Science and Religion?

[iamhungry]

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

[BADecker]

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.

[bones261]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[bones261]

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.

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

[iamhungry]

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.

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

[BADecker]

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.

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

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.

[bones261]

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.

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."

[Astargath]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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:

...

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

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.

[Astargath]

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.

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:

...

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[Astargath]

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.

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''

[BADecker]

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.

[Astargath]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[Astargath]

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.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.



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?

[Astargath]

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.

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.



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?

[BADecker]

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.

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.



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:

If a wise person goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.