The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[action]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And that supernatural belief is founded on nothing at all. No supporting evidence. Nothing. Just hope.

does there ever exist supporting evidence, to anything?

when is something ever proven? when was anything proven, ever?

many theories, that were "proven" in the past, have been shown to be false.

we can't even decide between the state of wave or particle when it comes to subatomic particles!

proof, any proof, is only as valid as quantum mechanics allow (the uncertainty principle).

Edited June 25, 2019 by action

[action]

if we want it or not, the uncertainty principle forces us to incorporate "belief" in science.

science needs to be "upgraded" in order to evolve any further. This upgrade exists in the form of throwing away the chains that 18th century enlightment imposed on us.

the biggest scientific breakthroughs were made, not by book people, but by people who thought out of the box, let their intuition guide them, and were ridiculed by the established scientific community.

[action]

I also notice how my board status has just been changed to "god". 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And that supernatural belief is founded on nothing at all. No supporting evidence. Nothing. Just hope.

Well Christianity, for example, is called a faith, it's not a pure Anglo Empiricist thing, lol I don't know what to tell you. But you have the secondary accounts of Jesus' life in the gospels, you have the people who were martyrs for him who would have first hand knowledge of his life. Do we have as much evidence as we'd like for that period, no, but that's why it's called a faith. 

[DieselDaisy]

We probably have more information about the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth than we do about just about every person before the modern era, with the possible exception of Julius Caesar and Cicero, Muhammad and possible St Paul. Further, aspects of the Gospels are verified by non-Christian archaeological sources also such as the Pilate Stone,

 

Quote

 

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM

[...PONTI]US PILATUS

[...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E

[...FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]

 

 

[Free Bird]

I'm christian and I don't believe in god. Now call me what you want.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

does there ever exist supporting evidence, to anything?

Yes

1 hour ago, action said:

when is something ever proven? when was anything proven, ever?

You really only prove something in mathematics. The problem with gods' existence, though, isn't that they aren't proven, but that there is no supporting evidence.

1 hour ago, action said:

many theories, that were "proven" in the past, have been shown to be false.

No, in science theories are never proven. That's why they keep calling them theories. Like the Theory of Gravitation. Or the Atomic Theory. What happens is that you just keep adding more and more data that either support or doesn't support the current theory, and then you adjust the theory accordingly. Science is pretty amazing

1 hour ago, action said:

we can't even decide between the state of wave or particle when it comes to subatomic particles!

Huh? I am not a physicist but doesn't the current dual theory on the behavior of subatomic particles that they behave like both? I think you have to go back to the 19th century when this was controversial because you had two opposing groups, one saying it behaved like waves and one like particles (or something). Now it is well understood and accepted that it is a bit of both.

1 hour ago, action said:

proof, any proof, is only as valid as quantum mechanics allow (the uncertainty principle).

Not sure what you are saying here. The uncertainty principles deals with the fact that you can't measure something without affecting it. It has no affect on the lack of supporting evidence for godly existence.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

if we want it or not, the uncertainty principle forces us to incorporate "belief" in science.

No, it doesn't.

1 hour ago, action said:

science needs to be "upgraded" in order to evolve any further. 

No, it doesn't. It already explains the world around us perfectly. 

1 hour ago, action said:

the biggest scientific breakthroughs were made, not by book people, but by people who thought out of the box, let their intuition guide them, and were ridiculed by the established scientific community.

No, you're wrong. https://list25.com/25-biggest-scientific-discoveries-in-history-of-mankind/

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well Christianity, for example, is called a faith, it's not a pure Anglo Empiricist thing, lol I don't know what to tell you. But you have the secondary accounts of Jesus' life in the gospels, you have the people who were martyrs for him who would have first hand knowledge of his life. Do we have as much evidence as we'd like for that period, no, but that's why it's called a faith. 

Yes, it is called "faith" because it is a religious belief that has no supporting evidence. If it had supporting evidence it would be a "theory" or "fact".

29 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

I'm christian and I don't believe in god. Now call me what you want.

I will call you a christian atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

[Len Cnut]

Quote

the biggest scientific breakthroughs were made, not by book people, but by people who thought out of the box, let their intuition guide them, and were ridiculed by the established scientific community.

I see what you're getting at but there's something every so slightly (and quite worryingly) anti-intellectual about that statement and I think contemporary society suffers as a result of such things. 

[action]

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

Huh? I am not a physicist but doesn't the current dual theory on the behavior of subatomic particles that they behave like both? I think you have to go back to the 19th century when this was controversial because you had two opposing groups, one saying it behaved like waves and one like particles (or something). Now it is well understood and accepted that it is a bit of both.

 

this wave - particle duality proves that reality does not exist, until observed. It proves, that old fashioned explantions (such as your abiogenesis which are straightforward) are not sufficient to describe the universe. To make sense of the double slit experiment, you have to see reality as a range of possibilities, that are only set in stone when observed, and can retroactively be changed, back in time, by fundamental forces if we try to dig any deeper (see the quantum eraser)

[action]

13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I see what you're getting at but there's something every so slightly (and quite worryingly) anti-intellectual about that statement and I think contemporary society suffers as a result of such things. 

it's just a matter of means. it's all for the good cause.

the world did not end when people traveled by train. it was just a means to get from point A to point B.

Intuition seems like a dirty word to intellectuals. I understand, they see that as a threat to their superiority (everyone has intuition, but only the elite have knowledge). But that's ok, I'm not worried about the mental well-being of the elite

in the future, progress will be made by people who think out of the box. not many will join them at first, and old fashioned intellectuals will oppose it in the fiercest ways. but it's only a matter of time, until we reach a little deeper. And when that time comes, we will look back at 18th century enlightment and see the huge disadvantage and limitations of it

Edited June 25, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

this wave - particle duality proves that reality does not exist, until observed. 

No, it doesn't. It only proves that at the quantum level reality doesn't exist unless you observe it.

It's like you have seen some 60 minute science program on TV and misunderstood half of it 

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

No, it doesn't. It only proves that at the quantum level reality doesn't exist unless you observe it.

It's like you have seen some 60 minute science program on TV and misunderstood half of it 

no need for the tone.

the phenomenon is also seen with small molecules

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

no need for the tone.

the phenomenon is also seen with small molecules

Anyway, it doesn't affect the fact that there is no supporting evidence for gods' existence.

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, action said:

it's just a matter of means. it's all for the good cause.

the world did not end when people traveled by train. it was just a means to get from point A to point B.

Intuition seems like a dirty word to intellectuals. I understand, they see that as a threat to their superiority (everyone has intuition, but only the elite have knowledge). But that's ok, I'm not worried about the mental well-being of the elite

 

Intuition counts for a great deal, invaluable really in real life terms its just a lot of people run with certain ideas and I don’t think we should risk the possibility of sacrificing or underestimating the power bookwork or intellectualism, especially in the current cultural climate.

[action]

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Intuition counts for a great deal, invaluable really in real life terms its just a lot of people run with certain ideas and I don’t think we should risk the possibility of sacrificing or underestimating the power bookwork or intellectualism, especially in the current cultural climate.

I see your objection, but I believe the cultural impact of a scientific method, should not be considered. Or it should, I don't know. One can argue that without science, millions of people wouldn't have died an early death. But equally, many people survived because of it.

Does a scientific method affect culture? Maybe. Isn't it all a behind the scenes thing though? Some scientist pondering over theories, in his head, then trying to produce an experiment to test that theory?

Science does too little to prove there is a god or not. There is too much hesitance, cold water fear.

Why do I never see debates on weather some scientific discovery could point to god? Are scientists afraid to lose credibility? Most certainly. One has not to look further than this thread, with two distinct camps: the scientific anti god people, and the god (and therefore anti-scientific) people. To just put away that prejudice, what harm could it do?

Edited June 25, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

The time for big scientific breakthroughs are over. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot we don't know and there will be many big scientific breakthroughs in the future, too. Just that they won't come as frequent as they have over these last 1000 years. When we know little it is simply easier to discover something new, and it is possible to do this alone. Just look at philosophers who first came up with the idea of the atoms, or the round earth, or evolution. When we know a lot, and things get very complicated, scientific progress doesn't happen in such large leaps by individuals, but through collaborative effort between many scientists usually resulting in small, cumulative additions to existing models. There is still room for intuition, and each scientists will to some extent use intuition (e.g. when formulating hypotheses), but it will rarely lead to such big breakthroughs as before. In addition, this scientific effort means that our existing theories, get better and better foundation for each new evidence that is added. That means that the time for big scientific upheavals is also to some extent over. It is just extremely implausible that, say, the Atom Theory or Heliocentric Theory will be rejected because new evidence comes in. It might be revised, yes, it might be refined, yes, but not discarded as fundamentally wrong.  

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

The time for big scientific breakthroughs are over. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot we don't know and there will be many big scientific breakthroughs in the future, too. Just that they won't come as frequent as they have over these last 1000 years. When we know little it is simply easier to discover something new, and it is possible to do this alone. Just look at philosophers who first came up with the idea of the atoms, or the round earth, or evolution. When we know a lot, and things get very complicated, scientific progress doesn't happen in such large leaps by individuals, but through collaborative effort between many scientists usually resulting in small, cumulative additions to existing models. There is still room for intuition, and each scientists will to some extent use intuition (e.g. when formulating hypotheses), but it will rarely lead to such big breakthroughs as before. In addition, this scientific effort means that our existing theories, get better and better foundation for each new evidence that is added. That means that the time for big scientific upheavals is also to some extent over. It is just extremely implausible that, say, the Atom Theory or Heliocentric Theory will be rejected because new evidence comes in. It might be revised, yes, it might be refined, yes, but not discarded as fundamentally wrong.  

this is all just reassurance by scientists who realise their limitations, and they're giving excuses.

there is a hell of a lot yet to discover. We litterally haven't discovered 85 % of matter in the universe yet, let alone investigated it.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

Science does too little to prove there is a god or not. There is too much hesitance, cold water fear.

Science deals with the material world. How can you even set up a scientific experiment to gather evidence for the existence of an immaterial, invisible being who doesn't want to show itself?

What science can do, though, is investigate the effect a god has on the material world. Because any god worth worshipping must be able to act upon Earth in some ways. No one wants to waste their time worshipping an inert deity that for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

So you can look at whether praying actually works. Or whether religious miracles have taken place etc. Naturally, most serious scientists don't want to waste their time on such research because it is as ridiculous as setting up experiments to investigate whether any hoofprints can be of unicorns or whether haunted houses really have ghosts. Yet, unfortunately for theists, whenever any such effects of god have been scientifically investigated by poor scientists with nothing better to do, no scientific evidence suggesting the existence of any gods have been found.

[action]

why this hesitance to talk about god in a scientifc way?

supposed god exists, isn't he also some natural phenomenon that can be explained? this is a huge field in science, that isn't even barely touched upon yet it is of fundamental importance to all of us. In stead, we're researching futile things like the composition of matter.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Science deals with the material world. How can you even set up a scientific experiment to gather evidence for the existence of an immaterial, invisible being who doesn't want to show itself?

What science can do, though, is investigate the effect a god has on the material world. Because any god worth worshipping must be able to act upon Earth in some ways. No one wants to waste their time worshipping an inert deity that for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

So you can look at whether praying actually works. Or whether religious miracles have taken place etc. Naturally, most serious scientists don't want to waste their time on such research because it is as ridiculous as setting up experiments to investigate whether any hoofprints can be of unicorns or whether haunted houses really have ghosts. Yet, unfortunately for theists, whenever any such effects of god have been scientifically investigated by poor scientists with nothing better to do, no scientific evidence suggesting the existence of any gods have been found.

dark matter is invisible, it's immaterial. are you saying we shouldn't investigate that either?

[SoulMonster]

 

13 minutes ago, action said:

Why do I never see debates on weather some scientific discovery could point to god?

Because there is as much scientific discovery pointing to the existence of god as there is to unicorns. Serious scientists don't waste their time debating something for which we have no evidence. They are busy figuring out how the world works.

[action]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Science deals with the material world. How can you even set up a scientific experiment to gather evidence for the existence of an immaterial, invisible being who doesn't want to show itself?

What science can do, though, is investigate the effect a god has on the material world. Because any god worth worshipping must be able to act upon Earth in some ways. No one wants to waste their time worshipping an inert deity that for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

So you can look at whether praying actually works. Or whether religious miracles have taken place etc. Naturally, most serious scientists don't want to waste their time on such research because it is as ridiculous as setting up experiments to investigate whether any hoofprints can be of unicorns or whether haunted houses really have ghosts. Yet, unfortunately for theists, whenever any such effects of god have been scientifically investigated by poor scientists with nothing better to do, no scientific evidence suggesting the existence of any gods have been found.

your premise is wrong. you define god as defined in the bible. Why limiting yourself, already?

Why not start from the most basic (god is some kind of energy), and go from there?

Just now, SoulMonster said:

 

Because there is as much scientific discovery pointing to the existence of god as there is to unicorns. Serious scientists don't waste their time debating something for which we have no evidence. They are busy figuring out how the world works.

evidence is only gathered through research, as with pretty much every scientific discovery

[Len Cnut]

Quote

why this hesitance to talk about god in a scientifc way?

How about this, the universe itself is God and we're all part of it/him.  Is that theoretically palletable?  Most religions say God is everywhere and in everything sooo..

1 hour ago, Free Bird said:

I'm christian and I don't believe in god. Now call me what you want.

Fair enough Susan!

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

why this hesitance to talk about god in a scientifc way?

Why this hesitance to talk about ghosts in a scientifc way?

1 minute ago, action said:

supposed god exists, isn't he also some natural phenomenon that can be explained? 

supposed ghosts exist, aren't they also some natural phenomenon that can be explained?

3 minutes ago, action said:

 this is a huge field in science, that isn't even barely touched upon yet it is of fundamental importance to all of us. 

Religion is important to many humans, and religion is being studied. 

5 minutes ago, action said:

dark matter is invisible, it's immaterial. are you saying we shouldn't investigate that either?

No, we should investigate dark matter because its gravitational effects are undoubtedly real and important in cosmology.