pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,715
- 17,633
- 55
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Hebrews 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Is Science a Religion?
- Thread starter Resha Caner
- Start date
Hebrews 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
That would be a 'no' then, I guess.
Again address the 'science requires faith' thing: yes, all knowledge is in some ways faith, but some knowledge has evidence to back it up, some more evidence than others, so not all faiths are equally accurate. The faiths involved in science have quite a lot of evidence in support, but those involving gods have none.
I'm still not sure what exactly ya'll are trying to accomplish by trying to define science as a religion.
Upvote
0
That is the precise definition provided by scripture.
...In the context it almost looks like you intended it as some sort of snappy comeback. Perhaps you might take care choosing which words you quote above your post?
Upvote
0
You presuppose some alteration is sought.
I note that you have not solved the riddle: Which might come first - faith or science?
...And you mistakenly presuppose it is appropriate to presuppose God does not exist. Doing so may score you points with your fellow scoffers, but it does not alter reality. No human assertion has such power.
If we address the question "What is science" alongside the question "What is religion" we may discover the real concepts referred to by these terms. It seems a very straightforward and obvious means of investigating. I look forward to frustrating those who attempt to oppose.
Upvote
0
I now realize you've made such a claim. I think the readership a step ahead of your game here, and if they're not, they may review. Failing half a mind, and the capacity to review ...they're all yours.
Upvote
0
I think the very last thing any scoffer desires is for an individual to think for himself.I think, maybe, we're just wicked heathens trying to get you to use your brain and think for yourself.
Now, any leads on solving the riddle?
Oh - pardon me! That's going to involve thinking, since there's nothing in scoffer literature to mindlessly parrot.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
You can include scripture but don't expect it to be taken as evidence. I can say that the Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans. That's a fact. However, I cannot claim that BECAUSE the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first humans, they in fact, were.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Please don't presuppose me so foolish. Scripture is evidence, so I expect every scoffer to steadfastly maintain it is not.Sure you can. You can say anything - that's the whole point of denying God in the first place.
Now for the benefit of honest readers, I'll explain a little. Testimony is evidence. One may reject it; one may consider it inconclusive; one may not honestly deny its status. The Bible contains a great deal of testimony.
Isaiah 51 begins "Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" There is no greater question, and the Lord's servants have always known and understood. Scoffers pretend their ways are "new" and "modern" but this is bluff and rubbish.
It is commonly said that testimony is a relatively weak form of evidence, but this contention is obviously bogus. Testimony is the means by which we gain most of the knowledge we possess. Pay attention in everyday life sometime. You either observe something yourself, or you rely upon testimony.
Testimony is the means by which we learn what others have observed.
And now, it is appropriate to remind the readership that we have not observed a solution to the riddle. Faith requires science, and science requires faith.
Upvote
0
It's obvious you want to ignore or misconstrue my point: asserting that we exist or that our conscious lives are real is contingent upon believing some things are true (otherwise we might as well just argue about whether we're in the Matrix all day). This is the level of faith I'm alluding to, so if you want me to say science requires 'faith' in that sense, I'll agree. But you obviously don't see any difference between 'faith' in the existence of atoms and molecules and 'faith' in scripture. You deny there is any difference between the two. This is simply false. Show me how you get from scriptural evidence to scientific fact using a truly common notion of 'faith'.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Sure you can. You can say anything - that's the whole point of denying God in the first place.
Now for the benefit of honest readers, I'll explain a little. Testimony is evidence. One may reject it; one may consider it inconclusive; one may not honestly deny its status. The Bible contains a great deal of testimony.
Isaiah 51 begins "Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" There is no greater question, and the Lord's servants have always known and understood. Scoffers pretend their ways are "new" and "modern" but this is bluff and rubbish.
It is commonly said that testimony is a relatively weak form of evidence, but this contention is obviously bogus. Testimony is the means by which we gain most of the knowledge we possess. Pay attention in everyday life sometime. You either observe something yourself, or you rely upon testimony.
Testimony is the means by which we learn what others have observed.
And now, it is appropriate to remind the readership that we have not observed a solution to the riddle. Faith requires science, and science requires faith.
So, what you're saying is that science is a religion because you think your little book says so? Gotcha. That's all you had to say, sport.
Upvote
0
Whoa, I can see where this is going to go. If that's your reason for thinking testimonial evidence is strong, you've really missed the boat and I'm probably wasting my time. Testimony is A means of learning, not THE means. Maybe that is how you became so confused about this topic.
Also, your riddle isn't really a riddle; the way you define 'faith' and 'science' ,it's a tautology
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Guth's original paper was falsified, yet the religion of inflation, and Guth's prestige live on.
Interesting. Do you have a source on that? Not that I don't believe or do believe you, but I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search. Oh and one other thing. I know you're probably not doing this intentionally but it's a little rude to use the term "religion of inflation". It would be like me calling Paul of Tarsus an epileptic in a conversation about his road to Damascus experience. Again a very minor point but it's good debate practice when talking to secularists or even people you disagree with to use neutral terminology. Conversations with hotheaded individuals can quickly degenerate into just 'scoring points' instead of legitimate dialogue if they feel vindicated in taking offense.
Well we still have those discrepenacies to account for between theory and observation. Making up new particles isn't anything new for science. I mean, look at the Higgs or the neutrino. The neutrino was postulated to ensure conservation laws and the Higgs was made to explain electroweak symmetry breaking. The particle hypothesis preceded the particle discovery (though I might be getting a bit ahead of myself with the Higgs there
). Science has a long history of making hypotheses like this in bold new ways. I guess I just don't really understand what your beef is with dark matter. I mean no one is saying that dark matter has to exist, it's more like "Hey what if there's a bunch of matter that doesn't interact via the EM force (like the neutrino for example) that accounts for these mass theory/observation discrepancies? What would that imply? How can we test for it?" It just so happens that MOND and alternative theories haven't carried the day on this. They might in the future, but until they're developed so as to account for all the currently observed discrepancies as well as DM, dark matter is the favored hypothesis. This is why scientists are currently looking for empirical verification. It isn't enough to say it exists; you have to show it. EURECA should be starting up soon if you're interested in reading more about doing some actual DM searches. I wasn't allowed to post the link but just add a www to the beginning of this eureca.ox.ac.ukI'd like to continue the conversation here but I really don't enough GR or about dark energy to say anything more than conjecture.
Well Newtonian physics is metaphysically untrue (whatever that means) but it still works great for low velocity 'middle' size calculations. Again Physics isn't a science of absolute truth. We only trust in certain theories insofar as they agree with observation. If we start using Newtonian physics for calculations involving velocities close to the speed of light or atomic sizes, we're going to start seeing some discrepancies. Another example: there's plenty of evidence that the standard model is metaphysically untrue. It can't really account for neutrino oscillations for example. So why don't we throw out the standard model? Because it's still the best game in town. There's no other theory currently developed that agrees with observation as well as the SM does. When that theory does come along, it will supersede the SM like general relativity superseded Newtonian gravitation.
Interesting. I know I've put a lot up here but can you expand on what you mean by this? Maybe concertize it with a few examples?
Upvote
0
L
Lillen
Guest
I don't need to refrase myself, and i thought that was a really good point. Science observe the world and gives proof of it, since the world is observable to everyone who is soberminded, there is no need for proof of it. Science is basically meaningless.
I mean if I say i play the guitar, you will not need proof for the guitar or me playing it, you can actually trust my words... And i certanintly do not need proof of it.
1 Corinthians 1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
This is the sign: 3x=1y. your call!
I mean if I say i play the guitar, you will not need proof for the guitar or me playing it, you can actually trust my words... And i certanintly do not need proof of it.
1 Corinthians 1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
This is the sign: 3x=1y. your call!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sure:
Cosmic Inflation - A. Albrecht
I think you're just surprised (like a lot of secularists) that mainstream theory is based on "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), pretty much like any "religion" on the planet.
Ok.......
Your comparison to a Higgs is more meaningful than to a neutrino, since a neutrino was a direct result of CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS of particle decay reactions. Either the laws of physics (conservation) were being violated, or some small amount of energy was being released in some way. Furthermore we knew EXACTLY what produced them, and therefore we understood how to "control" them in real experimentation on Earth. That's radically different than simply postulating a 'gap filler' that has no hope of empirical redemption in the lab on Earth.
Even the Higgs has some hope of empirical verification in the lab, whereas that's really not an option for inflation or dark energy.
The particle hypothesis preceded the particle discovery (though I might be getting a bit ahead of myself with the Higgs there
My "beef" is that you simply "ASSUMED" that your mass estimation techniques were correct (which there are not) and you ASSUMED that the "missing mass" was "exotic' in nature, i.e. doesn't interact with light in the same way as normal matter.
In light of those papers about stellar recounts and galaxies being twice as bright as originally assumed, don't you think a completely REEVALUATION of the theory is in order about now?
Galaxies Demand A Stellar Recount
New View: Universe Suddenly Twice as Bright | Space.com
It seems rather unlikely that our mass estimation techniques were even REMOTELY correct.
The only think you have "know" about GR is that it's "complete" with or without "magic energy", "dark energy", "God energy" or anything else stuffed into that constant that is otherwise a ZERO. There's no justification for putting any of the aforementioned items *INTO* a GR formula in the first place since none of the things on that list have any tangible effect on matter in controlled experimentation.
True, but that's because gravity is real and has a tangible effect on 'things', whereas "dark energy' does not.
Gotta stop here for a second. I'll see what I missed in the next post.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
