The point is that you can discredit every known religious text of their claim of being true. You are doing the usual exercise of stating that science cannot explain everything. Maybe but so what? Everything that is explained as true in religious texts is invariably nonsense and can never have proof as its backing. Which is why it is called belief. This business of trying to find gaps in explanations and attempting to insert God into it (for which the same person needs no proof) is not tenable because those gaps are getting smaller as our understanding grows. Sure, more gaps will open up elsewhere & the interested ones will rush there to claim the absence of proof (temporarily) as proof of presence of God. Not one of those arguing will defend the texts that constitute present religious belief since they are essentially indefensible. The honest way to do the defending of the "God idea" would be to jettison present beliefs & come up with a more complex one as suggested by you - a indirect belief. What a "religious scientist" might attribute to God is simply not compatible with ordinary religious beliefs.
I am not defending religious dogma, most of which is allegorical anyway. I am simply defending the concept of God, a self-guided, purposeful entity. The edifice of science is built of logic and experimentation, but the foundation rests on unprovable axioms, i.e. faith. The edifice is so huge, and the foundations so obscure and 'obvious', that most people don't accept the element of faith, but it is there all the same.
Basically, I am saying that science is not incompatible with belief in God. Throughout history, the greatest minds of science have held a firm belief in God. These people understood the scientific method better than most, including its limits.
Frankly, I find the arrogance of atheists charming. It is like a little boy who learned a few things and now thinks he knows it all.
Addressed, but not quite convincing. Science is reasoning. It is NOT based on unprovable axioms, but based on experimentation and observation to find solutions to problems, in the process prove or disprove a theory. One cannot say the same about faith - in faith one does not/should not/must not question "established" beliefs.
I suggest you have a chat with your local physics or philosophy professor. Science, like all systems of logic, is based on fundamental, unprovable axioms. One of the core axioms of science is that the laws of nature are invariant across time and space. We have no way of proving it; we simply take it on faith.
The concept has been around for centuries, long before the movie. I only phrased it in terms of the Matrix because people would understand it more quickly.
How did god in its first time came into existence???? Theists please answer me!!!
You are applying the rules of science to faith. Faith, by definition, doesn't require proof. You either have faith or you don't.
