Science vs Faith

[jonathan180iq]

I am willing to ....assume.....
science is correct.....for every effect there is a cause
For every cause there is an effect

I am also willing to accept a single location as a starting point of this known universe

I then .......assume........Spirit first
as substance is not 'self' starting
an object at rest will remain at rest until "Something" moves it

God did it

and then explained to Moses as he was asking for a name......
.....tell the people, I AM!

and they with understanding will know Whose law this is

I consider the above to be one fair assumption leading to another
and a little science thrown in for mortar

Prime Mover. Sure.

Just realize that, for you, that's just one answer to one aspect of a very large reality.

 

[gnostic]

Well science may not be perfect and they will tell you that, but religion with its stories of how it all happen, well they come no where near what science have discovered, and in vain they try to make their stories fit science as if they knew all along, ha.

And they failed miserably to make it fit.

 

[Thief]

Prime Mover. Sure.

Just realize that, for you, that's just one answer to one aspect of a very large reality.

having placed Spirit before substance....

the Prime Mover would be God

which is greater?
The creation?....or it's Creator?

 

[jonathan180iq]

having placed Spirit before substance....

the Prime Mover would be God

which is greater?
The creation?....or it's Creator?

I believe the creation created the "Creator".

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science...
just cause someone of learning told you so

So, your only source of knowledge about science is what some producer and writer with some sort of agenda, fancy graphics, and a paid narrator, have told you about science???

Have you ever had a more than introductory-level science course, where you actually had to demonstrate your understanding of science?

Have you ever mastered any of the mathematics or other technical methods needed to actually conduct science in any field?

Have you ever actually read any of the professional scientific literature in any field (not just the popular books [which are on par with the documentaries, btw], and not just the textbooks used in college courses)?

Have you mastered this literature, meaning do you understand all the different theories and approaches of the field, what the debates among the practitioners are, and what the evidence for and against each point of view is, and can discuss these different points of view while recognizing the limits as well as the benefits of the models being discussed?

Do you doubt about science because you REALLY UNDERSTAND what it is you're doubting, or is it because it's easier to listen to and believe what someone with an agenda and pretty graphics told you so?

You talk about science in general, as if the sciences are one thing, and your understanding and objections apply to all. I'd much rather you present a very particular issue, so we can actually look at the issues and discuss them, rather than generalizing...

 

[George-ananda]

Yeah. After the basics get pinned down more and more, only the details are left, which ain't as easy to decipher and resolve. And this typically takes far more specialized education and often much more complex and expensive equipment.

.

You took my point all wrong. I was talking about the 96% of the universe outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments. Yes, I was getting at additional planes of nature and life forms without physical bodies. Science can not reach this stuff yet and I find the evidence overwhelming that some such things do exist. That is what I was trying to say when I said 'Science is a good thing. But I am seeing more and more that its reach into reality is short.'.

 

[Skwim]

You took my point all wrong. I was talking about the 96% of the universe outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments. Yes, I was getting at additional planes of nature and life forms without physical bodies. Science can not reach this stuff yet and I find the evidence overwhelming that some such things do exist. That is what I was trying to say when I said 'Science is a good thing. But I am seeing more and more that its reach into reality is short.'.

Curious as to what form this evidence takes.


.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

Consider the possibility that the science presented in the media for a general audience is usually a dumbed down version of the actual body of knowledge of whichever discipline you're hearing about. When scientific concepts are presented in the form of analogies and the like, the actual basis for the conclusion isn't always apparent.

 

[George-ananda]

Curious as to what form this evidence takes.


.

The study of anecdotal and experimental evidence in the field of parapsychology. I believe these things show beyond reasonable doubt that there are dramatic things outside the reach of science. (And I make that statement after a full analysis of the parapsychologist/skeptic debates.)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Consider the possibility that the science presented in the media for a general audience is usually a dumbed down version of the actual body of knowledge of whichever discipline you're hearing about.

Like all the mindless babble about Proxima b and our supposed ability to visit this planet WITHIN OUR LIFETIME...

 

[Skwim]

The study of anecdotal and experimental evidence in the field of parapsychology. I believe these things show beyond reasonable doubt that there are dramatic things outside the reach of science. (And I make that statement after a full analysis of the parapsychologist/skeptic debates.)

While I can appreciate the existence of paranormal phenomena (I've done some reading on it myself), I find it hard to extrapolate additional planes of nature and life forms without physical bodies from it, or the fact that about the 96% of the universe lies outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments.


.

 

[Skwim]

Like all the mindless babble about Proxima b and our supposed ability to visit this planet WITHIN OUR LIFETIME...

Or any lifetime.


.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Or any lifetime.


.

Correct.

It's 95,000 years away at current technology, for anyone interested.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Some days ago I heard a philosopher say that modern science is about to dig so deep into the materia(l) that the observations and theories are on the brink of becoming meta-physical (If so one can easily understand that cosmological scientist are confused on a higher level, making all kinds of theories about the same topics)

But still, they are theories, deduced from the evidence at hand and amendable--NOT pure hearsay which is claimed to be an absolute certainty which requires 100% blind faith for acceptance.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Or any lifetime.


.

Correct.

It's 95,000 years away at current technology, for anyone interested.

The Starshot nanotechnology was announced in April which could carry sensors there (or to neighboring Alpha Centauri) in about 20 years.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe the creation created the "Creator".

Actually reality can not be apprehended through dualistic perceptions....the aspect of the one universe the human mind conceives of as creation is then seen as separate from the universe as a whole within which creation is occurring....but the two are one... Look at the Hubble images of the universe....it is one universe...and new acts of creation of stars and planets are taking place all the time......the acts of creation do not make a creator, and the creator (the universe) does not make the creation....it is the creation.... The creator and creation are a unity.....so yes....the human dualisitc discriminating mind 'creates' the concepts of creator and creation..

 

[psychoslice]

And they failed miserably to make it fit.

Yes they certainly have failed, and how embarrassing it is to even read their arguments.

 

[gnostic]

I am willing to ....assume.....
science is correct.....for every effect there is a cause
For every cause there is an effect

You are being a hypocrite, Thief.

You say that you believe in science when there is a cause-and-effect, but science is more than just about "cause-and-effect".

For the "cause-and-effect" to being relevant to science, EVERY "cause" and EVERY "effect" required evidences.

I have lost count in how many times I have told you that science required "evidences", so there needs to be evidences in the CAUSE, just as there needs to be evidences for the EFFECTS, and there needs to be more EVIDENCES to link CAUSE AND EFFECT TOGETHER!

God did it, is not evidences for CAUSE. That's simply your personal opinion (or personal belief).

Do you have evidences for a god? No, you don't.

If I may remind what one of favourite sayings is, but I can't remember the exact words, so let me rephrase what I can remember:

God don't require evidences or proofs, because God cannot be fingerprinted, photographed, or put under Petri dish.​

You wrote something like that, do you remember?

Well, if you don't have evidences for "CAUSE", which in your case - God - then you don't have science. So this cause-and-effect of your own making, have nothing to do with cause-and-effect of science. Your cause-and-effectis from religious concept, not science.

So in essence, your argument that cause and effect being "science", is very weak or nonexistent, since you can never have evidences for God.

With no evidences, then your "cause" or "first cause" becomes irrelevant.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

Thing about science is you can pretty much go and see the results for yourself first hand.

Go to museums, tour a nuclear plant, participate in experiments, view things through a telescope or microscope, aquire a discipline in science at your chosen university.

There of course are mysteries that science hasn't been able to uncover and solve, there is speculation, ideas, and theories that are layed out.

It wouldn't be belief though. Passionate perhaps, strattling that grey area with one's own ideology with factual data.

Belief indicates comfirmation, but lacks that basis for which it can be approached and explored, and demonstrated to others.

I don't think science is belief at all. Just educated guesses in respect to the undiscovered and mysterious.

 

[gnostic]

Actually reality can not be apprehended through dualistic perceptions....

Actually, reality cannot be comprehended by this imaginary Absolute or Ultimate thingy of yours, whether you call this thingy, "God", "Creator", "Brahman", "Tao", "Nirvana", etc.