Topic: Science and Religion? - page 8. (Read 1935 times)

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.

Considering how many scientific errors the bible contains, what do you mean we haven't used the scientific method on them? Of course we have, there is not much you can do with the scientific method to a book, though. No experiments can be done to test god, no evidence, no hypothesis.

''or they wouldn't have been written in such an absolutely down-to-earth fashion that they have been written in.'' [False dilemma fallacy] '' false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]''

''Since most of the scientists are interested in working with the physical things at hand, why would they even apply the scientific method to religious books to find out which are realistic and which are not? '' Because a lot of scientists are also religious people so of course they would try to apply the scientific method to the bible, unfortunately they failed and that's why even religious scientists do not talk about it.

^^^ You suggest that religious books are nothing, but you haven't used the scientific method on them. If you had, you would find out that the science in them is more powerful than the scientific knowledge we have today in the directions that the religious books talk. You would also find which of these books are credible, and which are lacking in scientific and common sense.

Notice how the Bible can be tested against the kind of people that the people of Israel are to show that the writings of the Bible absolutely have to be real, or they wouldn't have been written in such an absolutely down-to-earth fashion that they have been written in.

One of the philosophies of the scientific method is that scientists don't use the scientific method on things that they are not interested in. Since most of the scientists are interested in working with the physical things at hand, why would they even apply the scientific method to religious books to find out which are realistic and which are not?

Just stating that religious books are nothing, is stating that thinking people are nothing, and that science is nothing because it is developed by thinking people, just as the religious books have been. So, you see that it is you who are messed up, because thinking scientists actually do reasonable studies, and their talk about their studies fits the way people talk about things as described in the religious books.

Science and religion are tied right to each other... interwoven, even.

All scientific theories use the scientific method. All religious books use... nothing. They are simple writings. Notice how the bible provides no evidence or test for anything it claims, it simply claims things without anything to back them up.

^^^ Religion doesn't always mean "God." In fact, it might mean other things more than it means "God." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

When scientists stop using things of science to determine what they call scientific findings, they are using religion. Why? Because it is based on belief rather than on scientific fact.

Science and religion there is a big difference. We all know that scientist did not believe in God and they always say that in able to believe is to see is what to believe.they askimg always a proof of something.scientist said that all is happens by nature not by God.
But for me I do believe in God because if not who does our earth,who does all the planet?
How come that earth,sun moon and others planet are revolving even does not holding of anyone.
Also proof that there is a God our life who holds our life.
Even that Gods we never see we know that there is a God and I believe that theres a God.

^^^ Except that scientists are never really certain about much of anything. Consider that science theories can be changed on a moment's notice with proper new information. And even things not considered to be science theories, are often simply dropped when they are found to be obsolete. Can't really trust science.

^^^ Technically, science is only the investigation of things to find them out in detail. Religion is the knowledge expressed, with emphasis and detail in certain areas, and lack of clarity in areas not important to the specific religion.

The two of them are in different areas. Essentially, science is the way to prove some of religion, or to prove it is wrong. However, it will take a long time for science to become great enough to prove or disprove a whole lot of religion.

In their efforts to find out knowledge, some scientists have started believing science things that haven't been proven. And they have often rejected formal religion things they have not prove wrong. When they do this, they are turning aspects of science into religion.

The both go together religion and science can not go without each other, religion is  the way to worship God but science is a formulation of man in technology and other wise. While region can be limited to worshiping God science on the other hand is can be related to god and human.