Hijack from Reconciling science and religion

[Anonymous Participant]

I don't think real empirical-based science can ever be reconciled with any mainstream religion besides perhaps Buddhism to some extent, which isn't actually a religion but a philosophy of life.

The reason I believe this is because people who are religious and hold to religious tenets do so based on faith and belief and not logic and facts.

When an idea conflicts with their religious dogma they automatically discount it without having to understand the idea.

Unfortunately, modern science itself has become a religion based on the non-belief in an intelligent sentient creator or intelligent design of the universe, in other words atheism. Because of this ll kinds of ridiculous and illogical "theories" have been proposed that conflict with logic and previously well held principals, laws and facts of science. I call this atheistic pseudoscience, because it is faith based and motivated by a singular intent to explain the existence of the universe within the limited context than there is no intelligent arrangement to it.

Modern post 19th century science is the religion of atheism. I can state this with certainty because any attempt to mention the fact that the universe is intelligently arranged meets with the same contempt and censorship one would expect if he walked into a Baptist church and declared Jesus wasn't the son of God, and yet it is. When you stick your fingers in your ears when faced with facts that contradict your beliefs, your beliefs do not reconcile with science at all.

I have encountered this with so called scientists for the past 40 years. They are emotionally involved, and become angry when you insult their religion by pointing out it doesn't logically compute.

 

Take for instance the big bang "theory", which seeks to explain the genesis of the universe. This is an idea which conflicts with not just logic and common sense, it violates basic premises and laws of science. It is based loosely on the observation that the universe is expanding, which led to the belief an explosion caused it. The problem is that while we have been able to measure some celestial bodies moving away from us, others are getting closer. For the most part other than procession most celestial bodies are in the same places they were when we began to observe them.  What you are left with is trying to explain how the singularity came into existence and what made it explode in the first place, and therefor have explained nothing about the origin of the universe. You also cannot explain how an explosion could result in such an almost infintely complex interaction and construct without some intelligent intervention. Explosions do not create, they destroy.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I don't think real empirical-based science can ever be reconciled with any mainstream religion besides perhaps Buddhism to some extent, which isn't actually a religion but a philosophy of life.

The reason I believe this is because people who are religious and hold to religious tenets do so based on faith and belief and not logic and facts.

But there is no inherent reason why those beliefs need to be in conflict with science. There are many religious people who fully understand and accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

13 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Unfortunately, modern science itself has become a religion based on the non-belief in an intelligent sentient creator or intelligent design of the universe, in other words atheism.

Not quite true. Science uses a process of methodological naturalism, which basically ignores anything supernatural and just looks at natural explanations. Why? Because something supernatural is, by definition, does not provide reputable objective evidence (if it did, it wouldn't be supernatural). 

If there were objective evidence for a god and sets that could be done to determine its powers, etc. then it could be part of science.

In short, it has nothing to do with atheism. There are, after all many religious scientists.

Quote

Because of this ll kinds of ridiculous and illogical "theories" have been proposed that conflict with logic and previously well held principals, laws and facts of science. I call this atheistic pseudoscience, because it is faith based and motivated by a singular intent to explain the existence of the universe within the limited context than there is no intelligent arrangement to it.

I call this ignorance of the relevant science. For example:

Quote

Take for instance the big bang "theory", which seeks to explain the genesis of the universe. 

It seeks to do no such thing.

Quote

This is an idea which conflicts with not just logic and common sense, it violates basic premises and laws of science. 

The Big Bang model is based on the laws of physics. 

Quote

It is based loosely on the observation that the universe is expanding, which led to the belief an explosion caused it.

There was no "explosion".

Quote

The problem is that while we have been able to measure some celestial bodies moving away from us, others are getting closer. 

That is not a problem, for obvious reasons (to anyone who knows what they are thing about).

Quote

You also cannot explain how an explosion could result in such an almost infintely complex interaction and construct without some intelligent intervention. Explosions do not create, they destroy.

Good job it wasn't an explosion, then.

[Anonymous Participant]

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

But there is no inherent reason why those beliefs need to be in conflict with science. There are many religious people who fully understand and accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection.

Not quite true. Science uses a process of methodological naturalism, which basically ignores anything supernatural and just looks at natural explanations. Why? Because something supernatural is, by definition, does not provide reputable objective evidence (if it did, it wouldn't be supernatural). 

If there were objective evidence for a god and sets that could be done to determine its powers, etc. then it could be part of science.

In short, it has nothing to do with atheism. There are, after all many religious scientists.

I call this ignorance of the relevant science. For example:

It seeks to do no such thing.

The Big Bang model is based on the laws of physics. 

There was no "explosion".

That is not a problem, for obvious reasons (to anyone who knows what they are thing about).

Good job it wasn't an explosion, then.

Here is what a search of the big bang theory resulted in:

https://www.google.com/search?q=big+bang+theory&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Nuff said, I think. It is obviously meant to be a popular atheistic iconic idea promoted by not just academia through pseudoscience but the entertainment industry and media ,and not a real theory.

 

ANYWAY...while the big bang theory doesn't actually claim the singularity exploded, it DOES say it suddenly began to expand rapidly at an extremely high rate, which is loosely the definition of an explosion. It does not explain how the singularity came into existence and even claims space didn't exist before. This IS a genesis theory. The irony of all of this is that the big bang is a creation theory. It claims Discoveries and fact associated with  astronomy and physics have proved to a reasonable certainty that the universe did in fact appear to have a beginning.  According to this theory, prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something. IT WAS CREATED. How it doesn't explain which is just another lame aspect of this so called theory.  The law of entropy proves that the universe is an intelligent construct because it became and is becoming more complex from something infinitely non complex. You are thinking withing the constraints of a preconceived FAITH BASED notion and because of that you are not a scientist, but a coreligionist with other atheists.

If you want to explain the existence of the universe the only truly logical conclusion is that it has always existed, there is no need to explain the beginning because there was none, it's just a never ending cycle of contraction and expansion, and we are currently observing the expansion phase. I don't understand why it is so necessary to explain the genesis of the universe in science and why people are so obsessed with it. Almost every observation we make in science involves repeating cycles. Look at a circle, is it really necessary to do the impossible and determine where it begins and ends to explain its existence?  That's exactly what you are doing when you try to explain how the universe came into existence because inevitably you are faced with the reality that if it did come into existence from nothing you are never going to actually explain how it came into existence.

What I think the evidence indicates is that the universe is an intelligent construct hat has always existed and it is it's own creator. because there is no other possible explanation. We have never observed nothing suddenly becoming something

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[Silvestru]

15 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Nuff said, I think. It is obviously meant to be a popular atheistic iconic idea promoted by not just academia through pseudoscience but the entertainment industry and media ,and not a real theory.

That's such a nonsensical argument. I can make a "Intelligent Design" show about Smart Hippos that work in Graphic design and use that to dismiss your beliefs.

16 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

while the big bang theory doesn't actually claim the singularity exploded, it DOES say it suddenly began to expand rapidly at an extremely high rate, which is loosely the definition of an explosion

Is the inflation of a balloon an explosion in your eyes? It's a less loose analogy of the Big Bang than an explosion in my opinion.

17 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

and even claims space didn't exist before

We don't know what was before the Big Bang. No one Claims that. Can you show the source for this please? 

"All of our known physical laws including GR (which have so far assumed spacetime to be smooth and quite flat) breakdown at singularities due to the infinite curvature of spacetime. Hence, we say, "One second after the big bang..., An hour after the big bang..., etc." Because, we simply don't know what happened at the instant of big bang. If there were events before the big bang, we cannot use those events to determine what happened in its future, because our laws don't work at singularities."

17 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Discoveries and fact associated with  astronomy and physics have proved to a reasonable certainty that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

Can you provide your source please?

18 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The law of entropy proves that the universe is an intelligent construct because it became more complex from something infidelity non complex...nothing

The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state . How do you define a change of complexity in this case?

Are we more complex if we increase are distance from each other and cool down?

[Anonymous Participant]

9 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

"That's such a nonsensical argument. I can make a "Intelligent Design" show about Smart Hippos that work in Graphic design and use that to dismiss your beliefs."

You could, but you would never get it broadcast on tell lie vision and that is the point. The big bang theory is part of a larger agenda to remove and isolate moral restraints from human society.

Quote

"Is the inflation of a balloon an explosion in your eyes? It's a less loose analogy of the Big Bang than an explosion in my opinion."

No, but the instantaneous initiation of a rapid expansion of matter at many kilometers per second IS an explosion.

 

"We don't know what was before the Big Bang. No one Claims that. Can you show the source for this please? "

No kidding? What the BBT actually claims is there was nothing before it, no space, no time no nothing just all matter and energy contained within an infinitely tiny singularity whose origin itself has not explanation, it's a freakin' fairy tale, it makes genesis in the bible look like a highly intelligent scientific theory. The only reason you don't see that is because you're dumbed down not to think, only to absorb what you're taught  Modern scientific Academia is nothing but brainwashing using positive and negative reinforcement, if you toe the line faithfully you are rewarded with praise and passing marks and if you don't you fail. Independent thought is not tolerated when it conflicts with the psuedoscientific atheist agenda, all you have to do is MAKE THE OBSERVATION that the the universe is an intelligent arrangement like every other scientist before you in history and suddenly you become a pariah and the center of ridicule. Don't you see a problem with that?.

""All of our known physical laws including GR (which have so far assumed spacetime to be smooth and quite flat) breakdown at singularities due to the infinite curvature of spacetime. Hence, we say, "One second after the big bang..., An hour after the big bang..., etc." Because, we simply don't know what happened at the instant of big bang. If there were events before the big bang, we cannot use those events to determine what happened in its future, because our laws don't work at singularities.""

To be blunt the big bang theory doesn't really inform you of anything. It is non information.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[Silvestru]

Please learn to quote properly. I'm afraid someone will think that your comments in my post are mine. 

2 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

No kidding? What the BBT actually claims is there was nothing before it, no space, no time no nothing just all matter and energy contained within an infinitely tiny singularity whose origin has not explanation, it's a freakin' fairy tale, it makes genesis in the bible look like a highly intelligent scientific theory.

It claims no such thing. "The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state." - This is not my opinion. Please do some research.

Plus you are contradicting yourself in this comment.  "no nothing just all matter and energy contained within an infinitely tiny singularity"

5 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

To be blunt the big bang theory doesn't really inform you of anything. It is non information

To be blunt, this forum is not for you. 

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, Silvestru said:

"Please learn to quote properly. I'm afraid someone will think that your comments in my post are mine. "

That should be the least of your concerns.

"It claims no such thing. "The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state." - This is not my opinion. Please do some research."

I have no idea what you're babbling about, I assume you disagree with the fact that the BB does not explain where the singularity came from or how it came itno existance, it doesn't.

"Plus you are contradicting yourself in this comment.  "no nothing just all matter and energy contained within an infinitely tiny singularity"

I am not contradicting myself, i am pointing out the idiocy of a non-scientific theory

"To be blunt, this forum is not for you. "

If it is only for atheist coreligionists , probably not

 

[Silvestru]

12 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The only reason you don't see that is because you're dumbed down not to think, only to absorb what you're taught  Modern scientific Academia is nothing but brainwashing using positive and negative reinforcement, if you toe the line faithfully you are rewarded with praise and passing marks and if you don't you fail. Independent thought is not tolerated when it conflicts with the psuedoscientific atheist agenda, all you have to do is MAKE THE OBSERVATION that the the universe is an intelligent arrangement like every other scientist before you in history and suddenly you become a pariah and the center of ridicule. Don't you see a problem with that?.

Actually Science teaches you to question everything and test for yourself what others claim so ... yeah....

There are many religious people in the science community.

You need to show facts/data for your assumptions. That's why I am more inclined to believe hundreds of years of continuous research (despite being oppressed by religion) than assumptions made out of ignorance and fear. The way I see it, religion has had a very dismissive attitude towards science not the other way around.

 

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, Silvestru said:

Actually Science teaches you to question everything and test for yourself what others claim so ... yeah....

There are many religious people in the science community.

You need to show facts/data for your assumptions. That's why I am more inclined to believe hundreds of years of continuous research (despite being oppressed by religion) than assumptions made out of ignorance and fear. The way I see it, religion has had a very dismissive attitude towards science not the other way around.

 

You ARE NOT a scientist, you are an atheistic pseudoscience coreligionist.Scientists do not dismiss facts based on religious faith based preconceptions

[Silvestru]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

You ARE NOT a scientist, you are an atheistic pseudoscience coreligionist.Scientists do not dismiss facts based on religious faith based preconceptions

I am definitely not a scientist. But I can make an accurate opinion for myself with the help of scientists. This is not base on trust or faith.

Again, please provide some undeniable data and facts for your nonsensical assumptions and I will renounce my belief in science and join your creationist ID philistine club.

 

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, Silvestru said:

I am definitely not a scientist. But I can make an accurate opinion for myself with the help of scientists. This is not base on trust or faith.

Again, please provide some undeniable data and facts for your nonsensical assumptions and I will renounce my belief in science and join your creationist ID philistine club.

 

Believing that the universe is an intelligent construct based on observations is not a religious idea. Believing that it is not in order to explain it's existence in the absence of an intelligent design IS a religious idea, because it ignores the facts automatically when they conflict with a preconceived RELIGIOUS belief..

[Silvestru]

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

Believing that the universe is an intelligent construct based on observations is not a religious idea. Believing that it is not in order to explain it's existence in the absence of an intelligent design IS a religious idea, because it ignores the facts automatically when they conflict with a preconceived RELIGIOUS belief..

Give me the facts, man. Imagine I want to understand you and you need to show me why you believe what you believe. Stop arguing and give me facts to support your opinion.

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, Silvestru said:

Give me the facts, man. Imagine I want to understand you and you need to show me why you believe what you believe. Stop arguing and give me facts to support your opinion.

The facts that support the idea of intelligent design in science is the entire discipline and how it's methodology is conducted. Without intelligent arrangement the scientific process couldn't function. There is no observation or fact in science that disproves intelligent design, but on the contrary everything we actually know proves it is. How can a person call themselves a scientist and deny that DNA is an intelligent code  for instance? That is exactly what it is.What about evolution? Does adaptation of organisms to their environment through an ingrained process in that DNA indicate intelligent design?