Is science a religion?

[BADecker]

I may not be sure if science is religion but I think our religion is based under the bible which is not part of science. Most of the time science always do not believe on what religion always say like there is God and there is salvation, heaven and hell..

The Bible talks about the major things in the universe... people. The Bible talks about the Beginning of the universe, and stretches all the way to the end. The Bible expresses science this way in all its pages. Why? Because everything that exists is full of science, even though scientists haven't dug most of the science out yet.

God is the maker of science. People will never understand all of it, and probably not most of it. Get to the important science. Read the Bible.

[1714594882]

1714594882

[1714594882]

1714594882

[1714594882]

1714594882

[Tusk]

Mathematics is the language of the universe - Galileo

On that we can almost all agree, however it is paradox how atheists use mathematics to explain the universe yet fail to recognize that the tool they use transcends the universe. Theists argue that it is God who made it, yet mathematics has not a single judgmental nor benevolent integer.

[BADecker]

Mathematics is the language of the universe - Galileo

On that we can almost all agree, however it is paradox how atheists use mathematics to explain the universe yet fail to recognize that the tool they use transcends the universe. Theists argue that it is God who made it, yet mathematics has not a single judgmental nor benevolent integer.

As a language, mathematics acts like a language. Language is not the real thing. The universe is the real thing. Language is a virtual reality if it is a reality at all. Mostly it is false and inconclusive explanations of things that are real and things that are fictional. And that is exactly how people use math.

[popcorn1]

Mathematics is the language of the universe - Galileo

On that we can almost all agree, however it is paradox how atheists use mathematics to explain the universe yet fail to recognize that the tool they use transcends the universe. Theists argue that it is God who made it, yet mathematics has not a single judgmental nor benevolent integer.

As a language, mathematics acts like a language. Language is not the real thing. The universe is the real thing. Language is a virtual reality if it is a reality at all. Mostly it is false and inconclusive explanations of things that are real and things that are fictional. And that is exactly how people use math.

You must be too clever for us mere mortals because what you have just wrote as totally lost me.Do you even know what your talking about..Who made god?.
If your saying nothing can come from nothing so there must be a god..WHO MADE GOD.

You can keep preaching your lie's 21st century religion is dying..
And you can see why it's dying just listen to BADECKER say's it all..

Good job BADECKER'S not a Muslim .Imagine what he be saying

[BADecker]

Mathematics is the language of the universe - Galileo

On that we can almost all agree, however it is paradox how atheists use mathematics to explain the universe yet fail to recognize that the tool they use transcends the universe. Theists argue that it is God who made it, yet mathematics has not a single judgmental nor benevolent integer.

As a language, mathematics acts like a language. Language is not the real thing. The universe is the real thing. Language is a virtual reality if it is a reality at all. Mostly it is false and inconclusive explanations of things that are real and things that are fictional. And that is exactly how people use math.

You must be too clever for us mere mortals because what you have just wrote written as totally lost me.

Perhaps too clever, but way more knowledgeable.

Do you even know what your talking about..Who made god?.
If your you're saying nothing can come from nothing so there must be a god..WHO MADE GOD.

The physics in God's Heaven of Heavens - where He existed before creating this universe/terrarium - doesn't have limited ideas like "making" or "creating" within its structure. Such limited things are saved for this limited universe.

You can keep preaching your lie's 21st century religion is dying..
And you can see why it's dying just listen to BADECKER say's it all..

Good job BADECKER'S not a Muslim .Imagine what he be saying

Quite the contrary. Look at the evidence. Religion isn't dying. People are dying. When people die, their ideals die with them. The thing that lasts forever is the Word of God. Thus, if you stick to the Word of God, you will last forever with it. But if you separate yourself from it... you can't. You will only succeed in dying forever from it for trying to separate yourself from it.

[Moloch]

Of course science is not a religion, that's silly

Science does however have some religious-like qualities at times...



Take the debate about Global Warming

Global warming/climate change has become all too religious like...

People choose a side based on gut feelings, rather than research...

Much of the research is pseudoscience...

Many of the claims boil down to an argument from authority, "97% of scientists believe it, so you should too" (not even a true statement)

Much of the evidence is fabricated (historical temperature data has been "adjusted", new thermometers measure temperature differently, and are placed in the sun, etc)

The whole premise boils down to "fix it soon or you will burn in a lake of fire"... it's a scary doomsday scenario like religion... and just like religion, not supported by the evidence


I personally do not believe in anthropogenic global warming for the same reason I do not believe in religion... the evidence is lacking in both quality and quantity

[popcorn1]

Mathematics is the language of the universe - Galileo

On that we can almost all agree, however it is paradox how atheists use mathematics to explain the universe yet fail to recognize that the tool they use transcends the universe. Theists argue that it is God who made it, yet mathematics has not a single judgmental nor benevolent integer.

As a language, mathematics acts like a language. Language is not the real thing. The universe is the real thing. Language is a virtual reality if it is a reality at all. Mostly it is false and inconclusive explanations of things that are real and things that are fictional. And that is exactly how people use math.

You must be too clever for us mere mortals because what you have just wrote written as totally lost me.

Perhaps too clever, but way more knowledgeable.

Do you even know what your talking about..Who made god?.
If your you're saying nothing can come from nothing so there must be a god..WHO MADE GOD.

The physics in God's Heaven of Heavens - where He existed before creating this universe/terrarium - doesn't have limited ideas like "making" or "creating" within its structure. Such limited things are saved for this limited universe.

You can keep preaching your lie's 21st century religion is dying..
And you can see why it's dying just listen to BADECKER say's it all..

Good job BADECKER'S not a Muslim .Imagine what he be saying

Quite the contrary. Look at the evidence. Religion isn't dying. People are dying. When people die, their ideals die with them. The thing that lasts forever is the Word of God. Thus, if you stick to the Word of God, you will last forever with it. But if you separate yourself from it... you can't. You will only succeed in dying forever from it for trying to separate yourself from it.

When I ever write a letter I will get you to check my spelling for me thanks..
such a kind person

[BADecker]

Mathematics is the language of the universe - Galileo

On that we can almost all agree, however it is paradox how atheists use mathematics to explain the universe yet fail to recognize that the tool they use transcends the universe. Theists argue that it is God who made it, yet mathematics has not a single judgmental nor benevolent integer.

As a language, mathematics acts like a language. Language is not the real thing. The universe is the real thing. Language is a virtual reality if it is a reality at all. Mostly it is false and inconclusive explanations of things that are real and things that are fictional. And that is exactly how people use math.

You must be too clever for us mere mortals because what you have just wrote written as totally lost me.

Perhaps too clever, but way more knowledgeable.

Do you even know what your talking about..Who made god?.
If your you're saying nothing can come from nothing so there must be a god..WHO MADE GOD.

The physics in God's Heaven of Heavens - where He existed before creating this universe/terrarium - doesn't have limited ideas like "making" or "creating" within its structure. Such limited things are saved for this limited universe.

You can keep preaching your lie's 21st century religion is dying..
And you can see why it's dying just listen to BADECKER say's it all..

Good job BADECKER'S not a Muslim .Imagine what he be saying

Quite the contrary. Look at the evidence. Religion isn't dying. People are dying. When people die, their ideals die with them. The thing that lasts forever is the Word of God. Thus, if you stick to the Word of God, you will last forever with it. But if you separate yourself from it... you can't. You will only succeed in dying forever from it for trying to separate yourself from it.

When I ever write a letter I will get you to check my spelling for me thanks..
such a kind person

Just trying to be agreeable, even though I know that it won't always be possible.

[Mikestang]

I suggest everyone posting to this thread and any others about science vs. faith read "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.  It is fantastic.

[Moloch]

I suggest everyone posting to this thread and any others about science vs. faith read "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.  It is fantastic.

Carl Sagan on Religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBCFQtDLPA0

[popcorn1]

Of course science is not a religion, that's silly

Science does however have some religious-like qualities at times...



Take the debate about Global Warming

Global warming/climate change has become all too religious like...

People choose a side based on gut feelings, rather than research...

Much of the research is pseudoscience...

Many of the claims boil down to an argument from authority, "97% of scientists believe it, so you should too" (not even a true statement)

Much of the evidence is fabricated (historical temperature data has been "adjusted", new thermometers measure temperature differently, and are placed in the sun, etc)

The whole premise boils down to "fix it soon or you will burn in a lake of fire"... it's a scary doomsday scenario like religion... and just like religion, not supported by the evidence


I personally do not believe in anthropogenic global warming for the same reason I do not believe in religion... the evidence is lacking in both quality and quantity

I will believe in anything if you prove it too me..I always say better to think global warming or cooling then we try find clean energy faster..

No surprise if it's all a lie ..Just are you that sure it's not a lie?.clean energy is what's needed..

Why is there blood in your body? do you need your blood..EARTH NEED'S IT'S BLOOD..

Let's say there was no climate denier's would we change are ways..Only when it's to late..
So even if you don't believe it's better to believe because things will get done faster to find clean energy..WIN WIN for everyone..Just my thoughts..

Also if you look around the world you can see as plain as day there as been many changes to this planet before oil was even used ..It's just what if all these scientist are right can we afford to be wrong..Simple answer no..
If you look around the world you can see where there was once a sea and now land and vice versa..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6qNsU2ngtA..Helps to understand the changes of the earth..
Underwater cave divers ..good watch

[Moloch]

It's just what if all these scientist are right can we afford to be wrong..Simple answer no..

This is the perspective they have tried to push, but I don't buy it...

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

The evidence really is not there... at best, the evidence is anecdotal - showing a correlation without proving causation


The main selling point is similar to christianity and "Pascal's Wager"... which is itself a logical fallacy...

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence... the evidence is lacking... the evidence has not met the burden of proof... simple as that...

If someone actually does find some legitimate evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming, I will change my mind...
But, the evidence currently being presented is shit pseudoscience

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

[popcorn1]

It's just what if all these scientist are right can we afford to be wrong..Simple answer no..

This is the perspective they have tried to push, but I don't buy it...

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

The evidence really is not there... at best, the evidence is anecdotal - showing a correlation without proving causation


The main selling point is similar to christianity and "Pascal's Wager"... that is a logical fallacy...

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence... the evidence is lacking... the evidence has not met the burden of proof... simple as that...

If someone actually does find some legitimate evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming, I will change my mind...
But, the evidence currently being presented is shit pseudoscience

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM..Who measured this 400 years ago?
And how..
I am not saying your wrong.. Money is always the plan in my thinking what ever humans do always about the money..
But just sometimes in life some humans have all the money and want to do the right thing.
Very rare but there is people out there like this..
Also I have never really studied global warming science so I think I will have a look..
My question is..WHY WHY WHY so i think i need to look at the science behind all this global warming  theory..
So av a nice day all..Badecker do us a favour check my spelling if you like i am sure i have done something wrong..THANKS

[Gronthaing]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

[BADecker]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Even as CO2 levels were very different in the past, so was the C-14 content. That's why there is a complete difference between the time-passage that current scholars suggest, and the time-passage that the Bible reports on.

It is suggested that Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is, say, 12 and a half thousand years old. The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old. C-14 content from before the Great Flood of Noah's day was extremely different, being changed by the things that caused the Great Flood.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

[popcorn1]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Not saying your wrong but..97% might want to keep there jobs?All about the money..

But i am all for believing just in case the 97% are right..Car fumes are like smoking if we can quit then why not..

[BADecker]

...

Not saying your wrong but..97% might want to keep there their jobs?All about the money..

...

Typo?     

[Gronthaing]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Not saying your wrong but..97% might want to keep there jobs?All about the money..

But i am all for believing just in case the 97% are right..Car fumes are like smoking if we can quit then why not..

That assumes a conspiracy. That any scientist with evidence man made climate change isn't real wouldn't be hired anywhere else. Anywhere in the world. Hard to believe. Would need coordination and cooperation of too many people. And in very different countries.

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Even as CO2 levels were very different in the past, so was the C-14 content. That's why there is a complete difference between the time-passage that current scholars suggest, and the time-passage that the Bible reports on.

It is suggested that Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is, say, 12 and a half thousand years old. The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old. C-14 content from before the Great Flood of Noah's day was extremely different, being changed by the things that caused the Great Flood.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

The 13 billion year old universe idea is not based on C-14 content.

[BADecker]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Even as CO2 levels were very different in the past, so was the C-14 content. That's why there is a complete difference between the time-passage that current scholars suggest, and the time-passage that the Bible reports on.

It is suggested that Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is, say, 12 and a half thousand years old. The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old. C-14 content from before the Great Flood of Noah's day was extremely different, being changed by the things that caused the Great Flood.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

The 13 billion year old universe idea is not based on C-14 content.

Still speculation.   

[Gronthaing]

In Earth's history, CO2 levels have been above 8000 PPM... we are currently at  350 PPM and worried?!?  WHY?

Maybe because the earth was very different then? And nowhere we want to go back to.

I think its a complete scam to swindle tax-payers out of $20,000,000,000 every year (that's a lot of money for a claim with such poor evidence... like religion)

So you're saying scientists that look at the evidence are all in on it? Or incompetent? Maybe the 97% isn't accurate. But the vast majority agrees with anthropogenic climate change.

Even as CO2 levels were very different in the past, so was the C-14 content. That's why there is a complete difference between the time-passage that current scholars suggest, and the time-passage that the Bible reports on.

It is suggested that Gobekli Tepe in Turkey is, say, 12 and a half thousand years old. The Bible says that the whole universe is only a little over 6,000 years old. C-14 content from before the Great Flood of Noah's day was extremely different, being changed by the things that caused the Great Flood.

The whole idea of a 13 or 14 billion year old universe is 100% speculation by scientists who would rather be speculators than scientists.

The 13 billion year old universe idea is not based on C-14 content.

Still speculation.   

Maybe. But with more evidence to back it up than you gave against it. And more important it gives a framework to understand and predict events. And it has worked well so far.