Explaining science as a religious scripture.

[Quintessence]

There's a seed of something valuable here. It needs a bit more mineral nutrients, sunlight, and some water to sprout into its full potential. Put another way, the presentation and argumentation could do with some refinement. As it stands, there are some things here that do not follow.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm not criticising your area of study, well... but your evidence is based purely upon trust that the person that had the spiritual experience is for 1 tell

.

I was getting at 150 years of psychical research and the teachings of many teachers while considering all things from all angles and determining what I found most reasonable to conclude. I consider things with an open-mined skepticism.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm not saying science is a religion but I think explaining science as some sort of religious text may be more understandable than just saying 'no, you're wrong. Just listen to yourself...'!

I mean a scientific scripture as a metaphor, not 'we should write a book'...

Here goes...

It is common when debating (arguing) with religious people that the religious one will say, 'well, how did nothing create something? Surely this proves God?'. I'm not going to go into the fact that, even if this were true, how can you be sure that your religion, 1 in potentially 100s of thousands of other religions that have existed, is the correct one, but will instead explain scientifically by using examples that it is illogical to use this argument as a logical reason that God exists.

Before I begin, I must inform you that I study quantum mechanics (not all of it obviously, I specialise in one area of it) at University so am relatively proficient in educating people about the basic principles of it.

Right, you say nothing cannot create something. Well, that is only apparent in the dimensions we know. String theory (I'm not going to explain it, I would exceed the character limit and don't know everything about it either) strongly suggests the existence of around 10 dimensions. You may say 'String theory is not proven' but I would retort with 'it is the most likely explanation of how the universe 'works' and is accepted by most physicists as correct (mostly).' Anyway, humans have never seen an electron before but we all accept that the structure of an atom is a nucleus with orbiting electrons. See my point about string theory being most probably true? Anyway, we don't really understand what these dimensions mean or do but some evidence suggests that our physical laws, such as Newton's laws, may not apply with these dimensions in place.

What I am getting at here is that what we consider common knowledge is slowly becoming further from the truth than we imagined in some areas of science. This should show to people that even the most intelligent people can't debate God's existence as we really are in the dark when it comes to 99.99% of the universe.

The principle of what I explained about science changing can be explained to religious people in the form of a religious type text as to make them better understand why you cannot prove God with logic as we as humans really don't know what logic is.

The scientific scripture is like no other religious text as it can be forever edited and added to as humans discover and disprove theories meaning whatever apparent logical reasons you give to prove God are most likely just utterly wrong.

Thanks for reading. Just so you know, I wrote this after watching Christians try to prove God using extracts from the bible (I know, what's the point? Why use something atheists don't believe in to convert them?) which may be considered an unhealthy state for an atheist to challenge spiritual believers...

Anyway, I respect you for who you are, so no hate given.

What about the awkward moment where 50% of the contributions to the big scientific scripture come from Christian scientists?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Not at all. I loved mathematics until it became simply too difficult to follow. Since then I stand in the wings admiring those who skip through it as if it was first grade A, B, Cs. Where a less than adequate education arises is when first and second year requirements don't include enough subjects outside one's declared major.

Us Brits don't really do subjects outside a major, as you call it, we just go straight into it. (That's why we're cleverer)

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm not looking for an argument either. I was just saying you guys win at debates, hands down. You did philosophy, you should be able to read between the lines of what I wrote. Also, I don't know if you were implying that mathematical oriented subjects resulted in a poor education, but without us lot our species would still be living in mud houses...

It's a shame a philosophy graduate's usefulness ends at debate. /banter

 

[Skwim]

Us Brits don't really do subjects outside a major, as you call it, we just go straight into it. (That's why we're cleverer)

But not smarterer.

 

[gnomon]

I'm not saying science is a religion but I think explaining science as some sort of religious text may be more understandable than just saying 'no, you're wrong. Just listen to yourself...'!

I mean a scientific scripture as a metaphor, not 'we should write a book'...

Here goes...

It is common when debating (arguing) with religious people that the religious one will say, 'well, how did nothing create something? Surely this proves God?'. I'm not going to go into the fact that, even if this were true, how can you be sure that your religion, 1 in potentially 100s of thousands of other religions that have existed, is the correct one, but will instead explain scientifically by using examples that it is illogical to use this argument as a logical reason that God exists.

Before I begin, I must inform you that I study quantum mechanics (not all of it obviously, I specialise in one area of it) at University so am relatively proficient in educating people about the basic principles of it.

Right, you say nothing cannot create something. Well, that is only apparent in the dimensions we know. String theory (I'm not going to explain it, I would exceed the character limit and don't know everything about it either) strongly suggests the existence of around 10 dimensions. You may say 'String theory is not proven' but I would retort with 'it is the most likely explanation of how the universe 'works' and is accepted by most physicists as correct (mostly).' Anyway, humans have never seen an electron before but we all accept that the structure of an atom is a nucleus with orbiting electrons. See my point about string theory being most probably true? Anyway, we don't really understand what these dimensions mean or do but some evidence suggests that our physical laws, such as Newton's laws, may not apply with these dimensions in place.

What I am getting at here is that what we consider common knowledge is slowly becoming further from the truth than we imagined in some areas of science. This should show to people that even the most intelligent people can't debate God's existence as we really are in the dark when it comes to 99.99% of the universe.

The principle of what I explained about science changing can be explained to religious people in the form of a religious type text as to make them better understand why you cannot prove God with logic as we as humans really don't know what logic is.

The scientific scripture is like no other religious text as it can be forever edited and added to as humans discover and disprove theories meaning whatever apparent logical reasons you give to prove God are most likely just utterly wrong.

Thanks for reading. Just so you know, I wrote this after watching Christians try to prove God using extracts from the bible (I know, what's the point? Why use something atheists don't believe in to convert them?) which may be considered an unhealthy state for an atheist to challenge spiritual believers...

Anyway, I respect you for who you are, so no hate given.

The moment you attempt to describe science as religious literature you have failed at scientific understanding.

 

[paarsurrey]

What would an example of scientific scripture look like?

If there would be any scientific scriptures; then its clergy would exploit us, ordinary persons, like the clergy had been doing with other scriptures and as such play havoc with them. Buddha and Jesus had spoken against the clergy vehemently, you know:

Buddha spoke that scriptures and the monks should not be relied upon with blind faith; I quote from Kalama Sutta in this connection:

“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
nor upon tradition,
nor upon rumor,
nor upon what is in a scripture,
nor upon surmise,
nor upon an axiom,
nor upon specious reasoning,
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
nor upon another’s seeming ability,
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.””

Jesus said:

"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
Luke 11:52

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The moment you attempt to describe science as religious literature you have failed at scientific understanding.

I agree with you.
In stead, in a very simple language, easy to understand by an ordinary man should be written and updated every now and then.
Regards