Superstitions have got nothing to do with religion or science.

[Twilight Hue]

Well, religion is higher in status. It covers the whole human life while science has its limits. Religion supports science as it is useful for the human beings. Please
Regards

I'd rather see a scientific Dr as opposed to a religious "Dr" to diagnose and treat my ailments.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Quran claims Muhammad is he last messanger of god. Yet, for it to be supported by science, first science needs to prove the existence of A god (which?"

Muhammad is last in status, not in time.
It is not a scientific issue, so science doesn't have to prove it. Right? Please
Regards

Just making a point.

 

[Onyx]

The superstitions are based on ignorance , weak thinking and are whimsical.

With all due respect, why are you so fixated on this concept of superstition? You bring it up time after time. Wouldn't some other topics of discussion be more productive?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"name two or three revelations that are proven by science."

Did I claim it?
Revelation/Religion deals different things and science deals different. One is not against the other, necessarily.
Regards

Wait.

You said "Revelation and are justifiable and reasonable and these don't contradict with science. "

Revelation is superstition. Science is not. They are in contradiction because revelation says "Nichiren Shonin predicted wars afoot in all lands 100 years from his death" and his revelation has been revealed by "sycronicity and common sense" while science will tell you that no event in the mext second can be predicted from the second before it.

Science says: We dont know
Revelation says: Now we know.

Science says the laws of nature point to no god by any religious standard.

Revelation of god-religions say the opposite. God is the Souce of he laws of nature by its own religious standard.

Religion (god ones) and science conflict in that religious source is god and science says the opposite.

Give me a revelation from a religion supported and not contradicted by science (since thats the claim youre making above)?

 

[paarsurrey]

Wait.

You said "Revelation and are justifiable and reasonable and these don't contradict with science. "

Revelation is superstition. Science is not. They are in contradiction because revelation says "Nichiren Shonin predicted wars afoot in all lands 100 years from his death" and his revelation has been revealed by "sycronicity and common sense" while science will tell you that no event in the mext second can be predicted from the second before it.

Science says: We dont know
Revelation says: Now we know.

Science says the laws of nature point to no god by any religious standard.

Revelation of god-religions say the opposite. God is the Souce of he laws of nature by its own religious standard.

Religion (god ones) and science conflict in that religious source is god and science says the opposite.

Give me a revelation from a religion supported and not contradicted by science (since thats the claim youre making above)?

Revelation is not a subject of science. Is it? Please
It is a subject of Religion.
Science does not deal in Revelation, for sure.
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Revelation is not a subject of science. Is it? Please
It is a subject of Religion.
Science does not deal in Revelation, for sure.
Regards

You said religion (in this case, revelation) doesnt contradict science. You have just related the two.

Name a aspect of religion (god related) that does not contradict science.

 

[paarsurrey]

You said religion (in this case, revelation) doesnt contradict science. You have just related the two.

Name a aspect of religion (god related) that does not contradict science.

G-d is One.

It doesn't contradict science.
If one thinks it does then:

• One is to quote from a textbook of science where it is mentioned it does
• One is to quote from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute of science to show it
• One is to quote the discipline of science which is related to it

Please
Regards

 

[siti]

Belief based on revelation is itself superstition...unless of course the revelation was directly to oneself in which case it would be either fact or delusion I suppose? And I suppose there is no reason why there could not be a revealed error - I mean a genuine supernatural revelation that turned out to be wrong or misleading? The point of science is to deliberately weed out its own misapprehensions successively, whereas the point of religion seems to be to justify and perpetuate them in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

G-d is One.

It doesn't contradict science.
If one thinks it does then:

• One is to quote from a textbook of science where it is mentioned it does
• One is to quote from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute of science to show it
• One is to quote the discipline of science which is related to it

Please
Regards

What is "god" and show where science supports and gives evidence that there is a god.

 

[paarsurrey]

What is "god" and show where science supports and gives evidence that there is a god.

What is "god"

Verse (2:255)

Sahih International: Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

God with the name Allah has many attributes mentioned and explained/illustrated in the whole of Quran, and some of them have been mentioned in the above verse .
Science does not discuss G-d, it cannot be its subject to discuss as science has its limitation, it cannot cross them over.
Science explores nature, and nature has been caused by G-d.
Please
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is "god"

Verse (2:255)

Sahih International: Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

God with the name Allah has many attributes mentioned and explained/illustrated in the whole of Quran, and some of them have been mentioned in the above verse .
Science does not discuss G-d, it cannot be its subject to discuss as science has its limitation, it cannot cross them over.
Science explores nature, and nature has been caused by G-d.
Please
Regards

The Quran doesn't provide proof what god is. It only says what it is by definition of Islam not as a whole.

You said "science doesn't contradict god", give support that science has to do with god; and, because god is not Islam, Christian, Hindu specifically but a universal term each religion provides their own definition for, name a good definition of god not described by your religion and anyone elses that can be supported (therefore used to analysis if science contradicts) god.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Quran doesn't provide proof what god is. It only says what it is by definition of Islam not as a whole.

You said "science doesn't contradict god", give support that science has to do with god; and, because god is not Islam, Christian, Hindu specifically but a universal term each religion provides their own definition for, name a good definition of god not described by your religion and anyone elses that can be supported (therefore used to analysis if science contradicts) god.

"science doesn't contradict god"
Please quote my post number where I said that. Please
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"science doesn't contradict god"
Please quote my post number where I said that. Please
Regards

G-d is One.

It doesn't contradict science

If you are not referring to god, what are you referring to? (Press the error on the box to jump to the post)

 

[paarsurrey]

If you are not referring to god, what are you referring to? (Press the error on the box to jump to the post)

Revelation, Religion and Quran.
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Revelation, Religion and Quran

Revelation contradicts science because science says "we cannot predict the future" and revelation is a prediction of the future came true.

Religion (god-religions) contradict science as in god said humans came from the earth/land and science says humans came from water/ocean (in some theories I saw in the science museum here). However, I agree with science since the earth was covered with water long before land emerged.

The Quran, I'd probably treat like the bible, given they both have god-concepts and god-doing things and god-acting as a leader in things.

Science does not dictate a role in the order of creation. We are here. That's it. Science just tries to understand it without using theology to support it's theories instead of resting on justified facts.

 

[paarsurrey]

Revelation contradicts science because science says "we cannot predict the future" and revelation is a prediction of the future came true.

Religion (god-religions) contradict science as in god said humans came from the earth/land and science says humans came from water/ocean (in some theories I saw in the science museum here). However, I agree with science since the earth was covered with water long before land emerged.

The Quran, I'd probably treat like the bible, given they both have god-concepts and god-doing things and god-acting as a leader in things.

Science does not dictate a role in the order of creation. We are here. That's it. Science just tries to understand it without using theology to support it's theories instead of resting on justified facts.

science says "we cannot predict the future".

May be it is an off-the cuff opinion of a man of science. it may in other words an expression of limitation of science.
Nevertheless to prove that that what I have colored in magenta it belongs to science then:

• One is to quote from a textbook of science where it is mentioned it does say it
• One is to quote from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute of science to show it does say it
• One is to quote the discipline of science which is related to it

Please
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

science says "we cannot predict the future".

May be it is an off-the cuff opinion of a man of science. it may in other words an expression of limitation of science.
Nevertheless to prove that that what I have colored in magenta it belongs to science then:

• One is to quote from a textbook of science where it is mentioned it does say it
• One is to quote from a peer reviewed article published in a journal of repute of science to show it does say it
• One is to quote the discipline of science which is related to it

Please
Regards

Take all of that out and just say "science studies common sense."

Without belief in godly revelation, can you predict the future 100 percent correct without making educated guesses and coincidences that don't follow through in a constant pattern?

Can you take playing cards and dictate what all 52 cards are face down before you flip it?

I can do two cards, three at most but that depends on if I have seen the cards already, then I have a 50 percent chance (if 2) of getting the correct answer or less than that with three cards. However, by revelation of a good prophecy (predicting a card and it's actually correct), humans seem to have a play in revelation without the need for god.

Science just studies these different aspects. You can look up peer reviews and reports but there are people like yourself who do these reports and everything. Where in science does it say it supports godly revelation?

The information I gave you above isn't godly. It's just part of life. That's the study of science, life not god. If my luck is godly and science says it isn't possible to predict a card that I can 100 percent correct, that's a contradiction. If god says that jesus will appear in 1,000 year and its 2016, I don't need to study it (science) to know that the prophecy is not real.

And I can go on.

 

[paarsurrey]

With all due respect, why are you so fixated on this concept of superstition? You bring it up time after time. Wouldn't some other topics of discussion be more productive?

Please see the thread started by me:
Science has its limitations. Can it exceed them?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

With all due respect, why are you so fixated on this concept of superstition? You bring it up time after time. Wouldn't some other topics of discussion be more productive?

"why are you so fixated on this concept of superstition?"

There are spiritual/religious facts and there are facts relating to science. The scientific facts are verified with nature, the religious facts their truthfulness is verified from Revelations.
The weak minds out of confusion or otherwise don't conform to either of them or both of them. They resort to superstition. Right? Please
It is important, therefore, we discuss it. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Take all of that out and just say "science studies common sense."

Without belief in godly revelation, can you predict the future 100 percent correct without making educated guesses and coincidences that don't follow through in a constant pattern?

Can you take playing cards and dictate what all 52 cards are face down before you flip it?

I can do two cards, three at most but that depends on if I have seen the cards already, then I have a 50 percent chance (if 2) of getting the correct answer or less than that with three cards. However, by revelation of a good prophecy (predicting a card and it's actually correct), humans seem to have a play in revelation without the need for god.

Science just studies these different aspects. You can look up peer reviews and reports but there are people like yourself who do these reports and everything. Where in science does it say it supports godly revelation?

The information I gave you above isn't godly. It's just part of life. That's the study of science, life not god. If my luck is godly and science says it isn't possible to predict a card that I can 100 percent correct, that's a contradiction. If god says that jesus will appear in 1,000 year and its 2016, I don't need to study it (science) to know that the prophecy is not real.

And I can go on.

"and just say "science studies common sense."

Does science say it studies common sense? Please
Regards