Religion & Spirituality
Old Testament
Sentence and Word Structure

If we were to assume God created the world how could scientists not recognize that their own intelligence and drive for knowledge were possible only for their creator?

535455

Answer

User Avatar
Wiki User
02/27/2013

Opinion

The majority of scientists do believe in God.

Opinion

Whether or not God made the world, there is no reason why scientists should somehow automatically recognise the truth or falsity of the statement that He did. Also, it is not a case of scientists not believing that He did - there are scientists who do and scientists who don't. Remember also that thinking He made the world is not the same thing as creationism. Creationists are in a minority among both religious scientists and non-religious scientists. The belief you seem to be asking about is a different thing, and is probably held by a majority of humanity, given that over 95% of the species are religious.

Opinion

Scientists do not read the Bible. They are afraid that if they read the Bible they will be wrong (which they will) and have to change their ways and/or be extremely embarassed. Their conscience and the Holy Spirit (who is God) shows them that they are wrong and the Devil who has them in his power stirs them up to resist the Holy Spirit and tells them not to read the Bible. Inside they know they are wrong (or they once did, but quenched the Holy Spirit and stuck a fist in His mouth) BUT they will not repent.

Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. -- Luke 13, 3 NIV

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. -- Romans chapter 1, verses 18-20 NIV

{This kind of response is known to some of us as Argumentum ad baculum, or argument by the stick. In this case, believe in the Bible because if you don't (according to the bible) you will burn in Hellfire. Some of us find a greater Hell in being forced to believe a lie. E pur si muove!}

Opinion

Scientists take the question of Is there a God? as though man created everything. They are like those people in the Bible who have Man's Wisdom and don't seek the wisdom and knowledge of God.

Opinion

There is no real/tangible proof that there is such an entity as God, who resembles a man and has the same emotional characteristics and prejudices. Science can prove that the Earth and the other planets orbits around the Sun and not as some religious scriptures testified that the Sun and Moon orbits the Earth. Science can prove that the earth is round and not flat as some religions testified. Through the practicality of science we can see far off galaxies but no imaginary place called Heaven or Hell. There is also no conclusive evidence to support Darwin's theory that the universe was created from nothing. No one has been able to prove beyond the reason of doubt the existence/nonexistence of a supreme spiritual entity that governs the universe. There is absolutely no tangible proof that there is such an entity as Satan either.

There is absolutely no tangible evidence that there is a Heaven or Hell.

Science can prove that the Earth and the other planets orbits around the Sun and not as some religious scriptures testified that the Sun and Moon orbits the Earth. Science can prove that the earth is round and not flat as some religions testified. Through the practicality of science we can see far off galaxies but no imaginary place called Heaven or Hell. If you want to see Hell then just look at some of the socially depraved countries of the world. There is no Hell at the center of the earth either just molten rocks (Magma/lava). The idea of Hell probably came from the vision of underground pits of Lava.

There is also no conclusive evidence to support Darwin's theory that the universe was created from nothing. No one has been able to prove beyond the reason of doubt the existence/nonexistence of a supreme spiritual entity that govern the universe. No religion has been able to explain their God's creation of the Dinosaurs. Religious leaders are found to be concocting fanatical stories to compensate for the shortcomings of their various scriptures. If a religious testament is based on truth then why are religious zealots always so busy trying to cover-up the exposed fabrications.

Opinion

Some say perhaps scientists as rational people must start from the assumption that there is no God before building up evidence that there is one. Who says there intelligence and curiosity was only possible through God? Perhaps these aspects are possible through a complicated group of chemicals and tissues in the brain that create the human mind. It is the human mind that then developed a theory that perhaps there is a higher power, such as God. For example, cats, pigs, trees, and shrimp do not believe that there is a God. God is a creation of the human mind and not a reality.

But in fact, God created the human mind because He loves us and wants us to have a happy life here on His earth. We see evidence in the lives of others that there must be a God.

Opinion

Neither God's existence nor lack thereof doesn't affect how we approach discovery in science. Hence God becomes just another hypothesis about how things are. Since scientists blame unexplained gaps and inaccuracies in our mathematical models on the shortcomings of our observations, we, instead seek out God's signature. An event that would be improbable even in the vastness of the universe.

Until then, scientists presume that either, a) God doesn't exist (called atheism) or b) God doesn't interfere with the natural world (called naturalism).

According to Genesis, when Adam and Eve bit from the fruit of the tree of wisdom, Yahweh cast them out of paradise. Clearly, He put the Tree too close to them in the garden and just said Don't! (as opposed to on top of Mount Kanchenjunga, or at the bottom of the Marianas, and not saying Don't go there! until we got close). So some of us think either Yahweh wasn't very foresighted or poor Adam and Eve were set up.

But scientific or philosophical inquiry into the supernatural, or the almighty is nothing new. While the Greeks were happily worshiping the Olympians, the really bright ones were speculating the true nature of the universe. Certainly, Gaea wasn't the indigestion of Chronos, and certainly mankind wasn't simply the ceramic plaything of a wayward titan. But then, the creator, the benefactor, the redeemer, the guardian are all roles that come into question.

So dissent from the scientific ranks from the mainstream faiths has been a problem (to the clergy) for a while. Galileo made quite a row when his Heliocentric model of the solar system (Heliocentric = placing the Sun in the center, rather than the Earth) created a direct violation to Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 ("The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." NIV) and Psalm 104:5 and Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." NIV).

The Holy Inquisition ("nobody expects...") didn't take lightly to Galileo's discoveries, and forced him to recant, lest he be tried for heresy ("show him the instruments!"). He confessed mobility of the Earth "to be at least erroneous in faith" and was sentenced to house arrest for life and not allowed to publish his scientific findings.

Nowadays, with the new resurgence of Creationism (with the new name of Intelligent Design Theory), the scientific community in the US seems to be in a bit of a conflict with those who wish to take the Bible literally. The Discovery Institute, a very unscientific activist organization with scientificky name has been pushing the rumor that Evolution is a "theory in crisis" the way that lay folk think of them, that is to say, a guess, and not one backed by a preponderance of evidence. Perhaps they feel Evolution is "at least erroneous in faith."

Indeed, in the rest of the civilized world, the debate regarding Creationism is dead, and they find the conflict in the US rather ridiculous.

But in this regard, the fight to preserve faith by denying strong scientific theory is, ultimately, a losing battle. By an overwhelming majority, scientists are succumbing to the evils of atheism. A survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences conducted by Larson and Witham show a continuing drop in the number of scientists who have a belief in a personal God (down to 7.0% in 1998) or some doubt or agnostic acceptance of inconclusiveness (20.8%), meaning 72% of the surveyed pool are atheist, and these are the top scientists in the world.

What is real? What is reality?

When it comes to the natural sciences (i.e. Biology, Chemistry and Physics), there is no such thing as absolute proof. Gödel in one of his more famous (mathematical) proofs (see below) determined that we'll never know everything no matter how much we learn. We'll never learn all there is to know about nature, or invent every technology there is. In the pure sciences (logic and mathematics) where proofs are beyond doubt, we can never develop a system that is immune to paradox. This is the stone too great for even God to lift.

But in the real world, there's the matter of perception: reality is to us only as we see it. Yes, objects of differing mass fall at the same rate, on the presumption that those objects exist at all. Descartes faced this very dilemma which he tried to solve with his argument that begins Cogito Ergo Sum or I think, therefore I exist. Plato imagined the same problem with his shadowbox thought experiment. Heisenburg lost marbles working out the nature of indeterminacy. We've seen it more recently enter the collective conscience in another form: What if we're in the matrix?

The more generic term for this idea is simulated reality, the possibility that we're all brains in jars hooked up to the biggest MMORPG ever, or as the Gnostics suspected, dreaming a common dream induced by the Demiurge. We may even be simulants, ourselves, virtual persons in a virtual world. If we were, would it look any different than if we weren't?

It is this question that drives us to, especially in the leading edge of quantum physics, search for glitches in the program, or Easter eggs (i.e. hidden signatures of the programmer), or tweaks with the Heisenberg principle. And this is exactly the same as searching for God. If a creator exists, we want to know about it, but we can't expect a book to tell us. Because, you know, humans can deceive; the Bible is a work written by humans (even if allegedly inspired by a deity); ergo, the Bible cannot be trusted.

Of course, the more places we look and don't find evidence of the divine, the more we figure we may never find it. God may exist, but like Russel's teapot, evidence thereof appears to be very, very improbable.

And hence, scientists don't presume their own intellect and curiosity are thanks to a serpent, a girl and a tree that bore seedless fruit.

Opinion

The reason why some scientists don't believe in God is mainly because of all the inconsistencies and falsehoods of religious scriptures.

Some religions proclaim that their God demands absolute obedience and servitude in exchange for a lottery ticket to a place called Heaven.

This God discriminates against those who don't follow his prescribed doctrines and the attendant authorities of his exclusive appointees. Anyone who dares to challenge his absolute and dictatorial authority is punished with eternal damnation in a dungeon called Hell. He also creates numerous disasters and plagues to annihilate those who do not find his favor. But he makes no effort to eradicate the scourge of vicious criminals who continue to terrorize good people in society. He blames the evil on his most powerful rival he calls Satan.

THE SAD STORY OF GOD the creator is just as sad as finding out that there really is no Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. It demonstrates that people are growing up to the scientific realities of life and leaving the Fairy Tales and Fantasies to the moviemakers.

There is no real/tangible proof that there is such an entity as God, who resembles a man and has the same emotional characteristics and prejudices.

Science can prove that the Earth and the other planets orbits around the Sun and not as some religious scriptures testified that the Sun and Moon orbits the Earth.

Science can prove that the earth is round and not flat as some religions testified.

Through the practicality of science we can see far off galaxies but no imaginary place called Heaven or Hell.

If you want to see Hell then just look at some of the socially depraved countries of the world.

There is no Hell at the center of the earth either just molten rocks (Magma/lava). The idea of Hell probably came from the vision of underground pits of Lava.

No one has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the existence/nonexistence of a supreme spiritual entity that govern the universe. If something exists it just has to be realized and experienced.