we are having a debate based around the underlined question. So, let's stage a classic 4chan argument, and I will use the points and arguments you guys make no matter how bad they are
>>55500413
God was never used as an explanation for everything, God is used to explain events not "sufficiently" explained by science that aren't deemed worthy of disproving due to the needs of society.
This can actually have a positive effect on scientific progress, as it can shift scientific focus to more essential areas. For example, if the Romans focused their studies on astronomy and evolution instead of engineering then they wouldn't have been one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever seen.
I don't understand what the point of this debate is. The existence of science is not necessary in order to pose an explanation that does not invoke God.
>>55500413
We've always had science to one degree or another. Science continually proves itself to be wrong (flat earth, etc)
Isaac Newton was a religious man. Many other notable scientists were as well.
>>55500413
I don't really understand the cognitive exercise behind this question.
Necessary? When was it ever necessary? When I was a kind it might've been, I guess, because mental capacity. Invoking God sounds like something a Christian Mystic does.
Is it necessary to explore God through the use of science? Yes.
Has that been the goal of 80% of all scientists throughout history? Yes.
Have the majority of Nobel Laureates been Protestant for the last 100 years? Yes.
Would Neil deGrasse Tyson have a Nobel Prize by now if he weren't an atheist? No, he's not as talented as everyone thinks he is. Maybe it's because he's exploring the skies for ET and not YHWH. The fine tuning of the universe and physical laws suggests the presence of either.
What was the question? I still don't understand. Can you give an example how you think this might be answered?
>>55500413
What denomination?
That looked heretical to me
>>55500413
Coexist, because our creator gave us inquisitive minds and opposable thumbs.
1. Scientists invoke religion when they run out of empirical evidence (or funding, whichever comes first)
Reference: "The God Particle"
2. Blind faith without reason = "devout" yahoos drinking poison, marrying 9 year olds, refusing to leave the stone ages behind, etc.
>>55500661
>Implying the ultimate Christian argument isn't that "Well God made those scientists to that they can discover things"
>>55500413
What if science is just gods way of giving us a blueprint to understand his creation?
>>55500663
The question is pretty much worded as a gimmie for the negative side.
>>55500413
Science is physical
God memes are metaphysical
Unless you actually believe you'll run into god on a distant planet, religion doesn't suppose to be a replacement for science anymore.
Now, of course it used to be that way, but science has thoroughly explained, at least to moderate satisfaction, the natural phenomena about the universe. Is it perfect? No.
But now religion recedes into the metaphysical, where it stays for the people who need it.
Is it possible that a coder wrote the universe and hit enter to start the big bang? Sure, but it's impossible to study that hypothesis and indefensible as a fervently held belief.
It's just an idea, nothing more.
>>55500413
science can't explain faith, faith can't explain the empirical world.
>>55500413
Science is a tool for exploring the Creator's creation and figuring out how it all works. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging it has a Creator, but as sons and daughters of reason we should take joy in discovering how Creation works - Ignorance is not a virtue.
>>55502311
But he did. He gave US the power to use the world anyway we want. As long as my genetic army of clones doesn't worship me I'm completely fine.
Whether or not it's necessary has nothing to do with whether or not it's true.
Historically, it was never "God did it" anyway in the sense they're claiming. There was always an explanation.
Example:
>what they tell you
"Maggots are caused by God."
>what actually happened
"Maggots spontaneously generate from dirt, and God made it that way."
>what is said today
"Maggots are born, reproduce, and die, and they have been formed by a process we call natural selection, and God made it that way."
>>55500413
The Judeo Christian tradition quite purposefully makes God separate from nature. There's very little "this is why this natural thing happens" kind of mythology in it, with the most major one being why people die. Otherwise it's just "God did this"
>>55500413
Science can't explain how the virgin Mary got pregnant without fucking Joseph.
Science BTFO
>>55500413
Google "God of the gaps" paraphrase wiki, cite Augustine , easy A op
Even as a loaded question, I don't see how you can use God to explain everything. Some things, maybe, but we understand a lot more about the world now that has, yes, been explained by science.
>>55500413
You do not need God, but moral objectivism is the correct path, whether it be secular or religious. Nihilists can fuck right off.
>>55500674
>Isaac Newton was a religious man.
This devout Issac Newton meme is shit. He was into alchemy and was branded a heretic when the church found his private writings
>>55500413
Science doesn't remove the possibility of god as the solution.
Science starts of with assuming as little as possible and works upwards from that point.
If god is the answer to the question, that is the answer they will reach. If there is a naturalistic answer to the question, then that is the answer they will reach.
>people thinking it's science vs god
>>55500413
my argument would be "Invoking god as an explanation to anything is pointless, like saying the sky is blue. Everyone already knows it's true.
>>55500413
but how can you explain the explanations??
>>55500413
The argument is going to be basically "but muh morals" since everything outside of human psychology the bible has clearly been shown to be wrong our irrelevant on.
The reason why you don't need religion to explain morality is because morality is determined by the culture and our genes. The bible is just one set of moral principles that our culture has come up with. It's not a source or an explanation, it's just a record of one version. At best you can use the reasoning in it to argue for some principles, except that most of the reasoning in it is "because it says do here", so it's not very useful for even that.
An actual explanation of morality will come from reverse engineering the brain and understanding both how we pick what is moral, and also what effect those choices have on others. For example we now know about the effects of physical child abuse such as rape. The people who wrote the bible probably didn't even know there was anything like that, which is why child rape is condoned in it repeatedly.
>>55502448
>>55502448
>>55502448
>>55502448
>>55502448
>>55502448
Why can't we have both?
It was never necessary to invoke God as an explanation to anything.
>>55502448
Well yeah.
I mean, why do the laws of physics apply?
Yes we know photons exist and they go between masses and draw them together.... but why?
>>55503600
That's the point dude. He was not afraid to tell the church they were wrong but he still had Christian faith.
>>55503600
Can't we just blame that on the mercury poisoning?
>Study the creation through a microscope
>Expect to find the creator
>Get shitter shattered.
>Muh Syinse
Twenty Fifteen.
>>55507777
>He was not afraid to tell the church they were wrong but he still had Christian faith.
He never had Christian faith to begin with. Nigga was into alchemy more so than he was into physics, unless you are saying alchemy is part of the Christian faith
>>55508693
Well Alchemy is a form of Chemistry (a metaphysical form, but a form nonetheless). Actually, its the metaphysical nature of alchemy that could bring it into the Christian Faith.
Hell, one could argue that Jesus was an alchemist if you really wanted to. Universal Elixer (rising from the dead, healing the sick), changing the chemical composition of water into wine, etc.
They're not exactly mutually exclusive.
>>55509318
>Not knowing alchemy had roots in western mysticism long before Christianity was even created
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus
Christian revisionism is just pathetic
>>55509602
>that "could" bring it into the Christian Faith.
Literally used the word COULD because I'm not saying it's true or false. I'm saying you could argue it due to the natures of both. I'm not saying one came before the other, nor am I advocating this as some sort of re-imagining.
All I literally said was that it COULD be brought into the Christian faith and one COULD argue that Christ was actually an alchemist. (Especially if alchemy was established well before Christ lived)
So I fail to see how this is "pathetic" in the least, when you are the one that didn't understand what I said?
Christian faith evolves. It changes through the years, so even saying it's a form of revisionism is, well it's kind of silly since its nature is to modify itself.
There's nothing wrong with filling in the gaps of shit you don't understand, it doesn't even have to make sense.
Put do, please explain, how this logic somehow makes a fucking galactic leap to THERE'S THE BEST THING EVER THAT WAS WHAT DID IT
Yeah a big beardy man in the fucking sky or his other fabricated representation is the explanation for shit you're too infantile to work out yet.
I mean most scientists just settle at "we don't know I suppose" and then move on, but Theistfags are all like MUH GOD.
It can't just happen because it happens, it's some made-up surrogate parent that explains it.
Fucking flawless logic, right?
This is why nobody likes religious idiots, because even when they get philosophical they are literally incapable of thinking outside this narrow idea that they assume is some of default, when there is no convincing argument that a god exists or that the mere concept is even healthy in the first place.
![living-waters-science-confirms-bible[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1Q5Jf0Q.jpg "living-waters-science-confirms-bible[1].jpg")
>>55500413
What has science explained that the bible hasn't explained first? The bible was right about tonnes of shit before 'science' had the slightest clue.
Why should we trust anything science has to say over God?
>>55509904
And I am saying it can never be. Your faith can evolve sure, but it can never claim something that is much older than it. What makes it worse is that alchemy was later influenced by gnostics way before there was even christian alchemists
To even entertain the possibility is pants on retarded and just reeks of desperation to prove that Newton was a devout christian
>>55500413
You're late for school,Jeremy.
