Pineapple, it's a matter of definitions.

If you give a coherent definition of god, where science does not rule out its existence, then they can coexist.

Also, as has been pointed out, many sciences don't really include anything that goes against the idea of a god.

Here, though, is the ultimately damning bit of data. If there is a god, and it really can go traipsing about the universe breaking all the laws of the universe at will, then we really DO have a problem of induction, and we really do have no basis for believing anything that we ever learn through science. In other words, knowledge becomes meaningless, because not only is there no rational basis for believing that there is consistency in the universe, but there would be solid evidence that we SHOULD NOT believe in it!

That is why the discipline of scientific investigation must be separated from the concept of such a god.

Perfect response Hamby. Very well said. 

To me, science indicates the existence of a god more than it does not. It seems as physics progresses, we learn there is more and more we cannot know.

The uncertainty principle of quantum mecahnics means on the very small scale ( the essence of things) and the very large (the universe as a whole) we cannot have any definite answers. The limit set by the speed of light suggests that we will never touch most of the universe.  Rational thought leads me to believe that, by design, the universe is such that mankind is not destined to understand it.

But the most compelling scientific evidence lies in the fact that the odds against a universe that can maintain life, such as ours, are virtually infinite.  This situation in itself should lend an argument to the theists, though few seem to have picked up on it.

Science's answer to this is that there must be an infinite number of universes, and we live in just one. Following this logic, is it not possible, or probable or perhaps necessary, that there be one in which a god exists? May it not be this one?

To my atheist friends (and I mean this with no sarcasm) does this not mean that atheism is a faith? If faith is a belief without scientific evidence. where is the evidence that god does not exist?  I believe that we are left with nothing more than what we choose to believe.  No rational argument can be used to prove or disprove the existence of god.  I cannot argue that anyone's belief is wrong as noone knows, nor will ever know, what the truth is.  Whatever they believe, they might be right. Be it a world of god or  science, the possibilities exist for all to be true.

I have had a few personal experiences in my life when in despair and heart-ache I have turned to god for help and been helped. These are personal experiences and are not a form of argument, but to my logical mind the results were improbable at best. I believe a survey of those with belief would result in statistics that find me amongst the majority. Could I be deluding myself? Of course! But that is not what I choose to believe.

So, is the universe ruled by science or god? Science to me is the more improbable.

Because "goddidit" ain't science.

Science is the study of the natural world. Therefore, Science cannot study the supernatural. This is why claims like "I can scientifically prove god exists (aka Comfort) are so idiotic. 4

Likewise, saying you can scientifically prove god doesn't exist is also stupid. Since the concept is 'supernatural', any attempts at discrediting the concept naturally fail. Certain claims made by theists can be shown to be scientifically ridiculous (the Genesis flood account, the creation story, etc)

Science and god can only co-exist if god is a natural concept, not a supernatural one.  If god is a natural entity, then he could definitely be proven or disproven (disproven) 

In my earlier post I answered wrong.  What I meant to say was, the belief in god and acceptance of science can co-exist.

 There are very big problems with your last statement.  One being, if the creator is 'natural', then where did he live?  How does he live forever without violating natural laws?  Etc, etc etc.

The real question for you, however,  is how do you go from "I think it is possible" to "I think it is likely" and then onto more specific stuff like

"I believe the christian god doesn't want me to fornicate and will burn me for eternity if I don't believe in him".

This is where you completely lose me (us).  saying "it is possible"  is okay. Likely is another thing altogether. 

Well, when you find them, get back to me. In the meantime I see no good reason to believe in 'god', whatever that means.

E303, do you have any scienctific backround?

Neither is, "Visnu does not exist because you say so"

Neither is, " Thor does not exist because you say so"

Neither is, "Allah does not exist because you say so"

Ok, if we go by your logic then everyone should believe in everything ever claimed  because none  of us can prove that any claim is not possible. 

Wherever there is a belief, there is an alternative.  People believe things because of what they think and see.  Their perception of the truth of the belief has no impact on the truth of their perceptions.  Theism contradicts everything that science has ever done.  It must, or science would be useless.

(Yes, this is but another perception, but the alternative is nihilism, which is self-refuting.  Some things are true because there is no alternative!)

 Since science and logic are based on axioms (things that must be true) there is more credibility in a belief system based on the scientific method.  We can carry this to the logical conclusion and say that there is no credibility in a belief system based on non-scientific inquiry, but then we get blasted by people who would really like to believe such things anyway.

But then, you've noticed that. 

E303, you and I were doing so good! Let me have a poke at your last post

Your problem is you have misdefined the term atheist and are running with it. An atheist lacks belief. a conviction that a creator can not exist would be an individual atheist's conviction, not a conviction of 'atheism'. Do you get this? Because frankly, it is an error that is very annoying and I am tired of repeating it. It is like me going on a christian website and saying "A christian has a conviction that infant baptism is necessary for salvation". I get refuted. Then someone else does it, and this is repeated ad nausem. 

Starting to understand yet? I sure hope so. 

Wrong.  Atheism is choosing to not adopt a belief.  Try this..

'Your choice to not believe in bigfoot is just replacing one belief for another.'

Sounds silly, eh?  So did your statement.

Peace.

That is not too silly really. 

It is my choice to believe or not believe in big foot. I will say that the realm of big foot and the discovery is much more easy to gather and draw a conclusion.  The same cannot be said about a creator with most of that enviorment not even explored let alone mapped.

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods^[1] or rejects theism.

 Note: "affirms the nonexestence of gods or rejects theism.

I don't think I am off.

Science and god will always co-exist because religious people trust god up to the point where available medication and science gives them the instant gratification their god beliefs can't provide.

How come you left off the rest of that quote from Wiki?

"In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism"

The Wiki article goes on to explain, in implicit detail, what I was telling you. Did you read the article or just quote mine?

This is a lame source with a good point, emphasis mine.

about.com

"Theism, broadly defined, is just the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Most disagreement over this comes from Christians who insist that atheism must be the denial of gods, or at least of their god. Mere absence of belief in gods is, they claim, properly labeled agnosticism — even though agnosticism has it's own definition and is about a different concept entirely.

The broad definition of atheism is most accurate. It's not only the definition atheists use, but it's supported by most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries. The superiority of the broad over the narrow definition lies in the fact that it allows us to describe a wider range of positions."

Again, it is like describing a christian by one practicioner's reasons or actions within christianity. You need to drop using this definition around here if you wish to be taken seriously. Most atheists find it annoying at best and some find it downright offensive.

Finally, your quote:

"It is my choice to believe or not believe in big foot."

Right. 

So are you trying to tell me that not believing bigfoot exists is a belief system all its own? 

Can you yet see the error in this thinking? 

I'm familiar with the song. There's as much evidence that Harvey Danger is god as there is Jesus.

Why don't you guys just admit you're a sham. Seriously.

You don't really believe this theist shit either. This is just a device for you to project your own insecurities upon other people.

If you really believed in all this bullshit dogma, and that this life is merely a veil of tears, a preparation for the next glorious one, you wouldn't be so obsessed with self-indulgence and superfluous luxuries. You wouldn't be relying so much on science when its convenient, and otherwise reserving your theist tendencies for the occasional bout of burning, itching rash of unanswerable questions.

We both know you don't believe this crap either. The difference between you and I is that I admit it.  You live a lie, which is why you have to post pointless, irrational queries in forums like this.

Can you do anything besides project?

Look dude, atheists have a reason to challenge theists. Theists are taking away the civil liberties of atheists. It's not the other way around. Atheists wouldn't be on the offensive against theists if it wasn't ultimately a way to defend their freedom to not be oppressed. Theists are not being oppressed, so the conflict you propose to introduce is for an entirely different, very personal reason that has very little to do with any public, benevolent effort.

I'm just letting you know, we know it. If at some point you get tired of pretending, don't worry that we'll think any different of you because we've known all along about your mental condition.

When you pose questions about coexistence between science and religion, you're admitting you don't really believe this shit. You want the best of both worlds, because ultimately, this isn't about your beliefs.. it's about YOU and what makes you personally comfortable, and you can see that succumbing to many aspects of the secular world offers lots of superficial advantages you can't get from religion, so you're sliding more and more away from theism. That's what you're doing. You're still deluded and don't want to admit it. I'm just letting you know, we know. We see what you're doing. You're asking for permission to be even more self-absorbed and assiimilate secular ideals when they offer you convenience. There's nothing wrong with that.. it makes sense in the rational world in which we live in.  But it still doesn't completely reconcile itself with your goofy-ass dogma so stop trying.  I certainly am not going to help buff your delusion to fit into the round hole.

Do you have a defendable position? If not turn yourself over to these guys.

I have debated and sustained my arguments vs the argument of: "God cannot or does not exist." I have also challenged the science used to discredit theist with science. If you have a defendable position let's here it.

The personal attacks are nothing more than your sand slipping away.

Critical thinking is what pushes some people's buttons I think.

I have analyzed and evaluated the strong conceptual position and irrational claim, "There is no god" and found it wanting. You need more support to make a claim of conviction or you are just saying it out of personal faith.

Do you really think others are winning here?

Your postions are just sabor rattles.  When we debate one makes a claim or position.  Everyone is free to counter the claim and everyone is free to counter the counterclaim.  That is how it works otherwise it becomes more or less unproductive. 

Is it to much to ask that you make some counterclaims that stick to the debate issues vs colorful and meaningless rantings?

Give up on the tough guy thing and try talking with reason that allows progress for your position.  I am not here to try and "save" you.  I am here to poke holes in your head about what you think about what others think.

This is to easy.

The entire question is scientifically illogical.  This is an absolute truth.

We are at least smart enough to know what we don't know.  Still, evidence of all that exist points to creation.  I am because I am here and you are there.  You and I are the result of a creation process. That process is scientifically inconclusive and wholly untestable at this time. The argument and proof you require is illogical given the known set of variables vs those required to answer. This does not preclude the lack of a creator. Therefore the whole scientific argument must end there for both sides and accept that more discovery must be done before a conclusion is made based on science. Which has been my whole point on this forum from post one.

It is irrational to use current scientific knowledge to test for or against a God because we don't have enough knowledge to even try.

The only thing that is left is faith for both sides.

No one can debate your points because they are pointless and paradoxal. You can't make a proof on something that can't be proven given the set of variables needed to disprove something. It is illogical to ask. I am surprised you did not get that.

I decided to go ahead and make a point that the 'burden of proof' using today's knowledge is pointless for both sides and both sides should not use science to prove or refute a creator because they are scientifically un-sustainable positions.

Follow?

Follow? Like a lemming you mean?

Someone needs to create a simple graphic to whip out because this stupid fallacy never seems to go away.

First off, you commit theist-backpedal tactic #1:  You turn from a christian into a deist when it suits your purpose.  You go from jeebus-is-my-bud to i-believe-in-a-creator-thing when it suits the argument.  If you go agnostic on us, then you are an atheist and you should admit you don't believe in religion and any of the christian dogma and doctrine, otherwise you're just dancing around grasping at straws to reason somehow, some way, you might actually have a point (news flash: you don't). 

Let's review:

1. There is no burden of proof on verifying the non-existence of something. That's irrational.

2. However, in constrast to your erroneous claim, it is not irrational, nor illogical nor unusual to demand a burden of proof when confronted with a specific claim.

3. If I claim there's an elephant in my back yard, it's reasonable for me to provide evidence for such a claim, otherwise you would be wise and reasonable to assume I am completely, how do you say it, full of shit.

4. You make a claim. Then you dance around like a monkey trying to reason that your claim is exempt from justification. That is called a double standard. It's hypocritical.

5. Logic is a function. It doesn't discriminate between theists and atheists, idiots and geniuses. If you produce jesus and demonstrate some miracles according to scientific standards, the same standards you rely on every day for tons of things around you to perform as you desire, then I guarantee you ever atheist here will admit they were wrong. Until then, it looks like, um, how do I say it... oh yea, you're full of shit.

It all breaks down in the end it seems...

I could say that you are not really an atheist because an atheist would take their lack of god argument and keep it in their hat. Once a lag of god concept is transfered by communication to another it becomes a concept of belief that is just as dogmatic as the Christian faith you seem to hate

As C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

A riddle for you...

Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides.

Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being — if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.

If god exists in a domain that science can't explore (like the supernatural), then god is safe from science. However, if god exists or partially exists in a domain that science can explore, god is safe from science only if he is true.

If you take genesis as literal, then god (at least partially) exists in a domain that science can explore. From what we have learned, either this god and science can't co-exist or an ad hoc rationalization must be made to put this god out of a domain that science can explore. (such a rationalization might be similar to the "the world was created last Tuesday" skeptical hypothesis.)