Religon Or Science ?

Aah but not all religion are against science.
In the Koran are scientific evidence of the atom ,Human embryo development,the galaxy. It really depends on viewpoint really. Not all religions are against science

There is an intersection between science and religion because the two are looking for the same answers. Look up physicist and the first person you will see is Buddah. find that interesting?

Keep in mind a religion is a cause, principle, or system of belief held with ardor and faith, as defined by Merriam-Webster. All of you are clearly very religious people, though maybe not worshipers of any god. The term religion is usually in reference to something supernatural, but is not required to be.
I recommend reading from this page on to understand that the two are not at all at odds, that science in fact supports a creationist worldview.
http://able2know.org/topic/151352-6
I'm sorry that this doesn't answer the three questions posed, but it gets at the underlying cause.
I'll say up front that I am a Christian(that's the part where many will scoff or giggle). Let me ask this, just what scientific evidence there is that negates say, a creationist viewpoint?
I mean, as a Christian I see that the universe was created, that life was created, and that this had to be done by God(at the very least, the invisible pink unicorn, but something beyond the natural realm).
I'll go ahead and pose my argument:
We know BECAUSE of science that the universe exploded into everything from nothing(The General Theory of Relativity, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the presence of 'great galaxy seeds' and cosmic background radiation all point to this). The Law of Causality(upon which all science is based) tells us that this is an effect and needs a cause.
What caused the big bang?
Well it has to be something outside of the natural world as the natural world did not yet exist. That makes the cause - by definition - supernatural.
Therefore, that cause is in some shape or form, what one might call God. God, being supernatural in nature, is not subject to the laws of the natural world(universe) that He created. Outside of this universe, there is no space, no time. These are characteristics of our universe and are the boundaries, in a way.
As a supernatural being, he is outside of time, and is therefore infinite, meaning he needs no cause to exist.
In addition, this God has to be conscious, able to make choices. Otherwise He would not have created the universe.

I'll stop there as I'm sure there are enough rebuttals to be made to this alone. But I ask that any rebuttal be made using scientific or philosophic evidences or principals.

Creation is an extraordinary claim. People who make extraordinary claims have an extraordinary burden of proof to meet.

Like most dishonest religionists, you attempt to demand that someone disprove your thesis. That's intellectually very low rent--dishonest and invidious. In fact, no one is obliged to disprove your idiotic fairy tales. If your imaginary friend superstition was worth a tinker's damn, you could provide proof for your thesis.

Instead, you want others to disprove it. You frame this by writing: ". . . what scientific evidence there is that negates say, a creationist viewpoint? " You're a cheat, and a lazy would-be charlatan. You're attempting to forward a superstition by demanding that others prove you make no sense. But if you expect to be taken seriously, you have to prove that you do make sense. You have failed to do so.

Science has never been able to measure, quantify or detect God, therefore science does not accept the theory. Religionists tend not to accept that science does not accept this theory.
Every theory that science explores that is contrary to a religionists belief merely creates friction between them, they often respond to that feeling of uncomfortableness by making science the enemy. Neither side has successfully made thier claims irrefutable no matter how strongly they feel about their theory.
It is worth noting that 95% of what science and religion is entirely compatible, while 82% of statistics are made up on the spot.
It is the small portion that theists attribute faith, and athiests attribute poppycock, that is contended

Well- Karl Popper wouldn't have agreed with that and he is quoted on almost every page of the Challenges to Evolution thread by an anti-IDer.

Popper claimed that it is impossible to verify any scientific theory with any positive degree of probability and that we can only disprove them. For example--one instance of a perfectly circular planetry orbit (as perfect as a Setanta circularity) would suffice to prove that planetary orbits are not scientifically elliptical as the evidence suggests they are derived from just those planets large enough for us to see and give names to.

Professor Michael Ruse wrote--



Setanta's bluster and bigoted bombast is no formal rule of method.

The existence, or otherwise, of God can never be proved and thus it is as unscientific to say God does not exist as it is that God does exist. But the assumed existence of God has, when believed, the advantage of providing a means of socialisation which the assumption of the non-existence of God does not have.

The last two sentences of Professor Ruse support the claim that the modern science of dynamic space, to which we all owe so much, is derived from Christianity. Atheism had just as much scope to derive modern science in the sense that reality was equally present to its consideration and it failed to initiate the project. Atheism, and anti-intelligent design, are unscientific and are fundamentally an attack on science.

The only intellectual low rent and invidious dishonesty belong to Setanta who has nothing else on his mind other than discrediting Christianity because it seeks to impose strict disciplies upon his carnality and convenience.

Why some scientist has not suggested to him that the last thing science needs to defend it is the simple assertions of the likes of him I can only think is because there are no scientists who he hasn't got on Ignore which strategy is anti-science to the highest degree imaginable.

Did you read the rest of my statement? about how it is based on some of the best-documented science there is? And also that there is no logical alternative.
You have 3 options for your belief in the origin of the universe
1) The universe is eternal
Disproved by the General Theory of relativity and impossible as time is finite and it is impossible to have an infinite amount of a finite thing in the real world.
2) The universe suddenly came into being by itself
This is defeated by the Law of Causality. The universe NEEDS a cause in order to be at all. This is the fundamental principal on which all science rests. To Disagree with this point is to say that you disagree with science.
3) The universe was created
This would make sense as it gives the universe that cause. Since the creator is outside of time, He is infinite. Therefore, He does not need to be created.
The only LOGICAL and SCIENTIFICALLY acceptable claim is creation.
If there is no flaw in my logic - which I hold to be self-evident - then there is no argument against creation. My challenge to disprove me and your lack of doing so suggests an inability to put forth acceptable evidence to the contrary. In light of the evidence I have put forth and the evidence you have not, my theory stands.

I agree that God cannot be analyzed scientifically. All science is bound by the laws of nature that it seeks to understand.
However, science also demands a cause for the universe to be at all. My claim that this cause must be God is supported by the Law of Causality. When I say God in this case, it could be the Christian God, Allah, Jehovah, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But as the astronomer Robert Jastrow said,
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in the cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
If we accept the Law of Causality, a supernatural force(and therefore creator) is demanded.
If we reject it, we reject science.

Setanta can neither agree or disagree with science because he has no clue as to what it is.

I would like to tackle question no. 4.

The answer is "eleven."

dang, I thought it was Ninevah.
><

I was under the understanding that the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42 is it not?

Mr Ovenmit, I am no scientist, but I have never heard an explanation like that which you have put forth these last couple of days. Just a quick thank you for provoking some thought on my part.

Could I inquire the source of your logic?

No, it's 43. But good guess!

http://able2know.org/topic/151352-6

That is the thread that I have been active in that pertains to the origin of the universe.
I laid out my arguments fairly clearly there, and I apologize for giving you a lengthy read, but my first post is the beef of my argument and should give you a good idea of my view. If you care to read the entire debate that ensued, please do! But be warned, it grows silly as the non-creationist ran out of material and cursed me out on occasion.

My argument here is simply that my argument there makes this argument unnecessary!

As for my source, well if you really want to know I'll tell you. But most people hold such in incredibly strong bias against my view that they just roll their eyes when I tell them, even though every argument I make toward the origin of the universe is based firmly in good logic, verified science, and solid philosophy.

I shall take a stroll through it, I dont mind a lengthy read if it is has a decent hook and isnt Illogical.

Tis a shame to see some that want to win an arguement so bad, they forget to consider that just maybe, they may be wrong. Tends to be that both sides can be as closed minded as each other

You speak like Big Bang Theory is a fact, when it's a T-H-E-O-R-Y!!!

Fair enough. As it is based largely on forensic evidence - that is evidence that can not be empirically tested, as we cannot create our own big bang(or macroevolution), I agree. It is still a theory. However, it is the ONLY theory that fits with the evidence.
The General Theory of Relativity which has been proven accurate to 9 decimal places demands that the big bang have happened. However, this idea was so repugnant to Einstein, that he added a 'fudge factor' to his equation to eliminate the need for the big bang.
It was quickly discovered as it involved dividing by zero.
He later said that adding the fudge factor was one of the worst mistakes of his career and from then on, his was a scientific quest to 'know the mind of God.'
What I'm saying is that unless you know some evidence that voids the GTR, the big bang is supported by a well-founded scientific theory.
Additionally, if the big bang had not occurred, that means the universe is infinite. Again, I'll tell you that this is impossible because the universe is composed of finite things(space and time) and an infinite amount of finite things is an impossibility.
Also, if that weren't enough(though it is), The laws of thermodynamics say that there is no more energy being created and the energy we have is becoming less usable. Essentially, many many many years from now, the universe will be outta juice. If the universe were infinite, we would have reached that point by now.
Now is another thing that could not be in an infinite universe. You would have to go from the other end of infinity, all the way to today to get to now. But you can't, because you can't traverse infinity. So all of this evidence points to the universe having an origin.
That origin is what we call the Big Bang.
That's why I talk as though it's fact.

agreed.
The advantage I have as a creationist is that I have not preemptively ruled out either option. I don't claim to be unbiased, but I do say that the view frequently taken by atheists is that there CAN'T be a God before examining - as objectively as possible - all the evidence. That gives them a strong bias toward disproving God, and many are willing to ignore, twist, and falsify evidence to do that(I am making NO personal accusations toward anyone on this website. But many experiments and theories have been fudged - such as the GTR - to eliminate God).
Then you have the dogmatically religious. Many people from that camp have been told science proves them wrong, so they ignore science all together and shout at the top of their lungs how God's gonna smite the ignorant scientists.
Thank you for being open minded to the evidence and trying to see it as objectively as possible. =]

Nonsense. As i pointed out elsewhere, no one is obliged to disprove the claims of others--those who make claims assume the burden of proving them. There certainly are people who are anti-religious, who call themselves atheists, who are actively devoted to attacking religion, and claiming that they know there is no god. It is not reasonable from that to assume that "the view frequently taken by atheists is that there CAN'T be a God."

You're making additonal extraordinary claims, such as that: "That gives them [i.e., atheists] a strong bias toward disproving God, and many are willing to ignore, twist, and falsify evidence to do that." Do you assert that you actually have evidence that this has occured? Can you provide that evidence? I suspect that you're just making things up as you go along.

"It is not reasonable from that to assume that 'the view frequently taken by atheists is that there CAN'T be a God.'"

On the contrary, you miss the very DEFINITION of an atheist. One who believes there is no God.
If you're referring to my claim that atheists frequently(not always) have an a priori attachment to an atheistic philosophy and are therefore not willing to consider the concept of God, well that's just fine. It is, for all intensive purposes, tangential to the current topic.

And yes. I have evidence. Albert Einstein, upon discovering the General Theory of Relativity and seeing that it would require the existence of a supernatural being, added a fudge factor to his equation.
This is one of the greatest minds in science, LYING to cover up evidence for Creationism.
It was discovered, he admitted to it, and then, looking at the evidence objectively, decided there must be a God and began seeking him through science.
Stephen Hawking invented 'imaginary time' as another alternative to the big bang. But even he acknowledged didn't hold any water. Why then would he suggest it? Because having a philosophy that tells you that creationism cannot be true will lead you to great lengths to prove it is not true. Extraordinary evidence leads people to make extraordinary efforts to prove it wrong.
Hawking called imaginary time just a 'metaphysical proposal'. He also went on to say "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."

I would also like to point out that twice now, I've provided the evidence supporting my arguments and you continue to assert that I have not provided any evidence. Unless you can PROVE that the evidence I have provided is invalid, I ask that you stop accusing me of making unfounded claims.

You said "those who make claims assume the burden of proving them."
You claim I'm wrong. Prove it.

The universe, infinity and all the stuff isn't anything until humans came along to label it all from the evidence of their own limited vision. And, as far as such things as the GTR are concerned, the labelling has all been done in the last 100 years, which is next door to nothing. And the last 10,000 years is next door to that.

What I think is self evident is that those who have religion are more powerful than those who haven't. So far. Can science prevent an atheist society from turning into a rabble? Even religion is hard pressed on that score.