• In total there are 5 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 786 on Sun May 10, 2020 1:56 am

Both science and religion are wrong

A forum for discussing world religions, cults, philosophy, atheism and freethought, critical thinking and skepticism.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Post Reply
jossef
Official Newbie!
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2022 1:30 pm
Gender:
United States of America

Both science and religion are wrong

Both science and religion are wrong when they try to talk about the existence of God and creation and when they try to define existence; and here is why, and I would be happy if someone could prove me wrong!
When atheistic science tries to explain creation, it encounters something it calls a singularity (singularity in mathematics means an undefined point) to which its own laws do not apply. For example, they claim that a particle with infinite density and infinite energy exploded and created this universe. This explosion began with a period of cosmic inflation that lasted only fractions of a second - about 10^-32 seconds according to physicist Alan Guth's 1980 theory, causing the cosmos to expand faster than the speed of light.

In their hypothesis:

1. They can not explain the particle, some idiots claim it came from nothing because nothing has a physical magnitude. (No comment on stupidity).

2. If this particle exists, there is no reason for it to explode, similar to black holes which have high density and attract everything, even light, but they do not explode.

3. What is the source of energy?

4. Time is not defined by a speed higher than the speed of light. According to Einstein, if the first particles created in the explosion are moving faster than the speed of light, they are moving backward in time. So they have also a time singularity.

5. if this space expands (and this is a fact), into which unit does it expand and what is the essence of this unit?

We can enumerate infinite questions that are not answered in these "scientific" theses, and then we can turn to Darwinism, which also has even more unanswered questions because almost all modern intelligent scientists do not accept Darwinism because it is a very weak explanation of the evolution of life. They accept that every species evolves, but this happens only because there is information embedded in the DNA of that species that helps it to evolve. Without this information, it cannot evolve and they cannot identify the source of this information. Some call it intelligent design, others call it information-driven evolution. So no species can create another species at all, even with the help of genetic engineering.

Today, the scientific community allows Darwinism and the Big Bang to mislead the public because it has no other theories to propose. Some have tried, but have failed measurably (e.g., the multi-universe theory or alien genetic engineering). But if they are honest, they will say so:

Theoretical physicist David Sparkel, an expert on the Big Bang, said, "We do not know how the universe began; the Big Bang theory does not explain how the universe began, but how it evolved."
Scientists in all their narratives cannot define space and time, and they have problems defining the beginning and the end in terms of space and time.

But the religious community has the same problem.

When they speak of God, they place him in a space that for them is an infinite space in an infinite time (God moves in this space, has an image, has organs, and can speak and see like other creatures). This representation of their gods is illogical and incompatible with scientific concepts or logic.

If God exists in space, then space is greater than him. So where does this space come from and if it is an entity greater than God, then space itself can be a god that created another god.

If this space is in time, then time is older than God and God is limited by time. (This is, for example, why the writer of the Bible assigned days to creation, day by day because in his understanding time passes for his God just as it does for a man so that God needs time to work and complete his work, only to be surprised that his work is good, and to need a rest on the seventh day, perhaps asleep too) This misconception of God in all three Abrahamic religions causes people to distance themselves from religion.

What is the true understanding?

It is simple but requires a long explanation, but I will give you a clue.

"In the beginning," when there was no time, space, or energy, there was only God. Then God created existence.

In this philosophy, God does not exist, but He is, before time and space, and neither time nor space can limit or affect Him. He created the existence by his will (the Christians call it the ward, which is OK, but it is not a spoken word, it is the will), the existence is the sphere of space-time-energy as one entity. Separated afterward, but still, a unity in which our cosmos expands inside it, and in which time flaw inside it and its energy provides the energy of this cosmos and life.

The simplest way to explain this creation is the way you create a thought in your mind. These thoughts exist because you created them, but they are different from you, their essence is different from yours and your essence cannot mix with their essence, but they also do not exist without you.

I will stop here :)
Jossef Salman the author of "The Ancient Wisdom"
User avatar
LanDroid

3A - MOD & BOOK & BRONZE
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
19
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 1033 times
United States of America

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

They can not explain the particle, some idiots claim it came from nothing...
I think science can explain the big bang up to about the first 1 trillionth of a second of existence with mathematics. That's close enough for me. Perhaps they cannot explain the first 1 trillionth of a second, but neither can you. I do not think the singularity came from nothing - perhaps it is eternal - evidently you agree with me.
because nothing has a physical magnitude.
Huh? What is that magnitude?
If this particle exists, there is no reason for it to explode, similar to black holes which have high density and attract everything, even light, but they do not explode.
Record-breaking Explosion by Black Hole Spotted
2/27/2020
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... otted.html
In this philosophy, God does not exist, but He is, before time and space, and neither time nor space can limit or affect Him.
Huh???
It is easy for everyone to define existence according to his own belief and religion, for everyone even if he or she claims not to believe in God, they still belongs (sic) to a religion, because everyone believes in something.

(From link in original post)
If I believe both of my feet are currently placed firmly on the ground, that is some sort of religion? And because that is a religion it is wrong? :coco:
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
peterdf1
Official Newbie!
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:14 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Gender:
Great Britain

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

jossef wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:47 am

We can enumerate infinite questions that are not answered in these "scientific" theses, and then we can turn to Darwinism, which also has even more unanswered questions because almost all modern intelligent scientists do not accept Darwinism because it is a very weak explanation of the evolution of life. They accept that every species evolves, but this happens only because there is information embedded in the DNA of that species that helps it to evolve. Without this information, it cannot evolve and they cannot identify the source of this information. Some call it intelligent design, others call it information-driven evolution. So no species can create another species at all, even with the help of genetic engineering.
I'm sorry, but almost all scientists do accept that evolution happened and that those changes happen according to Darwinian natural selection. (I spend my time reading what scientists themselves write in their books and scientific papers, not what some people who post on social media might like to think they write.) There certainly is information coded in the DNA of each species, but the source of the information is not unknown, DNA evolved from simpler organic molecules like RNA, which has many similarities in structure. No one thinks a species can create another species, this is nonsense. One species divides into two new species over time after it becomes geographically separated into two groups.
User avatar
PeterDF
Freshman
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:29 pm
18
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Gender:
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

jossef wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:47 am they cannot identify the source of this information.
The idea that scientists can't explain where genetic information comes from is nonsense. After more than a hundred and fifty years of evolutionary theory, what do you think scientists have been doing? The way information accumulates might not be easy to explain, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be explained. The best way to think about it is using a thought experiment: Imagine a locksmith trying to open a locked door. The key has been lost and therefore the information of how to open it does not exist. Now imagine the locksmith takes out a box of keys and tries them in the lock until he finds one that opens it. Now the information required to open the door exists and is encoded into the shape of the key. Information did not exist, and now it does. This is a near parallel to the way nature works. The DNA molecule mutates over time and occasionally it finds a solution to a problem, which gives the organism with that mutation a better chance of surviving, by this means the new information is added to what is already there, and because it is encoded into the genes, the new information is preserved and passed down the generations. Trillions of additions like this have occurred over the billions of years of evolution. That’s where the information comes from.

I hope this helps. It is not easy for the everyday person to understand what to believe, when creationist websites publish their disinformation and then this is promulgated through social media.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
13
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2163 times
Been thanked: 2168 times
United States of America

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

jossef wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:47 am Both science and religion are wrong when they try to talk about the existence of God and creation and when they try to define existence; and here is why, and I would be happy if someone could prove me wrong!
I realize the OP is long gone, but in case he comes back, willing to engage in dialogue . . .

Science, being a systematic study of the natural world, doesn't "try to talk about" the existence of God. Because God is a supernatural being and will always remain beyond the domain of science.

Likewise, there are many religions in the world, differing widely in their conceptions of God. So to which religion do you refer when you say it is wrong? You don't say.

Also your hostility of various scientific theories is highly suspect. You seem only motivated to ridicule the Big Bang (and evolution for that matter), while not mentioning your educational background or why anyone should find you a credible source for scientific information. But please do elucidate.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
PeterDF
Freshman
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:29 pm
18
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Gender:
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

How many universes are there? If there is only one truth then things are either true or not true. If they are true then they are part of nature and if not they don't exist. If truth defines is what is real and supernatural things are real then they are part of reality, part of nature, and therefore natural - not supernatural.

Hence then, by definition, the supernatural cannot exist.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
13
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2163 times
Been thanked: 2168 times
United States of America

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

PeterDF wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:56 am How many universes are there? If there is only one truth then things are either true or not true. If they are true then they are part of nature and if not they don't exist. If truth defines is what is real and supernatural things are real then they are part of reality, part of nature, and therefore natural - not supernatural.

Hence then, by definition, the supernatural cannot exist.
Good point! If we were to discover some factual information about "God," then this god would become part of the known, natural world and cease to be a supernatural entity. As such God is a concept whose existence can only be accepted on faith alone. Someone who says they have "proof" or "evidence" of God's existence are trying to borrow scientific words to justify their faith-based belief.

Our OP is anti-science because he perceives that science is trying to prove that God does not exist. But this is simply not correct. Without evidence or observational data, there's nothing about God that can be studied empirically. At least not that we have discovered yet.

In my limited understanding, the Big Bang theory really is "just a theory" but it is the best theory we have to explain the beginning of our universe. It's based on evidence that the universe is expanding and so we work back in time and see that all matter was once all clumped together. No one can know what happened before the Big Bang. And this is not a failure of science, only the limitations of knowing a very complex reality, not to mention our own limited ability to comprehend the physics involved. We still, for example, have no idea what dark matter is, only that it must exist, based on observation of its gravitational effect.

As someone else said, evolution is supported by so much evidence it's considered fact. For someone to say that most scientists don't accept evolution is simply not true. It's the only theory that explains the diversity of life on earth and is supported by a massive amount of evidence.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
LanDroid

3A - MOD & BOOK & BRONZE
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
19
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 1033 times
United States of America

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

PeterDF: Hence then, by definition, the supernatural cannot exist.

DWill: Good point! If we were to discover some factual information about "God," then this god would become part of the known, natural world and cease to be a supernatural entity.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not so sure 'bout all that. We would understand a God's intervention as supernatural under extreme circumstances. For example, if the Sun attained a human visage and stated in terms all humans understood simultaneously, "In two hours I will instantly make the following changes to Planet Earth. Dinosaurs will be reintroduced to the environment, the force of gravity will be decreased by 35%, the US will become a fascist dictatorship, the Ten Commandments and the Quran will include blanket prohibitions against buying, selling, raping, or owning slaves, and China & Russia will become enlightened Constitutional Republics. Enjoy my Glory."

If anything like that happened, we would not call it natural would we?
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
13
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2163 times
Been thanked: 2168 times
United States of America

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

DWill wrote: Good point! If we were to discover some factual information about "God," then this god would become part of the known, natural world and cease to be a supernatural entity.
Landroid wrote: I get what you're saying, but I'm not so sure 'bout all that. We would understand a God's intervention as supernatural under extreme circumstances. For example, if the Sun attained a human visage and stated in terms all humans understood simultaneously, "In two hours I will instantly make the following changes to Planet Earth. Dinosaurs will be reintroduced to the environment, the force of gravity will be decreased by 35%, the US will become a fascist dictatorship, the Ten Commandments and the Quran will include blanket prohibitions against buying, selling, raping, or owning slaves, and China & Russia will become enlightened Constitutional Republics. Enjoy my Glory."

If anything like that happened, we would not call it natural would we?
It's a compliment to be confused with DWill, who has proven himself to be an honorable interlocutor and rational thinker and all around good guy over many years on BT! :-D

As a materialist and atheist, my lack of belief in God is based entirely on the lack of evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity. If such evidence were discovered, showing the existence of an intelligent deity, such as you describe, I would be forced to reevaluate my position. And I would be happy to do so.

Your example is so extreme that it would probably defy explanation. But I would also suggest the very definition of "supernatural" is something beyond the natural world and the laws of nature. So if evidence for a supernatural deity were discovered, our knowledge of the universe would have to be expanded to encompass this new information, would it not? We would have to admit the existence of a deity, even if we didn't understand much about it. Would it still be considered "supernatural"?

I'm reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's statement that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” In fact, there are many aspects of the universe—for example, quantum physics, dark matter, the aforementioned singularity—that we know so little about, and yet we don't ascribe such things to magic. So I'm thinking the same would be true for the discovery of a cosmic intelligence. If nothing else, our language would have to accommodate the arrival of such new knowledge. It's a great question. :hmm:
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
PeterDF
Freshman
Posts: 205
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:29 pm
18
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Gender:
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: Both science and religion are wrong

LanDroid wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:48 pm
PeterDF: Hence then, by definition, the supernatural cannot exist.

DWill: Good point! If we were to discover some factual information about "God," then this god would become part of the known, natural world and cease to be a supernatural entity.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not so sure 'bout all that. We would understand a God's intervention as supernatural under extreme circumstances. For example, if the Sun attained a human visage and stated in terms all humans understood simultaneously, "In two hours I will instantly make the following changes to Planet Earth. Dinosaurs will be reintroduced to the environment, the force of gravity will be decreased by 35%, the US will become a fascist dictatorship, the Ten Commandments and the Quran will include blanket prohibitions against buying, selling, raping, or owning slaves, and China & Russia will become enlightened Constitutional Republics. Enjoy my Glory."

If anything like that happened, we would not call it natural would we?
Perhaps what I should have said was that there is only one reality instead of saying there is only one truth. If the extreme events you described were to be realised then they would become real, and our understanding of reality would have to change fundamentally. If they were real, would they then necessarily be part of nature? I suppose they would, although this would have to turn on your definition of nature. The description I favour is that nature just is what exists.
Post Reply