Howard Bloom Quotes

Traditional arguments for the existence of God and contemporary attempts to use fine-tuning and cosmology to back up the case for his existence always strike me as kinds of games, since hardly anyone believes on the basis of these arguments at all.

I'd be perfectly happy with a mathematically precise description of how time began. I see science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.

Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. 'How did the universe evolve to the form that we see?' But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. 'Why is there a universe at all?' These are the meaning questions, which many people think religion is particularly good at dealing with.

The purpose of this study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective.

We think we have solved the mystery of creation. Maybe we should patent the universe and charge everyone royalties for their existence.

I don't know how to put this gently, but I'm trying to tackle the biggest question of all, which is the God question.

Virtually every scientist now concedes that universe and time itself had beginning. So, whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe must have had a cause.

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe.

I was never raised with the traditional story of creation in religion, and because of that I think I had a lot of questions. And evolution, the evolutionary narrative, helped provide some of that for me.

What is the origin of God?

Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always been than it is to say that matter has always been?

Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can't construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history.

I think science is about the search for God; it just comes at it from a different angle than religion.

I don't even really know what the big bang is, and so when people want to go through and say, 'Well, I believe that the universe started by God starting it,' that's fine by me.

Out of all the ridiculous religion stories - which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous - the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah, there's this big, giant universe, and it's expanding, and it's all going to collapse on itself, and we're all just here, just 'cuz. Just 'cuz.' That to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.

No one will presumably ever be able to prove or disprove such fundamental religious principles as the existence of God.

Only an unscientific ignoramus would hold to the thought that nothing created everything.

As a scientist, I don't believe science will ever discover whether God exists. Nor do I believe religion will ever prove it.

The evidence in this universe for design - or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by 'enough time' - is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes.

Those theologians who are beginning to take the doctrine of creation very seriously should pay some attention to science's story.

Right thinking creationists do not impugn evolution. What we reject is a universe that made itself out of nothing.

Of course, we would love to know more about the exact moment of Big Bang, but interposing an outside intelligence does nothing to add to that knowledge, as we still know nothing about the creation of that intelligence.

Back when the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology were one great intellectual hodgepodge, proving the existence of God was a relatively commonplace exercise. To the modern mind, however, science and religion talk past each other.

Is there a God? There is, but we don't know where. Or who. And, indeed, why.

There either is a god or there is not; there is a 'design' or not.