There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

[ding]

It's not science denial. It's an alternative to your religious claims.

No. You are denying QM.

Do you even know how the universe was created? Any idea at all? Because I can’t understand how you could even arrive at an objective answer to the origin question without studying that first.

 

[ding]

I am quite familiar that QM is proven since I use it most days. But, again, Schroedinger's Cat is not what you think it is.

I don’t care what he thought. It’s a flawed thought experiment. The cat is a conscious observer.

Do you know why scientists get wave and particle answers from their experiments for light?

 

[ding]

And I disagree with it.

What was my point that you are disagreeing with? I’m not sure you know what you are disagreeing to.

 

[ding]

I wish you weren't so amazingly repellent as a human being. I was actually kind of having fun with this.

But now you are back to trolling and lying.

What a waste.

All because I disagreed with you?

It seems you want to make this a religious discussion. Sorry. I’m not interested in discussing who God is with you.

Like I said before you don’t even know what the right question is that you should have asked yourself. I can promise you that question has absolutely nothing to do with any religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

Men's INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures is the problem. The God Hater's INTREPRETATION of TRUE SCIENCE is the problem.

the false interpretations of science can last only so long as proven otherwise ...

all three desert religions claim there were tablets etched in the heavens with 10 commandments - that never existed - that fundamentally undermines all their scriptures as fabrications without any links to their unsupported encounters they attempt to use to persuade a message of their own making and nothing more.

so in both cases - the fabrication of religion is long overdue for recognition and a fresh beginning the only reasonable answer if there is a means for communicating with the heavens is to be accomplished.

 

[ding]

You have not yet established that there IS cause and effect in this universe (see Post #162, my post about Hume). From that it thus does not follow that there is any "reason" for anything...and there's NOTHING in any of your proposals that so far supports the necessary existence of "purpose".

If you don’t believe in cause and effect then you can’t believe in science. Good luck with that.

I’ve already explained to you that this discussion is proof of cause and effect. But if that’s not enough proof for you jump off your roof and experience cause and effect for yourself.

 

[ding]

It's a pretty extreme end of "empiricism".

Actually cause and effect is self evident. Nothing extreme about it.

 

[ding]

The point of the lightswitch example was to show you that you don't honestly "know" that there is ever cause and effect. You INFER IT. Quite rationally I believe, but it is still an inference.

Science is never settled. It’s always subject to challenge or at least it should be <ahem… AGW…. cough cough>

But I don’t need science to tell me that cause and effect is real. I may have trouble determining the correct cause and effect but I am certain that there is a cause and effect and that it is logical.

So… Two different things.

 

[ding]

Nope. That's the point: it could be (ie a non-zero probability) that I was just going to be typing these things out.

Now, of course, that is absurd in the extreme and really points out the silliness of this argumentum ad absurdum, but it is still not perfectly IMPOSSIBLE.

You’re arguing that cause and effect don’t exist is a non-starter. When you are done with that you can argue that 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4.

 

[ding]

Why should I? Does my dog have a "deeper meaning"? I don't think so. Why should I? Why should ANYTHING?

It actually sounds like your dog may have a better appreciation for his life but I don’t know for certain.

Look, if you want to have a fatalistic mentality who am I to convince you otherwise.

But then there’s your never ending moral arguments that you can’t shake. Weird.

 

[Cougarbear]

There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.​

So now, when God answers the prayers of millions and provides a safe and readily available life-saving vaccine, many who bear the Christian brand are skeptical or downright oppositional — asking why they should believe science and scientists at this particular time.



the unyielding, centuries of groundless religious dogma, in light of scientific advances have been proven by the above example and throughout history - to quote the truth - as the typical and blind servitude without reason, driven by the desert religions to deny the very proof they deliberately, fail to recognize and the peril to society it causes.

The religion doesn't cause any peril to society. The interpretation and execution of a religion does. But, so does science. Science invented the gun and explosive components of guns and bombs. But, the guns or bombs don't cause destruction by themselves. It takes a person to kill someone with the gun. So, if you are going to blame someone, blame science. Blame science for the carbon created by fossil fuel, not the fossil fuel. Science is to blame for most of the calamities man-made. Religion is given to man from God to organize man socially. Sometimes misused. Science is also given to man from God and misused.

 

[ding]

I don't see the NEED for meaning. I can fully appreciate the universe and the world without it having any meaning at all.

I think it’s more likely that you never studied the creation and evolution of the universe or asked the right question.

 

[ding]

I don't know what that means. I assume that "intelligence" is little more than coordinated neural interactions.

It means that the purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create.

 

[ding]

That's a patently absurd statement. If it is part of nature it is inherently NOT "unnatural".

The idea of the unnaturalness of a life filled universe versus a lifeless universe has been around a long time.

Again… this is something you have never studied. I have. Minor changes in the structure of matter yield lifeless universes.

 

[ding]

Again, you seem to have this view of "intelligence" and "thoughts" that indicates you have seen these things completely independent of a brain. You talk like you have experienced them in a pure vacuum. Of course you haven't.

Consciousness is impervious to science. We are conscious with our whole being. Consciousness does not reside in one place.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

How on earth can you suggest it is "intentional"???? There's nothing other than your wish for that to be true.

And WHO'S INTENTION? (I've asked this twice now...WHO is the one with the INTENT?)

I’m suggesting if you have never asked that question and made an objective investigation, then you have no business forming any opinion.

 

[ding]

You keep making ex cathedra statements like you're god almighty.

That's why your posts are now religious.

There’s nothing special about me. It’s odd that you would take exception to my holding strong opinions which have been well thought out. Especially since I’m sure you do the same thing.

Again… I haven’t gotten within 100 miles of religion. But you sure do seem to want to make it about religion. I’m discussing science.

 

[ding]

I didn't "win" the cosmic lottery. I never asked to exist. As such it's not like I was waiting around in non-space hoping I would one day exist! LOL.

Why would you think I "won" anything? If the universe didn't have the ability to support life I am 100% sure I wouldn't mind.

Sure you did. That’s another thing you have never thought about.

 

[ding]

In all seriousness, ding , I am impressed to see a faith-based side of you. It's kinda neat. You seem less 1 dimensional.

Your problem is that you tend to see people as all good or all bad. People are a little more complex than that. I take each encounter as a new encounter. You’d be much happier if you did the same.

 

[BreezeWood]

The religion doesn't cause any peril to society. The interpretation and execution of a religion does. But, so does science. Science invented the gun and explosive components of guns and bombs. But, the guns or bombs don't cause destruction by themselves. It takes a person to kill someone with the gun. So, if you are going to blame someone, blame science. Blame science for the carbon created by fossil fuel, not the fossil fuel. Science is to blame for most of the calamities man-made. Religion is given to man from God to organize man socially. Sometimes misused. Science is also given to man from God and misused.

that's not true - when they hover over the city or appear on the screen you can make that claim otherwise its left to the individual to free their spirit and live past their physiological constraint after it perishes ... as may be the goal of evolution and what other species on earth may already know how to accomplish.

it's definitely not the desert religions - they are fabrications of the worst kind.