Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

[Milton Platt]

Just answering your main question.

Just last week, a scientific article stated that research has shown that our universe shouldn't exist. It was as scientific as you could make it.

Yet, somehow, I think while their research is spot on, that perhaps there are some small details that science isn't capable of answering - such small details as the existence of our humongous universe.

If this is true, perhaps there are other small details of same scope and size that might escape the grasp of science.

Please provide the link to the peer reviewed paper you read this conclusion in.

 

[Grandliseur]

Please provide the link to the peer reviewed paper you read this conclusion in.

This is what was posted: >Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude | Cosmos<

And, frankly, I am not interested in the opinions of either atheists or their scientists. I just think it interesting that science is not quite as established as some take it to be.

You don't need to comment.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is what was posted: >Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude | Cosmos<

And, frankly, I am not interested in the opinions of either atheists or their scientists. I just think it interesting that science is not quite as established as some take it to be.

You don't need to comment.

If you aren’t interested in what scientists are saying, why did you post this? The link to the actual paper is herre:A parts-per-billion measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment. If you had taken the time to read the actual paper you would have known that the published paper contains no such conclusion. That was just a click-bait headline written by a journalist.

Because there are still things that are not inderstood does not make the scientific method invalid, and your personal bias is clearly showing.

 

[Etritonakin]

Our rift is this:



What we perceive as "laws" and "logic" are all descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe simply how things work (in the matter of natural laws) and what best works to decipher the complexities and simplicities of our world (logic). As a result, no one and no thing needs to prescribe laws of nature or laws of motion or laws of logic or etc. Because our physical laws that govern our universe merely describe the way that things work, then these laws were in effect before the elements. The elements did not appear then some governing force contemplated, "Hmm. Something new here. Well, we need rules to govern these things. Lemme think ... "



These are presuppositions which may or may not be true; and scriptures are not scientific texts so they do nothing to strengthen your assertions except in the minds of those who already hold to such supernatural beliefs.

So, back to the initial question to this thread of which I have not yet made a stand on that question:

Can the Sciences Legitimately Distinguish Between True and False Religious Beliefs?

Probably not; as science is about observation of the physical world; not the supernatural. Science has no way to determine the existence nor nonexistence of a deity; let alone which deity is true.

It can, however, decipher what religious beliefs are false (or maybe true) based upon physical evidence; so while science can't determine if Yawed exists, it can certainly determine that events such as the Exodus, the World Wide Flood, the Sun and Moon standing still, and a plethora of other myths from other religions certainly did not occur and are thus utterly false.

I think it would help to define the term "supernatural".
Non-natural in its broadest sense would essentially mean impossible.
Supernatural ought to mean "of a higher natural law".
One natural law can be dependent on another -and all depend on the most basic.

The specific physical laws of interaction between the elements are dependent -which is apparent because they once were not in effect.
Manipulation (not breaking or changing) of the laws upon which they are dependent is a possibility.

If science could not -if all evidence were available -prove the supernatural, then it would have proved it false.

Science cannot determine that the sun and moon did not stand still -only that it would be impossible under normal conditions.
The forces which govern the interrelationships between the sun, moon and earth are extreme from our perspective -but as they can be affected, they can potentially be manipulated -and a being with the ability to do so is not outside the realm of possibility.

We are under the law, as it were, and are not able to do so -so it seems impossible.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If science could not -if all evidence were available -prove the supernatural, then it would have proved it false.

FIRST, your repetition of "all evidence" is an unreasonable stipulation; How much evidence is required to deduce a given conclusion? If I have made a confession that I killed someone with a gun and there is a dead body with bullets in it, powder residue on my hands, my fingerprints at the scene and blood of the deceased on my pant leg ... doesn't it seem a rational conclusion that I committed the crime; even if you can't find the gun and several eyewitnesses to corroborate my confession? At what point is "all evidence", "all evidence?"

SECOND, It is possible that there are mermaids; we have a very dim view of what lies in the depths of our oceans, which are more difficult to reach and view than outer space. It is possible that the earth is hollow, as our model of the earth is not based on first-hand observation but on inferred evidence based on a plethora of other natural laws. But with lack of evidence of such things, it is irrational to believe in such things, especially when inferred evidence and lack of evidence strongly suggests that the earth is not hollow and that there are no such things as mermaids. These differ, however, from your claims of "possibilities" of world wide floods and the sun and moon standing still; as with such events, there would be evidence to support the possibility (or probability) of such events.

Science cannot determine that the sun and moon did not stand still -only that it would be impossible under normal conditions.

If the sun and moon ever stood still, this would break the pattern of the mathematical calculations of where spatial bodies would be, will be, and were at a given point in time. These patterns remain unbroken. It is impossible, therefore, that the sun and the moon ever "stood still" because evidence refutes such myths. It is impossible, therefore, that there was a worldwide flood because evidence refutes such myths. It is impossible, therefore, that the "Exodus" story ever happened as there is evidence that refutes such myths.

While science may not ever be able to determine "false from true" religions in the "supernatural" realm (however you choose to do that), science can certainly determine false religious beliefs that describe the "natural" realm ... as that is the realm of science ... and it does so repeatedly and soundly; as even if these myths occurred under abnormal conditions, there would be evidence to support these incidents did or my have occurred. There is no evidence to support these beliefs as true. If I am incorrect in regards to my bolded words, I would be ecstatic to view this evidence.

 

[Etritonakin]

FIRST, your repetition of "all evidence" is an unreasonable stipulation; How much evidence is required to deduce a given conclusion? If I have made a confession that I killed someone with a gun and there is a dead body with bullets in it, powder residue on my hands, my fingerprints at the scene and blood of the deceased on my pant leg ... doesn't it seem a rational conclusion that I committed the crime; even if you can't find the gun and several eyewitnesses to corroborate my confession? At what point is "all evidence", "all evidence?"

SECOND, It is possible that there are mermaids; we have a very dim view of what lies in the depths of our oceans, which are more difficult to reach and view than outer space. It is possible that the earth is hollow, as our model of the earth is not based on first-hand observation but on inferred evidence based on a plethora of other natural laws. But with lack of evidence of such things, it is irrational to believe in such things, especially when inferred evidence and lack of evidence strongly suggests that the earth is not hollow and that there are no such things as mermaids. These differ, however, from your claims of "possibilities" of world wide floods and the sun and moon standing still; as with such events, there would be evidence to support the possibility (or probability) of such events.



If the sun and moon ever stood still, this would break the pattern of the mathematical calculations of where spatial bodies would be, will be, and were at a given point in time. These patterns remain unbroken. It is impossible, therefore, that the sun and the moon ever "stood still" because evidence refutes such myths. It is impossible, therefore, that there was a worldwide flood because evidence refutes such myths. It is impossible, therefore, that the "Exodus" story ever happened as there is evidence that refutes such myths.

While science may not ever be able to determine "false from true" religions in the "supernatural" realm (however you choose to do that), science can certainly determine false religious beliefs that describe the "natural" realm ... as that is the realm of science ... and it does so repeatedly and soundly; as even if these myths occurred under abnormal conditions, there would be evidence to support these incidents did or my have occurred. There is no evidence to support these beliefs as true. If I am incorrect in regards to my bolded words, I would be ecstatic to view this evidence.

As you pointed out -perhaps without realizing....
Collecting all evidence for every past event is unrealistic to us -and "science" must depend on available evidence.
It is also true that not every event leaves evidence which can be examined later.

If the sun and moon ever stood still, a pattern would indeed be broken -but patterns can be broken -though the overall math cannot be broken. Equations can be changed. The fairly recent earthquake in Japan broke the pattern somewhat. That earthquake was part of the overall "math" -but it shows that we are not able to do all of the math -even locally.
Also, we alter the "natural" patterns of things by decision -and our decision coupled with increased ability has allowed us to alter increasingly-greater patterns.
WE could potentially change the interrelationship between the Earth, sun and moon.

God would not have broken any laws, but would be part of the equation.

It is understandable that you believe as you do.

It is actually easy for me -as I have experienced things that "can't happen".

When it happens to you, you will have evidence to believe otherwise.
At that point.... Good luck convincing others.

 

[Grandliseur]

If you aren’t interested in what scientists are saying, why did you post this?

I like science; I just don't want the atheistic nonsense that is dished out at times. Not interested in atheistic opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like science; I just don't want the atheistic nonsense that is dished out at times. Not interested in atheistic opinions.

When you do not understand an article you should ask questions about it. The article is about a serious problem in physics. You should not take the click bait titles of such articles too seriously.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is actually easy for me -as I have experienced things that "can't happen".

Ah! But you assume too much!

When I was young, I saw "something" and so did my brother ... and though we saw differences, we also saw similarities ... religious as I was in my later years, I proclaimed it a demon; but I no longer believe in such things ... all the elements of a "shared hallucination" are absent, and "power of suggestion" does not adequately explain the phenomenon as we never discussed this until I was in my adulthood.

In my adulthood, during a period of inner turmoil, scribbling furiously on a piece of paper with a lead pencil, I sat the pencil down and it rolled ... yet the surface was flat, there was no breeze, there was no slant in the table ... yet it rolled, predictably and repeatably ... other pencils, which seemed indistinguishable from this one, did not ... yet this one did ...

The last poignant example is feeling an overwhelming sensation that my birth mother was nearby ... I was 14 and had been separated from her for 7 years ... she felt the same sensation and expressed it to her husband while they were miles away from us ... Later, after we were reunited, we started talking consistently, and at times, I would pick up the phone before it rang and just say, "Hi, Momma" ....

Evidence is lacking to explain this phenomenon. No scientific explanation satisfies me in addressing them (and I tend to be very analytical). I no longer choose to juxtapose unprovable assertions, such as poltergeists, demons, ghosts, spirit, supernatural, etc. into these phenomenon; as there is no evidence that such things exist. So until there is evidence or explanation supported by evidence to explain these phenomenon, the answer to HOW, WTF is ... "I don't know".

But these kinds of "can't happen" experiences are not on the same level as the ceasing of planetary motions (which would cause otherwise stable and predictable mathematical algorithms to be "wrong") or a World Wide Flood (which would leave massive evidence, of which there is none) or a great Exodus (of which there lacks not only physical evidence, but the mysterious lack of the mention of such a massive slave revolt in Egyptian history and hieroglyphs).

Being open to possibilities while there is lack of evidence to the contrary is one thing. Being open to possiblities when there is abundant evidence to the contrary is another altogether.

So, can science disprove that I was visited by a demon, that pencils roll by themselves or that humans have perceptions beyond what science can clinically reproduce or explain, or show us what was before the Big Bang?

Okay ... No, at least not yet; and maybe never so. So from that perspective, possibly science can never disprove Or prove) these religious beliefs, be they true OR false ... But again (and I'm repeating myself, so this shall be my last post in this thread), it can certainly disprove religious beliefs when they trample on what science knows to be true; and what science knows to be UNtrue.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I like science; I just don't want the atheistic nonsense that is dished out at times. Not interested in atheistic opinions.

But the paper did not conclude what the headline indicated it concluded; so if you're not interested in what the paper actually said, then how can it be said that you are interested in science? Or is it that you are interested in science when it confirms or does not contradict what you already believe to be true?

 

[Grandliseur]

But the paper did not conclude what the headline indicated it concluded; so if you're not interested in what the paper actually said, then how can it be said that you are interested in science? Or is it that you are interested in science when it confirms or does not contradict what you already believe to be true?

The point I tried to make more than once is that science claims that matter and anti-matter was supposed to cancel each other out.

This should tell you that there are many things science cannot answer. Some people, even ones I know, fall to their knees when a scientists claims this or that. I should be remembered how many times they have changed their minds over the decades. Things are not fixed and should not be accepted as if they are. Here true skepticism is necessary.

Many atheists accept blindly the large dates and times given by scientists, or so called ones. Yet, here there is the problem of the half full old time hourglass where sand runs out. If the glass was half full when turned, that kind of clock cannot work properly. It has also been found that dinosaur has c14 in some of the material. Not possible if as old as claimed. Lave, e.g., that just came out, at times measures in extreme ages. The clock is not reset, the hour-glass is half full, or something like that.

When then Creationists who measure for C14 become prohibited from labs due to their having found C14, this is no longer science but the Catholic church reborn with its inquisition.

 

[Grandliseur]

When you do not understand an article you should ask questions about it. The article is about a serious problem in physics. You should not take the click bait titles of such articles too seriously.

I have no problem understand that material. I simply detest the biased evolutionary and atheistic nonsense dished out at times.

 

[Etritonakin]

Ah! But you assume too much!

When I was young, I saw "something" and so did my brother ... and though we saw differences, we also saw similarities ... religious as I was in my later years, I proclaimed it a demon; but I no longer believe in such things ... all the elements of a "shared hallucination" are absent, and "power of suggestion" does not adequately explain the phenomenon as we never discussed this until I was in my adulthood.

In my adulthood, during a period of inner turmoil, scribbling furiously on a piece of paper with a lead pencil, I sat the pencil down and it rolled ... yet the surface was flat, there was no breeze, there was no slant in the table ... yet it rolled, predictably and repeatably ... other pencils, which seemed indistinguishable from this one, did not ... yet this one did ...

The last poignant example is feeling an overwhelming sensation that my birth mother was nearby ... I was 14 and had been separated from her for 7 years ... she felt the same sensation and expressed it to her husband while they were miles away from us ... Later, after we were reunited, we started talking consistently, and at times, I would pick up the phone before it rang and just say, "Hi, Momma" ....

Evidence is lacking to explain this phenomenon. No scientific explanation satisfies me in addressing them (and I tend to be very analytical). I no longer choose to juxtapose unprovable assertions, such as poltergeists, demons, ghosts, spirit, supernatural, etc. into these phenomenon; as there is no evidence that such things exist. So until there is evidence or explanation supported by evidence to explain these phenomenon, the answer to HOW, WTF is ... "I don't know".

But these kinds of "can't happen" experiences are not on the same level as the ceasing of planetary motions (which would cause otherwise stable and predictable mathematical algorithms to be "wrong") or a World Wide Flood (which would leave massive evidence, of which there is none) or a great Exodus (of which there lacks not only physical evidence, but the mysterious lack of the mention of such a massive slave revolt in Egyptian history and hieroglyphs).

Being open to possibilities while there is lack of evidence to the contrary is one thing. Being open to possiblities when there is abundant evidence to the contrary is another altogether.

So, can science disprove that I was visited by a demon, that pencils roll by themselves or that humans have perceptions beyond what science can clinically reproduce or explain, or show us what was before the Big Bang?

Okay ... No, at least not yet; and maybe never so. So from that perspective, possibly science can never disprove Or prove) these religious beliefs, be they true OR false ... But again (and I'm repeating myself, so this shall be my last post in this thread), it can certainly disprove religious beliefs when they trample on what science knows to be true; and what science knows to be UNtrue.

Nope -not assuming anything.

Assuming would be saying I knew there was no worldwide flood after a few internet searches.

Science has often though it "knew" -and did not, but the principle is sound.

You really think the Egyptian powers-that-were would be eager to declare how they got their butts kicked and how their slaves left?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem understand that material. I simply detest the biased evolutionary and atheistic nonsense dished out at times.

When you claim that evolution is "nonsense" you only demonstrate your ignorance of the sciences. And there is no "atheistic" nonsense" in the sciences. The sciences are by definition "atheistic". They do not rely on a god in any way at all. But one does not have to be an atheist to accept reality. Worldwide most Christians have no problem with the theory of evolution, which seems to be a problem of yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope -not assuming anything.

Assuming would be saying I knew there was no worldwide flood after a few internet searches.

Science has often though it "knew" -and did not, but the principle is sound.

You really think the Egyptian powers-that-were would be eager to declare how they got their butts kicked and how their slaves left?

It really does not take more than a fewer internet searches to know that the worldwide flood story was a myth.

The flood was first refuted by early Christian geologists. They went looking for evidence of the flood and instead found that it never happened. Believing in Santa Claus and the Flood are about one the same level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point I tried to make more than once is that science claims that matter and anti-matter was supposed to cancel each other out.

This should tell you that there are many things science cannot answer. Some people, even ones I know, fall to their knees when a scientists claims this or that. I should be remembered how many times they have changed their minds over the decades. Things are not fixed and should not be accepted as if they are. Here true skepticism is necessary.

You do not seem to understand that there will always be unanswered problems in the sciences. Unanswered problems do not mean that your myths are true. They were shown to be wrong a long time ago.

Many atheists accept blindly the large dates and times given by scientists, or so called ones. Yet, here there is the problem of the half full old time hourglass where sand runs out. If the glass was half full when turned, that kind of clock cannot work properly. It has also been found that dinosaur has c14 in some of the material. Not possible if as old as claimed. Lave, e.g., that just came out, at times measures in extreme ages. The clock is not reset, the hour-glass is half full, or something like that.

That may be true. But if one understands radiometric dating one can see how creationists have no clue when they make such claims. I could help you to understand the subject.

When then Creationists who measure for C14 become prohibited from labs due to their having found C14, this is no longer science but the Catholic church reborn with its inquisition.

They were banned because they repeatedly lied. Lying is a HUGE nono in the world of the sciences. They did sloppy work, lied to a testing agency, and then drew faulty conclusions based upon their sloppy work. The question is why don't they do the work again? They could pay people that knew how to collect specimens properly. They could tell the truth to the dating agency. By lying they made their claims worthless.

 

[Grandliseur]

Lying is a HUGE nono in the world of the sciences.

Link: >Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones<

I think it is atheists that lie, just like they brush aside the fact that there is evidence for dinosaur living at the same time as humans. Why are you even bothering me with this! It goes nowhere. Some atheists even go so far as to destroy archaeological evidence to further their faith rather than face the truth.

 

[Grandliseur]

I am so sorry that you are ignorant in the sciences. Accepting the fact of evolution is no more of a "faith" than accepting the fact of gravity. Both concepts are facts and theories. You are breaking the Ninth Commandment by making claims against others that you cannot justify. Calling me a liar is a breaking of the rules of this or any well regulated forum. I can support my claim that you are ignorant of the sciences. You cannot support your false claims about me or about the theory of evolution.

And there is no "atheistic" nonsense" in the sciences.

Can you claim with a straight face that the evolutionary dogma is not inserted into every possible place in the textbooks students study?! Is this not truly "atheistic" nonsense. Try to check the manuals in school-textbooks and see how unnecessarily biased they are with 'atheistic nonsense.'

That while I surely am no professional, and am ignorant to some degree, I have clearly seen enough evidence of the extreme bias that atheists have pushed into our schools. From when I was young, the evolutionary concept and the insults to people who in schools believed in a creator rather than in the chaos god was never ending. You might not think it 'atheistic nonsense', but I surely do. So, one insult for another, isn't it. You may not lie by purpose because you simply don't see it as being truly wrong when people are force fed teaching that belongs to another 'faith' - the belief that all things made themselves, and that nothing intelligent caused neither the universe, nor complex ecosystems, fine tuning of the universe, and beautiful nature.

 

[Grandliseur]

But that is just because you are totally ignorant of all of the sciences. And once again, when you make claims about others you need to be able to support them.

Did you look at the dates that they had for those dinosaur bones? Now if they were due to being buried in the mythical flood they should all have been the same. That is not what we see. If they were due to contamination then they should be all over the place. That is what we see. There own work tells them that it was from contamination. hen Not only that the group that you linked not only lied to the symposium that kicked them out. They also lied to the dating company, which is why they refuse to date any more materials for them.

This group could pay professionals that knew what they were doing to properly harvest fossils. They could tell the dating company what they were attempting to prove. Instead they lied.

When a person relies on idiots and liars that person tends to look like one too.

I have said before and will say it again, your claims against ours, and nothing is accomplished, just like this exchange accomplishes absolutely nothing for me, or for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you claim with a straight face that the evolutionary dogma is not inserted into every possible place in the textbooks students study?! Is this not truly "atheistic" nonsense. Try to check the manuals in school-textbooks and see how unnecessarily biased they are with 'atheistic nonsense.'

How is putting known facts into textbooks 'dogma'? You don't appear to understand the terms that you use. There is no bias. There is only ignorance on your part. I can help you to learn.

That while I surely am no professional, and am ignorant to some degree, I have clearly seen enough evidence of the extreme bias that atheists have pushed into our schools. From when I was young, the evolutionary concept and the insults to people who in schools believed in a creator rather than in the chaos god was never ending. You might not think it 'atheistic nonsense', but I surely do. So, one insult for another, isn't it. You may not lie by purpose because you simply don't see it as being truly wrong when people are force fed teaching that belongs to another 'faith' - the belief that all things made themselves, and that nothing intelligent caused neither the universe, nor complex ecosystems, fine tuning of the universe, and beautiful nature.

You are not only ignorant of the sciences, you are afraid of them and hate them. And I doubt if you have seen any evidence. Like most creationists you probably do not even understand the concept. And where have I insulted you? I have merely made observations. I am willing to help you to learn. Ignorance is cured by education. You on the other hand have made vile comments about others that you cannot support.

Also evolution is not an atheistic belief. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. One does have to try to keep oneself ignorant of the sciences these days to oppose it.