Scientific atheists,do you know science itself believes in miracles?please read detailed question.?

Question

how sun was created, answer: gases evolved and then... but from where gases came no answer.How moon was formed... again beginning is assumption...big bang theory:planet started moving on its own miraculously and then....how life came on earth?first came unicellular organisms and then scientific explanation begins. but how did unicellular exist...again no answer or some assumption.what wrong are theists doing when they also assume jesus,prophet, lord rama came. why need scientific proof of god's existence when science itself is not complete and showing miracles.yes atheists, wrong things are also happening in society,but its not happening to everybody.then theism beginners have to assume that someone god or nature has to be there to be called biased, as far as theists are concerned they know every god that came to earth in human form had troubled life.for example jesus was crucified.scientific atheists any answer???no rubbish or funny answer, it means waste of time and money and no best answers rating either.

Answer 1

The scientists say the universe came from a "big bang".

So where did the mass that exploded come from?

From the collapse of a prior universe.

Where did the previous universe come from?

A previous "big bang".

But, where did the oeiginal mass come from for all these bangs and collapses?

They have no answer.

If all their bangs and collapses were true, there has to have been an origin for all the mass that exploded and collapsed. They offer no answer for where it originated.

Anyone with any real intelligence knows there had to be a creation- of something.

Answer 2

you're quite a chump

Answer 3

Obviously you have never taken a science course in your life.  At least Goggle Big Bang theory and read it on Wikepedia.  To answer some of your question, the gases that the Sun was created is the remnant of the Big Bang.  When the Universe first came into existence, it was very hot and contain only energy.  After certain period of cooling and expanding, the energy condensed into protons, electrons, and neutrons.  Further cooling lead to the formation of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium.  It is out of these that the Sun is formed.  The moon is formed when another body slammed into the Earth and kicked up a lot of stuff.  How life came into existence is still a mystery but scientists has successfully created amino acids and other biological material using simulations of Early Earth atmosphere.  These materials have be shown to come together to form a living organism but science is working on it.

The difference between science and religion is that if science does not understand something it tries to understand it.  Religion just says this is the way it is and don't question it.  You are arguing for a 2000 year old book agaisnt modern theories that brought you cars, cellphones, computers and the internet that you are using.  Don't you think that is a bit ridiculous?  

Answer 4

The fact that we don't understand the cause of something doesn't justify calling it a miracle. Two hundred years ago, the origins of any life at all was a miracle, but intelligence and observation have created a structure which has almost reached the point of explaining life from its very origin in the primordial soup.

There may be questions we can't answer, but you would be a fool to be certain that was so.

Answer 5

Since when did "no answer" constitute a belief?  If there's no evidence showing how such and such a thing occurred, then there's nothing available for attempting a scientific explanation.  At such a point, the scientific approach is to say: "I don't know how that happened".  Describing that approach as some kind of 'belief in miracles' is a very strange interpretation.

<<... it means waste of time and money and no best answers rating either.>>

Golly gosh, what a pity.  As if a rating from you had any worth at all!

Answer 6

Your argument is known as the "God of the Gaps" argument.  

Basically, you are saying that everything that has not yet been explained is proof of God because "God did it" is an explanation that can supposedly explain the currently unexplained "gaps" in our knowledge.

There are two main problems with your view.

1. "God did it" isn't really an explanation.  It doesn't really provide us with any new knowledge at all.

2. As the "gaps" in human knowledge continue to shrink, the necessity for the existence of your god gets squeezed down closer and closer to nothing.  So, by insisting that your god be accepted as an explanation for every currently unexplained phenomenon, you are embracing an "Incredible Shrinking God".  As human knowledge grows, the conception of the god that you are promoting will become increasingly tiny.

  

Answer 7

First off, I'm not an atheist, but I am a scientist.  You said a whole lot of different things, so I'm not gonna try to hit them all, or any of them, actually.  In general, you are better off trying to give one powerful argument than a whole slew of vaguely connected weaker arguments.

I agree with your general argument that atheists are wrong to dismiss the idea of a God causing the universe to exist.  At most, someone can only be agnostic, if they believe the natural world does not speak on the issue of God.  I believe it does reveal a created order, but let's not tie God's hands and assume that he couldn't have used the natural world that he created to unfold on its own.  To me, that is an even greater creation.  

In general, don't fight against science, because it's methods, when applied properly, will only serve to find the truth.  You should not be afraid of the truth, even if it means changing some of your past beliefs.  Rather, be afraid of being deceived by others who claim to have it.

Answer 8

We scientists are frank in confessing our ignorance in understanding natural phenomenon, but at the same time we do not replace our ignorance with imagination that we cannot prove.