Science 'versus' God and Religion

ROFL

I'm not even taking the time to read that bullsh!t.

The chemical energy to power your muscles isn't coming from momentum. Your statement was incorrect.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really! So what you are trying to imply is that with chemical reactions their is no change, and or momentum what so ever?

My Dawg! Are you serious!

OK ~ Perhaps you are very young so I will grant you some reprieve, but let me insist chemical changes and or reactions are only possible via motion and or momentum and in all cases the reactions one observes entails the potential differences between the postulated areas of protons and electrons(Atoms and or Molecules) in close proximity to each other, I should also point out that the electromagnetic spectrum in all cases need to be considered in all aspects..

Let me suggest you attend at least some physics classes before you remark further on physics..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You make the same assumptions over and over and your interpretation of physics is limited. Try your ideas on physicists, who will show you your limitations. Perhaps you will listen to them, but I doubt it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First let me apologise for my arrogant demeanor, but there is no other way, other than to point out as efficiently as possible, when one observes a failure, misunderstanding and or misinformation being propagated via someones lacking knowledge..

Let me remind you it was not I who laid down physical laws, I only have come to agree with the laws via my education, observations and referral to them during my working years..

I hope this makes it perfectly clear that I do in most concerns agree with Peer Physicists and or Leading Physics Lecturers who are keeping themselves up-to date with the Industries latest models and or findings..

Have you considered that you may be in error?

To discover "if this is"- "or not the case" How about considering how magical events are to end up complying from a non complying to a complying and or conforming Physical state, and working your way back as to what forces and or changes have made implied magical and or miraculous event possible?

My guess is, You're in for one mother of a reality wake-up call!

Because all realities must conform to all else if the reality is a truth statement and or an actual fact, put simply there is no room for assumptions such as there is in magic and or miraculous events.

In fact "Physics" and science exposes the details of all implied magic and or miracles of ones given observations and or interactions confirming a repeatable exercise via the referral to proper forces via our physical laws..

And no where is there a better analogy of science having an advantage over magic and or some miracle than when one refers to electron flow and or the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum via mass and its various states of Potential Kinetic Energy which our magical and or miraculous consumables rely upon to do their implied magic to those that are ignorant to the details.

 

You are trying to say the energy your muscles get to apply force comes from the momentum of the chemicals involved? ROFL

psik

 

Well not exactly as per most laymen would imagine it to be..

You see what one needs to consider is that ones muscles are a bunch of Cells and these cells are themselves a mixture of chemicals and or molecules which if considered and or elaborated over, are structured and postulated to be made up of Atoms..

And by considering the Atoms and their interactions with each other we need to understand them at the Potential Kinetic Energy level, and if we convert the energy to forces we need to consider the velocities direction..

Err~ that's the directions said forces is exerting upon whatever forces are being exerted upon its velocities and or forces..

I don't expect the average schmo to fully understand all of the complexities, but that's the truth, and in fact can be proven via calculus!

And you and anyone else may also come to the same conclusion simply by understanding solid facts written about force.. Do a search on Newton's Laws and read ALL of them until it is absolutely clear, that everything is only possible via considering the changes resulting from force and the velocities that imply the force.

 

mod note: I kindly request you both take any further discussion in Physics to the appropriate forum.
Thanks

 

And In closing...

The last few Posts are a good example of two individuals debating and utilising points a little out of this threads intended subject, but sometimes this may be necessary!

One Poster holds much accurate data via Science, The other poster may or may not be an easy target by religious sects by taking advantage of ones limited data base as an easy target to infect, if not yet already infected with religious data!

This discussion and or debate has indeed side tracked, but in doing so an important point has been made, a point that points out the difference to what is possible if one holds scientific facts, to an individual who is limited with truthful and factual data, this limitation is what keeps most religious virus's ongoing with easy victims to infect.

One now needs to ask two questions, how much side stepping to prove a point is allowed in this forum?

And what is the real agenda of the moderator?

I am concerned whether the moderator is going to remain impartial and fair!

Or are the views of the moderator going to attempt to quash and or sway the outcome of this debate in favour of their own ideals.

To LATE! There should be no doubt now why religions and the constructs of a gawd are detrimental to the human race!

Science is the pursuit to truth and facts, whilst advocating to a sect, religion and whatever the religious text implies is an acceptance of statements as truth even if they are not the truth!

 

I don't think LaidBack's pretense of understanding physics qualifies. ROFL

psik

 

My agenda is to keep this discussion on topic.

 

I have heard, oh Avatar, respect and obey. (playful, not snide, irony intended; we were off topic)

 

I think that to understand this long-term conflict of science verses religion, (which constantly motivates the opposing factions to pointlessly beat each other in the face) we should first go back to their origins and define their intents and purposes. Religion being the first philosophical tool used by sentient life tries to accommodate three things. First it is an attempt to define the origins and purpose of this evolving sentient life and all of his surroundings. Secondly and most importantly it is an attempt to establish forms of common morality to help stabilize growing societies. Thirdly it attempts to satisfy the curiosity of sentient life about its future with various forms of prophecy.
As the knowledge base of sentient life began to grow science began to emerge as the new tool for defining what is and what is not. While it is rarely used to measure our morality it is greatly utilized to define our past and present conditions on this planet.
Being a more analytically minded person I feel that in spite of the emotional grip that the applied moral values of my religion have on stabilizing my personal life, I should still find the courage to accept, that which has become black and white through science when it comes to defining my past and present surroundings. Likewise however my open acceptance of science should not be allowed to stifle the possibility that my religion might yet still have some intrinsic value in defining the past the present and the future

 

REALLY!
Please point out my error/s, by starting a physics thread and then private message me with the link..

 

I noticed, again, the title of this thread: Science vs. God.
Those are not really the words to contrast, science being a set of processes, assumptions of procedure and verification and God being a posited being.

I think the real contrast is between modes of experiencing and gaining knowledge. There are people who feel that scientific methods (note the plural) are the only valid methods of gaining knowledge about the universe. There are other people who feel Religious practices are the only way to gain knowledge. This second group includes those who simply believe a certain text is the right one (the Bible, for example) and follow that, or they follow a certain authoritarian figure (a priest, an imam) and 'learn' about the universe that way. I think most scientists/rationalists and people like me agree that this second set of methods is very limited.
Then there are people who have experiences and practices that have led them to believe that while science is very effective in certain ways, it is not yet capable of registering or helping one understand very real portions of reality. Some of these people follow traditional religious practice: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, etc. Some have developed other routes to gaining knowledge that are effective and through these have found out about reality in ways science does not or where science and scientists seem not to realize how impoverished their metaphysics is of the assumptions they make about starting points.
Scientists and rationalists have no idea have fast the mind is in cutting off experiences that would lead them to question their assumptions about the nature of reality. They also tend not to be interested in exploring practices or methods of exploration that might lead them to experiencing portions of the world they are currently unaware of. They do not realize how much their bias and pre-judgements have restricted their experience. Which is fine. But their continual battle to prioritize only one way of gaining knowledge is problematic. They form a rather odd tag team with the monotheisms who treat alternate practices as evil or the work of satan, while the scientists mock, insult and assume there is nothing new under the sun and that new technologies will not later verify some or many of the beliefs of 'religious' people - this has happened many times, but for some reason, rationalists/scientists have not registered this as a pattern and assume that current technology and scientific focus covers all bases, not really noticing the radical changes in paradigm and knowledge EVEN WITHIN THEIR OWN WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS. 'Religious' people have turned out to be right about a wide range of things that scientists poo pooed originally.

Ah, well. It is literally, their loss.

I think it ironic that they often view themselves as braver, not understanding 1) the difference between religious poeple who simply follow authority and those who are deeply immersed in experiences and technologies the scientists know nothing about 2) the way their own minds control their experiences and their need to be right and EXCLUSIVELY right about what is real is based on fear TO THE PRECISE DEGREE they project this fear on believers of all kinds.

 

Put the above as simple as one can, there are realities, where only one reality can be the correct one..

This is fine by me because truth and facts are self evident and by pointing out any contradictions to those who rely on a reality that is not the proper reality are confronted with a decision, continue on in a deluded or extremely limited reality, or disband the flawed reality in favour of a reality that insists on facts..

Science is the pursuit for truth, facts and absolute conformance.
which I point out is the most reliable reality one can obtain - No matter how limited the reality is and will be in the future..

Given time - all NON conformance's to truth and facts will destroy all those other flawed and false realities and in Australia those that are clinging to a false reality have dropped to around 20%..

My reasoning has Christianity is one of those flawed realities via its own contradictions inferred in its references, which I have attempted to point out earlier in this thread, although the post may have been deleted...

And yeah~ I guess you could say my reality just doesn't get it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

what else can one expect when realities clash

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's hard to say god doesn't exist when you compare it to "science." Big deal, no difference at all really, we're talking about the exact same subject! God will forever be impossible to disprove, or at least it will remain like this for a long while to come... So why are we comparing science to God anyway?

 

Damn straight its hard to disprove a gawd that thus far hasn't been proven to exist! But that's what the impossible is!

Unproven! and therefore no need to disprove it!

If a claim is made of a gawd, its up to those that advocate to a gawd to come up with some REAL evidence, so far all I have seen is literature that contradicts REAL facts and whats more most of the text even contradicts itself, hardly a good source for sound evidence, don't you think?

because science is a threat to what is not the truth! And for those that refer to a gawd, it points out failures in ones reasoning.. Most are doomed and left with a delusion of a gawd via the brainwashing which has been ingrained from an early age and onward..

Science and or the REAL truth is a threat to all the effort put in by the brain-washers and their brainwashed victims life styles, because all of their actions are based on deceit, which uncannily is what most of them advocate against!

And as you so clearly state, I agree why bother? Its a no win situation for those that advocate to a gawd as there simply is no evidence provided for and or by science to dis-prove it, and this is only possible when something simply doesn't exist at all in the first place!

But one really feels sorry for all those individuals that have been deceived, and I think every one deserves the REAL truth!

 

GrantyWanty: Can you give some examples?

Wide range implies many instances. How about 5-10 examples?

 

1) interconnectedness between species. Native American concern that damaging seemingly insignificant life form or smaller ecological niches and systems would affect humans was denied until it bit us in the ass
2) There are a number of Eastern Religious beliefs about time that fit rather well with Einstein's ideas about Time being a dimension and that change is essentially illusory: we are simply shifting vantage.
3) Pharmacology companies have for many years known that shamans and other folk healers were right about a wide variety of plant medicines. These medicines in many many cases were not found via empirical study or random sampling but via trance communication with the plants themselves. If you do not believe this check out some of the preparation practices used by indigenous poeple's involved in removing poisons and highlighting medically active compounds. It's like believing they won the lottery over and over to think they just ran around eating plants and noticed the healing patterns.
4) Acupunture which came out of folk religious practices and is based on 'energies' not recognized by western science and meridians, also not recognized by Western science, which were 'perceived' (western quotes) by people who western science considered to be making magical claims, has also proven to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses.
5) claims by fakirs, yoga masters, buddhist meditators about their relationships with their bodies adn their ability to control all sorts or organ functions, endocrine release and suppression, the brain and so on were poo pooed and later turned out to be in systematically regular instances correct. (I could split this one up in to a number of different examples, but I will keep it as 1) I could add other numbers to include the health benefits that were attributed to these practices that have also turned out to be true despite denial by scientists in the beginning that this was not possible.
6) Dream interpretation and use in determing mental health issues and as non-random events. A standard shamanic practice not taken up (again) by Western authority figures until Freud got on the scene. I assume this will get poo pooed by everyone who thinks Freud is dead. But actually the followers of Freud who uses his ideas about dreams, defense mechanisms, the unconscious are doing very well out there; many of them have merged techniques with the cognitive psychologists and TEST THEIR IDEAS WITH SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and are having very high rates of success with clients. government grants, university positions, hospital positions and so on.
6)nature as healing. Indigenous predictions about the problems of city living and how nature 'heals' us has been and continues to be solidly documented by all sorts of studies relating to mental illness, stress, recovery from physical illness, sense of well being in healthy individuals and many, many programs are now in place in hospitals and communities where ill and recovered and burned out people are put in gardens or in other more natural setting AS A PLANNED PART OF THEIR RECOVERY. The 'need' and 'healing power' of nature and more fundamentally our interconnectedness with it was heartily poo pooed by scientists until their hippie brethren in the ranks began actually testing.
7) there are numerous instances where indigenous people attibuted communicative or sensory abilities to animals that were beyond current technology to test and were poo pooed but later turned out to be true. Check elephant communication as one example. These beliefs of course are on the boundary between communal knowledge and religious knowledge, these facets of society not separated out so much amongst we pagans.

 

I think most of the examples given above illustrate the need to understand our connectedness to nature. I don't think many biologists would poo poo that.