Should science replace religion?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 7, 2019.

  1. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    But, think about it. The theory is faulty from its very beginning because can't explain how that microscopic particle in the middle of nothing started to expand. Theories of science. the real ones, provide the required explanation as demanded by the scientific method. The Big Bang theory is not science.

    The Big Bang theory doesn't need a replacement but just to be discarded because its lack of explanation and evidence.

    Who told you the universe today is more complex than it is beginning? How can you prove it?


    You don't understand that everything you just said belongs to the imagination of someone else, and you are writing it here as if that imagination is a fact. Come on, what you say is simply unacceptable. You just manipulate numbers and can obtain a result that the universe comes from "nothing" but such are just playing with numbers.

    Numbers can't explain nothing, numbers are just amounts, and we play with those. In order for those numbers to work properly, you first must have sufficient data, like to say, you must have at hand the current size of the universe. Do you have it? If yes, then give me the data, you don't need to put decimals, just whole numbers, but the accurate figure.

    When you use Google or any online search service, you will read lots of conjectures as if they were facts. We barely know the universe as it is right now and you are pretending you know how it was at its beginning... come on, give me a break.

    If no "center" where is expanding from?

    Excuse me, but without an epicenter your theory is based on magic.

    Sure, galaxies moving away from one another. Collision of galaxies right below.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How can you believe in a theory which lack of explanation and evidence?

    Lets resume here, you are the one supporting a belief that the entire universe was formed from a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, that without knowing the cause of such expansion the place in the middle of nothing is not an epicenter, and worst, you use mathematics based on incomplete data, like the current size of the universe. And you want me to accept your belief based on such poor collection of data without evidence to support it?

    After a supernova, microwave background is left as well, and detecting it is the most plausible explanation of its presence, so forget about the "explosion" of a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing leaving microwave background, the most this particle can left if microscopic background.. lol

    Naahh, this is not about feelings, this is about knowledge. And it seems you know a lot about Big Bang but know nothing about physics.

    Point is, that science can't replace religion when science itself has been invaded with lots of theories invented in base of imagination alone.

    I love science, and I don't accept some theories because their fame but because their lack of sure evidence or fact or observation as their base foundation. Every theory which started with numerical calculations and with arguments like "imagine that..." for sure those do not belong to science but to fiction.

    My regards.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,557
    Luchito, the Big Bang Theory doesn't need an explanation about the very beginning because it doesn't cover that. It doesn't cover that because "we" don't know the answer. It explains what evidence does support from that point on.

    You aren't doing that. You don't have evidence to support what you think happened prior to that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,296
    Ya the theory is like my girlfriend from the beginning because I cannot explain why she likes me
    Seriously- please try to explain WHY the Big Bang Theory is FACULTY just BECAUSE it (The Big Bang) lacks a explnation how it (microscopic particle) stated expanding?
    We can explain girlfriend later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So ALL the observations following the Big Bang count for nothing?

    OMG you do realise if YOU are correct god is faulty. No-one can explain how
    • he was not caused because
    • has always existed AND
    • has in-explicity lived (lived?) outside time and space
    • created a Universe
    Do you want to contact the Pope and tell him he has a faulty god?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    God is a belief, so your Big Bang theory also fits in that category, just another belief.

    But this topic is about "science" replacing religion, and the Big Bang theory is not science... so...
     
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,296
    So do you wish for Science to become a Religion first?

    And then replace Religion?

    Or do you want Religion to become Science (Scientific) and then replace Science?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Hermann Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    Natural sciences can only explore the material world. What is, if there would be a spirituell world, prior to the material one? It would certainly require a new thinking. In my blogspot below, I have described, how such a combined world could be functioning to everyones satisfaction.
    —————————
    http://rational-weltanschauung.blogspot.com
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,296
    Personally not interested in blog spots

    Time wasters

    If you like to put the Readers Digest version in this forum , and perhaps others, MIGHT chat about your thoughts

    To sum up this particular post, have you provided evidence for a spiritual world existing before the material world (don't all religions do that?)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,595
    This one of the most persuasive arguments in favor of science v religion I have ever heard.

     
  12. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    Science is not about knowing things 100%. It is about observing trends and making predictions based upon them. Therefore, if everything was explained scientifically, there would still be room for mystery. It is deductive reasoning which explains stuff with 100% certainty. Also, I think that although science isn't perfect, it is far preferable to religion, and it is the best tool people have. I mean, look at all of the wonderful innovations which came of it!
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,296
    I go back as far as when (or at least soon after) science began to become popular and newspapers touted science as being the new religion

    I really don't think science would even contemplate being, or try to be a religion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    Some have argued that science only seeks to understand God's creation so that they themselves can become God(s) and do a bit of creating of their own...The desire for power over nature, to conquer or nurture or both, is ultimately what science is about is it not?
    So the question of "Should science replace religion?" is a tad silly, IMO, because it has always been a variation of the same thing and has always sought to replace God in the end.
    Welcome to sciforums!
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2021
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,595
    Who did he say that to?
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    "us" I think...who or what ever "us" is.....(are)
     
    Write4U likes this.
  17. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    I've heard that there is a religion called scientology. I think that's supposed to be based upon science. I have seen no evidence that it is, but I don't know much about scientology.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,199
    No. Scientology is a scammy cult invented by a sci fi writer. There is nothing remotely scientific about it. It’s quite nasty, actually.
     
  19. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    Isn't it something about some alien dropping people into a volcano and scattering their spirits all over the place? I thought that part was hilarious. Also, yes. I think that most cults are at least a little bit damaging. People should probably learn to think for themselves.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,595
    Holly, are you an GPT3 AI?
     
  21. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    Thanks. I like to talk a lot. That's why I'm here. It's also to preserve my eloquence, because I don't have many smart or interesting people to talk to. Anyway, I would say that you are pretty much right about all of that.
     
  22. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    I am human as far as I am aware. Why do you ask?
     
  23. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    What is that exactly?
     

Share This Page