Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
So instead of a link(s) and example(s) I get a statement
1 down, 2 to go
I can lose my membership here because complaints of many members afterwards
Weird. You appear to be a very new member. What makes you think your statement above is true?
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Evidence is some kind of proof, it needs interpretation too.
There are no bare/naked proof or evidence... unless you do philosophy or mathematic.
The only difference between evidence and proof is :
Evidence is supported by common sens.
Proof is supported by theoritical interpretation.
So yes, like already explained, evidence is "the proof" placed at the bottom of the reasoning chain, and scientifics doesent go further (they dont need to go further).
The common sens, wich is well distributed among human beings permit to consider observations as brut evidences, altought these observations are not independant of the observator property (but we dont care for practical reason, as already says, science is here for practical purpose not to explain the being of things).
Common sens permit you to quickly say : "This car is red" altought red depend on the observator constitution, that there is not even "a car" here, and the "this" word is already some special consideration about the world (an interpretation).
So, red, color, car, this; these "concepts" unless they are not even scientific all need an interpretation, a common sens "interpretation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_senseWikipedia said:
Last edited:
I would say that all things / evidence are at least proof of themself.
Multiple pieces of evidence can be combined to lead to abduced conclusions, albeit ones with a weight of probability attached such that a rational person would accept it as the truth. If you consider this to be "proof" then yes, evidence can lead to proof.
However, if by "proof" you mean that it is shown that the conclusion drawn necessarily follows from the assumptions, that is a matter for logic, for maths, and there is no "evidence" per se, as the proof follows not from the specifics of the case but from the form of the logic.
Dicart
Registered Senior Member
Dicart said:
Link and examples please
Already done (Wikipedia, Fact).
A fact is a concept used in philosophy or in logic, its "pure" (so not part of real world) and represent something in our mind that can exist without any need of materiality or dependance with anything.
To better understand, it is like "a triangle" in mathematic.
The triangle is a concept, and you surely agree that there are no triangles in real world !
Same with facts, there no facts in real world.
So, scientific facts are not those facts used by philosophy.
The scientific fact can not exist by himself, it needs interpretation in domain of science (to do science work).
Therefore you can state that : Science (scientist at first point, because "science" could be understand as a concept...) invent facts.
For this reason, scientists know that in sciences, nothing is certain (there is no absolute concept of true like in philosophy, look at Feynman's quotes per example), but that, what is accepted as true, is part of a logical system using "scientific facts".
As those "scientific facts" can be interpreted differently according the logical system you use, it is obvious to say that nothing is certain (absolute certitude is a concept only valid in philosophy or mathematic).
You can use any "scientific fact" you want as an example.
Some are more simple to understand as the other, but they are similar.
Per example if you think that velocity is a fact (absolute fact), you are wrong, "the fact" that a car velocity is 10m/s is dependant of the referential you use.
If you are trying to baffle me with bullshit you are succeeding because I have no idea what you are posting
fact
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
he ignores some historical and economic facts
Definitions from Oxford Languages
Fact - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
Didn't wade through all of it so please can you cut and paste the section, in Wikipedia, where fact is defined as a concept? Thank you
Don't forget you have yet to provide a fact which science has made up
This will require you to explain as to why it was made up by science
concept
noun
an abstract idea; a general notion.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
Definitions from Oxford Languages
I am giving you definitions because you appear to be making up your own
Last edited:
Dennis Tate
Banned
What if our Creator is a Scientist that just happens to be composed of fundamental or nearly fundamental energy?
What if the Creator has planned and set in motion an essentially infinite number of Big Bang type events along the line of the Cyclic Model of the universe / Multiverse.
I've gotten into some variation of this topic so many times that I wrote a blog to summarize some of the implications of this idea.
CarbonBias
.blogspot
.ca/
As a scientist, a real one, the creator won't invent superfluous theories as the big band and similar.
The bib bang theory, the original, talks about a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, that -without a reason- started to expand until it formed the current galaxies, stars, etc.
I press my thumb against the index finger and between the skins of those fingers, there it is the famous primeval particle mentioned by the big bang theory. The sole fact of thinking twice that from such a minuscule particle (the primeval atom as it was known in the 30's, 40's, 50's) the whole universe comes from, come on, I have heard more credible science fiction stories...
From here, the idea of "multiple universes", expanding universe, and more, all of those ideas are nothing but imagination alone. Those do not belong to science but to the branch of philosophy.
Pure science will only accept empirical evidence, but theoretical science might play with imaginary events solely if the main character of their story is a solid fact, not so another invented imagination.
For playing with imagination, philosophy is the best field, but this topic is about "science" replacing religion.
And "science", pure science without those imaginations added thru good for nothing theories, science itself can't replace religion.
Thank god for that
We really need to get rid of all versions of current versions of religion
We DO NOT want science replacing religion, we need science to be responsible and respected as the slayer and disposer of religion
Dennis Tate
Banned
Do a search for the name Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. and you may well find the answer as to why the original Big Bang event kept on expanding and expanding and expanding......... and became more and more Complex!
The Law of Complexity Consciousness is an interesting topic as well to dig into.
"The big bang theory, the original, talks about a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, that -without a reason- started to expand until it formed the current galaxies, stars, etc." (Luchito)
Luchito -- Please a link where The big bang theory, the original, talks about a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, that -without a reason- started to expand until it formed the current galaxies, stars, etc
Thank you
If no outside link have you any links to any papers you have had published on the subject?
Thanks again
Luchito:
That theory is not superfluous in science. It is the currently accepted best explanation of how our universe developed.
Do you not accept it? If not, what alternative theory do you subscribe to, and why?
Got anything better than your personal incredulity, to refute the theory?
The idea of multiple universes is an "imaginative" hypothesis that is not yet proven. It is not, however, based on "imagination alone". Such ideas draw on what is already known about the physical universe. To the extent that they are testable, they are scientific. Other than that, you could call them philosophical.
I assume you mean the big bang theory, not the big band.
That theory is not superfluous in science. It is the currently accepted best explanation of how our universe developed.
Do you not accept it? If not, what alternative theory do you subscribe to, and why?
Not without a reason. The scientific theory is very complex, and it describes the mechanisms in a lot of detail, based on what else we know about physics.
So your argument is that the big bang theory is wrong because you find it personally hard to accept it?
Got anything better than your personal incredulity, to refute the theory?
The expanding universe is an observed fact, based on a huge amount of collected astronomical data.
The idea of multiple universes is an "imaginative" hypothesis that is not yet proven. It is not, however, based on "imagination alone". Such ideas draw on what is already known about the physical universe. To the extent that they are testable, they are scientific. Other than that, you could call them philosophical.
Dennis Tate
Banned
I could be wrong... my many personal biases are rather obvious from what I write but......
evidence exists that the most ancient Intelligence is first and foremost a Scientist / Inventor / Architect but also....
A PSYCHOLOGIST and a permitter of experiments into psychology......
some of which could be thought of as equally as unethical as the Stanley Milgram Ph. d. research????
If it is true that the most ancient Intelligence.... cares little about religion except
for the value of "religion" as as a test for our ability to love one another across philosophical boundaries THEN.....
SCIENCE HAS TRUMPED RELIGION.......
for millions if not billions if not trillions of "years" already?????
(Assuming the validity of what was shown to a near death experiencer who impressed me as an objective and honest witness to
what he was shown)?!
https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a09
9. What Is the Best Religion?
I asked God: "What is the best religion on the planet? Which one is right?" And Godhead said, with great love: "I don’t care." That was incredible grace.
They come and they go, they change. Buddhism has not been here forever, Catholicism has not been here forever, and they are all about to become more enlightened. More light is coming into all systems now. There is going to be a reformation in spirituality that is going to be just as dramatic as the Protestant Reformation. There will be lots of people fighting about it, one religion against the next, believing that only they are right.
Everyone thinks they own God, the religions and philosophies, especially the religions, because they form big organizations around their philosophy. When Godhead said, "I don't care," I immediately understood that it is for us to care about. It is important, because we are the caring beings. It matters to us and that is where it is important. What you have is the energy equation in spirituality. Ultimate Godhead does not care if you are Protestant, Buddhist, or whatever. It is all a blooming facet of the whole. I wish that all religions would realize it and let each other be. It is not the end of each religion, but we are talking about the same God. Live and let live. Each has a different view. And it all adds up to the Big Picture; it is all important.
For the record....
I strongly suspect that many of my most Theistically Inclined friends in person or online would probably tend to think that former Atheist Mellen Benedict must have met Satan....... in order to
be shown anything along the line of Religion not being anywhere nearly as important as a significant percentage of we humans tend to believe?!
Whoever that individual Tejman is, he pulled your legs.
Bing bang theory was invented having as the started point a microscopic particle. With or without laws of physics, such a particle can't by any means expand and being more complex. So, forget about it.
Luchito:
I assume you mean the big bang theory, not the big band.
That theory is not superfluous in science. It is the currently accepted best explanation of how our universe developed.
Do you not accept it? If not, what alternative theory do you subscribe to, and why?
Why you "have" to have and alternative?
You don't know how the universe started, then you don't know. End of the story.
You can speculate a lot, but speculations are not science but speculations.
Sure, tell me what was the cause for a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing to start expanding.
There is not a single evidence to prove such big bang happened. To start, you must show the epicenter, the place where such particle expanded as point A, and as point B, point C, etc show the current expansion. You must bring something verifiable here, circumstantial and incomplete evidence is not accepted.
You come here with one or two circumstantial evidence and this phrase will apply to your presentation: A half truth is still a compete lie.
Data based on what? You have not a single point A to make any comparison in order to say the universe started with a big bang and that is currently expanding.
Those multiple universes are nothing but mere imaginations. Show me how you "tested" the existence of another universe... sorry but your attempts will be funny if not ridiculous.
Dennis Tate
Banned
Big Bang Theory in its present form is a joke.....
and we all know it......
Chaim Henry Tejman M.D.'s theories and explanations may be flawed... but if they were added to a Cyclic Model of the Universe.....
they could take the basic idea of a Big Bang up to a whole other level.
Adding Multiverse Theory to the formula now would be another level again.....
.... for your homework I would suggest you read chapter thirteen of Stephen Hawking's Universe. Your reading that would not be a waste of your time..... once you do that then you would perhaps begin to see potential in Dr. Tejman's theories.
Really?
If "may be flawed" is a euphemism for "uninformed barking mad drivel" then I agree.
And what, precisely, is the next step after barking mad?
I see the potential already: printed out they'd make excellent toilet paper.
Luchito:
You claim that theory is wrong, but apparently you have nothing better to offer to replace it. So, while we're waiting for you to produce a better theory, you won't mind if we stick with the current best-available theory, right?
What we observe today is the Hubble expansion of the universe: on the large scale, things like galaxies are all moving away from one another, and the further away they are, the faster they are moving away. This is true no matter which galaxy you happen to be in, in the universe. Obviously, the way to "prove" this is to measure the distances to some distance galaxies and to measure their speeds towards or away from us, then to draw a graph of speed vs. distance. That, of course, has been done in great detail by now, so this is beyond doubt.
Your gut feelings about things don't really impact the science, I'm afraid.
It sounds to me like you want to make the claim that other universes are impossible. Good luck trying to support that claim. I'm assuming that, right now, all you have is more gut feelings.
We have a good scientific theory that explains many observed properties of our universe.
You claim that theory is wrong, but apparently you have nothing better to offer to replace it. So, while we're waiting for you to produce a better theory, you won't mind if we stick with the current best-available theory, right?
I agree. But you say you don't believe the big bang theory, which describes how the universe evolved after it started. Would you say you don't know about that, either?
I agree.
As I understand it (I am not an expert), there was a period in the very early universe where the force of gravity effectively became repulsive for a time. During that time, in the very high energy state the universe was in, the universe expanded exponentially in size. This is called the "inflationary epoch" by cosmologists. In case you think this is just "speculation", I should note that there is a complicated mathematical theory behind this description. The theory accounts for certain observations we make about the universe, from our current position several billion years after this occurred.
That's a ludicrously uninformed statement you're making there. Have you even done the basics and tried googling "evidence for the big bang"? Please do that now, and get back to me once you've done some preliminary reading. This is the minimum you should have done before making silly claims like your one here.
Because you haven't done your basic research on this, you're probably unaware that there is no "centre of expansion", according to the big bang theory. A pithy way to put it is that the big bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.
What we observe today is the Hubble expansion of the universe: on the large scale, things like galaxies are all moving away from one another, and the further away they are, the faster they are moving away. This is true no matter which galaxy you happen to be in, in the universe. Obviously, the way to "prove" this is to measure the distances to some distance galaxies and to measure their speeds towards or away from us, then to draw a graph of speed vs. distance. That, of course, has been done in great detail by now, so this is beyond doubt.
Remember that it is you coming in here claiming that the big bang theory is a lie, etc. But you bring nothing to the table at all, other than your denials. It is clear you haven't done even the most basic reading on the topic, so you're completely in the dark as to what the evidence is. Why you would think you can refute it, when you don't know the first thing about it, is beyond me.
See above. The evidence for the expanding universe is not the only evidence for the big bang, either. To give you just one other example at random, the big bang theory explains the ratio of hydrogen to helium that we currently observe in the universe. To give you another, the theory accounts for the detected presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
How do you know? This is just your wild guess again, like everything else you claim about the big bang. Isn't it?
Your gut feelings about things don't really impact the science, I'm afraid.
I'm not currently aware of any tests for the existence of another universe - either ones that have been done or ones that are proposed. But this isn't my area of expertise, so it's possible that some tests have been done, and my guess would be that some tests have been proposed, too. I am, however, confident that if any convincing evidence for the existence of another universe had been found, it would have been widely publicised by now.
It sounds to me like you want to make the claim that other universes are impossible. Good luck trying to support that claim. I'm assuming that, right now, all you have is more gut feelings.