Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If Christianity gave rise to modern science, how can it be religion v science?

If unicorns make frisbees, how can dogs do calculus?

 

[the other mike]

If unicorns make frisbees, how can dogs do calculus?

Our perception of reality cannot change it.

If you're standing in the road when a bus is coming toward you, you might perceive that it's not really coming at you but it's still going to hit you if you don't move out of the way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our perception of reality cannot change it.

If you're standing in the road when a bus is coming toward you, you might perceive that it's not really coming at you but it's still going to hit you if you don't move out of the way.

No doubt!

And, to the prior point: Christianity did not give rise to modern science. A need to test the premises in our use of rules-based reason caused modern science.

 

[Libby von H]

I struggled with where, what forum (Science or Religion and Ethics), to put this: "Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?"

Here we are...

Somebody said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."(1)

I believe some people unknowingly, and some people purposefully conflate spontaneous creation with spontaneous generation, which takes any discussion of scientific theories into debating religion as somehow being just another scientific theory. There exits no science behind claims religions make for why we and the universe exists.


We now have scientists claiming they've created matter from nothing in a groundbreaking experiment. If they have, their claims can be proven by successfully repeating any experiment.

Scientists create matter from nothing in groundbreaking experiment

Scientists have managed to create matter out of nothing, a quantum physics feat previously thought impossible.

bgr.com

70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.

bigthink.com

1: Stephen Hawking

Your pemise is dead on arrival

over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God

The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian, whilst over 20% were Jewish

IF you call them liars then you can't assert anything about them just be hearsay and 'Well, seems to me" sorta balderdash

 

[badger2]

If Christianity gave rise to modern science, how can it be religion v science?

Xianity did not "allow" science to proceed.

 

[Libby von H]

I struggled with where, what forum (Science or Religion and Ethics), to put this: "Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?"

Here we are...

Somebody said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."(1)

I believe some people unknowingly, and some people purposefully conflate spontaneous creation with spontaneous generation, which takes any discussion of scientific theories into debating religion as somehow being just another scientific theory. There exits no science behind claims religions make for why we and the universe exists.


We now have scientists claiming they've created matter from nothing in a groundbreaking experiment. If they have, their claims can be proven by successfully repeating any experiment.

Scientists create matter from nothing in groundbreaking experiment

Scientists have managed to create matter out of nothing, a quantum physics feat previously thought impossible.

bgr.com

70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

In our common experience, you can't get something for nothing. In the quantum realm, something really can emerge from nothing.

bigthink.com

1: Stephen Hawking

Amindless post if ever there was...
There exist many evidences for religious claims by scientists
over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God

The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005)1 and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian whilst over 20% were Jewish

And how GODAWFUL STUPID the claim about nothing.
That would be 3 nothings
the nothing that did in fact spawn the universe,
The nothings that never do anything
THe nothings that can be induced into somethingness.
Now if there is any possible remote discrimination to what you say, then there must be different nothings so there is no saying that 'nothing can produce something' PURE LOGIC. Here is al nothing that produces something and here is nothing that doesn't SO THEY CAN"T BOTH BE THE SAME THING.
The Identity of Indiscernibles (LEEIBNITZ) is usually formulated as follows: if, for every property F, object x has F if and only if object y has F, then x is identical to y. Or in the notation of symbolic logic:

∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y.

Then you go over the speed limit for stupid....IF the experiment can be successfully repeated then you are assigning a NATURE/AN ESSENCE/ A NECESSITY to nothingness. Which means: What is nothing has some NATURE !! -- How do you stay in the same room with yourself

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There exist many evidences for religious claims by scientists

There exists no evidence for religious claims.

That's why they remain religious claims instead of science.

 

[Libby von H]

Xianity did not "allow" science to proceed.

So somebody who writes like a feral child thinks mere assertion proves his point.
How quaint !

 

[Libby von H]

There exists no evidence for religious claims.

That's why they remain religious claims instead of science.

You post non-stop stupid mindless idiocies

over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God

The statistics were taken from Baruch Shalev’s 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (Los Angeles, 2005) and, far from being over–stated, the number of theists may even have been higher still, as the he records that just over 65% of the overall winners identified as Christian, whilst over 20% were Jewish

So in one post I destroyed your premise, reasoning, and conclusion
And if you say "the scientists were lying" i have also destroyed all your future data !!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

over 65% of Nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000 believed in God

Irrelevant to my comment.

When they are performing science, religion has nothing to do with it.

So you didn't touch my premise. And it's not my premise anyway. It's the simple definition of those words.

 

[badger2]

So somebody who writes like a feral child thinks mere assertion proves his point.
How quaint !

We're sure most other readers correctly processed their mother tongue that time. The claim to xian protection-racket authoritarian arrogance was the subject of that post.

 

[badger2]

Irrelevant to my comment.

When they are performing science religion has nothing to do with it.

So you didn't touch my premise. And it's not my premise anyway. It's the simple definition of those words.

The xian scientist-opportunist, however, is always tempted to laud its god over others (or even none), while at the same time claiming a peudo-piety.

 

[Libby von H]

Irrelevant to my comment.

When they are performing science, religion has nothing to do with it.

So you didn't touch my premise. And it's not my premise anyway. It's the simple definition of those words.

Your comment is stupid is what I was proving. IT does have nothing to do with it THEREFORE since we can only be speaking of the ONE MIND that every scientist has, you cannot apply two criteria.

No, it is not the definition of the words either.
There are 3 forms of belief: Fideism, Natural Theology (resulting in a creator) and Revelation-based Faith
And reading this stupid reply I see yet another problem you don't even know about.

Your position and any position COMES AFTER your first principes, so If I think I have no free will or that everything else in the world is an illusion (which by the way is a Faith by your "definition") then I can't give any opinion about revelational faith or NAtural Theology, CAN I ??????

"there are certain premises that are known either in themselves or can be known by philosophic investigation. These premises can be known by the pagan. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
Summa theologiae Ia, q. 2, a. 2, ad 1.

Saint Thomas Aquinas calls our natural knowledge of things the “preambles of faith” or the “presuppositions of faith” (cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 3, sol. 1). The preambles or presuppositions of faith include the premises that God exists, that God is one, incorporeal, and intelligent."

Do something about the low-fact diet your head is on

None of these facts pertain to the Gospel and they are not articles of the Faith per se

 

[badger2]

The Nobel claim is anachronistic and automatonic. It fails to update itself to the actual evolution of science. How many xians are involved in this more recent claim?

(4 weeks ago) Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your ;comment is stupid is what I was proving. IT does have nothing to do with it THEREFORE since we can only be speaking of the ONE MIND that every scientist has, you cannot apply two criteria.

No, it is not the definition of the words either.
There are 3 forms of belief: Fideism, Natural Theology (resulting in a creator) and Revelation-based Faith
And reading this stupid reply I see yet another problem you don't even know about.

Your position and any position COMES AFTER your first principes, so If I think I have no free will or that everything else in the world is an illusion (which by the way is a Faith by your "definition") then I can't give any opinion about revelational faith or NAtural Theology, CAN IT ??????

there are certain premises that are known either in themselves or can be known by philosophic investigation. These premises can be known by the pagan. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:


Saint Thomas Aquinas calls our natural knowledge of things the “preambles of faith” or the “presuppositions of faith” (cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 3, sol. 1). The preambles or presuppositions of faith include the premises that God exists, that God is one, incorporeal, and intelligent. None of these facts pertain to the Gospel and they are not articles of the Faith per se

No, that's all wrong and is the obsolete prattling of an obsolete philosopher.

Religion and science do not overlap. Ever.

70% of quantum physicists ride bicycles. When they are riding bicycles, they are not performing science. When they are performing science, they are not riding bicycles.

So pointing out that most of them ride bicycles is completely irrelevant to the science. The same goes for your useless statistic.

 

[badger2]

Post #483

Critique of Intelligent Design

On page 60 of Hedin's Canceled Science, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: 'There is additional corroborating evidence from physics that our universe is not infinitely old. One such line of evidence derives from an examination of the second law of thermodynamics. You may have heard it...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Libby von H]

The Nobel claim is anachronistic and automatonic. It fails to update itself to the actual evolution of science. How many xians are involved in this more recent claim?

(4 weeks ago) Scientists Say There May Have Been a Second Big Bang

WHAT A BLAZING MORON YOU ARE. SO NOW ONLY ANTI-BELIEF IS NOT HISTORICALLY CONDITIONED>
YOU ARE A SUPER_NOVA OF BLAZING STUPIDITY

 

[badger2]

WHAT A BLAZING MORON YOU ARE. SO NOW ONLY ANTI-BELIEF IS NOT HISTORICALLY CONDITIONED>
YOU ARE A SUPER_NOVA OF BLAZING STUPIDITY

Please watch the video to determine if there's any religion in it and get back to us.

 

[Libby von H]

In Logic you can't just posit that your X and Y cover the whole field. (and that is what you did)

3 modifications.
1) First of all the false distinction that even atheists reject
PEW SURVEY OF ATHEISM
roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power.

2) An afterlife was rational to even Socrates. At any rate, unless the God you are talking about is totally graspable and not free, sort of like a complicated piece of electronics, His existence can be knowable without knowing things that only He can reveal , like an afterlife.

3) THe moral God of the greek philosohers and of Judaism and Christianity cannot be found on their own by the immorak who have violated concscience and decency , acted perverted. you can't make God a disinterested academic question that you can force God to reveal while you don't admit your sinfulnesss and your contempt in not honestly saying "I will FOLLOW what I find"

BTW, The Jewish, Christian and Natural Thelogy God is the LOGOS, the God of Reason that explains why you are reasonable, the Creation is reasonable, etc.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can anyone make heads or tails of this word salad?