Science Vs. God

During the past thirty years, people from all the civilized countries of the earth have consulted me. I have treated many hundreds of patients. … Among all my patients in the second half of life — to say, over thirtyR09;five — there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook.Dr. Carl Jung. Modern Man in Search of a Soul. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Book, 1933. Page 229.If the definition of religion as a total concern about Man’s World is correct, it follows that in any human society — even the least closely integrated one — religion will enter into all human affairs. Religion is a faculty of human nature, and human nature has its roots in nature. Religion is concerned with the world order, and it is involved in the social order, even when it has acquired a maximum degree of autonomy. It is practically impossible to draw a hard and fast line between religion and philosophy. Historically, philosophical speculation has evolved out of religious speculation, and the common ground between them is extensive. Philosophy may seek to confine itself to intellectual speculation, to steer clear of moral judgements and emotions, and to avoid social entanglements; but its success in insulating itself within these self-assigned limits can never be more than partial, since it is impossible to be a philosopher without also being a human personality whose nature it is to have feelings, to pass moral judgments, and live in society as the social animal that every human being is. Actually some philosophies have not only originated in religion but have eventually turned into religions again...Arnold ToynbeeIf we traverse the world, it is possible to find cities without walls, without letters, without kings, without wealth, without coin, without schools and theatres; but a city without a temple, or that practiseth not worship, prayer, and the like, no one ever saw.PlutarchMy opponent have failed to answer my questions, even worse, he did ignore and avoid them, and even used straw-men mercenaries.You still did not explain how metaphysics can be tested and explained without God. Why are we asking these questions? Why don't animals ask such questions? Why are we special compared to other creatures? Why do "human rights" exist?I have already shown you that a scientific and teleological explanations exists at the same time, I find it funny how atheists only question non-material things when having a discussion or debating, but they believe in them unconsciously in their daily lives. Your faith argument is a sub-sect of an argument from evil. Btw, nice job equalizing stepping on ants by mistake with mass genocide. Again, there is no nation that claims lies are better than truth, or injustice is better than justice, or betrayal is better than trust. Thus, our view of what is good or evil is almost the same. You attempted to equalize them, but that does not work, even worse, you used your attempt to equalize them as proof they do not exist.God is perfection, thus we are talking about absolute good or absolute evil. We can't just call anything absolute evil, because that means nullifying all good intentions, effects, results which is non-existent, evil isn't simply the opposite of good, it means the lack of good, just like light & dark and hot & cold, knowledge & ignorance etc...There is no such thing as absolute evil in nature, because nature is based on balance, at some point, scientists thought that all bacteria is harmful, but even disease bacteria can be beneficial. But atheism is about denying blessings. We have more than enough resources, but there is always greed.An other example would be when Mao Tse Tung decided to start a genocide (how typical!) on sparrows during the four pest campaign, it turned out sparrows also ate insects who significantly worsened harvests which contributed to the great famine that caused at least 20 millions to die from starvation. So why are we not living in a world of lollipops?The problem of evil is not that complicated, we just have to look with the right angle: Without hardship, we would not seek God.The world is beautifully strange. What makes you physically stronger weakens your heart, and what makes your physically weaker strengthen your heart. So a person who went through hardship have much greater will power than a spoiled person. So, There is no true evil in the world itself, as it manages to bring balance somehow.But why did God not give us constancy without hardship? Well, imagine that you feel no hunger, no cold, no fire, no fear etc... What does life mean? How do you know you are alive? These brings us motivation, brings us purpose. Without the pain of ignorance, we wouldn't have sought knowledge.This also proves that life is a test to discover God. Hardship forces us to seek God. We forget him when we are in blessing, but we seek him in hardship, and seeking the infinite proves that God is there.As for miracles. Your idea of the universe is limited, human mind would like to avoid knocking down houses of cards. If you do look through, everything in the universe is a miracle. Planets are a miracle, their movement is a miracle, law of gravity is a miracle, plants are a miracle, human mind is a miracle, nature is a miracle, humans themselves are a miracle. But due to repetitively witnessing them, you grew the prejudicial concept that miracles are only the things that surprises you and challenging what you are used to seeing. What value does a rational mind have to take things he used to as a standard to his belief in things and disbelief in them?Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.-John LennoxThere are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.-Albert EinsteinThe invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common.-Ralph Waldo EmersonI also find it funny when you say that believing in God is giving up. What is your latest explaination of the universe? It created itself from NOTHING. Really? If there is nothing, there is nothing laws included. Of course there are some attempts to smuggle the law of gravity into "nothing" which is cheating, where did the law of gravity come from? From nothing. Scientific laws don't do anything as previously stated, they only describe. Scientific laws need something to work on, they have to describe something. If there is nothing, then there is no gravity, and no law of gravity.Listen, i can think of three possiblities for the universe:1-It created itself from nothing.2-God created it.3-We created it. (We are in a dream world for example)I don't understand why would you think that the atheist Utopia questions are not related to our topic since our first arguments were heavily about that subject. I am simply comparing religious-concept morality with a scientific-based morality. Science can't explain morality, and in theory it can't exist in non-religious people. But it exists in everyone, this means we have responsability.You have also failed to clarify your accusations or correct your views, which either comes from not reading the argument or not caring. I said that the big bang wasn't good for atheism, I never even posted a hint that it does not exist. Which makes me doubt your validity.It is not me to order you to vote Con, it is only for me to give you a choice, a choice based on logic and reason.(Subliminal messages ftw)