before you say anything please provide evidence to show how does quantum physics support god...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 12 2010, 01:28 PM

quantum physics does not tell you there's god,it's people that want to interpret the findings of science as evidence that support their personal belief so as to reduce the conflict between these two separate entities,it's easy and convenient to substitute god to the wonderings such as 'who is driving the conditions that eventually leads to evolution?','the atomic structure is so intricate,who made it?','the universe is so finely tuned,who did that?' etc,i can do that too,'god is driving evolution','god caused the big bang',etc... wow miraculous isn't it?god is behind all these!? but does science really tell you that god made and was the one that drove the process?the answer is NO...
I study science too but does it strengthen my faith?the answer is NO as well,instead i find it more and more convincing that god is not necessarily needed to explain everything and probably does not exist or absolutely does not exist,of course the study of philosophy does contribute a big part to my unbelief...
the reason i say this is purely on the ground to clear up your apparent misleading info that study science leads to a stronger faith,but then again,if i have to put a conclusion,i'd say it all comes down to individual to determine what's best that suits them,it's fine if you want to substitute god into the equation(that doesn't mean it's the truth),but does science really make one cling on to their faith more firmly?the answer is not necessarily...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 12 2010, 06:42 PM

no,in your previous reply you sounded like you could defeat an atheist by using science+faith,i'm telling you you're wrong if you really think this way...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 12 2010, 05:38 PM

no,what i was trying to say was faith(take it as religion in this instance) is a weak spot,it's easily refutable,vulnerable to attack and often tends to lead to your defeat whenever you want to run a debate with atheists...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 12 2010, 05:39 PM

just to add one thing,blaze_hit,you're entitled to have faith but it is a personal belief after all,there are more arguments against god that you can ever imagined,so do beg in mind that god is not true de facto when you insert it to explain the unknowns of science...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 12 2010, 03:43 PM

No,blade-hitz,a truth is not defined by opinions,a cat will not become a dog just because one says it's a dog,that is faith,not truth...

hey wait,which faith you're talking about?the one dictated by religion or what?

there is a difference bro...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 13 2010, 02:27 AM

In science,evidence matters the most,a proven scientific fact will not change it's validity simply because one holds a strong faith that tells him it's false,unless the objections are backed by evidence...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 13 2010, 03:34 PM

a scientific theory is not only backed by evidence,but it also fulfills one of the most fundamental principles of science,i.e.it's FALSIFIABLE,it can be proven wrong if counter evidence is found thereby leading scientists to abandon the theory,faith on the other hand is entirely unfalsifiable,the proponents of such ideology inclined to make unlimited predictions,almost not a single discovery can prove it false,and just in case you wonder,most of the objections come from creationists,their discoveries do not receive recognition in scientific community mainly because they do not adhere to scientific methodology,unable to meet the fundamental principles of science,make constant vacuous statements,and turns out most of the times they are involved in forgery...
----------------------
turns out that I've misconstrued your gist,my fault...
back to the point,if one wants to resort to a third party explanation,it has to based on evidence,not lead by opaque reasons...
I hope this clarifies my stance...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 14 2010, 03:28 AM

exactly...

I apologize if I over-reacted...

here,read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

mind to elaborate more?i'd like to see more of your baseless argument...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 13 2010, 08:46 PM

this notion is vacuous in the face of concrete scientific evidence,and the logic itself is flawed,it essentially implies something like this---our knowledge tells us that there is no flying spaghetti monster,but is it true?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 13 2010, 10:16 PM