Bitcoin Forum

Most of the if we look to the science it contradict from religion but also tells us to understands it. Then how to comprehend this when the both of these things are really important in your life?

science is about searching for new suitable things, religion about accepting a certain claimed truth, that is controversial.

they are both important its however difficult to life harmonic with both

It depends... priests and scientists offer their truth, so you can choose what you like more...

They are mutually exclusive.

Science provides answers based on scientific evidence.

Religion provides answers without scientific evidence.

Ask yourself what is soul, where is it?  Where is heaven, what is it?  Where is hell, what is it?

Define God?  Where does God live?

Why no scientist is studying God?

Religion and Fairy tales are best and science is worthless.

Religion is the ultimate truth. Science is not helping.

Religion gives everything but Science nothing.

---

Typing from my android phone just to prove my point.

---

Religion is widespread, because people need it to answer questions about their future. Science doesn't go far enough to do this.

Science fact is useful and great. It helps people live in peace, and die in war. But they were going to die sometime, anyway, right?

Science non-fact, known as science theory, is great except for one thing. It is turn into fact in the minds of those who want it to be true, even though they know that they don't know that it is factual. When that happens, science become religion.

8)

Religion is founded on faith. Science is founded on facts.

Religion breeds followers. Science breeds thinkers.

Religion appeals to emotion. Science appeals to reason.

Religion is based on what the followers claim as the "law of God." Religion is based on the laws of nature.

I think what many people over look is the fact that one can be spiritual without having to be religious. This gives science a much better platform of understanding in comparison with spirituality compared to religion. Things like quantum entanglement theory can be seen as having a spiritual function, all while not having to fall under the guise and classifications of any singular religion.

Science provides scientific fact of events, basis and other things to prove of a thing's existence. Religion is important if you are a religious person and you have grew in a conservative family that follows a certain belief depending on what your family's choice of religion.

Most religious beliefs doesn't have scientific facts and that's where the contradiction starts. This is a very unending topic since the day of memorial and up to this date, debaters won't stop with or without proof of their claims.

I think most of it is already said - that science provides answers to some questions and religion to others. Therefore, one shouldn't really eliminate the other (I myself am not religious). What I mean that believing in God doesn't necessarily mean that you will try to deny science. Same goes for The story of creation vs. evolution - these two can still go hand in hand, even if Bible does not talk about it.

The Bible DOES talk about it. In Genesis 1 God made the animals and plants "after his kind (KJV)" or "after their kind." This is said over and over. There is nothing that says that plants or animals will convert into other kinds.

Certainly God could have made evolution if He had wanted to. But we don't have any serious evidence of it. All the talk of large-scale changes of these kinds is only talk. To prove evolution of the sort that evolutionists say happened in the earth over many thousands of years, science would have to go back and track the DNA of many plants and animals. We don't have time machines, do we?

Simple science is accurate in the way things work.
Science theory is religion when it is accepted as fact without proof.
Religion is mass conclusions that are not rigorously considered like science is.

So, in some cases science and religion are the same thing, but in other cases they are not.

8)

Religion is about believing what you desperately want [to be true] (or having been taught you should be wanting/needing) and holding on to that belief no matter what. In essence, religion encapsulates.

Science is about discovering the nature of reality through many trials and errors, a never-ending process. Science builds on knowledge, based on discovered truths. In essence, science liberates.

Through science, you can live an integrated, knowledgeable life. Through religion, you can live a compartmentalized, wishful-thinking life.

There are many contradiction in science and religion and those contradiction is the way the religion leaders miss interpret the scriptures. Science is absolute and so God is and at the end I think science explain God than our religion leaders.

Agreed. There are more scientific attributes to a higher power than there are that can be explained by religious leaders. Even the pope has said that there may be aliens among us or in out space.

The problem with this is, it will take thousands of years for factual science to catch up with today's major religious assumptions... to show which assumptions are scientifically true, and which aren't. People don't have time to wait around for thousands of years.

So, science appeases people by stating many science theories as though they were factual, when nobody knows if science theories are factual. In essence, science is simply making science religion when it does this.

8)

Science has been around for thousands of years, because it is people that does the collecting of data and experimentation. It took thousands of years for science to get where it is, exactly because science is about the process of collecting data and experimenting, to build a strong knowledge base upon which new discoveries are made and confirmed. If people do not have time to wait around, it is fine, no worries. The current knowledge base will be handed down, generation upon generation for thousands of years to further the cause of science, which is about understanding the nature of reality. True science is not interested to appease anyone, but rather to continue investigating and explaining phenomena. This is how science operates - it integrates a cohesive knowledgeable worldview.

Scientists like their job. That's why they try to appease the questioning minds of non-scientists in religious science ways... science theory as fact. If they didn't, the people would lose all their respect for scuentists. Why? Because REAL science takes way too long to find the answers for the most important questions... Heaven, Hell, God, evolution, life without end, lots more.

8)

REAL science are done by REAL humans, who may or may not have burning questions about whether or not there are other life forms apart from the observable and discoverable ones, being studied and analyzed to date. This is not what REAL science, being conducted by REAL Scientists do: it does not presuppose any of the things the words you used may or may not refer to, id est "god, heaven, endless life" etc., which, when analyzed, represents mere speculative (linguistically articulated) social constructs - at best.

Scientists are gradually finding their way to the understanding that God exists. It is taking them too long for people who want the answers now. So, the people turn to religions that tell them the answers way faster than the scientists will ever figure the same answers out.

Scientists understand that the people are sticking with their religion. So, they have to keep the science excitement alive to keep the people interested. How do they do it? By touting science theory as fact when, they know that they are only guessing that it is fact. But the people don't know that the scientists are guessing. They believe the scientists when they say that the theories are reality... even though the scientists don't know this.

The amazing thing is that many scientists can't even see God in the marvels of the universe that they, themselves, are discovering.

Science fact is great.
Science theory that is believed to be fact is religion.

8)

Religion is a basis for science and its rules. Science is in constant evolution and new facts, while religion is a constant law of good deeds and love of God.

maybe the answer depends on each individual. I think personally depending on how we respond, for example crypto (because we are in this group). according to my religion, there is indeed no specific law regarding this matter, but it depends on how we are describe the existing laws and rules. to be honest not a few who forbid crypto in my religion, but not a few that allow. indeed there are several factors that must be fulfilled according to those who allow it.
so in my opinion, actually these two things can work together and support each other.

^^^ You still want to keep an eye on the traffic, no matter if the signal says "WALK."

8)

Public acceptance of scientific facts may be influenced by religion) So depending on who it is concerned, faith is found in both science and religion.

I see so many people are saying that science  and religion cannot be in harmony but I think they are in perfect harmony by below logic.

Religion tells you to accept ,follow and speak the truth and science help you to find that truth.

Most of the religious activities has some scientifical reasons why we have to do it in our life but if we tell them to people they are not going to hear the importance of it but if was taught with the name of religion then it will be followed by most of the people that is why religions were born.

^^^ But is there any scientific reason why we have to do science? Of course. A good portion of science is religion, because people believe it to be true, and live by it, even though it isn't factually known to be true... science theories.

8)

For me scientist proves the power of god . Sometimes they are opposite once the scientist statement . Once the scientist discover something it is proves that god exist and every powerful. But incase Im choose I will pick my religion because all the event that say in the bible possible in the future are for sure it will happened soon.

It's easy to prove things when you make up the definition of "prove".   8)

Now you are simply making up definitions.     8)

Science does not have all the answers, there are mysteries in this world that may be difficult to unravel using just science, Religion does not a hold all the answers also, there are many "supernatural" assumptions that are easily explained by science.I guess science and religion complement each other.

^^^ And at times they overlap each other.

However, one of the things that religion shows is that science often says that things are true that are not true.

An example is that science technically says that Big Bang is not true. But scientists say that BB theory shows that it is true. However BB theory is the thing that shows that BB is not true. How? By showing us that things of the past were so extremely different that math and the laws of physics must have been different, as well. Since math and the laws of physics were different, we can't use them to show that BB ever really existed. And it is BB that shows us this.

So, it is the high priests of BB that are suggesting that BB is true against what BB shows us and them. This proves that BB has entered the realm of religion.

8)

It's very simple for me, really.
Science talks about nature, universe, external world.
Religion talks about internal dimension of our life, spiritual world, our spirit.
If you see it from this viewpoint than religion and science can coexist together and even cooperate without any problem.
After all, God said in the Bible that in his eyes 1 day can be as 1000 years and 1000 years as 1 day.
So, don't understand everything literally in the Bible and you will be fine.

Answering something and explaining something is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Religion might answer things, however answering things doesn't make them true. If you ask me what or who made the universe and I ''answer'' that the spaghetti god did it, you wouldn't trust me, would you? Well that's an answer, it's not an explanation. Even explanations can be wrong, of course, we need a method to determine whether or not they are wrong, the best we have is the scientific method which by the way, clearly works.

Then after the scientific method does its work, we have scientists expressing their beliefs about what the scientific method found, rather than what the scientific method DID find.

8)

Maybe, however it's still the best system, what else is there, trusting old books blindly doesn't seem like a very good alternative to me.

Actually, two better methods are:
1. Placing the correct interpretation on the results shown by the scientific method;
2. Letting the experience of others guide you (old books), and proving them by the pleasure or pain that follows.

8)

This has been talked a lot of times and gets repeated. Both have a very different features. When you do talk about science it is all about solutions or answers to what we can see or touch tho sometimes it only provides a theory.

Religion on the other hand keeps the people intact. Most of the time it defines a value of brotherhood and most especially for spiritual purposes.

Don't get the wrong idea from those atheists spreading their own beliefs. They simply are the opposite of being religious.

Both science and religion plays a very important part as we lived in this land. If you want knowledge know things base on scientific  studies. If you want to feel the relief or finding your purpose on this planet find an entity that you can rest all your burdens and fears.

I've read an interresting quote back in the days that goes like, science made planes fly people to their destinations, religion flies planes into buildings, something like that. I don't totally agree but it shook me a little bit realizing what religion and blind faith can do to any individual. Religion did have a lot to do with people being moral and righteous but there seems to be an inconsistency there.

^^^ The inconsistency lies in the incomplete view of things. For example. Science doesn't make anything happen. It's engineering that makes things happen.

Most of the time people don't formally investigate the science of thimgs, but just engineer them into existence. People do this everyday, around the home and in the garage. You have heard the term "backyard mechanic."

There is a lot less to science than there is to engineering. In fact, it's the engineering that often shows what is wrong with a particular science, and then the science is changed to reflect what the engineering has found out. Science is given credit when it was really engineering that did it.

Same with religion. Formal religion usually has to do with making things better. It's personal religion that activates the life of every person.

Most of the time people don't conform in their personal religion to what their formal religion dictates. Yet they continue to use the formal name of their formal religion. This makes the formal religion look good, or look bad, based on the actions of the personal religions of its formal adherents.

8)

2. Old books and their expertise is useless. There are thousand of old books talking about all kind of idiotic things that have been shown to be false, magic, witches, etc. I don't see how old books are better than the scientific method in anything.

Tell that to the court system of any modern countries. Tell that to the medical system that keeps records of all the experiments that they can. Tell that to any scientist so that he can throw out his journals. You entirely contradict yourself.

8)

''experiments and science'' is different than fictional books like the bible, has any court system used the bible to apply any law today? Yeah, I thought so buddy.

Everybody knows that "experiments and science" are not the same thing as books. So, what you say is useless.

The point is that experiments and science used on the Bible, how it came about, the people who wrote it, the prophesies that are fulfilled in it, the continual archaeological excavations, and much more, are all showing that the Bible is the truth. But here is the most important thing of all.

Are atheists human? Are Christians human? Are Muslims human? There are way more people believing in God than those who do not believe in God in some form. This shows that science that is against the Bible is just another religion.

Btw, the whole legal and law system in the USA is based on the British one, which is based on the Bible. Research it.

It's the atheists who are the false religion, and science is proving it all over the place. Atheism is a made-up lie that is against God and against people in general.

8)

''how it came about, the people who wrote it,'' what about them?

''the prophesies that are fulfilled in it,'' None

''the continual archaeological excavations'' Which ones?

Oh come now. You are turning scientific investigation into a religion.

8)

And you are claiming outrageous things without any evidence, you think that fulfilling prophecies make a book true? So if I write a book now, I write a few prophecies that turn out to be true, does that mean everything I wrote is also true? Nope, that's a fallacy, it doesn't work like that.

Since you won't accept evidence and proof that oppose the desires of your heart, there almost can't be any presenting of evidence and proof to you.

8)

Science are base on facts and religion are base on Idea and Faith. But both are important in our societies to progress as a mankind.

Science got many proves and validations on any pronouncement but when we consider religion, it is much focused on what the individual has belief and concrete trust in.

Religion is faith that science facts are factual, and faith that religious directions are right. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Every science fact is built on things that are hoped to be factual by faith. Why? Because when you get down to the basics of any science fact, you find that it is built on something not known. This makes science to be religious at its core.

8)

Both science and religion is very important to our daily living why science is multy in definition religion on the other hand is one face cause when you talk about science it is all encompasses all aspect both technology and vodo but religion is just a way of worshipping God.

Consider this book: it has 10 prophecies and 20 other claims like, god is a flying spaghetti, water can be turned into blood if you clap your hands 20 times and believe in the spaghetti god and others. If some of those ''prophecies'' turn out to be true, would you also believe all the other claims? Shouldn't all the claims be tested separately?

Science is real and Religious is a story. they only tell you stuff which is told to them. they can not prove what they believe but with science, you can ignore them. I mean common this is 20'th century and there are most people busy on social media or with their tv's or with their pcs rather than spending time with gods.

^^^ But consider, for example. The only way to prove evolution is to go into the past and track the DNA of millions of plants and animals to see if any of them change into other plants or animals. So, we don't know if evolution science is fact.

Also, consider the Big Bang. BB Theory uses our modern mat and physics laws to suggest that there was a BB. But BBT says that things were so extremely different right after the BB, that math and physics laws must have been different, as well. So, BBT contradicts itself by saying that BB existed when we have no clue about how to figure out what the operations of BB were with all that different math and Physics. We don't know that BB ever existed.

Bible is eye witness reports with power behind them.

Science is speculation... or downright science fiction.

8)

''eye witness reports'' Show me the reports and then show me the evidence those reports are real and they were made by the people who claimed they were made, Ill be waiting here.

Now why would I want to do that... show you the reports? You wouldn't acknowledge them even if your knew they were fact.

When you are finally destroyed, it will be by your own duplicity.

8)

I've stopped thinking that religion is important in our lives, for me it's ok for anybody to believe in what they want, if they think there's some kind of magic entity above the sky that can see us and actually created us, for me it's ok. But I believe in science.

^^^ Religion doesn't always involve a god of the kind you are talking about. Sometimes our stupidity pushes us into being a god by thinking that there isn't any god... or that we don't have our personal religion.

8)

religion was a good push in the beginning. But then only talk people back. The government simply does not need a large mass of educated people, they will begin to see all their crimes and lies.  :-\

''even if'' Exactly, there are no reports of eye witnesses mate, there is only the bible which is a book, there is no way to prove the authenticity of the bible, you might even be able to prove the bible was in fact written thousand of years ago but you would still not prove its content is real.

Thank you. So, if the time ever comes that you want to understand, all you have to do is your own research.

8)

I Already did, I read the bible and found it to be quite stupid, full of immoral codes and other idiotic mistakes not to mention all the scientific errors. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that what's written in the bible is real, where are the eye witnesses exactly? They died thousands of years ago if they existed, are we gonna time travel?

^^^ So, you think you know everything, eh?

You can't even see the evidence, and you have a hard time allowing the Holy Spirit to work faith in your heart. You show us that you are missing a lot. Science shows it to you, as well.

8)

You tell me to do my own research just to tell me that I think I know everything, make up your mind mate. If I don't agree with you it's because I can't see the evidence, heh not because you might be wrong, huh? Science shows me religion is bollocks, it has been doing it for thousands of years, debunking idiotic myths since forever.

^^^ Nobody is telling you that you have to be interested in finding out, enough to search. The reason you don't do your own research is that you think you know already. But if it isn't this, the only thing that is left is that you are trying to hide the truth from others (and maybe clarification from yourself). How do we know this? Because if you simply weren't interested, you wouldn't respond.

8)

But I did my own research and I was a believer too, how we know this? Because I know myself and I read the bible and God didn't answer, ever, so I stopped believing, it's quite simple really.

There's a big contradiction between science and religion but we both study them. Religious beliefs were based in the bible while in Science were based on investigations, observations, facts, and evidence.  But it up to the people what they want to believe since we all have different opinions.

The Bible says in at least two places that God answers before we ask. God answered before you asked by having the Bible written long before you picked it up to read it.

8)

But Science says that the universe is 13 to 14 billion years old. The Bible says it is less than 10,000 years old. Science is wrong. The Bible is right.

8)

Science and religious views always have contradictions, at some instances there will be coincidence. Science is of existence, while religious views were the one that are associated with the evolution and it is based on trust.

And yet he failed since I'm no longer a believer, is he stupid?

Your believing in any particular thing is something nobody else has control of but you.

The answer to that, of course, is: "God works in mysterious ways."

The religious apologetics remind me of telemarketers and their scripted questions and answers.  I always try to take them off the script just for fun.  String them along and then hit them hard with facts and their own logical inconsistencies.

Hard to find any religious idiot worth debating. 

Well, no. Why not? Because God gives people what they ask for. It isn't only the words that people use when they ask. Often they ask by their actions. And most people never knowingly ask for their own destruction. You remember, "Ask and it shall be given you..." right?

This puts God in a bind, more or less. When you ask for understanding in the Bible, and then you ask to not accept the understanding you have been given, you are really asking for separation from God (which would destroy you), but you don't really want to be destroyed... so God does for you the thing that solves His dillema, and gives you the thing you really want. Here's how He does it.

God sent His Son Jesus into the world. Jesus took the punishment for all of the wrongdoing of mankind, on the cross. He overpowered it all, and arose from death to prove it, and to seal it in place. How does the work Jesus did give you the answer you really want? Here's how.

God doesn't have to destroy you or anyone for sinning any longer. This gives you time to determine what you are really asking for, and it takes the decision out of God's hands an places it into yours. When the day of your death arrives, you will have locked yourself in place regarding what you are asking for.

You are not a believer because you decided to not be one, not because you didn't receive the answer you asked for.

8)

So I guess all those down syndrome, mutilated and dead babies asked for it, huh?

^^^ Their trust is in God, because all they remember is the complexity of being developed in the womb by God. They are too retarded to understand what you mean with all your blasphemous words. Their salvation will give them an eternity with a glorified body... one that you are going to miss out on if you don't change.

8)

Hmm, what? Why are the saved instantly and we have to spend a lot of years here to be tested to be able to go to heaven? Isn't that unfair? Shouldn't everyone have to pass the same test to get to heaven?

^^^ Why should different people all be treated the same way? They are saved. You reject. So, why treat you the same? Besides, if you went about saving people, besides eternal life in Heaven, you would receive "brownie points" for your work. Be glad you are being given more time to change your mind.

8)

''Why should different people'' Different? How are we different when we all start as babies, we are all the same, what are you talking about? I wouldn't be able to reject anything if I was a dead baby, why do SOME babies go directly to heaven and others have to spend their life here?

^^^ Wasn't I talking about retarded people/babies? So, I guess you partially have me there. There are two answers:
1. The retardation I was talking about is different than yours;
2. In the judgment, ask God. He might even let you know before He pronounces His judgment.

8)

I believe in God and I believe in science also, but I don't really dig deeper in science to compared what I believe in my religion.
I know we cannot see God but I feel in my life that he is with me all the time, he keep me safe and give help me to achieve my desire in life.

Our belief in religion is hard to explain since we could have different understanding on what is written in the Bible, science on the other hand is like a law that it's specific and there is a real basis where we can see and thus we can debate it with.

Good way to avoid a difficult question. The logic is simple, considering thousands of babies and even fetus die everyday, do they go directly to heaven? If they do, why? It's literally unfair that some people will go directly to heaven without doing anything while others have to pass the test.

^^^ Let me show you how silly your logic is. Your logic essentially says that everybody should get broken bones and bleed when only a few of them get shot.

The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Everybody knows Christ/God during the time in the womb. If any of them reject their salvation, be it in the womb or out of it, why should they be saved when they reject?

You have been given in the past, and are being given right now, the chance to be saved... to accept Jesus salvation, the only way to be saved. It would be unfair to everyone to save those people who don't accept Jesus salvation.

I mean, if you go to the store and buy strawberries, but some other guy goes to the store and buys peaches, should you get the peach flavor when you eat the strawberries? Wouldn't it be way more logical for you to get what you asked-for/purchased/ate, the strawberry flavor?

Your whole way of thinking doesn't fit with nature and physics. In other words, your personal religion doesn't fit with science.

8)

''The only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Everybody knows Christ/God during the time in the womb. If any of them reject their salvation, be it in the womb or out of it, why should they be saved when they reject?'' Nothing about this is ever claimed in the bible. So, stop inventing stuff?

The both go together religion and science can not go without each other, religion is  the way to worship God but science is a formulation of man in technology and other wise. While region can be limited to worshiping God science on the other hand is can be related to god and human.

^^^ Technically, science is only the investigation of things to find them out in detail. Religion is the knowledge expressed, with emphasis and detail in certain areas, and lack of clarity in areas not important to the specific religion.

The two of them are in different areas. Essentially, science is the way to prove some of religion, or to prove it is wrong. However, it will take a long time for science to become great enough to prove or disprove a whole lot of religion.

In their efforts to find out knowledge, some scientists have started believing science things that haven't been proven. And they have often rejected formal religion things they have not prove wrong. When they do this, they are turning aspects of science into religion.

8)

^^^ Except that scientists are never really certain about much of anything. Consider that science theories can be changed on a moment's notice with proper new information. And even things not considered to be science theories, are often simply dropped when they are found to be obsolete. Can't really trust science.

8)

Science and religion there is a big difference. We all know that scientist did not believe in God and they always say that in able to believe is to see is what to believe.they askimg always a proof of something.scientist said that all is happens by nature not by God.
But for me I do believe in God because if not who does our earth,who does all the planet?
How come that earth,sun moon and others planet are revolving even does not holding of anyone.
Also proof that there is a God our life who holds our life.
Even that Gods we never see we know that there is a God and I believe that theres a God.

^^^ Religion doesn't always mean "God." In fact, it might mean other things more than it means "God." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

When scientists stop using things of science to determine what they call scientific findings, they are using religion. Why? Because it is based on belief rather than on scientific fact.

8)

All scientific theories use the scientific method. All religious books use... nothing. They are simple writings. Notice how the bible provides no evidence or test for anything it claims, it simply claims things without anything to back them up.

^^^ You suggest that religious books are nothing, but you haven't used the scientific method on them. If you had, you would find out that the science in them is more powerful than the scientific knowledge we have today in the directions that the religious books talk. You would also find which of these books are credible, and which are lacking in scientific and common sense.

Notice how the Bible can be tested against the kind of people that the people of Israel are to show that the writings of the Bible absolutely have to be real, or they wouldn't have been written in such an absolutely down-to-earth fashion that they have been written in.

One of the philosophies of the scientific method is that scientists don't use the scientific method on things that they are not interested in. Since most of the scientists are interested in working with the physical things at hand, why would they even apply the scientific method to religious books to find out which are realistic and which are not?

Just stating that religious books are nothing, is stating that thinking people are nothing, and that science is nothing because it is developed by thinking people, just as the religious books have been. So, you see that it is you who are messed up, because thinking scientists actually do reasonable studies, and their talk about their studies fits the way people talk about things as described in the religious books.

Science and religion are tied right to each other... interwoven, even.

8)

Considering how many scientific errors the bible contains, what do you mean we haven't used the scientific method on them? Of course we have, there is not much you can do with the scientific method to a book, though. No experiments can be done to test god, no evidence, no hypothesis.

''or they wouldn't have been written in such an absolutely down-to-earth fashion that they have been written in.'' [False dilemma fallacy] '' false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.[1]''

''Since most of the scientists are interested in working with the physical things at hand, why would they even apply the scientific method to religious books to find out which are realistic and which are not? '' Because a lot of scientists are also religious people so of course they would try to apply the scientific method to the bible, unfortunately they failed and that's why even religious scientists do not talk about it.

^^^ The only reason why science was barely available in ages beyond 500 years ago, is that science wasn't organized. The earth, nature, and machine usage of people existed for thousands of years. So, the things of nature that science uses in its calculations existed for thousands of years... actually, from the beginning.

Nobody knows the future. Science can't, for a fact, predict the future, just as religion can't. Yet BOTH are used for predicting the future to people, so that people can be more comfortable in their minds about what will happen to them.

So you can see that science and religion aren't very different after all.

8)

What kind of retarded argument is this? Poop and a monkey cannot predict the future therefore, SEE?? THEY ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT AFTER ALL. Are you this dumb or do you like to troll? Religion is based in faith and nothing more which literally means it's based on nothing, you simply believe it because you do, there are no predictions, no tests, no evidence.

^^^ That's the thing I like about you. You continue to show your insincerity and your limited ability to think.

Do you have any evidence at all that the things that science uses were not around throughout all ages of the past like religion was (and is)?

Do you have any evidence at all that both science and religion are not there to help people, especially with things that they can't predict because they don't know the future?

The only difference between science theory and religion is that science theory admits by its very nature that it doesn't know the future.

The major difference between science fact and religion is that religion often expresses the emotional reasons why, but science fact never does.

8)

I think it`s a little bit more complicated as you all think it is

Yes I have plenty of evidence, people donate money to science, to investigation, to research, they go to hospitals when they are sick, they trust doctors not priests, they do not go to the church when they are sick, they go to a hospital because they know science works, religion doesn't.

^^^ Science doesn't always work. There are many times when the medical is amazed that there was this result or that result. Religion has the answer for both, the this or the that.

8)

Science doesnt always work but it works, religion never works, otherwise people would go to churches not hospitals.

People go to hospitals because of religious preaching that hospitals work. Didn't you notice that hospitals are full of death results for people who went there?

Most people in the world are religious. And they live longer than if they had gone to the hospitals.

Science is simply observations. Religion is life.

8)

The universe didn't come from nothing, any more than a new car did. The difference is that the universe did not come from anything within it, not even from the so-called "nothing" that exists within the universe.

There is a difference between "eternal" and "everlasting." The universe might last forever, but it had a beginning... and not too far in the past. If the beginning was far into the past, entropy would have dissolved/dispersed/diffused all complexity into enough simplicity that mankind and all life would have died out long ago.

Life is in the complexity. All the particles are full of complexity. It's simply that they are extremely complex when life exists with them.

Nobody has proven the black-hole/time physics. It's only theory, subject to change if new info is found. There is no proof of billions of years. The farthest we can go back for sure is about 5,000 years.

8)

What? ''People go to hospitals because of religious preaching that hospitals work.'' Right..... since when does religion preach that exactly? Does it say that in the bible? To go to hospitals? Or does it say to pray to god?

1) The universe indeed came from "nothing". There's nothing called "within" or "outside" the universe. If anything is there outside the universe, it is part of the universe and itself is the universe.  Hence, either the universe was there eternally or it came into existence from nothing.

2) the universe is ever expanding and infinite flat. Let alone mankind, even the smallest life forms took billions of years and suitable climate to form. Hence, there's no smart creation, it's all randomness. Earth just got lucky.

3) All the particles aren't complex at all. They are simple. Electrons, protons and neutrons.
You are made of them. Your TV is made of them. When I say made of them, I mean made of only them and nothing else. Yet you are alive while your tv is dead.  Indeed, miraculous science.

4) No proof of theory of realitivity? GPS system itself is based on this theory lol.... so we can get accurate location as the time of satellites and GPS systems vary as they are on high velocities in space. Hence, their clocks are made special to match with earth's time. Theory of relativity is the back of modern physics. Without it, physics is nothing. 

1. But where did "nothing" come from? "Nothing" didn't come from "nothing," did it?

2. The science that suggests this is simply interpretation that contradicts itself in areas. The example of Big Bang shows that our math and physics cannot be used to calculate what the BB was like, so it can't really calculate that BB even existed.

3. Naming the particles is simple. For example, the earth is a planet. How simple. But it is very much more complex that simply calling it a planet. Just because we haven't figured out the complexity of an atom or electron, doesn't mean the complexity isn't there. For example, we have figured out enough to know that electrons are made up of other subatomic particles.

4. Except that aether theory, electric universe theory, and micro-gravity theory all contradict points in the theory of relativity... which remains a theory, because it can be changed upon further findings. This shows that it is not a fact, and things like black-holes are so far out there that we don't really know what part of relativity holds true with them.

In addition, the idea that a point inside the black hole can contain the matter of the black-hole, contradicts Euclidean geometry. A point is the place where things meet. It is the non-existence of material... yet scientists run all around this idea by suggesting that a chunk of space that is too small to even contain "nothing," can contain so much material that the gravity of it can suck even light in.

Scientists are twisting math into things that it is not made to be twisted into.

8)

1. You are trying way too hard to paint God out of the picture. - We can easily understand "nothing." Simple people wave their hand through the air, and call it nothing. Scientists call the emptiness of some parts of outer space, "nothing." But a "nothing" that is absence of even outer space is the real nothing, but we can't comprehend it because such would be too different. The fact that BB Theory contradicts itself, throws everything that BB was supposed to be right back into the lap of God.

2. Life and the universe are not simple. They are extremely complex and complicated. Ask any serious scientist. The proof of the complexity lies in the fact that if life were simple, we would have figured out how to live for 10,000 years by now. But we still can't guarantee even 100 years.

3. All matter is energy when you get right down to it. We barely understand anything about the aether which gives birth to the energy that makes up the matter.

4. Anybody can call a black hole whatever he wants. And scientists can make up all kinds of theories about what a black hole is. Standard black hole theory doesn't fit Euclidean Geometry that we use every day. Since nobody has gone out to visit a black hole, let's stick with what we know, not some silly theory that doesn't match anything.

5. I don't believe that there is a sky daddy. God is way more powerful than a sky daddy could ever think of being.

8)

1) you are correct that comprehending "nothing" is hard. But nature or universe or whatever was there before universe doesn't care if we can comprehend it or not.

This is when I believe in the "everything doesn't exist until observed" theory.

The only way we can comprehend "nothing" is by comprehending what and how we felt before taking birth. We didn't exist. Hence, it was "nothing" for us. All of a sudden we took birth and became conscious. Our consciousness came out from "nothing".

2) life and universe is neither simple nor complex. Simple and complex are comparative term. You need something outside of universe to compare it to. Life and universe are there what it is. Hence, we just can't say they are complex just because we can't comprehend it.

3) Matter is mass and it is energy. And they existed eternally. They will continue to exist eternally. Unless the bigbang was right. Then they came out from nothing. They will cease to nothingness or just stay eternally.

Matter and anti matter is being created and annihilated all time in space everywhere ....

4) I was not talking about blackholes in the first place at all..... I was referring black hole with the theory of relativity for better understanding. Doesn't matter what a black hole looks like, theory of relativity is very real, speed of light is constant and times varies for different velocities and objects. They are facts.

5) God is a skydaddy who doesn't exist. What was he doing before creation? Chilling alone in darkness? Thinking whether to create or not? Didn't he question himself why he was there in the first place? He's in a self prison. He can't die. He can't escape. Eternal boring. Hence decided to create? Lol....

If I as an intelligent human species demand that for my intelligence and this creation, there should be a creator, then God who's far more intelligent according to religion, must also demand a creator.

''If I as an intelligent human species demand that for my intelligence and this creation, there should be a creator, then God who's far more intelligent according to religion, must also demand a creator. '' Exactly but yet badecker uses special pleading to say NOPE, god doesn't need a creator because I say so.

1. Religious/philosophical talk. We don't know that we didn't exist "soul-wise"/spiritually before conception. Science might even be able to prove we did, someday.

2. The comparison we use is our capabilities. Compared with what each one of us can know and do, the universe is extremely complex. We know this because even our combined efforts are barely scratching the surface of what there is to know and manipulate.

3. Mass is, at its base, a manifestation of energy. Matter can be changed into a different energy form that doesn't include matter any longer. But energy can never be changed into matter without including its energy form, as well. Your info is old science.

If the universe came from nothing, then that which we perceive as nothing has far more of what we would call intelligence and capability than the universe. Why? Because within the universe, it takes greater intelligence and capability to make a thing than the thing has.

4. Theory of Relativity is fact in a flawed way. It is incomplete, even though aspects of it work.

5. Your questions about God show that you don't believe he would be a skydaddy. But, our minds are set in thinking ways in which the universe allows us to think. There is no way to comprehend what something outside/not-part-of-the-universe would think, or even if Its thinking could be considered to be thinking regarding the ways we think.

Before he died, Stephen Hawking indicated that there was what I will call a "non-thing" that "existed" before BB.

8)

If you think that you have some special insight into the way that anything worked before the universe was created, or the way anything works outside of the universe right now, let's hear it. And show us the reason why it wouldn't fall into the class of religion, but might be more like science.

We don't even know that the concept of creation existed outside of the creation of the universe, and the creations of things within the universe.

8)

You are the retard who claims to have insight on that, are you this stupid to insult yourself without even knowing? Who is the idiot who claims to know it was god and it was 'outside the universe'? Huh? Isn't that you? You keep claiming 'outside the universe' is something and yet there is 0 scientific evidence for that, you are a hoax.

So science doesn't know enough to have figured anything out about things outside the universe, right? But religion has some of the answers. All you are saying is that science is smarter than religion, but it obviously isn't. It's simply smart in a different way.

Even Hawking agrees that something outside the universe created it.

8)

''But religion has some of the answers.'' Just because it's written there it doesn't mean it has 'answers'. It has statements, like god made the universe, it has 0 answers as of how. Just like any other book which can contain literally anything, are those answers too?

 'Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe'

Everyone loses a bit of brain power as they get older. If Hawking knew everything, he would have instructed some people in the way to fix his physical/mental problems. In other words, Hawking didn't know enough to make a truthful statement like that... if indeed his book plainly says such. And either he was intentionally lying, was into a non-God religion, or was losing his brain power with age. Those who believe him are like him.

Science has some of the answers. But religion has more, better, and more important ones. Science theory which is believed to be factual, but which could be changed on a moment's notice with new findings, is a religion, just like any other religion. Why? Because of perception. It's perception that makes all the religions to be believed, even the science religions.

8)

You seem to be very confused about what an answer is.
An easy example you might understand: (probably not)

I ask, why do things fall down? An answer could be: they fall down because the earth is flat and accelerating upwards, is that a true answer though? No, just like the answers in the bible, its a statement with no evidence.

Science answers with gravity which can be measured and tested and you yourself admit its real, you admit science works better than religion.

Actually this is not true. I assume you are talking about Evolution vs Creation or Christianity?

Evolution is actually not scientific, nor is Atheism or materialism, in fact, science has cast doubts and falsified the claims of these ideologies, they are in of themselves religious by nature. The only reason you may get the impression that science points in their direction is because those who do not want God have largely taken over the sciences and redefined it to mean basically naturalism, which is not what science is. Evolutionists have a long history of fraudulent claims, ignoring evidence, even fabricating evidence, and being extremely bias and often using bad science. And in fact a deep look at science will point towards the Biblical narrative.

Here's a cool TED Talk video about how scientists have egos and they like to name things, and in doing so, they create far more dinosaurs than there actually were - note, I don't know the guy, and can't vouch for other things he may teach, but this video is good and very revealing and cutting edge (literally, lol, you'll see):
-Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs
https://youtu.be/kQa11RMCeSI (https://youtu.be/kQa11RMCeSI)

Also, in recent years, dinosaur bones have been being found with a number of fragile biological elements still intact! Despite poor attempts to explain this away, all of these elements in multiple dinosaur bones shows most probably that they are not millions of years old, but only thousands. Furthermore, I've heard that a group of Creationists found C14 in dino bones, coal, diamonds, natural gas, oil, etc, and although no form of radiometric dating has proven to be reliable (nor can they be based on the many assumptions involved, some of which are clearly not the case, such as a dependence on a closed system, and the faith that they started out without any daughter elements, etc), C14 is a limiting factor because of it's very short half-life, also proving that these things can't be millions or billions of years old. PS, You'd be surprised how much evidence there is for a global flood by the way, contact me (see at the bottom) and we can talk more about it.

I may also add that human artifacts have been found in coal, which evolutionists say formed before man (when it was actually formed during the flood), and there are a number of OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts) that poke holes up and down the evolutionary theory (aside from the fact that it doesn't work scientifically speaking on multiple parts).

Here's some resources for you to dive into if you enjoy science, and know that God is true:

-Watch the movie: "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" to see how professors have lost their positions in universities for coming to the conclusion that there must be an Intelligent Designer.

-Michael Egnor: The Evidence Against Materialism
Neurosurgeon discusses how materialism is not supported by science, but rather hinders science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI&feature=youtu.be)

-James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
James Tour is a world renown synthetic organic chemist, and deals with nanotechnology, and a Messianic Jew. Type in James Tour in Youtube, and you'll see a host of videos by him, including a couple directly related to your question. This video is as well, but the title isn't as direct.
https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg (https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg)

-The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolution
See the rest of his presentations as well. And don't listen to the naysayers, he's probably one of the most hated people among Atheists on the internet.
https://youtu.be/WN31FCcUlLk (https://youtu.be/WN31FCcUlLk)
-Age Of The Earth:
https://youtu.be/shyI-aQaXD0 (https://youtu.be/shyI-aQaXD0)

-Spike Psarris: Science or Storytelling?
Spike Psarris worked on a military space program, entering as an Atheist, become a Creationist based on the evidence, and then later becoming a Christian after that.
https://youtu.be/gufYmnj0Gjw (https://youtu.be/gufYmnj0Gjw)
-Spike Psarris: Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth
https://youtu.be/REwIALE9P2g (https://youtu.be/REwIALE9P2g)
-What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)
See Volumes II (Our Created Stars and Galaxies) and III (Our Created Universe[?])
https://youtu.be/CzyQbOQ0dv0 (https://youtu.be/CzyQbOQ0dv0)

-Origins: Our Created Moon
Here's a video about the moon from the show Origins hosted on the Cornerstone Network - watch all of their videos :D
https://youtu.be/Dk50bycmr_w (https://youtu.be/Dk50bycmr_w)

-Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Another former Atheist, watch the other parts, I forget how many there are:
https://youtu.be/uJGairhrPGc (https://youtu.be/uJGairhrPGc)

-Check out the encyclopedia here and look up any topic you want:
https://evolutionfacts.com/ (https://evolutionfacts.com/)

-Check out their magazines as well.
https://creation.com/articles (https://creation.com/articles)

-Another great website
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/ (https://answersingenesis.org/answers/)

-Genesis Apologetics
A number of good videos on science
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIs7q1bNOeAEd6tsPQBc6Cw (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIs7q1bNOeAEd6tsPQBc6Cw)


Science proves or at least points to the Biblical narrative being true, and not the opposite. Even though, if it appeared to, man is constantly changing his opinions and his interpretations of evidence, and scientific theories are changing all the time... God's word never changes. And the more and deeper we look into science (from the nano to the macro), the more it validates it, but our final authority should always be God and not man. Here are some additional resources on Biblical events that have been uncovered archeologically, and using other scientific methods. This is only a small sample, you can easily look up Biblical archaeology videos and find many names, places, and events that have been discovered, and keep in mind that most of the researchers in archaeology are secular, and many already believe the Bible isn't true, so they aren't looking for evidence for the Bible, and often glance right over it. Also, some of these discoveries were made by Ron Wyatt, who is also a highly hated individual on the web, a lot of jeolous people, but his work speaks for itself, check out his documentaries on Noah's Ark, (the real) Mt. Sinai, Sodom and Gomorah, Joseph in Egypt, the Red Sea Crossing point, etc. Mind you they are old school documentaries, but very thorough.

-The Star of Bethlehem: Documentary (2007)
This man shows you how the Star of Bethlehem was likely a series of astronomical events
https://youtu.be/u7YTE7WFB6Y (https://youtu.be/u7YTE7WFB6Y)
-The Star of Bethlehem: Documentary {Bonus Scene} Revealing of the Ram (2007)
https://youtu.be/AuUPBGMONlc (https://youtu.be/AuUPBGMONlc)  

-Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus
This is a newer documentary showing many of the discoveries about the Israelites in Egypt and why secular Egyptologist's timelines need to shift. He also has done another one called: The Moses Controversy, about an ancient language (probably ancient Hebrew) which could have been used to write the Torah.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/patternsofevidence (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/patternsofevidence)
I'm assuming this is the right page, my computer was being a bit slow, so it didn't load all the way.

-Sodom and Gomorrah - Part 1 of 2 - by Michael Rood
Here's a video (part 1 of 2) by Michael Rood, doing a sort of intro to Sodom and Gomorrah, but you can look up Ron Wyatt's full documentary on the subject for yourself. Make sure to watch part two, or look up Ron's full-length documentary.
https://youtu.be/0QsgY115EFc (https://youtu.be/0QsgY115EFc)

-The Truth of Noah's Ark - Shabbat Night Live - 04/19/19
This is the first of a three part series (see parts 5/3/19 and 5/10/19) on Noah's Ark. Again, if you want more details of previous discoveries and research, try to look up Ron Wyatt's full documentary on Noah's Ark. But these videos have even newer information, as Ron has past away, but the research has continued in the hands of others. You will notice the thumbnail of the videos if you look them up - that's electronic resistance scans showing what's beneath the surface that no one could see up until very recently with these 3D scans! On the surface it's obvious enough, especially after an Earthquake happened and moved the dirt from the structure, but these sub-surface scans have been evidence enough for the government to allow an archeological dig to commence (even though they officially recognized the site years ago based on Ron's research, but a dig has not een granted until now)! And no, it's not up on the ice-covered post-flood volcano that blew up much like Mt. Saint Helens (which showed us that layers can form very rapidly by the way), it's in the mountainS of Ararat.
https://youtu.be/nmK7G1IgkQI (https://youtu.be/nmK7G1IgkQI)

-Forbidden footage of actual location of Red Sea Crossing & Mt. Sinai
Again, if you want more details look up the full-length documentaries or documentary clips from Ron Wyatt's work. The Red Sea Crossing point comes at the end of the exact path the Bible describes. There is fused sand and rock near the beach head crossing point (God appeared as a pillar of fire to protect them), there is an underwater landbridge a few hundred feet deep, but where the depths drop off to over a thousand feet on either side. Along this underwater landbridge is what appears to be strewn wreckage covered in coral, where wheels, axels, etc, can be seen. If I'm not mistaken, they've identified 4, 6, and 8 spoked chariot wheels, which were only all in use at one time - when the Hebrews were in Egypt, and Ron found a gold chariot wheel - like a gold covering (still there today apparently). Either side of the crossing point had pillars erected by king Soloman, commemorating the location, and if you continue the journey, using the Bible as a road map on the Sinai side, you will eventually get to the real Mt. Sinai. This has a huge alter made of bolders with Egyptian hieroglyphics of Egyptian cow and goat gods (remember the Golden calf?), I think it has ancient paleo Hebrew (don't remember exactly though), it has sandal prints chiseled into rocks (wherever the sandals of your feet go, that land shall be yours), it has a cave that's described in the Bible, and the top of the mountain is blackened - it's not a volcano - while the rest of the landscape is tan/red desert color. I also seem to remember hearing that some of those blackened rocks have been glassified, and if you turn them over, they're the same color as the rest of the landscape on the bottom (God came down as a fire). The area has been fenced off by the government.
https://youtu.be/8y-uiccIiSY (https://youtu.be/8y-uiccIiSY)

-How Did Jericho Fall?
Jericho (among other cities that were taken) has been found, and unlike what you may have heard, it fits exactly with the Biblical description AND the Biblical timeframe. See how one archaeologist messed it up for many others by ignoring evidence and other's work.
https://youtu.be/JdyE7-aiVkY (https://youtu.be/JdyE7-aiVkY)


-Answering Muslims: Authorship and Dating of the Gospels, Intro
See this guy's series on the authorship and dating of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is an intro.
https://youtu.be/fq-FIIoXWLc (https://youtu.be/fq-FIIoXWLc)

-And this scholarly article:
http://www.academia.edu/9269890/Early_Church_Fathers_on_the_Authorship_of_the_NT_Gospels (http://www.academia.edu/9269890/Early_Church_Fathers_on_the_Authorship_of_the_NT_Gospels)

On miracles, here's some scholarly approaches:
-Lee Strobel: The Case for Miracles
Also the man who does "The Case For Christ"
https://youtu.be/y3VSIWHZtOI (https://youtu.be/y3VSIWHZtOI)

-2 Volume scholarly work: "Miracles: The Credibility Of The New Testament Accounts" by Craig Keener.

-Finally, the Shroud of Turin, you'll hear that it's been debunked through carbon dating, that is not true, aside from fundamental flaws in carbon dating, the dating itself was done on a piece of newer patchwork after the Shroud had survived a fire. Here's what the Shroud is: it's a linen cloth with a special weave and the exact dimensions of a 1st Century Jewish burial cloth. It contains the faint image of a scourged and crucified man (with pre and post-mortem blood stains), made up of slightly different shades of color. BUT this image is actually a photo negative. Meaning that when you take a photo negative of the object, you actually get more details, and it you'll get a black background, and a glowing face. Not only so, but they've found that this flat ancient artifact (the most scientifically studied artifact in the world) has 3D information, which can only be read with special equipment (and from it they've been able to make full body 3D model). Many other discoveries have been made, such as that it contains pollen from plants native to Israel, invisible chemical stains showing a death certificate, coins on the eyes and an oval plaque over the throat reading something to the effect of "The Lamb", both of which were not visible without further investigation. The discoloration which causes the image is on the very tips of the fibrils that make up the threads of the fabric, it's very fragile, and not the result of scorching, paint, or dye. It has been said that in order to recreate it exactly, it would take a flash of ultraviolet(?) light, the speed of the flash of which, and the power intensity of which we cannot match with today's laser technology. Another scientist said that in order to get the image that is on the cloth, both sides of it would have needed to have been stretched tight and flat, and the body levitating in between them at the moment the image was made, she called it a singularity event.

I've got some links to this somewhere, as long as many other links and resources for the topics above. Please feel free to contact me at: elijahjsanders@gmail.com and hopefully I'll see your email and get back to you :)


Go and read 2 Peter 3, and remember that Paul also warned of "science falsely so called". There is nothing new under the sun.


Have a good day,
The Cyberius team.
The content and views above are given by the head editor at Cyberius, and may not reflect the views of the company as a whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6omFJhKr6o

I think that there is no problem to combine both things and live with them.

Religion takes an overview of life.

Science focuses on little pieces of stuff, and often comes up with stupidity regarding that stuff.

If we had only science, we would stumble and die for lack of a big enough understanding of how to live.

If we had only religion, we would simply go on with life as we have for thousands of years.

You seem very confused about what the topic is.

8)

Did religion help edison, einstein, newton and every other genius/creator/inventor ?? Did it at all??? Did they need to know about god to invent or discover things? Of course not. We are here because of them, you can type stupid shit because of them not religion, religion didnt invent computers or the internet.

Mwahahahahahaha!

So you think we are here because of Edison, Einstein, Newton and every other genius/creator/inventor, eh?

So you think that geniuses/creators/inventors don't have religion?

Mwahahahahahaha!

You really need to go back to school and learn about what words mean. Check out the definition of religion, again - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion - especially #6 in the definition.

Now, at least let me stop laughing about this one before you go on to the next one. ( Lol!)

8)

That's exactly what I think and it's a fact, if it wasn't for the few thousand geniuses and inventors we wouldn't be exactly here, you wouldn't be writing shit. Bill gates is religious but did his religion help him in any way to develop his operating system? Did he read about it in the bible? Did the bible teach him how to do it? Of course not.

^^^ The location in space of planet Earth doesn't have anything to do with people. It has to do with the way God set up cause and effect, and the way He maintains the physics of it all.

8)

Religion spawned from a defense mechanism created by humans to explain all the random crap that happens in the world. 
Especially death, because for many humans throughout history the simple thought of what is the purpose of living if there is an absolute end?

We were advanced enough to think about these things and created out own dilemma.

Over time religion has evolved into a force to give people something to believe in, that is for sure.  And people in power exploited it.



"I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight - brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."

^^^ The simple answer is, if people had believed and obeyed God, there wouldn't have been any devolution in the first place.

8)

Not if our ancestors were not capable of religious thought.

At some point our intelligence evolved to the point where we felt the need to explain what happens after we die.
I don't think primitive animals have the ability to think this way.

^^^ Religious thought is 100% when perfection exists. This makes it to be not really religious though, but rather, simple life.

Once the first mistake was made (sin), evolution started in the only direction it could go from perfection... downward, otherwise known as devolution.

8)

In my opinion, science provides explanation to things that are comprehensible to human minds. Explanation that is realistic and acceptable by humans since they were presented with concrete evidences. However, religion is all about faith. You are being presented with things that there is a little or no evidence at all. Some things are comprehensible and some are not grasped by human minds, but still some or most of us believe on this. There is no problem what to believe, as long as we are satisfied with the details, thats good enough. We can't really understand it all because it is both vast areas of both similar and contradicting knowledge.

Science has replaced medieval Religion.
People today take the words of so-called scientists for the "ultimate truth", without any doubt.

A comedy sketch, really? Wow. Didn't watch all of it, but I got the gist, going to make fun of things he doesn't understand, and hasn't looked into very deeply. As stated, Noah's Ark has been found (and it's massive by the way - see Ken Ham's The Ark Encounter for a good representation of the size). Here's a non-comedic presentation on the flood - which is just the tip of the iceberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0imsTv5Ez4

What does that have to do with bill gates inveting an operating system? Or einstein? Again, even the religious inventors and geniuses didnt need the bible to do what they did. Does the bible teach the scientific method? Does it teach a better method? Does it teach anything related to engineering, physics, math?

There are living trees that are older than 4000 years. LOL.

Next time you see doves think about the two doves on Noah's ark. 

You people who believe in this fairy tale are comedians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w

When you look into what is happening with the thousand-y-o trees, you will find that it isn't really the original trees that are of this age. It's the "children" of much younger trees that have happened to take up residence aroung the circumference of their "parents."

You people who think that there weren't boats in the distance past, that were of the size of some of our medium and large boats, are too dense to realize that people back then were much smarter than you give them credit for.

8)

Cause and effect in everything!

This universe is on the way to being destroyed. Each person gets his proof of it when he dies. The purpose of the Bible is to save souls for the new universe... rather than leave them with this universe and its destruction.

Why would anybody need the Bible for scientific stuff? That's not its purpose?

8)

This is the main problem with leap of faith.   You can basically explain anything away as God's plan.   Sorry not buying it.

The Bible is nothing more than a brainwashing fairy tale that had more power in earlier times when life was much more simple and mysteries remained.

If it in inspires and guides you through life, more power to you.

This being a religion AND science thread, let me say that our modern science is way behind religion. One simple example of this is Chinese traditional medicine, which is connected to their religion, and is way ahead of any medicine the scientific West has.

8)

Of course you have stats and facts behind this correct?

I am sure some Bronze Age people were smarter than some people today, as evidenced by the posts in this thread.

But in the end, all of them wiped their asses with leaves while burning cows to appease their delusions. LOL.

Of course they were smarter. They kept the earth healthy by technologically working with it rather than against it as we do. That's part of the reason why they lived for as many a over 900 hundred years. Our doctors and researchers don't have a clue as to how to get us to live even 200 years.

Earth was so perfect back then that they only drooled liquid fertilizer from their rear ends. Everything they ate was used in their bodily systems. The little they drooled helped the plants to grow.

I don't know why I waste my time with you. You are so mixed up that a forum the size of this one, full of the best basic knowledge, would barely have a chance of penetrating your ignorance.

8)

I'm not here to get in a heated debate. But:

A. Tree ring dating is not an exact science, you can get multiple rings (at least 2) in a year. It all depends on the conditions, which I'm sure have varied significantly over the last few thousand years.
B. Some trees can be uprooted and replanted, this could have happened during the flood.
C. Sometimes they'll extend tree ring dates by combining similar looking rings in different trees, which is dubious to say the least.
D. Regardless of the supposed age (and the facts above) why are all of the oldest trees between 4,000 - 6,000 years, or around that? Why not 20,000... 100,000... a million? It's not an exact science, and with room for non-accounted errors, oldest trees fit well within the Biblical timeframe, not the evolutionary one.
E. All the evidence points to a massive global flood.

And let me just ask you: what would you expect to see if there was a global flood? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth, perhaps? Signs of rapid & catastrophic burial? Fossils themselves (do we see fossils forming today under normal conditions? No.)? Fish fossils on the tops of mountains (which by the way, there was much geological activity during the flood, with land sinking and rising)? Polystrate fossils going through multiple layers of rock and coal? Folded mountains and folded & buckled sediment layers (rocks don't bend or fold unless they're soft)? Completely smooth seams of strata? Places where "older strata" is on top of "younger strata" or where the native material for an entire mountain is across the sea on a different continent? Global flood legends, bearing much resemblance to the Biblical account? A genetic population bottleneck? A planet whose surface is mostly water, with plenty more underneath (PS, why is it that they can say Mars must have had a global flood, which currently has no water, and Earth, which is covered with water, can't have had one)? Just what would you expect to find?

Thank you

Lol, actually modern science was headed by many men of faith, including some of the ones you mentioned, and it was important to them how they viewed the world and did their work. Many inventions have come about by people of faith, and even some from Divine revelation. But I ask you: did evolution create computers or the internet? No. The only way the questioner's question makes sense is with the assumption that "science" proves evolution, and disproves the Bible, which it does not. In fact, science keeps proving many of the things the Bible says (in addition to archeological evidence that it is true, along with other signs such as precisely fulfilled prophecy, etc).

What proof do you have that it is a fairy tale? None. On the other hand, I can provide you with lots of evidence that it is not. See my original reply.

Cause and effect in everything doesn't prove god even if you could prove that everything has a cause which you can't.

How many galaxies,stars are out there? Planets? Trillions and trillions of planets with quadrillions of different things and you claim to know that all of them were caused by something else??? How do you know? Have you been there every time something was created?

Age of the earth, age of the universe proves the bible to be a hoax. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
There are a ton of scientific mistakes in the bible, again proving the bible to be science fiction.

If another religion has more fulfilled prophecies would you change your religion to that one?

It is my opinion.   Did humans write it?  Sure.  Is everything in it true?  No.

How about the Bible verses that talk about unicorns, witches, wizards, and magic?

Plenty, from the incoherent stories to the many scientific errors in it. Or simple logic, is god all powerful and knows everything? Then why would he need 7 days to create anything? Why would he need to rest? Why are we here if he already knows who will go to heaven? How will heaven prevent humans from doing bad things? Etc. You only need an IQ above 50 to understand the flawed logic.

Chinese medicine is connected to nutrition. Common sense says that if you don't eat, nothing will help you. After a month or two you will die of starvation. Nutrition being part of Chinese medicine, has the correct start for health through medicine. And it's all part of their religion, basically.

You can take all the non-edible medication you want, and it might keep you alive for longer than if you simply stopped the nutrition - if you inject nutrition - but your state of life won't be all that good, and you will still be getting nutrition. In addition, the Western medical is finally acknowledging the importance of nutrition, a thing that Chinese medicine has been doing for thousands of years.

I don't keep stats and facts like this in my records. Search for it on the Net.

8)

Except that the records of how it was written, the major thread of the Bible being the Messiah, the kind of people who wrote it, the fact that science that is against the Bible is gradually being proven wrong, the sense of the Bible and God in peoples' lives, and loads of other things... all prove that the Bible is way more accurate than science for everything except things that the Bible doesn't express at all.

8)

Cause and effect in everything proves God. Are you ready to show us something that exists though spontaneity rather than C&E?

You are starting to buck science. Science is built on C&E. The greater the scientist, the more he is into C&E. Even if he is looking for spontaneity, he is using C&E to find it. Do you really think that science knows about any star without using C&E to some extent to find or watch it?

Your personal science is becoming a religions cult for you that's even worse than the FE cult.

8)

Since the Bible is the only accurate way for determining the approximate age of the earth, the Bible is proving science wrong. There are tons of mistakes in science.

Anybody could write a book with prophesies in it. All one would need to do is predict that the earth will last for one more minute. Doing this every minute would outnumber Bible prophesies in short order. So, let's look at the whole thing, not just prophesies.

8)

Everything in the Bible is true, even when it talks about the lies of people and demons.

God Told the Bible writers what to write. He told them in their spirits, and they wrote it.

8)

Science is digging out things that have been unknown. Average people don't know these things. So, science is essentially discovering magical things.

God knew all about those things long ago. Some of them He had written down in the Bible.

The true magic lies in the miracles God does that don't follow the laws of nature.

8)

You love to be ignorant. Is that your goal?  Is that why you belong to your Bronze Age club?

There aen't any incoherent stories in the Bible.

Simple logic is found all over the Bible, right along with the complex logic expressed by God.

Why do you think God needed 7 days to create anything?

Why do you think God needed to rest?

We are here to prove to those who go to Hell, that God is justified in His sending them to Hell. And actually, When He proves it to them on the Judgment Day, the proof will be so overwhelming that the lost people will even wheep in pity and love for God.

No bad in Heaven. Only levels of good.

Why in the world ask such stupid questions? Why place yourself into such a silly style of thinking? Most of the stuff you ask, you only ask to test other people. God will probably set all the answers within you at the Day of Judgment, before you get a chance to ask them, and before you are cast into the Lake of Fire.

8)

Bronze Age academicians would have run rings around your type of thinking.

8)

Since the Bible is the only accurate way for determining the approximate age of the earth (Baseless claim with no evidence presented)


the Bible is proving science wrong. There are tons of mistakes in science. (Claim without any kind of evidence or example presented, where is the bible proving science wrong?)


Anybody could write a book with prophesies in it. All one would need to do is predict that the earth will last for one more minute. Doing this every minute would outnumber Bible prophesies in short order. So, let's look at the whole thing, not just prophesies. (Sounds good, the whole thing is trash as already explained before, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors too many mistakes)

There aen't any incoherent stories in the Bible.  (https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_incompleteness_and_incoherence_of_the_bible and https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/ )

Simple logic is found all over the Bible, right along with the complex logic expressed by God. (As well as tons of contradictions and stupid laws, see: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_actions_prohibited_by_the_Bible)

Why do you think God needed 7 days to create anything? (“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:3-5).

“Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Genesis 2:1-3).


Why do you think God needed to rest? (and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made” (Genesis 2:1-3). )

We are here to prove to those who go to Hell, that God is justified in His sending them to Hell. And actually, When He proves it to them on the Judgment Day, the proof will be so overwhelming that the lost people will even wheep in pity and love for God.

No bad in Heaven. Only levels of good. (How can god prevent evil in heaven?)



Next?

Science is digging out things that have been unknown. Average people don't know these things. So, science is essentially discovering magical things. (Incoherent logical assertion, science discovering things that people don't know doesn't make them magical)

God knew all about those things long ago. Some of them He had written down in the Bible. (Like for example?)

The true magic lies in the miracles God does that don't follow the laws of nature. (Baseless claim with no evidence)

^^^ Very often doctors can't figure out the reason why their patients live or die, based on all the work they have done with them. Miracles.

8)

Most sciences that are against religion are found to be baseless. Some of them are available for research to swindle or extort the government by the so called 'grant'. Science should buttress religion and make life easier. For some religion fanatics against science, they do it out of ignorance and later need science to either save their lives or make it easier. Science is now everywhere it is hard to be denied.

^^^ Much science theory discredits itself.

Big Bang Theory says that the universe was very different at and after the BB. This means that our math and physics can't be used to determine if there is a BB, because if there was, the science of it is unknown.

Or take black holes. Science theory says that the material of a BH is crushed into one point at the center of the BH. But Euclidean Geometry - that we use in life all the time - says that a point is nothing. The math that suggests that you can stick countless quantities of material in a point is extremely flawed.

Science talks about dark matter and dark energy. They don't know what it is for sure. But if you took a spinning black hole, light at the equatorial spin location just might be able to get out of the black hole through centrifugal force if the BH were spinning fast enough. But light at the poles would be trapped and sucked in. So, maybe all that dark matter and dark energy are, is black holes that we are seeing from the poles. In fact, maybe all the stars are black holes. Maybe they are black holes that we are seeing equatorially, where the light has escaped. Maybe all the dark energy and dark matter is simply a bunch of black holes that we can't see because we aren't looking at them equatorially.... but we see a few of them because we ARE in position to see them equatorially.

Science is full of guesses. They should focus on practical stuff.

8)

Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. ''An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a negative proof fallacy. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices:''

Just because we don't know why it doesn't mean you can call it a miracle since you also don't know if it really was one, you are using lack of evidence as evidence.

^^^ Thank you. All you are saying is that because science is in it's conception time, that everything is really a miracle, so far.

8)

Not guesses, theories that have some consensus agreement.

You don't find it ironic that you are typing out your anti-science beliefs on something that was only made possible by scientific discovery?  The internet.

But what is the major consensus agreement regarding a science theory? Why, that it is a science theory, of course. This means that it is the process of not being fact that they know of. In what way isn't it fact? In the way that they don't know if it is fact or not.

In other words, they are guessing. The one thing they are very sure about is that they don't know about the theory.

8)

What is this? 21 questions? How do you factually know something is not a fact?

8)

A. There's much evidence that the Earth and Universe are young, if you looked at my original reply to this thread, there are at least two former Atheists who switched to being young-earth Creationists based on the evidence. Saying it is old is based on many assumptions, including the assumption that God does not exist and did not create anything (which is a BIG assumption), and their models are full of inconsistencies that constantly run into problems in nature, they cannot fully explain how the Universe formed with their models, therefore why would you trust them to know the age?

There's a lot more evidence for a young Earth & Universe by the way than what they present in their presentations. Here's some from the original reply.

-Spike Psarris: Science or Storytelling?
Spike Psarris worked on a military space program, entering as an Atheist, become a Creationist based on the evidence, and then later becoming a Christian after that.
https://youtu.be/gufYmnj0Gjw
-Spike Psarris: Dinosaurs and the Age of the Earth
https://youtu.be/REwIALE9P2g
-What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)
See Volumes II (Our Created Stars and Galaxies) and III (Our Created Universe[?])
https://youtu.be/CzyQbOQ0dv0

-Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Another former Atheist, watch the other parts, I forget how many there are:
https://youtu.be/uJGairhrPGc

Also see:
-Origins: Our Created Moon
Here's a video about the moon from the show Origins hosted on the Cornerstone Network - watch all of their videos Cheesy
https://youtu.be/Dk50bycmr_w

-Check out SECTION 2
https://evolutionfacts.com/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

And also:
-Michael Egnor: The Evidence Against Materialism
Neurosurgeon discusses how materialism is not supported by science, but rather hinders science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI&feature=youtu.be

-James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
James Tour is a world renown synthetic organic chemist, and deals with nanotechnology, and a Messianic Jew. Type in James Tour in Youtube, and you'll see a host of videos by him, including a couple directly related to your question. This video is as well, but the title isn't as direct.
https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg


B1. There is none. B2. There are many other evidences that the Bible is true, so no. B3. The fulfilled prophesies have impossible probabilities of being fulfilled, but they were, even in recent times, and more to come (ps, have you ever looked into the odds/probabilities of things happening by chance, such as the formation of a single protein? Beyond impossible odds... over, and over, and over again. Or that it's more probable [mathematically speaking] that you're a Boltzmann brain than that the Big Bang happened? That's essentially a fully formed floating brain in space that randomly popped into existence a short moment ago and will disappear in a few short moments, lol). God was there, and He gives us the historical record, which matches scientific evidence: young earth/universe, global flood, genetic Adam & Eve, genetic population bottleneck, diaspora of languages from a single point (also seen in genetics I believe), uniqueness of creatures in their DNA and reproducing after their kinds, geological evidence of people, places, and events throughout history, etc.

Well I'm glad you're willing to admit it's your opinion. Are you willing to look objectively at evidence for it being true? I would disagree, but what specifically would you say is not true? I'd be happy to carry on a conversation via email: elijahjsanders@gmail.com.

Hi :)
A. Unicorns: please get a 1600's English dictionary and look the word up, it means a single-horned animal, and gives specific reference to a rhinoceros.
B. As to the spiritual, you're assuming that the spiritual doesn't exist, I assume you're a naturalist/materialist, which does not lend itself to the evidence, for example, please see:

-Michael Egnor: The Evidence Against Materialism
Neurosurgeon discusses how materialism is not supported by science, but rather hinders science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI&feature=youtu.be

On miracles, here's some scholarly approaches:
-Lee Strobel: The Case for Miracles
Also the man who does "The Case For Christ"
https://youtu.be/y3VSIWHZtOI

-2 Volume scholarly work: "Miracles: The Credibility Of The New Testament Accounts" by Craig Keener.

The Bible disagrees with that assumption, and so does human experience and evidence.

Thank you.

Sorry, there is no incoherent stories or scientific errors in it, unless you simply want to look at another Atheist's surface level explanation of things, instead of digging deeply into the matter and see what's really going on. And you wouldn't have logic unless a God of logic gave you the ability to reason, it would not have happened by chance. Because He chose to do it that way. To rest in that sense simply means He stopped creating, which is fairly obvious in the context. There's nothing flawed about God choosing to do things certain ways, and us not understanding it, that's our lack of understanding, it is flawed to believe that the complexity and design and immensity of life and the Universe came from nothing, and that we are descendants of rocks, or that things don't produce after their kinds as we have always observed. The Bible does say that the prolonging of Christ's return is for your chance to repent and turn to Him so you can be saved. As to what will prevent humans from doing bad in Heaven, the Bible is very cleary: A. when Jesus comes back He will do away with everything evil. B. We will be changed to be like Him (the process of which begins when you get filled with the Holy Spirit now). In essence, we will no longer have a sin nature, nor anything evil wondering around in Heaven / the New Earth.
The Bible describes this type of attitude in 1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." The crucifixion and the resurrection are facts of history, so regardless of what we don't understand, we have to deal with that fact. See near the bottom of my original reply to this thread for more.

I have no interest in dissecting your delusion.  Stay ignorant if you makes you feel better.  Just keep your delusion at home.

Why are Gods always reflecting the culture in which they were created? The Bible is not only a fairy tale, but it is a fairy tale for adults only.  A manual for a Bronze Age dweller on how to live his life. The treatment of other human beings in it is outside of the moral norms of most cultures today.

Who wrote the Bible?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1370740.msg13943874#msg13943874

Not suitable for children, some more homework for apologetics:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.msg13910414#msg13910414

Sanity self-check:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5089026.msg48861535#msg48861535

I am only replying to you as a courtesy to another human being who is a victim of this Bronze Age cult.  You need help.  I am not a psychiatrist, I cannot help you.

The One God over everything is reflected by all people in the universe... even though many of them don't understand that the reflection of God is in them.

Bible writers were people God directed to do the writing for Him. The people He used were honest people who understood that God existed. They also believed Him.

Childhood is the best time to learn Bible religion. Why? Because embedding the truth of the Bible into children keeps them faithful to God all their lives... often even when they have many doubts.

You missed the top reason why the best sanity is to believe what God says. It's so that you can be saved for Heaven. You personally need to do a self-check, and ask why you are pointing yourself towards Hell.

If you were a psychiatrist, you might be able to help yourself... not that you would, any more than most psychiatrists.

8)

You realize that the majority of Atheists in North America come from your cult, don't you?

Indoctrinating children into your cult is child abuse.

''And you wouldn't have logic unless a God of logic gave you the ability to reason, it would not have happened by chance.'' Logical Fallacy, False Dilemma: A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

It is not flawed to believe that god made mistakes, otherwise why did he need to kill everyone and start again?

Why do I care that a few idiots changed their mind and started believing in creationism? The evidence against a young earth is INSANELY HUGE. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation There are literally dozens of different methods that all point to an earth far older than 10000 years old, it's not even close lol.

All the scientific methods that show the age of the earth are based on things that we do not know. Of course, this makes them to be religious methods rather than science methods. Certainly there is some knowledge, but much of the understanding is based on things we don't know for sure... or really, even close.

All that this proves is that scientific people who believe science things that are not known is, these people have made science their religion.

So we see that people are religious beings at heart, and anything can be their religion... even science.

8)

Religions are the myths of our cultures. They can be very useful for giving broad guidelines to ways of living harmoniously and being productive to that respective culture. Or when the mythology of the religion is followed too literally and dogmatically it can cause a lot of friction, hate, and separatism, i.e.religious segregation.

In particularly religious households the myth is pressed upon the youth to be swallowed wholesale. No thought, no questioning. No asking if that is reasonable or fair.

There is a lot that is good in religion but there is also a lot of separatism, causing hate and fear of others,  too. A lot of it depends upon certain groups interpretation, of the existing holy books of that religion.

The highest and most pure part of the religions seems to overlap and be of the same essence in every culture. The love part. And especially if that love part includes all of humanity, Male, and Female, and all races, and all plants and animals. Any religion that has that is a good mythology and is beneficial to all.

But going down the list, Religions come with more and more rules and regulations.
It seems to be the downfall part of religions. Then at some points in history you have mass genocides. All in the name of religion.

The science is a way of thinking, observing and investigating our physical world around us. And as you said  "engineering".. So engineering using established facts,  or using theory to imagine possibilities beyond our present established facts. How things might work.

We can dream about anything and then figure out how to make it. That's science.

And what do we know for sure? You keep talking about knowing for sure and facts but you still dont understand that there is no such thing. Science does not operate that way. There are no 100% facts in anything. Science theory is the closest we can get to facts

So, this is why science thinks the universe is 13 billion years old? Because they don't know it? Because they know there are as many ideas that suggest the universe - at least the earth - is young, like 10,000 years old?

I'm soooo happy that scientists can get excited about the things that they don't know, and especially that they know that they don't know... even while they advertise that they are fact... like evolution, for example.

All you are suggesting is that science is a big conglomeration of science fiction.

Much of religion, on the other hand, is recorded, eye witness accounts. Some of it sci-fi science doesn't have a clue about. So science sci-fi tries to dismiss it as fantasy or fiction. But as you said, it is science that is the fiction. So their dismissals are fictitious. Religion, being eye witness accounts, is factual, even though some of it might be interpretations of what was seen, because  - as we have so often heard - truth is stranger than fiction.

8)

Show me one contemporary historical figure who actually saw Moses or Jesus for that matter.

Contemporary to what? Our time or theirs? Did Plato or Archimedes or Euclid really exist?

8)

EDIT: Miriam and Aaron saw Moses. Peter, James and John saw Jesus. (Sorry, I got carried away. You asked for only one.)

Show me one historical evidence (outside of religious texts) that Moses or Jesus existed.

Show me one place in the Bible that says that they didn't exist.     8)

You are obviously trolling because you know there is 0 evidence for anything in the bible outside the bible. Science theory is the closest to facts, a book it's not. How do you know for sure the bible wasn't written by someone else?

There are about 1.5 billion Christians in the world. The rest would be Christians if they saw the strength in Christianity. Most of the rest are simply ignorant of the Bible.

You are missing a great big chunk of evidence if you say there is zero evidence.

8)

Show me where it says in The Lord of the Rings that Frodo Baggins does not exist.

You should read other books, other than the Bible if you want to distinguish what is fiction and what is not.

Two thousand years ago, all people on Earth believed that Earth was flat.  Being wrong is not evidence you are right.  It is evidence of your ignorance of science.

You will have to take spacetime and belief in to consideration to make the math work.


That way you have room for both Moses, Jesus, God and yourself.

Science is very limited. It is divided into two basic parts:
1. The parts that are factual, like electrolysis of H2O;
2. The parts that are unknown (science theory), like Big Bang or evolution.

Religion covers the parts that science hasn't gotten to, yet.

If science fact didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

If religion didn't work, it would have been gone long ago.

Believing in science that isn't known to be fact is like making it into a religion. After all, people feel that religion is true, but they can't easily put their fingers on the facts that might make it true. Same with science theory. No facts that make science theory true, or it would be science fact. So, belief in science theory is religion or like religion.

The reason science theory works is that it is a religion to its believers.

8)

ROFL, here is the problem badecker, science is very limited, religion (which is nothing, just a book) is far more limited. Does religion have any other method that it's better than the scientific method to find out when something is true or not?

It's kinda surprising that someone who believes in science with all its limitations, would consider religion to be nothing. After all, limited science IS religion when believed in. So the believer in science is believing in nothing.

What's interesting is that the traditional religions all have psychology and understanding in them that works better than most of the science religion. In fact that's why more than half of the world's population believes in religion (the other half believing in nothing). Religion works. Even the science religion nothing... sometimes.

8)

Regardless of whether you are into Science or Religion, neither of them will solve all your problems at the end of the day.

But religion might solve all your problems at the end of your life... if you have the right religion. Scientists aren't near capable enough to make science succeed for you.

8)

That is the crux of the problem though. As you just acknowledged, it might solve your problems and it might not solve your problems at the end of your life. There is no way to confirm that your faith path is indeed the correct one, until it's too late. Even if supernatural being visits you personally, it could be a malevolent spirit leading down the wrong path...At least with science, we can always test and retests any ideas, and if we find some discrepancies, modify the ideas to conform to the measurements.

If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).

In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.

8)

Science is not a religion. There is no dogma in science. If a theory doesn't fit the measurable facts, it is eventually discarded.

Right, pure science isn't but I think he's referring to personal bias that can bleed into research or people being influenced to do certain studies (and maybe change results here and there)... those kinds of things, tampering with the actual practice of science

Measurable facts are science dogma, even though they don't fit the dogma of formal religion. Why? Because they are things that can't be changed. Do a science experiment exactly the same way every time, and you get exactly the same results every time. Science dogma is even stronger than religious dogma.

There are many science theories that are popular, but haven't been proven one way or another, yet remain theories. So, it is the decision of scientists whether or not they will drop a theory from being such.

8)

So you don't like facts, what is new?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1gC8qWh2Hs

No you don't necessarily get the same result every time. Schrodinger's cat can testify to this. Also, it is true that many science theories haven't been proven one way or the other. Although most theories have substantial evidence to back them up. (For instance, the predictions given by the Theory of General Relativity keep testing out as true.)  That is why they are called "theories."

All scientific theories have susbtantial evidence behind them, thats why they are scientific theories. Badecker thinks that only "facts" matter but in science and in anything a 100% fact simply does not exist.

So you think that it's a 100% fact that 100% facts don't exist?

Regarding Schrodinger's cat, the whole idea is to look at things that might go beyond, even, relativity. It's an area of random in the sense of the unknown, not in the sense of spontaneity. So, it isn't being done the same every time. Rather it is being done differently every time. Consider that as the earth turns, and revolves around the sun, and the sun moves through space, that the location is different. So nothing is the same.

Even Einstein showed that Relativity only worked with things of Relativity. Many people think that he didn't accept the ether. But all that he did was to reject the ether as operating in the same sphere of universal influence as Relativity:
In other words, science theories exist in their sphere of existence. But the complexity of all nature keeps us from understanding many connections between many theories, which connections render the theories in ways that are not part of the theories.

8)

As I explained several times, scientific theories are like crimes. How do you solve a crime? You can't go back in time and if it's not recorded, how can you make sure who did it? Well, you look at the evidence and when you find the DNA of the killer on the scene and the victim, the weapon in his house with his fingerprints, his motive, witnesses that saw him at the time of the crime around the area of the crime, etc, you can be pretty sure he did it but are you 100% totally sure? Never but it's more than enough to go to jail, same thing with scientific theories.

But that isn't the point.

The point revolves around the science that scientists want to accept. People like the clear way Einstein stated Relativity. So they ignore aether theory, micro gravitation theory, electric universe theory, and a whole lot of theories that might even be better at explaining things than Relativity. It's a personal preference. And for those who aren't studied in, say, Relativity, they simply get on board because of the popularity of a scientist who pushes a popular theory. The theory, itself, might be worse than a whole bunch of other theories, or some science that is not even a theory, but the choice is made for reasons other than the science involved.

Take Dawkins and evolution. Dawkins might be a bit of an evolution scientist. But he is mostly a popular mouth that says all kinds of things he can't scientifically back up. And he even admits this in his books.

Many forensic cases are being overturned because forensic science isn't accurate AND because it wasn't really followed anyway. Yet there was a guilty verdict because the jury trusted the forensic people.

The only reason a person goes to prison for a crime like you explained above is, he doesn't have enough sense to stand up for his rights. So, he volunteered for prison. Almost never will circumstantial evidence convict a person who firmly demands his rights: witness and conclusive evidence. OJ Simpson is an example of this.

8)

Do they ignore it? They don't ignore it, Einstein himself talked about Aether, for example, newton too, they simply couldn't really prove it, right now there are scientists still working on it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory but it just doesn't have enough evidence behind it to be the accepted theory, it's not because scientists ''ignore it'' lol.


 ''In physics, aether theories (also known as ether theories) propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Since the development of special relativity, theories using a substantial aether fell out of use in modern physics, and are now joined by more abstract models''

Since it is empty space that contains aether, and since such empty space fills all the volume of every atom (outside of the tiny volume of the nucleus and electrons), The aether is all over the place. Why is not the aether the priority focus of essentially every scientist, since it is the "substance" that fills all things way more than matter and energy?

What are you really trying to say about scientists? That they are stupid? That they can't even figure out what is important? Or maybe, that they have something to hide, right?

Just because their focus is directed at matter and energy things by their teachers, one would think that many of them would realize that the "substance" of empty space is the most important thing of all, since it holds everything else.

The point? They are ignoring the aether. Oh, sure. A few of them dabble in it. But essentially they are ignoring it.

8)

I just told you there is not enough evidence for it and you come here claiming that aether IS this or that, how the fuck do you know what aether is or if it exists at all? Are you trying to say you are smarter than scientists and somehow always know things they dont but with 0 evidence provided? Maybe you are god.

Now you know more than Einstein, eh? You seem to be claiming that you do. You even quoted a post of mine in your post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114009.msg51612730#msg51612730, where I showed you that Einstein, himself, acknowledged the aether, and essentially said that it filled all of space.

I know. It's fun contradicting yourself on a continual basis, right? But it isn't really fun watching you essentially destroy yourself. So I have to pity whatever kind of doofus you really are.

8)

Yes and then he came up with relativity and said he could NOT prove the existence of aether which was shown in my post above, your alzheimers is getting worse. Bottom line is, even if aether was real, its still science, nothing to do with religion here, again proving religion to be totally useless when it comes to technological development.

All you are saying is that one of the great high priests of the science religion (Einstein) has contradicted himself sufficiently enough that no sane person would ever want to accept science... if he wants to remain sane, that is.

Since that is the way you feel about science, no wonder you are having trouble figuring out the relationship between science and religion.

8)

EDIT: Btw, Alzheimer is a name. So it should be capitalized. When you don't place the apostrophe before the "s" - Alzheimers - you are simply talking about more than one person, whose names are "Alzheimer." If you mean the disease, it's written "Alzheimer's," short for "Alzheimer's disease." Do I have to explain everything to you?

And thats exactly why Einstein was a genius and you aren't. He can admit when he is wrong, he is not contradicting himself. You on the other hand will NEVER ever admit when you are wrong, even when you linked an article that was mocking creationists as evidence for creationism lol, do you remember that one?

But Einstein wasn't wrong about the fact that the aether exists. But if he said he was wrong, where? And what does his being right or wrong about something have to do with science and religion?

You still haven't showed where Einstein has contradicted himself, although you essentially said it in a previous post, shown above. Humor me, and repeat what you are talking about regarding this.

It seems that you like to continually mix things up just to attempt to prove me wrong in something. Your raging and scoffing remind me of what Solomon said, Proverbs 29:9:
8)

Exactly, whether he was right or wrong does not even matter because he was using science and the scientific method to determine those concepts, not the bible. You still havent shown anyone using something in the bible to invent something. Bible is useless, even for morals as it contains laws supporting slavery or even rape or murder.

Since God invented everything, and science only brings a little of it out into the open, religion far surpasses science... even the science of Einsteinian relativity, or his science of the aether.

8)

You have been unable to prove god created everything in the other thread so why do you keep claiming such thing? You still cannot prove there is only 1 creator and not multiple.

You have shown that you are unable to accept scientific proof, so you are locked in your own fanatic cult. You are a perfect example of the relationship between science and religion.

8)

Actually, i did you a BIG favor by accepting all your premises which are wrong, even after accepting all of them, they still dont prove a single god as shown in the other thread that you continuously ignore after slme time.

You cant prove everything has a cause.

You cant prove only more complex stuff can create less complex stuff.

You cant prove there is 1 single creator and not multiple.

You are such a funny guy. You accept all my wrong premises, but you won't accept science proof. And then you admit it. That's okay, though. Everybody needs a religion. Why won't you step up to a religion that's right?

8)

No, i said even after accepting all your premises as true, they still do not show a single creator. Because they actually point to multiple creators, specially complexity.

No, you said:
1. All my premises are wrong;
2. That you accepted them as true.

Any joker who knows that there is something wrong, yet accepts it as true, really needs to have his head examined.

Then, stating the obvious, that some wrong premises don't show something... Why would wrong premises show something? It's obvious that if there are some wrong premises, whatever they show is probably wrong, as well, right? I mean, I suppose there could be some wrong premises somewhere that accidentally show something right for some wrong reasons, or because of some misinterpretation, or by simple accident... but even talking about it without showing some reason, or detail, is goofier than the wrong premises.

Any time you want to show us how you got into outside-the-universe to find out the number of creators, all you have to do is show us how you did it. Up until then, since all we can see about outside-the-universe is one O-T-U. We can't even tell if we would begin to understand anything about whatever it is that's out there, because we only think in universe mindsets.

One of the biggest problems with complexity when creating things is working together. In the past I have used the example of people making a car. If they don't act as one, the pistons won't fit the cylinders. Some of the doors will be on backward or upside down. The wiring system won't hook to the battery, or will short the battery out when the connection is finally made. Since all we know about is one O-T-U, the best thinking would suggest that there is one creator. Otherwise the universe would never have worked.

You say that you did me a big favor. But then you demean me by telling me that all of my premises are wrong. Do you think you doing me a favor by not showing me HOW all my premises are wrong, or even stating what all my wrong premises are? You could PM me, you know, so that you don't hurt my feelings by explaining all my wrongs to everybody. Seems that you kinda are showing us that you are a bit mixed up. Have you been drinking again?

8)

First of all you have to prove there is such a thing as "outside the universe" which you have not. Second of all, you are the one claiming to know there is 1 single creatoe there, ask yourself the same question lmao, did you go there to find out? Your brain is fucked up.

Yes, people have to work together to create a car, so what? Are they not multiple people? If you and I work on a car, are we suddenly 1 person because we are working together? What kind of retarded logic are you using here?

How in the world goofy are you? Just because your body is made up of millions of parts, doesn't mean that there are a bunch of little Astargaths running around loose inside of you.

8)

No but if you and I make a car, aren't we both the creators? Or do we suddenly become one? Answer the question, you and I, we both work on the design of a car and we start building it, who is the creator? Aren't we both the creators?

The way we agree on things, as shown by our forum posts, highly suggests that the car we made wouldn't work. So, we just might both be creators of it.

8)

It's a nice way of avoiding the question but again, we would still be 2 different entities, people, humans. Humans work together all the time and they do not become 1 giant human or fuse into 1 human, they are still multiple people, your argument again, shows that anything can have different creators, claiming the universe only has 1 is flawed because you have just proved things can and do have multiple creators.

Why do you insist on apply universe concepts to outside the universe which we know nothing about except that it is incomprehensible?

8)

HAHHAHAHAHA, you sure about what you said? So we cant apply universe concepts to outside the universe? Ok.

Question, arent you using the universe concept that everything has a cause and applying it to outside the universe? Hahaha you dummy, you just destroyed your own argument lmao.

From our perspective, The Great First Cause is the cause of the universe. However, we don't even know if The Great First Cause has a perspective, to say nothing about what something like a perspective might be for TGFC.

So, again I show you that I don't have an argument to destroy, one way or another. I'm just posting.

8)

You have to admit you fucked up mate, you literally destroyed your own argument. You are telling me I can't apply anything that happens in the universe outside of it and yet you are the one applying, complexity, cause and effect and other things that are IN this universe, outside of it. Admit it, you are stupid.

As usual... you forgot to consider my previous post, which you quoted, above.

8)

You just make the shit up for the stuff you don’t know. Like all religious people do.

You said that you don’t understand how the outside of the universe works, yet you claim that it does not operate based on the cause and effect principle, and in the same sentence you claim that something outside of the universe is the cause of this universe. Just say you don’t know and stop there.  Don’t make the shit up and make logical errors at every step in your fantasy.

To say that you are confused, dumb, and ignorant is an understatement.

Yeah, at this point it's basically impossible to even discuss with him, he is literally contradicting himself 2 consecutive times, it's insane and he doesn't even realize it.

You just say that because of your limited ability to think.     8)

That's why science is just another religion. Scientists have faith in many of their theories, and the science theory process, as well.

8)

Even if they had faith in some things, it is still not based entirely in faith like christianity. People believe in the bible without any kind of evidence, most people are simply indoctrinated that way, clearly if there was enough evidence for it, most people would accept the bible as real but that is not the case.

Im still waiting for one single invention/creation/discovery that happened thanks to the bible, can you name one?

While Christianity is based entirely in faith in God, Christians aren't based entirely in faith. They have physical bodies, which if based entirely in faith, would make science to be based entirely in faith as well.

Much of the evidence of Christianity is spiritually discerned. But the fact of the physical universe is evidence that what the Bible says is true. After all, science doesn't have any facts that things that contradict the Bible are true. The closest science comes is political science, which is essentially just talk.

As far as people accepting things that are real, look at all the druggies who have messed their lives up. Yet many people ignore what can happen if they use drugs, and start using drugs, and continue until they are hooked. Now the whole USA is starting to legalize drugs. People don't always follow what there is evidence for. But the fact that there are millions of Bible-believing Christians shows that there is evidence for Bible truth. Some people can control their drug use.

Multitudes of inventions happened because of the Bible. Do you think that all the inventors of the past received spiritual motivation because of things that were not Scripturally spoken about? Many inventors who were having a difficult time in their business of inventing, asked for and received from God, motivational strength through what they read in the Bible... strength which carried them on so that they could complete their invention(s).

I feel kinda sad for you. You are intentionally, of your own volition, missing out on the greatest motivation around. Whatever placed you into that kind of mindset must be the same thing that place Satan into that kind of mindset.

How are your English studies coming along. Are you improving because of our talks in the forum?

8)

Do you have any single piece of evidence for the claim that inventors asked for gods help and received it? Let me know please because that would be some amazing evidence. I suspect you have no evidence though, just baseless claims as usual. I might as well claim inventors received allah's help or zeus help.

Since you don't seem to know how to do research, you are essentially telling us that your best ideas are all full of holes.

8)

I did my research and I found a lot of bullshit about miracles and shit. You are the one claiming some inventors got divine inspiration or were helped by god, how can you possibly know this? Would you mind telling us?

I knew it. You don't know how to do research.     8)

True but maybe since you seem to know so much, could show us how you know that some inventors got the help of the god from the bible specifically to invent something. Otherwise you are just a hoax making unsubstantiated claims.

^^^
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/photo-sad-business-team-attending-600w-113715040.jpg


 :P

Well, I'll take your lack of response and evidence as a win for me. The bible, as I said, has not helped anyone, ever, to invent/create/discover something and you have been unable to prove the contrary, therefore, science > religion by a lot.