Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

707 hits 4.0 (1 vote) Share Favorite | Flag 14 years ago by MelLowStar

If man`s knowledge progressed to the point that everything could be scientifically explained, would god be unnecessary?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Bottom Last Post

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 8:58:51 AM EST (GMT-5)
No, people would still believe in God and people would still continue to be spiritual.
14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:04:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/4/2007 8:58:51 AM angeleyesgr wrote:
...people would still believe in God and people would still continue to be spiritual.

That's probably correct, but the fact that some people would still believe in god doesn't mean that their ideas wouldn't be obsolete. (That's what I was getting at with the question - whether science can render god obsolete; "unnecessary" was a poor word choice.)

Some say that the only purpose that god serves is to provide explanations for the things humans can't grasp. Before we can say this, though, we should also ask whether god serves emotional and/or social functions for people that science and logic can't fulfill.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:11:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
Umm, haha, this has ALREADY HAPPENED, a long time ago. The idea of God has been obsolete philosophically and scientifically for long enough that it's believers aren't slow on the take but simply unwilling to toss out their insufferably stupid superstitions.

I think it's pretty obvious that the aspect of religion that appeals to emotion is the most powerful, which MelLow mentions. I wouldn't say science *can't* fulfill them, that's totally incorrect.

Religion is just better at being unscrupulous, preying on the lowest denominator of human nature, using threats and punishments, and has a massive head start as well. Science is playing from behind and using rules of integrity that don't afflict the religious when they proselytize.

I don't know when exactly the God belief because totally useless, maybe it Hume, Darwin, or Einstein to did it, or maybe even sooner than the Enlightenment, even the Greeks had their doubts.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:14:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
can god himself be scientifically explained? no.
can heaven and hell be scientifically explained? no, because to figure out those you would need a firsthand account of heaven and hell, which isnt possible for living humans at the moment.

so technically, theres no possible way that everything can be scientifically explained.

also, i think no matter what happens, some people will always beleive in a god for the creation and control of everything.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:29:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/4/2007 5:14:22 PM xneverletgox wrote:
can god himself be scientifically explained? no.

Obviously, we can't scientifically disprove the existence of things like invisible mushroom people in the way that we can disprove, say, earth's flatness. After a certain amount of investigation, though, I think we're able to have some well-formed idea about certain things.

Say, for example, that you believe that there is an invisible pumpkin inside your heart who's pushing buttons that control all of your actions.

Basically, what I'm asking is this: If I'm able to give you concrete, scientific evidence of the actual mechanisms behind your actions, would that render your ideas about the pumpkin obsolete?

If your ideas about the invisible pumpkin serves emotional and social functions for you that my logical explanation doesn't, are your ideas *still* obsolete?

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:32:31 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/4/2007 5:14:22 PM xneverletgox wrote:
can heaven and hell be scientifically explained? no, because to figure out those you would need a firsthand account of heaven and hell, which isnt possible for living humans at the moment.

There are actually some people who've had near-death experiences and reported seeing visions of heaven or hell before being revived.

They seem like hallucinations to me, though, partly because the visions people talk about seem to be largely culturally-influenced.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:45:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/4/2007 5:14:22 PM xneverletgox wrote:
can god himself be scientifically explained? no. can heaven and hell be scientifically explained? no, because to figure out those you would need a firsthand account of heaven and hell, which isnt possible for living humans at the moment. so technically, theres no possible way that everything can be scientifically explained. also, i think no matter what happens, some people will always beleive in a god for the creation and control of everything.

As Mellow said, I think, you are presupposing that God, heaven, and hell all exist. Obviously if they don't, then there's no need for science to explain them....

Besides, a scientific explanation would probably involve explaining why humans had come up with these constructs rather than wether or not they actually physically exist.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 5:52:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/4/2007 5:45:36 PM catchall wrote:
Besides, a scientific explanation would probably involve explaining why humans had come up with these constructs...


That is what interests me.

People often say that people created ideas about gods to explain the world around them and feel as though they could actively control it. A god's wrath can explain why a volcano erupts, for instance; appeasing that god might keep volcanoes from erupting again.

This might be a partial explanation, but I think there's more to it. If the sole purpose of religion was to explain the unexplainable, I don't think it would be so lasting.

I think that there is an emotional and/or social element that glues us together.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 6:07:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
It's definitely more than just that, we are obviously humans are who curious about the world around us and interested in answers. But modern religion has shown that this is not the *strongest* force in religion, since the religious flat out refuse, ignore, or simply incorporate perfectly plausible scientific explanations.

We now live, and probably have lived for some time, in a world where religion doesn't explain ANYTHING. The emotional aspect of it, which preys upon people's fear of the death, is far more powerful than natural curiosity.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 5/4/07 - 10:35:57 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/4/2007 5:32:32 PM melLowStar wrote:
On 5/4/2007 5:14:22 PM . There are actually some people who've had near-death experiences and reported seeing visions of heaven or hell before being revived. They seem like hallucinations to me, though, partly because the visions people talk about seem to be largely culturally-influenced.

oh yeah, i forgot about that. i read something about NDE's a while ago, it was so cool. didnt know if it was true or not, but yeah. it said that this lady was dead for a few minutes and her soul floated into where her family was, in a whole different part of the hospital, and she new exactly what they had said. it was weird.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Sunday 5/6/07 - 7:56:08 PM EST (GMT-5)
okay, so everything is scienficily explained, who says god didnt use science to cause things to play out the way they did?
14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 5/7/07 - 3:23:10 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/6/2007 7:56:08 PM amriknidiot wrote:
okay, so everything is scienficily explained, who says god didnt use science to cause things to play out the way they did?


Occam's Razor.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 5/7/07 - 5:27:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/6/2007 7:56:08 PM amriknidiot wrote:
okay, so everything is scienficily explained, who says god didnt use science to cause things to play out the way they did?

As Aburame noted above, why complicate matters by adding an arbitrary, unnecessary factor that can't possibly be tested in any way?
If you see a tree that's obviously been struck by lightning, for instance, why assume that invisible pixies caused lightning to strike the tree?

Although some religious claims seem implausible and silly to me, I still wonder whether it's within the scope of science to render them completely obsolete. It irritates me when religious people try to use science to justify supernatural, unexplainable elements of their religion; so, is it appropriate to use science to render those same elements obsolete?

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 5/7/07 - 5:27:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
As long as someone's religion doesn't try to dip over into science (as would be the case if someone were simply a deist who didn't hold any beliefs that contradict science), is it still possible for us to come to conclusions about that religion using science?
Obviously, if people try to account for scientific phenomena like lunar eclipses and dust storms with untestable religious explanations, I think it's within our abilities to correct them. If people are making statements that are *completely* untestable, though, are we able to come to any definite conclusions about it?

I can tell you that I actually don't exist at this very moment, for instance, and that a computer is typing out every word I say right now. Of course, you think that this sounds silly, but is there any way for you to know for absolute certain?

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Monday 5/7/07 - 6:54:01 PM EST (GMT-5)
Science isn't used to render religion obsolete, science is not against or for religion, it *completely ignores it* because it has nothing to do with it. It's up to us as humans to figure out whether we add on the superfluous or take the best we have, science.


Also, it would be great if more people were Diest (if atheism isn't aviabible), but most religions constantly trample on sciences shoes because they were written by backwards people thousands of years ago who came up with bad explanations for how the world works, and now everytime science figures out the truth, the religious go apesh*t.

14 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 5/9/07 - 9:58:31 AM EST (GMT-5)
On 5/7/2007 6:54:02 PM Aburame wrote:
Science isn't used to render religion obsolete, science is not against or for religion, it *completely ignores it* because it has nothing to do with it. It's up to us as humans to figure out whether we add on the superfluous or take the best we have, science.

there you go
14 yrs ago - Saturday 6/16/07 - 1:40:34 AM EST (GMT-5)
I can't answer because I don't think everything can be scientifically explained. Most things, yes, but miracles happen
13 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Sunday 9/2/07 - 9:59:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
honestly, I think yes. Only because If there were more scientific proof then I wouldn't have to say I didn't believe in him, because I would know.
13 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Friday 9/7/07 - 4:46:39 PM EST (GMT-5)
that south park episode were cartman goes into the future to get the Wii, look at that future, science became the religion
13 yrs ago, 4 mos ago - Tuesday 2/5/08 - 6:58:00 PM EST (GMT-5)
there's absolutely no freaking way we'd ever be able to explain the infinite regress of questions such as "why does ANYTHING exists?".

It's a paradoxical question that always begets another question. the "ultimate cause" will never ever ever be able to be accounted for, and so people will always believe in something such as god to explain it.



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 Do you find it easy to accept help when you need it?

2 Do you live in a home that has been owned by your family for multiple generations?

3 Is God essential to morality?

4 If someone doesn't like you, are they mean?

5 Will any Atheists make it into heaven?

6 Would sex with aliens be considered bestiality?

7 do you prefer fractions or decimals?

8 Have you been on a backpacking trip?

9 Are you a feminist?

10 As you grew older, have you become more liberal or conservative?

More Questions
 
Edit