Is all religion based on God filling in the gaps left by scientific discovery?
819003
exactly. thats exactly what thegod of the gaps is. \n\nany gap in our knowledge is evidence that god exist. ask Kent Hovind. its idiotic i know.\n\nthe only way to vaidate their theory is to claim any hole in science is evidence for god. \n\ni usually respond to these god of the gaps comments with "well you claim god did it....well i say the magical tooktook did it." if youre willing to beleive god is in the gaps then its safe to assume that anything is in the gaps. that any god is in the gaps. what people (christians) fail to realise is that when you do a god of the gaps claim youre simply adding your prsonal god in that gap. anyone with a different god can simply change the name and it would be equally as valid\n\nexample:\n\nwe dont know what started the big bang......so god did it\n\nand lets change it\nwe dont know what started the big bang......so Vishnu did it\nwe dont know what started the big bang......so  ALlah did it\nwe dont know what started the big bang......so the magical TookTook did it\nwe dont know what started the big bang......so the FSM did it\n\nall equally as valid as the christian claim (god did it)\n\ngod of the gaps is laughable. that why no one takes intelligent design, creationism or Kent Hovind seriously.
1000587
first we have to know are we a belivers or not ??? becouse if yes have many concepts but if no the is nothing to answer \nlets say it is yes so my answer will be like this way\n       The question of God's existence has preoccupied man's mind for many centuries. Those who believe in God seem to agree that the limited finite human intelligence cannot prove the existence of the infinite boundless God. It can only illustrate or demonstrate his existence to the satisfaction of the curious human mind. Those who deny God claim to rely on science, \nphilosophy, or special theories of knowledge. Their arguments are sometimes inapplicable, sometimes irrelevant, always complex, and often incomprehensible. However, the developed mind will find its way to Allah. Failure to find the way does not mean that there is no way. Denial of reality does not make it unreal. \n\n       As we look around in our environments, we see that every family has a head: every school has a principal, every city or town has a mayor; every province or state has a premier/governor; and every nation has a head of state. Moreover, we know beyond doubt that every beautiful art is the creation of some great artist. All this is obvious, yet it does not satisfy the hunger for knowledge and the curiosity of man about the great things in the world. One often wonders at the beauties of nature with its scenic charm and marvels; the almost endless horizons in the sky and their far-reaching expansions; the ceaseless succession of day and night in the most orderly manner; the course of the sun, the moon, and the great stars; the world of animate and inanimate objects, the continuous process and evolution of man, generation after generation. One often wonders because one would like to know the maker and maintainer of all these things with which we live and which we immensely enjoy. Can we find an explanation of the great universe? Is there any convincing interpretation of the secret of existence? We realise that no family can function properly without a responsible head, that no city can prosperously exist without sound administration, and that no state can survive without a chief of some kind. We also realise that nothing comes into being on its own. Moreover we observe that the universe exists and functions in the most orderly manner, and that it has survived for hundreds of thousands of years. Can we, then, say that all this is accidental and haphazard? Or can we attribute the existence of man and the whole world to mere chance?\n\n      If man were to come into being by  accident or by sheer chance, his entire life would be based on chance, and his whole existence would be meaningless, and no rational being would leave his existence at the mercy of fluctuating chance. Every reasonable human being tries to make his life as meaningful as possible and set for himself a model of conduct according to some design. Individuals, groups and nations do plan their course of action. And every careful plan produces some desired effects. The fact of the matter is that man does engage in planning of one sort or another, and can appreciate the merits of good planning. Yet man represents only a very small portion of the great universe. And if he can make plans and appreciate the merits of planning, then his own existence and the survival of the universe must also be based on a planned policy. This means that there is a Designing Will behind our material existence, and that there is a Unique Mind in the world to bring things into being and keep them moving in order. The marvellous wonders of our world and the secrets of life are too great to be the product of random accident or mere chance. In the world, then there must be a Great Force in action to keep everything in order.\n\n       In the beautiful nature there must be a Great Artist who creates the most charming pieces of art and produces everything for a special purpose in life. This Force is the strongest of all forces, and thi
410381
Sure there can be.   It's all a matter of perspective.   \n\nUltimately, you can keep questioning everything to the point where we couldn't comprehend a diety.   Where did we come from?  God made us.   Where did God come from?  He always was.   \n\nI've always had a problem with..."He always existed."   So, if he always existed...what did he do?   Just sat in the middle of nowhere doing nothing.
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.
625151
It just is.\n\nThat is a great mystery of science.  The universe just is.  It didn't come from anywhere, it just always was.  In order to get a better answer you need to start steering towards religion.
148007
I can't believe a faith based on a book that is flawed in many ways.  I can't believe in something there is no way of having real, tangable, physical, scientific proof of.  I can't believe in something that is based on the words of people that may well have had a delusional disorder.  I can't believe in something that contradicts it's self and leaves alot of things open it can't realistically explain.  Science is in the process of proving something else entirely and has more evidence than religion does on the matter.  Which should I believe?  I tend to lean to the logical side of it which leaves religion out.  Until someone can conclusivly, scientifically prove some of these things I will not believe.
12518
Check out Gregg Braden.  He has, in my opinion, successfully merged Science and Religion stating that both are necessary.  No, he does not have all the answers, I don't think anyone does.  But I do feel he is definitely on the right track.
852256
It's interesting because I use the same thought process as you to arrive at a totally different conclusion.  For me it is like, God doesn't fit into my "nice neat little box" so he can't exist.  That might sound close-minded so I'll elaborate.  In my eyes, science is beginning to understand more and more of the world and our origins.  Now when I look at the overwhelming evidence of evolution and even just the happenings around me, I form a general understanding of the world that I am comfortable with.  Now when something enters my world view (God) I have to examine the evidence and tinker with the idea to see if it fits.  The problem with God is, I've seen no evidence and he just plain does not fit.  With science, no matter what your mindset, the evidence is right there for you to see regardless of your bias or what conclusions you draw from it.  Basically, if I saw real evidence of God, I could attempt to rearrange the rules and see if he fits, but I don't believe I should have to break the rules to even see evidence of him.  That makes it sound like the first step to becoming a Christian is to delude yourself.
341784
I believe so, based upon not only what the Bible says about it, but also based upon the evidence in nature that points to a Creator.  Many scientists, such as myself, have become believers after examining the numerous things that have to be balanced within 0.00010% or less of where they are for the universe to exist as it does and for life as we know it to be possible.
1169271
Its an interesting thought.\nMost popular religions are 2000+ years old and althought many of the basic principles are applicable today, a lot of the dogma isn't.\nWould a modern day religion have a flood story, a 7 day creation story or would the Big Bang be the creation story? Would it be based on science and evolution?\nLooking forward to reading the answers...
729726
yes definitely\n\nthere are some questions that science just cant provide answers to, and until we have scientific proof of everything (which i dont personally think will ever happen, but thats just my opinion) there will always be room for religion.\n\nand anyway - religion provides existence with a meaning. if we just took a scienfitic view - we are born, we exist, we die. and thats it. so whats the point? why bother being nice to people?  why bother with trying to gain respect/earn money/build relationships? sure we're all going to die anyway.\n\nor at least, thats what science says. religion begs to differ.\n\nand by the way - before anyone criticises me - im a scientist.
483638
no ,, there is something called the gap theory .. we fundies belive in. check it out
995506
God never goes further than the mind that invented him.\n\nHis universe is usually very limited.
1156995
You're right, there is NO scientific basis for god. If you keep thinking the way you are, you might end up being agnostic or atheist, so be careful!\n\n"I believe that until there is solid proof there never will be a true interpretaion of something you can't even prove."\n\nExactly, without proof (or evidence based on facts), there is nothing but interpretation. And since everyone interprets things differently, no one can be right or wrong, therefore no one can be right or wrong about god. Because of this, no one can say anything is true or false about god, because everyone sees it differently.
94336
Well, they are related because science always contradict religion.\n\nIn religion, miracles and unusual things are accepted, but in science, it is always needed to have a reason or understanding of all the events.
922458
Yes, of one sort or another.  Considering that religion is really just a way of explaining the world around us, and considering that some branches of science require just as much faith as some religions, we can assume that (in one form or another) we will always have religion.
1158121
No.  There is no god.  There's no evidence pointing toward the existence of a god or gods, and no reason to suspect that such evidence just hasn't been found yet.