JogaBonito1502
Guru
- Messages
- 7,841
- Location
- U.S.
likewise, if there were intelligent life on another planet, there is a good chance that their religious scriptures would not mention us.
Can you assume that intelligent life in other planets would create a similar belief in what humans call religion?
Science and religion don't mix because they are two different mind sets. and science cannot think like religion.
If science can be used to back religion why can't science be used to "disprove" it?
we don't need to change the text of the bible to accept that there may be other life on other planets, but we do need to throw away a lot of scientific papers that say that life can't exist.
equally if life doesn't exist on other planets we'll need to throw away all the papers that say it can. (if we find out it's impossible to sustain life on other planets). but the bible and all other religious text (proper religions not cults) can remain unchanged.
This is assuming they make no reference to other forms of life, correct?
Science will tell you that the universe was created with a big bang...
The big bang is one of the theories. Stephen Hawking just wrote a new book where spontaneous creation of universes is completely backed by physics. Considering I haven't read it, I can't say whether I believe he is correct or not, nor do I have the stature to do so.
only an idiot scientists will tell you that there is no God.
(I say only an idiot scientist, because science is about having a theory and proving that theory, and showing how you prove that theory, in a sustainable repeatable way, only then can it be a scientific fact...).
Stephen Hawking's new book essentially disproves the existence of a good. Again, haven't read, can't confirm.
there is no proof that God didn't create the universe, indeed even if science could irrefutably prove that the universe was created in a big bang type scenario, they still won't ever know what created the big bang, and still can't prove that that's just not how god created the universe.
How did God come to be?
it's only when some scientist comes along and tries to take a 2000 year old book that's been translated from different languages influenced politically over the translations, prone to human error in the translation and written over the course of hundreds of years anyway and tries to treat it like some kind of research paper that there are problems...
What if all these scientific speculations came before any religious texts. Would your stance still be the same?
Since you felt free to state your opinions, I'll say one thing regarding my opinions. What factual evidence is there to prove religion, something that is utterly ambiguous, compared to science? How can you take a religious text and say that it is better than science when both are human made?