Scientists say...

[PureX]

If you think or believe that your life began before you were conceived, there's not much more I can say.

I didn't say "life" began before conception, or that I "believe" anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know, but I suspect we are more than just a temporary biological body with a brain. I suspect that our cognition is a reflection of some kind of energy form(s) that we are not yet capable of identifying or quantifying. I think there is a lot more going on here than we realize. So I consider my "beginning and end" to be a mystery.

Can we "connect" with God? I think and firmly believe we can, if he warrants it.

 

[Madsaac]

There was a start to the universe. Kind of, more or less. Like it blasted from a teeny, tiny substance. Moses knew the universe had a beginning. How did he know that? No telescopes, no space travel...so how do you think Moses knew that there was a beginning to the existence of the universe including the earth?

Mate, you have been brainwashed.

It's impossible, yes impossible for Moses or anyone of that time to know if the universe had a beginning. I shall say it again..........impossible, yes 0% chance of knowing if the universe had a beginning.

Actually, he had no chance at all to know many, many, many, many things.

Think about it my friend

And before you say the bible said so, the people who wrote the bible also had 0% chance of knowing about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything science thinks it knows has been derived from experience of the universe and within the universe. And so cannot logically be presumed to apply to whatever is responsible, beyond, apart from, or prior to the universe.

That is simply not true.

There is much scientific knowledge that has not been derived from direct "experience" or even direct observation.
Instead, it was derived by working backwards from circumstantial evidence.

Or from theoretical models of events of which only the effects can be tested.

For example, we knew about the existence and inner workings of atoms LONG before we were able to observe them.

I don't see why the origins of the universe couldn't be derived in the same way: working backwards and testing theoretical models (its predictions) against the effects of whatever that event was.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mate, you have been brainwashed.

It's impossible, yes impossible for Moses or anyone of that time to know if the universe had a beginning. I shall say it again..........impossible, yes 0% chance of knowing if the universe had a beginning.

Actually, he had no chance at all to know many, many, many, many things.

Think about it my friend

And before you say the bible said so, the people who wrote the bible also had 0% chance of knowing about it.

The bible authors were people who believed that the "stars" could literally "fall from the sky" to earth.

Go figure.


I think it's safe to say that this is not a great source for solving the mysteries of cosmology.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everything science thinks it knows has been derived from experience of the universe and within the universe. And so cannot logically be presumed to apply to whatever is responsible, beyond, apart from, or prior to the universe.

I agree.
Re-phrasing to address the other side to that coin....

Everything that religions think they know has been
invented from emotional reactions to experience of
the universe and within the universe.
And so cannot logically be presumed to apply to
the material world.

 

[PureX]

That is simply not true.

There is much scientific knowledge that has not been derived from direct "experience" or even direct observation.
Instead, it was derived by working backwards from circumstantial evidence.

To the degree it occurs, it then becomes philosophy. Not science. And most scientists recognize the difference. The scientism cultists, however, think science is everything; art, philosophy, religious practice, and actual science all rolled into one sacred truth-seeking endeavor.

Or from theoretical models of events of which only the effects can be tested.

Speculation isn't really science. It's part art, it's part philosophy, it's part fantasy, but it's not actually science. Science is the physical testing that may come after the speculation.

For example, we knew about the existence and inner workings of atoms LONG before we were able to observe them.

No, we speculated about these. Speculation is not knowing, and it isn't science, either. Science is testing the speculations, physically.

I don't see why the origins of the universe couldn't be derived in the same way: working backwards and testing theoretical models (its predictions) against the effects of whatever that event was.

Because the origin of the universe precedes/transcends the universe that resulted.

 

[PureX]

I agree.
Re-phrasing to address the other side to that coin....

Everything that religions think they know has been
invented from emotional reactions to experience of
the universe and within the universe.
And so cannot logically be presumed to apply to
the material world.

Religions are designed and intended to be practiced. They are not designed nor intended to be philosophical arguments for the nature or existence of God. Religions are intended to be used by people that already accept a particular God ideal. And the religious depictions of God are intended to help those people live by that theological ideal.

When you insist of conflating religion with philosophy you will continue failing to understand either.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are not designed nor intended to be philosophical arguments for the nature or existence of God.

Many believers would say otherwise, given
their penchant for making such arguments.

Religions are intended to be used by people that already accept a particular God ideal.

Only one god named God?
There is more diversity in religions than you allow for.

And the religious depictions of God are intended to help those people live by that theological ideal.

When you insist of conflating religion with philosophy you will continue failing to understand either.

Both believers & atheists see religion & philosophy as intertwined.
You're far too limited in how you see both believers & atheists.

 

[Regiomontanus]

...
When you insist of conflating religion with philosophy you will continue failing to understand either.

There were many early Christians (and modern ones) who considered Christianity as philosophy. For example Justin Martyr called it the 'true philosophy.' Certainly the rituals/liturgies, as expressions of the faith, are 'practice.'

And Jesus was also a philosopher (in addition to the incarnate Word)!

Justin Martyr: 1st Christian Philosopher - AD 1-300 Church History

Justin Martyr: 1st Christian Philosopher from the AD 1-300 Church history timeline. Learn about historical christian events within church history!

www.christianity.com

 

[PureX]

Many believers would say otherwise, given
their penchant for making such arguments.

Humans are often stupid, regardless. That doesn't mean we have to join in their stupidity.

Only one god named God?
There is more diversity in religions than you allow for.

The diversity of religion is a reflection of the diversity of the people using them. There is no logical reason to expect otherwise.

Both believers & atheists see religion & philosophy as intertwined.

Both are being idiots. So let's try to do better, shall we?

You're far too limited in how you see both believers & atheists.

There are many ways to 'see' anything. So let's try and choose the more logical, reasonable way when we can. Theism is not theology, and theology is not religion. Deliberately confusing them and conflating them to support a bias against other people is not being logical or reasonable. Or even honest, really. So let's see if we can do better then that. Even if all the other kids, aren't.

 

[PureX]

There were many early Christians (and modern ones) who considered Christianity as philosophy. For example Justin Martyr called it the 'true philosophy.' Certainly the rituals/liturgies, as expressions of the faith, are 'practice.'

And Jesus was also a philosopher (in addition to the incarnate Word)!

Justin Martyr: 1st Christian Philosopher - AD 1-300 Church History

Justin Martyr: 1st Christian Philosopher from the AD 1-300 Church history timeline. Learn about historical christian events within church history!

www.christianity.com

Still, religion is not philosophy. Just as science is not philosophy, or art is not philosophy. They are all human endeavors, and so will share some human participation. But they are different endeavors, with different structures and different goals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Humans are often stupid, regardless. That doesn't mean we have to join in their stupidity.

One person's stupidity is another's enlightenment.
You judge to recklessly.

 

[PureX]

One person's stupidity is another's enlightenment.
You judge to recklessly.

All anyone has to do is explain why religion is philosophy without saying, "but mom, all the OTHER kids are doin' it!" And I'll retract my judgment and apologize.

 

[Revoltingest]

All anyone has to do is explain why religion is philosophy without saying, "but mom, all the OTHER kids are doin' it!" And I'll retract my judgment and apologize.

No you won't.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Still, religion is not philosophy. Just as science is not philosophy, or art is not philosophy. They are all human endeavors, and so will share some human participation. But they are different endeavors, with different structures and different goals.

Yes, religion includes beliefs and practices. The beliefs underpinned by a philosophical system.

 

[PureX]

Yes, religion includes beliefs and practices. The beliefs underpinned by a philosophical system.

"Beliefs" are not philosophy. And they are rarely verified by philosophical process. Most theists believe as they do because it's what they were told and they saw no reason to question it further. Most atheist believe what they do because they questioned and determined one religious dogma set to be unbelievable and then rejected them all out of hand. Neither of these groups are engaged in philosophy. Nor are their beliefs underpinned by philosophy any more that anyone's belief in anything is underpinned by philosophy.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"Beliefs" are not philosophy. And they are rarely verified by philosophical process. Most theists believe as they do because it's what they were told and they saw no reason to question it further. Most atheist believe what they do because they questioned and determined one religious dogma set unbelievable and then rejected them all out of hand. Neither of these groups are engaged in philosophy.

I agree beliefs are not philosophy. But the theology on which they are based is a form of philosophy.

 

[PureX]

I agree beliefs are not philosophy. But the theology on which they are based is a form of philosophy.

Point being that trying to use religion to refute the philosophical proposition that God/god's exist is like trying to use a tomato to pound in a nail, and then claiming the whole endeavor a failure when it doesn't work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To the degree it occurs, it then becomes philosophy. Not science. And most scientists recognize the difference. The scientism cultists, however, think science is everything; art, philosophy, religious practice, and actual science all rolled into one sacred truth-seeking endeavor.

I wasn't speaking about "art, philosophy, religious practice"... and I don't care for your labeling of "scientism" whenever someone disagrees with your bs either.

I'm talking about common scientific inquiry. Atomic theory, evolution theory,... Even things like stellar and planetary formation, super novae, colliding black holes,...
None of these models were the result of "direct experience".

Instead, they were the result of reason and trying to work our way back from the evidence available and / or to come up with theoretical models that fitted the evidence we observed.

Speculation isn't really science.

I didn't speak about "speculation". If you think theoretical scientific models are "speculation", then you might want to read up with the difference is between both.

Science is the physical testing that may come after the speculation.

Sure, the models are testable. I didn't say otherwise. But many times, what is actually testable is only the effects of events and / or circumstantial evidence. Simply because the event in question happened in the ancient past, or the event takes millions of years to unfold, or the event is of such nature that actually witnessing it up close would mean certain death, etc.

Take a simple murder case that has no witnesses or cam footage. We are unable to directly observe the murder. We are unable to have "direct experience" of it.
The only thing we DO have, is the evidence of the aftermath. Circumstantial evidence. And we work our way back from there, like following a trail of crumbs.

This is how we solve murders. It's how we figure things out that occurred in the past when there was nobody around to see or record it.

The origins of the universe was an event of the past. In fact, argueably it was even the "first" event of the universe. This event likely left evidence behind. Evidence that we an follow to work our way back, build a theoretical model of what might have occured, and then test that model again against the "aftermath evidence".

Cosmic forensics, if you wish.

Why wouldn't we be able to do that?
You have not answered this question.... throwing around "scientism" labels and arguing a bunch of strawman (saying I am talking about "speculation" or "art" or what-not, while I'm clearly not) is not answering the question. It's just the equivalent of "nu-huh! I'm right and you're wrong because 'scientism'..."

No, we speculated about these. Speculation is not knowing, and it isn't science, either. Science is testing the speculations, physically.

This "speculation" didn't stop us from building nukes and throwing them on japanese cities.

Because the origin of the universe precedes/transcends the universe that resulted.

The universe is the effect of the event that originated it.
Why wouldn't it hold circumstantial evidence of that event?

Your "because" isn't explaining anything. It's just repeating your claim.

I don't think I will receive answers here. But I would love for you to surprise me.