Science, religion and the truth

[WhyIsThatSo]

No, if observations of the universe don't conform to what a hypothesis predicts, we revise the hypothesis to fit observation. You seem to consider this a weakness, but it is one of the great strengths of science, others being its rational skepticism and empiricism. The evidence that the method is valid is its fruit.



There is no need to inject poetry into science. Retraction and expansion, repulsion and attraction are sufficient. Why not also add dark and light qualities, or divine and profane qualities, or other ideas which add nothing to understanding.



Imagination is all well and good, but you need to evaluate your imaginings and not believe those that are unevidenced. Failure to do that - simply believing what you imagine without sufficient evidentiary support, is a logical error called faith-based thought. Nothing useful comes from that kind of thinking.



I presume that you are implying that if we can't repeat and observe the Big Bang, that we can't have a scientific theory of the evolution of the material universe. That is not what science is. Time travel is not a requirement for determining the much of the past. Do you think that we need to go back in time to see your birth to know that you were born one day and took a first breath? No, the evidence in the present allows us to know that.



What we say is that your unevidenced claims are not valuable. Reason properly applied to evidence is the only valid path to useful information (knowledge). Idle metaphysical speculations - no, pronouncements - simply can't be used for anything.



You don't understand the theory. Gravity wasn't present until it split off from the other three forces, the other three forces splitting from one another subsequently. The expansion did not involve gravity. The collapse of nebula, which didn't occur until the universe aged and evolved, did



Understanding what consciousness is would just be more knowledge. If we had a good scientific theory of consiousness, it would just be ore knowledge. If that riddle is never solved, it won't diminish the knowledge we have.



So you claim, and I have no reason to believe you even if you are correct.



What I'm seeing on this thread are people that can't see the trees. We know that a forest is there by seeing the trees.



And you can assert it all you like, but that changes nothing, either. There is no sound reason to believe in an afterlife.



Finally, a claim with supporting evidence. Now that I believe. This is all you need to do to change the mind of a critical thinker - make claims supported by evidence.

Then I suppose all the "evidence" you need will surely come
when your time comes.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Yes I can. It resembles the very contours of the Milky Way when described as a celestial Serpent which encircle the entire night Sky above the Earth on both hemispheres.

The symbol is that of the "Demiurge", the "god of this world".
The symbolism of the serpent eating it's own tail (ouroborus) is that of perpetual DEATH.
Everything here "eats" (consumes) itself, in order to "live".

In other words, it is NOT what you think it is.

 

[blü 2]

Explaining the entire Universe as an expansion from an approximate singularity is on the very brink of meta-physics IMO. It is very unlikely that the fundamental forces appears from a "Time Zero" as it logically would take all fundamental forces to create an Universe.
When discussing a Big Bang, you forget to include and consider the very unreliable DISTANCE MEASURING SYSTEM which in first place lead to the assumption of Big Bang and an expanding Universe.

The evidence of relativity, redshift, and the cosmic radiation background all point to a beginning of the universe, currently thought to be about 13.8 bn ya. Cosmologists therefore enquire into the nature of that origin, whose nickname is the Big Bang, since it was followed by the expansion of the universe to what we presently see.

The Big Bang may have been the closest physics can come to a single point. Or it may not. Look at the evidence, form testable hypotheses, test them (including modeling them on big computers), and repeat. Like all science, it's a work in progress.

Hopefully so. But they were gravitationally wrong in the galactic realms and they forgot to test their gravitational laws of celestial motions and just inserted "dark matter".

The only reason you know there are questions about gravity out there is because astronomers found them and realized their significance. You seem to be accusing science of having put forward wrong hypotheses, whereas you should be applauding them ─ the whole point of hypotheses in science is that they may turn out to be right or wrong and either result is informative.

I think science works by revising the laws in a hypothesis and change it if contradicted and eventually completely discards the hypothesis/theories.

How do you suggest they proceed instead?

In the case above they just inserted an unseen amount of matter in galaxies in order to conserve their assumed and false ideas of celestial motions and its acquainted calculations.

Now you're just being snarky. What they actually did was make the observation, Hey, according to our present understanding of gravity, that galaxy doesn't appear to have enough mass to maintain the shape it does ─ our present theories say it should have an extra n kg of mass. Is it our theories or our observations? Let's find out. And they've been working on finding out since the issue surfaced. (In fact the apparent disparity had been noted earlier, from memory in the 1930s, but wasn't then followed through.)

So what's your beef?

hence they inserted "dark matter" to hold the stars in the galaxies.

No, instead they said, "We have a problem which we'll name 'dark matter' after one of our hypotheses."

In fact they should have hold onto their "fly away" discovery and used other fundamental forces to explain this repulsive motion, which leaves only the three EM fundamental force to explain both the formation of stars and the rotational motion.

How does your idea stand up when tested according to the normal practices of astronomy and physics?

Measuring cosmic distances via the luminosity of light and local "redshift" of objects is clearly incorrect as it leads to a force which isn´t there in the first place.

As I said "dark energy" is the name of a problem, not an answer ─ same as "dark matter".

NO not DIRECTLY from redshift but INDIRECTLY from the false measuring method which lead to the idea of "dark energy" because they couldn´t explain how the Universe could expand fast and with an increasing velocity.

The evidence says the universe is expanding with increasing velocity. You may be right that the expansion is an illusion and the observed redshift has another cause. But you may also be wrong. We simply don't have clear answers at this time.

And those answers, when we get them, will be no more absolute than any other conclusion of science ─ though they will be the best available.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you mention me as a form of non-existence and yet you write an answer to me.

That is 'maya', our illusion, Mikkel. There is no you or me. What is, is Brahman only.
Though there is no proof other than virtual particles, I have a lingering doubt that existence is no different than non-existence, just phases. 3,000 years ago, RigVeda said:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

For your information your body consists of lots of atoms - unless you´re a wandering ghost. Then you´re just possible vibrations.

Yeah, just like all other perceived and non-perceived things, I think I am that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I claim to know the best way to do it, not how it's done. The same principle directs me, when needs be, to my doctor and not to a herbalist, naturopath or faith healer. The principle is based, among other things, on past results.

What if the best way has a limit as to what it can answer? Some answers to questions in science in effect unknown?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is 'maya', our illusion, Mikkel. There is no you or me. What is, is Brahman only.
Though there is no proof other than virtual particles, I have a lingering doubt that existence is no different than non-existence, just phases. 3,000 years ago, RigVeda said:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Yeah, just like all other perceived and non-perceived things, I think I am that.

You are not doing science. If you were doing science, you could refer to the scientific theory of "there is no you and me". You are doing religion or philosophy.
Here is a test for you using science: What happens when you observe the world? Well, you and I are in it. What happens when you try to observe "maya"? You can't because it is an idea in your mind, thus not science.

You can have your subjective religion and I accept you believe in it, but stop claiming it science as natural science. It is not science.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

What if the best way has a limit as to what it can answer?

I know it has such limits ─ they're inherent in the method (at least as it presently stands). A system based on empiricism and induction is never protected against unknown unknowns, nor guaranteed to find or to solve known unknowns. Even if science ever answers all the questions of eg physics, and describes the nature of nature and the cosmological history of nature perfectly, there'll be no way of knowing or showing that's the case.

There'll only ever be the best answer at that time ─ subjective element (as previously discussed) and all.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
If the Universe doesn´t fit the theories, we just invent matters and calculations which fits our initial idea

No, if observations of the universe don't conform to what a hypothesis predicts, we revise the hypothesis to fit observation. You seem to consider this a weakness, but it is one of the great strengths of science, others being its rational skepticism and empiricism. The evidence that the method is valid is its fruit.

I know But just adding unobserved matters and energies isn´t a strict scientific method. That´s the bad point in modern cosmological science.

Native said: ↑
The "truth" is in this case is that the scientific method demands repeatable experiments and as such, the very Big Bang fantasy isn´t even a scientific theory.

I presume that you are implying that if we can't repeat and observe the Big Bang, that we can't have a scientific theory of the evolution of the material universe. That is not what science is. Time travel is not a requirement for determining the much of the past.

I most certainly would call it a "time travel" when standard cosmologists refers to the 13.8 bill. years age of the Universe from a zero point when even "time began". An idea which of course can´t be repeated anywhere as science claims as a method.

Native said: ↑
Shortly described: From the viewpoint of the Earth they assume an expanding motion of gas and dust to spread out in the Universe where gases and dust and collapse into all kinds of galaxies, stars and planets via gravity. I see no descriptions of the other three fundamental EM forces in this process.

You don't understand the theory. Gravity wasn't present until it split off from the other three forces, the other three forces splitting from one another subsequently. The expansion did not involve gravity. The collapse of nebula, which didn't occur until the universe aged and evolved, did

Don´t you tell me what I dont understand as long as the TOE isn´t found! And you can take off explaining to me how a Universe can be created from a "super-cell" in a singularity. That should keep you busy for a while

So: "Gravity wasn't present until it split off from the other three forces"!?

I of course don´t believe in a BB fantasy of creation but THAT´S interesting. So GRAVITY IS A RESULT of the other three fundamental EM forces? Or at least it was once unified with the other three fundamental EM forces at at time?

Here I really believe you Where did you get that excellent information from? Links please.

 

[Native]

Well one truth that seems inescapable to me is that religions/spirituality are/have been divergent over the course of history (hence the spectrum of such beliefs), whilst science aims to be convergent with regards any truths sought, that is, they are whittled down until the best fit survives. Is the same going to happen with religions, after all, one would expect there only to be the one truth if it were actually true?

IMO the religion have not been divergent over the course of history, What IS divergent is the historic interpretation and understanding of the religious and mythological telling of the creation which has changed a lot as materialism and technology prevailed.

In my profile signature I say and claim that:
We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same part of the observable Universe. These facts really constitutes the cultural Stories of Creation.

The very same facts of course also constitutes the very basics of the cosmological science. When studying Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology it is remarkable how similar these cultural stories are.

In this sense there APPARENTLY IS ONE HUMAN TRUTH in the religious stories of Creation. The same cannot be said about the standing cosmological science which struggles in the search for One Theory of Everything where the problem is to unify the fundamental forces - where especially "gravity" is the naughty one in the cosmological classroom. Or the EM is if one believes in gravity

The present and most divergent understanding of the myths of creation is that "God created everything in the Universe", but in fact, the ancient cultural myths "just" tells of the creation in our local galaxy, the Milky Way, but some more elaborated cultural stories even speak of some basic and general principles of creation in the pre-conditions of this creation, i.e. from "chaos to cosmos".

It´s somewhat fine that modern cosmological science can get remarkable telescopic images of cosmos far beyond our galaxy, but these still-images demands pondering based on natural philosophy in order to interpret the motions and the connections to a lot of other cosmic scenarios. Modern science reaches mechanically far out in space and at the same time modern science don´t even understand the motions in our local galaxy and what forces is implied in its formation.

The mechanical way and the mythical/spiritual way of understanding cosmos should really be the same - and in some areas they are too if interpreting the myths correctly - but the big difference is that the world perception in ancient myths is CYCLICAL and ETERNAL and not LINEAR and limited by a beginning as in modern science.

Regarding the historic divergence of religious understanding, it is also important to deal with the way former cultures got their knowledge of the creation. This of course implied physical observations of the human surroundings ON and ABOVE the Earth, but it also implied SPIRITUAL and INTUITIVE informations from both areas.

Throughout history several persons have had some remarkable experiences of cosmic informations and even the smallest native tribe in the world had individuals who frequently practiced the connection between "this and the other world", which of course just is "the other side of the coin".

Today such experiences is defined as "Devine Inspirations" and "Revelations" in where "a divine being" or force is thought to correspond with an individual but it really doesn´t mind how this is interpreted. The fact and essence is that humans can have inspirations of cosmos and of the very creation in our local galaxy itself. It´s just the human brain corresponding with the "universal brain".

Well well Compared to the several thousand years of natural and spiritual experiences of ancient telling of the Creation, which seems to be very similar all over the world and an Unity as such, modern cosmology is just "a new baby in the family". A baby which needs to learn and connect the dots of creation, i.e. a Theory of Everything.

I hold my coins on the ancient human physical and spiritual experience to any time.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Yes I can. It resembles the very contours of the Milky Way when described as a celestial Serpent which encircle the entire night Sky above the Earth on both hemispheres.

The symbol is that of the "Demiurge", the "god of this world".
The symbolism of the serpent eating it's own tail (ouroborus) is that of perpetual DEATH.
Everything here "eats" (consumes) itself, in order to "live".

First: You´re quoting out of context which is added later in the tread.

Maybe you should try to avoid the dualistic and disconnected points of view in this? How can a symbol be both a demiurgic symbol of creation and death? The answer is of course Ouroborus represents BOTH: A circle of creation - as I also adds in the following comment in the thread.

 

[Native]

The evidence of relativity, redshift, and the cosmic radiation background all point to a beginning of the universe, currently thought to be about 13.8 bn ya. Cosmologists therefore enquire into the nature of that origin, whose nickname is the Big Bang, since it was followed by the expansion of the universe to what we presently see.

Well, so you are learned by modern cosmologists who don´t even agree in making a reliable and testable theory of anything at all. It all just assumptions based on former assumptions which results in cosmological questions in the video below whether their theory is wrong and need serious reconsidering:

The only reason you know there are questions about gravity out there is because astronomers found them and realized their significance. You seem to be accusing science of having put forward wrong hypotheses, whereas you should be applauding them ─ the whole point of hypotheses in science is that they may turn out to be right or wrong and either result is informative.

This is excactly why I´m asking questions in the first place whereas you seem to applauding everything in modern cosmology without asking any critical and independent questions at all.

Well, you now have a chance to think otherwise and for your self by watching the video. Have Fun

 

[Mock Turtle]

IMO the religion have not been divergent over the course of history, What IS divergent is the historic interpretation and understanding of the religious and mythological telling of the creation which has changed a lot as materialism and technology prevailed.

In my profile signature I say and claim that:
We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same part of the observable Universe. These facts really constitutes the cultural Stories of Creation.

The very same facts of course also constitutes the very basics of the cosmological science. When studying Comparative Religion and Comparative Mythology it is remarkable how similar these cultural stories are.

In this sense there APPARENTLY IS ONE HUMAN TRUTH in the religious stories of Creation. The same cannot be said about the standing cosmological science which struggles in the search for One Theory of Everything where the problem is to unify the fundamental forces - where especially "gravity" is the naughty one in the cosmological classroom. Or the EM is if one believes in gravity

The present and most divergent understanding of the myths of creation is that "God created everything in the Universe", but in fact, the ancient cultural myths "just" tells of the creation in our local galaxy, the Milky Way, but some more elaborated cultural stories even speak of some basic and general principles of creation in the pre-conditions of this creation, i.e. from "chaos to cosmos".

It´s somewhat fine that modern cosmological science can get remarkable telescopic images of cosmos far beyond our galaxy, but these still-images demands pondering based on natural philosophy in order to interpret the motions and the connections to a lot of other cosmic scenarios. Modern science reaches mechanically far out in space and at the same time modern science don´t even understand the motions in our local galaxy and what forces is implied in its formation.

The mechanical way and the mythical/spiritual way of understanding cosmos should really be the same - and in some areas they are too if interpreting the myths correctly - but the big difference is that the world perception in ancient myths is CYCLICAL and ETERNAL and not LINEAR and limited by a beginning as in modern science.

Regarding the historic divergence of religious understanding, it is also important to deal with the way former cultures got their knowledge of the creation. This of course implied physical observations of the human surroundings ON and ABOVE the Earth, but it also implied SPIRITUAL and INTUITIVE informations from both areas.

Throughout history several persons have had some remarkable experiences of cosmic informations and even the smallest native tribe in the world had individuals who frequently practiced the connection between "this and the other world", which of course just is "the other side of the coin".

Today such experiences is defined as "Devine Inspirations" and "Revelations" in where "a divine being" or force is thought to correspond with an individual but it really doesn´t mind how this is interpreted. The fact and essence is that humans can have inspirations of cosmos and of the very creation in our local galaxy itself. It´s just the human brain corresponding with the "universal brain".

Well well Compared to the several thousand years of natural and spiritual experiences of ancient telling of the Creation, which seems to be very similar all over the world and an Unity as such, modern cosmology is just "a new baby in the family". A baby which needs to learn and connect the dots of creation, i.e. a Theory of Everything.

I hold my coins on the ancient human physical and spiritual experience to any time.

This is only from a limited perspective, since we know that there are so many different beliefs - from the one God, to many gods, to no gods, animism, universal consciousness, etc., such that this has been a divergent enterprise - of looking for meaning and filling the spectrum - so how can they ever come to agreement? Not think that many or most with religious beliefs truly believe their particular interpretation of reality? However, with science, this does aim to eliminate the explanations which don't accord with reality and hence does tend towards agreement or convergence.

Anyway, surely it isn't the origins of the universe and such that is important, it is what follows on from this, and why there is such divergence (and leading to conflict). Humans just tend to do this.

 

[Native]

This is only from a limited perspective, since we know that there are so many different beliefs - from the one God, to many gods, to no gods, animism, universal consciousness, etc., such that this has been a divergent enterprise - of looking for meaning and filling the spectrum - so how can they ever come to agreement? Not think that many or most with religious beliefs truly believe their particular interpretation of reality? However, with science, this does aim to eliminate the explanations which don't accord with reality and hence does tend towards agreement or convergence.

Numbers of gods don´t have influences of the validity in general cultural story of creation. Such numbers/symbols only describe more or less details in the creation which of course is the same for everyone in every culture, even including present supporters of modern science

If you have no clues of the essence in ancient religious Stories of Creation, you even cant´begin to make any comparisons at all.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Numbers of gods don´t have influences of the validity in general cultural story of creation. Such numbers/symbols only describe more or less details in the creation which of course is the same for everyone in every culture, even including present supporters of modern science

If you have no clues of the essence in ancient religious Stories of Creation, you even cant´begin to make any comparisons at all.

Well obviously that makes perfect sense to you, since you have such a belief system, but unfortunately many with similar beliefs, but different, will disagree with you. Each espousing their belief they have as being the true account of reality, or whatever. Claim what you will but do not expect some of us to choose your account over any other. And as I said, it's not all about creation myths. Think that conflicts arising from all such beliefs are just to be expected?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Native said: ↑
Yes I can. It resembles the very contours of the Milky Way when described as a celestial Serpent which encircle the entire night Sky above the Earth on both hemispheres.

First: You´re quoting out of context which is added later in the tread.

Maybe you should try to avoid the dualistic and disconnected points of view in this? How can a symbol be both a demiurgic symbol of creation and death? The answer is of course Ouroborus represents BOTH: A circle of creation - as I also adds in the following comment in the thread.

What you don't understand is that "creation" is not a good thing.
And the only "cycle" is that of death.
This physical creation literally feeds of of itself, everything literally consumes everything else.

The True God does not "create" life, He "Emanates" Life.

 

[Native]

Well obviously that makes perfect sense to you, since you have such a belief system, but unfortunately many with similar beliefs, but different, will disagree with you.

It´s not "my belief system" at all. I am talking of a COLLECTIVE system which origin from the study of Comparative Religions and Mythology. The very essence in these studies is just that there is a cultural agreement and not disagreements.

And as I said, it's not all about creation myths. Think that conflicts arising from all such beliefs are just to be expected?

I am just speaking of the very Creation Myths and nothing else here.

 

[Native]

What you don't understand is that "creation" is not a good thing.
And the only "cycle" is that of death.
This physical creation literally feeds of of itself, everything literally consumes everything else.
The True God does not "create" life, He "Emanates" Life.

I don´t bother fighting with your dualistic terms. Take some time off and analyze what you write in the different sentences.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I don´t bother fighting with your dualistic terms. Take some time off and analyze what you write in the different sentences.

What is there to "analyze" ?
Lets see, the minerals (dirt) feeds the plant, the plant feeds the animal/human, the animal feeds the human/animal,
and the "powers that be" feed off of the mineral/plant/animal /human, that they "created".

Nice arrangement huh ?

 

[Native]

What is there to "analyze" ?
Lets see, the minerals (dirt) feeds the plant, the plant feeds the animal/human, the animal feeds the human/animal,
and the "powers that be" feed off of the mineral/plant/animal /human, that they "created".

Nice arrangement huh ?

Oh yes indeed It´s called the cycle of Creation

 

[cladking]

I think (sic) that an even better axiom would be: "I Am, therefore I sense". And when it comes to "I Am" this have to be spiritual/intuitive connected to everything around this "I Am" in order to have consciousness on a larger scale of I Am, the "Great I Am".

"I am" is necessarily a function of modern language. Our digital brains are formatted in an analog language and "I am" merely survives as a square peg driven into a round hole. I agree that "I am" is largely experienced in the context of spiritual/ intuitive framework but both intuition and spirituality are largely formatted in terms of language in a human brain programmed in analog language as we all are.

The cart is consciousness and the horse is life. Life precedes consciousness and you go nowhere at all without the cart. Indeed these are so intimately connected one could say we ride bareback and that the brain body is so intimately connected they are one and they are virtually one with the horse as well.