I respect your ideas. Lets wait and see.

Daydreamer....where did you ever get the idea I hate science? In fact, I love science in the purest interpretation of the word, that is:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.

I prefer to believe in a Higher Power, I believe in the interconnectdness of all, you do not. In our live´s journey, we have come to different conclusions. I have gone through the evolution of believing, not believing, maybe believing to believing. In other words, I went through the ...."First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is" ....journey....I am not a simple minded uneducated dolt, as you seem to infer those who have belief are. In the contrary, I am very well educated, have a critical mind, and based on my analysis of the subject, with my free choice, I chose to believe.

I´m sorry Alameda if you inferred that I consider you simple minded, uneducated or having no critical mind. That was not my point. What I referred to was this statement:

"I have to laugh at the narrow mindedness of much Science. Didn´t we learn life could not exist in.....say temperatures above....or below certain certain amounts.....but now we find....life does exist in those previously thought lifeless habitats."

It didn´t really came across as constructive criticism of science, which is still in development. And it means it makes mistakes all along Narrow mindedness would mean sticking to a theory no matter what and never admiting it was wrong. That´s actually something that is a characteristics of religion

Of course everything is a matter of choice - whether or not you choose to believe in god, is not really my business. I cannot accept that events described in one old book are true only because the book says so. Still, if this much is enough to convince you, that´s your thing.

Actually, a few years ago there was this campaign (there is probably no god):

But, i think the time has come to get rid of the word ´probably´ as far as science is concerned.. 

I still dont understand people why they are trying to include the science into a dogma like religion belief..

Religions are not compatible with science..

They never were and they will never be..

There is a saying in Turkish ´you can not say "I would like to have a seat behind the driver but not over the wheel"´.

Mansur Al Hallaj pondered all his life about the nature of God and then spelled out this phrase: "Ana´l Hakk". It translates into English as "I am God." This tenth century philosopher had probably come to the verdict that whatever that exists in the universe is inseperable from God and we are all small pieces of it. The Abbaside rule of the age considered this a threat to the unity of their state and executed Al Hallaj before the public after cutting off his arms and legs.

Galileo Galilei was a 17th century astronomer, physicist, mathematician and a general scientist. Stephan Hawking considers him as the person who is responsible for the birth of modern science. Galileo was a keen observer of the celestial bodies and have kept track of their motions relative to one another. Based on his studies he concluded that the earth was not the center of the universe. Instead it circled around the sun. An inquisition court decided that Gelileo´s statement was in violation of the religious teachings which held it that the Earth was motionless and all else was circling around it. He was condemned to life imprisonment and was denied of a chance to write any further books.

Stephan Hawking is probably the most prominent theoratical physicist. He is so intelligent, he could actually write a top seller "A Brief History of The Universe" through which he could reach general public and get them to learn about this difficult branch of science. Hawking is considered one of the most intelligent persons ever lived. He has recently made a statement saying there is no place for God and that the universe might come into being all by itself.

It may be difficult or even impossible to understand God. I know it is difficult to understand Hawking too. Nevertheless, understanding Hawking must be millions of times easier. It takes reading and gaining knowledge. If you don´t have better words to say, let the wise man speak. He probably knows much better than us, the ignorant ones.

I agree. Obviously with a creator factor there should be new form of science consists of not only theoritical physical chemical laws but also metaphysics which is not a good mixture just because all statements that go beyond the empirical world called metaphysics and metaphysics cannot prove anything in a certain way. So there can be always counter statements or theories which is physical, metaphysical or both. Science cannot prove that you love your kids, it can only guess maybe with a very scientific manner, and by the help of the human science you can only guess there is God which is belief, in both you can be wrong, there is nothing called Absolute science but human science and human being has an ability to err.

"Görünce Rabbimi gönül gözü ile sordum: ´Kimsin Sen?´ Dedi:´Senim Ben´.." (Hallacı Mansur)

       I was an agnostic till two weeks ago. I have never become an atheist because i have a very skeptic nature. I thought atheism as a belief. Because you can´t decide about anything you don´t have proof. You can only say i don´t have any proof.I have always believed if there is a god this god must be different from what holly books tell. Because when i read holly books i realized the God they tell is like a human. I couldn´t accept such a god. But when i read sufis´ works i saw they tell same God very differently. I thought they were comforting themselves. I always liked sufis but i never believed them.

     I was having a great joy when i was reading atheist authors books. Everything they say was absolutely true for me. All of my favorite authors were atheist or agnostic. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Sade, Cioran, Caraco and the others. I liked them because they were criticizing human God who is told in the holly books. But i kept reading books about God. Two weeks ago i read a book which tells prophet´s lives. The author´s approach to god was very different. He was telling all the holy books have a heavy symbolism and God is not like a human. I found new books about this matter. And one of these books convinced me fully. And i started to read holly books from a different perspective. And this time they seemed me very meaningful.

     As you see i was an agnostic like some of you. But my skeptic nature always forced me to learn more. I have still this nature. And i keep learning new things. I advice you the same. Don´t be prejudiced, be open to new and different ideas. Always read the two side´s books about a matter and then decide.

See, Gokuyum, the problem with philosophy is that it is not scientific, ie it´s impossible to prove it. Hence hundreds of schools, ideas and schools. Philosophy is nothing but sharing your point of view. Some will find it logical, others will challenge it and the rest will not give a rat´s tutu about it.

I remember my philosophy classes at the uni and how conceited our lecturer was. During the first class he just gave us a scournful look, puffed his cheeks and mumbled "philologists...pffff...you´re nothing! You wouldn´t even be able to prove that you exist"

I could never see what he thought made him so special - reading other people´s books? Writing his own? Does it all make any of them right? They´re all but speculations

Philosophy is as important as science for me. Because without philosophy science would never consider ethical problems. What was the benefit of atom bomb for humanity that science created? Nothing. Science can lose it´s way without philosophy. You can see some of the great scientist´s are also philosophers. Why? Because they sometimes also criticize science. You can´t criticize science or anything without philosophy.

When Alexander the great once said  ´Ohhh deus. Vos es sic magnus´, which can be translated into English as ´Ohhh God, you are so big´, he would not have imagined, thousands of years later, those words would be quoted in a language learning website nor he knew anything about the structure of DNA or how stars are formed. would he say the same thing if he had any knowledge? Possibly would, as he was not talking about the god when he uttered those words (if he ever said them!!)..

Actually, what we know today is not leaving any gap for God to be squeezed anymore as far as the science concerned..

We know that there was no creation because ´what we know´, not ´what don´t know´..

We know DNA, we know how life forms are evolved, we know how planets are formed, we have strong ideas /theories about big bangs etc.. 

Basically, science will never ever or can never ever prove the the existence of God(s). 

All those people said this and that etc many many moons ago when they had no idea about what we know today. They are not relevant with today´s philosophy, today´s life and no ethical problems were answered by any of the religions in my view..

I think in the end, if people show more courage and play less in the  spiritual safe lounge of ´there is a god club´, will be better..

All those indoctrination, generations after generations, make people ´leaving their options open´.. They are still scared to come out fully.. 

I think that is the reason why we hear, ´I am fond of God but not religion´.. ´I am waiting for religion to prove there is one´ etc..