@Villerar
No, at the present time, a number of things can't be explained by science. But that number decreases every day, and religion sure doesn't clarify these things any further. Think of it this way.
???>Big Bang>Universe
Yes, we don't know what made the Big Bang suddenly occur, but watch what happens when we fill the gap with God.
???>God>Big Bang>Universe
Really, we're just adding yet another mystery. If you're going to spout that "everything came from somewhere" crap, then you better explain where the hell God came from.
Here's some food for thought:
When you realise why you dismiss Gods other than the one that your religion specifies, you will realise why I dismiss yours.

Too bad I am not thinking of it that way, thinking like that is not scientific, it is scientism, which is a strand of philosophy for simpletons. Science can only study the physically observable. Certainly we can possibly extend our scope, but it is absurd to speculate that humans can transcend the scope. We are physical observers and the scope may increase, but we cannot look beyond the physical.

All physics have underlying metaphysics. You can regard these the axioms. It is only possible to demonstrate or falsify things within these axioms, one cannot prove axioms without the axioms, nor can one move outside the axioms of science without leaving science and entering philosophy.

I'm fine if he has naturalism as his belief, but he cannot use science to prove that there is no God. That he resorts to the multiverse to 'prove' his point of naturalism is not science, but philosophy and it is not new but trite philosophy. Even with the multiverse, which is used by atheists to address the fine-tuning of the universe, there have to be causes of the condition of the constants, because randomness is not a cause, it is the indeterminability of the effects of the cause and a very effective concept for tool when applied to statistics. So it cannot be called on as if it is science at all.

Also you are being intellectually dishonest here by only mentioning successes. There have been plenty of failures in science and it is just as important to note them as the successes. What that tells us is that science needs to look at the observations again and again and that science is a very human enterprise, tentative and mutable.

That some scientists are happy to abuse science for their own philosophical pet theories is not a surprise, it has been done over and over. Fundamentalists claim they have science on their side, Marxists claimed they have science on their side, New Atheists claim they have science on their side. What am I to make of this? Science does not substitute philosophy, it works within the scope of philosophy.


I do not claim everything comes from somewhere, but I am adhering to the principle of causality: every physical effect has a cause. Without this assumption, science becomes rather useless. We need to assume causality and other kinds of consistency for science to work.

However, there is no reason why something metaphysical cannot be uncaused. God would be uncaused, which is perfectly possible, but not in our universe if we are to respect causality. So my view would be:

God > ??? > Big Bang > Universe

with God being the first cause (but also the constant cause, sustaining the universe). What do you think is objectionable about an uncaused, timeless God? Causality and time are physical principles (rather principles that underlie physics), not metaphysical laws (these principles are metaphysical, but we cannot assume they extend to metaphysics).


Do you seriously think this "food for thought" is new to me? Let me pose a question in return: Do you think there is a difference between the Abrahamitic God and other deities? Could this be relevant?

Ha, I knew you'd eventually sink to the level of "science can't prove he DOESN'T exist". That's just stupid and self-contradictory, because nothing can prove that he does.
At no point did I suggest or even imply that science is success after success. Quite the opposite. Hell, some of the biggest discoveries STEM from mistakes.
"God > ??? > Big Bang > Universe"
Why assume that if God just exists with no cause when you clearly dismiss the concept that the Big Bang just happened with no cause? And honestly, I can't believe you just asked what is objectionable about a timeless non-physical God. That in itself is just completely ridiculous and there is absolutely no piece of evidence on this Earth or beyond that such a being exists, or ever could exist.
And no, I think while Christianity only speaks of one God, that one God essentially consists of the properties that Monotheism's three God's are said to have. But that is irrelevant. You've just picked a religion that happens to have a similar deity to yours. They probably have the same origin. What I said was more-so referencing the Gods that are radically different to yours. Take the Greek or Roman Gods for example.

Unless he actually told us himself you mean?



Anyway, I just went through a list of religions and as to why I dismiss them (among other things) just for leisure

Buddhism: Teaches that you need to burn off bad karma in order to reach Nirvana, where you cease to exist as an individual which is apparently a good thing. This in itself does not appeal to me. I love living and the whole concept of "life is suffering" just doesn't make any sense to me. Any universal truth should be

The main qualm that I have however is the fact that they also believe that if Buddha wanted to (which Buddhists believe he didn't), he could have lived forever. Buddha also brought two or three others into complete enlightenment whereas nowadays no Buddhists can reach this state.

The problem? Buddha, being alive, was in the best possible position to burn off his bad karma. Apparently he was an amazing teacher and therefore, should he be alive today, he would have been able to bring lots of people to enlightenment and I can't think of a better way to burn off bad karma. Clearly, Buddha's either
a) Not as wise as he claims
b) A liar
c) Mistaken

Any one of those three points would be sufficient to stop me being a Buddhist.

Islam: Builds upon Christianity and Judaism, however says that the Jews and Christians changed the original texts and that Mohammed was inspired by God and shown all the flaws of the previous texts. Historians however have found sources that have been put in the bible before they were arranged into the books of the law (for example, the first five books of the bible were originally four books with the information rotated to be chronological and understandable: we have those four books whereas during Mohammed's time, they probably would have been ignored). Therefore the grounds on which Mohammed claimed that his followers should listen to him are false, therefore you probably shouldn't listen to him.

Hinduism: Hindus believe there is no absolute truth. None. But what they believe is true. One of those two statements has to be false (or both)

Another one: Hindus believe we don't actually exist. Cogito Ergo Sum anyone?

Now I know there are a lot of Hindus and it's hard to take down all of them, but those two points cover a large range of Hindus.

Judaism I can't really do because I can't reject that without giving reasons for what I believe as I reject Judaism on the grounds of my current religion, which would undoubtedly lead to a flame war.

None of these points really can be used to reject Christianity.



Have you read the book "Flatland" by any chance?

I'm curious to what sinking there is involved here, I have never claimed science can prove God exists. I have been standing on that position for quite some time now. However, it is clear that science is perfectly consistent with the existence of a rational, loving Creator, that belief is possibly the reason why mediaevals showed interest in natural philosophy.

That is not to say I am a fideist. I'm certainly not, but there is a difference between proof and evidence. There is clearly evidence of God and arguments in favour of God, but one cannot objectively draw conclusions from that.


I know you didn't claim that, my critique was not that you claimed science is success after success, my critique was that you only mentioned those successes. This can lead people to implicitly believe science is driven by necessary progress, but nothing is necessary in science. Science has been radically different in the past, that different that we would not call it science.


I would say that the crucifixion, burial, the empty tomb and post-mortem sightings of Jesus are quite a strong rational case for a Resurrection. Actually, I would think it to be the most probable explanation. So I think there is some evidence in that respect. But I did not intend to discuss apologetics here, I intended to discuss science.

But it seems I'll have to hop to my rather basic understanding of philosophy before doing any such thing. As far as we know, such a being could perfectly well exist, there is nothing contradictory to an uncaused, timeless God. Causality is a physical property as I said before, there is no reason why God would have to be caused. I would also like to inform you that the rejection of metaphysics would also entail the rejection of absolute morality, making human rights nothing but a cut-off flower morality.

Now to a little more science, it is silly to suggest the Big Bang is uncaused (or the universe), since both are physical! If one rejects that the universe as a whole is subject to physics (including causality!), one would have to argue why everything within the universe can be expected to be subject to causality. The extremely low enthropy of the early universe is another point that would have to be addressed.


... I asked you to compare the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to non-Abrahamitic deities. But okay, Greek and Roman gods. I think a very strong difference with those is that they are said to be physically present on earth, while the Abrahamitic God only is by exception rather than the rule. If you read into them, you will also note a very strong difference in motives. But the biggest turn-off is morality. Christian morality is intrinsically egalitarian, while Greek/Roman morality intrinsically is not.

I have another few objections, but I'm not sure whether you want me to elaborate on other things instead.

I basically stick to the view that there has to be something that exists or has existed without cause and I find it a lot more likely to be an all-powerful being then anything else.

Do Sikhism next!

I'm not even remotely familiar with Sikhism.

Except for the fact that they wear turbans

And that they have a fairly large golden temple as their important holy site.

universe is there because it is
we're a bunch of working organs made of cells made of molecules made of atoms
not like we're gonna find anything out in our lifetime unless they invent brain uploading
so i'll just jack off and sort of enjoy life

Most badass Eastern religion. I'd say the most badass Western one goes to Norse religion.

They're fully Sikh you mean?

Why even bother arguing over the timeless RELIGION vs SCIENCE debate? It's useless, as both sides are hardheaded. I must admit, I completely agree with Tid, but i'm not going to dismiss any viewpoints.

....you do know that by accepting one of two conflicting theories you are dismissing the other right?

No, you shut up. ;~;