God Didn't Create Universe

[thranx]

highwaystar101 said:

thranx said:

highwaystar101 said:

pizzahut451 said:

those were all Gods. And tooth fairy is not a God. So you cant comapre tooth fair to a god/gods. That list of yours only proves my point

I know they're all gods. I only provided that list because you deemed the tooth fairy a bad example because nobody ever believed in it*, so I gave a short list of gods which are now considered mythical. I thought maybe it was a more appropriate example than the tooth fairy

All the examples I gave were once believed in by people as much as god, but are now considered mythical. I think it fits in well with Serious frusting's statement and the criteria you deemed to be acceptable if I just replace the tooth fairy with one of those examples...

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as Thor"

People used to believe in Thor but don't now, so now it keeps SF's original idea, but conforms to your criteria of having to have once been believed in too.

Either way, if you want a non god example, how about dragons? People were convinced that dragons existed, but now they're considered mythical.

"Why are people so hung up on religion in these forums. In my opinion anything to do with god is as believable as dragons"

But to be brutally honest you're just moving the goalposts because both Thor and the tooth fairy are valid examples. 

(*which is something I would argue as millions of kids believe in the tooth fairy, like adults worldwide believe in god(s))

How many chemicals have science at one time said to be safe, only later to be proven harmful? How many times have science been used incorrectly and thrown out as fact? Science is just as bad as getting it wrong. Until science can start making advances without mistakes I will not take scietific "facts" as gospel. I prefer to wait till they can actually fully explain what they propose, until then its just theory, as so much religion is.

What the hell are you on about?

A. It has nothing to do with what I was saying, it was just a random attack on science.

B. It's just completely false.

Our knowledge of how semiconductors work gives you the computer you're typing on, our advances in medical technology is the reason that you're expected to live ~75 years and not ~30 years, our knowledge of general relativity allows instant communication around the world because it allows satellites, our knowledge of materials has allowed us to build better tools and shelters. Without scientists like Norman Borlaug even feeding yourself would be a difficult task in this world. I could go on all day.

Is science the bogeyman? Is science out to get ya? Is science as good as getting it wrong?

If you want to stop using science that's "getting it wrong", then live in a world of infant mortality rates out of control, where basic medicine doesn't exist, where people live in grass huts and where even feeding yourself is a task which will take up the majority of your day. Because that's what the world would be like without science.

Yes sometimes there are mistakes in science, but then again scientists can make the occasional mistake just like everyone, but the gross product of their input is so staggeringly positive I don't think I could even describe it.

So tell me, how would your life benefit without even the basic comforts you take for granted? You wouldn't even be able to make this point to me without science.

You want to point to someone like Thomas Midgely Jr and shout "All science is wrong", then get rid of all the areas of your life that depend on scientific advances first and then say it.

...

And I don't take scientific facts as gospel, that defeats the whole point of science. seriously, go and be a scientist for a few months, you'll understand in a second. Science is not about accepting things, it's about asking the questions that need to be asked.

Your grossly incorrect use of the word theory and the way you say they shouldn't publish something until they can fully explain what they propose just highlights how little you know about the scientific process.

I'll just add that I am religous and scientific. I am not trying to debunk what hawkings has said in rgards to grivity and time, I am just saying it is not the end all be all answer of our creation, and to try to use it to dislodge people religouse beliefs is not right.