Why can't science = religion?

Yes god is jsut an idea, nothing else.

Theists are very limited logical and critical thinking beings.

 

Because human beings are egocentric, we have to ask why we are here. There really is no why. Why is nothing but a human question that we have been conditioned to ask.

In the big universal picture, We are not even a speck of sand on this Earth. Once you can grasp how vast his universe is and realize just how insignificant we truly are, its pretty humbling.

 

Point being, it requires violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If something can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, than something can be created out of nothing.

Someday we'll figure out how to create energy out of nothing. In order to travel the stars, we will need to.

 

... for someone who is living in a very fast frame of reverence in this world here. The speed of lights is constant and causes are always causes - and effects are always effects.

http://youtu.be/W9uT39TsChc

 

"Entropy is always only able to stay the same or to grow" - what has this to do with the creation of all available energy in the big bang? No one in this world here is able to create energy or is able to destroy energy. But everyone is able to destroy structures.

No way for us to do so.

Maybe - maybe not. If we would be without mass while traveling the problem "energy" would perhaps not exist. We could pershaps travel as if we would dream to be our own idea - hmm ... could be a nice idea for Hollywood.

http://youtu.be/TGTrrnuzUBY

 

No. Science does not negate God

True - God as a theory has little supportive evidence - but it is not negated

Yes - perfectly reasonable, but not complete and indisputable. Until the super natural deity is disproven (a very big ask) - he is still on the table.


Personally - I don't believe in a God. But I don't think there is anything unscientific about a person having faith or spirituality (although the faith or spirituality themselves are clearly unscientific)

 

For some folks deliberately mixing religion and science is their way of privileging religion above science. They're entitled to do so. I'm entitled to disagree or simply ignore them.

 

Scientology is a criminal organsation for example. That's different from science and religion.

And the only religion I know what tries to dominate science and public lifestyle of the western world is atheism. I heard some atheist do not even like to allow Christians any longer to study natural science on universities. The reason: Who believes in god is obvioulsy an idiot or schizophrenic or insane and should not study natural science.

http://youtu.be/UbvLH7eYaso

 

Both these views of religion and science i find strange.

Even with my athiest beliefs, that on this forum are strangly demonic to some members. But to put science on such a high mantel is not wise either.

The blind belief in a method of pure logic is not realistic. It is just people in this case scientists trying their best to formulate ideas while having belief/faith in other aspects of their life.

 

Science makes no attempt to negate "God."

However, religion DEMANDS belief. Absolute belief in the factual accuracy of the various books whatever the religion.

Must I believe in the reality of "God", "Jesus" and the "Holy Spirit" to live a "Good Christian" life? Do I have to believe that "manna" fell from the heavens to lead a "Good Jewish" life? Must I accept as reality that a "mountain" came to Mohammed to live a "good Muslim" life? Must I worship Shiva and the other Hindi gods to live a "Good Hindu" life?

The goal of any scientific endeavor is not to prove or disprove any theology but to observe and report with a degree of accuracy. Once the report is made (human evolution for example) it is religion that attacks.

To insist that Jesus feed all those people with a fish is "fact" while forgetting that the meaning of the story is about "faith" feeding those who are hungry for meaning in their lives is specifically where religion departs from science.

 

Thanks for sharing ,taking into account your youth and the eviroment of creationism and other stupidity,let me try and explain why theyb are diametrically oppossed World veiws .

Science has a method to its thinking and is NOT ever Subjectively based thinking.it follows definite provable methods of NOT just Thinking or Theory but practice .

Whereas religion or 'faith based thinking 'is totally subjective ,your ideas about god are always different to everyone elses and theirs is their own ideas as well.,god is what you thuink it is now Prove to me God exists outside what you think.

The burden falls on you proving god exists outside you thinking about it for it to be true .

6000 years is a fair time for that demonstratable existance to be shown don't you think?

yet to accept the 'existance of god 'Every religion says ,'don't worry about proof,just have BLIND faith'don't think just feel."

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

I didn't do background checks on the people listed, that said this list proves the point I was trying get across.

 

Constant only relative to where you mesure it. Light can bend and time can be slowed... Time is also affected by large masses. You should read Stephen Hawkins book...

 

first: use a thought, waves upon a high wind, moving waves into each other, then white caps, at the tips a mist or release is 'emitted'; virtual particles

second; that black body is resonating and the 'fields' are interacting (no need of mass with 'electromagnetic fields' surrounding 'the mass').

So in between them points 'thresholds' can exibit a 'blip' on the counter (particle reception), as a sort of 'white cap'

Now think of the 'radius' of the 'waves', a one side of the ball (4pir2) is affecting the other side. (so called "other dimensions'). Not knowing what that other side of the radius is, exhibit a form of unknown.

but it aint magic

the causality can be identified

So the rule is not to identify as particles but energy itself as the em fields and then electric, magnetic and portions of either can be identified as postive, negative, etc...

Another view: the spring cannot be loaded without a force. Now identify the ball on the latter, is also 'loaded' as the energy shared between the mass is 'entangled' (gravity) within the fields.


The second law is a guideline, not the rule as the wave to equilibrate must have a 'causality' to its system, indentified.

The first law makes the second moot, in reality.


The reason no ether is required in the math, is because of the em field, which are natural and 'hugenormous'.

Be causal by being aware all experiments are within 'energy' fields at all time. It aint magic, it is that fields that are not observed as being required to identify and energy (virtual particles) seem to pop up.

now you can comprehend 'why'.

 

I read two books written from Mr. Hawkings - nevertheless we are speaking here about the theory of Albert Einstein. I have the feeling some people are confusng psychological qualities and cosmological facts. The speed of light is always constant - this produces the relativity of time. The philosophy "Everything is relative" has nearly nothing to do with Einsteins theory or physics in general.

http://youtu.be/TdsmqwCRoM8

 

They are united, just not in the minds of the radicals on either side of the spectrum.

 

Agree, there are people on both sides who wrongly try and use both as a way to refute the other.

We cannot move forward that way, in either science or religion fields, if that becomes any more important.

 

Why not to bake songs and to sing bread? hmm ... Why not? ... Got it: if everyone is doing so we all could become a little hungry. We need lots of people baking good bread and also lots of people singing their songs - they can do both together or after another - why not? But they don't have to sing your song nor my song. No scientist needs any allowness from anyone in the world to believe whatever he likes to believe - or to change this belief every day 500 times and more often if he likes to do so. The Islam is by the way not science or any authority in questions of science. If you should believe so, then this belief is wrong. Best greetings from Ibn Rushd (Averroës) - who loved Aristotle much more than anyone else including Mohamed.



http://youtu.be/oVAS8mYDB_E

 

i will offer the follow up with additional material information

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm

 

Thats right, we don't know what caused the big bang, or what was there before. Big Bang is just a placeholder for scientists because we don't have a clue, and its "unscientific" to not have a clue much less say "God did it".

Whether you say "Big Bang", or "I dunno", or "Men In Black", or "God did it", theres no difference. Its all blind faith.

 

Typical ignorance of science on display here.

There is sufficient evidence to say that some sort of a Big Bang to give birth to the current Universe.

At this time, there is no sufficient evidence how the Big Bang occurred. Just because we don't know how something happened, doesn’t mean that it didn't happen.

So there is no 'place holder'. We are just seeking out how the Big Bang occurred.

 

"Why can't science = religion?" Science is a religion. Science tries to define the truth, same as every other religion. Trouble is, the parameters of truth are undefinable. God doesn't fit in a box, or in any book. Science is at present trying to find the "God Particle", but God is uncontainable. Cause and effect is the basis of evolution. So if the "BIG BANG" is the EFFECT of what is, then what ever CAUSED the "BIG BANG" is the CAUSE. You must have one before you can have two, and all the rest of the numbers. Everything is an equation. Every person is a total sum of the equation that makes them up. Everything that exists is the sum of the equation which is God, looking at everything simplistically.

"Once you realize that everything that exists, comes from nothing that is something, then it's easy to wear stripes with plaid."-Albert Einstein

 

Religion states, without evidence, that it has all of the answers.

Science does not. Science is not a Religion. It is a process for figuring out what is truth and what is not. Religion is not.

The God particle is a misnomer. It is the Higgs Boson particle. It is a theoretical particle that gives quarks and electrons mass.

Cause and effect cannot happen without time. Time is supposedly created with the big bang. This is a limit in our understanding and vocabulary, not a cause to believe in God.

 

I see you are a person of faith in the "Religion" of science. And like every other initiate, you look down your nose at the other "Religions". Scientists hold on to their beliefs just like all other followers of religion. And only give up their beliefs when they are proven wrong. i.e. Catholics believed the world was flat. OOPS! Scientists believed that nuclear power would save the world. OOPS! Anyone can say "My God is better than your god." But it's all the same God.

 

You weren't paying attention. Your attempt to state the science is a religion has been clearly debunked. Repeating yourself doesn't bolster your argument.