By what means are you testing this, analyzing the test data, and reporting your conclusions?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!
- Thread starter AnthonyGiarrusso
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's a great opening but where is the science?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Look at Ken Ham and his faithful re-creation of Noah's Ark! *,grin,*
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Did you not see the picture of the shark and the Oujia board?
Surely, it's self explanatory.
GHOST SHARKS
Ahead of science in what? They have entirely different domains/magisteria.
If two vehicles are heading in different directions, which is "ahead?"
And how is religion "progressing?" It's not a research modality. It makes no discoveries. It has its established doctrine and resolutely resists change, or even questioning.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
We live in space-time, where the concepts of space and time work as a team. God lives where space and time can act as independent variables. As an example of the contrast, space-time is limited to the speed of light, with speed = distance/time, with time and distance/space, working as a math team. Force is based on acceleration where distance and time team up as d/t/t.
If one could move in distance, without having to team up with time, one could be everywhere in space at the same time. This is what it classically called being omnipresent, which is an attribute of God. The math is simple, but science has yet to catch up.
If God was in a realm where space and time can act as two independent variables, to make a space-time universe, from scratch, we need to merge a block of independent space and time at a point. To understand which point, you need to understand some basic relativity.
If one could travel at the speed of light, with this speed limit an attribute of connected space-time, we would see our universe appear contracted to a point-instant; relative reference. Due this point universe, POV, you can essentially be omnipresent, relative to all the details that define that point reference universe. This is the interface between space-time and the original independent space and time. We call it the singularity of the Big Bang.
Since mass cannot travel at the speed of light, if mass was to appear in the primordial singularity, space-time would separate from independent space and time, unable to return directly, made irreversible due to mass not able to reach the speed of light interface. However, since independent space and time came first, it can still influence the space-time universe bud, bringing it home via a different path; second law and the expanding space-time universe.
If time and space were two independent variables, this allows infinite possibilities ; infinite complexity or maximized entropy. This is the source of the 2nd law, within our space-time universe, with space-time gaining entropy on its alternate path home. As entropy increases, our inertial universe bleeds energy into the increasing entropy, that is conserved, but lost to the inertial universe; no perpetual motion. This conserved energy within the increasing entropy; is heading back to where space and time are separated; toward maximum entropy. The red shift is even taking energy away from energy.
The lost energy/entropy interface of the mass bound space-time universe and where space and time are independent appears to be populated by the spirits of the past, due to time no longer being linear connected to space, but able to act independent of space and space-time. There is no past or future, since entropy is being maximized in the now.
The random approach to science; that I call casino science, can be explained by the interface of space-time with independent space and time. It may appear random, since space and time do not appear to act in limited rational ways, as does space-time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which may have been the catalysts for the modern revival of the whims of the gods, can be explained as living proof of independent time and independent space interacting with space-time. If we know the momentum, which is a function of action/time, we cannot know the exact position/space, and vice versa; time and space are acting independently on the space-time bound electron. However, this is not exactly random if seen from the POV of independent space and time.
In terms of our own lives, the imagination is a natural matrix where information can be made independent of space-time. We can fly to the moon and back in one second. This is not to possible for matter in space-time, but we can pretend in our imagination. Consciousness and the imagination is an interface to the other side, and its development is the age old purpose of the world's religions.
gnostic
The Lost One
You can give respect to whatever you may believe.
But as I re-read your OP, I am finding you making a number of claims, that are beyond absurd…such as you think religion and religious philosophies are well ahead of science, today.
Do you always makes up bunch of such bold-face but utterly dishonest assertions.
What sciences that religions have exceeded?
btw, religious philosophies are all man-made philosophies, created by human philosophers, none of them were made by god.
Even every single scriptures ever written for the respective religions were written by human authors, including…
- the Jewish Tanakh,
- Christian Bible,
- the Muslim Qur’an,
- the Sumerian hymns to the gods,
- the Babylonian Enūma Elîs and Epic of Atrahasis,
- the Egyptian Pyramid Texts & the Book of the Dead,
- the Hindu Rigveda, Upanishads, Puranas, epics, etc
- Japanese Shinto Kojiki, etc,
And none of these “sacred texts” contained anything that explain nature.
you can claims to the silly ghosts and sea monsters, if you want, but even here the descriptions of spirits and strange beings are often either vague or ridiculously exaggerated.
As to your picture of a shark, sharks are not monsters, they are family of fishes, and quite natural.
I have seen no clear description of shark anywhere in any sacred texts, including the bible.
To make absurd claims, without backing them up, I am not surprised that so many who have replied here, have dismissed your claims as empty.
While I too find the OP's claims to be wildly overstated, I'll play devil's advocate here on a few points. To say religious philosophies are well ahead of science may be not entirely untrue. Science isn't about philosophy, while religion clearly is. So it's not inappropriate to say that the insights of religion, say into the human condition, or the nature of living a happier and fuller life might well be ahead of what science, which typically is narrowly focused on the components of how things work and cannot see big picture views and offer practical guidance of living.
Science does not really offer an holistic view of life, let alone offer a cohesive system that touches all areas of life. Religion is something that societies and cultures evolved that naturally addresses life in this way, not flawlessly, but at least is "ahead" of science in doing that. Science being viewed as offering this first place, is a bit of a misunderstanding of what science is and does.
Consciousness studies, for one. Western psychology for instance is in its diapers compared with what Tibetan Buddhist monks have done mapping out human consciousness, staring at the mind in caves for the past 1000 years. That is technically a science, in the broad, or deep sense of the meaning of science (as opposed to the narrow sense), in that it has injunctions, apprehension, and confirmation systems in place.
This brief 8 minute video will help explain better how certain forms of religious practices, such as Zen meditation, which he cites, does follow scientific principles in the classic sense of the word as Khun points out, as well as Popper's falsifiability criteria for valid science. It's quite informative and eye-opening:
I would differ with that in the broad sense of the word. Its explanations are simply not scientific explanations. They aren't trying to explain the physical processes in an analytical inquiry. But they do explain them in metaphorical and philosophical languages in terms of providing meaning and purpose to why things exist.
They are speaking to other aspects of our being, beyond mere rational inquiries. "Why do I exist", is not the same question as "What processes allowed biology to create our bipedal forms". The former is a deep existential question of the heart. The latter a rational question of the mind. The former is a big-picture question. The latter is a narrow focused inquiry.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
No! All consciousness seeks to explain, understand and control reality. This not only drives all life and all evolution but it is a defining characteristic of consciousness. It is what life does and this applies even to homo omnisciencis. But unlike all other species on earth we have a complex language which we use to pass down learning and use as a medium for learning. Essentially our species has two modes for looking at the big picture; religion and science.
Of course reductionistic science by definition does a very poor job of seeing the big picture. Religion in many ways in some important areas provides a better understanding of reality than science. But like Caesar science must have the final word everywhere experiment and thought contradict.
This isn't to say any existing religion presents a clear picture of reality, merely that they all present a picture where science can not.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
The stern follows the bow. It "knows" sooner what direction the boat will take but unless the boat sinks the stern always follows the bow.
We really should be thinking about the wording of our S...O,,,S... right now.
All progress comes from individuals and all ideas arise from thought. This applies both to cosmologists and theologians. Consciousness is logical in every species except homo omnisciencis but even we tend to default to logic and this gives rise to new ideas sometime that are in agreement with the same logic that underlies all of reality.
So are you using a 500 year old computer to post or one or the modern scientific ones that use quantum mechanics and light speed communication?
gnostic
The Lost One
No.
While I do agree with your “They aren't trying to explain the physical processes in an analytical inquiry”. I have to disagree with your assessment in regarding to the metaphorical language.
In the metaphorical language, the authors are “describing”, either using metaphors and/or analogies, and when they use poetic vehicle, they either come in the forms of metaphors or similes.
The metaphorical language is only suited for areas:
- in verse or prose religious texts (eg scriptures, hymns, myths),
- in poetry (in which there are are many forms, eg lyric poetry, epic poetry, panegyric, elegiac, kenning, alliterative verse, etc)
- in songwriting, lyrics
- in variety of genre of national or cultural narratives, eg myths, legends, fables, folklore, fairytales, etc
- speech writing, particularly rhetoric
You can view the metaphorical language as descriptive, but I wouldn’t call it explanatory.
Sure I have some scientists used metaphorical devices, such as analogies, but analogies shouldn’t be used frequently, as they are only describing 2 different things that only have very superficial semblance. These can lead to confusion because of their ambiguity, especially for science novices.
scientists should avoid using analogies as much as possible, when they are formulating hypotheses or scientific theories.
religious believers or authors, and philosophers of any kind, can use the metaphorical language all they want, but I find there are time and place to using them, just not in science. So the philosophers, religious or non-religious, can keep metaphors to themselves.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
And JC, his sockpuppet.And rightly so. All that preaching ....
Your thread title, OP and photos make no sense in relation to each other.
Beyond knowing that science exists, do you have a basic understanding of it? Can you provide references that support the claim that proof is a standard of science?
When has science proven any religious philosophy? How do sharks and Ouija boards reckon into that? Sharks are not examples of a religious philosophy that I'm aware of and Quija boards haven't been proven to do anything except entertain people.
What is ghost science? I'm unfamiliar with it as a discipline. Do you mean that some people apply technology and structure to investigating purported paranormal events? Or do you intend to tell us that ghosts are carrying out science? Is this why you are concerned with ghost rights?
In what way do you see the science community trailing behind religion? What is it that religion teaches us now that science won't be dealing with for another 500 years?
Do you intend to follow up with any of the questions you get on the many threads you have created?
How can anyone get it so wrong? It was duolateral rentrillic trajectory. And sharks. Lots of sharks. With laser beams mounted on their heads.
The problem with this is that science uses metaphors all the time. They are unavoidable. And in fact, metaphors are the most practical and useful ways to communicate ideas.
This is a great article that goes into this very issue. There is a 45 debate video in it, which I plan to watch later, but the article itself goes into a fair balanced perspective of these issues of language and science. Here is a few snippets that I find pertinent to this discussion:
This is the position I'll assume, and most other believe to be the difference between science and religion. From the article: Science is based in metaphor | Andrew Reynolds
There is a very common view of science, one is inclined to call it the ‘common sensical’ view, that depicts science as the objective description of reality, telling us what kinds of things there are in the world and how they work. We then apply that objective knowledge to create new technologies and medical therapies and so on.
According to this common-sense view, there is a world ‘out there’ that exists independent of our theories and beliefs about it, and this objective reality has its own inherent structure or ‘way that it is.’ The philosopher Hilary Putnam referred to this as a ‘ready-made world’, which is a component thesis of what he called metaphysical realism. This is closely aligned with the position known as scientific realism, which holds that it is science’s job to discover what this way is and to describe it in objectively true terms.
However, the article continues into my argument I am making that challenges this assumption as naive:
Some philosophers, however, refer to metaphysical and scientific realism as naïve realism. Why naïve? Because it seems to assume the existence of a pre-Kantian noumenal ‘world-in-itself’, which even if it does exist, we could not possibly hope to describe or know about in its own objective terms. The best we humans can do is to describe reality as it appears to us to be using the contingent linguistic, mathematical, and visual-pictorial terms that make sense to us.
...
Throughout the history of science and philosophy, several popular metaphors have expressed the realist picture of science and objective knowledge: ‘reading the book of nature’; ‘the view from nowhere’; ‘knowing without a knower’. The philosopher of science Bas van Fraassen has described scientific realism as the thesis that, “science aims to give us, in its theories, a literally true story of what the world is like.” In one sense it is ironic that realism would be described in terms of a story, for narratives are human constructs that rely on a subjective selection of actors and events. Yet it is not so ironic if we recognize that a literally true statement or description is not the same as an objectively true one - if ‘objectively true’ is supposed to mean in the object’s or nature’s own language and terms. We humans can achieve literal truth, since to use a term in its literal sense is just to use it in the way a community of speakers originally or typically employs it. Scientists make literally true statements all the time, e.g. “The sun is a G-type main-sequence star”, or “Fibroblasts are animal connective tissue cells of mesenchymal origin.” But neither should be mistaken as being expressed in nature’s own objective language (since it doesn’t have one!). These are human inventions, albeit highly useful ones.
Science is an irreducibly human activity that requires us to create and experiment with terminology to describe phenomena and to propose explanations that make sense to us. And unless we are to create wholly new terms for every novel phenomenon, we must press existing words into new roles. That is to say, scientists must engage in metaphor. But in addition to meeting a terminological necessity, it turns out that metaphor is also a very useful cognitive tool, for it facilitates analogical reasoning, allowing us to extend what we understand about one area of experience to another that is less familiar and less well-understood. Metaphor and analogy allow us to recognize similarities in the dissimilar.
This is why the philosopher of science Ernan McMullin said that, “Science aims at ever more fruitful metaphor and at ever more detailed structure.” McMullin was a scientific realist who argued that far from being a hindrance to science’s success, metaphor is a positive contributor.
...
Aside from missing the importance of metaphor, the naïve realist picture misrepresents the actual process and product of science in another important way. For science is less like taking an objective picture of reality and more like creating a map. Maps must accurately refer to the objective (mind-independent) terrain, but every map is created for some particular purpose that necessarily reflects human interests, conventions, values etc. Which means every scientific theory or statement will be necessarily perspectival, approaching the world from a particular vantage point informed by our human neurophysiology, our language, its grammar and the particular vocabulary being employed, and the specific purpose or interest motivating the inquiry.
I'll leave it there for the moment, but as you will see if you take the time to follow the arguments here, that in reality, these "maps" are in fact metaphors of the "real world" tailored to a certain perspective and filtered through our very human minds. Theology and science are in many ways, very directly related to each other in this way. They are both "explanations" or "models" of reality, using different symbols and language, but both do the same basic function.
You have to peel the layers back more than just the surfaces differences to see that at their cores, they are both human creations to explain the world to us, for different needs and purposes.
To reiterate, I mean it as a "model" of reality, in the same way science uses the language of science to create it's models of reality. It's not using nature's language, but our own for our own purposes. Both are explanatory, but with different eyes for different purposes. Their function is to help us translate experience. That's it.
I think you'll get a lot out of that article if you take the time to read the issues. It's more than just occasional similes we are talking about here.
The theories are metaphors. The are models of the territory, not the territory itself.
Bear in mind, that humans created religion and theology, and then continued on their quest for truth in creating science. Are you saying humans need to stop being humans?
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Ha e you seen the little scale model whoever made and "proved" the ark was sea worthy by floating it around in little box with slightly unstilled waters?
exchemist
Veteran Member
I'm afraid I think it is "not even wrong", as Wolfgang Pauli once said in another context. Religion and science do quite different jobs are thus close to being orthogonal to one another.
It is however the case that both religion and science can inform and influence philosophy.