Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[Aupmanyav]

You are in the room, free of tools. Do you think this room will create tools from scratch (zero)?

When the universe was coming into existence, the conditions were very different according to the currently accepted model. Those conditions do not exist in your room.

"The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang", which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time containing radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This was immediately (within 10−29 seconds) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 1027 or more, known as cosmic inflation. The early universe remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hundred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a residual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, a very low energy radiation emanating from all parts of the sky. The "Big Bang" scenario, with cosmic inflation and standard particle physics, is the only current cosmological model consistent with the observed continuing expansion of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in the CMB radiation. Cosmic inflation also addresses the "horizon problem" in the CMB; indeed, it seems likely that the universe is larger than the observable particle horizon."
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

But I don't know if my trying to explain the scientific model will make any sense to you. That is not in your book which says He rent the moon in two.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have not explained replication of evolution or Big Bang.
You are explaining replicating experiments.
So the experiment is to test a hypothesis?
So how is the hypothesis tested?
By using a presumed hypothesis, and if the evidence inferred for the experiment of the second hypothesis matches the first hypothesis, that's replication?

You have carried out an experiment.
If you do it again, you replicate the experiment.

With evolution, the typical way to corroborate conclusions is to use independent lines of investigation: for instance, confirming radiometric dating by comparing it to other dating methods, or by using genetics to confirm a line of ancestry that was determined by fossils.

 

[j1i]

When the universe was coming into existence, the conditions were very different according to the currently accepted model. Those conditions do not exist in your room.

"The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang", which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time containing radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This was immediately (within 10−29 seconds) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 1027 or more, known as cosmic inflation. The early universe remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hundred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a residual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, a very low energy radiation emanating from all parts of the sky. The "Big Bang" scenario, with cosmic inflation and standard particle physics, is the only current cosmological model consistent with the observed continuing expansion of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in the CMB radiation. Cosmic inflation also addresses the "horizon problem" in the CMB; indeed, it seems likely that the universe is larger than the observable particle horizon."
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia

The presence of the substance is imperative
The article (matter) did not find itself out of nowhere

with respect brother
Thank you for your interest and response

 

[Aupmanyav]

The presence of the substance is imperative
The article (matter) did not find itself out of nowhere

Well, it is not imperative. But again that is not according to your book.

"A widely supported hypothesis in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error. The paper "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo" provides a model for a way the Universe could have been created from pure 'nothing' in information terms."
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

 

[viole]

It’s not a competition of who’s superior to who, the scientists or the religionists. It’s a philosophical question about reconciling two important aspects of our lives, the spiritual or the material. Religion doesn’t care anymore than science cares. It is people who care and want to make sense of the contradictions and inconsistencies. What you are essentially saying is you personally don’t care.

I know it is not a competition. I am not aware of any scientist that things she is competing with belief in God. Nor in Allah. Nor Jupiter. Not the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea. Nor Baha, or whatever.

Why should they do that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dawnofhope]

I know it is not a competition. I am not aware of any scientist that things she is competing with belief in God. Nor in Allah. Nor Jupiter. Not the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea. Nor Baha, or whatever.

Why should they do that?

Ciao

- viole

Neither a scientist, nor a religionist should be in competition. Many do not think alone those lines, but some do. What is more helpful IMHO is to avoid false dichotomies and to consider the nature of reality in an independant manner freed from our biases and prejudices. Prejudice and bias is not the exclsive domain of religionists but is part of our human nature. Often its easier to see the prejudices of others than our own. That too is part of the human condition.

 

[viole]

Neither a scientist, nor a religionist should be in competition. Many do not think alone those lines, but some do. What is more helpful IMHO is to avoid false dichotomies and to consider the nature of reality in an independant manner freed from our biases and prejudices. Prejudice and bias is not the exclsive domain of religionists but is part of our human nature. Often its easier to see the prejudices of others than our own. That too is part of the human condition.

I agree. But who cares? Scientists do not care in the slightest if there is a competition or not.

For a scientist is would be like getting worried that writing an article about thunderstorms, might hurt the sensibilities of believers in Thor.

I can assure you that they do not care at all. It is religious people that are concerned that their local superstition might not be scientifically hip. And they should.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dawnofhope]

I agree. But who cares? Scientists do not care in the slightest if there is a competition or not.

For a scientist is would be like getting worried that writing an article about thunderstorms, might hurt the sensibilities of believers in Thor.

I can assure you that they do not care at all. It is religious people that are concerned that their local superstition might not be scientifically hip. And they should.

Ciao

- viole

I am a scientist and I care. Why generalise and say no scientists care whereas many do?

Many religious people are not superstitious so that too is a generalisation. In fact it looks more like stereotyping bordering on prejudice.

 

[viole]

I am a scientist and I care. Why generalise and say no scientists care whereas many do?

Many religious people are not superstitious so that too is a generalisation. In fact it looks more like stereotyping bordering on prejudice.

You are a scientist and you care whether your discoveries can hurt believers in Thor?

I hope you are not serious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are a scientist and you care whether your discoveries can hurt believers in Thor?

I hope you are not serious.

Ciao

- viole

Why twist my words to imply something I never meant? I care about truth and the nature of reality. These are the domains of both science and religion.

 

[viole]

Why twist my words to imply something I never meant? I care about truth and the nature of reality. These are the domains of both science and religion.

You said that as a scientist you care about the feeling of believers in gods as well, when you reach some conclusion. Which is something hardly to believe. I honestly know no scientist who gives a rip about people's metaphysical beliefs, when they have a theory.

What is your scientific field exactly?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

With evolution, the typical way to corroborate conclusions is to use independent lines of investigation: for instance, confirming radiometric dating by comparing it to other dating methods, or by using genetics to confirm a line of ancestry that was determined by fossils.

Yes, and by doing this, have they replicated the theory, i.e. evolution or Big Bang? No they have not. That's my argument.

 

[Altfish]

A doctor in biology placed a large cage in front of his pupils in which a male rat in the middle and placed on the edge of the cage a piece of cheese and on the other side a female mouse​

The mouse was released and ran to eat the cheese
He re-experimented that he placed a piece of bread and then the mouse did it again and ran to eat the bread
He repeated the experiment several times by changing the type of food and mouse every time he ran the food hand and not the female mouse

The doctor said to his disciples:
We conclude from this experience that the love of food is stronger than the love of the female
Here a student raised his hand saying:
Doctor please re-experiment with a second female may be that female is his wife !!

The doctor said to him:

You are the only one who understands the lesson correctly

Of this story
I see the nature of humans among those who do not want to live a routine life concept because this does not create an atmosphere of excitement and suspense
When we see the universe a mystery this will make human life into permanent thinking and questioning

I mean the nature of man does not like routine things
Since the ancient ancestors believed in the existence of God, this idea has not received widespread demand in the last centuries of the desire of people to change
Now many countries are seeking dominance and want to get the presidency as well as human beings

now

The doctor said to me:

You are the only one who understands the lesson correctly ​

Why should a male rat chase a female mouse? They are different species.!! They don't interbreed..

 

[Altfish]

Yes, and by doing this, have they replicated the theory, i.e. evolution or Big Bang? No they have not. That's my argument.

But it is a poor argument.
How do you suggest we replicate the Big Bang? You bring together all the evidence and it points towards a Big Bang being an excellent explanation for the start of our universe.
It is like solving a murder, you build up the evidence; finger prints, blurred CCTV images; lack of alibis; motive and without witnessing the crime you can deduce the killer was...

 

[j1i]

But it is a poor argument.
How do you suggest we replicate the Big Bang? You bring together all the evidence and it points towards a Big Bang being an excellent explanation for the start of our universe.
It is like solving a murder, you build up the evidence; finger prints, blurred CCTV images; lack of alibis; motive and without witnessing the crime you can deduce the killer was...

Well, it is not imperative. But again that is not according to your book.

"A widely supported hypothesis in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error. The paper "Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo" provides a model for a way the Universe could have been created from pure 'nothing' in information terms."
Ex nihilo - Wikipedia

I am very happy and happy to share with you
I want to express my happiness and I hope to be a light guest on you

What is the source that takes the thing out of nowhere? Certainly there is a causative
who is that causative ? sure the creator
this is what we call GOD

We did not exist when the first source of life began, they had the basic answers and they knew it, and we transmitted information about the existence of a god

The material gods has exceed thousands of years in the ancient relics indicate the existence of gods
These customs were the sanctification of kings and not their worship
Actually turned with time to worship

The main source says that there is god and subsequent generations misunderstood the gods and tried to play the role of gods

In court, the witness plays a role in proving the crime or acquittal
Since the testimony of the Archaic humans (Old Warriors) or by American style (the veterans) (our grands fathers who stayed alive by eat meats) is partially documented in the old books

I want to ask a fundamental question

Why did man invent the idea of God? Was it because it was true? It is understood

Or is it desire and lust
If he had his will and his lust, why was not a material god made in the earth and why did they point to heaven?

With all due respect and appreciation

 

[Altfish]

I am very happy and happy to share with you
I want to express my happiness and I hope to be a light guest on you

What is the source that takes the thing out of nowhere? Certainly there is a causative
who is that causative ? sure the creator
this is what we call GOD

We did not exist when the first source of life began, they had the basic answers and they knew it, and we transmitted information about the existence of a god

The material gods has exceed thousands of years in the ancient relics indicate the existence of gods
These customs were the sanctification of kings and not their worship
Actually turned with time to worship

The main source says that there is god and subsequent generations misunderstood the gods and tried to play the role of gods

In court, the witness plays a role in proving the crime or acquittal
Since the testimony of the Archaic humans (Old Warriors) or by American style (the veterans) (our grands fathers who stayed alive by eat meats) is partially documented in the old books

I want to ask a fundamental question

Why did man invent the idea of God? Was it because it was true? It is understood

Or is it desire and lust
If he had his will and his lust, why was not a material god made in the earth and why did they point to heaven?

With all due respect and appreciation

I'm very pleased you have an explanation that satisfies your need.
Unfortunately, it is not good enough for me. The 'God did it' explanation is not good enough .

Sorry.

 

[j1i]

I'm very pleased you have an explanation that satisfies your need.
Unfortunately, it is not good enough for me. The 'God did it' explanation is not good enough .

Sorry.

I needed McAfee software to protect my emotional feelings
Thank you for hurting my feelings

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and by doing this, have they replicated the theory, i.e. evolution or Big Bang? No they have not. That's my argument.

Your post suggests a misunderstanding: results are replicated. Theories explain the results. Theories also create new predictions that can be tested; those tests verify the theory further.

That being said: both the Big Bang and evolution have bedn confirmed to a very high degree of certainty.

 

[Looncall]

I am very happy and happy to share with you
I want to express my happiness and I hope to be a light guest on you

What is the source that takes the thing out of nowhere? Certainly there is a causative
who is that causative ? sure the creator
this is what we call GOD

We did not exist when the first source of life began, they had the basic answers and they knew it, and we transmitted information about the existence of a god

The material gods has exceed thousands of years in the ancient relics indicate the existence of gods
These customs were the sanctification of kings and not their worship
Actually turned with time to worship

The main source says that there is god and subsequent generations misunderstood the gods and tried to play the role of gods

In court, the witness plays a role in proving the crime or acquittal
Since the testimony of the Archaic humans (Old Warriors) or by American style (the veterans) (our grands fathers who stayed alive by eat meats) is partially documented in the old books

I want to ask a fundamental question

Why did man invent the idea of God? Was it because it was true? It is understood

Or is it desire and lust
If he had his will and his lust, why was not a material god made in the earth and why did they point to heaven?

With all due respect and appreciation

People invented gods to scam their fellows and escape the daily grind of survival.

Those imagined gods have since been used to extract wealth and power from the gullible. One other effect has been to perpetuate ancient errors, eg Adam and Eve,

 

[Dawnofhope]

You said that as a scientist you care about the feeling of believers in gods as well, when you reach some conclusion. Which is something hardly to believe.

I don't think we are getting each other.

I honestly know no scientist who gives a rip about people's metaphysical beliefs, when they have a theory.

We move in different circles then.

What is your scientific field exactly?

Medical science.