Wasn't sure which department to put this under, so ehh - when in doubt, go with water cooler.
The following video is the subject of attention:
That's right. We're back to the whole "atheist/agnostic" thing again. Can we know that God doesn't exist? Nope. Neither the spaghetti monster or the orbiting saucer, etc.
That said, my feeling on this debate is that science doesn't infact refute God, except by proxy. There are many on here who reject the idea of anyone being agnostic on such a topic - I myself don't mind the term, for the following reason:
6,000 years ago, it would have been far more astute to accredit "God" to the things we couldn't explain. After all, there were a LOT of things we couldn't explain. Eons later, and we're at a strange place where we know all sorts of things, but we also know that we might not necessarily know them - you know what I mean? ;)
My point is this: science doesn't directly refute/disprove God, but the ideas and explanations it offers (many of which we currently have adopted as "fact") refutes God. In essence, scientific method refutes God, but providing a framework with which to examine any God claim/claimant. The process by which we evaluate these claims has changed the most, and simply by virtue of God no longer being necessary for the things we know, as well as the knowledge that he isn't necessary for the things we will eventually solve, God is no longer a relevant concept. There are a good many things we can be "agnostic" about, but that said, God isn't even worth considering or deliberating about.
Those are my thoughts - what are yours?
Sounds about right to me.
You can't refute the claim that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, right? But if I were to make the claim that the dragon kept my garage warm, that you could refute, given the right tools and access to my home.
The same thing is true for mythical gods. To prove they don't exist might be outside of the realm of science. But it was shown almost 250 years ago that lighting is independent of their works.
Exactly right. I wrote on another post I truly believe that many people would lose their faith if they simply read through the entire bible, front to back, through even a remotely critical lens. This would be especially true if they forced themselves to actually proffer a solution to all of those "god did it" questions that they simply can't answer, therefore don't even bother attempting.
Science and technology only really got going in the last century and as fast as blinking in relation to how long homos have been around. It's a hybrid way out of synch with the common man's mentality.
Really scary that they are on the cusp of dna fiddling and the knowledge and means is out there on the internet. Too late to keep it governed by selected scientists. The the tampering with global warming is going to cause real havoc 20-30 years from now droughts and floods despite talk of controlling the weather patterns which is also out of synch with subtletys of mother nature one thing effecting something else.
A hell of lot of relevant stuff that should be thought about more deeply considering the scientific power available is skipped in sublimation towards a superman displaces man's accountabilty. The twisting of ethics to fit greed or justify war-mongering -religion is quite flexible in this respect.
God not a relevant concept in the future When is that? In a thousand years or two? I doubt science can accelerate hand in hand with religion on board without repercussions..Does agnosticism merely create indecision inadvertently irresponible in its own way?
The west seems on track with dispelling religion within a 1, 000 years but definitely not the east and they are getting scientic technolgy too.
Commas, you need commas in your life.
Guilty as charged. However where is the common sense among designers of this kindle to stick THE most common punctuation mark in top left hand corner of the key-board, on a bar?.And i have to hit space for the bar to come up. Meanwhile the dot is spot on, bottom right, as another letter. .....