Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 406 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#52097 - 05/20/14 07:32 PM Scientific belief and Religious belief
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Since Paul indicated that he believes in creationism I thought I would start a thread here about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief.

Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are. For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur. For example if you drop a rock you should be able to describe the motion of the rock, and the principles you use to describe that motion should apply to all cases in which a rock is dropped. Then you can say that that description is a scientific belief. Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.

Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.

Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works. This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules. The knowledge of this God is presented to humanity in the form of revelations to certain people (prophets) who then pass the information on to everybody else. The word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.

Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.

So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief. This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#52099 - 05/20/14 08:04 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Bill
remember , your the one who started this by claiming that
it is obvious that life developed on its own so don't get upset.

ie...

Quote:
Since it is obvious that life can develop then I see no reason to suppose that it would only happen once.



Quote:
For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable


has science repeated the development of life from non life?

ie.. have scientist ever created anything living from non life.

if not then your claim ( it is obvious that life can develop ) is incorrect.

it has not been repeated , not even in principle so
according to your requirements of what a scientific belief
would be , the development of life is not a scientific belief.

any answer such as it could have developed on its
own or maybe it did develop or if certain circumstances
and conditions were present and were correct it could
have happened will not be perceived by me as a scientific
fact but as a belief only , nothing more than a speculation
and a speculation certainly is not a scientific fact.
ie...

Quote:
This is the only response I am going to make to Paul on this thread. He is arguing from the point of a religious belief, not a scientific fact.



which is exactly what I was saying in the other thread when
I said the following.

Quote:


and you would be arguing on a point that is not a belief?

because it certainly has not been proven to be a
"scientific fact" that life developed on its own.


it is not a scientific fact that life developed.

not even in principle.

science does not know nor do they even have the slightest
clue as to how life could have developed.

it is not obvious that life can develop.

you may have missed it , but the cosmos series says
that science does not know how life developed.

therefore its obviously obvious that its not obvious that life developed.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52100 - 05/20/14 08:42 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Bill, could your description or religious belief be a bit narrow?

Let's start by reasoning that if the cosmos is infinite, then everything within the cosmos is infinite, and that must include life. This model does require an infinite repository of life, one in which all living things share, but as we are not being scientific we can assume that. Because it is infinite, and because we share in it, it follows that each of us has an infinite share in the life of the cosmos; in other words, each of us is that infinite repository of life, each of us is the cosmos. The cosmos is each of us, and every thing else that seems to us to form part of the cosmos.

The cosmos contains knowledge, wisdom, understanding and consciousness; to mention just a few of its attributes. The cosmos is all these things, to an infinite extent.

Julian Barbour says: “….I am nothing and yet everything. I am nothing because there is no personal canvas on which I am painted. I am everything because I am the universe seen from the point, unforeseeable because it is unique, that is me now.” He goes on to expand the idea: “We all watch – and participate in – the great spectacle. Immortality is here. Our task is to recognise it.”

The infinite sharing I mentioned above cannot be restricted to what we might consider as “higher” forms of life; it must include all living things, from the top of the evolutionary tree, or the pinnacle of creation, to the humblest life forms, both animal and plant, as well as any possible alien life forms that may exist anywhere in the cosmos. In fact, if you consider the process by which DNA replicates, and compare this with the process by which crystals grow, there might just be an argument for extending the scope of “life”, and perhaps introducing a Gaia-type view of the Universe.

If the above description of the cosmos sounds like a description of God, then the whole thing might look like the first step towards the formulation of a new religion. Where would such a religion fit into your description of religion based beliefs?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#52101 - 05/20/14 10:15 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Oh Man.. Ya know the rev.'s gonna bring his G~Õ~D into this thread along with his eight million hits back up singers... eek
Originally Posted By: Bill
I thought I would start a thread here about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief.

Beliefs change, be they religious or scientific. A Universal law, don'tcha know... whistle
Originally Posted By: Bill

Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are.
Religion and spiritual science follows this same thought.
Originally Posted By: Bill
For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur.
I will follow this with the statement:
Originally Posted By: Bill
Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs.
It would appear that scientific facts are always changing, and that, is proven by the repeatability of error in observance.
Originally Posted By: Bill
For example if you drop a rock you should be able to describe the motion of the rock, and the principles you use to describe that motion should apply to all cases in which a rock is dropped. Then you can say that that description is a scientific belief. Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.

Spiritual science claims similar principals, however observation is relative to states of conscious awareness, or the evolution of human consciousness, AND that the human is capable of speeding up or suppressing the expansion of awareness and experience.
Religion is based on belief and not so much on direct experience or repeatability of observation but more along the lines of repeatability in making the same statement toward a belief, like the reverend makes (ad nauseum) about his G~Õ~D and his superhuman ability to create an acronym of special importance. Churches then are made up of followers who are willing to listen to a belief, and then adopt the belief, regardless of whether they believe or experience anything relative to a belief.
Science has its own church of peers who accept scientific peer review regardless of whether their field is connected to the belief or repeatable observations of those who specialize in a particular belief.
Originally Posted By: Bill

Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.
Facts being relative to the association of the scientific community. If more than a few observe the same type of experience and it can be repeated using the same methods, it becomes a fact that it was observed, until another scientific study, following a different procedure regarding the same materials of study produces a different observation. Facts then become part of change, which is consistent with belief (no matter what camp the belief comes from).
Originally Posted By: Bill

Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works.
Depends on the religion. Buddhism does not believe in a God, because it limits the omnipresent reality of creation to singular definitions. It (Buddhism) follows a different idea rallying around a principal which exists in all forms of matter and living organisms.
Originally Posted By: Bill
This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules.

Again yer limiting religion to one type. There are many religions and they don't all follow this narrow form of thinking.
You really should get out more..
Originally Posted By: Bill
The knowledge of this God is presented to humanity in the form of revelations to certain people (prophets) who then pass the information on to everybody else. The word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.
Now your are narrowing religion to the Judeo-Christian politics of the church and not necessarily the nature of religion or what created religion in the first place.
Originally Posted By: Bill

Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.

History will show that interpretation of the word of God is not a constant, just the word itself which originally was indicated as the fundamental nature of evolution in creativity as defined within space and time.
Originally Posted By: Bill

So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief.

Only from the stand point of defining ones self by the label of scientist or religionist. Standing outside of both, offers the perspective of similarity in form and function, where changing beliefs are based on levels of conscious awareness, evolution of mind and the ability to observe objectively and without an attachment to defining ones self by a preferred principal of reality where all realities are supported by universal law.
Originally Posted By: Bill
This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem.

Bill Gill
No problem was ever solved at the level it was created. Your sweeping generalities are a symptom of a lack of understanding beyond the, generalities are us on the shelf, mindset!


Edited by Tutor Turtle (05/20/14 10:20 PM)
Edit Reason: I had a revelation and God spoke to me!
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#52105 - 05/20/14 11:44 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Tutor Turtle]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I agree with that (IAWT) and as a child years ago in
my country (YAIMC) I once fell off the front porch
and had a out of body experience (FOTFPAHAOOBE) as I
soared through the air.

I like to think of this moment in time as my time
to ponder the universe and why it means what it means on
saturday night because it was a saturday night when I fell off the front porch just before my fall was broken by the sidewa
lk.

(ILTTOTMITAMTTPTUAWIMWIMOSNBIWASNWIFOTFPJBMFWBBTS)

it wasnt until I became older in life that I remembered the
time that I like to think about being my time
to ponder the universe and why it means what it means on
saturday night because it was a saturday night when I fell off the front porch just before my fall was broken by the sidewalk.
(IWUIBOILTIRTTTILTIRILTTOTMITAMTTPTUAWIMWIMOSNBIWASNWIFOTFPJBMFWBBTS)

I knew that I had to somehow get back into my body even though
I knew my body would eventually hit the sidewalk.

and I thought about ##('')## and what its meaning could be.
I rewrote it as **('')** and it seemed a little clearer and
so I condensed it and that action improved it even further
as it became *('')* and I thought that this grouping of
symbols has a meaning that means something.

and as I pondered its meaning suddenly it was revealed to me
that I needed to improve it further.

*(')*

I was getting close to something that was certain I thought to
myself.

and then

(*'*)

voila that was it.

but still something was missing.

I needed to add some descriptive text so that others could
revel in my discovery with me but as soon as I though that
I was back in my body again.

it had seemed like years , decades , even centuries , dare I say millenia had passed during my OBE (out of body experience ) that has had such a profound impact on my life.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52106 - 05/20/14 11:46 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
it is not a scientific fact that life developed.

Life exists. At one time (4.5 Billion years ago) life did not exist on this planet. Therefore it is obvious that life developed.

In the last 4.5 Billion years we find fossils of life forms that developed from very simple forms to very complex forms. The complexity of the forms is the simplest in the rocks that are oldest. In newer rocks more complex forms are found. Therefore life has been developing on a scale from simple to complex in a relatively linear manner with respect to time. Extrapolating backwards we find that there must have been a time when there was no life, and then life appeared. So life must have developed from a form of non-life to a form of life sometime in that period. QED

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52107 - 05/20/14 11:57 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Therefore it is obvious that life developed.


its not obvious , and you have no more reason to say that
life developed than I do to say that life was created.

neither of us can show any proof that would withstand the requirements of scientific testing.

although science seems to try to make claims that
religion is wrong in its belief that life was created
science has no scientific proof that it could use to defend
its claim and belief that life developed in the absence of life.

therefore it is not obvious that life developed.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52112 - 05/21/14 05:21 AM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill
Since Paul indicated that he believes in creationism I thought I would start a thread here about the difference between scientific belief and religious belief.
Bill, a very good idea!

Have you checked out THE UNIVERSE WITHIN--From Quantum to Cosmos, by NEIL TUROK (2012)--One of world's Leading Theoretical Physicists @ a Renowned Educational Innovator?

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/massey-...niverse-within/
==============
TUROK'S philosophy sounds very much like what PROCESS THEOLOGIANS/PHILOSOPHERS & UNITHEISTS CALL GOD--that is, ALL BEING--mysterious and inviting scientist to explore it, not a being.
======================================
Quote:
Scientific belief is based on the principle that the universe obeys certain universal laws and that we can determine what those laws are.

For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable and it must be possible to make a clear statement as to what will occur when certain other events occur. Bill Gill


Quote:
Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works. This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules.

The knowledge of this God is presented to humanity in the form of revelations to certain people (prophets) who then pass the information on to everybody else. The word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works....Bill Gill
Bill, what you write is an accurate description of THEISM. Theistic theologians, without any evidence whosoever speak of and write about God as he is a human like and masculine super being with dimensions. Believers are commanded to have a childlike faith and to even blindly believe what they are told to believe.

Quote:
... Scientific beliefs are developed by observation and experimentation.

... Scientific facts are open to change over time, as new observations and experiments reveal errors in the current beliefs. These changes are normally adopted because they provide a better description of how the universe works.Bill Gill


Quote:
Religious belief is based on the principle that there is an all powerful God (or Gods) who determines how the universe works.

This God intervenes in the operation of the universe, rather than allowing it to operate under a set of unalterable rules. The knowledge of this God is presented to humanity in the form of revelations to certain people (prophets) who then pass the information on to everybody else.

The word of these prophets is the final word on any question concerning God or on how the universe works.

Religious beliefs are not subject to change over time, because they are considered to be the direct word of God.
Bill Gill
I now invite you to check out the work of a great mathematician:
Alfred North Whitehead--panentheist and, therefore, a unitheist.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
--a great process philosopher and theologian. He and atheist friend, Bertrand Russell wrote, PRINCIPLES OF MATHEMATICS. More on this.
Quote:
So there is a fundamental difference between scientific belief and religious belief. This has caused a lot of problems for some people over the years. I don't have a solution to this problem. Bill Gill
The solution lies in our being WILLing to cultivate an evidence-based philosophy of religion--one that Generates, Organizes & Delivers that which is open to truth, encourages questioning, exploring and experimenting. A blind leap-in-the-dark kind of faith is worthless and dangerous.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#52113 - 05/21/14 06:09 AM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Saw that one coming...
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#52114 - 05/21/14 08:07 AM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Actually I am going to side with Paul on the create life from nothing claim.

Originally Posted By: Paul
has science repeated the development of life from non life?

ie.. have scientist ever created anything living from non life.

if not then your claim ( it is obvious that life can develop ) is incorrect.

I agree and actually the problem is deeper than that Paul and we have a joke about it and the conversation between GOD and the scientist goes like this

Scientist: GOD we have mastered life creation.
GOD: Really.
Scientist: Yes we can create life from just soil.
GOD: Really and just how did you create your own soil.

Even if science could do the whole create life from soil trick it doesn't settle anything, you know what I am like with my needing evidence thing.

On the converse however Paul I also find no evidence to support that it requires a GOD to make soil etc an therefore life and you accepted that which was a surprise.

Originally Posted By: Paul
neither of us can show any proof that would withstand the requirements of scientific testing.

So I add this into a collection of stuff called no evidence either way.

TT and Bill.S you lost me at your suggestions because it all becomes subjective you can't do any sort of objective referencing to check things. So how would you ever know if you were remotely only the right track without objectivity introduced some how.

I sort of tongue in cheek bought that up with TT when I asked is morality a good thing? I mean whats your reference point for the answer as you reject religion and science so what reference do you have to judge morality?

I know the reference for many religions is bad stuff happens to you if you don't do the right thing so whats your reference point for morality TT? I know RevK and Paul have their reference laid out for them literally in stone and from memory even buddist a sort of don't harm anything reference in their precepts, so how do I judge where to measure my morality from I don't have a religion and so I am very aware of a problem you miss.

The Problem: When you put a gradient on anything you need a reference point and a justification which way is more and less.


Edited by Orac (05/21/14 09:15 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#52115 - 05/21/14 02:17 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Tutor, I was trying to keep it simple. There is no way to provide a complete run down of religion in one post. I don't expect there is any way to provide a complete run down of religion, period.

I realize that the Buddhist world view is a lot different from the JudaeoChristian world view, but it appears to me that it is still to a large extent a revealed religion. The basic tenets were handed down by the Buddha, who therefore takes on the character of a prophet.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52116 - 05/21/14 02:20 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
its not obvious , and you have no more reason to say that
life developed than I do to say that life was created.

Paul. I gave a brief run down of why I believe that life developed from non-life. Can you give a similar run down of why you believe that life was created?

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52117 - 05/21/14 03:09 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Orac]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Orac


TT and Bill.S you lost me at your suggestions because it all becomes subjective you can't do any sort of objective referencing to check things. So how would you ever know if you were remotely only the right track without objectivity introduced some how.

If you can't be objective, everything is subjective. Objective observance requires the ability to expand the awareness beyond the subjective. That is the foundation of spiritual science, Advaita Vedanta (non duality). Ever read the Upanishads?


Originally Posted By: Orac

I sort of tongue in cheek bought that up with TT when I asked is morality a good thing? I mean whats your reference point for the answer as you reject religion and science so what reference do you have to judge morality?

I don't reject religion or science, they have their place in the scheme of evolving consciousness. Your ability to carry on a conversation regarding morality and the scheme of things would be subject to what you read into the conversation.
Most of what you speak of when referencing past conversations or interactions are pretty one sided. You don't have a grasp of the English language, and you interpret what is said based on what you think you see and think. Being that your thinking is subjective, when it comes to anything you really don't care about, there is no objectivity due to a lack of interest or a willingness to apply yourself beyond subjective reasoning and personal prejudice.


Originally Posted By: Orac

I know the reference for many religions is bad stuff happens to you if you don't do the right thing so whats your reference point for morality TT?

Good or bad is always subjective. It's contrast that pushes the mind to evolve, when the perceived reality doesn't match interest or expectations. Morality as a standard must be universal and apply to all things rather than be exclusive. Even the Ten commandments are misinterpreted by religion to be a rule that threatens the evolving mind. Morality must be experienced rather than dictated, similar in the way an adult leads a child to the experience of Universal laws, thru observances in the reality of the Universe. Neither Religion or Science can get out of their own way to obtain true objectivity in order to become moral. Because of their belief systems (being that they are made thru subjective interpretations and handed down from the aging authority to the up and coming disciples) interpretation is going to be subject to personal influence as well as the sway of democratic pressure. Your yourself made the statement for Science that it is owned by the authority of corporations, the military and government. Then you followed that claim with WE don't care.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Science isn't a public opinion thing no-one gets to vote on it and really we don't give a flying toss what you or the general public think ... we even tell you to you face your all idiots because we simply don't care.



Originally Posted By: Orac

I know RevK and Paul have their reference laid out for them literally in stone and from memory even buddist a sort of don't harm anything reference in their precepts, so how do I judge where to measure my morality from I don't have a religion and so I am very aware of a problem you miss.

Not missed, but rather noted. You don't have a foundation for morality other than your own historical programs which are jaded by your political references to your homeland, it's peoples and it's past. Not my fault or anyone's fault you choose not to rise above that into objectivity and to subsequently sell yourself to the scientific authority for a paycheck, as you have professed.


Originally Posted By: Orac

The Problem: When you put a gradient on anything you need a reference point and a justification which way is more and less.
True objectivity doesn't give more or less to anything but rather notes the outcomes following certain choices that are repeated over and over again with the same results, regardless of any changes in the political, or religious climate over several hundred years (inclusive of certain immutable standards).


Originally Posted By: Bill
Tutor, I was trying to keep it simple. There is no way to provide a complete run down of religion in one post. I don't expect there is any way to provide a complete run down of religion, period.

I got that you were drawn to the political references of the past, but this is now, and only a few religions actually follow that policy. There are more religions now, than when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the world.
Most mainstream religions fear the backlash of pressing policy upon the public because of the history you referenced.

My point is that whether it applies to some or most, it does not apply to all, nor do all those who belong to a spiritual organization call themselves religious or a religion.

The policy of making sweeping statements is what everyone seems to be doing nowadays in order to make a point and it dilutes the conversation as well as intelligent thinking.

It would seem that Church and state have no separation between them when making statements to facts that aren't based on truth but rather opinion.
There is always some authority out there whether its a Saint, Prophet, Political figure or entertainer being referenced to set policy.


Originally Posted By: Bill

I realize that the Buddhist world view is a lot different from the JudaeoChristian world view, but it appears to me that it is still to a large extent a revealed religion. The basic tenets were handed down by the Buddha, who therefore takes on the character of a prophet.Bill Gill


Now you are getting into the nature of religion. Interpretation of something not experienced as a belief.

You can apply that to any educational system.

Based on this principal, the authority points toward a direction eluded to as fact and relative to truth, and a man or woman takes it at face value or pursues a path to direct experience.

The foundations of truth rests upon those claiming authority, as well as those giving authority.




_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#52118 - 05/21/14 05:51 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul. I gave a brief run down of why I believe that life developed from non-life. Can you give a similar run down of why you believe that life was created?

Bill Gill


my reason for belief in creation is simple , its pure logic.

and you want a run down on why I believe that way.

1) I have never ever heard that life just came into being
by mixing the elements together in a bowl. but then you would
need a intelligently designed bowl and a mixer and some type
of intelligence to gather and place the ingredients in the bowl in the first place

2) if scientist ever do gain the ability to create life in
the future then for them to create the most simplest form
of life , they would need to have the ability to place
trillions of atoms at the exact precise point in a area
where the life form would be created then lets not forget
that before they move the atoms they would need to pre program each atom on its function in the life form, and give it a brain to tell all of the individual atoms what they will need
to do in order to survive the next few seconds as a life form.

3) the atomic structure of the simplest life form would alone
look like a complete universe itself , only each and every star in that universe would need to be in a precise location and serve a intelligent purpose.

4) there are no chances that atoms could assemble themselves
in any correct pattern that would cause them to have what
we call life.

5) if by chance atoms somehow found the ability to correctly
assemble themselves together to form life this would mean that the individual atoms had intelligent direction that originated outside the atoms or each individual atom had a brain to think with and the ability to mobilize itself in order to reach the
position that it is required to be in.

6) it is sheer stupidity to not believe in creation.

Quote:
In the last 4.5 Billion years we find fossils of life forms that developed from very simple forms to very complex forms. The complexity of the forms is the simplest in the rocks that are oldest. In newer rocks more complex forms are found. Therefore life has been developing on a scale from simple to complex in a relatively linear manner with respect to time. Extrapolating backwards we find that there must have been a time when there was no life, and then life appeared. So life must have developed from a form of non-life to a form of life sometime in that period. QED


must have is speculation , and a scientific fact is not a speculation.

must have can be a theory , philosophy , hunch , or a guess
but it is not a scientific fact.

I cant prove life was created and you or science cant prove life developed.

to me creation is the logical choice.

to you life developing from non life is the logical choice.

so the difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science requires speculation on some
grand scale and an immense amount of impossible occurrences
in order for life to have developed from non life elements.

and religion requires intelligent creation.




















_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52119 - 05/21/14 07:19 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
my reason for belief in creation is simple , its pure logic. and you want a run down on why I believe that way.

1) I have never ever heard that life just came into being
by mixing the elements together in a bowl. but then you would
need a intelligently designed bowl and a mixer and some type
of intelligence to gather and place the ingredients in the bowl in the first place


so the difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science requires speculation on some
grand scale and an immense amount of impossible occurrences
in order for life to have developed from non life elements.

and religion requires intelligent creation.


Ok, you base your belief in creation on the idea of Intelligent(?) Design. Therefore your belief in creation is directly taken from the book of Genesis in the bible. Therefore it is a religious belief, not a scientific belief, since it has no basis in any observations. Rather it is based on the words handed down from God to his prophet.

And that is probably the last thing I have to say to you on this subject.

Bill gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52120 - 05/21/14 07:21 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
TT, I'm sorry but you just flew right straight over my head. I think you should be talking to the Rev. He is the one who is interested in religious speculation.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52121 - 05/21/14 07:43 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I am sorry TT like most of your posts it comes across to me as mindless waffle.

To show you what I mean I was dealing with the fact you have to have a reference point for any observation and you respond with this

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
True objectivity doesn't give more or less to anything but rather notes the outcomes following certain choices that are repeated over and over again with the same results, regardless of any changes in the political, or religious climate over several hundred years (inclusive of certain immutable standards).

At best I can guess that was dealing with the direction thing which is actually secondary to the main issue. You have outcomes you so you are measuring so you had to have a reference point IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE OUTCOMES OTHERWISE.

You can try and dance around the word measure and talk about noting, recording, monitoring, scrutiny, examination use whatever word you like it has to have a reference if it doesn't you can't observe and can't have outcomes.

Lets leave the directionality aside the issue is with the reference on morality. Hitler for example may have considered himself to be a very moral man because he was good to his dog and that is how he rates morality, I have no idea how Hitler saw his morality but we judge him based on our morality as being evil.

There is no universal rating on morality it is very much a point of reference issue and as I said as far as I know all religions have a point of reference for it and for example for christian it is 10 commandments and then the church may add some other thoughts in on top, I know for example Rev K would go big on love etc.

You can sit there and make your millions of objective observations (yawn) and now you have to put a spot somewhere on those observations and say that there is the most moral and that is my reference point.

So the question being asked directly to you is what is your point of reference of judging morality.


Edited by Orac (05/21/14 07:49 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#52124 - 05/21/14 11:50 PM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: paul]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Without going into details about the recent posts between Bill and Paul, here is my summary of what I got from what was said:

Bill wrote to Paul,
Quote:
Paul, I gave a brief run down of why I believe that life developed from non-life. Can you give a similar run down of why you believe that life was created?
Bill, in your comment you mentioned, "why I believe that life developed from non-life". But you made no mention of "how".

Question: Are not "why questions" the kind we ask philosophers and theologians? I love the question: How come there is SOME-thing--trillions of them, as a matter of fact; and not just NO-thing?
=============================

Paul responded to Bill,
Quote:
... my reason for belief in creation is simple, its pure logic. ... so the difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science requires speculation on some grand scale and an immense amount of impossible occurrences in order for life to have developed from non life elements.

... religion simply requires intelligent creation.
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#52125 - 05/22/14 12:10 AM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
My understanding is that the theory of evolution holds that life has developed from simple to complex forms, but does not tell us anything about the actual provenance of life.

In much the same way, the Big Bang theory offers an explanation for the "evolution" of the Universe without accounting for the origin of the BB itself.

Personally, I have never been able to see any real conflict between the ideas of creation and evolution; unless one insists on taking a particular creation story absolutely literally.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#52126 - 05/22/14 12:18 AM Re: Scientific belief and Religious belief [Re: Bill]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
..... Bill.S you lost me at your suggestions because it all becomes subjective you can't do any sort of objective referencing to check things.


Isn't that at least part of the reason Bill moved this to NQS?

It's a bit like mathematical existence; if you can make a reasonably logical case, on a philosophical level, for it, it might be right.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.