Egyptians lighted the inside of the pyramids. The other talked about communicating from side of the glob to another via internet. It might interest you to know that the ancients did such communications and went even further! Please tell me how the ancient cultures were able to align their temples with the stars far far away from the globe?

First of all the pyramids were build by humans USING the principles of science. .  .Which religious principle did they use in building the pyramids?. . .They did not use any religious or supernatural principle to build the pyramid. . . .They used the principle of science to build them not religion, NO god helped them in the building of the pyramids, so i really do not understand what you are talking about. . . . .Ohh, so the ancients communicated with each other across continent's, eh,  . Interesting. . . .What medium did they use for such communications?. . .Electricity as we know it was NOT founded by the ancient Egyptians. . .They didn't use the light bulb to light the pyramids. . .Assuming they did as you are saying, science is what they relied on to power the Tombs and pyramids, and not religion or any God. . . .Align temple with stars?. . .Which religious principle did they use in achieving that feat?. . .  

It is the desire for God, for the supernatural that gave birth all forms of development even science, if you claim you cannot see the connection, I will not spoon-feed it to you.

You keep making claims without substantiating them. . . .The desire for God that helped in the development of the car or the submarine is what?. . . .

While would I different which god did what to you guys. You guys simply attack religionist, those who believe in the supernatural; those who you call deluded fools. And I showed the great feats that they achieved, now you want me to tell you which god did what. Does it matter? Didn’t you claim that no gods exist?

They did not achieve any feat because of any God or religion. . .Which religious principle was used in building the pyramids. . .Which religious principle was used in binding the walls together. . . .or laying the foundation for the pyramids?. . .

If somebody asks “what’s the science behind an airplane flying?” You tell him is ‘may’ or ‘might’. Or ‘might not’. This is hilarious!!!!!!!!!

Your running away from people who want harm you; and your coming here to bash God because of that is simply cowardice.  This is your personal problem which has nothing to do with God or science. I know a lot of atheists in Nigeria living comfortably among the people.

Leave science alone or at least get the basics before trying to use it as a tool.

False many atheist here have talked about the prosecution they face from friends and family because of their position. . .You talk about God as if there is one God. . .There are many Gods and you are yet to establish which one of them created the universe. . .You are yet to establish that your version of God whom I believe is male created the Universe and not some female Indian Hindu Goddess. . . . .

all4naija:

I really hate it when somebody tries to shove anything without physical evidences on my throat.

Including the big bang, the atheistic ideas on the origin of man, macro-evolution? Surely you must hate these things too since they have no physical evidence no?

all4naija:

The truth is not far fetched that the gods or god the religion people talk about is myth. every religion in the world has almost the same story with the same lines, they are full of legendary.

Every human is born the exact same way, does that mean we dont exist too?

@ Mazaje. Alarji ma ye duniya? Dun kasa mi duniya kuma sai ka share abokan arziki? To kayi ta mure samartakarka. A sauka lafiya. . .amma banda hadama

Honestly i can but return to this thread for another comic relief. As a critical thinker, all i did was to place side by side the inventions and creations. Whether God exist should be the thing of the faith, no doubt about that.
But then.
The complex nature of a HOUSE FLY makes a mockery of the whole design and inventions by all HUMANS!. . . Lets assume the sun does not rise, how do we generate its equivalent in capacity?? Did i hear a resounding "impossible?". No doubt about contribution of science to further the simplicity of life, but its amount to intellectual dishonesty to religate creations to level of "mere" scientific inventions.

mazaje:

Read his post, not just evolution but astronomy and other field of science that does not agree with his deeply held mythical beliefs. . .

That's odd. I am a scientist as well and i know quite well that there are many things i can prove on the bench without the need to grab at a bible. the bible is simply to me a manual that guides a personal relationship with a God i know is real.

Science is a quest for knowledge, a thirst to expand man's capacity to change his surrounding.

Unfortunately, the same science has become a religion to those who are ignorant of it but use it as a cloak for their own religious disbelief. To them, science is like a balm they employ to assuage the nagging feeling that there is more to life than the natural eye can see.

Many members of the church of science tell us that science is all about empirical evidence . . . however they continue to disparage religion (that they call a myth) with equally mythical claims NOT BY VIRTUE of their veracity but merely by the number of "highly qualified" scientists who parrot the same tale . . . majority of whom share the same atheistic mindset. It is no surprise that majority of the top scientists who continously propagate the godless origin of the universe themselves do so MAINLY as a tool to disprove the idea of God!

Look at Stephen Hawking for example - a quick peep at most of his writings is enough to suggest that most of his own "science" on the universe serves just one purpose - debunk God as a myth. that unfortunately is NOT science! You cannot claim to be testing a hypothesis when you have already reached a conclusion!

This is what Stephen Hawking had to say on page 11 of his book "The illustrated theory of everything" - "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past.  On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang.  He could even have created it at a later time in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang.  But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job."


As to how precise the big bang JUST had to have been for the universe to even occur by magic he says - "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

Interesting, the universe just seems to be so magically precise! Even down to the minutest fraction!

Hawking then concludes - "The initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time.  It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings just like us."

Rhino.5dm:

@ Mazaje. Alarji ma ye duniya? Dun kasa mi duniya kuma sai ka share abokan arziki? To kayi ta mure samartakarka. A sauka lafiya. . .amma banda hadama

Mazaaaaaaaaaa. . .Yane?. . . .A yi hakuri mai gida na. . . . .Ba na hadama

But then.
The complex nature of a HOUSE FLY makes a mockery of the whole design and inventions by all HUMANS!. . . Lets assume the sun does not rise, how do we generate its equivalent in capacity??  Did i hear a resounding "impossible?". No doubt about contribution of science to further the simplicity of life, but its amount to intellectual dishonesty to religate creations to level of "mere" scientific inventions.

Who tried to relegate creation to scientific inventions?. . .