Science and Religion

Can science some day dissaprove religion or its just myth created by fedora-fags ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14
youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8
google.com/amp/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/63392/20150625/researchers-have-found-a-way-to-generate-lightning-with-rockets.htm?client=ms-android-uscellular-us
youtube.com/watch?v=C0R9kx-qsvI
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/alchemy-may-not-been-pseudoscience-we-thought-it-was-180949430/?no-ist
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No, because they already found error correcting computer code in the equations that describe our reality.

Science is independent of religion. It is the study of the measurable universe around us. You are considering arguing with the density of a 1-cm cubic box? Be my guest.

We are in the Matrix and it's architect is the Demiurge.

Some people do call him god, but he is not my God.

Misconstrued

I can't think of any way to disprove God or a miracle.
You would need to prove a negative - that something cannot happen. But as science progresses, the impossible becomes possible. So no matter how far science stretches, religion stretches further by it's own nature.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be disregarded as easily.

How would one go about proving imaginary things are imaginary? A dumbass can come up with all sorts of crap to explain why the bullshit he made up could still be right.
Like I could claim that this girl is the one true Divinity and the creator of the universe. A reasonable person could say "but how could a 10yo girl have created the universe? The universe is older than she is" but I could say "she created the universe at an arbitrary point in the recent past in a way that it appears that it's older than that, this may not even be the first, she may have destroyed and reconstructed it several times".

...

>You would need to prove a negative - that something cannot happen
that's just a dumb nu-atheist meme you idiots gobbled up, not an actual rule of logic.
>there is probably no round square

so is this one

It is not possible for science to prove or disprove religion.

Actually, its not possible for science to prove or disprove anything, only to suggest degrees of likenesses of various things. It is not possible for science to comment on the likelihood of god in any way i can think of

I think it's not worth worrying about. Let's science do its thing, and if it shows enough evidence to disprove the existance of any deities at some point, then that's great. If not, whatever.

Certainty without evidence is folly.

Agnosticism is the only position that is intellectually honest.

Religion is outside the scope of science.

You misunderstand me.
To disprove religion by disproving its miracles, you would need to prove that the miracles weren't possible.
But as time goes on, science discovers ways to make what was previously thought impossible, possible. We may not think the duplication of matter is possible, such as the feeding of the five thousand, but maybe one day we will discover a way it is possible, which then removes that impossibility as an argument against religion.

To completely prove that something is impossible, we would need to know about reality to such a degree that there is nothing left to know. Then we run into an entirely different argument.

Science already disproved religion a long time ago when it discovered that lightning is not the wrath of an angry god

Paganism still exist, idiot.

Science will never find he answer to everything, because that answer cannot be proved. By the way, the answer is god.

youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

Clearly, it's African black magic.

Oh really?

Science can't even disprove philosophy.

No. Look up what religion is - it is based upon faith. You can be of the opinion that faith is stupid - and that's where it ends.

All the nonsense like THE GOD PARTICLE DISPROVES RELIGION!!!11 is really stupid.

No. God is inscrutable. What science can do is prove that we don't need God.

Science has disproven religion a long time ago. Darwin did it. Now its just a matter of IQ.

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I an now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Werner Heisenberg

It had to get through the supersymmetrical universe discovery to be applied.

It seems to be real. Plus, there's an X and Z axis to our universe but no Y axis. There is nothing visible up or down.

Science and religion are one in the same. Science is finding the mechanisms which govern our universe, ie, figuring out the elementary logic God used to create our universe.

Jesus Christ is an important figure for this reason. He told us to push ahead, and described gods will as a humanism. Progressing society and humanity forward is what gods will is.

I'll give you a hint OP. It has everything to do with Saturn, monotheism, the indo Aryan civilizations, Kali Yuga, all prophets besides Mohammed being Aryan, Votan, and the origins of humanity on earth.

We used God to explain our creators and creation. Science is just finding the logic behind god.

Thinking of God as anything more than the mathematical formula and laws governing our universe is silly. The old religious parables point to a time and people that directly interacted with God.

This is not a lie, but a history of man. We once were equals with god. We fell from grace. This mystery must be solved.

The only stories close to our old life are religious parables and oral tales. Buddhist and Hindu books tell of a time when people flew planes and dropped suns on each other. Aryans are their direct descendents.

Because adaptation of animals disproves god

>answer to everything
>the answer is god

So if: Everything = God

Then basically you're just worshiping the Universe (or Multiverse, if that ends up being true).

Worshiping the Universe, that I can get behind. It's something we can study, learn about and find our place within it. Knowing that you are a tiny component that makes up your god would be a comforting thought.

No, just like they can't prove that unicorns/fairies/anything you come up with doesn't exist.

However, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the science here.

I too have found solace in god.

An interesting note: "Creation", in that case, would be the birth of your god. The Big Bang.

I disagree.

Adaption of humans from animals disproves all known gods. They all seem to think we are made as we stand now. But as i stated, the rest is IQ from here, thus no religion free world yet. You be on the other side of the fence i figure.

How do you disagree?

Because what you're implying is the same as saying that someone is their own father.

Do atheists even wonder that Bible is a symbolic, not literal book ?

Everyone is agnostic. They're either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

The first one is gullible, the second is skeptical.

Science cannot and need not "disprove" the claims made by religion. It's sufficient to show that religious theories about the natural world are unscientific and therefore irrational.

I can tell that you are nothing compared to my knowledge of the world.

... like disney?

youtube.com/watch?v=e5qJYwfAju8

>Everything You Know Is Wrong

Bible is not literal, everything is based on symbols.

Assertions are not the same as knowledge.

If this conversation is too taxing on your mind, you could just step away instead of making yourself look like an egocentric lunatic.

No, like a Bible

No, because the end goal of science is to become god.

Nvm, you are gullible. Im sorry you had to be indoctrinated to utter shit in your childhood. I hope you start thinking eventually.

Your comment really makes me think.

kys anime poster

It has never proved this. It is impossible to prove this, and if you do not understand why it is impossible to prove this you are probably an idiot.

I'm not going to spoon feed your pathetic ass. You should find the answer for yourself.

>religion created to explain unknown
>parts of religion explained by science, no longer part of said religion
>parts of religion not yet explained by science, still part of religion

If it's not literal, then it shouldn't be taken seriously as an alternative to science

But the core what started everything will remain always. Because every answer gives you a next question.

Quran is literal though.

I still don't get how religious people can just believe that their religion is the right one and think all other people (including the billions that believed in gods before their particular religion was even invented) are wrong.

Its just such a massive twisting of logic going on here, compounded by the blatant ignoring or denying of all the scientific discoveries explaining away the mysteries that gave religion its power, fucking strange.

Your ego is too big for your britches, user.

It doesn't matter. The theory that some god created the universe is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable. Any supposed evidence for a god that you can bring up boils down to either your subjective interpretation of facts ("this looks designed"), an argument from personal incredulity ("I don't believe that X, Y and Z are likely enough to have happened without a god") or an appeal to ignorance ("nobody has conceived of a way this could have happened without a god, therefore god exists"). Basically, science doesn't need to disprove religion because religion holds exactly as much weight as any arbitrary claims I can make up that are inherently impossible to disprove, so believing it is irrational.

google.com/amp/www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/63392/20150625/researchers-have-found-a-way-to-generate-lightning-with-rockets.htm?client=ms-android-uscellular-us

>we gods now

Or could it be that I know things you don't?

You still dont understand, the argument you are making is like this.

I take a drink of water and say "i drunk that because i was thirsty"
And then you say "No, you drunk that because you picked up the glass of water, put it to your mouth, and tilted it, then swallowed"

Science shows us the mechanism through which things happen, not the reason they happen. Science was literally first started BY RELIGION to understand how god does stuff.

>fedora-fags
yes yes, good goyim

>Science was literally first started BY RELIGION to understand how god does stuff.

And then it turns out that god doesn't actually do any of the stuff

Ergo science has disproven religion, as part of the scientific method

>muh logic

the Bible is a collection of books, with different authors, different writing styles, spanning a long period of time.
some parts are allegorical/metaphorical, parables, some parts purport to be actual historical testimony.
saying it's all meant to be interpreted completely literal or all completely symbolic would be wrong.

>religion is an alternative to science
no, they're not even the same category of thing.

You clearly believe things I don't. How you claim to know it or not is the crux of my questioning. Failure to answer even the most basic question about you disagreeing with a logical analysis of your beliefs does not lead one to believe that you're overly wise. Your unwillingness to have an amiable conversation just tells me that your ego is too frail to hold up to the shame of not having any solid basis for your beliefs.

Indeed. I've explained it about 30 times on Sup Forums, I'm not doing it again.

Interesting question. Until science can - in a controlled environment - recreate the laws that govern our universe from scratch, it will never be able to rule out God. It may rule out religion etc, but never the origin of order in the universe. Science - so far - has proven micro evolution. We have evidence supporting it. Macro evolution is a whole other ballgame though that is as open to speculation as religion (if not more so).
Any unbiased (legitimate and unbought) scientist will tell you the same: The evolutionary theory lacks a beginning. No matter how many trillions of years get added into the equation, the very idea that something came from nothing (it would have had to at one point) is not scientific. We can speculate and might have "evidence" making suggestions, but can't prove anything. Hence Darwin calling it the "theory of evolution".
So again, any unbiased and unbought (true) scientist is open to the idea - even if on a very limited scale - of a creator (intelligent designer). It's hard to be a scientist otherwise.
This is where the bible (from a scientific standpoint) makes perfect sense when it says "In the beginning, God..."

>Science shows us the mechanism through which things happen, not the reason they happen.
You're conflating two different types of "reason". The laws that govern a physical system are the "reason" for why things within that system happen in a particular way. This makes "reasons" in the sense you're talking about (the motives behind events caused by a rational actor) completely redundant.

Scientists aren't generally wise enough to understand religion.
There are exceptions to the rule, but they are silent because fedora fags are the sjw of the STEM fields.

A lot of Romans believed the Bible was actual propaganda against Rome its self and if you read the parts of the Bible that qualify as historical documentation, you can understand why.

It opens and ends while mocking the Romans.

>any unbiased and unbought (true) scientist is open to the idea - even if on a very limited scale - of a creator
They may be open to this idea as a possibility, because it is inherently impossible to rule out. No decent scientist is open to the idea that the theory of a creator is a scientific theory, since it lacks several important attributes that make theories scientific.

Relevant:

youtube.com/watch?v=C0R9kx-qsvI

my new favorite dumbest shit I've read on Sup Forums. So much wrong with this post, don't even know what to say.

thats plausible yes, doesn't make it good, doesn't make it convincing. When something is true you can test it, and it will always come out with the same result, because it is real.

The nature of God cannot be proven or disproven. Belief in God is a matter of personal choice and how you want to live your life.

The nature of Kek cannot be proven or disproven. Belief in Kek is a matter of personal choice and how you want to live your life. Believing in Kek is objectively as rational as believing in Jesus, Yahweh, Allah and friends.

>no decent scientist is open to the idea that the theory of a creator
were copernicus, tycho brahe, johannes kepler, or isaac newton decent scientists?

It could easily be proven if he did something to show he was eal, like write down pi to 50 decimal places way before anyone else knew how

Do you want to claim they all thought their ideas about God were scientific rather than philosophical\theological in nature?

>isaac newton

Well he also believed in alchemy...

what coming to earth, dying, and rising from the dead?

nice try, jew.
obviously a theory of a creator would be supernatural ("above" nature) because the creator would have to exist causally (not temporally) before the creation of the natural world (universe.)

Like legends of men that are just historical accounts warped by time and culture into reverence.

Just like the illiad turned people into demigods, and just like gilgamesh went from a great king to a God.

Because all religions have a common basis and have the same flood, same apocalypse, same fall from grace, and same dark ages that are extremely separate from present teachings, it points to religious texts and parables all really being history books.

The literal text is lost, but the meaning remains the same despite the passage of time. The Ark and the suns dropped on the indus Valley are still nukes. Even Oppenheimer agreed.

So yes, like disney. Achilles was a great warrior, Gilgamesh was a great king, and neither were gods or demigods in reality. Flying carpets were planes that bombed people in wartime.

Does it make sense now?

That'd be too easy. Try writing the exact formula to DNA on for size :D

Can Chemistry disprove music or is it just a myth created by peanut butter ?
It's spiritualism. That's quite far from the scientific field.

Thats impossible to do, there is no experiment to test for god. Even if someone appeared in the sky, floated down, raised the dead, and proclaimed themselves god, thats not evidence for science to say that yeah, religions real. There are any number of potential alternative explanations for that. Likewise there is nothing that can prove its not either. It is entirely on a different level.

How is it that you correctly identify that im pointing out two different things, but then try to win anyway by using semantics to claim that your definition of "reason" is the applicable one.

Thats just like a scienceist to redefine a term and then claim that since someone is not using the new definition, their argument is invalid. Just like fucking bacon.

is there nothing to be learned from Aesop because in real life Tortoises and Hares would never race?

for example fall of man is basically to show people humans are flawed and inevitably fall to corruption/vice

interesting read:
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/alchemy-may-not-been-pseudoscience-we-thought-it-was-180949430/?no-ist

"Nice try" what, you retard? The post you were responding to:
>No decent scientist is open to the idea that the theory of a creator is a scientific theory
Do you concede that it would be quite improper for a scientist to base a theory on an untestable hypothesis and then claim that this theory is scientific? Do you understand the concept of testability and why it's important to science? Do you understand why a deistic god hypothesis is untestable?

>the only reply is just a shitposter taking a reaction pic seriously

>the entire point is that people taking the scripture seriously are missing the fact that religions and religious texts have a common basis, and are really a warped historical text with its literal meaning destroyed by time

Wrong thread. Shitpost thread is elsewhere.

Get back to work on colonising space pls

And it wasn't taken literally by even Roman thinkers when it was adopted in the late Roman empire. What's your point ?

Some people believe things they have witnessed on Sup Forums provide evidence for meme magic. And who are you to say otherwise? The only way to argue against that would be to condemn it as some sort of heresy from a religious standpoint.

The thing you have to understand about religion is its not people just arbitrarily deciding to believe something. There is evidence. Accounts of miracles and happenings. People are choosing to take the word of people who claim to be witnesses. You can argue for or against that, but its important to understand there is the assertion that proof has been offered. You arent being asked to believe something with out evidence, the evidence is just not first hand experience in most cases. So it comes down to whether or not what the overall message is seems right and plausible to you

>using semantics to claim that your definition of "reason" is the applicable one
My definition of "reason" is the applicable one when talking about the reason behind events within a system that are adequately explained by the rules of the system.

yeah, now read the post you quoted, it had nothing to do with whether or not the belief in God was scientific.

>Do you understand why a deistic god hypothesis is untestable?
it's not.
apply the scientific method to it.

form a hypothesis:
>I think the God of Christianity is true
conduct an experiment:
>accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, die
analyse the data
>are you in the afterlife? or witnessing eternal nothingness
report findings for peer review

>You arent being asked to believe something with out evidence, the evidence is just not first hand experience in most cases
So if I claimed that I have first-hand experiences with Lord Kek, does it then become rational to believe in Lord Kek? What if I offer you some instances of meme magic and claim that they're too unlikely to have been a coincidence?

> So it comes down to whether or not what the overall message is seems right and plausible to you
So it's rational to believe in something indistinguishable from completely made up bullshit as long as it's real in my mind. Gotcha.

First uou need to prove a religion.

God is just a name for the logic and laws that govern the universe, which allowed us, an animal with reason, consciousness, self awareness, and introspection, to be created.

Monotheism goes over this, and no longer treats planets and great men as gods, but God as a being like us is a time warped view of god.

God is a concept, not a being. You wouldn't call gravity a person, nor would you believe electricity to be a species.

God is all knowing, all seeing, all everything. He is the logic by which the entire universe is created and every single force, particle, atom, of everything extant in this universe is linked together.

It doesn't matter if you believe that or not since you obviously identified the two distinct things i was describing. You can call them what you want. I will use reason to describe why, and cause to describe how.

>Plus, there's an X and Z axis to our universe but no Y axis. There is nothing visible up or down.

the fuck are you talking about?

>aryans are their direct descendents

And there I thought you were onto something.

>the universe is 2d
he lives in an anime.
or he's talking about the holographic principle.

>So if I claimed
A person would have to listen to your argument and decide if that sounds right to them based on their own experiences

>as long as it's real in my mind
Nothing can be known, you can only have degrees of certainty. If a person has experienced what seems to be evidence of kek to them, and then meet a prophet of kek, and the argument seems congruent with their own experiences, then it would not be unreasonable for that person to decide to operate on the assumption of kek existing if they had to decide whether or not to do so.

Such it is with all things. Things you do not need to make a decision based on you can happily leave floating in probable ambiguity untill you must make a decision based on them, at which case you try to identify what seems most likely. Most likely is as certain as it is possible to be about anything.