Science is a false God

[We Never Know]

And Science without a doubt does not have experience of stuffs popping into being ex nihilo sine causa. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, is completely deterministic and furthermore emphasizes that every indeterminacy is actually conceptual.

“Being never arises from nonbeing,” “something will not originate from nothing” are putative metaphysical principles, just like cause and causatum, unhindered in their application. Hence, we certainly have excellent grounds, both abstractly as well as scientifically, for reasoning that whatsoever begins to exist, as in the case of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, has a cause.

What do you think/believe existed before the universe did and where did it exist?

 

[Shantanu]

A new car. With good mileage. Nothing too snazzy.

Sure, follow the rules.

 

[We Never Know]

Something from "nothing":

The Casimir Effect

Is nothing considered something? To my understanding nothingness has never existed leading to something has always existed. What was the something, we don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is nothing considered something? To my understanding nothingness has never existed leading to something has always existed. What was the something, we don't know.

The problem with the "something from nothing" argument is that it is a bit of strawman. By the common usage of "nothing" that creationist use it is possible to show that something comes from nothing. When they get more specific they run into the problem that no one claims that something came from nothing by that definition.

What we can say now about how the universe ultimately started, or even if it had a beginning is "we don't know yet". That claim does not support the existence of a god. Luckily for theists it does not refute the existence of a god either. I see certain theists make the mistake of using the claim "you cannot disprove God" incorrectly quite frequently. True, one cannot refute all models of God. But specific models can be demonstrated to be self contradicting, which means one can refute specific "God"s but not the overarching concept of "God" himself.

 

[We Never Know]

What human being has the ability to accurately foresee the acts of anyone while they're still a child?

What "being" has the ability to foresee the acts of a child? If you state God, ask yourself why did he let them grow up and have their reign of terror/murder?

 

[We Never Know]

The problem with the "something from nothing" argument is that it is a bit of strawman. By the common usage of "nothing" that creationist use it is possible to show that something comes from nothing. When they get more specific they run into the problem that no one claims that something came from nothing by that definition.

What we can say now about how the universe ultimately started, or even if it had a beginning is "we don't know yet". That claim does not support the existence of a god. Luckily for theists it does not refute the existence of a god either. I see certain theists make the mistake of using the claim "you cannot disprove God" incorrectly quite frequently. True, one cannot refute all models of God. But specific models can be demonstrated to be self contradicting, which means one can refute specific "God"s but not the overarching concept of "God" himself.

I wasn't arguing toward any existence of any God. I was simply pointing out either something always existed or it came from nothing. That's the only two outcomes possible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Many who say there is no God because science can't prove it actually worship science.

"Let us notice this morning how modern man has made a god of science. It was quite easy for modern man to put his ultimate faith in science because science had brought about such remarkable advances, such tangible and amazing victories. He realized that man through his scientific genius had dwarfed distances and placed time in chains. He noticed the new comforts that had been brought about by science, from the vast improvements in communication to the elimination of many dread plagues and diseases. And so after noticing these astounding successes modern man ushered in a new god and a new religion. Individual scientist became the high priests, chemical and biological instrumants became sacramental agencies through which the invisible grace of the scientific god became visibly manifested, and scientific laboratories became the sanctuaries. And so modern man dutifully worshipped at the shrine of the god of science.

But today we are confronted with the tragic fact that the god of science which we so devoutly worshipped has brought about the possibility of universal annihilation, and so man today stands on the brink of atomic destruction aghast, panic-stricken and petrified. He realizes now that his greatest need is not science which is power, but wisdom which is control. Doubtless some one has been saying, but is it not right to devote ourselves to scientific adventure? Is not science important for the progress of civilization? To this I would answer yes. No person of sound intelligence could minimize science. It is not science in itself that I am condemning, {but it is the tendency of projecting it to the status of God that I am condemning.} We must come to see that science only furnishes us with the means by which we live, but never with the spiritual ends for which we live. And so we must turn back and give our ultimate devotion to the God who integrates the whole of life, to the God in whom we live and move and have our being, to the God who has been our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home.6 Preached July 5, 1953"
False Gods We Worship | The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute

Do you know what? You are not thinking clearly.

First, science is a process, not a thing. Nobody ever worships a process. But the process of science involves a couple of fantastically important things (which religion, by the way, is totally uninterested in):

1. Conclusions based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation and verification, and
2. Openness to redo the former when any observation contradicts what is (tentatively) "known."

Second, religion cannot possibly be considered to be the same thing as "wisdom," as you try to imply above. And why do I say that? Just look at human religion -- all of it, leave none out -- and tell me how it has through all history of our species wisely avoided conflict. Tell me how the Crusades were about "the spiritual needs for which we live," or about how ISIS killing Yazidi men and boys and selling Yazidi women into sexual slavery is satisfying "the spiritual needs" of those radicalized Muslims involved. Tell me how the genocidal crisis of the Rohingya in Myanmar is about "spiritual needs."

No sir! Wisdom isn't about what you "know to be the Truth." Wisdom is about knowing how little you know, and how wrong you can be, and yet still caring enough about others to be accepting of them for their own selves. And those are my Humanist values. Perhaps not as theatrical as a good mass with lots of pretty robes, high vaulted cathedrals with rose windows and giant pipe organs spewing out a "great noise unto the Lord."

But as values go...my Humanism is not bad, really.

And one of the things that I know, as a Humanist, at a very deep level is that science can never be dogmatic about what it knows, because it is and must remain tentative, as long as we have eyes to see with or ears to hear with, and a willingness to admit we have more to learn.

Religion will never give you that...it wouldn't dare, because then it wouldn't be in control of you anymore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't arguing toward any existence of any God. I was simply pointing out either something always existed or it came from nothing. That's the only two outcomes possible.

That appears to be the case. And "we don't know yet" is still the answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, follow the rules.

Will do.

Where's my car?

 

[Maximilian]

To even talk about causality outside of the universe is a category error.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

[Maximilian]

And fails miserably as a relativistic theory.

When was Bohmian Mechanics refuted?

 

[Maximilian]

If you can show the Biblical prediction actually happened before the events, that the events were clearly predicted, and happened precisely as predicted, that would at least be some evidence.

Would such prophecies undermine your Atheism or no?

 

[Maximilian]

What do you think/believe existed before the universe did and where did it exist?

Our Creator existed long before he created our material universe. (Genesis 1:1)

Obviously, then, God exists in a reality distinct from ours and beyond our woefully limited comprehension.

 

[Maximilian]

What "being" has the ability to foresee the acts of a child? If you state God, ask yourself why did he let them grow up and have their reign of terror/murder?

You mean you actually want God interfering in all aspects of your life? I was under the impression you were perfectly fine going at it all on your lonesome . . .

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

What innocents did Jehovah God have executed and how do you know they were actually innocent?

Children are innocent no matter their age.

All your doing is trolling.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, Jesse Pomeroy, Mary Bell, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Jamie Rouse, Barry Loukaitis, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once beautiful little babies too?

Almost all of the people you mentioned were theist. So what is your point?

 

[Maximilian]

Children are innocent no matter their age.

All your doing is trolling.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, Jesse Pomeroy, Mary Bell, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Jamie Rouse, Barry Loukaitis, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once beautiful little babies too?

 

[Maximilian]

Almost all of the people you mentioned were theist. So what is your point?

You're not making any sense. How does that answer my simple query?

 

[We Never Know]

Our Creator existed long before he created our material universe. (Genesis 1:1)

Obviously, then, God exists in a reality distinct from ours and beyond our woefully limited comprehension.

I see. You claim God existed before any thing else existed yet don't know how or where. Has it ever crossed your mind he has only existed in the imaginative minds of humans and no where else?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, Jesse Pomeroy, Mary Bell, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Jamie Rouse, Barry Loukaitis, Talat Pasha, Margaret Sanger, Josef Mengele, Reinhard Heydrich, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, Kim Il Sung, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito, Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Leopold II of Belgium, Tomas de Torquemada, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Vlad Dracula once beautiful little babies too?

You're not making any sense. How does that answer my simple query?

These people were murders like your god.