Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[Aupmanyav]

In Scripture, first God created the invisible realm, the God expanded His creation business to include the visible material realm of existence which of course includes us

Science backs its theories with proof to the extent possible today. Research is on for the rest and it is finding new things on a daily basis. Scriptures do not provide any proof and are stalled in BCE or 7th Century.
If you would care, read this: Ask Astro Does dark energy create the voids between galaxy clusters?

 

[firedragon]

Science backs its theories with proof to the extent possible today.

No. People back their scientific theories scientific evidence, not science.

Not like those who make claims about Brahman existing, and is energy, but there is no scientific evidence to it, but eternally ask for scientific evidence from others for everything.

Try some logic and a standard. Try to be consistent and not be in contradiction. Maybe it makes you feel good to think in your mind that by asking for scientific evidence for a metaphysical discourse you have done a great job. But anyone who is trained won't do that. It is not even abiding by scientific axioms. Repeating what other atheists say on the internet with out analysing if its valid is absolutely invalid.

 

[blü 2]

Repeating what other atheists say on the internet with out analysing if its valid is absolutely invalid.

This worthy notion is not restricted to atheists ─ or even igtheists ─ but has universal application.

 

[firedragon]

This worthy notion is not restricted to atheists ─ or even igtheists ─ but has universal application.

Then you need to understand what is being said. It is not a universal thing. It is only atheistic propaganda without understanding the illogical insistence. Its just an evangelical tactic. The problem is, maybe you are so religiously indoctrinated to think "this is universal" because all your internet atheistic evangelists repeat the same thing.

Asking for science in metaphysics is nonsensical. Science by default takes naturalism as an axiom.

This is like asking for denizens of the deep sitting on a mountain top.

 

[Brian2]

Science backs its theories with proof to the extent possible today. Research is on for the rest and it is finding new things on a daily basis. Scriptures do not provide any proof and are stalled in BCE or 7th Century.
If you would care, read this: Ask Astro Does dark energy create the voids between galaxy clusters?

The proof of the scriptures is in the fulfilment of prophecies imo, and more are being fulfilled all the time.

 

[Jainarayan]

The proof of the scriptures is in the fulfilment of prophecies imo, and more are being fulfilled all the time.

Examples and sources?

 

[rational experiences]

Human teaching.

Have to be living on a created planet inside it's created heavens to claim I am a human.

Two humans.

One human claimed to the other human I created you at my side a woman. You hurt me.

We got evicted out of nature's garden.

Garden tree wood. Bushes burnt he stated.

Father spiritual consciousness naturally not the theist man of maths to calculate to design to build to react

What one body term did he not design or invent build? As the man scientist.

Natural presence.

Gods body forms. A human female.

Teaching said dispirited son was sacrificed for not listening to natural adult man's natural answers.

Teaching said refuses to listen to his own advice. Proves he doesn't listen.

Your man human teaching.

So father said.......your brother quotes energy is exactly the same energy form today as it was in the beginning. Otherwise it cannot be termed energy.

Human memory non stop removal of human by death of consciousness.

Consciousness regains bodily same DNA says I came back. DNA the same.

DNA is not energy. It is by machine conditions a research. No machine no research.

Not true he says a book written about human DNA genesis knew it was changed. How? Not by a machine. By firstborn baby mutation observation baby life had been murdered by temple sciences.

Energy however never went anywhere.

Pretty basic known witnessed observed lying human behaviour of I know it all.

I must build a machine to experiment to know it all. So he owns a thesis and it's name is science. I must learn everything I stated as science.

As he only uses the machine to apply science. Science a machine status actually. So he says the AI alien machine is what I want as I built it.

Yet he then says no it is a part of God. What God brother? Oh the artificial part I changed by machine before. In reality just science.

As he is not owner out of space changing stars sun's planets etc. Yet he talks about it as if he is in control of it all.

Designer a man.
Theist for design a man only.
Using machine is a man's design only. Sees what man the designer causes.

Builder of design a man.
Owner controller operator of design just a man.

Energy he says never changed. Energy he says I can remove.

You couldn't be a bigger liar if you tried.

Design is based on what your machine can react. Yet it reacts to natural energy.

You make sink holes. Energy gone.

Energy he says goes back to what a changed form? He gets... .space.

Hence space cannot be energy.

Theist thinks. What body can I obtain to change that I haven't changed before.

 

[danieldemol]

The physical universe is a material thing, and thus asking science concerning it's origin and development is within it's domain.

What does metaphysics have to do with the "creation" (tsk tsk such a loaded term) of the universe from a purely logical perspective?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Examples and sources?

The Tyre prophecy . . . Oh wait, That one failed abysmally.

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 26 - New International Version

Then there is Jesus's prophecy that the end times would be before all of the disciples passed away. Hmm, there must still be one of the twelve living somewhere.

Prophecy is actually a weakness of Christianity. Quite a few of the "prophecies" were not prophecies at all. They are merely verses taken out of context. Some of the prophecies of the Bible were just history written as if it were prophecy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The proof of the scriptures is in the fulfilment of prophecies imo, and more are being fulfilled all the time.

Prophecies are another fakes, or at the most people's guesses according to their baisses. The best reply to a prophet/astrologer was given by an Indian king who cqalled and executioner with a heavy sword and asked the prophet whether he will be killed or pardoned. The prophet begged for mercy.

What does metaphysics have to do with the "creation" (tsk tsk such a loaded term) of the universe from a purely logical perspective?

'M E T A P H Y S I C S' also is a loaded term. All kind of BS can be put under it.

 

[blü 2]

Then you need to understand what is being said. It is not a universal thing. It is only atheistic propaganda without understanding the illogical insistence.

That's just a subset of the general proposition ─ to identify and reject propaganda, unreason, improper persuasion, regardless of the topic, regardless of the source.

Its just an evangelical tactic. The problem is, maybe you are so religiously indoctrinated to think "this is universal" because all your internet atheistic evangelists repeat the same thing.

There are versions of evangelism in politics, pop, advertising, nearly all human activities.

Asking for science in metaphysics is nonsensical.

By metaphysics, I take it you mean supernatural metaphysics. There's also a branch of philosophy called metaphysics that deals with non-supernatural questions ─ as the late David Armstrong put it:

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, [...] It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.​

Science by default takes naturalism as an axiom.

Following an idea of Descartes, though with variations, I assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me about that world
reason is a valid tool​

and I assume those things because in each case I can't demonstrate it's correct without first assuming it's correct. However, anyone who posts here affirms by so doing that they agree with the first two, and fingers crossed they also agree with the third ─ so our conversations have a common basis. Indeed, I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't, explicitly or implicitly, agree.

So science sets out to explore, describe, and seek to explain the world external to the self, aka nature. And the vindication of science ─ as with all forms of reasoned skeptical enquiry ─ is that it works better than any other system we presently know of.

And it turns out that we find nothing supernatural in nature. The only manner in which the supernatural exists is as sets of concepts and imagined things in individual brains. And because these ─ unlike eg science ─ have no objective standard of truth, there are, for example, tens of thousands of versions of Christianity, and Christianity is only one of the world's thousands of religions.

This is like asking for denizens of the deep sitting on a mountain top.

The realms of religion look more like Captain Marvel vs Godzilla vs Gulliver vs the Three Bears.

So I continue to be happy with reasoned skeptical enquiry.

 

[Valjean]

The proof of the scriptures is in the fulfillment of prophecies imo, and more are being fulfilled all the time.

That would necessitate a clear and unambiguous prophecy -- a rarity.
It would require a clear and unambiguous 'fulfillment' -- another rarity.
It would require a lack of any competing or contrary prophecies or fulfillments.
It would require enough repetitions of the prediction and result to make coincidence statistically improbable.

How does a correct prediction "prove" anything? People make correct predictions at race tracks and roulette tables all the time. What does that prove? Does it prove other opinions expressed by these people must needs be correct, also?

Seers, magicians, tarot readers, and religions of all stripes make all sorts of vague and ambiguous prophecies, and all sorts of wishful thinkers see patterns and fulfillments that just aren't there.

 

[firedragon]

That's just a subset of the general proposition ─ to identify and reject propaganda, unreason, improper persuasion, regardless of the topic, regardless of the source.
There are versions of evangelism in politics, pop, advertising, nearly all human activities.
By metaphysics, I take it you mean supernatural metaphysics. There's also a branch of philosophy called metaphysics that deals with non-supernatural questions ─ as the late David Armstrong put it:

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, [...] It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.​

Following an idea of Descartes, though with variations, I assume that ─

a world exists external to me
my senses are capable of informing me about that world
reason is a valid tool​

and I assume those things because in each case I can't demonstrate it's correct without first assuming it's correct. However, anyone who posts here affirms by so doing that they agree with the first two, and fingers crossed they also agree with the third ─ so our conversations have a common basis. Indeed, I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't, explicitly or implicitly, agree.

So science sets out to explore, describe, and seek to explain the world external to the self, aka nature. And the vindication of science ─ as with all forms of reasoned skeptical enquiry ─ is that it works better than any other system we presently know of.

And it turns out that we find nothing supernatural in nature. The only manner in which the supernatural exists is as sets of concepts and imagined things in individual brains. And because these ─ unlike eg science ─ have no objective standard of truth, there are, for example, tens of thousands of versions of Christianity, and Christianity is only one of the world's thousands of religions.
The realms of religion look more like Captain Marvel vs Godzilla vs Gulliver vs the Three Bears.

So I continue to be happy with reasoned skeptical enquiry.

You are displaying propaganda atheists have developed just like evangelists of any other religion. It’s actually much worse. Lot of preaching.

Can you show me in philosophy of science where scientists don’t take methodological naturalism as an axiom?

Go ahead. That’s the beginning.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Scriptures vs science is a false dichotomy significant only to those who, having rejected faith in God, look to science to fill the hole they have created for themselves. Or to those theologians who, like the 16th Century Catholic Church or some contemporary American Evangelicals, are so inflexible in their interpretation of scripture, and so defensive of their position as self appointed guardians of knowledge, that they can’t tolerate or accommodate schools of learning operating outside their authority. The Catholic Church learned from it’s mistakes with Galileo btw. In the 1980s the Vatican invited Stephen Hawking to address a conference on cosmology. No hint of any inquisition.

To declare that the spirit of scientific enquiry is necessarily at odds with the spirit of philosophical or theological enquiry, is to misunderstand both the purpose and remit of each.

Science needs metaphysics if it is to fulfil a goal which is “nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in”
- Stephen Hawking (who called that same goal “understanding the mind of God”).
Since Hugh Everett III posited the relative state interpretation of QM, leading to the Multiverse Theory which has many respected adherents in the scientific community, the world of quantum physics has been in metaphysical territory. This is a state of affairs classical and renaissance scientists and philosophers were entirely comfortable with.

Erwin Schrodinger was a lifelong student of the Vedas. Carlo Rovelli refers to Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, to help conceptualise the relational interpretation of QM. Einstein and Niels Bohr constantly referred to God in their discourses, though their use of the word may be subject to various interpretations; still, they used it. They couldn’t get away from it.

Einstein said that “The programmatic aim of all physics is the complete description of any real situation, as it supposedly exists.” Whether there is a role or a requirement for a universal creative intelligence in that description, is a debate which may never be settled. But the declaration “God is dead, Science has usurped Him”, is without either meaning or value. It’s hollow rhetoric.

 

[firedragon]

By metaphysics, I take it you mean supernatural metaphysics. There's also a branch of philosophy called metaphysics that deals with non-supernatural questions ─ as the late David Armstrong put it:

there are a great number of notions that [...] we can call topic neutral notions. Instances are cause, class, property, relation, quality, kind, resemblance, quantity, number, substance, fact, truth, law of nature, power, and others. These notions are perfectly general, are very difficult to analyse and interconnect, [...] It is these sorts of notions, I suggest, that metaphysics strives to give a systematic account of.

Thats not relevant. This is preaching like a cult preacher cutting and pasting something as a red herring and preaching around it.

Metaphysics fundamentally is not science, but it is also metaphysics of science which is a branch. Metaphysics is a separate subject and is not proven by scientific experiments in a lab. It is absolutely nonsensical. I really cannot understand why some of the atheists here cannot understand these simple fundamentals. But you will preach around it to get away from these fundamentals.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The physical universe is a material thing, and thus asking science concerning it's origin and development is within it's domain.

What does metaphysics have to do with the "creation" (tsk tsk such a loaded term) of the universe from a purely logical perspective?

It’s now the consensus that the universe had a beginning; in other words, a moment of creation.

 

[firedragon]

But the declaration “God is dead, Science has usurped Him”, is without either meaning or value. It’s hollow rhetoric.

Thats not where it ends RS. Take the full context.

 

[blü 2]

You are displaying propaganda atheists have developed just like evangelists of any other religion.

I've seen that a lot over the years, without ever quite understanding why anyone would argue that way ─ that the thing wrong with science is that it's as bad as religion.

It’s actually much worse. Lot of preaching.

I wasn't preaching. I was explaining.

And since you have my explanation, by all means present your reasoned arguments against such parts of it as you disagree with.

Can you show me in philosophy of science where scientists don’t take methodological naturalism as an axiom?

I explained quite specifically in my previous post why science proceeds on the basis that there's a world external to the self; something you do too.

So what is it that you didn't understand in what I said?

I'm here to help.

 

[blü 2]

Thats not relevant. This is preaching like a cult preacher cutting and pasting something as a red herring and preaching around it.

Metaphysics fundamentally is not science, but it is also metaphysics of science which is a branch. Metaphysics is a separate subject and is not proven by scientific experiments in a lab. It is absolutely nonsensical. I really cannot understand why some of the atheists here cannot understand these simple fundamentals. But you will preach around it to get away from these fundamentals.

I apologize for not making myself clear.

I was simply pointing out that your use of 'metaphysics' was ambiguous ─ which indeed it was.

 

[firedragon]

I've seen that a lot over the years, without ever quite understanding why anyone would argue that way ─ that the thing wrong with science is that it's as bad as religion.

Well, since no one made that argument, I guess you just made that up as a preaching methodology. You know, for a shock effect.

I wasn't preaching. I was explaining.

Exactly what preachers generally say.

And since you have my explanation, by all means present your reasoned arguments against such parts of it as you disagree with.

You have not made any argument.

I explained quite specifically in my previous post why science proceeds on the basis that there's a world external to the self; something you do too.

Yeah. If that is what you want to speak about, you responded to someone else's problem and you are just being irrelevant.

So that's that.