Topic: Is science a religion? - page 33. (Read 47490 times)

I agree that there is more to it than what standard science says. We could get into all kinds of pseudo science about this. But, standard science still says that there isn't really any soul or even spirit. Science could be wrong. It has been many times in the past. So, in the "spirit" of science, cause and effect rule in everything. There is no pure random.



Now you are suggesting we should talk about some aspects of religion. The question is "Is science a religion?"

Consider. If evolution is real, why did it go to all the trouble of making two sexes? Why not have just one "sex" propagate itself? We might be able to list all kinds of reasons either way. But we should be able to at least find a multitude of single sex and tri-sex families that are as large as the two-sex family. Is evolution wrong? Did nature goof?

We don't feel like biological robots. Does this make it so that we aren't? My point has always been that there is a God, that there is purpose, that science is moving into the realm of religion among people.

You making an assumption that consciousness is a product of brain function, that has not been proved. This is why there is no unit of measure for consciousness. Some argue that our brains are merely receivers of consciousness like a biological TV set. Hence free will is not necessarily a product of cause and effect. Your free will could very well be influencing/driving the synapses in your brain that fire.

Assuming you support the idea of religion, arguing that your consciousness is merely a product of the brain due to cause and effect, implies we are biological robots. Then what purpose would religion even have.   

To say it simply, we don't really have a concept for how something can make itself if it can. Such a concept is not part of our universe. This doesn't mean that there is not something outside of the universe. All it means is that it would be so different that even the word "different" wouldn't apply.



Proof for God

Everything operates by the fundamental law of cause and effect, which is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. This means that even your synapses in your brain fire because of things that made them fire. We don't have free will scientifically speaking. The thing that looks like free will is programming through cause and effect. This is scientific law.

Complexity is worldwide. All the scientists, and almost everyone else, know it. The things that we see about the rest of the universe show complexity as well. So far, the complexity is beyond our understanding. Whatever caused this complexity must have been more complex.

Entropy is universal. Entropy is scientific. This means that there must have been a beginning of everything. If there was no beginning, that is, if everything had always been, entropy suggests that everything would have dispersed and diffused long ago, so that there would be no complexity whatever.

In other words, Something caused a beginning time. That something caused all the complexity. That Something was far more complex than anything that we understand - consider how deeply complex cause and effect is and how it is withstanding entropy's dissolution. That Something fits our definition of "God."



We see no evidence in the universe of anything making itself without something else causing it.



There is no scientific evidence that we grow in any way without cause and effect making us grow the way we do. In other words, everything, even our maturing, and our intelligence, and our thinking, are all pre-programmed.

That still does not explain how something can make itself, inserting a "god" is even more ludicrous because there is no evidence for a god. It is more logical to conclude the universe has made itself and like us is alive, we and everything in it are expressions of the living whole. Like it we make ourselves (we evolve both physically and consciously) through our conscious choices that are influenced by our environment and those choices in turn influence our future.

This is why IMHO The most succinct definition is :-
  

The universe contains the idea of "making." "Making" is or has to do with the cause and effect idea. It is in everything. That is the reason why we consider it so deeply. We and our universe are filled with the idea of making. The question is, does this have to necessarily do with God?

God might have used the idea of "making" in part of the universe making. And we might see some of the aspects of God, Himself, within the universe. But since God is outside of the universe and before it, He is almost necessarily going to have attributes that are not of this universe, and might not be understandable.

For example, consider the idea of reverse entropy... where things do not wear out or coalesce or disperse. Consider the idea of bubbling energy that is naturally constantly growing in ways that we can't understand, because that is its nature. Our universe isn't like this. But we can almost imagine what it might be like a little.

Also, consider real random. From a basic scientific standpoint, everything that exists, does so by something - or many things - causing it to exist the way it does. For example, why does an electron move in a copper wire? Because it was bumped by another electron. Or because a magnetic field pressed against its magnetic field. Something caused it to move.

Yet, we have the idea of random in our lives. We use it to "guess at" stuff that is outside of our realm of observation. For example, when we flip a coin, we don't know/can't measure the forces that act on it to make it land heads or tails. So, we do a bunch of flips in approximately the same way, and measure the average.

Pure random is something that we can envision slightly, but really can't understand. Why not God? After all, we aren't even close to understanding all about the universe that He created. Why would we think that we might be able to understand much of anything about Him?

Ultimately we are all faced with the paradox of how noting makes itself both science and religion cant answer this fundamental question. While most can agree that intelligent design exists in the universe some think that a "god" is responsible, but what then made the "god"? Nobody can explain this fundamental question.

Just a quick note, if you guys are thinking how the Bible can be explained in a scientific way, try reading Rael. Please don't bash me or smth if you read smth you don't believe in that book. I'm not the one who made it.

I agree that each has its own classification?? And so i ask?? you read the books of christianity and judaism and other religion right?? now why is it that u find islam scientifically because other religion also are scientific but it was explained by miracles??

Science is not a religion. Religion is science. I learned all science book and related all religion book. Then I saw Islam is totally scientific. And so deference.

So far, since we don't have any clue except guesses as to where nature came from...

... and since the one thing that we have ascertained is that nature itself doesn't have any source for where it came from...

... the knowledge, as of facts or principles found through systematic study is that the nature came about via supernatural means.

Even Spock said, in Star Trek 2009, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The existence of nature and the universe was caused by supernatural means, and science essentially proves it... at least until science disproves it.