Why are 95+ percent of scientists sceptical of God's existence?

Why are 95+ percent of scientists sceptical of God's existence?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
m.youtube.com/watch?v=9aUowoykENE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

because le hurr durr science solves everything lmao meme

religion and emotional liberalism will slowly stagnate our scientific progression , mark my words

muh evidence

That screenshot is fake, by the way
>t. CTR

EASY BIG FELLA

According to Google it's just over half that believe in God.

It's almost like belief in some invisible divine being is irrational or something.

(((God)))

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Science draws me closer to God.

bugs... easy on the carrots

Isn't it more likely that we just got lucky?
I don't see how life being a rarity means God exists.

>le science victorious over religion meme in 1850-
>use le race science phrenology meme to prove how much more advanced we are
>completely depart from Baconian scientific method regularly when collecting archaeological evidence anywhere outside Europe
>archaeology doesn't even start in Australia until the Fucking 1950s because of chucklefuck rationalists thinking they're so much smarter than the religious people they replaced
ebin

What if there was an infinitesimal chance that a single universe would produce life?
Wouldn't that be pretty mind-blowing odds that imply a sense of divine agency instead of coincidence?

Because most of them are atheist Jews.

But to be serious, that is a myth because our opinion on science is shaped by the (((media))) that is clearly not Christian.

No?
The odds are beside the point. We are here. We got lucky. It had to happen somewhere, assuming life exists at all.

Okay, "atheists", if you're so smart, then what caused the Big Bang? Surely, it cannot the "beginning of the universe" if something had to trigger it. Checkmate.

first cause=/=sentient first cause

No, I think the odds are important because that is how we calculate our chances to determine if there is a divine order to recognize.
There are two options : intentional creation or random chaos.
A universe with intelligent life that exists against all odds is certainly fitting in a divinely originated universe.

>that exists against all odds
????

As in there are slim chances that the conditions of the universe should be conducive to life.

the cloud god of moses is dead. he was killed in 2014 so you are alive in a truly historic time. moses saw him also someone described him fairly well to michaelangelo so osome people saw that creature over the centuries. that creature is dead. the "big bad wolf" that huffed and puffed is dead. No pope priest or scientist will ever find him as he is dead and gone as of 2014 AD. This is hard for laymen to believe but it is 100pct fact 111

underrated

ill defined hypothesis

someone here post a definition of God and you will have people arguing over it

The cloud god of moses and the bible is dead but there were multiple gods in the bible and in reality. None of them were the all that people consider to be god in modern times. The all is beyond human comprehension. The cloud faced creature called god by moses is dead. 111

Scientists are often pragmatic and like things to be verifiable. Gods and religion are unverifiable

What caused God?

youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Why must something have a trigger?

which god? the cloud faced god of moses was mostly hydrogen and oxygen without the carbon component of land based creatures.

>mfw theists don't understand the concept of limit points in calculus

scientific method is based in pragmatism
scientists in reality tend to let a whole lot of irrational things guide their application of that method, be it in selective collection of data, preference for some methodologies over others, entertaining some paradigms over others for interpretation, etc. the "hard" sciences are better lately about minimizing abject conjecture than they were even a century ago, but they hardly have developed a strong track record of the kind of infallibility reddit or NDT would want you to believe. the current fashion (and don't get me wrong, i go along with/agree with it) is that religion and God are poor explanatory devices

Jews

What if God limit our sense so we can't thinking what caused god?

>scientists in reality tend to let a whole lot of irrational things guide their application of that method

trying praying yourself to the moon dude

god of the bible was a low flight creature that is why moses met him on a hill. also scientists do not have the internal harmonics of suffering, nor did they ever call to him in the right geographic areas or with the frequencies of suffering. scientists have been in labs doing tests not eminating harmonics of massive suffering on a hill overlooking a plain. Religion is above science and taps into things science wont understand for thousands of years. Einstein was wrong and its very real.

when i said application of the method, i meant applying it towards developing theory. applied science and engineering are proof pudding, but they also don't really count for or against arguments about theoretical physics, which tends to be the arena in which intelligent debate (to what extent there is any) about the existence of God goes on. again, i agree with and work under the contemporary paradigmatic assumption of the absence of God. i just think people who tend to not even be scientists get really up their own asses winning le ebin science religion debates and don't really keep it active in the back of their minds how much of contemporary science relies on fashion essentially. useful fashion, but fashion nonetheless.

>against arguments about theoretical physics, which tends to be the arena in which intelligent debate (to what extent there is any) about the existence of God goes on

again you've yet to define God rigorously

if you're going to respond back with some basic theologian response like "the prime mover", the recent developments concerning quantum retrocausality would like to interject on your behalf

lel

science only beleives what they can test with man made equipment wich is defacto limited to other humans existing knowledge. Religion is more accurate in that religion embraces very real forces that they can not understand. religion is wise in its unknowing. science is foolish in its knowing

...

Cause *burp* God isn't real, Morty. Let me pull that band aid off.

FUCKING JEJ

Easy.

i have literally said in my only two posts in this thread that i subscribe to the idea that God does not exist (by virtually any definition the western canon offers, if you need me to define a thing I don't think exists to someone else who also doesn't think it exists)

but nice donnie darko picture to serve as a cherry on top of your shit-for-brain sundae

fpbp

>fpbp
Well memed

humans defining "the all" is just as silly as an ant explaing to another ant how internal combustion engines work. its beyond the scope of human capacity at any and all times to rigorously define "the all and everything" that modern humans call god

m.youtube.com/watch?v=9aUowoykENE
>rick

>Why are 95+ percent of scientists sceptical of God's existence

They aren't. Get out of your /reddit/ bubble.

>Physicists are most likely to believe in God
Huh.

Got any source on this?

it's almost as if the hard science that most readily lends itself to finding out how much you don't know creates humble, dynamic thinkers. i just wonder what happened to NDT that he became such an obnoxious pedant. i blame Reddit.

If the graph is true it don't say they believe in god, just that they don't do not believe in god. You could have 89.2% agnostics not showing on the graph.

Light always travels in the most efficient path.
Think about that shit

...

Non dogshit data coming through
Apologies for phone postinf

Source
>Ecklund, E. 2007.Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.p. 289-307.

Given the age of the universe how is it not just as fitting emerging by chance

Both of these questions can be answered by saying there is no beginning, which we can't comprehend because there has been a beginning to everything we've ever experienced. Of course, I think this makes more sense when talking about an omnipotent, omniscient being.

The screenshot isn't fake, but the subtitles are. Look up the actual scene, see for yourself