Science and Religion

[ImmortalFlame]

Polymath257, you answered quite out of topic, The question was if there is a correlation between science and religion, suggesting the religion eventually to hold scientific elements or not.

Erm, no. Polymath's response is very on-topic. The OP asked if the posters believed that there is a correlation between religion and science, and Polymath explained that they believed that there is a negative correlation. It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with their beliefs or their justification for them, but to accuse their answer of being off-topic is quite factually wrong.

 

[ratiocinator]

OK. I´ll say the assumed suddenly Big Bang Creation "from nothing" is faith based...

There is considerable evidence for the big bang theory. That is, the theory that the space-time we inhabit originated in a very energetic dense state about 13 - 14 billion years ago.

I have no faith that it was from (literally) nothing. It may have been from as close to nothing as is possible but that is currently speculation.

...and even more so compared to the assumed biblical 6 days of creation.

There is plentiful evidence that falsifies this.

 

[Native]

So you object to open discussion on the subject of the OP?

This your first post isn´t and wasn´t an argument at all, but just a strawman comment.

Tried real arguments with you, facts and evidence seem to be ignored in favour of unattributed mythology but that is by the by.

So how do i need to look inside myself? Agree with you perhaps?

Another strawman comment.

When people abuse the thread rules do you not think they should be reminded of those rules and guidelines or would you prefer anarchy RF?

Absolutely to the first sentense - And it includes you too you know, so would you like other debaters to report you everytime you abuse the rules by being personal or for not posting related and factual arguments in a thread?

 

[Native]

Historically there was a major correlation. Today, not so much.

Agreed on that As time went on, people get more and more ignorant for the correlations. In fact ancient mythology was/is the prime scientific and empirical knowledge.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agreed on that As time went on, people get more and more ignorant for the correlations. In fact ancient mythology was/is the prime scientific and empirical knowledge.

Care to expand on that a little?

 

[Native]

Erm, no. Polymath's response is very on-topic. The OP asked if the posters believed that there is a correlation between religion and science, and Polymath explained that they believed that there is a negative correlation. It's perfectly fine for you to disagree with their beliefs or their justification for them, but to accuse their answer of being off-topic is quite factually wrong.

<
Polymath focused on the "believe" itself and forgot to deal with the factual question - THAT´S the difference and it was NOT on topic at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

<
Polymath focused on the "believe" itself and forgot to deal with the factual question - THAT´S the difference and it was NOT on topic at all.

How is explaining that you believe there is a negative correlation between religion and science off-topic in a thread that asks what your beliefs are regarding a correlation between religion and science?

 

[Native]

There is considerable evidence for the big bang theory. That is, the theory that the space-time we inhabit originated in a very energetic dense state about 13 - 14 billion years ago.

I have no faith that it was from (literally) nothing. It may have been from as close to nothing as is possible but that is currently speculation.

Yes it is all speculations and false measuring methods and claiming everyting to be formed out of a singuality is nonsense.

Native said: ↑
...and even more so compared to the assumed biblical 6 days of creation.

There is plentiful evidence that falsifies this.

You ASSUME there is - But when interpreting the ancient telling into the correct cosmic realms, there is NO evidences against this at all. (Of course "6 days" shal be taken as "6 stages of creation" and not days)

Besides this, the ancient knowledge claims the creation in the Universe to be eternal and eternally changing between formation, dissolution and re-formation - a MUCH more logical explanation without any Big Bang singularites at stage to confuse your mind out of order.

 

[Native]

How is explaining that you believe there is a negative correlation between religion and science off-topic in a thread that asks what your beliefs are regarding a correlation between religion and science?

As said before: Polymath focused on the term of "believe" instead of the possible factual correlations in science and religion. He did that because he have NO idea of the factual cosmological contents in ancient mythology and religion.

 

[ChristineM]

This your first post isn´t and wasn´t an argument at all, but just a strawman comment.


Another strawman comment.

Absolutely to the first sentense - And it includes you too you know, so would you like other debaters to report you everytime you abuse the rules by being personal or for not posting related and factual arguments in a thread?

So you are saying that arguments that you cannot contest are strawman arguments? The OP was precise in its title and wording. You objected to the discussion of science in a thread comparing science and religion? Go figure?

And you suggested i look inside myself. When i queried you comment you claim it as strawman? Sheesh.

First i have not reported anyone, second, the rules are the rules, if i infringe the then i deserve whatever reprimand is due. You should note that you are not arbiter of what is relevant, from past experience (and on this thread) it seems some brand whatever argument goes against their sensibilities as not suitable for the thread.

 

[wellwisher]

In Einstein's Relativity, observational reference is relative, which means that the earth reference, used by telescopes and satellites, to observe the universe, is not the absolute reference of the universe, as atheist appear to believe.

Six days of Creation does not make sense from an earth reference, but since reference and time is relative, this claim could make sense if Creation had been observed, in a reference that was very close to the speed of light. God is spirit and not matter, which means his reference is not the same as that of the earth. It is not inertial. It is closer to the speed of light.

Another mistake, that is made by science, is if the universe began as a singularity, the only reference at the beginning of the BB, would have been very close to that of the speed of light, similar to that of a massive black hole. Earth reference does not exist in the beginning. It is not appropriate to use a nonexistent reference to set the time scale for inflation; boom! This is a type of revisionist history, where a nonexistent earth reference, at a point in time, is used to define the early universe. That leads to science mythology.

For example, it is assumed the universe inflates faster than the speed of light. However, that is based on observation from an earth reference, that did not exist during inflation. If we use only genuine references that existed during inflation, that are close to the speed of light, there is no speed of light violation. Mythology was created.

The analogy is using the present cultural norms of 2019, to explain the choices and behavior of people from 1819. They were not under our standards, since these did not yet exist. Their behavior was consistent with the state of the art of those times, not our times. We should not judge in a way that leads to mythology.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Agreed on that As time went on, people get more and more ignorant for the correlations. In fact ancient mythology was/is the prime scientific and empirical knowledge.

Care to expand on that a little?

I´ve tried to do this here - Science and Symbols of Creation

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes it is all speculations and false measuring methods and claiming everyting to be formed out of a singuality is nonsense.

See: Big Bang - Observational evidence.

The singularity is a prediction of General Relativity alone. The conditions in the very early universe were such that we need a theory that unites General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory to know what happened and if there was actually a singularity. We only have hypotheses to date, so we don't know.

 

[ChristineM]

As said before: Polymath focused on the term of "believe" instead of the possible factual correlations in science and religion. He did that because he have NO idea of the factual cosmological contents in ancient mythology and religion.

More precisely, you want your mythology classed as science. Without falsifiable evidence it aint going happen.

You claim "factual" provide proof of said facts. And not some unattributed mumbo jumbo from a mythology fan site

 

[Native]

We only have hypotheses to date, so we don't know.

Thanks for this refreshing statement - which indeed should be remembered and quoted everytime we discuss scientific versus religious/mythological matters.

 

[ratiocinator]

In Einstein's Relativity, observational reference is relative, which means that the earth reference, used by telescopes and satellites, to observe the universe, is not the absolute reference of the universe, as atheist appear to believe.

This is not true. I know of nobody who thinks the earth is an absolute reference (other than some theists, come to think of it).

Six days of Creation does not make sense from an earth reference, but since reference and time is relative, this claim could make sense if Creation had been observed, in a reference that was very close to the speed of light.

How do you think that will work, then?

Another mistake, that is made by science, is if the universe began as a singularity, the only reference at the beginning of the BB, would have been very close to that of the speed of light, similar to that of a massive black hole.

This is nonsense - the big bang was not like a black hole (singularity of space-time, not in space-time). The bit about close to speed of light reference makes no sense either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As said before: Polymath focused on the term of "believe" instead of the possible factual correlations in science and religion. He did that because he have NO idea of the factual cosmological contents in ancient mythology and religion.

Polymath provided an answer to the question asked in the OP and elaborated on their position. Whether or not they focused on something you personally would rather they would have focused on is irrelevant, what they said was absolutely on-topic.

In what way was it off-topic?

 

[Native]

More precisely, you want your mythology classed as science. Without falsifiable evidence it aint going happen.
You claim "factual" provide proof of said facts. And not some unattributed mumbo jumbo from a mythology fan site

The last sentense disqualify you as a decent debater. To me you´re just a waste of time.

 

[Polymath257]

In Einstein's Relativity, observational reference is relative, which means that the earth reference, used by telescopes and satellites, to observe the universe, is not the absolute reference of the universe, as atheist appear to believe.

Show me one atheist that believes that. In fact, we *know* that we are moving at about 200 km/sec with respect to the background radiation, which is the only 'natural' reference frame.

Six days of Creation does not make sense from an earth reference, but since reference and time is relative, this claim could make sense if Creation had been observed, in a reference that was very close to the speed of light. God is spirit and not matter, which means his reference is not the same as that of the earth. It is not inertial. It is closer to the speed of light.

Another mistake, that is made by science, is if the universe began as a singularity, the only reference at the beginning of the BB, would have been very close to that of the speed of light, similar to that of a massive black hole. Earth reference does not exist in the beginning. It is not appropriate to use a nonexistent reference to set the time scale for inflation; boom! This is a type of revisionist history, where a nonexistent earth reference, at a point in time, is used to define the early universe. That leads to science mythology.traffic.com

For example, it is assumed the universe inflates faster than the speed of light. However, that is based on observation from an earth reference, that did not exist during inflation. If we use only genuine references that existed during inflation, that are close to the speed of light, there is no speed of light violation. Mythology was created.

The analogy is using the present cultural norms of 2019, to explain the choices and behavior of people from 1819. They were not under our standards, since these did not yet exist. Their behavior was consistent with the state of the art of those times, not our times. We should not judge in a way that leads to mythology.

I might suggest you learn a bit more about what the BB theory actually says before you go and criticize it. Maybe a book on cosmology would be a good start? Weinberg has a very good one that is recent enough to be on topic with latest observations. Good luck!

 

[Native]

This is nonsense - the big bang was not like a black hole (singularity of space-time, not in space-time). The bit about close to speed of light reference makes no sense either.

Apropos nonsense: Then what about the increased expansion velocity of the Universe?

To me this is an evidence of false measurement methods and nothing else.