A question about science & religion. Answer with strong logic.?
113562
Religion = compiled folktales.\nScience = measured method.  \n\nDo the math.
901352
Often this is a question that is supposed to 'stump' people and somehow prove something. But I don't think it does.\n\nWe might never know the answer to it, and our finite brains would likely not comprehend the answer in any case at this point in our evolution.\n\nSecondly, I suspect your question is in fact a 'statement' and not a question at all. One in fact that is frequently used by the religious as 'proof', however vague that an All-powerful being exists, 'because there is no other explanation?!' \n\nI am reminded that before humanity understood the physics behind electricity, there were alot of metaphysical / religious explanations for lightening and thunder floating about. Scientists were heretics because they could prove the 'unexplained'.\n\nThere is no question that can prove or disprove anything. Many atheists / evolutionists do not even believe it was a 'big bang'. The theory of evolution is still considered just that - a theory, it doesn't necessarily follow that 'God' is the only other explanation.\n\nEdit: Then again - I have just read some of your other questions and have decided that all of the above answers are lost on you.\n\nAll the best!
300068
If your being an honest skeptic, you would have to include the Bible as a possible source of information that God exists. Actually the proof is all around you. Think about it, how could everything (with even just a single cell being very very complex) just be here out of chance? I sugggest watching the DVD "Where does the Evidence Lead?". It's really good and explains well the case for or against intellegent design. It's very well done and helped me a lot. I also suggest reading "the Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It's really good about showing evidence for or against whether Jesus was God and it really makes sense. Actually, Strobel was an aithiest when he conducted the research and by the time he was done, his view was completely the opposite.
899015
You can choose to use either your (1) faith or (2) reason.  If you choose to use only faith, then you must ignore the physical world about you.\n\nReligious faith is completely compatible with science as long as religion stays exclusively in the spiritual realm and science stays exclusively in the physical realm.  It is only when religion pontificates about the physical world or science speculates about the non-physical that we run into trouble.
36695
O.K. admiralbob! I'm glad your not in charge of everything. Everyone wants to prove how things work, but they can't answer the question as to who made it all happen.....Anyway I've got broadband but the download is taking a minute so based off of others speculation and the website that I observed, I would say SURE THING. God is intelligent so why wouldn't he use science he created it? But yeah! They should use it to teach if they have found that proof! It would really back up the bible too.
283955
Proof.  I just read through the above answers, and sorry, but no amount of religious zeal or "because I said so, and I believe, therefore I'm right" is going to convince anyone.  quoting scripture, or saying that because you believe Darwin to be wrong, and have some piece of spam to back you up.  The one sentence that would convince me?\n"This is God, you have some explaining to do!"
495947
i am intrigued by your idea of LOGIC!!! interesting
477169
Having been in Israel, I know the weather conditions. I don't need science to prove my beliefs. They can come up with logic or reason or faith or whatever...I still believe. The world needs to try to disprove Scripture. It makes them feel good. And, while science may give them what they want; it won't give them what they need.
1167816
I find it hard to comment on this, because it is clever, well scripted and I suspect the questioner at some point had a belief in the Christian faith. I would agree with all your assertions, taking hombrage with the claim that you created earth. God is in all of us and are all of us. Ambiguous messages from organised religion are the bane of humanity.
242769
Science is all about understanding the universe we live in.  If God created this universe, isn't science then just an attempt to understand what God created?  Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but problems do arise when scientific conclusions and religious beliefs do not match, and should that be the case it's up to you to decide what you feel is the most correct answer.
34443
To everyone here - you can't argue with each other. You are arguing matters based on someone's faith - so there can be no logical outcome as viewed from both parties. To have religious faith means you 'just believe' despite what might be shown false - that's when these folks tend to raise the 'get real - how can that be so' attitude.\n\nStay in your realm and believe what you want to, but do not tell me and others that all of observed science is garbage. If you fell ill at ease when looking at science - perhaps you need to look inwards and ask what is making you feel uneasy?? If you feel that folks who believe in evolution are all going to hell for denying God - then why worry about them? I'm sure that they are not concerned about it.
330002
I believe there is logic in everything and everything is created in a logical manner.  Though we may not at once see the logic behind anything, we may at some point discover the rationale behind an event. Yes we can always arrive at the truth through logic.
121995
Well, this is a touchy question...God or science. It is also a complicated question, but I will do my best.\n\nThe thing about faith, is if you don't have it, you don't understand it, but if you have it then no explanation is neccessary. In other words, people of faith do not need proof nor do they care to learn, they simply believe in God. People of science need proof of what they believe in. Scientists believe in the atom because they can see it, they can study it. Religious followers do not need to see God to believe in him. \n\nSince man could first walk upright we have been searching for a reason that we are here. Some people turn to God to make their search simple and refreshing. Others turn to science in order to seek a more rational explanation. \n\nReligion is nothing more than a very comforting way of going about your life. God put you here for a reason, God will protect you, God will forgive you, God will give you eternal happiness, and so on are just ways of controlling the weaker 96% of the worlds population. \n\nOn your question, science has not proven that religion is fraud, but it has proved that certain things mentioned in the Bible are untrue. This is easy because the Bible is not a historical record, it is a collection of stories that were passed down by mouth for generations before ever written down. As an example, the Bible says the world was created in six days, (remember, the seventh day was for rest not creation), well, was that six Earth days, or extra-solar days? A lot of what is in the Bible is relative. \n\nNow, although science has proven that a great many things in the religious world are not factual, science has yet to prove that God does not exist. That is one thing that science may never be able to prove...but just to be fair, Religion will also never be able to prove that science is wrong.\n\nI realize that I have put a negative window on religion and I wish to correct this. I myself, am Atheist...I have no belief in any God, I simply believe that no God exists, and I am fine with that. Many others have a need to believe in God. They feel good believing that there is an all-knowing and omnipotent being watching over them and taking care of them and guiding them, I have no problems with that in fact I encourage that.\n\nAlthough I am Atheist, I do read the Bible because the Bible does not only teach about God, it teaches you a good way to live your life and how to be a good person, it teaches morals, values, discipline, and responsibility. If you feel you need to believe in God, then you should, if you are comfortable not believing in God, then go ahead. It is all about personal convictions and preferences. Believe or dis-believe in whatever, or whoever you chose and let others do the same.\n\nI will end this with a quote, although I am not sure who said it. "If God did not exist, then it would be neccessary for man to create Him"
71051
Science of course. Religion is all based on faith, and does not take well to critics. Not only that, there is no way at all to prove what is in the bible or you respective religious book. Some of the stories in the bible are completely devoid of physics. They make no sense. People argue that God could do anything he wanted to and made it the way he/she wanted. I have a counter for that. Why would God, being all good, want to deceive us??? If he made the universe in 6 days, why would he want to make it look like it took billions of years to accomplish.\n\nScience on the other hand is ever changing, and thrives on people trying to disprove it, that is the only way it can verify/disprove itself. \n\nScience and religion are two separate things. Religion gives you guidelines on how to live you life, and answers on morality. Science gives you guidelines on how nature works, and answers to where you came from.
131869
This is a compelling argument against the existence of god. \n\nThe faithful always say that if you were walking along a beach and found a watch, you would presume that it was crafted by a watchmaker. Anything as complex as a watch could not just appear. They look at the universe, more complex than a watch and say that this is evidence of a "watchmaker." \n\nHowever, this argument just pushes the question of creation up a level. Who crafted the watchmaker? Who crafted the watchmaker's watchmaker? It goes on and on ad infinitum.\n\nThe faithful will then say that god needeth not a creator! \n\nWhat? Then why does the universe need one? "Because it's so complex," they'll say.\n\nBut isn't god more complex than the universe? The circle goes on and on.
1103609
I'd say science, but that doesn't seem to need proof, as a logical theory will suffice. We keep revising the age of everything as new evidence is introduced (which we should), but then take that new estimate as gospel truth. Humans need the security of believing that we understand the world around us, whether it be handed down from someone above, or a collection of our own limited observations. Proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
925731
I read the debate, rather than listened to it. I don't think there was a clear winner. Both men made good points. Quinn's weakest argument was his statement that since matter exists, that proves that God exists. This is simply ridiculous. For all we know, magic super-aliens created matter. Of course I don't believe that either. I am with Dawkins on this one, that there is no way to know this as of yet, but that scientists are working on it. \n\nRegarding the "free will" discussion, I think Dawkins could have had a stronger argument if he had spoken about the fact that atheists tend to take responsibility for our behavior, rather than ascribe it to some thing called free will or predestination.\n\nYes, it does seem like a Y!A discussion.