Atheists, if God used science instead of miracles, then would you believe in Him? [Spirituality & Religion]

@th3r0n Ha ha!
I don't accept even one of them as a prophecy.
For anyone who can read human nature, every one of them is an unavoidable consequence of collective human behaviour.

Even prophesying a messiah is just a part of humanity's craving to be rescued. The Hindus promise endless avatars of Vishnu, and the Mahayana Buddhists prophesise a future Buddha.
All the "signs" of Jesus as messiah are based on loose interpretation, but none has ever been literally fulfilled. Jesus did not die by the sword as prophesied, therefore he could not be the messiah. There is no independent evidence (meaning outside the New Testament) that he rose from the dead.

@hartfire you find excuses and muddy the issue to make yourself look right

It won't be an excuse in the end, and you only bring judgement on yourself with your foolishness

You have no desire for the truth, only to hide from it

I'm done here

@th3r0n They're not excuses.

I'm not sure how you see my thoughts as muddying the issues, but it probably doesn't matter. To me, they're as clear as sunlight.

I was raised as an atheist, rationalist and existentialist.
Having studied all the world's religions when young, I discovered that don't have the capacity to believe anything that can't be perceived with the senses or the tools of science.

I don't mind how others judge me; if I did, I wouldn't participate here because I know that answering as I do will draw at least once response like yours.
I answer questions and posts only because I find it interesting to do so.

You and I have different notions of what defines truth.
For me, truth exists is fact and fact only; for you it is perceived through faith.

@SW-User Nope.. Faith = Trust which is distinct from Belief..

People with Faith in God have gone beyond believing that God exists..

@MiserableAtBest Well also what does "God using science" mean. Is he like publishing peer-reviewed papers or something.

@CountScrofula
Very studious deity indeed

@astrosandorbits
I love his books:
[i]The Dancing Universe[/i],
[i]The Prophet and the Astronomer[/i],
[i]A Tear at the Edge of Creation[/i],
[i]The Island of Knowledge[/i],
and [i]The Simple Beauty of the Unexpected[/i].

He's one of the best educators on how science thinks.
I feel immense gratitude for his work.

@hartfire You had mentioned that my first statement was not accurate. My first claim was that science can not measure the supernatural. You then agreed that science can not measure the supernatural.

The way you rephrased the question was rather fitting because that ultimately is what the supernatural is: in essence the supernatural goes beyond the laws of physics by which we know the world. For instance, whether or not one believes in the stories of Jesus healing others from the dead, could science measure this? It is supernatural in the sense that it defies natural laws of physics by which we use to explain the world.

As far as Gleiser goes, have you read his bit on opposition to atheism in that it goes against what science is?

I appreciate the chat :)

@astrosandorbits
Atheism does go against science in one respect only.

Science does not take a position on either the existence or non-existence of god; it tends to hold all things open. Even a hypothesis supported by overwhelmingly strong evidence is only considered likely to be true until something definitively disproves it.
God can neither be proved nor disproved by the methods of science since they apply only to the natural world.

Atheism holds that there is no god and that no god and nothing supernatural is possible.

As I said before in different words scientists are not necessarily atheists, and vice versa. They are too separate and independent sets of thinking which overlap.

I am an atheist and I support the findings and methods of science. I am not, however, of sufficient genius to be as open minded and flexible as the great physicists.

@hartfire Then where do they believe we came from if they neither believe science created humans nor the existence of God

@Lichocolati Atheists believe humans and all life evolved from the basic building blocks of proteins and RNA.
These complex molecules developed by the trillions in the sea because the right conditions existed: temperature and quadrillions of atoms which, by their valencies were attracted to bond with each other.
The proteins and RNA molecules clumped into primitive organisms. This process is still occurring in the sea and we have living examples of them now. They are actually more chemically complex than higher evolved cells, because one organism has to be capable of all the functions normally fulfilled by specialised organs.
Gradually cells with organelles evolved, including a nucleus in which the RNA evolved into DNA, and these could multiply by cell division. From this, the genetic origins of all life forms developed.
But the physics which makes biochemistry and biomechanics an automatic process was not the only influence. As life became more complex, competition, cooperation, symbiosis, and catastrophic events in the planet's geographic formation also played their roles.


Science [i]did not create life[/i] and has never made such a claim.
But through discoveries in multiple disciplines which confirm each other, it has strong evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Despite looking and cross checking, since Darwin's Theory of Evolution in 1859, the theory has developed, modified and become far more sophisticated. But so far, despite all the testing and experiments, all results tend to confirm the theory, and none has yet contradicted or disproved it.
The evidence is overwhelming on many levels.