Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Brakeman]

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies.

According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious.

Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious.

The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does.

But we are conscious so this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation?  Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove.

Bottom line? All conventional scientific arguments for the brain as the “place of consciousness” are futile and absurd. And this leads to something beyond scientific and philosophic materialism.

It leads to non-material consciousness.

So cellular cooperation and interactive effects are impossible now are they?

The computer you are typing on is composed of millions of components that can only work as a basic on-off switch, but in great numbers and cooperation, it will display this forum post when you surf to this internet address.

The idea that the "conciousness" is not connected to the brain cells has been thoroughly debunked. Mind affecting drugs are a good example of this. If your Mind was apart from your brain, it wouldn't be affected by the chemicals that affect the individual brain cells.

Why don't you try a little honesty instead? Is your income derived from hoodwinking little old ladies into giving you their Social Security check for tithes to your imaginary god?

[Michael Schubert]

Crap! Science can answer "agency" or "who" answers just fine. Science can peel open your brain and explain why the bio-chemistry of your blood is reacted upon by the brain to release serotonin and make you happy when you have tea.

This is ignored in science because "agency" usually isn't important information to us. Science doesn't waste time considering "why" water boils for you after they've established why water boils.

When we find any evidence that something in the universe was created by magic sparkly god fairy dust, then we'll go looking for your god. Until then we won't waste our time.

So does this mean that because science can explain everything about the internal combustion engine, that Henry Ford did not exist or create it?

Do you define your God as something magical that defies the law of physics? If so, then science doesn't say there is no God, but it does mean that science can't say anything about it. Science can only measure what can be observed and falsified. Theists can't provide any material evidence for (a) God, so atheists can't falsify their claims. If a magical God did create the universe or any other life, then scientists will never know that.

[RobbyPants]

I don't think you have that quite right.  It is not just that "science explains more about how the universe works and is better for making predictions about it than God is," it is that science actually provides some explanations and predictions, whereas God explains nothing.

Saying "God did it" is not an explanation; it is a pseudo explanation, a fake explanation, because it explains nothing at all.  It is merely pretending to have an explanation.  Take the rainbow, for example.  Saying "God did it" does not explain it at all.  

That's fair. I wasn't trying to imply that Goddidit is a valid alternative to evidence.

You state the universe had an origin which gets us to the Kalam argument.  We've all heard it before so I won't get in to it.  I find it too often that people reject an explanation from agency when it comes to the universe, but logic dictates that it must be so in order to answer the why question.

Actually, logic doesn't dictate an agent. That's just one solution to the problem; one theists find more satisfactory than atheists. It takes a bunch of things we know and bridges the gap by saying "so, there must exists a cause that exists outside of time". The problem is, we don't even know if it's possible for things to exist outside of time. We've never observed it. It's not a "logical necessity" so much as a hand wave.

Take an "alternative" I'm making up on the fly for illustration: We'll start with the same list of facts, and I'll fill the gap by saying "so, it must be true that causality doesn't work like we think it does at the 'beginning' of time.".

See? It "works". It solves the problem with something I spun up out of whole cloth. The only difference is, it doesn't fit neatly into a theistic world view.

[Brakeman]

Crap! Science can answer "agency" or "who" answers just fine. Science can peel open your brain and explain why the bio-chemistry of your blood is reacted upon by the brain to release serotonin and make you happy when you have tea.

This is ignored in science because "agency" usually isn't important information to us. Science doesn't waste time considering "why" water boils for you after they've established why water boils.

When we find any evidence that something in the universe was created by magic sparkly god fairy dust, then we'll go looking for your god. Until then we won't waste our time.

So does this mean that because science can explain everything about the internal combustion engine, that Henry Ford did not exist or create it?

Noo that's stupid! Science can tell us how the engine works, it can tell us why the crankshaft turns. Science can examine the evidence that Henry Ford existed, and it examine the evidence that henry Ford was not the original creator of the internal combustion engine.

We can use science to determine that leprosy is a bacterial disease that will not be cured or effected by the leprosy prescriptions written in the bible.

Science can determine that the religious god hoaxers are lying when they make claims of miracles where statues bleed, or burial shrouds capture magic images.

All religion has is lies in seemingly endless supply. Science has reality speaking for itself.

[abaris]

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?  

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

Depends on your god definition. Since it's christian, science has done away with Genesis, that's for sure. It also has made any humanocentric god highly improbable, since the world has been already old when humans emerged. If we're talking about some neutral higher force, it's the only remote possibility for anything divine left.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course for a creationist what we call naturally is what they call goddidit. Any chance of getting beyond a difference in how the terms are to be understood? If not, this conversation is thwarted at the most basic level.

Perhaps if the creation is explicated in terms we can understand, your question might find its answer.

So long as the explanation remains a hanging chad, the answer must devolve to interpretation, involving human fallacies and foibles.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That probably has a lot to do with the fact that while we see billions of people all around us producing a wide variety of things both simple and complex, any alleged creator god is conspicuous by its absence.

You can imagine god did it. I can imagine the Universe unfolding as a result of the physical properties under which it operates. I know which one has more evidence.

But that does not answer the question of the origin of those physical properties themselves.

That's because I'm comfortable saying "I don't know", while you clearly aren't I refuse to make up "just-so" stories in order to satisfy my curiosity. You should be, too.

We each share the urge to find answers, but I reject the idea of manufacturing answers when none are present.

[Kingpin]

[Crossless2.0]

But who, aside from theists determined to strawman their opponents, is saying the complexity we see is merely time + chance? Are the conditions at the cores of stars in which heavier elements are produced "chance"? Are the properties of chemical bonds "chance"? And if you are itching to get to the creationists' favorite canard that evolution is time + chance, you can slow that roll right now. Natural selection is the opposite of chance, a fact you can easily verify by studying the theory rather than accepting creationist talking points at face value.

[Kingpin]

No I never said anything about evolution. We are talking about origins of the universe. I am confident in saying "I don't know" because I don't believe any of us can KNOW with certainty, however I do believe we can logically deduce an answer based on the evidence presented.

It's like a criminal case, there is evidence presented and we don't KNOW for sure the crime was committed by this person but is there enough evidence to make that assumption?

The naturalist says that the origin of the universe is a cosmic accident. There was a "nothing" or a "singularity" that exploded and we just happen to be a by product of that cosmic accident. I think that's absurd.

Again, I'm NOT espousing God of the Bible, I'm saying the evidence to me shows that it is much more plausible there is a mind behind this.