which should win?

[SentimentalSlop]

it is not a competition it is a question
which o f the two would last longest ?

Well, the title of the thread is "which should win," so I hope you understand my point.

science or religion?

science eventually has to prove god exist is its ultimate task . it has not done that yet because it is too busy proving ufos do.
religion cannot prove god exist but what it has is a script that says it does. not enough arguments to prove god does not exist either.

or may be both will eventually outdo each other and time will take it all.

what do you say?

Good luck to science in that adventure. Science's only business is dealing with material things. It's not like they can take a giant q-tip, swab a cloud and grow God-spores in a petri dish.

However, I don't really think that's science's ultimate goal. Any scientist who adopts that as his dream better just drop his career and move onto something that's actually possible.

[mal4mac]

Science's only business is dealing with material things. It's not like they can take a giant q-tip, swab a cloud and grow God-spores in a petri dish.

What if everything is material? Then *everything* is science's business. As many scientists are thorough-going materialists, for them *everything* is their business, even including mystical experience:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6664802

science eventually has to prove god exist is its ultimate task.

Scientists only go looking for things they believe have a good chance of existing. For instance, there were good theoretical reasons for thinking that that the Higgs particle existed, so it was worth looking for. Scientists don't wake up and think, "What shall I look for today?", and stick a pin in the Dictionary of Mythology. "Ah, Medusa, today, better use the reflecting telescope!" They wouldn't get many grants if they took that approach.

[cacian]

What if everything is material? Then *everything* is science's business. As many scientists are thorough-going materialists, for them *everything* is their business, even including mystical experience:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6664802



Scientists only go looking for things they believe have a good chance of existing. For instance, there were good theoretical reasons for thinking that that the Higgs particle existed, so it was worth looking for. Scientists don't wake up and think, "What shall I look for today?", and stick a pin in the Dictionary of Mythology. "Ah, Medusa, today, better use the reflecting telescope!" They wouldn't get many grants if they took that approach.

well science believes god does not exist. they could prove it. instead they want to prove the big bang.

[mal4mac]

well science believes god does not exist. they could prove it.

How? He may be the "God of Epicurus", and be so well hidden that no one could ever find him. If he is locatable, where do you look?

[SentimentalSlop]

well science believes god does not exist. they could prove it. instead they want to prove the big bang.

How do assert that science doesn't believe God exists? Many scientists do.

[cafolini]

If God is the author of any thing and every thing as we believers postulate, then God more than exists. He's also actual in science and in magic.

[mal4mac]

About 97% of the best scientists in the British Commonwealth (i.e., FRS level) don't believe in God. The figures are 93% for the USA, for scientists of a similar standing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figures are more than 97% in continental Europe, as they are such a radical lot. So it's reasonable to say 'science believes god does not exist'.

[Eman Resu]

About 97% of the best scientists in the British Commonwealth (i.e., FRS level) don't believe in God. The figures are 93% for the USA, for scientists of a similar standing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the figures are more than 97% in continental Europe, as they are such a radical lot. So it's reasonable to say 'science believes god does not exist'.

Yeah... all them there science guys are atheists. Occam, Aquinas, Bacon, Wilkins, Boyle, Ray Linnaeus, Owen, Mendel, Pasteur, Lister, Herschel, Newton, Brahe, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Joule, Faraday... buncha atheists, ever' one.

[SentimentalSlop]

Not according to this article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...ci24-2009nov24

Who knows, maybe the numbers are off a bit, but close to 100% of scientists are atheists? That's entirely untrue.

[cafolini]

Yeah... all them there science guys are atheists. Occam, Aquinas, Bacon, Wilkins, Boyle, Ray Linnaeus, Owen, Mendel, Pasteur, Lister, Herschel, Newton, Brahe, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Joule, Faraday... buncha atheists, ever' one.

Don't make so much fun of these idiots. They might actually believe you and fart they know it. ROFLMAO

[Eman Resu]

Don't make so much fun of these idiots. They might actually believe you and fart they know it. ROFLMAO

If you drew up a document which said, "I hereby denounce God in any and every form, and will stand by this declaration if there truly is Life eternal or eternal damnation," I'd bet that you couldn't find a hundred living people out of seven billion who'd willingly sign it.

.

[cacian]

How? He may be the "God of Epicurus", and be so well hidden that no one could ever find him. If he is locatable, where do you look?

hi mal4mac would you say the big bang overrule god?
where to look is a good question. how to look is another one? I don't know. here is a point:
does ''to believe first then find'' the correct way? because science does the opposite she finds then she believes.

[mal4mac]

Not according to this article.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov...ci24-2009nov24

Who knows, maybe the numbers are off a bit, but close to 100% of scientists are atheists? That's entirely untrue.

I specified figures for top tier scientists, NAS in USA and and FRS in UK, available in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins FRS. FRS & NAS level scientists are probably the equivalent of Bishops in status and authority. The figures you link to are for AAAS, which even high school students can join, members are the equivalent of any practising Roman Catholic.

[cacian]

What if everything is material? Then *everything* is science's business. As many scientists are thorough-going materialists, for them *everything* is their business, even including mystical experience:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6664802



Scientists only go looking for things they believe have a good chance of existing. For instance, there were good theoretical reasons for thinking that that the Higgs particle existed, so it was worth looking for. Scientists don't wake up and think, "What shall I look for today?", and stick a pin in the Dictionary of Mythology. "Ah, Medusa, today, better use the reflecting telescope!" They wouldn't get many grants if they took that approach.

I am surprised at that . religion is big. how is that not a good chance of existing. a particle is tiny and so is big bang. it does not make sense.

[mal4mac]

Yeah... all them there science guys are atheists. Occam, Aquinas, Bacon, Wilkins, Boyle, Ray Linnaeus, Owen, Mendel, Pasteur, Lister, Herschel, Newton, Brahe, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Joule, Faraday... buncha atheists, ever' one.

Knowledge advances.

Before Newton, even the greatest scientists would have failed the exam on the laws of motion & Gravity. Since Darwin, "the argument from design" looks as convincing as Aristotle's explanation for falling bodies. Why stop at Faraday? Here's a list of great atheist scientists since Darwin:

Edison, Einstein, Freud, Bohr, Bethe, Dirac, Chadwick, Schrödinger, Turing, Oppenheimer, Chandrasekhar, Feynman, Alfvén, Watson, Crick, Anderson, Dawkins, Hawking, Penrose, Higgs.

Can you produce an equivalent list of believing scientist since Darwin?

There are examples of atheist scientists from earlier eras, but you usually find they were persecuted. For the top scientists it often came down to a choice: "Pretend I'm a believer and get a top job at Oxford, or remain in obscurity (or worse!)" In 1691 Edmund Halley (the comet guy!) sought the post of Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, but, due to his well-known atheism, was opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who controlled the chair.... a bit like Dawkins having control over appointment of the Pope! The post went instead to David Gregory (who?)

I am surprised at that . religion is big. how is that not a good chance of existing. a particle is tiny and so is big bang. it does not make sense.

The big bang is big now. Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is big but scientists don't go looking for the ghost of Christmas past.