Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

a reply to: chr0naut
No entity is required, except unless a god is desired to be created.
In that case man suffices to create it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

I am not he?
You are not me?
We are not all together?

Are we not crying?

Hmm, so, you aren't the walrus.

Point is moot.

a reply to: chr0naut
Is it? You said the lyrics are simplistic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Is it? You said the lyrics are simplistic.

Are you suggesting that Mr Minchin's song was an exploration of chemically induced images and archetypes?

"Keep on playing those mind games..."

a reply to: chr0naut
Oh that.
No, I thought you were talking about Lennon.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I am not understanding what you are saying;

I'm not surprised.

what circular argument?

Did God create itself?
Yes.

Precisely, if God is atemporal, God can create be Gods creator. No other entity is required.

So God can be in many places at once just being itself at play; (not at all confusing). Here is the problem which one is actually God IN RESIDENCE (the main guy, the one that will admit to shenanigans forced upon its creations to COP TO as shills). Are we Gods creator/no other entity need apply for the job?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

Science cannot explain many things that are observed and faith is often based upon an attempt to explain particular observations, especially in the gaps that science is inadequate to explain.

The particular song lyric is reductionist and overly simplistic.

Science is clear, what it can't explain, does not make up story to explain it... that is point of first post. While faith is simple, it has explanation, not good one, as it was made up about 2,000 years ago... too many holes in whole text book...

And, please, do not try to use religion as source of ethics and morals... It just does not work...

We are way past those moral standards that gives you clear instructions how to hold and use slave, how to turn your child into slave/ sell it or how to deal with those that don't believe... We lived those morals too long... many burning stakes...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Oh that.
No, I thought you were talking about Lennon.

Perhaps I should clarify by saying that Mr Minchin's lyric insubstantial as a basis for ongoing philosophical debate.

a reply to: chr0naut

I was under impression we are talking about factual difference between religion and science... I believe there is not much philosophy there... as soon as you see evidence...

It is interesting... belief that God can create itself... i perhaps human form?

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

Science cannot explain many things that are observed and faith is often based upon an attempt to explain particular observations, especially in the gaps that science is inadequate to explain.

The particular song lyric is reductionist and overly simplistic.

Science is clear, what it can't explain, does not make up story to explain it... that is point of first post. While faith is simple, it has explanation, not good one, as it was made up about 2,000 years ago... too many holes in whole text book...

And, please, do not try to use religion as source of ethics and morals... It just does not work...

We are way past those moral standards that gives you clear instructions how to hold and use slave, how to turn your child into slave/ sell it or how to deal with those that don't believe... We lived those morals too long... many burning stakes...

Scientific method mandates the drawing of theoretical conclusions as a step. It does require that the scientist makes stuff up.

Both science and religion are searches for truth and both science and religion continually put their theories to the test to validate them. The difference is that religion accepts revelation via spiritual means as the norm, whereas it is less accepted in science (although not unknown).

a reply to: chr0naut

Both science and religion are searches for truth and both science and religion continually put their theories to the test to validate them.

First, a cogent definition of truth would be required but how does religion go about testing its hypotheses (or theories).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

Both science and religion are searches for truth and both science and religion continually put their theories to the test to validate them.

First, a cogent definition of truth would be required but how does religion go about testing its hypotheses (or theories).

"Quid est veritas"? That's the billion dollar question.

By seeking personal spiritual revelation.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Scientific method mandates the drawing of theoretical conclusions as a step. It does require that the scientist makes stuff up.

Science clearly makes difference between hypothesis and theory, first one being best guess, second one being a proven, working and testable model.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Both science and religion are searches for truth and both science and religion continually put their theories to the test to validate them. The difference is that religion accepts revelation via spiritual means as the norm, whereas it is less accepted in science (although not unknown).

O please stop with this non-sense... what truth is religion looking for and how did you in world manage to equalize science and religion in the same sentence??? They are very different, as seen in this thread and in opening post.

a reply to: chr0naut

By seeking personal spiritual revelation.

Keyword being personal. Personal experience is subjective. Science is not personal.
Not compatible. Science does not deal with personal experience.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

By seeking personal spiritual revelation.

Keyword being personal. Personal experience is subjective. Science is not personal.
Not compatible. Science does not deal with personal experience.

Is personal experience invalid somehow?

a reply to: chr0naut
No.
Personal spiritual revelation is not testable. Nirvana is not testable.
Spirituality is not the realm of science.

a reply to: Barcs

well, yes mostly that is true. But even science got those facts many times wrong, and them changed them. And that is great, every thing must develop, based on observation and correct understanding that comes with it. With time comes better technology and with that we can observe in more detail what's going on.

But even with that, science is based on many theories for things we don't know much about, like about creation of life, conciousness, universe.., there are many observable things, and they are based on certain facts. But some facts may prove to be wrong and a few of them surly will, as they have been a few times in the past.

For instance, I looked at this video recently:
www.youtube.com...

It was very interesting for me. It explains the universe in a whole different way then it is believed by mainstream. His facts are different and are making more sense and predicting many things with sensible explanation without dark matter, dark energy or black holes. hmm ... How is that for blind belief? haha

Or if you check some thread on ATS about quantum theory. Some of them include very heated debates on interesting stuff about global conciousness and many other topics.

And it is the same with the religion. It is just a stepping stone to something even greater. Which you must explore yourself if you want proof of it. Every thing is just in a process of developments, changes are ever present with every thing you get yourself into. And in case of religion it is just a guide to being a nice, honest person with a good heart, if practised correctly. And after that if you want to, it is a free word after all , comes spirituality and with it meditation and your own experiences and facts, which to are proven many times to be wrong and you develop them with observations.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
No.
Personal spiritual revelation is not testable. Nirvana is not testable.
Spirituality is not the realm of science.

Entirely testable, just easier to prove personally.

Nirvana and ecstatic states can be externally verified on an MRI, but there is far more solid evidence for the one experiencing.

In the light of personal experience, all other 'proofs' are pale and insubstantial.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nirvana and ecstatic states can be externally verified on an MRI

Do you know what Nirvana is supposed to be?
"Ecstatic states" can be induced pharmacologically. They are physiological effects and do not indicate the existence of a creator.

In the light of personal experience, all other 'proofs' are pale and insubstantial.

That's a matter of opinion, not science.

originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Barcs
well, yes mostly that is true. But even science got those facts many times wrong, and them changed them. And that is great, every thing must develop, based on observation and correct understanding that comes with it. With time comes better technology and with that we can observe in more detail what's going on.

Difference between when science gets facts wrong and we learn something new is that science will change and adopt those changes if proven correct, where religion denies facts in order to preserve belief, Isn't that what I wrote in first post and part of song by Dr. Minchin?! Also, please note that mostly new evidence changes earlier theory, adds to it. It is very rare that whole theory is wrong.

originally posted by: UniFinity
But even with that, science is based on many theories for things we don't know much about, like about creation of life, conciousness, universe.., there are many observable things, and they are based on certain facts. But some facts may prove to be wrong and a few of them surly will, as they have been a few times in the past.

No, you got wrong meaning of theory in science. Sure, there are hypothesis in science, but if something is called scientific theory, then is proven, workable and testable model. As I said already, mostly new addition will prove and update theory, very rarely would it change completely. If you have good example of one, please post it here.

originally posted by: UniFinity
For instance, I looked at this video recently:
www.youtube.com...

O boy, everything is shaken... even earth... and ground we walk on...

Please note, this is what this is all about...

I am very happy to announce that after eight long years of research and development that the first consumer product based on Primer Field technology is here. The PrimerCube is a revolutionary health enhancement device that emits a uniquely structured ionic field which produces benefits that are beyond belief. For more information on the PrimerCube please visit www.primercube.com

More information about the PrimerCube will be added to that website daily, so keep checking there for the latest in...

I really hope you did not order one... as scam as this we have everywhere... some of them are doing quite well, ask Deepak Chopra and his spiritual explanation of quantum mechanics and belief that even atoms have consciousness.
Silly, but I can see how those things can do well with someone wanting to believe in this nonsense...

originally posted by: UniFinity
It was very interesting for me. It explains the universe in a whole different way then it is believed by mainstream. His facts are different and are making more sense and predicting many things with sensible explanation without dark matter, dark energy or black holes. hmm ... How is that for blind belief? haha

There are much better ways to kill time and learn at the same time. Watch original and new Cosmos for starter, if you really interested in science. Not sure if you have seen them, but if haven't, please do so.

originally posted by: UniFinity
Or if you check some thread on ATS about quantum theory. Some of them include very heated debates on interesting stuff about global conciousness and many other topics.

Only person suggesting that as far as I know is Chopra and after last debate with Dawkins, he announced it was one in time event... and he failed and was showed just as someone mixing stuff he don't know about with his belief. There is video around when someone from field actually called him to explain to him how his misinterpretation of physics just don't make any sense.

originally posted by: UniFinity
And it is the same with the religion. It is just a stepping stone to something even greater. Which you must explore yourself if you want proof of it. Every thing is just in a process of developments, changes are ever present with every thing you get yourself into. And in case of religion it is just a guide to being a nice, honest person with a good heart, if practised correctly. And after that if you want to, it is a free word after all

, comes spirituality and with it meditation and your own experiences and facts, which to are proven many times to be wrong and you develop them with observations.

Not sure how do you see religion as stepping stone to something even greater, when it start with false accusation that you are sinful and responsible for something you did not even do... or by God killing first borns of Egypt - that that makes you feel good and greater?!

Practiced correctly?! Do you believe for last 1800 years people did not practice it correctly?