Top scientist asks sceptics to probe existence of God

last SG · 2006-07-28T18:05:44+00:00

"Oh, we dunno the answer to this question. Must be the work of God." "Oh, why this happen. Must be God's will." ".... Must be God..." ".... Must be God..." "...

SumOne SG

Ha ha ha. Ok. If that's what your friends are like, then they really must be cavemen.

Of coz its EASY to credit everything unknown to this "mystical, all-powerful" entity. But EASY = TRUTH? How gullible! And what kind of attitude u have? Anything u cannot understand or answer u say its becoz of GOD instead of trying to find out the actual workings behind it.

Not every person with a belief is like the friends you seem to have. Just because they are gullible doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Not every person with a religion just goes to their place of worship and make meaningless ramble all day long.

You are basically just making an assumption about religion itself.

If there is a God, why would he NEED YOU - pathetic lifeforms? To entertain himself?
God, if he is indeed almighty, HAS NO NEED for you.

God didn't create us to make him more powerful or anything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a reason. It's just a reason you don't know yet.

You, becoz of fear and psychological dependence, are NO DIFFERENT from a CAVEMAN 2 million years ago. YOU NEED a "GOD" for your own sake.

After saying similar stuff so many times, it's quite obvious you have an assumption about all people who believe in a religion. Have it your way. Btw, Lee Kuan Yew is a devout buddhist. Just a point of information.

Therefore it is easy to see that in reality:
God don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.

Eh..... What you're saying isn't really correct, because it works on the assumption that there is no God. So your statement isn't really convincing. Good effort though. Try to assume that God is real first, then look back to your sentence, God don't need men, men need God, so man clings ever more tightly to God.

Besides, I don't see you expressing that you need God, probably because you consider yourself above the average 'caveman'.

Its no coincidence that over 95% of the smartest men (incl scientists) do not believe in a Creator God. Ask yourself why they dont.

Yes, and smart men have been known to make mistakes. Even the smart ones. Afterall, it was scientists who used to tell us that electricity travelled from positve end to negative end. Now we know electricity is caused by electrons travelling in the opposite direction.

Scientists once believed light had wave properties, but will lose its wave properties after travelling long distances. And the guy who said that received a noble prize for what he said too.

Even in this age, we are always hearing variations of what "experts" say. Sometimes we hear coffee is good for you, yet at other times scientists say its not. If anything, science itself is subjective.

Science is basically man's study of the things around us, so it is still something done by man. So it is still imperfect and there are chances the scientific concepts we know today will be replaced by different ones tomorrow.

Another example is how atoms were once thought to be the smallest things, now we know there are photons, electrons and neutrons.

It's true that science cannot answer EVERYTHING. Mystical stories (aka religions) can ALWAYS answer EVERYTHING without any need for proof - easy for them. while our scientists crack their brains day and night, story writers dont need to do that.

Story writers do crack their brains day and night but that's not the point.

SumOne SG

Not asking you to believe me, but just to say something I believe in.

I personally don't think religon and science are meant to be in two different things. At least, I don't think they're meant to.

God created earth and the scientific rules by which earth and all it inhabitants/contents are bound. Science is basically a study of things created by God.

"Nothing happens in contrary to nature, but only man's understanding of it."

That's my view on religon and science. Not asking anyone to believe me but that's what I think.

Ibram Gaunt SG

Extracted from the 3rd paragraph of the ST article (notice line in bold)

"But his most complete argument for God appears in a new book, The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which addresses two radically divergent audiences: He asks scientific sceptics to investigate God with the same open-minded zeal they apply to the natural world. And he tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith."

If the article is read carefully (notice the line in bold), Dr Colins also levelled criticism at fundamentalist evangelical Christians who refuse to accept scientific findings like evolution..

Actually I feel that Dr Francis Collins did present a balanced view-point in saying that both scientists and religious people should subject their ways of thinking to more critical analysis. However, I also feel that after writing his book which is a critique on modern scientific biases, he should also follow up with another book that is a critique on the dangerous illogic of religious fundamentalism. Personally I think that both science and religion have their individual merits and their gaps.

SumOne SG

Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
Extracted from the 3rd paragraph of the ST article (notice line in bold)

"But his most complete argument for God appears in a new book, The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which addresses two radically divergent audiences:[b] He asks scientific sceptics to investigate God with the same open-minded zeal they apply to the natural world. And he tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith."

If the article is read carefully (notice the line in bold), Dr Colins also levelled criticism at fundamentalist evangelical Christians who refuse to accept scientific findings like evolution..

Actually I feel that Dr Francis Collins did present a balanced view-point in saying that both scientists and religious people should subject their ways of thinking more critically. However, I also feel that after writing his book which is a critique on modern scientific biases, he should also follow up with another book that is a critique on the dangerous illogic of religious fundamentalism. Personally I think that both science and religion have their individual merits and their gaps.[/b]

Yes, but some people seem to take particular offense when somene says he or she believes in God/Gods. It's like they are very strongly anti-religon or something.

dinky1409 SG

Rolling Eyes

geodome SG

Yes. It is perhaps possible with a new branch of mathematics call Cellular Automata. It has been proven that simple rules/equation system governing the individual cells in a cellular automata system produces complicated (and indeed statistically random) behavior. Such behavioir is very similar to life itself. Moreover, using cellular automata, shapes of muscles, sea shells, corals, leaves can be generated mathematically from scratch.

sgquitter SG

Speechless. That's what i felt when i first read ur posts.

And not becoz they make sense, rather they TOTALLY dont make *ANY* sense AT ALL.

dinky trying to smoke people? ( Laughing )

Are u REALLY trying to say we should believe in illogical explanations instead of logical ones? I dunno what to say. Rolling Eyes

Scientific definitions are not written as a person pleases or depending on mood (unlike religious writings). The key word here is "testable" - a check. It doesn't matter if the person doing the "testing" is tall, short, holds a phd or only had elementary education, rich, poor, ethnic background, male or female, watever... Everyone who does the "test" will get the same observation and results. No room for bias or unsupported evidence. Definitions are also specific, as opposed to being vague.

That is why Science is credible. What technologies we have now are proof of science.

It doesn't stop here. Science is also truthful, any mistakes or points worthy of note is always corrected or highlighted. There is a system for correction. This makes sense too, becoz as scientists get more info, they are able to refine their work.

If u think that becoz of these corrections, Science cannot be trusted, then should we trust some illogical, unproven, un-testable, vague story like "reglion"?

Religion on the other hand, is extremely unstable, unproven, un-testable, i could go on... For e.g, different people have different accounts of their "spiritual" experience, but none had any way to prove themselves. Not to mention the heaps of inconsistencies and the stubborness and refusal to admit mistakes (becoz it will question the authenticity of the religion). That is one of the reasons why reglion loses its credibility.

well, if u really realised that what you've posted is bullsh1t then i guess there is still abit of consciousness left in u.

sgquitter SG

Originally posted by sgquitter:
Ha ha ha. Ok. If that's what your friends are like, then they really must be cavemen.

Look at the posts in this thread. Laughing

Not every person with a religion just goes to their place of worship and make meaningless ramble all day long.

You are basically just making an assumption about religion itself.

What am I assuming?

God didn't create us to make him more powerful or anything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a reason. It's just a reason you don't know yet.

Yeah, there are TONS of OTHER things God didn't tell us too, becoz humans cant understand, yadda yadda watever reasons Rolling Eyes . Am I supposed to say it sounds more reasonable now? LMAO

I didnt assume that God made us so that he can be more powerful. God (if there is such a thing), according to u, is ALMIGHTY. Any MORE powerful is impossible. But if he is indeed *almighty*, then he has no need for us. Watever reasons will violate the "idea" that "He" is "Almighty".

Is LKY an authority in such topics? Why would you wanna bring him in? Why not other ministers?

It is not an assumption that I'm making. It is a FACT that an overwhelming 9x% of scientists (smartest and most logical people) do not believe in an Almighty God.

Therefore it is easy to see that in reality:
God don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.

Eh..... What you're saying isn't really correct, because it works on the assumption that there is no God. So your statement isn't really convincing. Good effort though. Try to assume that God is real first, then look back to your sentence, God don't need men, men need God, so man clings ever more tightly to God.

So its supposed to be:
God (if there is one) don't need Men
Men need God
So Men created God for his own needs.
Man clings ever more tightly to God

Given the inaccurate, ambiguious, illogical, (i could go on) nature of the "Holy Bible" (and all its forms) and its "Almighty God", the assumption that "the God mentioned in the Bible truely exists" cannot stand firm if we want to remain credible.

Besides, I don't see you expressing that you need God, probably because you consider yourself above the average 'caveman'.

Why would I believe in something imaginative and false? And even go to the extent of NEEDING it?! Wow... Laughing Well, maybe when i watch movies or read a fantasy book, yeah, I can do with imagination but not when i want to believe in it for REAL.

I answered that in my post above.

Science is basically man's study of the things around us, so it is still something done by man. So it is still imperfect and there are chances the scientific concepts we know today will be replaced by different ones tomorrow.

Of coz it is man's study for his own knowledge. We don't have God telling us how to make a rocket or how nature is the way it is. Rolling Eyes

And i totally agree man is far from perfect, becoz there is no such thing as perfect. The good thing is man learns, and corrects his mistakes - this is good practise. The bad thing is some people believe too much and too deep esp in religious issues that they refuse to admit or correct mistakes - this is bad practise.

Which is more worthy?
To believe in something that truthfully admits and corrects its mistakes?
To believe in something juz becoz it sticks firmly to its (wrong) ideas?

sgquitter SG

Originally posted by geodome:

Yes. It is perhaps possible with a new branch of mathematics call Cellular Automata. It has been proven that simple rules/equation system governing the individual cells in a cellular automata system produces complicated (and [b]indeed statistically random) behavior. Such behavioir is very similar to life itself. Moreover, using cellular automata, shapes of muscles, sea shells, corals, leaves can be generated mathematically from scratch. [/b]

problem is many people talk about very complicated stuff and they think it is a simple one-step solution.

for e.g., the emergence of non-life to life. Common people think that it is about a one-step process. Scientists tackle this problem in multiple steps. That is one of the reasons why the misunderstanding.

And the funny thing is, some people have that idea that there is only ONE chance for life to exist in such a long span of time (millions of years). The story of the tornado constructing an aeroplane is one good example of people trying to smoke others who are not well-informed. Laughing

dinky1409 SG

Hi there.. Hehe I was expecting this kind of skeptical posts but its ok I won't diss you for saying what I have written is bullsh!t or whatesoever.
I hope you read my posts, all of them here, cause I'm not definitely smoking people or influencing people to join. -------> That's what they always say even though most of the time it's true Mr. Green
I know its very difficult to grasp of what I'm saying. But my main intention is to get people to think very deeply. And continuous thinking.
Science is truthful and whatever so on so on... Correct. Science is truthful because it makes everything seems so logical. What is logic? Judgement of the human brains? Don't give too much credit to the human brains. Who are we to do so?

dinky1409 SG

Logics leading to another logic to another logic and so on...

stupidissmart SG

But his most complete argument for God appears in a new book, The Language Of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which addresses two radically divergent audiences: He asks scientific sceptics to investigate God with the same open-minded zeal they apply to the natural world. And he tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution undermines the credibility of faith.

Tat is nothing new Rolling Eyes From ages up till now there have always been people who wanna earn a quick buck. If his evidence is so good, he should write a technical journal and not a book

But scientists are probably the tougher audience.

maybe because religious people take anything at face value (miracle healing tongue speaking) and science have always been under more critique in order to come up with undisputed truth Rolling Eyes

According to Nature, the science weekly, 'many scientists disagree strongly' with Collins-style arguments and critics feel 'more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs'.

Tat is right. 1 scientist against many scientists. If the evidence is good, and tat guy manage to prove god, trust me he is gonna win the nobel prize and all the scientific prize in the world and his name will be remembered forever. Why doesn't any people manage to come out with it ?

For a lot of other replies, I can really summarise it in tis way

"I don't know tis, science is flawed, men is stupid bla bla bla"

Even if all the above is true, tat doesn't remotely show god exists Rolling Eyes It can be a pink unicorn tat create man or the purple flying spaghetti monster or the sonic the hedgehog. U can put in anything u want here. All these is NOT even an evidence tat remotely show god exists. The above is only an attack on the knowledge of science. If u think science is limited then why r u suing the computer or staying in high rise building.

The above statement and conclusion can be summarise as "Your son do not know how to do his maths problem and u say pokemon exists." Rolling Eyes

stupidissmart SG

And the funny thing is, some people have that idea that there is only ONE chance for life to exist in such a long span of time (millions of years). The story of the tornado constructing an aeroplane is one good example of people trying to smoke others who are not well-informed.

Oh... u think the chance is low ? However the chance of god existing is the same as a tornado constructing a perfect plane out. U know wat is a perfect plane ? Massless, travel faster than speed of light, can take in limitless passengers, cost nothing etc. Now tat is more difficult and more impossible

Science is truthful because it makes everything seems so logical. What is logic? Judgement of the human brains? Don't give too much credit to the human brains. Who are we to do so?

Oh... then we should not believe in logic and start believing in illogical things ? Why don't we give credit to human brains ? Rolling Eyes u mean u know and can prove the existence of some other beings tat is better ?

dinky1409 SG

Why don't we give credit to the human brains? If you can read what I post was "don't give TOO MUCH credit...." Do I mean none at all? Rolling Eyes
Bro, I don't know and I can't exactly prove the existence of some other beings that is better, does it necessarily mean they might not exist? Seeing is believing, isn't that a bit naive? Who said anything about not believing in logic? Believing in illogical things is only rubbish by the rule of logics.
People claimed that religions uses brainwashing methods and tactics. Just so we know, right from the moment we are able to think, we have been all along brainwashed by science and logics...

stupidissmart SG

Bro, I don't know and I can't exactly prove the existence of some other beings that is better, does it necessarily mean they might not exist? Seeing is believing, isn't that a bit naive? Who said anything about not believing in logic? Believing in illogical things is only rubbish by the rule of logics.
People claimed that religions uses brainwashing methods and tactics. Just so we know, right from the moment we are able to think, we have been all along brainwashed by science and logics...

If u do not know other being exists, then if u claim they do exists, u r really jumping to conclusions. Rolling Eyes

Who are we to do so?

Maybe because we men are still the most intelligent being tat is shown to exists ?

Logic is really "reasoning". If u do not use "logics", the only other option is really "illogical". If u say logic and science are "brainwash", then wat is the method u use to know wat to do and wat to interprete ? I can't imagine wat other method is available if we can't use logic and wat will be the outcome of someone who do not use logic. IMO, without using logic, u become a moron. U eat anything u see, u walk with your head and maybe u bite your hand and think pain is a wonderful thing. Even animals use logics to survive Rolling Eyes Even if u believe in a religion, u still need logic to understand it.

dinky1409 SG

Haha.. All I'm saying is they might exist, and they might not exist. I didn't jump into any conclusions bro.. Please do not misunderstand me. I'm keeping my mind open to anything. Impossible and possible by the law of logics. I don't think I mentioned anything about living without using logic. It certain will not fit in a logical world as this. Hence, the label moron. I agree that if we believe in a religion, we still need logic to understand it. Heck, we need logic to live in this world. Duh! That is our only mentality. If I mentioned God, an image of a blurred thing/person will probably appear on everyone's mind. That's the problem. It is neither a thing nor a person. Somehow we will refer 'it' to a 'something' and that goes to show how capable our human brain is. Even space is a 'something'. And even vacuum. But God is none of all these.
I am skeptic about Science being an alternative to religions but I won't base my skepticism on the grounds of pro-religion. So I ask, have there been an answer to "how everything comes about"? Yes? How about "why everything comes about"? Is there an answer to this? Or haven't yet discover the answer is it? I don't know.. You pro-Science tell me.. Then I can continue..

dinky1409 SG

opps wrong

hoganrock SG

which one? Rolling Eyes

dinky1409 SG

Double post le so wrong lah... Anyway seriously, what's up with the rolling of eyes?

stupidissmart SG

Impossible and possible by the law of logics. I don't think I mentioned anything about living without using logic. It certain will not fit in a logical world as this. Hence, the label moron. I agree that if we believe in a religion, we still need logic to understand it. Heck, we need logic to live in this world. Duh! That is our only mentality.

Wat other mentality do u propose ? U mean doing everythng without logic and reasoning is an alternative ?

If I mentioned God, an image of a blurred thing/person will probably appear on everyone's mind. That's the problem. It is neither a thing nor a person. Somehow we will refer 'it' to a 'something' and that goes to show how capable our human brain is. Even space is a 'something'. And even vacuum. But God is none of all these.

Your point is ?

I am skeptic about Science being an alternative to religions but I won't base my skepticism on the grounds of pro-religion. So I ask, have there been an answer to "how everything comes about"? Yes? How about "why everything comes about"? Is there an answer to this? Or haven't yet discover the answer is it? I don't know.. You pro-Science tell me.. Then I can continue..

Rolling Eyes Even if science cannot show how everything comes about, it still did not show god exists. These 2 r different issues altogether. If u think science is tat bad, then why do u use a computer and write your reply ? Why do u use cars, study maths, know wat s medicine etc ? All these r made by science. If u felt science is limited, then I guess u have to go back to cavemen time and hunt. Even if u have a religon, do u have the answer to how "everything come about" ? "Everything" includes the god u know

« Previous Page Next Page »