Has Science done away with a need for God?

[robvalue]

So a computer programmer would count as a god, if our reality was a simulation?

Sure, we have an idea what a god might be, but no reference in anything real. And no indication anything like it exists, or can exist. And no way to verify it is what it is claimed to be, even if we found it.

Everyone means something a bit different, that's the problem, it's not well defined.

[Minimalist]

My definition of "god" is "a figment of your imagination."

[robvalue]

Considering some people call "the universe" God, that kind of screws it all up. I don't think they are suggesting the universe created itself.

And you can't exactly tell someone their definition of a god is wrong, when there is no actual "right" one, because it has no correlation with anything real anyhow.

The problem is, just because you define something, that doesn't mean such a thing is even possible, let alone does actually exist.

I'm gonna do a video soon regarding morality, and the idea that God being the "author" makes no sense at all. Gonna do it! Coming soon. Keep saying it. Coming soon.

[JesusHChrist]

My definition of God is "Cosmic Love Muffin".

[Kingpin]

Rob PM me when you post that video on morality, I'm interested in hearing it.

[Iroscato]

Oh hai Irreducible Complexity, I haven't seen you for a while. Have you gotten past the hurdles of 1) Presenting an example of anything in existence that can be explained ONLY by design and 2) Providing a decent answer to the question "who created the creator, the most complex being of them all?" that doesn't rely on a pathetic cop-out to justify? No?
Fuck off then.

[Thumpalumpacus]

God was no explanation for the Universe. "God" was shorthand for the parts we didn't know about.

[Whateverist]

Honest questions here guys, curious to know your opinions.  

1.  Do you believe that modern science has completely done away with a need for God as an explanation for the universe?

Yes, you shouldn't be looking to settle empirical facts any other way than by science.

2.  Does one need to choose between God and Science?

Of course not, at least not if you aren't looking to the bible or prayer to decide matters of fact.

But so long as you're content to let religion be about your own intra-experience, no harm.

[robvalue]

Rob PM me when you post that video on morality, I'm interested in hearing it.

Will do! Maybe tomorrow, if I'm feeling spunky. I've written my notes for it. (Garbled scribbles that looks like the suicide note of a psychopath.)

[Kingpin]

Oh hai Irreducible Complexity, I haven't seen you for a while. Have you gotten past the hurdles of 1) Presenting an example of anything in existence that can be explained ONLY by design and 2) Providing a decent answer to the question "who created the creator, the most complex being of them all?" that doesn't rely on a pathetic cop-out to justify? No?
Fuck off then.

I will answer your questions Iroscato.

First we must define what we mean by "design".  I can accept this definition: purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Given this definition I want to ask you a question as well.  If I write a letter to you that states "Iroscato is an intelligent person." Can you explain to me the semiotics of those words purely on the basis of the physics and chemistry of the ink and paper?  When we see word, language the only explanation is top down not bottom up.

As for the second question.  I have also given great thought to this because replacing one mystery with another is not a helpful way forward.  If you ask this question it shows immediately that you categorize God as created.  So you are talking about a created God.  If Richard Dawkins book was entitled, "A Created God's Delusion", I don't think many people would have bought it because I don't need him to tell me that created Gods are a delusion, we usually call them idols.  Your question is not valid because it rules out the explanation that is most likely to be true.  The question does not even apply to the definition of God, that is eternal supreme being, creator of space, time and all things.  The only way you can get anything out of it then in the negative sense is to assume that everything is in the category of being created which leads to positing in infinite series of causes.  

You say that "who created God" is a legitimate question, I don't think it is.  But let's assume that is.  You believe the universe created you, so who created your creator?