those who believe in science as their god ...

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Nu'maaN, Jul 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    ... or main point of reference, please enter.

    let me ask you, why do you believe in science?

    is it because until this day, there is still ongoing debate on some matters?

    which in turn means, nobody is yet to fully understand or comprehend science.

    yet, you believe in it. right? correct me if i'm wrong.

    so having said that, why do you guys get so pissed off at those who believe in god? and when the god fearing have answers such as "we are mere humans, we cannot comprehend or understand god but we believe in him" to your questions - most of you mock them.

    is that not the same fucking thing?

    god is everywhere in nature.

    and so is science.

    :numaan:
    • Hot Thread Hot Thread x 1
    test
  2. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Word.



    "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"
    , Romans 1:19-21 (in Context) Romans 1
    test
  3. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i use it as my main point of reference to topics which are scientific in nature because i think that collective, evidence based analysis of data is the most reliable means of obtaining answers to scientific questions that humanity has access to.

    i feel confident in placing my trust in science in regards to strictly scientific matters because to be frank it gets results. what's funny about the way you worded this question (those who believe in science as their god) is that it seems to me that religious people on the whole see the credibility in science wherever it does not contradict their respective religion.

    for instance i'm guessing you generally trust a scientist when he is talking about how many moons orbit the planet of jupiter, even if you have never been to jupiter or never observed its moons through a telescope. thus it would seem that to believe in science as my god is to generally have the same amount of trust in science as everyone else only without having the obligation to defending a religion which might contend with some of its ideas.

    you're not wrong. nobody has a complete comprehension of science. it would in fact be impossible to do so. the value of science is that is a collective vision in which specialization allows individuals to dedicate all of their time and efforts to a certain aspect of science, to further understanding in that aspect of science and add to the collective. if everyone were to try and understand all aspects of science, then that wouldn't lead to progress because as humans we only really have a certain capacity for knowledge and understanding. as a collective, we can form a much more comprehensive network of understanding than any one human can do on their own.

    to put things into perspective, you can say the same about just about anything that humanity has used to further its understanding. nobody can fully understand every aspect of mathematics either, yet the collective knowledge that has amassed has lead to a system of numbers which is accessible to us all.

    i don't get pissed off at people for believing in god.

    it's fine to say you don't understand god. i think in terms of mocking you for that, context is important. it depends on the claims you are making. for instance i have seen many people revert to the 'we cannot understand him' defense when approached with arguments about the flaws in the concepts that monotheists define their god by (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc). in that case the 'we cannot understand him' is a ridiculous defense imo because if you cannot understand him then how can you assert that he has these qualities to begin with?

    essentially i think that conceding that you dont understand god is fine. it just limits the claims that you can then logically make about said god.


    it's not the same thing, for one simple reason.

    anyone can participate in science. nobody can understand all of science at once, yet all the scientific knowledge and evidence that we do have access to as a collective is available to you on the individual level.

    with the assertion that humans cannot understand god, you are basically saying that the concept is simply beyond our comprehension, which makes it pretty pointless to even try.

    with science, the limits are the natural limitations of the human mind and the nature of the evidence that we have access to. with god, the limit lies in the concept itself.
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    "Anything that attempts to set itself above the knowledge of God" corinth 10:5
    Or whatever is set forth first in our lives, is our God, wether we believe in one or not.
    test
  5. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Reg is a real dude i can concur in his consistancy regaurding HIS position. Hes not really the type id inject into this type reaction. Just for the record.
    test
  6. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    ITT: OP and Payback (as usual) don't understand the nature of science OR faith. Having a reasonable "faith" that your car will start when you want to go to work when your car has always started is different than thinking if you wish really hard for a car it will show up in your driveway without any physical explanation whatsoever.

    This is the problem when religious people hijack words like "faith" and "belief", sure the words technically apply to both instances but it's not a fair (or even honest) comparison.

    Here's what OP doesn't understand: people don't BELIEVE in science the way people BELIEVE in religion...at ALL. People reasonably trust that experts in their field know what they are talking about but only believe them when they provide the right EVIDENCE. This also works with other scientists. Scientists judge each other on the nature of their evidence very very closely. THEREFOR if scientists all or mostly all agree on something it is at least certain that there is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that what they agree on is true.

    There is no (good) evidence for god, circumstantial or otherwise.
    test
  7. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    but not all "religious" people believe in the same thing, so to put anyone who believes in a religion in the same boat is just being lazy. but i understand what you're trying to get at here in regards to the contradiction. i've seen it happen.

    this is the point i was trying to drive home.

    if somebody asks me why i believe that there is only One God, i tell them that it is derived from the Qur'an. to me it makes sense to submit to the only One God, rather than attributing deities with him. but as we've spoken about this earlier, using the Qur'an as evidence doesn't really work because the people i'm arguing with don't believe that the Qur'an was from the Divine Source.

    as for the other qualities and questions about god, such as - who created god, etc. - that's where our human intellect is limited, which is what this thread is about. we as humans are all limited in terms of comprehension.

    fair enough, i still reckon it's the same inability to comprehend as humans.

    let me ask you, when something doesn't make sense in science, what happens?

    what kind of analogy is that?

    the first is knowing from past experience that your car will start, whereas the latter is just being stupid about it and living in harry potter land.

    yeah, i believe god takes care of us, but we as humans must use our intellect to the best of our abilities to do so ourselves. i will drive a car, but i will wear a seat belt. it's safe. i'm not going to hope that god parachute me out of the car incase of an accident.

    speaking about fair, stop putting us all in the same fucking ship, i'm not travelling in the same boat as payback. there's a lot of religions, you can't just say "religious people". everybody has different guidelines to follow. the abrahamic tree is the same, but islam is a totally different branch to what christianity has become. i say has become because it has been altered over the years to depict the human prophet jesus as the lord and saviour. different topic for a different day.

    then why is it when i ask people if they believe in god, some say "nah, i'm an avid believer in science".

    not to sound condescending, but who created humans?

    who/what entity if any controls everything that happens in nature?

    if you don't believe in god, you don't believe in the devil - right? at all?

    :numaan:
    test
  8. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    No evidence against em either
    test
  9. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i realize that. i was only making the point that religious people (and non-religious people) in general do trust science, whereever it does not contradict their respective beliefs or traditions.

    the only real difference between the two is that non-religious people in general do not have any reason to second guess the scientific ideas that religious people see as science trying to 'explain away' the concept of god because they do not value such a concept to begin with.

    hence, some people say that is a worship of science or elevating it above the ranks of god. i was merely making the distinction that it is merely trusting science to the same exact level that most people trust it without having to worry about allowing for the god concept to fit into that picture.

    and it's a valid point. i only think that the point helps to demonstrate the value of science rather than detracting from its credibility.


    exactly. and you're well within your rights to believe that the quran is divinely inspired. that is where 'faith' has its role.

    which is fine, but once again is subject to context. to say that we are limited in terms of comprehension and as such cannot understand where god comes from is a valid stance to take. where it becomes invalid is when the same individual tries to use human logic to assert that the universe could not have come forth without creation - thus relying on the same limited human comprehension to try and explain things that are outside our realm of understanding.

    basically it leads people to assert that there must have been a creator, but that it is impossible to explain where that creator came from. that is an invalid stance because we have no more comprehension of where 'existence' must have come from than we do where 'god' must have come from. so once again in conceding our own ignorance we limit the claims that we can rightfully make.


    it is all down to our own human limitations, you're right about that. the wording you are using is vague enough to encompass an explanation for why we cannot fully comprehend either science nor god, however the reasons for our lack of understanding in those two areas are of a very different nature.

    the distinction i am trying to make is that while one human cannot fully comprehend the entire scheme of science or mathematics, it is essentially still available for any who wish to partake and that progress can be made by individual efforts which ultimately can be replicated by others and add to the collective. the individual's comprehension can be improved upon, and so can the collective's.

    in the case of god, the 'incomprehensible' nature is intrinsic in the concept and as such no matter how much debating or networking we do as individual humans or as a collective, we can never get any closer to understanding the true nature of god because these questions are by definition unknowable.

    it is in my view point a limitation that stems from the fact that god was a flawed concept to begin with and that the supposedly 'unknowable' nature of god is merely an excuse that attempts to make up for the logical inconsistencies that naturally arise from the concept.

    but even in the view that god exists and we are simply too ignorant to understand, there is no chance that by any efforts we can hope to understand, we can only submit. that is the difference.

    basically its a distinction between the unknown and the unknowable.
    i'm not sure exactly what you mean with this question. if my answer doesn't touch upon what you're asking then i'll have to ask you to elaborate. here is my answer as i currently understand your question:

    if a scientific theory is proven to be inconsistent with a new set of data, then it is ideally either replaced or supplemented with a new theory or a new aspect of the existing theory that better explains the new data.

    a good example of this would be newtonian physics vs quantum physics. when scientists developed the capability to observe sub atomic particles they noticed that these particles do not behave according to classical, newtonian physics. the physical laws that we take for granted, that bring order to our material existence, did not properly define the way these tiny particles behaved. a new branch of physics had to develop to explain these particles which were otherwise breaking the laws of conventional physics.
    test
  10. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    well i dont believe in science as my god.
    but
    It contains facts. Yeah some people say "well we used to think the earth was flat", well yeah, but nobody had proven it, they just "thought" that. There is many things in science that are proven facts. Yes there is also theory, but most religion is all based on a theory. The theory that there is a god. There are no proven facts about there being a god.

    but you could get philosophical and say that missing link weve been looking for about existence could be called a god, and that god could actually just be a new law in physics, a new math formula, a newly discovered atom, or even a new kind of cell.
    test
  11. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,499
    Science makes sense...

    Religion is a product of the misunderstanding of science.

    "I can't comprehend how that just happened, so it must be god."

    rubbish

    I don't judge religious people and I'm the furthest thing from a scientist, but I'm more comfortable believing what we know to be true.
    test
  12. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    people like you won't believe in a god unless you see him infront of you.

    that's part of having "faith", where you believe in the unseen.

    you may call it blind faith or whatever, but it is what it is.

    for you there is no proof, but for me i see god in nature everywhere.

    check out the mountains, or just natural scenic views and i see His work.

    so, what do you have to say about scientific facts within the Qur'an?

    :numaan:
    test
  13. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,499
    What's so wrong with not believing in something unless there's evidence that it actually exists?
    test
  14. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,618
    ok well im talking scientific or mathematical proof.

    and if there is scientific facts in the quran then id believe them, because they are facts...

    if you dont believe in a fact then youre just an asshole. Fact is fact.

    if someone said they didnt believe 1+1=2 id shit in their ear
    test
  15. Nu'maaN

    Nu'maaN Anu'naki, Nuqqa.

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    25,674
    never said it was wrong, let alone "so wrong".

    don't put words in my mouth, nuqqa.

    i'd much prefer something else.

    gay smile.

    :numaan:
    test
  16. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    :funny:
    ummm. No. Science is a product of religon

    test
  17. snowy

    snowy 39k Rap Song Music Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    4,590
    Science is a product of Life. When people who think for themselves don't know the answer they ask and test it to see if its true. Religions tell you what is what with no tests. I dont see how you could think that this came from that.

    Plus without the Moors/Muslim influx in Spain and their secular knowledge of Mathematics and Philosophy in places like the Library of Cordoba, Europe would still be bumbling around in the Dark Ages.

    test
  18. Mrjdm998

    Mrjdm998 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7,040
    Science isn't a set of beliefs. There has ALWAYS been science. When man first created fire, that was science. Science isn't a product of religion at all. If anything it's the other way around. Unless you have some actual facts, why should someone believe in god? It's blind faith.
    test
  19. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,499
    Payback... that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
    test
  20. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    I don't see what people don't understand about somebody wanting prove to believe anything. I've never heard of anybody claiming science as their god doe lol if you want mi to dedicate my life to some force I've never seen then you better have a damn good reason besides faith. And btw nicely put mrjdm. Bp ur still....surprising me
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)