Science Vs. God

I am eager to begin this debate.I completly agree with your stand on science. The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know. Just look at what the discovery of photons changed. Look at holographic universe principle, can it explain quantom physics?MoralsIs it practical to always be fair or always say the truth?Can we say the spainards and other colonists did not benefit from exterminating natives?Does porn lose financially?We can identify morals as behaviour that is against personal benefit. Morals is a non-profit desire.Morals can be seen as a boundrie, just like Friedrich Nietzsche said: "We are deprived of strength when we feel pity".The greatness of heroic actions is not in profit, since they are mostly unprofitable, nor in it's logic, since it is often illogical. The existance of an other world must be possible, we consider tragic heroes victorious, but in this world, they gained nothing. So is there an other meaning for human existance? An other meaning rather than this relative and limited meaning?Rituals and sacrifices existed in all religions, and it's nature remained an unexplained mystery, an irrational one.It is an other system from an other world that contradicts the principle of interest and benefit that exists among animals. So we have the interest and benefit and human sacrifice. Interest is one of the principles of economical flourish, but sacrifice is one of the principles of religion, Interest is earthbound, but sacrifice is heaven-sent. Morals must have a value, but that value cannot come from this world, a value that cannot be measured with material standards, a value that does not subject with natural laws. Then, moral behaviour and sacrifice and higher values have no meaning by itself, but it have a meaning in the existance of God. So the bottom line is: If God does not exist, then humanity does not exist. Humans never had the choice to be just an animal, an animal is innocent morally, but a human is either good or evil (lacks good), there is no human that is innocent morally. There is no choice to be a human or an animal, but there is a choice to be human or inhuman. So if humans were simply animals, their life would be free from mysterious or rituals or beliefs or symbols, contray to animals whos ultimate goal is to satisfy desires with luxuries. So if it is correct that we become better persons by suffering, and bad people by luxuries, then we are different from animals. If humans are the sons of nature, then how can we oppose nature? There is no scientific reason to be a moral person. But in the end, there is no true athiest, since his morals come from religion, when people go to temples for charity, this proves their belief in equality among human beings, not strong preying on the weak. "I have always obeyed this law of nature by never permitting myself to feel compassion. I have ruthlessly suppressed domestic opposition and brutally crushed the resistance of alien races. It's the only way to deal with it." -Adolf Hitler That is the basis of atrocities commited by athiest tyrants. So essentially, athiests have little to do with human rights. The issue is purely metaphysical, so how can they demand equal rights for fellow humans? Equality between humans is a moral reconigation, however, when we look at a natural and material point of view, we are not equal. Unless God gave us this right. But what about humanism or theory of natural human? belief in humans and humanity alone with putting society over everything else? Is it a better alternative for God? I don't believe Rousseau thought this through. This is unbelievably contradictory, human is completly consumed by nature, the rules of nature is his rules, the values of nature is his values which run on him like all other creature. Thus, humans are nothing but a 3D material pattern. A social animal whose mind is a material matter, thus at some point, humans will lose themselves. "As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its human dimension, and man began to lose control of it." -Vaclav Havel Athiesm is bad, it is the basis of mass murders commited by immoral people, it is also the basis of pagan cults and secret societies. Athiesm is no solution to an equation, it is the admition of failure to find a tolerable solution due to elements like pride. It is being lazy. You asked very basic questions which I would be happy to answer. So your first one is: Why can't we see God and interact with him?That question is false by nature, if we did, then I'd turn athiest. If that is the case, then God is limited to a time and place, our eyes are a concept of reality, but it does not show the full reality by a long shot. Thus it would be contradictory to the omnipotent nature of God. The correct format of the question is: Why didn't God give us knowledge and sureness of his existance? Answer: We were born with neutral minds with signs. Is: "Do you believe in the sun?" a logical question? It isn't since the sun is in front of us and we cannot deny this. But faith requires some effort, or what would be the point of all of this? We were given morality and logic, we should conclude that nothing creates nothing. This is clearly a huge problem with the theory since without proof your theory holds no weight. Talk about evolution *chuckles* If you want to play the number games, then know that Aristotle himself cannot prove philosophally that 1+1=2. Is the first 1 a perfect one? is the plus sign a perfect sign? Is the other one equal to the first one? Does the equal sign portary a perfect result? There are many factors in play. However when speaking mathmatically. And for the miracle argument, good job being Dr. Phil, but you are incorrect. Lets say people in the past attributed earthquakes to God, and now we know that it is due to the movement of tectonic plates. Does this exclude God from the equation? By knowing the cause do we disclaimed the causer or be more sure there is a cause?When we learnt that clouds move due to wind, does this mean that God have nothing to due with it or did he create these laws and perfected it? As you said, science is not a closed box, we do not know natural law enough to claim a phenomina is breaking it, who knows about the possibility of breaking atoms, alternative universes etc... Scientifically, scientists did comment how they could notice signs of grand design among laws and phenominas. And this brings me toward my next point. There is no question that the probability of this universe is 1 in hundreds or thousands of billions. (A loaded dice) Imagine getting the perfect answer everytime you roll it. You might say that the universe had unlimited chances, But according to the Law of large numbers, The more you have an extra try, Your chance will get lower. So if you have unlimited chances then the chance is ZERO. Can you look at the earth and universe and honestly tell me it happened by chance? As I said, athiesm is being lazy, you leave blank answers blank. Now let athiesm give answers (For once!) for: 1-Newton's first law. 2-First law of thermodynamics. 3-Third law of thermodynamics. 4-Big Bang Theory.