God and the Big Bang

[Lasse]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have absolutely no connection with science

So you mean you did not learned anything science had to offer, and your opinion is absolutely not effected by anything what science have to teach.

The same I quess you mean to be true for any religion as well. 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are very confused. The fact that some (most?) religions accept science as a valid and worthwhile thing does not mean that religions have any connection with science.

So basically you say that if I accept a political parties ideology and support their activity, it is meaning that I have absolutely nothing to do with politics. 

Try to explain this in the communist Hungary of the 70` 80`. (those times they called such an individual the enemy of the state and punished with strong sentences )

Or for religion: 

If I accept a religions ideology and support their activity it is meaning that I do not have any connection to that religion. 

Explain this to the CIA when they are checking potential threats

Edited April 18, 2018 by Lasse

[koti]

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think science is a valid and worthwhile thing. I have absolutely no connection with science

 

49 minutes ago, Lasse said:

So you mean you did not learned anything science had to offer, and your opinion is absolutely not effected by anything what science have to teach.

You’re going to need to start understanding what you’re being told. There is no way of leading a valid discussion if you are incapable of basic comprehension. 

What Strange, me and others are trying to point out to you is that your example with the Vatican promoting religion (or some versin of it) is not an example that supports your premise that science/religion are part of each other. Science does not deal with belief and religion doesn’t deal with evidence, its really that simple. 

You could set up a chemistry lab in Jerusalem or a Mosque in LHC and it doesn’t change anything.

Edited April 18, 2018 by koti

[Lasse]

39 minutes ago, koti said:

You’re going to need to start understanding what you’re being told.

I understand what you say but I Think you are not right.

I listen Everything but I am not a robot to accept Everything have been said without questioning it (independent it is Science of Religion). I recheck the post in reality. 

I never said that science is a religion or that any of the religions would be science. I said that they have some level of historical correlation i.e. they are not absolutely separate.

I do not have more to say about this turbulent science/religion connection in human history even we disagree. 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Lasse

[koti]

On 17.04.2018 at 6:53 AM, Lasse said:

Mixing religion with science is like to recognize that there is a informational connection between a stone age bow and the falcon heavy.

15 hours ago, Lasse said:

...Finally I understood The God of Science...

Science and Religion lived happy ever after...

 

10 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I never said that science is a religion or that any of the religions would be science.

 

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the language barrier might be the reason behind the „confusion” but it looks like you’re just trolling. 

[Lasse]

8 minutes ago, koti said:

 

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the language barrier might be the reason behind the „confusion” but it looks like you’re just trolling. 

I might be confused but I do not troll. 

[koti]

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I might be confused but I do not troll. 

Thats good to hear. You will need to start trying to draw rational conclusions from the discussion and stop developing new meaning to words and concepts to convince people otherwise. You also need to stop contradicting yourself, you don’t get to say that you „finally understood the God of science” and then claim that you never said that science is a religion. Since you’re not trolling, maybe you should start understanding what is being said in this thread, for starters read Eise’s posts again and respond...coherently. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

So you mean you did not learned anything science had to offer, and your opinion is absolutely not effected by anything what science have to teach.

Obviously not.

But if you are using "connection" in that vague sense, then your statement is so completely pointless that it becomes meaningless. On that basis my cat has a connection with science. The rocks in my garden have a connection with science. 

If, by your definition of the word, everything has a connection with science then saying that "religion has a connection with science" is pointless and meaningless.

You have, once again, chosen to use words in a non-standard way that makes any discussion impossible.

[Lasse]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

If you want to know something about nature, you should study nature, not your old books or your tradition.

That is exactly what I am doing. I really love to live.

I enjoy the feeling to be part of Nature.

Tradition and old books are important too. They are part of our history. Perfect test to spot the unreal and outdated and filter out what can be true..

The new knowledge anyway needs firm base.

History and religions are part of nature. I like to recognize that, even they are not my main source of information since a while.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

On that basis my cat has a connection with science. The rocks in my garden have a connection with science. 

Science observe and measure Nature.

Your cat and stone are parts of Nature.

It depends where from you look at it. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Lasse

[Phi for All]

49 minutes ago, Lasse said:

History and religions are part of nature.

Lasse, please stop repeating the things EVERYONE else is telling you are wrong. They've explained why, but you just keep repeating the wrongness.

The part you don't seem to understand is that the words we're using are very important. They have more rigid meanings than you give them, so we know precisely what is meant by them. History is NOT NOT NOT part of nature. It's a recording of human events. Humans were part of nature long before they invented (made up, created something that wasn't natural) oral and written history.

Religions are also NOT NOT NOT part of nature, for much the same reasons. If you can't understand the power of universally defined concepts in scientific methodology, I don't think you'll be able to understand much science. 

What you're doing isn't confusion, it's insisting on your own private definitions for words and concepts, and forcing others to ask you to explain what you mean. That is NOT NOT NOT science.

[koti]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

I enjoy the feeling to be part of Nature. 

I enjoy that too. +1

[Lasse]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The part you don't seem to understand is that the words we're using are very important.

Define what nothing is and why. Give a mathematical symbol to it. 

Define what finite means in the terms of science. Why?

Define what infinity means in the terms of science. Why? Why infinity does not apply everywhere?

I am looking for dogma im your science and yet I would not accept it as my Religion... it is dogmatic.

I can not accept unexplained, untested, unprovable dogma. 1/0, 1*0

The final answer on can science be my religion is:

Of course it can. What else could be?

But the science you practice todays is not yet that science.

Said well: science is a process. Yes it is evolving. Different times has different questions and recognitions. 

There is a reason for the op too...

You can recognize it or not. 1....0

Everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value...

Can you deny that?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Science observe and measure Nature.

Your cat and stone are parts of Nature.

This is a complete non-sequitur. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just post random unconnected thoughts.

[Lasse]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is a complete non-sequitur. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just post random unconnected thoughts.

With all my respect on this we disagree.

Time and the sense of nothing sooner or later will solve this problem.

You do not pay enough attention. Maybe you post too much which comes with a hint of superficiality in topics you are not that interested in. (Religion)

 

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Define what finite means in the terms of science. Why?

Finite means it can be counted or measured.

36 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Define what infinity means in the terms of science. Why?

Infinity means beyond that which can be counted or measured. 

Quote

Why infinity does not apply everywhere?

That doesn't mean anything.

39 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I am looking for dogma im your science

You won't find it.

39 minutes ago, Lasse said:

The final answer on can science be my religion is:

Of course it can. What else could be?

Of course it can't. However many times you repeat this idiotic statement it still won't be true.

41 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value...

Of course it doesn't.

[Ten oz]

On 4/12/2018 at 1:01 PM, sciencebro said:

Why is it that God and Science are so often separated?

 

 

Having watched the video I fail to see how the inclusion of a god, as outlined in the video, is useful to Big Bang Theory. The video is asking why it couldn't have been god who caused the big bang without addressing why it matters or any proof that it may have been. Including god into Big Bang Theory doesn't improve the theory. Including god into Big Bang Theory only renders it more speculative. Big Bang Theory is not universally accepted and there are still a lot of details that are unknown. The addition of god as an additional variable, one which has no empirical basis in physics, does help the math so why include it? 

 

[Eise]

13 hours ago, Lasse said:

Tradition and old books are important too. They are part of our history.

Of course. But they are not authoritative for scientific content.  You are mixing the object of science (old books, studied by history e.g.) with the contents of science. In the second meaning, these old books are useless.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Eise

[Lasse]

1 minute ago, Eise said:

Of course. But they are not authoritative for scientific content.  

True.

[Eise]

52 minutes ago, Lasse said:

True.

Then why do you keep mixing content (e.g. false or true empirical claims in the bible) and the bible as 'natural phenomenon' (e.g. empirical claims about the bible)?

[Lasse]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Then why do you keep mixing content (e.g. false or true empirical claims in the bible) 

I did not cite from the bible a single time.

I cliam that science and religions has correlations.

2 hours ago, Eise said:

the bible as 'natural phenomenon' (e.g. empirical claims about the bible)?

It is part of the present nature. Or are You (and Phi) claiming that History, Religion and basic cognitive functions are super natural? Every past moment is history. What Science can observe from different point of views: Physics, mathematics, medical sciences, engineering, history, law, cognitive studies...

Whatever you feel like to study do so but be as clear and as Real with your recognitions (in the past) and with your expressions (in the present and in the future) as you are capable.

Nature is the final source of Information.

I see signs of religion in Nature.

If I can say: Nature is my Religion and Science is it's Language.

Science feels sometimes unclear and dogmatic, I.e. something is part of nature or not? Something is science or not?, we determined to apply 1*0=0 although never can be true....and instead of: God is the answer, says: You can not ask question about some things, just accept what is said, even it does not align with reality.. Let it be math or physics, philosophy....)

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

I did not cite from the bible a single time.

No one said you did.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

I cliam that science and religions has correlations.

What are these claimed correlations?

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

It is part of the present nature.

So what? That doesn't make it science.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

I see signs of religion in Nature.

Perhaps you are deluded.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

If I can say: Nature is my Religion and Science is it's Language

Nature can be your religion, I suppose. It makes as much sense as any other basis for religion. A kind of pantheism, perhaps.

But how can a process or body of knowledge be a "language". That makes no sense.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Science feels sometimes unclear and dogmatic

That is probably because you don't know anything about it. (I am puzzled how something can be both unclear and dogmatic, though.)

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

I.e. something is part of nature or not?

That is not a scientific question. (Unless you define the word "nature" in some way that makes it testable.)

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Something is science or not?

That is easier. If it follows the scientific method; if it is basically developing testable ideas, then it counts as science.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

we determined to apply 1*0=0 although never can be true....

It is always true. That is the definition of zero.

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

and instead of: God is the answer, says: You can not ask question about some things, just accept what is said, even it does not align with reality..

If it doesn't correspond to reality, then it isn't science. Or not good science, anyway.

[Lasse]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

But how can a process or body of knowledge be a "language". That makes no sense.

We can express with mathematics anything. Space time enegy matter and Information. This makes mathematics an universal languege, it has points which ones are universally recognisable as same like the sense of nothing and everything and the ever evolving but most likely finite universe). 1*0=0 you can not prove while 1/0=1 i always can prove.

The definition of zero would be more like:

0*0=0,0

Space (time) itself if some would like to recognize it. 4D 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Lasse said:

This makes mathematics an universal languege

You said "science" was the language, not mathematics.

9 minutes ago, Lasse said:

1*0=0 you can not prove while 1/0=1 i always can prove.

You really don't know anything, do you.

Multiplying by zero always gives you zero. That is part of the definition of zero.

Dividing by zero is undefined. It certainly doesn't give 1.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

(I am puzzled how something can be both unclear and dogmatic, though.)

When you don't know what you're talking about, even the best current explanations would be unclear, and those who insist on using them might seem dogmatic about it (if I was completely ignorant about chemistry, I would be unclear about the properties of short chain hydrocarbons, and the gas station attendant screaming at me about it while I light my cigar might seem dogmatic). Unfortunately, this sometimes makes a person resentful of other's knowledge, and they make up "answers" to take its place. Doubly unfortunate, because this kind of ignorance can only be cured by learning, and making up your own answers is the opposite of that. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

We can express with mathematics anything. Space time enegy matter and Information. This makes mathematics an universal languege, it has points which ones are universally recognisable as same like the sense of nothing and everything and the ever evolving but most likely finite universe). 1*0=0 you can not prove while 1/0=1 i always can prove.

The definition of zero would be more like:

0*0=0,0

Space (time) itself if some would like to recognize it. 4D 

7

Lasse, look.

Religion can't be proven. It can't be pointed out, it can't be mathematically proven, it can't be logically proven, it can't be scientifically proven, it simply can't.

If it could be proven 100% without a shadow of a doubt, then virtually everyone on earth would be religious, wouldn't they?

I'm assuming you're Christian based off of your posts.

In Christianity, you require faith in God. If it's proven, then it's not faith.

If you're not using faith, then you're believing in the evidence rather then God.

Just let it go.

[Lasse]

27 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Religion can't be proven. It can't be pointed out, it can't be mathematically proven, it can't be logically proven, it can't be scientifically proven, it simply can't.

On this we disagree. I think phenomenas as religion, love, hate, motivation, performance etc. are digitally scaleable attributes (information). See a bit with the economists eye. Everything is data. Everything is information. You can recognize that or you do not count with some part of it. Than you have incomplete theories with a lot of uncertainty. 

35 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If it could be proven 100% without a shadow of a doubt, then virtually everyone on earth would be religious, wouldn't they?

90% is enough to start with. 100% never can be i.e we will always miss some part of the information.