Categories
- Beauty & Style
- Computers & Tech
- Education & School
- Entertainment
- Environmental Issues
- Food & Dining
- FunAdvice Community
- Gaming & Games
- General Knowledge
- Health
- Home & Garden
- Jobs & Money
- Kids
- Love & Relationships
- Music
- Nutrition & Fitness
- Parents & Family
- Pets & Animals
- Politics
- Religion & Spirituality
- Science
- Shopping
- Sports
- Travel
- Writing & Literature
No one ever told them they not allowed. They just arnt alowed to use false information and flat out lies to prove it.
Faith is the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN - proof resides in the heart of the believer.
This is what im talking about Faith is not evidence. That is a lie.
sceince isnt about disproving God. Its a process in wich to discover our world with real provable repetable evidence. The fact that God cant stand up to the test is not the fault of science.
No, it literally can't be proven: Any failing test for the existence of a god you can devise can be explained away by claiming that the god influenced the results. And even if that weren't the case, you can't prove a negative, since you can come up with a virtually unlimited set of possible variations on a god or gods.
Of course, if there really is a god, he could no doubt prove his/her/its existence to us, but that assumes it's a _cooperative_ god.
Religion is much more personal than science could ever be. Why would you want to entangle the two. You do not prove religion, you simply believe in it.
Proving yourself is easy enough. And how would one do that? By believing in yourself right?
That's faith.
I'm not on any one side of this popular debate but I will say that science is as fundamentally unsolvable as the cause for faith.
Science is never solid and will never complete. Simple mathematics glimpses at this inevitability through math's foundational indefiniteness.
That's the beauty of science, pursuing that intangible theory of everything that's only there in order to truly stimulate the discoverers by telling them it's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg that they've solved. As soon as we discover something more, the number of things that we don't know is doubled. As questions are answered, they only really bring about the possibility to ask more question. It's like fanning the flames of knowledge.
I'm being awful philosophical about this and that's beside my usual self, but I just wanted to share my thoughts with everyone, if only briefly.
Answer this Question: "Why religion shouldnt be in science?"
Popular questions related to Why religion shouldnt be in science?
- Why does a pulse increase when standing from sitting?
- Why do attractive parents have ugly children?
- How to make a science project with pulleys levers and wedges?
- how can you tell if a compound is ionic or covalent? and WHY
- Why is ice less dense than water?
- If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
- What is the difference between a robot and an android?
- Why do scientists use the scientific method
- Drinking after eating a mint
- Why does chemical weathering occur more quickly in a hot climate?
- Who invented science?
- What is the journey of oxygen as it travels through the body
- What is excretion and why is it important
- Someone please explain light refraction...simply!
- Inference meaning
- Different Species of Humans
Share this question
Copy and paste this code:It will display on your blog or site like this:
Why religion shouldnt be in science?



Why religion shouldnt be in science?
Well I think religious people should be given the opportunity to prove their case. If science is what a lot look toward for explanations then logically religions should apply to science to prove their beliefs. The assumption you cant test god since you...
cant see god you cant prove he exists. My thought you dont see a murder when you investigate the murder happens so now you have to find proof that a murder happened. So really judging that you have to see something happen in order for it to happen is not true. Evidence left after it happens will prove that it happens so in my view religious people should be able to make a case using science. Dening them that is just wrong and also implying they cant show that something happened that you didnt see happen is possible because theirs evidence it did happen.
My questions
Why deny religious people the chance to prove their religion through science?
Why make a argument if I dont see it didnt happen when theres a lot that goes on everyday we dont see but happen?
Make your argument why religion cant be proven through science