I, personally, am a firm believer in the existence of God, and the more I study science, the more I realize how it actually proves it.
There was a quote in a movie I saw recently, and actually in the book that the movie was based on as well. It was Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. It went something like, "Science and religion are not at odds. There are just some things that science is too young to understand."
This is almost exactly how I feel about the situation. I think that Science in, say, 500 years, will have actually proved more of religion to be true. If science wasn't corrupted by scientists thinking that something can't be true if they haven't proved it yet, Science would agree with Religion, and vise versa.
If it is invisible, how do you know it is pink?It hasn't been proved that I don't have an invisible flying pink unicorn in my garage - so therefore - HERP DERP?
If it is invisible, how do you know it is pink?
Here in Australia we have just filled out census forms. On the question of religion I chose none along with an increasing number of fellow Australians. Unfortunately, the "none" answer has been jumped on by atheists as proof that there are a growing number of atheists. I find this disturbing as I have no wish to belong to the atheist (anti theist) "Religion" that tries to enlighten people to there way of thinking. Hawkings seems to belong to this group that tries to push their anti theist religion on people and, when I've heard him debate the subject, I find his arguments rather silly.
BTW, unicorns do exist but they are not pink. They are grey and we call them rhinoceroses.
Edit, anyone know the name of the program so I can try and download a copy?
The existence of a Supreme Being is a legitimate question in science. It is natural question that comes up when when inquiring into the origin of the universe or beginning of life. It's OK discuss or propose a theological explanation, as long as the researchers don't get involved in religion. Specifically, doctrine, proselytizing for a religious belief, avocacy of worship, trying to determine the purpose or mind of a Creator, church dogma, etc., should be off limits to a scientist engaged in determining first causes. Arguments that try to prove whether something just happened on its own, or was made to happen by a Supreme Being are within the scope of consideration of the existence of a higher power.
I did not see the Steve H. program, but I would have some sharp questions on how he came to his conclusions of the nonexistence of a Deity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?