Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[tayla]

Living invisible matter - soul, angels.

I see no evidence of such a category.

 

[questfortruth]

I see no evidence of such a category.

What about Holy Fire, and the Placebo effect?

 

[questfortruth]

I repeat

Lack of any physical evidence throughout history

The proof of the invisible matter is in the file. Look up section "abrupt geodesics", namely it is the termination of any falling body (falling into Black Hole). Such termination violates Energy conservation law unless the invisible matter is allowed.

 

[ChristineM]

The proof of the invisible matter is in the file. Look up section "abrupt geodesics", namely it is the termination of any falling body (falling into Black Hole). Such termination violates Energy conservation law unless the invisible matter is allowed.

How do you know what happens in black hole?

 

[questfortruth]

How do you know what happens in black hole?

Any human has mind-vision.

 

[ChristineM]

Any human has mind-vision.

Guesses are not science

 

[questfortruth]

Guesses are not science

My mind-vision follows the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Wikipedia).

 

[ChristineM]

My mind-vision follows the Principle of Sufficient Reason (Wikipedia).

Still not science but so long as you are happy

 

[questfortruth]

Still not science but so long as you are happy

Atheism is method of science. Thus, there can not be much reason in science.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheism is method of science. Thus, there can not be much reason in science.

No its not. Atheism has nothing to do with science

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else you attribute to atheism is just another one of your unscientific guesses

And i am guessing that once again you have no answer so move the goalposts to divert from that lack

 

[questfortruth]

Atheism has nothing to do with science

Wouldn't atheist like to be scientific?

 

[ChristineM]

Wouldn't atheist like to be scientific?

Irrelevant

 

[Valjean]

What about Holy Fire, and the Placebo effect?

What's Holy Fire? The placebo effect is not an intangible "stuff."

 

[gnostic]

Atheism is method of science. Thus, there can not be much reason in science.

Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of god.

Their positions are - they don’t believe in god or gods. Or they simply lack belief in god.

And most don’t even believe in spirits.

When I said “most”, I am referring to atheists, not Buddhists.

While Buddhism are generally in atheistic, eg they don’t believe in personal god...however Buddhists do believe in spirits and the soul.

But I am not talking about atheistic-type Buddhists. Buddhism is still a religion, atheism isn’t a religion.

Anyway...Atheism have nothing do with science.

Theism, agnosticism, deism, and all other -ism, all don’t have anything to do with science.

 

[questfortruth]

What's Holy Fire? The placebo effect is not an intangible "stuff."

Google it.

 

[Brian2]

The God of the Gaps is a disastrous approach to religious belief, because the gaps are continually being filled in, as science advances. So a person who based his faith on those gaps is doomed to have it destroyed. There were once people who claimed the evolution of the eye was impossible to understand through science. But now, we have excellent models, supported by evidence, for how this occurred. The same is likely to happen regarding abiogenesis, one day. We are making considerable progress on that front.

I suppose I could be just promoting another "God of the Gaps" idea. Or maybe it just looks that way.

However, for people that don't fall into this trap for the naive, one simply has to recognise that the physical world appears to behave in an orderly and predictable way, which we sometimes call the "laws of nature". Science exploits this fact to discover how nature works. Now, if you want to ask why there is this order in nature, perhaps you are getting closer to the possible role for a creator. But in any case, religion is primarily about subjective human experience and a guide to help you live your life. It is not really about physics.

True.

 

[Brian2]

There is little "magic" in life, to a biochemist. Magic is really code for "stuff-I-personally-can't-begin-to fathom". Magic tends to evaporate when one has the relevant knowledge. The early scientists after the Renaissance found this out and we have not looked back since.

Please, never speak of "scientific proof". This is, again, one of those notions that only people that don't understand science refer to. There is no proof in science. All there is is evidence. Never proof.

By creationist I mean believers in "special creation". That is the usual sense in which it is used today. Definition of SPECIAL CREATION

I believe in a God who can do the magic stuff---the stuff we personally can't begin to fathom. I believe God could have worked from atoms and made the physical mechanisms of life that way, the bodies. IMO the Bible does not cancel out that possibility, and from how I view it, science is telling us things that the Bible has told us ages ago and that is part of the evidence for the God of the Bible. The ideas in the God of the Gaps argument may have evaporated with scientific knowledge of the physical mechanisms and how all that works but none of that science has eliminated the need for a God and there is certainly a long way to go for science to say it has done that, and that is also according to some famous scientific thinkers of these days.
Where we end up is evidence that could lead anywhere and some people see it as enough to believe that it will lead to a place where we can say there is no need for a God. Actually some scientists already say that, even though we are nowhere near that point.
It's seems like the extent of science these days, and for some time now, has been used as justification for not believing in a God even though as we know, science cannot say one way or the other. Well I suppose science could say that the myths in the Bible about creation have been busted and so the Bible God is busted but I just don't see it that way and I see, as I said, that science is showing us that the Bible is correct.
But of course that is not the only part of the Bible which science is showing to be correct. It is just the Magic stuff in the Bible which is what many people object to and many seem to want to spend a lot of time and energy to show that the magic stuff, such as prophecies etc is just not true.
Personally I can't help but wonder, why the attacks on the Bible all the time.

 

[Brian2]

But there is no reason to suppose that it didn't, and a lot of reason to suppose it did.
Science has made a lot of progress in understanding the world in the last 200 years. One after another, the inexplicable, supernatural phenomena that were once offered as evidence of the divine have been found to have natural explanations.
Just because something is complex or amazing doesn't mean it's supernatural, it means you don't understood the the natural process that created it.

Even finding out the physical mechanisms behind how things work does not eliminate God. Actually it could be said that the wonders of creation are even proving more wondrous. But of course the God of the Gaps idea has gone to a large extent.
To say that there is only natural processes that created thing does show a belief. Is this belief born of science? If so then how is that, except to say that we have learned a lot and so that shows there is no God? Is science just a justification for not believing in a God do you think or has science actually shown that?

But isn't that the strength of science; that research is ongoing and that beliefs change as more evidence accumulates? Scientific knowledge is always provisional. Science follows the evidence -- even when it topples a cherished belief. Unlike religion, nothing is sacrosanct. Science is not a doctrine.

Certainly there have been many doctrines or should I say ideas in religious circles that have been shown not to be sacrosanct as scientific knowledge expands.
Science seems to have aspects of it which can be seen as doctrines of science, but what I am talking about is just what science is. It looks at the natural world and finds natural ways to explain it. This seems to have led some people to take on themselves the doctrine that there are no supernatural explanations that are correct because science cannot show them to be true or not.

What other ways? Religion doesn't research. It discourages research, and defends its doctrine even when there is overwhelming evidence against it.

Is there overwhelming evidence against religion?

I get the impression that many religious are unaware of how science presents itself to the world. I think there's a great deal of religious propaganda presenting a false impression of science -- what it is and how it works.

You could be at least partly right with parts of the Christian religion.

But hasn't science frequently disproved a lot of religious doctrine, or shown it to be untenable, or empirically unsupported?
Religion's failure to change its doctrine in the face of clear, contradictory evidence does not contribute to a reputation for accuracy. It took the church 350 years to officially admit Galileo was right.

There have been religious beliefs about the earth etc which have been shown to be wrong and religion has adjusted it's understanding of the Bible to accommodate the new finding, even if it has been with reluctance at times. Actually the understandings people have had about parts of the Bible have come from the scientific knowledge of the day. Science has been a guide to helping us see what some parts of the Bible actually mean. To say that science has disproved the Bible is wrong even though science may have disproved interpretations of some passages. So science has been both a source of darkness as to the Bible's true meaning, and a source of light. The 2 go hand in hand really, and should if both are true.

 

[Brian2]

But when the form of the flower can be shown to have a natural, unintentional cause, what reason would there be to continue believing in a magical creation? Intuition is overrated.
Just because an orderly, complex car, table or dress is designed and created doesn't justify the conclusion that cats, flowers or planets must also have been designed and created, especially when science has found natural, unguided mechanisms to account for them.

How can it be shown that the form of a flower was not intentional?
How is it known that the natural mechanisms have not been guided, even in the initial design of matter and energy, which led to our physical universe?
How are these things known? Pure science tells us that it cannot tell us these things but many people want to use science and say that it has told us these thing.

And all scientists would agree. Science accumulates evidence. It doesn't "prove" anything. Somewhere, you've been presented a false impression of what science is or does.

One thing that science seems to have proven to many people is that there is no God, and it cannot actually prove that.

And there are things once attributed to an intentional creator that are now explained by natural processes, making the creator hypothesis extraneous.

Is this a God of the Gaps thing or are you going back to the beginnings, the creation?
Surely science in many ways is showing us how God did things.
Of course because science does not accept the writings of scriptures, science may have been mistaken at points along the way but it is amazing how close science has come to what the scriptures tell us imo.

But science posits no magical genesis of life. That would be religion. The scientific hypothesis is a natural origin, from familiar chemical interactions.

This could be a case in point where science will keep hitting it's head against a wall forever because it does not accept the scriptures. Science may be able to say that it has worked out possible chemical and physical mechanisms but imo life is more than chemical and physical, it is dead matter becoming conscious. Certainly seems more than chemical and physical to me. I could be wrong, maybe life came from the earth as parts of the Bible seem to suggest, but still consciousness is more than chemical and physical except in a science that cannot seem to accept that.

How many times over the centuries has creation magic been superseded by the discovery of a natural mechanism? This is why we say religion dwells on the fringes of knowledge, continuously retreating as knowledge expands.

I do not see it as retreating, just ideas changing. Anyway who is the we that says that?

How many times over the centuries have the religious claimed a particular mystery would never be explained? Historically, what people want is not predictive of what they get.

I don't know how many times. I guess as often as people have thought that particular mysteries would never be explained. People are in religions and religion takes on the scientific paradigm of the era it is in. A mystery solved is a mystery solved to all people, theists and atheists.

 

[Brian2]

True, it doesn't make Goddidit impossible, it just makes it unnecessary -- and unlikely in the light of an alternative, observable mechanism.

From the dawn of man we have had mysteries and have put them into the too hard basket and even attributed them to a God. Finding answers to how things work has never made God unnecessary and still does not make God unnecessary. Do you think science knows how the universe came to be and how life came to be? Personally I see hypotheses only. Those hypotheses are there because we want to push the boundaries of knowledge and because of the doctrine of science that it all happened naturally, and that seems to mean, without a God interfering.
Some people accept scientific hypotheses about creation and life as necessities because they do not believe in a God, but science has not shown that.