God&Einstein: Religion vs Science

[pretentious]

I believe science and religion can easily coexist. Science is about making predictions from patterns found in the observable universe and religion is about phylosophical explaination and guidance. The only problem a rational man can have with religion is when it makes falsifiable claims about the universe, and thus land in 'scientific duristriction'(i'm a fucking poet). Otherwise they can each mind their own business.

[cyberdrain]

Take science for what it can explain and religion for everything else? If all scientists did that, science would go no further. The whole reason they cannot coexist is because they explain the unexplained differently: for religion it is known and has to be believed, for science it is unknown and has to be found out. Therefore science challenges religion by existing. That doesn't mean one cannot believe what they want (they can) or cannot know or find out what they want (they can), just that both are incompatible.

[mllax31]

I would just like to clear a few things up, this first of which being that God cannot be proven through science, simply because of the nature of what God is. To suggest otherwise displays a flawed understanding of God. To explain this, I will need to make a qualifying statement on the nature of God. Now, there are rational* proofs for God, the one I will be using here is "the Unmoved Mover". Now, I'll assume that we all agree that the universe, all physical matter. or more simply, time and space initiated with the "big bang". This would mean that everything that is physical and exists within time began in that moment. Now, how could something that exists within time and space initiate time and space? I'm assuming that we all accept that nothing moves unless acted on by an outside force. So, if time and space were to be set in motion (the big bang), then something that was not physical, and did not exist within time must necessarily* have moved them. An unmoved mover. Something that was capable of tipping the first domino, without being a domino itself, and without anything else acting upon it. The Unmoved Mover is what Catholics recognize as God.
Now, if we accept this definition of God, we can see why it is silly to claim that since there is no scientific* proof for God, He must not exist. That argument may apply to Zeus, but not God. Next, I would like to address the claim I read earlier that God would not allow suffering, and should -with his infinite power- mind control everyone to be perfect, or something along those lines.
Now, if we accept that God is perfect, we cannot claim that he should eliminate suffering from the world. Suffering is the result of free will. God gave us free will so that we could choose* to love him. This is important to understand. If someone were told to say they loved you with a gun pointed at their head, and under the threat to be killed if they did not comply, would that statement of love for you mean as much as if they had chosen to say they loved you willingly? God gave us free will so that we might choose* to love him, as freely choosing makes it a higher form of love. Now that this is understood, the presence of suffering in the world may be addressed. If God gave us the power to choose to love him, then we must be able to reject him as well, otherwise we wouldn't have free will now would we? When we choose to love other things more than God, suffering is brought into the world. God gave us free will, which is intrinsically good, when used for its proper purpose: loving God. It is through our own actions that we corrupt its purpose and hurt ourselves and those around us. To add another point, if God is perfect and gave us free will, then if he had to go back and utilize control over us, wouldn't it imply that he had made a mistake? To suggest that a perfect being would contradict itself is to misunderstand a perfect being. Lastly, i would like to address the nature of good and evil.
I'm just going to jump to the point, as this is too long already. Evil is the absence of good, just like cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is "present" when an object or an action lacks some good that it should have had. Now, what is good? Good is that which fulfills its purpose.For example, a spoon with a gaping hole in it would not be a good spoon, as you couldn't use it as a spoon. The next logical question to ask then is what is something's purpose? Something's purpose is to do that which makes it unique. A spoon is a spoon because it scoops liquid to be placed into the mouth. Nothing else does this. Let's not get into arguing on the different types of spoons, their matter is different, but their form is the same. So good is that which fulfills its purpose, and evil is the absence of good. Now we can backtrack to the free will argument for suffering. If free will's purpose is for loving God, then when we choose to love other things more than God (such as ourselves, money, etc.) then we're not using free will for it's purpose, and evil is a necessary consequence of that.
Now, I'm afraid I've grown tired of typing, and have attempted to explain a topic that books have been written on in a few paragraphs. Please feel free to peruse my line of reasoning, and take careful notice of the fact that I never once cited the Bible as a means of knowing God. I hope your perspective has been broadened in the pst few minutes you spent reading, and I hope you have a nice day

[tremor77]

Religion (as adopted by humans, on earth) has no place in the universe, as it is universally stupid. It is a tool of social control and an appeasement to the weak minded who cannot fathom the enormity of existence and our insignificance within it.

That said, "god", or the concept of a greater unseen entity that brought into being the universe in which we live, which can neither be proven nor dis-proven by any scientific method of which is available to us at this time, is certainly plausible.

You must disassociate the very earthly and man-made social construct that IS "religion", from the conceptual entity that IS "god". They are not the same. Once you've made this disconnect, science becomes reality, science becomes religion, and "god" becomes a delightful and debatable topic of intelligent thinkers.

Removing the name even becomes more constructive, no God, Elohim, Yahweh, Allah... just, "the power behind the creation of our universe". Specifically, "our" universe. Why? Because what about other universes, and the universes that encapsulate those universes? As sure as we now know that we are not the only planet, nor the only solar system, nor the only galaxy, there is certainly more universes. The multiverse, surely, must exist. To me, it's only logical.

Finally, so some grand and ultimate power must have created the universe, something from nothing, which as we know it, is against the laws of physics. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Yet, "god" somehow managed to accomplish this feat.

The only thing that keeps me awake at night though, is...

If "god" created the universe, who created "god"?

We created "god" in our minds and imaginations as a social construct.

Therefor, did we create the universe?

Is this all a figment of our own collective conscience?

Do I even exist....

[cyberdrain]

The only thing that keeps me awake at night though, is...

If "god" created the universe, who created "god"?

We created "god" in our minds and imaginations as a social construct.

Therefor, did we create the universe?

Is this all a figment of our own collective conscience?

Do I even exist....

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

[I-mUnidentified]

I haven't read all the comments so forgive me if I repeat things.
I believe in both. Why can't both completely different things exist at the same time. Think about knowledge as a map. What we don't know in science, religion and belief fills in for us. And what religion doesn't explain the scientists of the world can work to explain.
But think about creation, life, and the atom. We have theories and explanations for how they came about, but no matter how much you explain and make excuses there is no origin point. Where did that atom come from? God? Another universe? Scientists say that they don't have the equipment to see or observe what they want to, but make up crazy theories and guesswork and you are still at square one. Basically we can't see where we originated and we might never see it
God is undefinable and beyond our comprehension, but he still gave us life. Perhaps the bible got it wrong and God really just threw particles into the universe and said, "Heck! Let's see what happens when I do this!" It's human nature to believe in some higher being. We know that science is a definite thing, but religion is always a topic that is up to you to decide. I support both sides and ask kindly for scientists and believers to see both sides of the argument and support each other.