Science vs Faith

[gnostic]

It's not science vs faith, but atheist science (secular science) vs creation science.

That's typical creationist ignorance at its best. *clap hands*

Science is science. There is no such thing as "atheist science" any more than there is "creation science".

Atheism is not science.

Atheism ONLY deals with the question the of the existence of deity or deities; they simply don't believe in one. There is no science involved.

How many times people have to tell you evolution is just "biology". It has nothing to do with disproving god, nothing to do with creating first life out of nothing, and nothing to do with the universe or the physical cosmology (eg the Big Bang, cyclical cosmology, multiverse, eternal universe, etc).

All you are doing is sprouting the same type of ignorant and dishonest BS creationist propaganda that I have been hearing for years, since I have joined forums like these.

You are ignoring the fact that Charles Darwin has always been Christian and never an atheist. You have ignored the fact that there are many theists here and outside of these forums, including Christians, who accept the evolution to be facts. If that's true, then evolution is not "atheist science".

As to cosmology, eg the Big Bang, one of the two earliest pioneers were responsible for bringing the expanding universe model:

1. Alexander Friedmann (1922)
2. Georges Lemaître (1927)

Although, Friedmann's proposal was earlier, it was Lemaître's hypothesis that gained the most attention. And Lemaître was a Belgian Catholic priest, as well as a astronomer and theoretical physicist.

When the then pope in 1951, wanted to proclaim the Big Bang as a champion of Catholicism, Lemaître rightfully protested against Pius XII, that his theory was physics, not religion. Fortunately, Pope Pius saw reason in Lemaître's argument, that he withdrew statement.

Science, whether it be biology (like evolution) or physics (like the Big Bang or other cosmologies), should just be science, and not a fight between atheism vs creationists.

Creationism lost the fight long ago, and has become irrelevant. Treating their bible as science, particularly Genesis creation and flood, was their biggest mistake. They have put the bible in the limelight, and all the flaws and inaccuracies was brought to the surface and in the light, where everything were picked apart.

And, yet literalist creationists still haven't learned their lessons, and covertly resorted to more dishonest practices - the creation of organisation: the Discovery Institute. They have attempted disguised their creationism with Intelligent Design.

The Discovery Institute's manifesto - known as the Wedge Document - was leaked to the public, revealing at what length that creationists will go through, to deceive the public about their real agenda...and it had nothing to do with science.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If a better theory comes up in science, then we go with the better theory. Thus, most scientific theory is not proof or final. It's just the best explanation for something at the moment. The video goes on to say that we eliminate theories that do not jibe with our worldview. For example, the speed of light could have varied in the past and that we could get estimates today and that it's not always c. It's not really a constant because light going through water or glass can change the index of refraction. Then there is gravity or my trick question. What do you think it does to light?

"If a better theory comes up in science, then we go with the better theory"
also that's way they use the ideology of halos, and a rainbow rim which you can see sometimes if you glance at the sun quickly, the rays still go out straight, yet you see a bended rainbow rim, that bends or optically appears so because of the gravity of the large mass.
That in part they based gods on such relative bends planets and stars... however like I said... I would be closer to based on the Luminiferous aether theory or similar on the idea somewhat from something you cant see and infinite, based on experience too.

 

[Thief]

That's typical creationist ignorance at its best. *clap hands*

Science is science. There is no such thing as "atheist science" any more than there is "creation science".

Atheism is not science.

There is no science involved.

ok....but as for me....
science is involved

I believe in God because of science

 

[McBell]

ok....but as for me....
science is involved

I believe in God because of science

Why do you toss science out the window once it gets you to god?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And I have explained that there is no distinction when the mind is still...
Relevance implies duality, and in deep meditation, the mind should be sufficiently quiet so as there to be no duality....hence relevance is not relevant...

"In deep meditation". What about the rest of the time?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

All else seems Kantistic.

Hee hee!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"In deep meditation". What about the rest of the time?

You mean in mindfulness or non meditation state?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You mean in mindfulness or non meditation state?

Both.

 

[gnostic]

ok....but as for me....
science is involved

I believe in God because of science

And there lies your problem, Thief.

God has nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with God.

Science is knowledge acquired by man, not god.

In the nut shell, by giving you a generic example of science:

Man observe the phenomena.

1. He tried to explain what this phenomena is that he is observing, but more importantly, he tried to find out how it all work.
2. He then test his explanation against the phenomena, to see if his explanation is true or false.
3. Then he would test again...then again...then again...as many times he can...and do it some more tests after that.
4. Then he would present his explanation as well as his methodology for testing it, to other scientists who work in the same field as he do. And these "others" will test his explanation. Hence the peer review.
5. If his experiments as well as those performed by other experts (peers), showed successful results, then it is possible that his explanation is true and valid.
6. If his tests or experiments were of mixed results, some successful but some were not, then I don't think he find alternatives, and the peer review also show mixed results, then it is undecided.
7. If all his tests were failures, then if I was in his place, I wouldn't ever bother to present my hypothesis to my peers. Why present something that has already to work?

If just one test is successful, let's just say, out of 100 tests, then the hypothesis can never be accepted as true. That one success may be an error, or just a fluke. It is stupid, and not to mention, DESPERATE, to think something is true, just because of one success.

The reason why peer review are needed is to find errors in the hypotheses or theories, or errors in the methodology of testing, or/and most important of all, to root out any cheats - fraudulent data or test results.

The whole business to science is rigorous testings.

Can you test God? Can you test a miracle?

No. And, no.

You yourself have said something like this: that no one can test God, you cannot photograph him, finger-print him or put him on Petri-dish.

If what you said is true, then God will have nothing to do with science.

If you read Job 38 to 41, you will see that God said that he can do everything he claimed he could do, in each of those verses, but none once was he able to explain the HOW?

What God claimed he could do, sounds more like empty boasts, not science. Science explain the HOW. Nothing in those verses are science.

 

[james bond]

Well its an energy that we can utilize so mass..momentum. It is considered such and we use to get solar energy, but as a mass we see. Also the lens bending can happen or it appears so that the light bends, they claim a mass; large one, does the optical affect, but the rays go straight. Also I'm for the Luminiferous aether theory which might jump over on the relativity.

Einstein never proved the speed of light in his famous equation. He just made a "stipulation" as such and it was good enough for mathematical purposes. Today, we know c can change and that is the photons in light have different speeds. Think of the mass of photons as a bicycle race and the lead photon changes position, Thus, the photons are at different speeds. Because the index of refraction can slow light down, it means that we can slow it down to send data, pictures and sound using less power and less space.

What the creation scientists are saying is whenever atheist scientists encounter particle behaviors that defy the speed of light, c, such as the propensity of particles to instantly share behaviors even across vast distances, i.e. quantum entanglement, they still hold to the notion that the speed of light is constant. The atheist scientists propose the strangest explanations, including the idea that all particles in the universe are connected to all other particles through wormholes. These oddball theories are evidence that the "constant" speed of light has been accepted as a reality rather than a stipulation for mathematical purposes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Both.

I sort of agree with your post #431 about mindfulness..."If feels more like an awareness that takes in both internal and external phenomena, and notices how they interact." This is not a still mind state, nor is it a dualistic non-meditation state...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What the creation scientists are saying..

Who are these "creation scientists"?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Einstein never proved the speed of light in his famous equation. He just made a "stipulation" as such and it was good enough for mathematical purposes. Today, we know c can change and that is the photons in light have different speeds. Think of the mass of photons as a bicycle race and the lead photon changes position, Thus, the photons are at different speeds. Because the index of refraction can slow light down, it means that we can slow it down to send data, pictures and sound using less power and less space.

What the creation scientists are saying is whenever atheist scientists encounter particle behaviors that defy the speed of light, c, such as the propensity of particles to instantly share behaviors even across vast distances, i.e. quantum entanglement, they still hold to the notion that the speed of light is constant. The atheist scientists propose the strangest explanations, including the idea that all particles in the universe are connected to all other particles through wormholes. These oddball theories are evidence that the "constant" speed of light has been accepted as a reality rather than a stipulation for mathematical purposes.

I love it..

 

[Thief]

And there lies your problem, Thief.

God has nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with God.

Science is knowledge acquired by man, not god.

In the nut shell, by giving you a generic example of science:

Man observe the phenomena.

1. He tried to explain what this phenomena is that he is observing, but more importantly, he tried to find out how it all work.
2. He then test his explanation against the phenomena, to see if his explanation is true or false.
3. Then he would test again...then again...then again...as many times he can...and do it some more tests after that.
4. Then he would present his explanation as well as his methodology for testing it, to other scientists who work in the same field as he do. And these "others" will test his explanation. Hence the peer review.
5. If his experiments as well as those performed by other experts (peers), showed successful results, then it is possible that his explanation is true and valid.
6. If his tests or experiments were of mixed results, some successful but some were not, then I don't think he find alternatives, and the peer review also show mixed results, then it is undecided.
7. If all his tests were failures, then if I was in his place, I wouldn't ever bother to present my hypothesis to my peers. Why present something that has already to work?

If just one test is successful, let's just say, out of 100 tests, then the hypothesis can never be accepted as true. That one success may be an error, or just a fluke. It is stupid, and not to mention, DESPERATE, to think something is true, just because of one success.

The reason why peer review are needed is to find errors in the hypotheses or theories, or errors in the methodology of testing, or/and most important of all, to root out any cheats - fraudulent data or test results.

The whole business to science is rigorous testings.

Can you test God? Can you test a miracle?

No. And, no.

You yourself have said something like this: that no one can test God, you cannot photograph him, finger-print him or put him on Petri-dish.

If what you said is true, then God will have nothing to do with science.

If you read Job 38 to 41, you will see that God said that he can do everything he claimed he could do, in each of those verses, but none once was he able to explain the HOW?

What God claimed he could do, sounds more like empty boasts, not science. Science explain the HOW. Nothing in those verses are science.

God is the Source
science is how Man explores

no problem

 

[`mud]

In Thief's heaven, he will remain a spirit,
merged with all the other spirits,
doing good upon one another,
and they will become angels,
and come back to Earth,
and do and protect all.
(I made up that 'angel' stuff,
but.....you think ?)
Some people aren't getting much protection !
We need more angels.
~
Where's the real spirit in there ?
~
I wonder where that 'heaven' is,
beyond our skies of containment,
and the science of the Earth.
~
Science provides our birth, life, and death,
and then some people will go on,
good luck to them, and Thief.
~
But again.....where is 'heaven' ?
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

In Thief's heaven, he will remain a spirit,
merged with all the other spirits,
doing good upon one another,
and they will become angels,
and come back to Earth,
and do and protect all.
(I made up that 'angel' stuff,
but.....you think ?)
Some people aren't getting much protection !
We need more angels.
~
Where's the real spirit in there ?
~
I wonder where that 'heaven' is,
beyond our skies of containment,
and the science of the Earth.
~
Science provides our birth, life, and death,
and then some people will go on,
good luck to them, and Thief.
~
But again.....where is 'heaven' ?
~
'mud

thanks 'mud......
and you are not far wrong at all

I will be looking for you

 

[`mud]

Now remember folks:
I don't believe that stuff anymore,
good cognizance to one that believes,
and does no harm.
~
I'm still liking St. Nicholas though,
and they had to drop him,
oh well......travel well.
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I sort of agree with your post #431 about mindfulness..."If feels more like an awareness that takes in both internal and external phenomena, and notices how they interact." This is not a still mind state, nor is it a dualistic non-meditation state...

I find that when mindfulness is strong the sense of "me" fades anyway. It is about being fully in the present.

 

[`mud]

Like a quick kiss of the 'now' !
~
'mud

 

[james bond]

Who are these "creation scientists"?

Scientists who believe in God created the universe.