Science vs Religion, I will solve this debate for you once and for all.

[David1967]

So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated. I'll give you an example, you crawled out of a ***** and you don't have any clue where you are. Nobody does. It's the greatest mystery that nobody likes to talk about. We like to pretend that we know everything, and we like to give things names because if we name something we can claim that we know what it is, but the reality is that we don't know anything. The reality is that we are very good at pretending things just like we did when we were kids. In fact I plan to make a point that there is two realities. The natural world aka the real world, and the pretend society that we create to hide from the gruesome natural world we all fear.

Before I get off topic, Science vs Religion. Who wins? That's easy...

Answer= Nobody, we all lose, because they are the same thing.

Crowd gasps, "What did he just say?"

Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith. The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven. Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.

I could get into deep heated argumentation over this no doubt, but I believe I can easily destroy anybody's scientific arguments with the following sentence.

Life itself is a paradox. Therefore all attempts at explaining life using science aka observing the universe is futile. Don't believe that life is a paradox? Here I'll show you it's easy:

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.
(We know that is impossible because something can not come from nothing everything must have a beginning.)

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

Both of those options defy all logic yet there is no other alternatives.

There you have it indisputable proof that life itself is the greatest mystery and an unsolvable paradox. Something that all kids know. I don't think I'm smart for telling you this, in fact, I'm aware that you already knew this, but doesn't it feel refreshing to hear somebody say it?

The truth is that were scared of the natural world. Its terrifying. Imagine being in the woods alone at night with something stalking you trying to eat you. Sounds like a nightmare right? No, its real. It could happen. We live in a predatory parasitic world where to survive living sentient beings must be slaughtered and their flesh consumed for energy transference its quite sick and disturbing if you actually stop to think about it. Its no wonder we would literally do anything to distract our self from this thus we have created modern society which is mostly a huge distraction, and its no wonder the ancients used to worship the sun, their risen savior who brought light to the world and let them see the predators trying to eat them.

Religion your not getting off the hook so easy either. For starters all the religions contain ancient texts that predate the books they are presented in today. All these ancient texts were written by ancient man, but they are not divine, and they have been manipulated by your rulers with some things left out and some things added. The ancients were people doing what people do best, pretending and making things up to distract themselves from reality just the same as we are still doing today. In fact its better to argue about which is better, science or religion, then to think about the fact that your going to die and your entire existence may have been pointless.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started. It's all conjecture and opinion so lets stop pretending, arguing, and fighting over whos made up b.s. is better. My god is better than your god because my god has a giant cock!

Maybe the ancients were smarter then we give them credit for because they told us that to find real truths you must look deep within yourself, because that's where the true universe exists. You are infinite consciousness. You are a paradox, and you have the power!

Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.

Welcome to RF. Now you do realize that by claiming to speak "ultimate truth", your kinda falling into the realm of religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ask whoever you want, I don't care.

I have no choice to conclude that you now have a history of posting dishonest claims and will not back up those claims,

 

[osgart]

isn't this a religious forum for people who hold valid religious questioning?

religion is simply matters of the soul, and the possibility of eternal life, yet even without eternal life, it is still soul searching and to find the most worthy way of living life.

if you knew you were going to die tomorrow, what would you do? hold life as meaningless, call all the people you care about, or something else. my guess is you would live what's most important to you; solving equations, or spending time with your dear wife, or whatever.

religion done poorly might leave one with a false sense of fear and guilt, or in a state of wishful delusion. but if you do religion well, you might find peace in your life.

religion asks important questions that have nothing to do with science, and everything to do about experiences, and what they mean.

why attack it?

 

[shunyadragon]

isn't this a religious forum for people who hold valid religious questioning?

religion is simply matters of the soul, and the possibility of eternal life, yet even without eternal life, it is still soul searching and to find the most worthy way of living life.

if you knew you were going to die tomorrow, what would you do? hold life as meaningless, call all the people you care about, or something else. my guess is you would live what's most important to you; solving equations, or spending time with your dear wife, or whatever.

religion done poorly might leave one with a false sense of fear and guilt, or in a state of wishful delusion. but if you do religion well, you might find peace in your life.

religion asks important questions that have nothing to do with science, and everything to do about experiences, and what they mean.

True.

why attack it?

Need more clarification here. There is a difference between debating issues of belief, and attacks.

I do seriously those who attack science without any effort to ground their view in objective verifiable evidence, and only use theological assumptions to attack science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I never said it did.

You did say: "Yes, we know you feel that way. However, others on here do seem to think science establishes truth."

No one on this site makes that claim.

 

[osgart]

True.



Need more clarification here. There is a difference between debating issues of belief, and attacks.

I do seriously those who attack science without any effort to ground their view in objective verifiable evidence, and only use theological assumptions to attack science.

certain scientists think they have all the answers, just like many theologians, so I am wary of both. So nothing is above scrutiny.

science informs religion at times, but largely I don't think they have much to do with each other.

I see science can make religious claims, and religion also makes scientific claims, most of which isn't true. I think most of the science vs. religion I see out there is speculative hype for fear of being overruled.

I consider most religions as outdated, but never religion in general. there's too many relevant concepts that are religious in nature that apply beautifully to human experience; the soul, faith, free will, justice, belief.

why does current science have dogmatic rule in it? it's like you have to be a naturalist to do science.

I see that people who are not naturalists get the reputation of being superstitious, and delusional.

 

[Valjean]

Allow me to show you the absurdity of science with the following statement:

As a human, using your senses, you perceive less than 1% of what exists, yet you scientists then attempt to explain everything with absurd theories that you stack one on top the other so that if one of the foundational theories fails all the theories its supporting will come crashing down like a proverbial house of cards. What then happens is that this can't be allowed to happen so now your stuck defending these theories with your life because you don't want the crash to happen on your watch...

Science has devised ways of augmenting our senses, and of analyzing effects and interactions. We know a lot of things that aren't directly observable.
Religion, on the other hand, is pretty much stuck with the tangible. It doesn't bother with research or hypothesis testing. When it comes to the intangible, it just makes things up.

Science can't even answer the basic questions of a elementary student. Where are we? Why are we here? How did all this start? Scientists you don't know anything so stop lying to the children telling them about a big bang or evolution that's your wacky opinion, I mean theory, so stop trying to pass your theories off as fact.

But science can answer these questions, just not in the metaphysical sense.
Science can't determine intentionality, but neither can folklore or religion. At least science doesn't just make things up.

Apparently you don't really understand science. Why do you say it doesn't understand anything? Just look at the technology that's been developed since we started using the methodology. We've learned facts that enable us to manipulate matter and energy, and predict effects -- something religion's been unable to do effectively despite its long history.

The greatest lie science ever told was claiming that something physical like the brain could create something unphysical like consciousness and the profound experience you are having right now. If you choose to believe this I'm not chastising you, feel free to do so, but humbly accept that its your religion and your no better then a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, that believes in some made up god.

Consciousness isn't understood, but inasmuch as it can be predictably altered by changes in the brain, it's reasonable to hypothesize that it's an artifact of that organ. This is a provisional conclusion, of course. It's supported by the evidence at hand, but remains open to further evidence and interpretation.
Religious 'explanations', on the other hand, are pure speculation with no supporting evidence save personal incredulity.

We like to make things up, that's what we do as human beings to deal with the natural world we are in. But don't start telling me that the b.s. that you made up, is any better than the b.s. that somebody else made up, else I will call you a hypocrite.

I'll tell you precisely that. Scientific facts are not "made up." They are tested, peer reviewed evidence based conclusions.

And for the record life and consciousness is the greatest unsolved mystery, it is absolutely a paradox.

How are these paradoxes? A paradox is more than something not well understood. These are active areas of study, and the record of life on Earth is well supported by evidence from numerous different disciplines.

I agree. Think of the word 'God' that it functions much as X in algebra. X is the stand-in for the unknown. In Christian theology God, is the name of Mystery at the root of all. An incomprehensible Mystery.

Except 'X' is not personalized. It's not attributed with consciousness or intention.

 

[shunyadragon]

certain scientists think they have all the answers, just like many theologians, so I am wary of both. So nothing is above scrutiny.

Let's start here. Yes 'nothing is above scrutiny,' and most if not all scientist will agree. The objection I have is with "certain scientists think they have all the answers . . . " First, this claim is basically a fallacy of 'anonymous sources.' Who are these "certain scientists." Second, it is very very unlikely that even a few scientists make this claim. I am a scientist, a geologist/soil scientist with over forty years work in and with scientists, and studying the philosophy of science and its implications.

 

[osgart]

Let's start here. Yes 'nothing is above scrutiny,' and most if not all scientist will agree. The objection I have is with "certain scientists think they have all the answers . . . " First, this claim is basically a fallacy of 'anonymous sources.' Who are these "certain scientists." Second, it is very very unlikely that even a few scientists make this claim. I am a scientist, a geologist/soil scientist with over forty years work in and with scientists, and studying the philosophy of science and its implications.

only a few scientists make the claim that they have all the answers to the big questions, guys like Hitchens, Dennett, Krauss, and Harris.

I know that most scientists are honest people.

 

[shunyadragon]

only a few scientists make the claim that they have all the answers to the big questions, guys like Hitchens, Dennett, Krauss, and Harris.

I know that most scientists are honest people.

You will need to cite these scientists where they make this claim, because I have read at least some of their works, and they did not make this claim concerning science from what I read. I do not believe this is true.

Lawrence Krauss is a controversial figure in science, but not because of the claim you attribute to him. Krauss in his book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing proposed his version of a theory of the nature of origins of the universe, but it is a variation of proposed theories of other scientist, and he does not propose it in any absolute sense that answers all the questions concerning science and cosmology, and represent absolute truth. He is an atheist, which may offend you, but as far as science goes, he does not propose to have all the answers.

Daniel Dennett proposes his version of compatibilism to explain a philosophy that allows both determinism and free will, but he does not present this philosophy in terms of a 'truth' that answers all the questions.

Harris, assuming you are referring to Sam Harris, another atheist, again his religion choice offends you, but no he does not believe he has all the answers concerning science.

It sounds like you are listing scientists, especially atheists, that disagree with your world view, This does not get you very far.

 

[osgart]

You will need to cite these scientists where they make this claim, because I have read at least some of their works, and they did not make this claim concerning science from what I read. I do not believe this is true.

Lawrence Krauss is a controversial figure in science, but not because of the claim you attribute to him. Krauss in his book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing proposed his version of a theory of the nature of origins of the universe, but it is a variation of proposed theories of other scientist, and he does not propose it in any absolute sense that answers all the questions concerning science and cosmology, and represent absolute truth. He is an atheist, which may offend you, but as far as science goes, he does not propose to have all the answers.

Daniel Dennett proposes his version of compatibilism to explain a philosophy that allows both determinism and free will, but he does not present this philosophy in terms of a 'truth' that answers all the questions.

Harris, assuming you are referring to Sam Harris, another atheist, again his religion choice offends you, but no he does not believe he has all the answers concerning science.

It sounds like you are listing scientists, especially atheists, that disagree with your world view, This does not get you very far.

actually I oppose most religions as false, but religion in general I feel is very important.

There is no God. and no evidence for a God. I know this!

I only assert that the soul exists, and that we are intelligently created by evolution; I don't buy that it is a mindless process. some primitive intelligence created life.

I suspect that there is another dimension to reality that defies physical explanation. i.e. non locality in quantum entanglement defies physical explanation entirely. There are some scientists who agree that this is possible. Laszlo, Kuhn speculate this very thing.

yet I know the only rational people are supposed to agree that only material things exist. but that is presupposing.

I reckon you would love to see the downfall of religion because its history is a failure.

but Science comes from the belief that the universe is intelligible. And because it's intelligible natural religious questions arise.

belief is henceforth important, because it leads us to ask questions about those beliefs.

There is a place for knowledge based on purely human experience, that is the realm of religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No.

Not really much of a debater, are you?

 

[DavidFirth]

Not really much of a debater, are you?

Depends

 

[DavidFirth]

You did say: "Yes, we know you feel that way. However, others on here do seem to think science establishes truth."

No one on this site makes that claim.

Opinion noted.

 

[DavidFirth]

I have no choice to conclude that you now have a history of posting dishonest claims and will not back up those claims,

Opinion noted.

 

[shunyadragon]

I only assert that the soul exists, and that we are intelligently created by evolution; I don't buy that it is a mindless process. some primitive intelligence created life.

Personal opinion doe not represent a coherent argument.

I suspect that there is another dimension to reality that defies physical explanation. i.e. non locality in quantum entanglement defies physical explanation entirely. There are some scientists who agree that this is possible. Laszlo, Kuhn speculate this very thing.

OK, possibilities. but no reason to condemn the science of evolution.

yet I know the only rational people are supposed to agree that only material things exist. but that is presupposing.

False assumptions, and not related to science. Science is neutral to the question of whether only material things exist. This would be a philosophical/theological question. I am a scientist (geologist/soil scientist) for 40 plus years, and believe in God as Baha'i.

I reckon you would love to see the downfall of religion because its history is a failure.

No, I am a a Baha'i and believe in God.

but Science comes from the belief that the universe is intelligible.

The only assumption of science, which is testable, is that the universe is consistent and uniform. Every time a theory or hypothesis is tested and falsified this assumption is tested based on the predictability of the outcomes. So far it has not been found false.

. . . And because it's intelligible natural religious questions arise.

belief is henceforth important, because it leads us to ask questions about those beliefs.

True but not related to the above statement, nor questions science even attempts to deal with..

There is a place for knowledge based on purely human experience, that is the realm of religion.

True, but there is a place for science, and does not discount the above.

 

[Valjean]

So then determinism is your faith. how does determinism create enzymes?

pure chance alone is ruled out by the video.

Chemistry creates enzymes, but the process begins with simpler compounds like sugars, lipids, amino acids &c, which can polymerize into larger, more complex structures. No-one's saying life just popped into being fully formed.
The mechanism, once underway, is not pure chance. The video doesn't rule out chemistry. It strikes me as a variation of the irreducible complexity argument.

we should see life arising time and time again if determinism is true.

again it's not one lottery we are trying to hit, but 250 at least in a row. and somehow determinism is the magic filter?

Maybe proto-life does appear frequently, but we're not likely to "see" it unless we've got a microscope focused at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time. As far as developing further into a fully developed, 2nd lineage of life, once available biological niches are successfully occupied by well adapted life forms, it's unlikely an new, poorly adapted organism could successfully compete and gain a foothold.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not really much of a debater, are you?

Not one for backing up his claims. Ever.

 

[Milton Platt]

So, for starters, people like me because I speak ultimate truths that aren't sugar coated. I'll give you an example, you crawled out of a ***** and you don't have any clue where you are. Nobody does. It's the greatest mystery that nobody likes to talk about. We like to pretend that we know everything, and we like to give things names because if we name something we can claim that we know what it is, but the reality is that we don't know anything. The reality is that we are very good at pretending things just like we did when we were kids. In fact I plan to make a point that there is two realities. The natural world aka the real world, and the pretend society that we create to hide from the gruesome natural world we all fear.

Before I get off topic, Science vs Religion. Who wins? That's easy...

Answer= Nobody, we all lose, because they are the same thing.

Crowd gasps, "What did he just say?"

Yes you heard me, they are the same. Religion by definition is a belief held with faith. The same way science makes claims, uh, I mean theories, many that can't be proven, but must be believed with faith. To put it more plainly science is merely the new age religion. In the past it was scientific fact that the earth was flat and if you said otherwise you could be executed. Well in a few hundred years from now all the scientific things we believe today will be disproven. Not to say that some clever inventions haven't arisen from science like this laptop I'm typing on, but science can't be used to explain existence similar to how a holographic man could never understand what's outside the hologram.

I could get into deep heated argumentation over this no doubt, but I believe I can easily destroy anybody's scientific arguments with the following sentence.

Life itself is a paradox. Therefore all attempts at explaining life using science aka observing the universe is futile. Don't believe that life is a paradox? Here I'll show you it's easy:

There is only two possible options for life:

1. Life, and all matter, and energy, sprang into existence from nothing.
(We know that is impossible because something can not come from nothing everything must have a beginning.)

2. Life has always existed and has had no beginning.
(We know that is impossible because everything must have a beginning.)

Both of those options defy all logic yet there is no other alternatives.

There you have it indisputable proof that life itself is the greatest mystery and an unsolvable paradox. Something that all kids know. I don't think I'm smart for telling you this, in fact, I'm aware that you already knew this, but doesn't it feel refreshing to hear somebody say it?

The truth is that were scared of the natural world. Its terrifying. Imagine being in the woods alone at night with something stalking you trying to eat you. Sounds like a nightmare right? No, its real. It could happen. We live in a predatory parasitic world where to survive living sentient beings must be slaughtered and their flesh consumed for energy transference its quite sick and disturbing if you actually stop to think about it. Its no wonder we would literally do anything to distract our self from this thus we have created modern society which is mostly a huge distraction, and its no wonder the ancients used to worship the sun, their risen savior who brought light to the world and let them see the predators trying to eat them.

Religion your not getting off the hook so easy either. For starters all the religions contain ancient texts that predate the books they are presented in today. All these ancient texts were written by ancient man, but they are not divine, and they have been manipulated by your rulers with some things left out and some things added. The ancients were people doing what people do best, pretending and making things up to distract themselves from reality just the same as we are still doing today. In fact its better to argue about which is better, science or religion, then to think about the fact that your going to die and your entire existence may have been pointless.

The ultimate truth here is that nobody knows a damn thing about where we are, why were here, or how the universe and life started. It's all conjecture and opinion so lets stop pretending, arguing, and fighting over whos made up b.s. is better. My god is better than your god because my god has a giant cock!

Maybe the ancients were smarter then we give them credit for because they told us that to find real truths you must look deep within yourself, because that's where the true universe exists. You are infinite consciousness. You are a paradox, and you have the power!

Just a simple reminder from your friend, Focused Intent.

I'll skip the rest of the diatribe, but will encourage you to look up the definition of a scientific theory (as opposed to the way the word theory is used outside of science). You have misunderstood what a scientific theory is.

 

[pearl]

I'll skip the rest of the diatribe, but will encourage you to look up the definition of a scientific theory (as opposed to the way the word theory is used outside of science). You have misunderstood what a scientific theory is.

Theory doesn't refer to a guess as myth doesn't refer to fairy tale.