Belief in God is scientific.

I would be happy to define both, but if you don't know their definitions already you may as well fuck off out if here.
maybe you should start a thread just about it so we can scientifically debate meanings that where wrote down hundreds of years ago.

If it cant be observed it isn't known, therefore not in the known universe.

Supposing somthing doesn't sound very scientific. And when you say we, who else is doing this supposing with you?

Hi thanks for the reply, i will read in full and give a detailed reply later. Can i just ask how much of the science that you take for granted and wont think outside of can you actually do yourself and understand within your own mind with absolute certainty? This is not meant to insult you.

Why are you asking me?

I don't claim the majority consensus is true. I claim that if the brain is the most powerful natural computer in the known universe and the majority of those brains say there is a God then that overwhelming number of answers should be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of said God.
It has nothing to do with who believes in what only in the fact that scientists ignore the very real answers being given by billions of people, people who also happen to be very very powerful natural computers.

The human brain is regarded by the whole of modern science to be the most powerful natural computer in the known universe. What planet are you living on?

Ha there seems to be a pissing match going on here, and im covered. So i take it then that the simple answer is no? The human brain and its intuition cannot be classed as scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Some of you are right maybe i did come at this from the side of the believer which prejudiced the whole thing from the start.
Science could provide proof of God though, that isn't a bunk statement. And even if it does i already believe.

Would you say science is a religion?

You couldn't be more wrong. The people who said the Earth is flat, and all the other stuff about the Earth being the centre of the universe and all that stuff where actually the scientist's of the day, the popular conceptions of those days where propagated by scientists. Only a handful of people in some Greek university new what they where talking about yet the wrong information spread round the world. In the same way today only a very very small amount of people know the required amount of physics to actually understand what is really going on, yet millions and millions claim to understand, we are no different from the witch burning idiots of old. The only conclusion you can come to with regards sciences current position is that it is wrong and that untold millions of people believe in somthing that is going to be proved wrong.

Yeah i do admit iam wrong it was never my intention to say i was right and everyone wrong, merely that its strange that belief without proof is a very real thing practiced by billions of people yet belief cant be factored into any kind of scientific method because the science police of the day say you cant
I would like to thank you for admitting you are part of the majority opinion within this thread and demonstrating so beautifully the effects of the fallacy on the search for truth.

[content of duplicate post hidden]Edited by Admin, : Hide content of duplicate post.

I just read this in a book called 'why does e=mc2' it is co authored by a prof in particle physics and a prof in theoretical physics. They sum up nicely my very round about descriptions of the complexity of the brain ands its relation to nature.'our civilization is all pervasive, and yet 21st century physics tells us that at it's heart, it is all a mathematical dance involving a handful of subatomic particles, organised by only four forces of nature over 13.7 billion years. The COMPLEXITY of human BRAINS and the products of the powerful synthesis between consciousness and dexterous skill that we glimpse outside our windows mask the underlying simplicity and elegance of nature. The scientists task is to hunt for those properties that act as a rosette stone, to allow us to decipher the language of nature and reveal its beauty.'The main point of this whole thread was to show that though the universe is relatively simple to explain, thought, cognitive action and all human emotion are also a product of and a part of that existence.
The human brain contrary to what some of you say IS the most complex thing in the known universe and the vast majority of those brains (people) believe in some form of God, so why isn't that overwhelming majority taken seriously from a scientific point of view as 'evidence' for God?

It seems the topic is going down the evolution/evidence creation/no evidence route.
It is scientifically possible for their to be a God fact.
The theory of evolution and all of its very real evidence, show how one form of life changes into somthing different or splits into a different type making multiple's, all through various processes. It doesn't deal with how it all started, and cant even get close to describing how it all started, life has evolved from non life that is fact, non life evolved from the big bang fact. Where does the theory of evolution explain the origin of energy and matter and space time? Anything relating to the origin of the big four is at best a guess so far. The scientific truth is that origin hypotheses come before evolution theory, which in a way even debunks the very notion of this whole forum.

How the heck do you know what a chimpanzee thinks?