Explaining science as a religious scripture.

[Aly Millard]

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.

 

[jeager106]

No hate taken but I didn't care for the "stupid Christian" crack.
I admire the sciences especially the strange world of quantum mechanics.
I haven't a problem accepting dimensions even 10 of them.
I have nothing more than a hunch but this gut hunch leads me to suspect that God and His
ilk exist in different dimensions and are able to move between dimensions.
I suppose I'm a Creationist in that I believe God created "the heavens and earth and
all that move upon it".
I'm not a 6 literal day creationist by any stretch of the imagination.
That said, the Bible alludes that one of God's days is as a thousand years to us.
I don't know how God created what the Bible says He created but I believe he did it.
He could have done it by creating a "life's soup" of amino acids, let lightning run riot, apply
heat and over time the first building blocks of life sprang into existence.
Perhaps life's building blocks came from asteroids and comets?
I haven't a clue how life came about but the Bible says God is responsible so there it is.
You wrote:
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.
"even the most intelligent people can't debate God's existence........."
I agree and this includes you also. How could you possibly deny God exists when you admit
that we are in the dark when it comes to 99.99% of the universe.
Even we believes haven't a clue what form God takes, if indeed he takes a form at all.
Perhaps He can be any form He wishes?
Perhaps God is the greatest intelligent being that has ever existed?
I have a couple science degrees but they are minor with my best being a B.S.
Hardly qualifies me as a scientist but I do understand the basics.
So how do you understand God?
Do you have any religious background or training?
You claim to be an atheist but based upon what?
The logic you claim humans don't understand?

 

[George-ananda]

Scientific scripture would tell us nothing on the subjects of interest to religion. It just tells us how the material universe works. I learn about spirituality by studying subjective human experiences not science.

 

[Willamena]

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.

On a scale, there's explaining science as a religious text, saying you're wrong, and then explaining science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What would an example of scientific scripture look like?

 

[Popcorn]

How far into the belly of the Science-whale must we go? How deep into the abyss does the Science-whale take us? To be so caught up inside of the college textbook, is it like a casino where there are no windows to see the outside world, no clocks on the wall to know the time, and no clear path towards the exit? If religion behaves that way, we call it a Cult, but if science behaves that way, we call it Enlightenment?

 

[Bunyip]

How far into the belly of the Science-whale must we go? How deep into the abyss does the Science-whale take us? To be so caught up inside of the college textbook, is it like a casino where there are no windows to see the outside world, no clocks on the wall to know the time, and no clear path towards the exit? If religion behaves that way, we call it a Cult, but if science behaves that way, we call it Enlightenment?

Well the 'science whale' is what is enabling you to debate here, it is what makes your light work - it has real benefits.

 

[Aly Millard]

How far into the belly of the Science-whale must we go? How deep into the abyss does the Science-whale take us? To be so caught up inside of the college textbook, is it like a casino where there are no windows to see the outside world, no clocks on the wall to know the time, and no clear path towards the exit? If religion behaves that way, we call it a Cult, but if science behaves that way, we call it Enlightenment?

I personally think that the purpose to life, in a better for all kind of way, is to discover as much as we can about what life is. You speak as if searching for more information is a bad thing. Why? I mean, from the point of view of you, a Christian, why do you think God built so much stuff into the universe if we were just meant to accept it as it is without delving into the why? It just seems pointless doesn't it? But God is perfect, God is al-knowing, so there must be a reason for it.

 

[Aly Millard]

What would an example of scientific scripture look like?

I may not have been clear enough. I meant using the idea of a scientific scripture as a metaphor to use when arguing against religious folk. When they keep going on about why science can't explain something so God must exist, just use the idea of a scientific scripture to help them better understand why they are wrongly justifying the existence of God.

 

[Aly Millard]

On a scale, there's explaining science as a religious text, saying you're wrong, and then explaining science.

If you mean as, the left most option making the religious less angry and the right most option making them livid, you got it bang on. Religious people all have one thing in common, if they know of nobody on the planet knowing why something is the way it is (such as how the Big Bang happened), there must be a God.

 

[Skwim]

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..

Who is saying only "no, you're wrong.Just listen to yourself...!" And if that's all they are willing to say, why would you care what they say at all?

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.

Assuming god is comprised of those components that go into making up the knowable 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.

Don't know what principle you explained, but we absolutely do know what logic is. Might want to avail yourself of an introductory philosophy course.

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.

So what is this "scientific scripture" you're talking about?

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.

Forgive me, but our posting here indicates otherwise. You sound more like a freshman, or, at most, a sophomore

 

[Willamena]

If you mean as, the left most option making the religious less angry and the right most option making them livid, you got it bang on. Religious people all have one thing in common, if they know of nobody on the planet knowing why something is the way it is (such as how the Big Bang happened), there must be a God.

I wasn't considering it in terms of how angry they might get. More in terms of that trying to explain science in religious terms was doomed to the most dire of failures.

 

[Aly Millard]

Scientific scripture would tell us nothing on the subjects of interest to religion. It just tells us how the material universe works. I learn about spirituality by studying subjective human experiences not science.

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

No hate taken but I didn't care for the "stupid Christian" crack.
I admire the sciences especially the strange world of quantum mechanics.
I haven't a problem accepting dimensions even 10 of them.
I have nothing more than a hunch but this gut hunch leads me to suspect that God and His
ilk exist in different dimensions and are able to move between dimensions.
I suppose I'm a Creationist in that I believe God created "the heavens and earth and
all that move upon it".
I'm not a 6 literal day creationist by any stretch of the imagination.
That said, the Bible alludes that one of God's days is as a thousand years to us.
I don't know how God created what the Bible says He created but I believe he did it.
He could have done it by creating a "life's soup" of amino acids, let lightning run riot, apply
heat and over time the first building blocks of life sprang into existence.
Perhaps life's building blocks came from asteroids and comets?
I haven't a clue how life came about but the Bible says God is responsible so there it is.
You wrote:
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.
"even the most intelligent people can't debate God's existence........."
I agree and this includes you also. How could you possibly deny God exists when you admit
that we are in the dark when it comes to 99.99% of the universe.
Even we believes haven't a clue what form God takes, if indeed he takes a form at all.
Perhaps He can be any form He wishes?
Perhaps God is the greatest intelligent being that has ever existed?
I have a couple science degrees but they are minor with my best being a B.S.
Hardly qualifies me as a scientist but I do understand the basics.
So how do you understand God?
Do you have any religious background or training?
You claim to be an atheist but based upon what?
The logic you claim humans don't understand?

I'm not calling Christians stupid, my whole family work in science and medicine and are Christian but I still have the up-most respect for them. I was calling the Christians i
on TV stupid for their reasoning... I'm going to edit that now so it doesn't get misunderstood. Thanks.

Answers to the questions:

I can't comment on how I understand God as, even if I put aside the fact I don't believe in one, there are thousands of religions that depict God in a different image. If I were forced to describe him, I would explain as a child would; basically someone who controls things.

I was brought up in a strong Christian household in a relatively well-off family (we weren't in any immediate financial danger) and I, as a child, was brought up with Christian value and had the religion forced upon you. I say forced as technically, anyone who is born into a religious family is surrounded by it. As I got into my teens and started College (that's the last 2 years of highschool for you Yanks ) I just started to question whether I needed a God. I thought it was an important part of the Christian religion to believe in the Bible but everywhere I turned, at all the different churches I attended, different views of what each story in the Bible meant different things to others. This hit me as strange as a religion is meant to be an organised set of beliefs and rules that members of the religion follow but if you look into this stuff you will find out that Christianity isn't at all organised... E.g. there are around 30,000 sub-religions based off Christianity. I have also tried hard to open myself up to God to no prevail. From personal experience and what I feel Christianity and religion as a whole is meant to be, I decided to be an Atheist. It wasn't science nor evidence nor logic.

 

[Aly Millard]

Who is saying only "no, you're wrong.Just listen to yourself...!" And if that's all they are willing to say, why would you care what they say at all?

Assuming god is comprised of those components that go into making up the knowable universe.

Don't know what principle you explained, but we absolutely do know what logic is. Might want to avail yourself of an introductory philosophy course.

So what is this "scientific scripture" you're talking about?

Forgive me, but our posting here indicates otherwise. You sound more like a freshman, or, at most, a sophomore

I must disagree with your statement that we know what logic is. After all, we created the idea of logic around the principles and laws of the Universe we understand. If, as I suggested, the commonly known laws ended up not being wholly true in respect to the other dimensions, we don't know what logic is. I do see where you are coming from though...

Sorry, maybe it's an English thing... Principle here doesn't necessarily mean it is a proven study, it can mean an idea. I meant principle as in 'the idea' of something.

By scientific scripture I did not mean we should write a book. I meant it as a metaphor. I would say the large majority of Christians I talk to believe in God as science can't explain things yet or keep disproving theories that we thought true for decades (such as light being a wave). I thought explaining science as a sort of religious text that clearly explains just because we don't know some things doesn't mean we can't find them out.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll edit it to make it clearer to people. It's my first post so I think I can get a bit of sympathy

 

[Skwim]

I must disagree with your statement that we know what logic is. After all, we created the idea of logic around the principles and laws of the Universe we understand. If, as I suggested, the commonly known laws ended up not being wholly true in respect to the other dimensions, we don't know what logic is. I do see where you are coming from though...

You may disagree, but it's a foolish disagreement. It's obvious you haven't a clue as to what logic is.

Sorry, maybe it's an English thing... Principle here doesn't necessarily mean it is a proven study, it can mean an idea. I meant principle as in 'the idea' of something.

And I've never seen principle used in the sense of a proven study. And "principle" is far more an exacting term than an "idea of something." I suggest you look up the natures of both "logic" and "principle" before going any further.

By scientific scripture I did not mean we should write a book. I meant it as a metaphor.

A metaphor for what?

I would say the large majority of Christians I talk to believe in God as science can't explain things yet or keep disproving theories that we thought true for decades (such as light being a wave). I thought explaining science as a sort of religious text that clearly explains just because we don't know some things doesn't mean we can't find them out.

Actually, it doesn't sound as if you're in college at all, or ever have been. Not that it matters, other than insinuating as much in your OP is belied by your postings. Not a good start, but welcome to RF anyway. Hope our future exchanges will be more fruitful.

 

[Aly Millard]

You may disagree, but it's a foolish disagreement. It's obvious you haven't a clue as to what logic is.

And I've never seen principle used in the sense of a proven study. And "principle" is far more an exacting term than an "idea of something." I suggest you look up the natures of both "logic" and "principle" before going any further.

A metaphor for what?

Actually, it doesn't sound as if you're in college at all, or ever have been. Not that it matters, other than insinuating as much in your OP is belied by your postings. Not a good start, but welcome to RF anyway. Hope our future exchanges will be more fruitful.

I bet you studied philosophy, history and other bookie subjects at college? I can never win arguments against you guys as the more I try and justify myself you find a way to disprove what I have just said to justify myself. I bet you'll disprove what I just wrote... Not bait, just observation. here's an idea, how would you answer all the questions you proposed to me so that you couldn't retort back. After, I will try and give reasons as to why your explanations are wrong. Everything can apparently be disproved...

By the way, I Googled the definition for 'logic' just to make sure I knew it (which I did), here: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. The principles of validity may change with the addition of new dimensions.

I really am in College. 3rd year. I don't appreciate the tactic of practically calling someone stupid because their view or reasoning differs from your own. Then again, I am English and I have heard we are more of a sensitive nation when it comes to telling people what we think...

 

[Skwim]

I bet you studied philosophy, history and other bookie subjects at college?

Yes I did, and more. It was part of getting a good education.

I can never win arguments against you guys as the more I try and justify myself you find a way to disprove what I have just said to justify myself.

Not looking for any argument at all. Just cogent statements that make sense.

Not bait, just observation. here's an idea, how would you answer all the questions you proposed to me so that you couldn't retort back.

I don't know because the answers all lie in your head, not mine. I haven't the faintest idea . . .

"why would you care what they say at all?"

"what is this "scientific scripture" you're talking about?"​

or

"A metaphor for what?"​

My three questions.


EDITED to address additional comments.

I really am in College. 3rd year. I don't appreciate the tactic of practically calling someone stupid because their view or reasoning differs from your own.

Didn't mean to call you stupid at all, just think you got yourself in water a bit over your head. If you plan on sticking around here be prepared to be confronted. It's the way the debate forums operate.

Then again, I am English and I have heard we are more of a sensitive nation when it comes to telling people what we think...

Don't be shy.

 

[Aly Millard]

Yes I did, and more. It was part of getting a good education.

Not looking for any argument at all. Just cogent statements that make sense.

I don't know because the answers all lie in your head, not mine. I haven't the faintest idea . . .

"why would you care what they say at all?"

"what is this "scientific scripture" you're talking about?"​

or

"A metaphor for what?"​

My three questions.

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...

 

[Skwim]

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.

Believe it or not, but philosophy teaches one to do just the opposite. Philosophy deals in ideas, ideas that by necessity require, among other things, careful and precise expression, leaving no room for reading between the lines.

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...

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.

 

[DawudTalut]

................ I have also tried hard to open e myself up to God to no prevail. From personal experience and what I feel Christianity and religion as a whole is meant to be, I decided to be an Atheist. It wasn't science nor evidence nor logic.

Peace be on you.
Do not your goodself feel that equations should be balanced.
Obviously this physical world does not return full rewards.....A negative example: if one kills an innocent, one gets death penalty at maximum, but if same one kills 100 people, still he get once death sentence....he should get 99 more.
Thus there has to be some life, where good and bads are fully returned [none takes none's sins]

Wordly philosophies are silent in this issue.

The religion tells life-after will balance the equations.

"" Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot proceed hand in hand, there has to be something deeply wrong with either of the two. Does revelation play any vital role in human affairs? Is not rationality sufficient to guide man in all the problems which confront him? ""
Source: Al Islam -Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth
wwwDOTalislamDOTorg/library/books/revelation/