• 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?

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium 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.
So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?
Can you rephrase that to magical genie outside reality and stop already refering it as god.

I would say you confuse atheists they think you are refering to the bible.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium 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 read your thesis it waS garbage!!!! Except for the lady gaga in kilt dancing pics thay was awesome.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Is a degree required to obtain knowledge?
Is a degree required to obtain knowledge?
No obviously anyone is capable of reading and free to project onto science bigfoot theories!! Personally i believe in unicorns.

I would propose that the original post should use the term magical, genie that exists outside reality and created reality or MGTEORACR AS A SCIENCE THEORY ACRONYM.

So the thread isnt about the bible or god but about MGTEORACR as a science theory. Which is nuts but hey!!!
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Are you challenging gravity or free will or Bible inerrancy????
Interestingly he actually is convinced reality is virtual. Thats what is being proposed and he is confusing that with the term god. The identical view can be and is held without the bible or the term god.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium 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.
Wut? Dude such a claim would get you laughed out of even a primary (elementary) school class.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
...

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.


....????
Of course it does. "Science" (defined here as a system of opinion/belief that does not include religious/theistic based explanations for anything) and religion (or 'supernatural' 'mythology' or 'faith') both attempt to answer the same questions.


It's just that you like the one and disparage the other.

As for 'faith,' the scientific method works with faith all the time. Sheesh.

"Faith,' means 'trust.'

"Science" works on probabilities...which requires faith. There is very, very little absolute knowledge out there, and scientists will be the first to tell you that.


As for 'mythology,' I do wish you would actually work with the definitions that belong to the words. "Mythology" means, basically, 'creation stories" for the culture in which they occur. There is no requirement that mythology be false. In fact, most mythology, even if not scientifically factual, ends up being 'true,' in that it teaches morals and cultural ideals important to the group.

As for science not dealing with the supernatural....that's the biggest load of bunkum I've seen posted here yet. OF COURSE it deals with the 'supernatural.' The whole point of scientific learning and experimentation is to look at the unknown and make it 'known,' or understandable in terms of natural laws as presently accepted...or if that can't be done, to adjust our understanding of physical laws so that we can fold these events within them.

There is, IMO, no such thing as 'supernatural.' Only 'natural' things we don't know about yet.

To determine that 'science' is somehow too good, or too 'smart,' or whatever to LOOK at this stuff is to utterly stop learning.

I have no more patience for those 'scientists' who refuse to look at anything with so much as a hint of 'God did it' or "I dunno.." than I do with the young earth creationist flat earthers who refuse to look past Genesis.[/QUOTE]
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
....????
Of course it does. "Science" (defined here as a system of opinion/belief that does not include religious/theistic based explanations for anything) and religion (or 'supernatural' 'mythology' or 'faith') both attempt to answer the same questions.


It's just that you like the one and disparage the other.
To each according to their merits, and all that.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
That's true. That is why science does not say that.



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?
He could be both.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess no one understands sarcasm. But science makes some wierd claims that it can't prove. Just says they are the most likely based on observations.
Oh, why not put a silly emoticon? Sarcasm is hard to translate through text alone lol
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
To each according to their merits, and all that.

It's not about the merits of science vs. religion.

It's about the bias of the observer and the close-mindedness of those who refuse to look at another approach....at all.

Now me, I'm of the opinion that religion and 'science' work just fine together. Or rather, they don't contradict each other, when used for their proper purposes. I don't go to the Bible as a science text, and I don't use peer-reviewed articles in medical journals as religious texts.

Put overly simplistically, I think that religion tells us THAT 'God did it,' and WHY 'God did it," but science tells us HOW 'God did it.'

I don't see a problem with either approach, given that they examine different aspects of things, even if the things examined might be the same.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I guess no one understands sarcasm. But science makes some wierd claims that it can't prove. Just says they are the most likely based on observations.
This is very true - for example, science suggests that evolution has endowed humans with a higher level of intelligence than our pre-human ancestors...sometimes its hard to find any evidence to support this - as, for example, in the OP for this thread.

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?

For the record, Newton did feel inclined to include God as he had no way other way to prevent the orbs from gravitating right into each other...he felt that God, like a watchmaker, had to wind up and even mend his watch now and again to keep it ticking away in good order. Of course Einstein made it possible for the watch to tick tock away for a very, very long time without any intervention at all...but the watch no longer has to tick forever - it needs neither watchmaker nor winder-up and it will eventually wind down of its own accord. As for their theories being fundamentally "wrong" - no they are not...just fundamentally incomplete as are all our scientific theories - which is good for scientists because there'd be nothing left for them to do if the theories were all complete.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium 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.
Not fundamentally wrong, but sometimes situationally wrong. Newton works for engineers all day every day, but becomes inaccurate when different inertial frames are being compared. And that's where Einstein comes in.
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?
Ahm, 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are names of problems, not of things. We don't know what they are ─ not that we're short of hypotheses, but that's all.
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.
There you say ─

Because I stay within the dogmas of the Orthodox Christian Church, I suggest to read the text without criticism. It is simply the beautiful and meaningful picture of my personal world.
But the question in physics (and reasoned enquiry generally) is, What's true in reality. And that may not be the same as your personal picture, however beautiful and meaningful to you.
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”.
An excellent point. Would you please now provide such an objective definition of "God" such that if we find a real candidate, we can determine whether it's God or not. I ask because I'm not aware of any definition that will do this.
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).
That brief article is about scientific enquiry into why the matter in the Big Bang wasn't instantly annihilated by an equal amount of antimatter, and the failure of a recent set of experiments to detect anything other than complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, leaving the question open. But much as we love and crave answers, in science it's okay to say, 'We don't presently know'.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Put overly simplistically, I think that religion tells us THAT 'God did it,' and WHY 'God did it," but science tells us HOW 'God did it.'
I'm glad you said "overly simplistically" - you could have improved by adding the word "presumptuously" here and there...do you mind if rearrange slightly and fix that?

Science tells us, not at all presumptuously, HOW some of it seems to happen, religion tells us, somewhat presumptuously, THAT God did it, and, even more incredibly presumptuously, WHY God did it.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I'm glad you said "overly simplistically" - you could have improved by adding the word "presumptuously" here and there...do you mind if rearrange slightly and fix that?

Science tells us, not at all presumptuously, HOW some of it seems to happen, religion tells us, somewhat presumptuously, THAT God did it, and, even more incredibly presumptuously, WHY God did it.

Well, if I might presume to make my opinion known here, the presumption that God Is and that He created everything is one of the basic, er, assumptions of religion.

It's not 'presumptuous' in the negative sense if everything one accepts about life is based upon that presumption.

Just sayin'.

The real question is whether one allows oneself to learn new stuff without utterly throwing out the good, 'old' stuff. Whether one is coming from a purely religious viewpoint, or an atheistic, 'scientific method' view.

As for whether science is 'not at all presumptuous,'

Oh, yes it is. Go look up 'presumption,' and there you are....synonyms abound.

You know, stuff like 'premise,' 'postulation,' 'conjecture,' 'grounds,' 'reason,' 'assumption,' ......

Or, perhaps...hypothesis?

True, religion tends to take the hypothesis and spend the rest of its time casting around for things to support it...

And science tends to take a hypothesis and spend the rest of its time cas....er, never mind.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I do not see any reason to forbid mixing true religion and true science. If you believe in God then you should believe He invented all the things in science.
Faith is Faithfull-ness to knowledge: mind and heart are together in a sane human.

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.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Well, if I might presume to make my opinion known here, the presumption that God Is and that He created everything is one of the basic, er, assumptions of religion.

It's not 'presumptuous' in the negative sense if everything one accepts about life is based upon that presumption.

Just sayin'.
Good response! But I honestly think if we assume that there exists a God that is capable of creating a universe that is so unbelievably vast and beyond human comprehension it is incredibly presumptuous to think that we might have any perception of why God might have done this or that or anything...science does not presume to answer the why question about realities that, for all we can possibly imagine, just are...there is no why? in science - there's only how, and science knows its limitations - even if scientists (or at least some of them) don't. Whether or not a God actually exists, humans are a very, very long way from having a clear view of the big picture. That's what I meant. And religions (or at least some of them) do presume to know what that big picture is. How could they possibly know "why God..." without shrinking an incomprehensibly powerful and wise deity down to the size of the human intellect? That surely is presumptuous. Isn't it?
 
Top