• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The attempt to heal the old separation
between heart (faith) and mind (science).
Everyone has the right to choose.
But not a sinful choice! The God
of the Bible cursed those who chose
sin! Freedom is defined as action
within God's laws. That is why even ordinary
criminals are not free, but instead sit in prisons.

Newton's Theory, and therefore Einstein's Theory (as the successor of Newton) is fundamentally wrong, because they do not describe the movement of bodies in space. It is necessary to know at least something about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter. So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?

Believer Isaac Newton introduced the second law: the acceleration of the body to its mass is equal to the physical force acting on the body: a m = F, and I give place to Free Will and God, inserting there spiritual force D, namely a m = F + D. Evidence, that spiritual force is not always equal to zero, is published by me in this peer-reviewed article: On the value of David Bohms Quantum Mechanics - IJSER Journal Publication The only problem is that the magazine prints everything the author pays for.

But you can write into the arXiv.org. They publish many articles on spiritual topics (enter in the search engine a spiritual words: God, angel, faith ...). However, since I am a person outside the system and without scientific connections, the moderators do not allow me into the arXiv.

Evidence of God and Free Will is the inevitable mixing of Religion and Science. Scientific search has not advanced at all in the understanding of God, since they do not even know the objective definition of this word “God”. And I proved God: only the All-Knowing can be confident in His reality, and not illusory. After all, the illusion of something is a violation of the Logic of Aristotle, and if a star in the Universe violates logic, then this casts doubt on the reality of the whole world. The All-Knowing knows about own existence, therefore the existence of God is a part of knowledge, and even its basis and definition: it was the God of Truth who, through talented men, founded science as the path to Himself.

In science, there must be Love in the sense that there should be no competitive enmity between scientists. If you don’t mix Religion and Science, then Love, Justice, Authority, Respect, Truth will not penetrate into Science. Pure science is alien to such concepts; and judging by its latest articles, Science came to Absolute Solipsism - the simplest “explanation” of reality: Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017). But the Coral Castle of Edward Leedskalnin tells another story. The Unsolved Mystery makes us mix Religion and Science. But under the pressure of facts, Official Science retreats into Absolute Solipsism - the rejection of Reality and all things. But we must move in the opposite direction - towards Love and Truth in Person.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Newton's Theory, and therefore Einstein's Theory (as the successor of Newton) is fundamentally wrong, because they do not describe the movement of bodies in space. It is necessary to know at least something about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter. So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?

Believer Isaac Newton introduced the second law: the acceleration of the body to its mass is equal to the physical force acting on the body: a m = F, and I give place to Free Will and God, inserting there spiritual force D, namely a m = F + D. Evidence, that spiritual force is not always equal to zero, is published by me in this peer-reviewed article: On the value of David Bohms Quantum Mechanics - IJSER Journal Publication The only problem is that the magazine prints everything the author pays for.

But you can write into the arXiv.org. They publish many articles on spiritual topics (enter in the search engine a spiritual words: God, angel, faith ...). However, since I am a person outside the system and without scientific connections, the moderators do not allow me into the arXiv.

Evidence of God and Free Will is the inevitable mixing of Religion and Science. Scientific search has not advanced at all in the understanding of God, since they do not even know the objective definition of this word “God”.

In science, there must be Love in the sense that there should be no competitive enmity between scientists. If you don’t mix Religion and Science, then Love, Justice, Authority, Respect, Truth will not penetrate into Science.

Pure science is alien to such concepts; and judging by its latest articles, Science came to Absolute Solipsism - the simplest “explanation” of reality: Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017). But the Coral Castle of Edward Leedskalnin tells another story.

The Unsolved Mystery makes us mix Religion and Science. But under the pressure of facts, Official Science retreats into Absolute Solipsism - the rejection of Reality and all things. But we must move in the opposite direction - towards Love and Truth in Person.

What is your college degree?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Is a degree required to obtain knowledge?


Ask questfortruth.

Many self-educated people miss the point completely..

They don't understand the underlying legal theory.

They could have 100 hours in Scofield, or Hal Lindsey or Time Lahaye and never know about the Book of Revelation..

You know.. garbage in --- garbage out.
 

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
What is your college degree?
I have a post-doctorate degree in Post-Lady Gaga Freudian Deconstructionalist Scottish Bagpipes Music Theory and my thesis was on The Marxist-Lacanian Interpretation of the Melbourne Shuffle. What degree do you have?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter.

You should publish.

However, since I am a person outside the system and without scientific connections, the moderators do not allow me into the arXiv.

Interesting, i go onto arXiv all the time and often cite the work published there and i have no scientific connections

Evidence of God and Free Will is the inevitable mixing of Religion and Science.

No its its not

Scientific search has not advanced at all in the understanding of God.

There is a very good reason for that

since they do not even know the objective definition of this word “God”.
And that is not if, first if is not sciences job to supply word definitions. And second, science does not get involved in the supernatural, mythology or faith.

In science, there must be Love in the sense that there should be no competitive enmity between scientists. If you don’t mix Religion and Science, then Love, Justice, Authority, Respect, Truth will not penetrate into Science. Pure science is alien to such concepts; and judging by its latest articles, Science came to Absolute Solipsism - the simplest “explanation” of reality: Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017). But the Coral Castle of Edward Leedskalnin tells another story. The Unsolved Mystery makes us mix Religion and Science. But under the pressure of facts, Official Science retreats into Absolute Solipsism - the rejection of Reality and all things. But we must move in the opposite direction - towards Love and Truth in Person.

???
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
"True science"???

What does that mean exactly?

Let me guess .. You are a young earth creationist.
It means that when science says a rock became alive or a bird laid an egg and a dinosaur hatched that is not true science. It is something science made up because it refuses to acknowledge the possibility of God.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I have a post-doctorate degree in Post-Lady Gaga Freudian Deconstructionalist Scottish Bagpipes Music Theory and my thesis was on The Marxist-Lacanian Interpretation of the Melbourne Shuffle. What degree do you have?

I have a bachelors of science as well as associate degrees in design and business.

Then I went back to school to become certified in civil litigation.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Hmph...try to get a job at McDonald's with those degrees

I agree with you.. and I also raised 5 children while working full time. I just got plain lucky and ended up a senior executive with the 800 pound gorilla doing strategic planning for community healthcare.

I was building houses and small apartment complexes and strip malls for 20 years before I went back to school.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
It means that when science says a rock became alive or a bird laid an egg and a dinosaur hatched that is not true science. It is something science made up because it refuses to acknowledge the possibility of God.

LOLOL.. :D

No scientist made such and asinine claim.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Newton's Theory, and therefore Einstein's Theory (as the successor of Newton) is fundamentally wrong, because they do not describe the movement of bodies in space. It is necessary to know at least something about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter. So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?

Believer Isaac Newton introduced the second law: the acceleration of the body to its mass is equal to the physical force acting on the body: a m = F, and I give place to Free Will and God, inserting there spiritual force D, namely a m = F + D. Evidence, that spiritual force is not always equal to zero, is published by me in this peer-reviewed article: On the value of David Bohms Quantum Mechanics - IJSER Journal Publication The only problem is that the magazine prints everything the author pays for.

But you can write into the arXiv.org. They publish many articles on spiritual topics (enter in the search engine a spiritual words: God, angel, faith ...). However, since I am a person outside the system and without scientific connections, the moderators do not allow me into the arXiv.

Evidence of God and Free Will is the inevitable mixing of Religion and Science. Scientific search has not advanced at all in the understanding of God, since they do not even know the objective definition of this word “God”.

In science, there must be Love in the sense that there should be no competitive enmity between scientists. If you don’t mix Religion and Science, then Love, Justice, Authority, Respect, Truth will not penetrate into Science. Pure science is alien to such concepts; and judging by its latest articles, Science came to Absolute Solipsism - the simplest “explanation” of reality: Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017). But the Coral Castle of Edward Leedskalnin tells another story. The Unsolved Mystery makes us mix Religion and Science. But under the pressure of facts, Official Science retreats into Absolute Solipsism - the rejection of Reality and all things. But we must move in the opposite direction - towards Love and Truth in Person.

Are you challenging gravity or free will or Bible inerrancy????
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It means that when science says a rock became alive or a bird laid an egg and a dinosaur hatched that is not true science.
That's true. That is why science does not say that.


It is something science made up because it refuses to acknowledge the possibility of God.
No. It's something that Creationists made up because:
They don't have a clue about Evolution
-or-
They are being deceitful

Which is it for you?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There is actually too much here to respond to well and a lot of misconceptions and misinformation concerning science.

Newton's Theory, and therefore Einstein's Theory (as the successor of Newton) is fundamentally wrong, because they do not describe the movement of bodies in space. It is necessary to know at least something about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter. So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?

First, you are not providing the proper scientific understanding of dark energy nor dark matter.

Believer Isaac Newton introduced the second law: the acceleration of the body to its mass is equal to the physical force acting on the body: a m = F, and I give place to Free Will and God, inserting there spiritual force D, namely a m = F + D. Evidence, that spiritual force is not always equal to zero, is published by me in this peer-reviewed article: On the value of David Bohms Quantum Mechanics - IJSER Journal Publication The only problem is that the magazine prints everything the author pays for.

None of these laws and research have anything to do with Free Will nor spiritual forces (?).

But you can write into the arXiv.org. They publish many articles on spiritual topics (enter in the search engine a spiritual words: God, angel, faith ...). However, since I am a person outside the system and without scientific connections, the moderators do not allow me into the arXiv.

Not comprehedable.

Evidence of God and Free Will is the inevitable mixing of Religion and Science. Scientific search has not advanced at all in the understanding of God, since they do not even know the objective definition of this word “God”.

Science does not go beyond the falsifiable nature of theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable physical evidence. The application of science is a different issue involving human spiritual values.

In science, there must be Love in the sense that there should be no competitive enmity between scientists. If you don’t mix Religion and Science, then Love, Justice, Authority, Respect, Truth will not penetrate into Science. Pure science is alien to such concepts; and judging by its latest articles, Science came to Absolute Solipsism - the simplest “explanation” of reality: Lauren Tousignant, The universe shouldn’t exist, according to science, New York Post (October 25, 2017). But the Coral Castle of Edward Leedskalnin tells another story. The Unsolved Mystery makes us mix Religion and Science. But under the pressure of facts, Official Science retreats into Absolute Solipsism - the rejection of Reality and all things. But we must move in the opposite direction - towards Love and Truth in Person.

These judgements of science reveal a lack of competence in the basics of science, and a negative view of science based on a religious agenda. The role of spiritual guidance is how science is applied to our world and not in the development of the knowledge of science. The priorities of the applied sciences is an issue in the real world as to whether this application is for human betterment or the detriment and the degrading of human existence.

Fundamentally science cannot falsify nor determine the nature of spiritual worlds, nor Gods beyond the nature of our physical existence.
 
Last edited:

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Ask questfortruth.

Many self-educated people miss the point completely..

They don't understand the underlying legal theory.

They could have 100 hours in Scofield, or Hal Lindsey or Time Lahaye and never know about the Book of Revelation..

You know.. garbage in --- garbage out.

A college degree is no guarantee that one does NOT get 'garbage in."

Autodidacts are often the best educated among us, because they tend to guide their own searches.

As for me, I like to combine the two methods. For one thing, ALL real education is 'self-education.' The only real difference, if the one doing the learning is actually after the 'learning,' is the paperwork.

........and yes, I have college degrees. More than one of them. I know the value of 'the paperwork.'

But y'know what?

I still only use those as a 'beginning' point, and a 'fill in some of the blanks' point. All education is self education.
 
Top