Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Antityranicals]

1. That's not one of my premises.
2. That's not a premise either.
3. That's not a premise, that's a conclusion.
4. That doesn't even have anything to do with my proof.

Since you don't seem to even be attacking my proof, which is proof not of anything about the nature of God, but simply that the universe had a cause, I'll repeat it here:

We are not "making shit up." According to the second law of logic, the statement "this thing had a cause," when applied to anything, is either true or false. If we declare the answer to this to be false, when applied to a certain noun, we are declaring that there is nothing outside of that noun required to explain the existence of that noun. Therefore, that noun would be self-explanatory. That which is self-explanatory is always true. Therefore, that noun, whatever it might be, is by nature incapable of nonexistence, because to declare something non-existent is to declare the proposition of its existence false. If something is incapable of nonexistence, there cannot be any point in reality at which the statement "said noun does not exist" is true. The Big Bang is the point at which the universe began. For a noun to begin is for it to change from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. As such, the very fact of the Big Bang is proof that the statement "the universe had a cause" is not false, and therefore true. There must be a cause to the universe, which is not the universe. The laws of science and time may have not applied before the Big Bang, but the laws of logic certainly did.

The Universe might have changed state from the Big Bang, but that doesn't really mean that is when it was 'Created'. The singularity 'prior' to the Big Bang was never 'created', so it has no 'cause' to our knowledge.

Thank you, now you're actually being rational. So what you're saying is that the singularity which was to be the universe existed for all of eternity?

[La Xinga]

Well then, I surely should not join, as I believe the uyniverse is made up of 7 skies till heaven and each one takes 500 years to travel form one to the next!

Wow. You definitely shouldn't, because that manages the surprising feat of being more wrong than should be quantifiable.

I wouldn't say so....

[Albrenia]

The Universe might have changed state from the Big Bang, but that doesn't really mean that is when it was 'Created'. The singularity 'prior' to the Big Bang was never 'created', so it has no 'cause' to our knowledge.

Thank you, now you're actually being rational. So what you're saying is that the singularity which was to be the universe existed for all of eternity?

Maybe? Time didn't exist so eternity isn't really a concept which applies well.

[Estanglia]

That an effect in a timeless state requires a cause from outside or before to occur. We don't know that to be the case.
That an effect with a net zero output requires a cause at all. Does nothing require a cause to happen?
That something existing outside or before the universe is even possible.
That something existing outside our reality and creating the universe is itself a 'Prime Mover' and not just one in a literally endless conga line of effects.

That's just a few.

1. That's not one of my premises.
2. That's not a premise either.
3. That's not a premise, that's a conclusion.
4. That doesn't even have anything to do with my proof.

Since you don't seem to even be attacking my proof, which is proof not of anything about the nature of God, but simply that the universe had a cause, I'll repeat it here:

We are not "making shit up." According to the second law of logic, the statement "this thing had a cause," when applied to anything, is either true or false. If we declare the answer to this to be false, when applied to a certain noun, we are declaring that there is nothing outside of that noun required to explain the existence of that noun. Therefore, that noun would be self-explanatory. That which is self-explanatory is always true. Therefore, that noun, whatever it might be, is by nature incapable of nonexistence, because to declare something non-existent is to declare the proposition of its existence false. If something is incapable of nonexistence, there cannot be any point in reality at which the statement "said noun does not exist" is true. The Big Bang is the point at which the universe began. For a noun to begin is for it to change from a state of nonexistence to a state of existence. As such, the very fact of the Big Bang is proof that the statement "the universe had a cause" is not false, and therefore true. There must be a cause to the universe, which is not the universe. The laws of science and time may have not applied before the Big Bang, but the laws of logic certainly did.

The Big Bang is when the universe began expanding.

Unless you have logic that shows that "began expanding = when it began", or proof that the universe didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, this is incorrect.

[Antityranicals]

1. My proof simply isn't an astrophysical proof. That would be as silly as sending it to the NIH.
2. That's just plain dumb... I don't even know what to say about it...
3. What, O ye wise, I ask of thee, is "THE scientific principle."

1. Something existing outside of the universe is something an astrophysicists would be able to say yes or no to.
2. Well, it is neither a fact, nor proof what you are spouting. So what is it?
3. Well, claiming your own work certainly isn't scientific, nor logical; that's a given.

1. Not any more than a doctor could say yes or no to the existence of an exoplanet just because it is "outside the body."
2. If it isn't fact, pray do tell what exactly is wrong with it. Other than just that it offends your sensibilities.
3. What?

[Antityranicals]

Thank you, now you're actually being rational. So what you're saying is that the singularity which was to be the universe existed for all of eternity?

Maybe? Time didn't exist so eternity isn't really a concept which applies well.

Okay, but that it had no beginning?

[Albrenia]

A doctor is well aware of the possibility of things existing outside the body, though.

[Godular]

Wow. You definitely shouldn't, because that manages the surprising feat of being more wrong than should be quantifiable.

I wouldn't say so....

Whether you say so or not is functionally irrelevant in this case, no matter how many winky smilies you might slap on your post (incidentally, that's a form of spam, you're gonna want to keep that crap to a minimum). On this particular instance I'm pretty damn certain you've no proof whatsoever to support your claim.

[Celritannia]

1. Something existing outside of the universe is something an astrophysicists would be able to say yes or no to.
2. Well, it is neither a fact, nor proof what you are spouting. So what is it?
3. Well, claiming your own work certainly isn't scientific, nor logical; that's a given.

1. Not any more than a doctor could say yes or no to the existence of an exoplanet just because it is "outside the body."
2. If it isn't fact, pray do tell what exactly is wrong with it. Other than just that it offends your sensibilities.
3. What?

Facts are based on research from being peer reviewed.

[Antityranicals]

A doctor is well aware of the possibility of things existing outside the body, though.

As are a great many astrophysicists aware of things outside the universe. But it is nonetheless not his field. The doctor doesn't become aware through medical studies of things outside of the body.

[Albrenia]

Maybe? Time didn't exist so eternity isn't really a concept which applies well.

Okay, but that it had no beginning?

To our knowledge, it had no beginning.

The main problem is we can't conceive of any way to determine if it did have a beginning, since our senses and tools cannot measure something in a timeless state. So it -could- have a beginning, or it could just have always existed.

[La Xinga]

1. Not any more than a doctor could say yes or no to the existence of an exoplanet just because it is "outside the body."
2. If it isn't fact, pray do tell what exactly is wrong with it. Other than just that it offends your sensibilities.
3. What?

Facts are based on research from being peer reviewed.

What research? What did they experiment? What did they exactly do?

I'M JUST CURIOUS!

[Ochenea]

To answer the title question: I am quite certain I found a book in the mosque I used to go to arguing against evolution, and some of the students in my earth science class going up to the board and arguing against pangea have led me to believe that it isn't compatible for some people. Some interpretations of Religions can be rather accepting of science however.

[Celritannia]

A doctor is well aware of the possibility of things existing outside the body, though.

As are a great many astrophysicists aware of things outside the universe. But it is nonetheless not his field. The doctor doesn't become aware through medical studies of things outside of the body.

I think a credible scientist with access to the greatest technology able to study the wonders of the universe will be able to look into something existing outside of the universe.
Countless scientists are already doing this, as well as looking at what caused the the universe to come into being.

[La Xinga]

To answer the title question: I am quite certain I found a book in the mosque I used to go to arguing against evolution, and some of the students in my earth science class going up to the board and arguing against pangea have led me to believe that it isn't compatible for some people. Some interpretations of Religions can be rather accepting of science however.

Never learnt about evolution, but from what i know it is 100% against my beliefs.

[Albrenia]

To answer the title question: I am quite certain I found a book in the mosque I used to go to arguing against evolution, and some of the students in my earth science class going up to the board and arguing against pangea have led me to believe that it isn't compatible for some people. Some interpretations of Religions can be rather accepting of science however.

Never learnt about evolution, but from what i know it is 100% against my beliefs.

A shame. Evolution is pretty much certain, as far as we can know things.

[Antityranicals]

1. Not any more than a doctor could say yes or no to the existence of an exoplanet just because it is "outside the body."
2. If it isn't fact, pray do tell what exactly is wrong with it. Other than just that it offends your sensibilities.
3. What?

Facts are based on research from being peer reviewed.

Most aren't. Otherwise, life would be quite a long and meticulous process. Before we sit down in a chair, we'd have to ascertain that the chair does, in fact, exist, via research, peer review... Oh, wait, how do we know that our peers actually exist...

[Godular]

Maybe? Time didn't exist so eternity isn't really a concept which applies well.

Okay, but that it had no beginning?

Trying to claim whether there was 'a beginning' is itself a red herring. We don't know what the universe was like past a certain point. We have no means of observing it. The rules could have been, and almost certainly were, completely different. Time, matter, and pretty much everything would not have operated under principles that we have come to operate.

[Godular]

Facts are based on research from being peer reviewed.

Most aren't. Otherwise, life would be quite a long and meticulous process. Before we sit down in a chair, we'd have to ascertain that the chair does, in fact, exist, via research, peer review... Oh, wait, how do we know that our peers actually exist...

Oh, you uppity figment of my imagination. Such silly delusions you possess.

[Celritannia]

Facts are based on research from being peer reviewed.

Most aren't. Otherwise, life would be quite a long and meticulous process. Before we sit down in a chair, we'd have to ascertain that the chair does, in fact, exist, via research, peer review... Oh, wait, how do we know that our peers actually exist...

Now you are being silly. Of course when we sit down we know the chair is there as we can see it.

[Albrenia]

Okay, but that it had no beginning?

Trying to claim whether there was 'a beginning' is itself a red herring. We don't know what the universe was like past a certain point. We have no means of observing it. The rules could have been, and almost certainly were, completely different. Time, matter, and pretty much everything would not have operated under principles that we have come to operate.

That's what I was trying to say, but you said it much better.

[Antityranicals]

As are a great many astrophysicists aware of things outside the universe. But it is nonetheless not his field. The doctor doesn't become aware through medical studies of things outside of the body.

I think a credible scientist with access to the greatest technology able to study the wonders of the universe will be able to look into something existing outside of the universe.
Countless scientists are already doing this, as well as looking at what caused the the universe to come into being.

If Christianity is correct about the nature of that which is outside the universe, there is nothing that any observation tool will be able to do to observe it. In fact, if scientists did find something outside of the universe, that would be a more concrete disproof of Christianity than anything y'all have been throwing.

[Godular]

Facts are based on research from being peer reviewed.

What research? What did they experiment? What did they exactly do?

I'M JUST CURIOUS!

Incorrect question.

[Albrenia]

I think a credible scientist with access to the greatest technology able to study the wonders of the universe will be able to look into something existing outside of the universe.
Countless scientists are already doing this, as well as looking at what caused the the universe to come into being.

If Christianity is correct about the nature of that which is outside the universe, there is nothing that any observation tool will be able to do to observe it. In fact, if scientists did find something outside of the universe, that would be a more concrete disproof of Christianity than anything y'all have been throwing.

Nobody's trying to disprove Christianity here, for starters.

[Godular]

To answer the title question: I am quite certain I found a book in the mosque I used to go to arguing against evolution, and some of the students in my earth science class going up to the board and arguing against pangea have led me to believe that it isn't compatible for some people. Some interpretations of Religions can be rather accepting of science however.

Never learnt about evolution, but from what i know it is 100% against my beliefs.

And that is singularly depressing. I was under the impression that Judaism was more forward thinking than that.