Science is all about inquiring into the way the universe works,
So is religion.
Indeed, the entire premise of irreducible complexity, one of Intelligent Design (ID)'s cornerstone argument (which is quite easily disproved)
Okay then, go ahead.
Scientifically, the belief in God is a hypothesis, not a theory, since there are criteria belief in God does not meet, such as testability.
A hypothesis is a testable prediction. The belief in God is a belief, not a hypothesis.
The God hypothesis, however, creates more problems than it solves. The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit explains that the belief in a god as the creator of the universe forms an infinite regress. ... Once you have identified that god's creator (God B), you must determine the origin of God B. This pattern continues ad infinitum.
You're making two huge and baseless assumptions about space-time here. Can you guess what they are?
Since all creators are assumed to be at least as complex as their creations
And why would we assume that? Given current technological progress, it's only a matter of time before we create something more complex than ourselves.
Which choice should we choose: pure chance (of a vastly more complex being than ourselves, which means it becomes unfathomably improbable)
Huh? Trying to figure out the probability of a god existing is like trying to figure out the probability of gravity. Probability can only be assigned when you have factors that influence the outcome, but God/gravity either exist or they don't. They're not outcomes of any process or reaction.
One who has taken a close look at the anthropic principle, an argument commonly used to argue for the presence of a deity, is actually suggests quite the contrary. The anthropic principle says that if the universe were a horrible, vicious soup of stars and gamma rays and asteroids, there would be no life. Because there would be no life, no intelligence would exist within the life, and, Wallah!, nobody would observe it. By this reasoning, the only universes observable from within are those which support life, and so we should not be surprised to be living in a habitable universe.
But why should such a universe exist for us to be able to observe it? If there's only one universe (and we don't have anything even remotely conclusive that suggests otherwise), why would that one universe happen to be balanced the way it is? It's a little like betting all your money on one roll on a giant roulette wheel (and by giant, I mean one having possibly billions of numbers) and winning. While not statistically impossible, it's pretty unlikely to say the least. I say we
should be surprised to exist.
ID proponents will look at the universe and say "My, how complex it is! I cannot imagine another way life could be (argument from lack of imagination)
Condescending much? To assume anyone who thinks differently from you only thinks that way from lack of imagination (or intelligence, education, understanding, yadda yadda) is arrogant and close-minded in the extreme. Besides, I think we should all know by now that I'm nothing if not imaginative.
Scientists have found about six "settings" the universe must have or it would be vastly different. The strength of gravity, the strong force, etc. all determine whether the universe will be habitable. Some scientists say the six are linked together, and so they must be this way.
Don't forget anti-matter. There's no apparent reason why there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe, and if they were equal, the universe would explode in a perfect 1:1 conversion of matter to energy. (Yeah, anti-matter is pretty badass like that.)
Regardless, it is likely (but admittedly not for sure only because such a simulation is far far far beyond today's computational capacity) that the numbers were formed during the big bang. Like an accordion, the universe might condense again, and reform the numbers.
Pure conjecture. While it is often proposed that the universe will collapse in on itself and form another big bang, there's no reason why this should change the laws of physics or quantities of anything, especially since it's going to be exactly the same amount of matter and energy as it was the last time (assuming there was a last time) because of conservation of mass and energy, meaning the reaction should be virtually identical. The explosion might go in a different direction or a different shape or something, but all the same stuff is going to be there.
God Hypotheses, however, having no evidence, rely on social proof, like teaching in Sunday school.
Ugh... there you go again with this "you only feel that way because you don't know any better" nonsense. Knock it off already.
The reason why people believe in evolution is because they don't want to believe that there is a god, Why? because if there is a god then you have to obey him or go to hell, and you want to live you sinful live full of pleasures.
Well at least it's not only Modman doing it, then.
Don't presume to know why anyone believes what they believe. You have your reasons for your beliefs and they have theirs. It's not necessarily because they want to be hedonists.
Anyways, evolution is a heavily flawed theory...........
And this goes to prove the existence of God
how?
To take it further, how can you say that the same chaotic randomness that could eventually create an observable universe AND observers (us) could not have instead (or also) created a "higher power"?
Hmm... interesting notion. It's a little "out there" if you ask me, but still interesting.
They are not exclusive, just opposite. I can't KNOW that God exists (unless He drops by and says hello, I suppose), but I can believe that He does. Does my belief in God affect my knowledge of truth? No. Yes religions over the years HAVE influnced peoples views and ideas of what is true. But the fact remains that, well, the facts remain. We live in a time where we are constantly learning more about our universe, and I like that. Evolution - also a hypothesis by your definition - has too many contradictions, at least ID is a "Grand Unified" take on things.
I wouldn't say they're opposite. They're each a search for truth, but they go about it in different ways. They both start with "okay, so here's what we know..." and progress to "so here's what we think that means". Each makes observations, collects data, applies logic, makes conclusions, etc. Basically the only difference is verifiability. Science can be tested empirically, where religion can't. That doesn't make it any less valid, though. Here's another thing we can't test empirically: "Does your mother love you?" There's no way to find out for sure, but that doesn't mean she does or doesn't, and we can make inferences based on what we see to conclude whether we think she does or doesn't and take it on faith. I'm totally okay with the fact that we don't have everything figured out for certain, and I think that's one of the things that separates science from religion. Science can't accept anything without absolute proof, whereas religion can.
