Topic: Science and Religion? - page 7. (Read 1955 times)

''But religion has some of the answers.'' Just because it's written there it doesn't mean it has 'answers'. It has statements, like god made the universe, it has 0 answers as of how. Just like any other book which can contain literally anything, are those answers too?

 'Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe'

So science doesn't know enough to have figured anything out about things outside the universe, right? But religion has some of the answers. All you are saying is that science is smarter than religion, but it obviously isn't. It's simply smart in a different way.

Even Hawking agrees that something outside the universe created it.

You are the retard who claims to have insight on that, are you this stupid to insult yourself without even knowing? Who is the idiot who claims to know it was god and it was 'outside the universe'? Huh? Isn't that you? You keep claiming 'outside the universe' is something and yet there is 0 scientific evidence for that, you are a hoax.

If you think that you have some special insight into the way that anything worked before the universe was created, or the way anything works outside of the universe right now, let's hear it. And show us the reason why it wouldn't fall into the class of religion, but might be more like science.

We don't even know that the concept of creation existed outside of the creation of the universe, and the creations of things within the universe.

1. Religious/philosophical talk. We don't know that we didn't exist "soul-wise"/spiritually before conception. Science might even be able to prove we did, someday.

2. The comparison we use is our capabilities. Compared with what each one of us can know and do, the universe is extremely complex. We know this because even our combined efforts are barely scratching the surface of what there is to know and manipulate.

3. Mass is, at its base, a manifestation of energy. Matter can be changed into a different energy form that doesn't include matter any longer. But energy can never be changed into matter without including its energy form, as well. Your info is old science.

If the universe came from nothing, then that which we perceive as nothing has far more of what we would call intelligence and capability than the universe. Why? Because within the universe, it takes greater intelligence and capability to make a thing than the thing has.

4. Theory of Relativity is fact in a flawed way. It is incomplete, even though aspects of it work.

5. Your questions about God show that you don't believe he would be a skydaddy. But, our minds are set in thinking ways in which the universe allows us to think. There is no way to comprehend what something outside/not-part-of-the-universe would think, or even if Its thinking could be considered to be thinking regarding the ways we think.

Before he died, Stephen Hawking indicated that there was what I will call a "non-thing" that "existed" before BB.

''If I as an intelligent human species demand that for my intelligence and this creation, there should be a creator, then God who's far more intelligent according to religion, must also demand a creator. '' Exactly but yet badecker uses special pleading to say NOPE, god doesn't need a creator because I say so.

1) you are correct that comprehending "nothing" is hard. But nature or universe or whatever was there before universe doesn't care if we can comprehend it or not.

This is when I believe in the "everything doesn't exist until observed" theory.

The only way we can comprehend "nothing" is by comprehending what and how we felt before taking birth. We didn't exist. Hence, it was "nothing" for us. All of a sudden we took birth and became conscious. Our consciousness came out from "nothing".

2) life and universe is neither simple nor complex. Simple and complex are comparative term. You need something outside of universe to compare it to. Life and universe are there what it is. Hence, we just can't say they are complex just because we can't comprehend it.

3) Matter is mass and it is energy. And they existed eternally. They will continue to exist eternally. Unless the bigbang was right. Then they came out from nothing. They will cease to nothingness or just stay eternally.

Matter and anti matter is being created and annihilated all time in space everywhere ....

4) I was not talking about blackholes in the first place at all..... I was referring black hole with the theory of relativity for better understanding. Doesn't matter what a black hole looks like, theory of relativity is very real, speed of light is constant and times varies for different velocities and objects. They are facts.

5) God is a skydaddy who doesn't exist. What was he doing before creation? Chilling alone in darkness? Thinking whether to create or not? Didn't he question himself why he was there in the first place? He's in a self prison. He can't die. He can't escape. Eternal boring. Hence decided to create? Lol....

If I as an intelligent human species demand that for my intelligence and this creation, there should be a creator, then God who's far more intelligent according to religion, must also demand a creator.

1. You are trying way too hard to paint God out of the picture. - We can easily understand "nothing." Simple people wave their hand through the air, and call it nothing. Scientists call the emptiness of some parts of outer space, "nothing." But a "nothing" that is absence of even outer space is the real nothing, but we can't comprehend it because such would be too different. The fact that BB Theory contradicts itself, throws everything that BB was supposed to be right back into the lap of God.

2. Life and the universe are not simple. They are extremely complex and complicated. Ask any serious scientist. The proof of the complexity lies in the fact that if life were simple, we would have figured out how to live for 10,000 years by now. But we still can't guarantee even 100 years.

3. All matter is energy when you get right down to it. We barely understand anything about the aether which gives birth to the energy that makes up the matter.

4. Anybody can call a black hole whatever he wants. And scientists can make up all kinds of theories about what a black hole is. Standard black hole theory doesn't fit Euclidean Geometry that we use every day. Since nobody has gone out to visit a black hole, let's stick with what we know, not some silly theory that doesn't match anything.

5. I don't believe that there is a sky daddy. God is way more powerful than a sky daddy could ever think of being.

1. But where did "nothing" come from? "Nothing" didn't come from "nothing," did it?

2. The science that suggests this is simply interpretation that contradicts itself in areas. The example of Big Bang shows that our math and physics cannot be used to calculate what the BB was like, so it can't really calculate that BB even existed.

3. Naming the particles is simple. For example, the earth is a planet. How simple. But it is very much more complex that simply calling it a planet. Just because we haven't figured out the complexity of an atom or electron, doesn't mean the complexity isn't there. For example, we have figured out enough to know that electrons are made up of other subatomic particles.

4. Except that aether theory, electric universe theory, and micro-gravity theory all contradict points in the theory of relativity... which remains a theory, because it can be changed upon further findings. This shows that it is not a fact, and things like black-holes are so far out there that we don't really know what part of relativity holds true with them.

In addition, the idea that a point inside the black hole can contain the matter of the black-hole, contradicts Euclidean geometry. A point is the place where things meet. It is the non-existence of material... yet scientists run all around this idea by suggesting that a chunk of space that is too small to even contain "nothing," can contain so much material that the gravity of it can suck even light in.

Scientists are twisting math into things that it is not made to be twisted into.

1) The universe indeed came from "nothing". There's nothing called "within" or "outside" the universe. If anything is there outside the universe, it is part of the universe and itself is the universe.  Hence, either the universe was there eternally or it came into existence from nothing.

2) the universe is ever expanding and infinite flat. Let alone mankind, even the smallest life forms took billions of years and suitable climate to form. Hence, there's no smart creation, it's all randomness. Earth just got lucky.

3) All the particles aren't complex at all. They are simple. Electrons, protons and neutrons.
You are made of them. Your TV is made of them. When I say made of them, I mean made of only them and nothing else. Yet you are alive while your tv is dead.  Indeed, miraculous science.

4) No proof of theory of realitivity? GPS system itself is based on this theory lol.... so we can get accurate location as the time of satellites and GPS systems vary as they are on high velocities in space. Hence, their clocks are made special to match with earth's time. Theory of relativity is the back of modern physics. Without it, physics is nothing. 

What? ''People go to hospitals because of religious preaching that hospitals work.'' Right..... since when does religion preach that exactly? Does it say that in the bible? To go to hospitals? Or does it say to pray to god?

The universe didn't come from nothing, any more than a new car did. The difference is that the universe did not come from anything within it, not even from the so-called "nothing" that exists within the universe.

There is a difference between "eternal" and "everlasting." The universe might last forever, but it had a beginning... and not too far in the past. If the beginning was far into the past, entropy would have dissolved/dispersed/diffused all complexity into enough simplicity that mankind and all life would have died out long ago.

Life is in the complexity. All the particles are full of complexity. It's simply that they are extremely complex when life exists with them.

Nobody has proven the black-hole/time physics. It's only theory, subject to change if new info is found. There is no proof of billions of years. The farthest we can go back for sure is about 5,000 years.

People go to hospitals because of religious preaching that hospitals work. Didn't you notice that hospitals are full of death results for people who went there?

Most people in the world are religious. And they live longer than if they had gone to the hospitals.

Science is simply observations. Religion is life.

Science doesnt always work but it works, religion never works, otherwise people would go to churches not hospitals.

^^^ Science doesn't always work. There are many times when the medical is amazed that there was this result or that result. Religion has the answer for both, the this or the that.

Yes I have plenty of evidence, people donate money to science, to investigation, to research, they go to hospitals when they are sick, they trust doctors not priests, they do not go to the church when they are sick, they go to a hospital because they know science works, religion doesn't.

I think it`s a little bit more complicated as you all think it is

^^^ That's the thing I like about you. You continue to show your insincerity and your limited ability to think.

Do you have any evidence at all that the things that science uses were not around throughout all ages of the past like religion was (and is)?

Do you have any evidence at all that both science and religion are not there to help people, especially with things that they can't predict because they don't know the future?

The only difference between science theory and religion is that science theory admits by its very nature that it doesn't know the future.

The major difference between science fact and religion is that religion often expresses the emotional reasons why, but science fact never does.

What kind of retarded argument is this? Poop and a monkey cannot predict the future therefore, SEE?? THEY ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT AFTER ALL. Are you this dumb or do you like to troll? Religion is based in faith and nothing more which literally means it's based on nothing, you simply believe it because you do, there are no predictions, no tests, no evidence.

^^^ The only reason why science was barely available in ages beyond 500 years ago, is that science wasn't organized. The earth, nature, and machine usage of people existed for thousands of years. So, the things of nature that science uses in its calculations existed for thousands of years... actually, from the beginning.

Nobody knows the future. Science can't, for a fact, predict the future, just as religion can't. Yet BOTH are used for predicting the future to people, so that people can be more comfortable in their minds about what will happen to them.

So you can see that science and religion aren't very different after all.