Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Antityranicals]

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.

So at last, you are willing to acknowledge that one can know facts outside of peer review. Thank you.

[La Xinga]

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.

But I'm pretty well-learned in my religion, and literally almost everything evolution stands for goes against my beliefs, so yeah.

[Godular]

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.

There is no outside. You keep clinging to this idea but it simply does not apply.

[Celritannia]

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.

IF it is correct, however, there is no evidence to say it is correct.

Also no, you are placing your religion onto something where there is no evidence. If something is found outside of the universe, how will it prove Christianity is any more real than the other religions that have existed on Earth?

[Antityranicals]

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.

I think probably everyone except maybe you is. All you're trying to do is state that there is no proof.

[Godular]

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

So at last, you are willing to acknowledge that one can know facts outside of peer review. Thank you.

You could always take it outside and ask someone else to sit in it. Or you could also sit in it repeatedly, just to make sure that it holds up under scrutiny.

[Celritannia]

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

So at last, you are willing to acknowledge that one can know facts outside of peer review. Thank you.

That's not what I am saying. Don't put words into my mouth. Observation is one key aspect to proving something.

We have no observation into something existing outside the universe. The 2 are completely separate.

[Antityranicals]

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.

There is no outside. You keep clinging to this idea but it simply does not apply.

As I said, you don't know the universe is infinite, you just know it is larger than the observable universe. You're making a pretty big assumption to conclude that larger than x billion lightyears in diameter is the same as infinite.

[Albrenia]

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

But I'm pretty well-learned in my religion, and literally almost everything evolution stands for goes against my beliefs, so yeah.

To each their own, I guess. Evolution doesn't actually stand for anything, except the slow change of lifeforms by selective survival of mutations, though.

[Antityranicals]

So at last, you are willing to acknowledge that one can know facts outside of peer review. Thank you.

That's not what I am saying. Don't put words into my mouth. Observation is one key aspect to proving something.

We have no observation into something existing outside the universe. The 2 are completely separate.

Have you observed the fact that your five senses are correct?

[Celritannia]

There is no outside. You keep clinging to this idea but it simply does not apply.

As I said, you don't know the universe is infinite, you just know it is larger than the observable universe. You're making a pretty big assumption to conclude that larger than x billion lightyears in diameter is the same as infinite.

Oh the irony.

[Celritannia]

That's not what I am saying. Don't put words into my mouth. Observation is one key aspect to proving something.

We have no observation into something existing outside the universe. The 2 are completely separate.

Have you observed the fact that your five senses are correct?

Again, two are completely different.

Do you have evidence something exists outside the universe? No.
Can people take a photo of the chair they are sitting on, give you the make of the seat, and the company that made it? Yes.

[Godular]

There is no outside. You keep clinging to this idea but it simply does not apply.

As I said, you don't know the universe is infinite, you just know it is larger than the observable universe.

We can prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform. If it is the same at all points on the macro scale, then there is no functional indication of finite size at all. In this instance the presumption that you're making is that the universe is finite, when there is no evidence to suggest this.

[Godular]

As I said, you don't know the universe is infinite, you just know it is larger than the observable universe. You're making a pretty big assumption to conclude that larger than x billion lightyears in diameter is the same as infinite.

Oh the irony.

I very nearly coated my monitor with soda at that one, I will admit.

[Antityranicals]

Have you observed the fact that your five senses are correct?

Again, two are completely different.

Do you have evidence something exists outside the universe? No.
Can people take a photo of the chair they are sitting on, give you the make of the seat, and the company that made it? Yes.

All of this is based upon the assumption that one's five senses are accurate. If they aren't, there's no proof that even these photos exist.

[Celritannia]

Again, two are completely different.

Do you have evidence something exists outside the universe? No.
Can people take a photo of the chair they are sitting on, give you the make of the seat, and the company that made it? Yes.

All of this is based upon the assumption that one's five senses are accurate. If they aren't, there's no proof that even these photos exist.

Yup, moving goal posts and bringing in pathetic and stupid false dichotomies.

[Celritannia]

Oh the irony.

I very nearly coated my monitor with soda at that one, I will admit.

Pahaha, well, we need some humour from the BS.

[Albrenia]

Again, two are completely different.

Do you have evidence something exists outside the universe? No.
Can people take a photo of the chair they are sitting on, give you the make of the seat, and the company that made it? Yes.

All of this is based upon the assumption that one's five senses are accurate. If they aren't, there's no proof that even these photos exist.

We're heading all the way back to the 'how do we life isn't just a simulation' thing now, are we?

The only thing we can truly know for certain is that our minds exist. There's a few basic necessary assumptions which must be made to understand anything at all (that our senses are not constantly totally lying to us, for example).

[La Xinga]

But I'm pretty well-learned in my religion, and literally almost everything evolution stands for goes against my beliefs, so yeah.

To each their own, I guess. Evolution doesn't actually stand for anything, except the slow change of lifeforms by selective survival of mutations, though.

More or less, well, I guess it stands for nothing. The only thing is, is that whatever they teach, it goes against my religious beliefs.

I would not call these beliefs science, because i learn science! I love learning biology, the beautiful human body The lord created. I'm not sure why we are calling this science! Is biology not a type of science? Everything is in the bible, which includes biology and science, when I say science, I mean like earth science in volcanoes, plant life, but not heretical stuff.

[Godular]

To each their own, I guess. Evolution doesn't actually stand for anything, except the slow change of lifeforms by selective survival of mutations, though.

More or less, well, I guess it stands for nothing. The only thing is, is that whatever they teach, it goes against my religious beliefs.

I would not call these beliefs science, because i learn science! I love learning biology, the beautiful human body The lord created. I'm not sure why we are calling this science! Is biology not a type of science? Everything is in the bible, which includes biology and science, when I say science, I mean like earth science in volcanoes, plant life, but not heretical stuff.

And you are case-in-point to those circumstances in which religion and science are most assuredly not compatible.

[Antityranicals]

As I said, you don't know the universe is infinite, you just know it is larger than the observable universe.

We can prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform. If it is the same at all points on the macro scale, then there is no functional indication of finite size at all. In this instance the presumption that you're making is that the universe is finite, when there is no evidence to suggest this.

Except that in order for the universe to be infinite, it would have to grow at infinite rate. Since the concept of an infinite rate is rather nonsensical, I think that it's rather a long assumption to take the lack of contrary evidence as proof that such a thing exists. And we can't prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform, just that it has no edge that we can see, and is functionally uniform as far as we can see. Since the universe could possibly be decillions of times larger than the observable universe, using the observable universe to predict the nature of the rest is rather presumptive, like using the nature of a bacteria to conclude the nature of the galaxy.

[Albrenia]

To each their own, I guess. Evolution doesn't actually stand for anything, except the slow change of lifeforms by selective survival of mutations, though.

More or less, well, I guess it stands for nothing. The only thing is, is that whatever they teach, it goes against my religious beliefs.

I would not call these beliefs science, because i learn science! I love learning biology, the beautiful human body The lord created. I'm not sure why we are calling this science! Is biology not a type of science? Everything is in the bible, which includes biology and science, when I say science, I mean like earth science in volcanoes, plant life, but not heretical stuff.

I'll stick with the heresy that works, thanks.

[Antityranicals]

All of this is based upon the assumption that one's five senses are accurate. If they aren't, there's no proof that even these photos exist.

Yup, moving goal posts and bringing in pathetic and stupid false dichotomies.

I am simply noting that ultimately, more than just observation and peer review will be required if you want to get anywhere.

[Celritannia]

We can prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform. If it is the same at all points on the macro scale, then there is no functional indication of finite size at all. In this instance the presumption that you're making is that the universe is finite, when there is no evidence to suggest this.

Except that in order for the universe to be infinite, it would have to grow at infinite rate. Since the concept of an infinite rate is rather nonsensical, I think that it's rather a long assumption to take the lack of contrary evidence as proof that such a thing exists. And we can't prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform, just that it has no edge that we can see, and is functionally uniform as far as we can see. Since the universe could possibly be decillions of times larger than the observable universe, using the observable universe to predict the nature of the rest is rather presumptive, like using the nature of a bacteria to conclude the nature of the galaxy.

I'll take actual science over your opinions every time.

[Alvecia]

Again, two are completely different.

Do you have evidence something exists outside the universe? No.
Can people take a photo of the chair they are sitting on, give you the make of the seat, and the company that made it? Yes.

All of this is based upon the assumption that one's five senses are accurate. If they aren't, there's no proof that even these photos exist.

This is basically where peer review comes in, in it's most informal sense.

If I'm concerned my senses might be fooling me, I'd ask someone else to confirm if they are sensing the same thing.
Probably something along the lines of "oi mate, you seeing this shit?"