Gravity and the Expanding Universe

[paarsurrey]

What about those parts of the Bible that Jesus wrote himself that contradict the Quran?

What about those parts of the Bible that Jesus dictated to someone that contradict the Quran?

For instance, please.

Regards

 

[ecco]

Science does use logic (with all its fallacies), I understand, but it is from philosophy and science loans it from philosophy to understand things as science has no method of its is own to understand the things. It is the same as Science uses the natural language as it has no language of its own and has to loan words and uses them as terms in Science. So, I understand, one is wrong, please? Right, please?

Regards

I realize that English is not your first language, however, most your comment is too garbled to make any sense.

Science does use logic (with all its fallacies)

Nevertheless, I will ask, what fallacies do you attribute to logic?

 

[ecco]

What about those parts of the Bible that Jesus wrote himself that contradict the Quran?

What about those parts of the Bible that Jesus dictated to someone that contradict the Quran?

For instance, please.

Actually, that was just a test to see if you understand even basic things about the Bible.

Jesus did not write any parts of the Bible.
Jesus did not dictate any parts of the Bible.

Why are you discussing the Bible if you don't know this?

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to be saying that the scriptures are anti-science.

Actually, the ancient scriptures of all religions just did not consider science in their cosmologies and earth history/ I do not expect them to be accurate concerning science. I do believe the fundamentalist interpretation of the scripture is indeed anti-science and without any basis in the factual objective verifiable evidence of science.

It would be more accurate to say you just don't know how the scriptures accord with science. And you don't know how they accord with science because you have preconceived ideas that prevent you from seeing what's actually written.

You tend to take a few verses and build an entire doctrine on them while ignoring the overall scope and structure of the scriptures. Doing so can prove anything anybody wants to prove. Not good scholarship, but it's what many end up doing.

You tend to not respond to the objective verifiable evidence that I have presented.

Again no, I have studied the whole scriptures, known history of the scriptures, and the scope and structure of the scriptures. My issues are specific the anti-science interpretation of the scriptures which is indeed a matter of fact.

The history of Creation in Genesis and the world flood interpreted literally is anti-science. For example: There is absolutely no evidence for the Noah flood, and the evidence is overwhelming that our universe and the earth is billions of years old. Also our human relatives have been around for a million years at least not counting the documented evidence of our primate ancestors go back millions of more years.

 

[ecco]

Apart from the scriptures, you can't possibly know the true nature of the world. All you can know is what science currently avers.

The Bible averred that the wood of a hitching post could affect the spots on a goat.
Science currently avers that the wood of a hitching post does not affect the spots on goats.

Now, let me think real hard and long about those two views. Hmm. I do believe I have to go along with science.

Just that one example show how silly your comment is.

There is little doubt that they will discover new facts in the future and thus what you think is the nature of the world today will change.

Really?

Someday they might find that quarks really are made up of a type of energy that we know nothing about today.

When that day comes:

• The Continents will continue to shift.
• The earth will continue to revolve around the sun.
• The sun will continue its movement through the galaxy.
• Mountains and seacoasts and sunsets will still inspire awe.
• Mothers of all species will continue to give birth.

So, what the heck are you going on about?

Do you think man became a different creature when he realized that the earth was a globe?
Do you think man became a different creature when he realized that the atom was not a fundamental particle?
Do you think man became a different creature when he realized Pluto was not really a planet?

What is your point?

 

[paarsurrey]

I realize that English is not your first language, however, most your comment is too garbled to make any sense.
Nevertheless, I will ask, what fallacies do you attribute to logic?

Just please Google for it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Friend!
I do understand Atheism, I envision. Right, please?
Nature is a creation of G-d and is available to everybody a believer or no-believer, so there cannot be a true Naturalism, I understand, if one doesn't know its Creator. Right, please?

Wrong. There is no reliable evidence for a God, whether a Christian one, a Muslim one or any other of the countless man made religions.

I deem "Naturalism" is based on conjecture as are Atheism, Agnosticism, Skepticism, Humanism etc all terminology of unreasonable Philosophy devoid of wisdom, please. Right, please?
There are non-believers here who have acknowledged, if I have correctly understood them, that Atheism has nothing to do with Science/Scientific Method, that is the reason that Science has never taken up Atheism belonging to Science or No-Science, please. Right, please?

Regards

Again no. This is projection on your part. It is the religious viewpoint that appears to lack wisdom. And I don't think that you understand the scientific method. It starts with the null hypothesis. Atheism is the null hypothesis of religious beliefs. It is where a rational analysis begins. And remains until sufficient evidence for another belief is presented.

 

[paarsurrey]

Okay, when I said " the true nature of the world " I was referring to concepts that can be scientifically confirmed that oppose the Bible and Quran. It is understandable that the authors of those works would get quite a bit wrong since many facts had not been discovered or explained when those books were written.
The Bible and Quran do have some valid teachings but they both have quite a few false ones as well.

Does Science claim to find everything truthful in nature, please? I understand, it has not such claim, please? Right, please?
Please present something from the methodology of Atheism, please?
Please remain focused on Atheism. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does Science claim to find everything truthful in nature, please? I understand, it has not such claim, please? Right, please?
Please present something from the methodology of Atheism, please?
Please remain focused on Atheism. Right, please?

Regards

Perhaps it is because English is clearly not your first language, but you get so many concepts just wrong.

Science makes no claims. Science is a tool that allows us to inspect and understand the world that we live in.

 

[ppp]

Does Science claim to find everything truthful in nature, please? I understand, it has not such claim, please? Right, please?
Please present something from the methodology of Atheism, please?
Please remain focused on Atheism. Right, please?

Regards

Why do you keep asking a a methodology of atheism?

 

[paarsurrey]

As I stated in my last reply to you, not all studies (eg Humanities, like languages/philology, arts, literature, etc) and not all sciences (eg Social Science, like psychology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc) use "Scientific Method".

Only branches and fields in Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences use Scientific Method.

So there are many or a lot of human activities of life that are genuinely out of the ambit of Science/Scientific Method. Right, please?
And there are some like Psychology etc for which it has been relaxed but still included in sciences because of them being of different nature. Right, please?
So, Scientific Method is not to be used blindly else it will be its misuse not its proper use. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there are many or a lot of human activities of life that are genuinely out of the ambit of Science/Scientific Method. Right, please?
And there are some like Psychology etc for which it has been relaxed but still included in sciences because of them being of different nature. Right, please?
So, Scientific Method is not to be used blindly else it will be its misuse not its proper use. Right, please?

Regards

Correct, it is a tool of limited use. But it is highly successful in its area of application.

 

[gnostic]

Does Science claim to find everything truthful in nature, please? I understand, it has not such claim, please? Right, please?
Please present something from the methodology of Atheism, please?
Please remain focused on Atheism. Right, please?

Why do keep equating science and atheism as if they are the same things?

Both theism and atheism relate to question about the existence of god(s): theists believe in god(s), atheists don’t believe in any god.

In Natural Science, god is irrelevant, because sciences are the studies of nature, not of the supernatural, eg gods, miracles, afterlife.

If you want to talk about atheism, then talk about atheism.

But if you want to talk about science, then talk about sciences.

Now, theistic religions, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each support their version about creation, including life, and especially the first humans (eg Adam & Eve), in their respective scriptures.

My points if you were to compare scriptural narration about creation of nature against the scientific knowledge in astronomy, in earth science (eg earth crust, geology, atmosphere, hydrology, etc), in biology, particularly the studies of plants and animals (including humans), anatomy, physiology, genetics, speciation (Evolution), etc...you would find the scriptures, not only lacking in detailed explanations, they (eg scriptural contents or narrative) are wrong in many areas.

You cannot magically transform dust (in Genesis) or clay (in Quran) into living adult male human being. Science showed that human are not made out of dust or clay.

A cell in a human body, comprised of many organic matters, are not made out of non-living dust and not made of clay mineral.

You followed the Quran more than the Bible, so what the Quran say about Adam being made out of clay, is not true. There are not a single clay mineral or chemical compounds/molecules of clay inside the human body.

Humans have always being exist through reproduction, through conception, fertilization of egg, cell division, months of gestation in woman’s womb and then born through childbirth. That’s the only creation of human, and is wholly nature.

The transformation of clay into living human being, isn’t at all nature, it defied natural reality.

In Genesis with the talking serpent or the talking donkey in Numbers, or the Quran’s story about Solomon’s ability to communicate with all animals, including ants, are all nothing more than fables, fairytale or myths. They all defied natural reality.

Even stories about resurrection and afterlife in both New Testament gospels and in the Quran, are something that defied reality. One can assume that such stories only exist myths.

No scriptures are science textbooks, but certain literalists believed that they are all true. But where are the evidence for all the Quran’s and Bible’s claims of magic and miracles?

 

[gnostic]

So there are many or a lot of human activities of life that are genuinely out of the ambit of Science/Scientific Method. Right, please?
And there are some like Psychology etc for which it has been relaxed but still included in sciences because of them being of different nature. Right, please?
So, Scientific Method is not to be used blindly else it will be its misuse not its proper use.

Scientific Method are only used specific types of science, particularly in the physical sciences and natural sciences.

Science, like social science, don’t require to follow these process, to test a model.

The study of human biology, is different to study of human psychology, such as studying their behavior, emotions, mental illnesses or psychological anomalies, and treatments. There are too many variables to human psychology, that Scientific Method cannot test for.

Anthropology is the studies of human cultures, which exist in so many different geographical locations, that can change throughout their respective histories. Scientific Method wouldn’t be the right approach.

So scientific method have limitations, and only useful in certain branches of sciences.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scientific Method are only used specific types of science, particularly in the physical sciences and natural sciences.

Science, like social science, don’t require to follow these process, to test a model.

The study of human biology, is different to study of human psychology, such as studying their behavior, emotions, mental illnesses or psychological anomalies, and treatments. There are too many variables to human psychology, that Scientific Method cannot test for.

Anthropology is the studies of human cultures, which exist in so many different geographical locations, that can change throughout their respective histories. Scientific Method wouldn’t be the right approach.

So scientific method have limitations, and only useful in certain branches of sciences.

I agree with one here.
Thanks and regards

 

[gnostic]

I agree with one here.

Agree with what?

There that there are limitations as to what science uses “Scientific Method”?

Of course, there are limitations. You think scientists don’t know that there are limitations?

There are limitations in every studies/subjects and in every disciplines, whether it have to do with science or not.

Scientific Method is merely methodology for how ones would proceed to explain the phenomena and how one would test and analyze observations/evidence in particular fields with physical sciences or natural sciences.

It is the evidence, not personal belief or personal preferences, that would determine science or not science.

Social sciences study people, their behaviors, their custom, their cultures, their social activities, and so on. They are simply different studies to natural sciences, using alternative techniques in investigations and researches. But each one, have their limitations.

Unlike natural science, social science allowed for personal opinions and personal experiences that are subjective, but still can be considered “evidence” in social sciences, for instances, in psychology and psychiatry. Opinions, beliefs, personal experiences matter in therapy, psychology and psychiatry, and they can vary widely from one to another.

Natural sciences, on the other hand, evidence have to be physical, that can be observed, measured and tested. Personal opinions are not useful in natural sciences.

This is why Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences are considered “hard science”, where as Social Sciences are labelled as “soft science”.

But there are also limitations to non-scientific studies, like arts, crafts, literature, musics, etc.

Religions also have limitations. There are also limitations to every scriptures. The Quran and bible are completely inaccurate when it comes to natural science, because it never explain anything about astronomy, physics or biology.

Scriptures are also unreliable as historian sources, because often they make up something that never happened, or events didn’t happen the way they are recorded in scriptures.

Even many of moral codes and religious laws that appeared to be universal today, other codes and laws appeared very outdated, immoral, and unjust.

Don’t get me wrong, the legal systems and practices are hardly perfect, but compared to laws and morality in religious books, the Bible and the Quran aren’t perfect too, more so in some areas than others.

If you want to learn about stars, planets and galaxies, or the universe as a whole, then I would recommend learning from modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, and learn these not from Bible or the Quran.

If I want to study human body or that of animals or plants, then I would learn from biology classrooms or textbooks, not from the Bible or Quran, or other scriptures.

If I want to construct a car, house, bridge, cabinet or furniture, then I would seek experts in those areas, not from any holy books.

There are lot more limitations in religions, and only fools would think there are none.

 

[shunyadragon]

Does Science claim to find everything truthful in nature, please? I understand, it has not such claim, please? Right, please?
Please present something from the methodology of Atheism, please?
Please remain focused on Atheism. Right, please?

Regards

To make it balanced and objective in understanding beliefs you have to consider all 'isms. You previously mentioned religious methodology, which needs to be considered also. There is no objective comparative basis to justify atheism nor theism.

Science does not use 'truthful' to describe nature. The objective verifiable evidence that science is based on the consistent and predictable nature of our physical existence. Science, which deals ONLY with the nature of the physical existence.

One the other hand the assumptions of atheism face the same problem as theism or any other 'ism that makes philosophical or theological assumptions concerning the existence of Gods or other spiritual worlds beyond our physical world. There is absolutely no objective evidence to justify either 'belief.'

Nonetheless the philosophical basis for the atheist belief is that there is absolutely no objective evidence for the existence of Gods.

What you have failed to provide is an objective methodology to justify Theism. You mentioned 'religious methodology,' but offered no consistent methodology.

 

[ecco]

Just please Google for it.

YOU made the comment that there were fallacies in logic. Don't ask me to try to support YOUR silly comment. If you can defend it, let's hear it.

If you can't, well, that's just another notch in the tree

 

[rrobs]

Agree with what?

There that there are limitations as to what science uses “Scientific Method”?

Of course, there are limitations. You think scientists don’t know that there are limitations?

There are limitations in every studies/subjects and in every disciplines, whether it have to do with science or not.

Scientific Method is merely methodology for how ones would proceed to explain the phenomena and how one would test and analyze observations/evidence in particular fields with physical sciences or natural sciences.

It is the evidence, not personal belief or personal preferences, that would determine science or not science.

Social sciences study people, their behaviors, their custom, their cultures, their social activities, and so on. They are simply different studies to natural sciences, using alternative techniques in investigations and researches. But each one, have their limitations.

Unlike natural science, social science allowed for personal opinions and personal experiences that are subjective, but still can be considered “evidence” in social sciences, for instances, in psychology and psychiatry. Opinions, beliefs, personal experiences matter in therapy, psychology and psychiatry, and they can vary widely from one to another.

Natural sciences, on the other hand, evidence have to be physical, that can be observed, measured and tested. Personal opinions are not useful in natural sciences.

This is why Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences are considered “hard science”, where as Social Sciences are labelled as “soft science”.

But there are also limitations to non-scientific studies, like arts, crafts, literature, musics, etc.

Religions also have limitations. There are also limitations to every scriptures. The Quran and bible are completely inaccurate when it comes to natural science, because it never explain anything about astronomy, physics or biology.

Scriptures are also unreliable as historian sources, because often they make up something that never happened, or events didn’t happen the way they are recorded in scriptures.

Even many of moral codes and religious laws that appeared to be universal today, other codes and laws appeared very outdated, immoral, and unjust.

Don’t get me wrong, the legal systems and practices are hardly perfect, but compared to laws and morality in religious books, the Bible and the Quran aren’t perfect too, more so in some areas than others.

If you want to learn about stars, planets and galaxies, or the universe as a whole, then I would recommend learning from modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology, and learn these not from Bible or the Quran.

If I want to study human body or that of animals or plants, then I would learn from biology classrooms or textbooks, not from the Bible or Quran, or other scriptures.

If I want to construct a car, house, bridge, cabinet or furniture, then I would seek experts in those areas, not from any holy books.

There are lot more limitations in religions, and only fools would think there are none.

The biggest limitation of science is that it only serves oneself for about 80 years. After that it's useless. If that's all one wants, then science works. But some want something more substantial, and that's where the scriptures come into play. The scriptures are good for everlasting time.

 

[ppp]

But some want something more substantial, and that's where the scriptures come into play. The scriptures are good for everlasting time.

I don't see any reason to think that is true. To put it in the kindest way, the stories are unsupported, and the morality is inadequate.