Pixies Place Forums - View Single Post - the use of god in school?

This is an interesting debate. I have put a lot of thought into the existence of God over the years, and I have even written a paper on the subject that I will include in this post. Something many people don't realize is that the separation of Church and state was made to protect the Church from the state and not the other way around, so that the government could not control religion. The word religion according to the dictionary (or at least the one I have) means "A system of beliefs and practices." Interestingly enough atheism actually fits in that description. So to remove God from schools would be forcing a system of belief on people. Since adding or removing God would be forcing someone else's beliefs on others, it would seem that no matter what you do it would be infringing on people's rights. So the only thing to do at this point, besides getting rid of public schooling, is to leave God in school since most Americans believe in Him, until the point most people in America are atheist, then system would have to be switched over. Ok that is my thoughts on that now here is that paper I wrote:
Concerning the Existence of God
Quite a few years ago I noticed discrepancies between my religion and science. Since I agreed with science and religion I needed to find which was right or find a reason for the discrepancies. From a religious point a view there should be no discrepancies between religion and science, because if God created the universe, He also created science. After some thought, I ran across something which seems to have been over looked by both scientists and theologians. This brought me to an interesting conclusion concerning the discrepancies between science and religion and to the existence of God.
For nearly the first millennia and a half AD, religion dictated science. Theologians used the Bible as their "all in one" book of science and religion. Since theologians were some of the only people considered to have enough knowledge to understand these things most people listen to them. But after the invention of the printing press ideas could be transmitted and stored much more easily than before. People began to study the world in a way that hadn't been done since Aristotle's time. When these people said things that didn't seem to go with exactly what was in the Bible, the Church considered them blasphemers and executed them.
Soon science and religion became separate entities in the minds of people, and eventually science, which seemed to have logical conclusions to everything, gained the upper hand. After science had been widely accepted by every one, the Church started trying to prove that the depiction of what happened in the Bible was true. This set up a system where one side would try to prove the other side's arguments wrong.
Ironically the Church has tried to use science to prove that the Bible is right. They have found it very hard to conclusively prove anything. While at the same time science just seems to stumble into things that seem to disprove the Bible. After nearly 500 years, science seems to be winning. On almost all points science has shown that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of God. Science has seemed to disprove the idea that the world and the universe were created five and a half thousand years ago. Even beyond that it seems to have been proven that humans evolved from apes. It now looks like religion will dwindle away, but there is something that allows religion and science to co-exist.
The argument that scientists have made that there is no direct proof of the existence of God is true, and so it should be. It has been said that all you need is faith in God. From the focus on faith in the Bible and by the Church it can be seen that God wants us to use faith to believe in Him. It is also said that God can see all of time. That he knows exactly what will happen from the beginning of the universe till the end. If God can see all of time, then he knew that we would create this advanced technology. Then if he wanted us to only use faith to believe in him then he would make the world in such a way where we could not prove the He created the it or the universe, because if we could we would need not faith to believe in Him since there would be direct proof of his existence.
God hid His own existence from us then He is deceptive. Though God does want us to believe in Him, He just doesn't want us to put no effort into it. Non-the less, this still destroys Descartes' argument that God is not deceptive. But if Descartes was alive today and tried the same philosophical exercises he did before he would probably not bring God into the equation at all, because the fact that he could not prove that God did exist, since that would now be in doubt. It is quite possible that he would still get stuck on "a deceptive spirit," because of my argument, since he would not be able to prove that God didn't exist. Also according to my argument if God did exist then he would have to be in some way deceptive to keep the proof of his existence from us.
This is an interesting paradox, which might push Descartes to atheism, because only then could he continue beyond that point. Although Descartes might choose to go the other way, and try to find at least in part some circumstantial proof for God's existence. Interestingly enough some can be found in mathematics and biology. The human hands contain both of God's numbers: three, which is the number of the trinity, and seven, which is the number of completion and perfection. If you add these two numbers together you get 10, which is the number of fingers we have. In mathematics the first prime number is three. The prime number of prime numbers, that is the third prime number is seven. As it was said this proof is circumstantial, but it might be enough for Descartes to make a decision. If he did decide to go this way he could say that God isn't deceptive because He does provide this evidence for his existence, albeit weak evidence.
There is an argument to the contrary of this evidence. It could be argued that these numbers are associated with God because of their relevance to us. We might have put these numbers in religion because we see them and subconsciously associate them. This argument is equally weak as the evidence that He does exist, so they balance one another out.
There is the question of the devil. If the devil existed what would stop him from going around showing himself, just to spite God. If we saw that the devil existed then there would be almost no doubt that God existed, but there is a balancing argument for this as well. The devil wouldn't want us to believe in God, and it would be safe to assume if we saw the devil we would believe that God exists, which is something that the devil wouldn't want.
So this brings my argument full circle; that it is impossible to prove that God exists, and equally impossible to prove that he does not exist. So then one can believe that God exists or doesn't exist, there is no, and cannot be conclusive proof either way. People I have talked to on both sides of the fence don't like this idea, but no one I have talked to about this has been able to refute it. For me this argument fills its purpose; it allows me to follow my scientific ideas and my religion both at the same time without any discrepancies.