Are religion and science compatible?

[Satuga]

But wouldn't the existence of a dinosaur completely destroy the theory that evolution does not exist? Which is a keen point many theists have made.

An increasingly vanishingly small percentage of religious believers believe in creationism (interestingly, a small percentage of atheists -- however -- do believe in Creationism). I'll quote an earlier post for ease (this research is from Pew):

[...]
In the US, an average of 18% of people believe in creationism, 48% believe in evolution guided by a higher power 33% believe in entirely natural evolution.

When broken down by religious affiliation, we get:

• 64% of people with no religious affiliation believe in natural evolution, 24% in guided evolution¹, and 11% in creationism
• 30% of Catholics believe in natural evolution; 56% in some form of guided evolution, and 13% in creationism
• 30% of white mainline Protestants believe in natural evolution, 53% in guided evolution, and 16% in creationism
• 6% of black protestants believe in natural evolution, 66% in guided evolution, and 27% in creationism
• 4% of white evangelicals believe in natural evolution, 58% in guided evolution, and 38% in creationism

1. This included processes either actively guided by or merely allowed for by a higher power over time

Most definitely true, however the most memorable theist are most definitely on the extreme side.

[Godular]

An increasingly vanishingly small percentage of religious believers believe in creationism (interestingly, a small percentage of atheists -- however -- do believe in Creationism). I'll quote an earlier post for ease (this research is from Pew):

Most definitely true, however the most memorable theist are most definitely on the extreme side.

Mostly because they have a penchant for lots of yelling.

[Mbaracaya]

In all of human history, religion and science are the two things that we resort to in order to find the answers to the world.

They seem at times to disagree with each other, prompting some to believe in the incompatibility of religion and science. For example, in Christianity, one of the world's leading religions, the world was created by God in six days. On the other hand, the Big Bang theory, the leading scientific theory for the creation of the universe, states that the universe and all in it originated from an infinitely dense singularity which then expanded.

Others argue that the two are completely compatible and may even benefit each other. They say that religion and science attempt to answer two different questions, "Why does the world exist?" and "How does the world exist?" respectively. They point out that the religious have made many discoveries in science, such as the proposal of the Big Bang theory by a Belgian priest and the many discoveries of the Muslims during the Middle Ages.

What do you think, citizens of NationStates? Are religion and science compatible? Tell us your opinion down below.

Scientists may study life events and crises and try to understand how the world works. However, holy orders help people deal with bereavement and many other important events of human existence. As a Christian I believe that science and religion are compatible and may be a great way for us to understand the world.

[VoVoDoCo]

Now the real question is what a 68 million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex dug up in the equally old Hell Creek Formation of Montana has to do with the existence of God...

Especially as the person who made the discovery, a Christian, was keen to make the point that faith and science represent different ways of looking at the world:

But wouldn't the existence of a dinosaur completely destroy the theory that evolution does not exist? Which is a keen point many theists have made.

One could hope. However many theists believe that either a god planted it there to test our faith or the devil planted it there to hide the truth of God. People will find ridiculous excuses to deny evidence. That's what makes religion so poisonous to me.

Edited

[Alvecia]

But wouldn't the existence of a dinosaur completely destroy the theory that evolution does not exist? Which is a keen point many theists have made.

However many atheists believe that either a god planted it there to test our faith or the devil planted it there to hide the truth of God.

Do we?

[VoVoDoCo]

However many atheists believe that either a god planted it there to test our faith or the devil planted it there to hide the truth of God.

Do we?

God damn voice to text LOL I meant theist

[VoVoDoCo]

In all of human history, religion and science are the two things that we resort to in order to find the answers to the world.

They seem at times to disagree with each other, prompting some to believe in the incompatibility of religion and science. For example, in Christianity, one of the world's leading religions, the world was created by God in six days. On the other hand, the Big Bang theory, the leading scientific theory for the creation of the universe, states that the universe and all in it originated from an infinitely dense singularity which then expanded.

Others argue that the two are completely compatible and may even benefit each other. They say that religion and science attempt to answer two different questions, "Why does the world exist?" and "How does the world exist?" respectively. They point out that the religious have made many discoveries in science, such as the proposal of the Big Bang theory by a Belgian priest and the many discoveries of the Muslims during the Middle Ages.

What do you think, citizens of NationStates? Are religion and science compatible? Tell us your opinion down below.

Scientists may study life events and crises and try to understand how the world works. However, holy orders help people deal with bereavement and many other important events of human existence. As a Christian I believe that science and religion are compatible and may be a great way for us to understand the world.

The only way that religion and science are compatible, is if every contradiction is hand waved as being nothing more than a scriptural translation issue or for being a metaphor.

As far as religion being used as a way to understand human suffering and more spiritual matters, I seriously doubt that. Let's look at disease for example. It causes Untold Devastation and poverty throughout the entire world. Jesus cared about 10 people leprosy. Assuming that he cured 10 people everyday for 2,000 years he would have cured 7,300,000 people of leprosy. In the past two decades alone we have cured 16 million people with antibiotics.

Antibiotics, I'm not sure about leprosy but definitely for other diseases, have become less effective as diseases evolve. Science ways to overcome this by continuing to do hard research. The best that religion can do is rely on a creation story thatbrings nothing up of evolution. And it's hard to say that it's just a metaphor, considering that new testament figures referenced it frequently. It claims, with a metaphor not, that all animals were created as they are more or less. That's my compatible with what we know and it no way helps us.

Science can help us understand human bereavement as well. We don't like being disfigured by terrible diseases. No theology needed.

[The Rich Port]

... Catholic Bible's not that much different from a regular Bible.

It's not like they're gonna put in the ruling of the Cadaver Synod or something.

My point is that the Catholic Bible has the Apocrypha in it. Or rather, it's called the deuterocanon.

... wtf is the deuterocanon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

... wtf we didn't cover this in Catholic School

It would be one thing if it was just left out to preserve our little minds, but this wasn't even in our Bibles, wtf is this.

[Salus Maior]

My point is that the Catholic Bible has the Apocrypha in it. Or rather, it's called the deuterocanon.

... wtf is the deuterocanon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

... wtf we didn't cover this in Catholic School

It would be one thing if it was just left out to preserve our little minds, but this wasn't even in our Bibles, wtf is this.

Catholic schools are pretty bad at teaching Catholicism these days.

[Salus Maior]

Dinosaur blood tissue

What about it?

Can we make Jurassic Park?

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

[Cekoviu]

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

lmao, you people still exist in 2019?

[VoVoDoCo]

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

lmao, you people still exist in 2019?

Poe's law comes to mind.

[New Legland]

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

There is literally no evidence that the earth was created in seven days with or without a god, let alone yours specifically. Anyway, evolution has much more than enough evidence to be sufficiently supported.

[New Legland]

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven, and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days, not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work. I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

lmao, you people still exist in 2019?

I mean, with 7.5 billion people...

[Cekoviu]

lmao, you people still exist in 2019?

I mean, with 7.5 billion people...

I feel like they ought to have skittered into their hidey-holes at this point, though. There's just such a bounty of evidence against YEC on the Internet that I can't believe a single one is unashamed to broadcast their views here.

[Ifreann]

I mean, with 7.5 billion people...

I feel like they ought to have skittered into their hidey-holes at this point, though. There's just such a bounty of evidence against YEC on the Internet that I can't believe a single one is unashamed to broadcast their views here.

That's my secret, Cap, I ignore evidence.

[New Legland]

I mean, with 7.5 billion people...

I feel like they ought to have skittered into their hidey-holes at this point, though. There's just such a bounty of evidence against YEC on the Internet that I can't believe a single one is unashamed to broadcast their views here.

Buy that's the problem: there's also plenty of """"evidence"""" for YEC on the internet, like this very credible video I've seen in my recommended a million times and that someone once sent me to defend their argument.

[Salandriagado]

Firstly:

No. Science is, inherently, about not believing things without evidence. Religion is, inherently, about believing something specific without evidence. Science is a method, and religion is a specific (usually limited) repudiation of that method.

My point is that the Catholic Bible has the Apocrypha in it. Or rather, it's called the deuterocanon.

... wtf is the deuterocanon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

... wtf we didn't cover this in Catholic School

It would be one thing if it was just left out to preserve our little minds, but this wasn't even in our Bibles, wtf is this.

It's got the best bit in, though: the bit where a dude kills a dragon by feeding it cake!

I would say 100% Christianity is compatible with science. But the thing is, the Theory of Evolution has not been concretely proven,

Liar.

and there is reasonable evidence to believe that God did create the Earth in 7 literal days,

Also a lie.

not only because of what the Bible says but because of how the Theory of Evolution doesn't work.

It does work.

I am a young-Earth creationist, and I believe that God created in 7 literal days and that the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. I think science is a fantastic way to understand what God has made, as long as it doesn't make stories up on the way.

You are absolutely and unquestionably wrong, and we can say without fear of contradiction that your specific religion is not compatible with science, or with reality.

[Salandriagado]

Now, on to correcting some of the utterly wrong things that have been said in this thread:

pretty much anything can be proven, if you gather a research team of unbiased scientists, give them access to sufficient funding and equipment and they'd certainly come to a conclusion. The only problem is lack of funding for research like this, and maybe that's a good thing since instead of doing this earlier they proved the existence of the Higgs boson.

You can not experimentally confirm or disconfirm everything. Whether or not you want to consider these cases or immediately take them to be false is up to you, like the existence of any kind of "higher power," for instance.

Things that you can neither confirm nor disconfirm (in principle) are called "unfalsifiable". Or, alternatively, "bullshit".

Yes! Science cannot explain what happens to your consciousness when you die,

Yes it can: since your consciousness is just a function of your brain doing stuff, it ceases to exist when your brain ceases to do stuff.

or why the laws of physics are what they are.

Yes, it can. Indeed, that's basically cosmology's whole schtick.

You need religion to answer those.

Making shit up is not answering questions.

Yes, as long as religion accepts the fact that science > myth when talking the real world.

Good and evil are a myth religion keeps pushing down the masses' throat.


Ayn Rand Objectivism and SCIENCE BFFs

No. Ayn Rand's objectivism, in particular, requires outright rejecting the scientific method and directly contradicts a great many results.

Absolutely. Science is a method of understanding the natural world. Religion deals entirely with the supernatural. This doesn't make them opposed, they are just dealing with entirely separate matters.

"Supernatural" is just a strange way of spelling "bullshit". This is not the horse you want to be hitching your cart to.

From a Christian viewpoint, understanding the creation via science means a better understanding of the Creator. You study the painting to better understand the artist. Mathematics is highly appreciated as it is the reigning logic of the world. Everything conforms to mathematical realities. Everything can be explained via mathematics. This is one of the arguments for a Creator, that the applicability of mathematics means that we are NOT random and were in fact created with logic by a logical being.

Yeah, no. This is utter and complete bollocks on every level. We can construct mathematical systems to model anything you like, and this is not evidence of anything at all.

Fedora atheists either don't know or pretend not to know that many notable scientists were/are devoutly religious. Leonardo Fibonacci, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Bacon, John Dalton, JJ Thomson.... For crying out loud, the man who created the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre).

Here's a generalized list from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

No part of this has any relevance to the discussion.

While science can't (so far) disprove the existence of God(s)

Yes it can. Indeed, it's been doing it for millennia, ever since somebody climbed a mountain and found that the gods weren't living at the top. It can't disprove the existence of "a god" in general, just because the question is so ill-defined as to be meaningless, but for the vast majority of all specific gods ever proposed, it can very easily disprove them.

No. Religion fundamentally requires belief without evidence - and the rejection of all contradictory evidence. Science is all about approaching the truth by attempting to prove its own theories wrong - and embracing the ones that best resist these attempts.

Religion fills in the gaps that science can't cover. Any religion which rejects science is a stupid one, I'll grant you as much. But any scientist who rejects religion is being equally stupid, or at very least oblivious. Science can tell you all about the Big Bang, but it can't tell you why there is something rather than nothing, and that is a question that I would argue is more requiring of an answer than most questions science can answer.

Science absolutely can tell you why there is something rather than nothign. Indeed, that precise question is one of the most active areas of scientific research today.

Fair enough, although most religions that have ever existed are among the "stupid" ones, again and again denying mounting evidence against their most dearly held beliefs.

A lot are, I'll grant you. But though I imagine you think Catholicism is one of them, I'll venture that the Church has never taught something against scientific proof, nor even taken something as dogma which was later scientifically disproven.

You can venture it all you like, but you are absolutely categorically wrong.

We don't know.

Which rather neatly is explained by the puddle "waking up". It's not aware of its true origins, just like us. We're not aware of exactly why the Universe (our hole) exists.

But we know it has a cause. Logic also tells us that either that cause had a cause, or it didn't. If it did, the same thing applies to that cause, on until there is a cause without a cause. If it didn't, it must be non-contingent, and the definition of God, as I define it, is "a non-contingent reality". So even if this argument doesn't tell us anything about God, it tells us that God exists.

Your definition of "god" is both absurd and utterly incompatible with the definition that you actually use. Because fuck, I can give you some pretty damned convincing arguments that literally everything is "non-contingent", and I don't see you worshipping me.

Sigh. The fluctuations are an inherent property of vacuum. It’s like how light refracts, it’s just an inherent property. No creation needed.

What caused vacuum to have properties?

Nothing. Which is yet another reason that your above-claimed definition of "god" was a lie: you aren't worshipping vacuum either.

This is a flat out lie.



And everything just has to link to God, doesn't it?

And no, there being no cause doesn't mean that God exists, unless you're claiming that God and the Universe are one and the same, or that God didn't create us (even then it still isn't proof).

Have you ever heard of anything which doesn't have a cause?

Yes, lots of them. They happen all the fucking time.

Don't you realize that saying that something, anything, doesn't need a cause is on the same level of superstition and fantasy as explaining the weather with "'cuz magic?"

No, because it isn't. However, I note that you have done precisely that several times.

But you know what can tell you why there is something rather than nothing? Me. I can. I may have no evidence and no basis for my claims, but they're claims nonetheless, something scientists don't have! So that means what I say is completely valid and shouldn't be rejected as bullshit.

That's basically what you're saying. God of the gaps is a horrendous argument and the Bible is no more qualified on giving explanations for things science can't yet than I am.

I've just spent the last page-and-a-half providing evidence for the existence of God.

No you didn't. In particular, you attempted to proceed by pure reason to prove an analytic statement, which is singularly impossible, so we could reject your arguments out of hand even if the problems weren't transparently obvious.

Yeah. Atomic decay is pretty much uncaused. And can only be predicted probabilistically.

Atomic decay is not uncaused, that's a really, really stupid statement. Atomic decay is caused by the nuclear forces holding together the nucleus of an atom being overcome by the electromagnetic forces which cause positive protons to repel other positive protons.

Sure, if you pretend that high school physics is the sum of all human knowledge and entirely ignore quantum physics. In the real world, however, it's caused by random quantum bullshit.

What? No.

Heliocentrism was the idea that the Sun is at the center of our solar system. Galileo proposed it at a time when the dominant theory was that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. Although Galileo was correct, the Church opposed his theory and persecuted him for it, ultimately accusing him of heresy.

No, that's a false understanding of heliocentrism which is taught by schools which wish to slander the Church. Galileo was soon proven wrong.

Stop lying.

I mean, this is similar to classical causation, but the same. In classical causation cause and effect have a very direct, linear relation. Atomic decay occurs essentially randomly.

When exactly the electromagnetic forces overcome the nuclear forces may be random, but the actual event is caused by a concrete cause. So must the universe.

Nope. The actual event is caused by pure spontaneous randomness. You've also utterly failed to show that any of this applies to the universe. Stop talking about things that you don't understand.

The argument of yours that I was addressing was that religion in general should have merit for explaining (read: attempting to explain) what science can't (read: hasn't yet). That has nothing to do with the conjecture you've posted about everything needing a cause to prove the basis of a specific group of religions.

What caused the universe?

Either nothing, or "we don't know".

I proved that it was God. If you'd like me to copy that proof again, I will.

No, you didn't.

Your "proof" amounted to "everything that we know of has a cause (that isn't even necessarily intelligent), therefore the universe has a cause (which is necessarily intelligent)." If a scientist, mathematician, or anyone in any academic field tried to get away with this shit, they would be discredited.

I haven't even gotten to the nature of God, or whether or not He is intelligent. I have an argument for that, but will you first at least concede that there is a God, whether or not He is intelligent?

No. I will agree that there is a non-contingent being - as mentioned, I am one, and you probably are too - but not that "god" is any kind of a reasonable word to use to describe such a being. Kindly produce your argument, but do so knowing that it can't possibly work, because you're still trying to prove analytic statements by pure reason.

No. But what you're doing is as stupid as saying, "God is love, and you said you love your grandma. Checkmate atheist!"

There's a little bit more pack into the concept of God then what you're ascribing to it. And if all God was was "A non-contingent being," then you'd still be wrong (because your arguments are flimsy) but we wouldn't care as much.

Things get more interesting, though, when we start to use logic to figure out certain attributes that any non-contingent being would logically have to have.

What axioms are you using, and how do you know that these axioms apply to this setting?

Nope.

You've yet to prove that. I see no reason to concede God exists when you have given no proof that he exists, only completely bullshit assumptions. Nor do I care to concede to see an argument that I can defeat with the fact that you haven't even proven God yet.

Alright, define God. I've already proven His existence on my terms, now let's do it on yours.

Apart from that your supposed "definition" was nothing of the sort: let's define "god" as "a being of vastly superior power and intellect to humanity, who takes a personal interest in humanity".

Even Aquinas had to give that up. And you're no Aquinas.

Aquinas did it, and did it very well.

No. If you're going to use shitty arguments, at least use ones that weren't torn apart literal centuries ago.

Again, saying that the universe has a cause because everything else that is a part of the universe has a cause isn't going to cut if for me. The two aren't equivalent and even if they were, there would definitely be a chance that the latter isn't the case.

Also, "intelligent" was the wrong word to use. "Alive" or something of the sort would have been more accurate considering your definition of God.

Not just any cause. A non-contingent being as a cause.

Apart from all of the other problems, you've made a wild leap from "something non-contingent" to "a non-contingent being". Where the fuck did that "being" bit come from?

No he didn't. He argued for a prime mover very elegantly (though some have accused him of ripping-off Arab scholars), but he was never able to bridge the gap between a prime mover and the Christian God.

Okay. Why did this prime mover create the universe? Did he have anything to gain?

Stop right there. That's yet another wild leap. Where did this "he" come from? I'd tell you to stop trying to sneak in strengthenings of your position alongside your actual argument, but that's literally all that you've got.

I don't believe for a moment that your entire understanding of God is, "a non-contingent being." So this is disingenuous.

There can be only one instance of a non-contingent being in all existence, and this non-contingent being happens to have certain attributes

This is blatantly false.

Prove that.

Disprove that. It is not an empirical claim.

Yes it fucking is. "Entity X did thing Y for reason Z" is absolutely an empirical claim.

No, He did not. He did it out of love, the desire to share existence with other beings.

Yes. Since He is infinite, and omnipotent, He cannot possibly have anything to gain from doing anything, since He Himself has already fulfilled the highest greatness and glory which can be. Therefore, God acted out of willing the good of other beings, or love. Since He is the very essence of being, He cannot act out of anything outside or above himself, since no such thing can exist. So for God to act out of love, He Himself must be love. As such, God is love.

Woah, there. Now we've chucked in a capital "H", "infinite" (what the fuck ever you think that means) and "omnipotent" (despite the fact that no omnipotent being can possibly exist), and a whole load of bullshit that doesn't actually say anything. Justify all of of those before continuing.

You see, this is more consistent with what people mean when they say "God."

Though it still falls short of describing God in a lot of meaningful ways. For instance, nothing about this definition indicates that worship of this God is required, or desired, or useful in any way. I suspect a comprehensive definition of God, as it is generally understood, might require several paragraphs. At least.

One can reasonably come to conclude all which is listed in this definition from the "non-contingent being" definition.

No you can't.

Also, you haven't actually defined "non-contingent being". Kindly do that before continuing.

It depends what religion. Many eastern religions seek to explain the universe in an almost scientific way and encourage their followers to discover the truth about life on their own, which promotes education. Taoism is known for being a religion filled with chemists and botanists.

Islam and christianity...well, there's been Muslim and Christian scientists but for the most part, Islam and christianity's basic idea is "these are the facts, pray to God and don't question what we told you." It's why currently a lot of die hard Christians hate the theory of evolution, because it calls their religion into question

The theory of evolution doesn't call the religion in question because it is a theory.

The word "theory" does not mean what you think it means. [/quote]

I believe the phrase is cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps, but I think it is at least conceivable that there exists or could exists a religion that is compatible with science, so the point remains.

Such a religion would, of necessity, make no claims whatsoever about the universe. So yes, it does exist, and it's called deism.

No. They can't.

Allow me to show how the non-contingent being argument can be brought to "God is love." A non-contingent being would be non-contingent because it is an explanation unto itself,

This is gibberish: beings are not explanations.

and thus does not require a cause, except itself. Being an explanation unto itself, and predating all other things.

Wait, where the fuck did "predating all other things" come from? Why can there not be some other, earlier, non-contingent being?

there is nothing to limit such a being.

This does not follow from the above in any way.

As such, a non-contingent being, or God, would be infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient, since there is no limit to His knowledge or power.

Again, none of this follows from the above at all.

Since He is infinite,

Before we go any further, kindly explain precisely what you mean by the word "infinite".

By that logic, God is Wrath.

Explain.

Literally take your post and substitute "wrath" for "love" and "bad" for "good".

That’s not what theory means in science.

If it was, it’d be spectacularly bad at it.

How would you know? You have yet to die, so you don't know anything about salvation, so how can you judge a guide on it?

I know that my brain ceases to function when I die, so salvation can't possibly exist.

Literally every sentence of that. Every single one, pretty much.

Oh, and the assumption that God exists in the first place, which you still haven't proven.

I have proved that a non-contingent reality such as I built my proof from exists. Allow me to copy it from a few pages ago. "But we know the universe has a cause. Logic also tells us that either that cause had a cause, or it didn't. If it did, the same thing applies to that cause, on until there is a cause without a cause. If it didn't, it must be non-contingent, and the definition of God, as I define it, is "a non-contingent reality". So even if this argument doesn't tell us anything about God, it tells us that God exists."

No you haven't. What you supposedly "proved" is that "there is a thing which does not have a cause" (which I could have told you, and indeed you've been provided with many examples of). What you then used in your argument is something that is "infinite" (whatever you mean by that), a being, unique, predating all other things, and limitless. These are wildly different.

There's no reason for a non-contingent being to have to predate anything. They should be able to occur spontaneously at any time. Being non-contingent.


This may not mean what you think it means. "Non-contingent" likely would mean that nothing limits it, but it likely could mean that nothing interacts with it at all.


Doesn't follow. The lack of a limiter does not infinite. There's also no indication that a non-contingent being would have any power or knowledge at all.


Suddenly this hypothetical has a gender. Go figure.


Or none at all.


This is an argument from ignorance. It says, "because we don't know God's motivation, we know God's motivation." And it completely disregards the possibility that there could be any possibility we haven't thought of yet.


Again, you've also just proven that God is Wrath. To the extent that you've proven anything, I mean. Which is pretty minimal.

1. A non-contingent being does not just "appear" at some random time. Such a being has never not existed.

This does not follow from what you proved. Indeed, non-contingent things appear all the damned time.

In fact, time itself was brought into being by His act of will.

This is two more utterly unjustified claims (this thing has a will, and it created time, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean).

2. Actually, sort of... All reality exists, and is sustained, by His act of will. He is at once the cause and medium of reality. Therefore, nothing outside of what He wills interacts with Him.

This is gibberish.

3. A lack of power or knowledge would definitely be a limit, which He does not have.

Which you have not established at all.

4. I'm calling Him by His chosen pronoun...

No you aren't.

6. If His actions are not for self-gain, they must be for the gain of something outside of him. Acting for the gain of something outside of oneself is love.

Don't be absurd. People do things that are neither for self-gain nor for the gain of others all the time.

7. God doesn't act out of wrath. He really doesn't...

We'll add this one to the list of unjustified claims (and, while we're at it, to the list of blatant contradictions between your claims and the religion that you claim to follow).

[Salandriagado]

You haven't. At all. Stop lying.



Lie.



Self-contradictory.

You hold that it is impossible for the universe to be uncaused, and that the thing that caused it must be uncaused. This is like having that cardboard box containing waterproof material be inside of another, identical cardboard box, and you holding that box #1 is waterproof but box #2 isn't, when your own logic dictates that box #2 must be waterproof.

What? Your cardboard box analogy reads like nonsense.

Yes, that's the point. The underlying logic is literally identical to your argument, and it's nonsense.

Anyway, I don't see how you don't see that common sense and logic dictate that contingent realities have a cause,

Nobody has denied that, largely because you defined "contingent realities" to be "things with causes".

and that to think that there are exceptions is the height of witch doctor superstition.

And yet your entire argument is based on precisely that.

Oh look, seven more assumptions.

Only the seventh is even close to an assumption. Everything else I can prove from this same non-contingent being definition.

Stop lying. Apart from anything else, you still haven't provided said definition.

Interesting point, though I would interpret this as saying that they are or at least conceivably could be compatible.

Both science and religion (If both are done well) have the primacy of logic in common. They are the application of logic towards two different pursuits.

This is blatantly untrue, in both regards. Science deals with evidence, and religion with dogma.

Which is itself an assumption.

Arghhh! Do I need to repeat my proof again?!?

We know the universe has a cause. This is because the universe is contingent, and all contingent realities have causes. Logic also tells us that either that cause had a cause, or it didn't. If it did, the same thing applies to that cause, on until there is a cause without a cause. If it didn't, it must be non-contingent, and the definition of God, as I define it, is "a non-contingent reality". So even if this argument doesn't tell us anything about God, it tells us that God exists.

No, you need to provide an actual proof, rather than repeating the same bullshit. I notice, however, that you added in yet another unjustified claim: that the universe is contingent. Indeed, this one isn't just unjustified, but manifestly false. Just to add to the list, you're quietly assuming that there are finitely many causes, which I see no reason to assume.

Arghhh! Do I need to repeat my proof again?!?

We know the universe has a cause. This is because the universe is contingent, and all contingent realities have causes. Logic also tells us that either that cause had a cause, or it didn't. If it did, the same thing applies to that cause, on until there is a cause without a cause. If it didn't, it must be non-contingent, and the definition of God, as I define it, is "a non-contingent reality". So even if this argument doesn't tell us anything about God, it tells us that God exists.

Yes. Methinks they either do not understand, refuse to understand, or else cannot understand, or they ignore the argument entirely.

“Hear, O foolish people, and without understanding: who have eyes, and see not: and ears, and hear not.” (Jeremias 5:21)

No, the problem is precisely that we do understand it, and we know that it's entirely composed of bullshit.

1. You haven't proven any of that.
2. See 1.
3. Non-contingent doesn't imply infinite. There is a lack of a limiter only in that nothing external acts upon a non-contingent entity to constrain it. A drop of water unconstrained in a vacuum may expand into an infinitely diffuse gas, but that does not make it more than a drop of water.
4. And I'm calling you out on your leap of logic. Nothing you've said thusfar in any way ties this being to the Judeo-Christian God.
5. I thought he was "unknowable?" You sure seem to know a lot about him all of a sudden...
6. See 5.
7. Serve the LORD with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled.

1. Time is an aspect of the universe. As such, He caused it.

Your argument is now circular.

7. Fine. God is wrath against evil.

And also wrath against completely innocent children.

Your assumption is that there is any sort of being or entity involved. It also discounts the possibility of a recursive reality.

Recursive realities make no sense, as the universe then would be one giant causal loop.

There are two issues here: firstly, there's no reason why the universe couldn't be one giant causal loop, and secondly, you're assuming that there are finitely many things.

Also, by definition a non-contingent reality is a being or entity, as it is an existing thing with a thing with distinct and independent existence, indeed the most distinct and most independent existence possible.

That is not what "being" or "entity" mean.

The way in which an agent will make a free choice inherently cannot be known apart from observation of the choice being actualized. If it was a prediction without observation, then the prediction could be wrong. God may be able to observe these choices via prescience, but even he must still observe them to know them. Therefore, God cannot know what we will do, unless he sees the future. However, if the future is viewed before it comes to pass, the the acting agent is locked into that future-if anything else comes to pass, then God was wrong by default.

The way in which an agent will make a free choice inherently cannot be know apart from observation by finite beings. Since God is infinite and external to the universe, there is no reason why He should be restricted to observation.

Asking you as well: what, precisely, do you mean by "infinite"? Besides which, this is bullshit: the problem stems from the definitions, not anything to do with the universe.

The future is not being viewed in time by a temporal being, but outside of time by an eternal being, and as such the acting agent in time is not locked into any particular path, even though the infinite and eternal being, that is to say God, already knows what free choices it will make in time.

While you're at it, define what the fuck you mean by "outside of time".

Logic is man-made. Mathematics is how we quantifier observations. It doesn't matter how loud you say it oh, it doesn't prove that God created logic or math.

Read my new tonium examples from earlier. Just because Newton made a scientific discovery that was significant, that does not lend any credibility to his other beliefs, like the Fountain of Youth or Alchemy. The suggest that religion is different for some reason it's nothing more than special pleading

"Mathematics" does not physically exist. But it "exists" in that it rules nature. The question is why?
I can say the exact same thing to you. It doesn't matter how loud you say it oh, it doesn't prove that humans created logic or math.

No. The fact that humans literally did create them, in a well-documented process, proves that we created them. Fuck, we know the names of the specific humans that created most of it.

It depends on the individual.

Then there are some people who twist "science" into dogma such as some advocates of Quantum Physics and The Big Bang Theory; both of which are actually extremely unscientific (poor experimentation methodology) and require great leaps of faith and willfull ignorance to take seriously.

You're describing literally two of the best supported theories in all of science.

If you'd prefer, I could have Richard Feynman condescend to you.

Quantum mechanics is all kinds of strange, but it agrees with experiment. And that's exactly what it means to be scientific.

Actually, it agrees with confirmation bias. The thing about some mathematical physics is that it's ad hoc; the experiments can be interpreted by need to fit the hypothesis and when unfavorable results occur, the equations can be amended, redacted or newly generated by need. So, instead of having theory follow observation; mathematical physics starts at theory, then proceeds towards experimentation for confirmation; which in itself is methodologically unscientific. That is the cardinal sin of modern physics.

All of this is outright lies.

He started at the theory, because it was part of a lecture that pertained to pre-existing theories. So if your theory of gravitation disagrees with the orbit of Mercury, it's wrong. That's not in error. That's factually true. And it's the reason why Einstein's work superseded Newton's.

Everything you said after that is basically gibberish, and has no relation to... anything.

And you still haven't given me an example from the original lecture of him being unscientific in his description of Quantum Mechanics.

Frankly, I think you're full of shit.

His lecture is not a unique example of Quantam Mechanics that precludes my point, it is just Quantum Mechanics, lol. Do you really think you can just post a 56 minute video and obligate someone to comb through it because you yourself are unprepared to defend something by yourself? C'mon man, that's just rude.

As to your Mercury example: it's reductionist and a strawman. I wasn't attacking a simple model of rotational gravity that can be verified by O B S E R V A T I O N; I was attacking a significant chunk of Quantum that starts at theory and follows into the unobservable; Theoretical physicists say: "we have evidence that fits our theory", but what they can't say: "we have objectively observed the mechanism itself". Also, you can be correct in prediction of Mercury's orbit, but your proposed "theory of gravity" could be wrong because you don't have the means to observe the MECHANISM.

EXAMPLE: Modern physics: Mass causes gravity because theories x, y and z

ERROR: You are observing the effects of gravity itself, but not the MECHANISM that causes gravity.

Is it really the mass itself? A property of it that is contingent on it to produce gravity?

We OBJECTIVELY can't say because we don't have the means to OBSERVE what is causing gravity, just theory. You can have a theory that's predictively accurate, yet OBJECTIVELY incorrect. Am I starting to become more clear? I'm not trying to beat you at some debate; just attempting to articulate and defend my objection.

Herein lies the fallacy of theory centric science; the de-emphasis of OBSERVATION and the emphasis of ad hoc theory as required. I'm politely asking you stop claiming I'm bullshitting and instead consider what I'm saying. I know it's kind of tough to digest and if you want I could post a Youtube link to a channel that might help with bridging the gap. Theoretical physics lacks objective observation and has a defiency of DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE mechanisms.

SMH, I thought I was getting away from the mentality of "I don't understand what you're saying, so it's bullshit" when I left /pol/.

It's not that people don't understand you, it's that the things that you are saying don't make any fucking sense.

Yeah, I have bad news for you: knowledge and libraries existed way before Christianity.

And does it not matter that Christianity supports higher learning?

Not as far as the discussion in this thread goes, no.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that what your saying falls somewhere in between a strawman and gibberish. I don't know if you know what a theory is, your posts don't lead me to believe that you do. I'm also not sure that you understand what theoretical physicists do, or how they arrive at their theories.

You sound to me like a 17 year-old who has watched a few YouTube videos, and thinks they understand science, but doesn't.

And I won't be responding to any replies to this, because it's very far off topic. Suffice it to say, I'm not impressed with your claims that professional scientists are unscientific, because you've got a Youtube link to a channel.

Here is the proof that science can be dogmatic just like religion. Mr. Neanderthal has his religion challenged (Quantum THEORY), falls back to his idols (Feynmann, Einstein) and proceeds to "dismiss" me through various ad hominems without actually contradicting my points.

I commend you on the Neanderthal identity you've adopted for yourself here on NS; it's rare to see self-awareness with such an accurate estimation of one's own intellectual capacity, it is even more impressive considering the size of your ego and hardness of your skull.

Yeah, that's not what happened at all. Also, "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Not engaging with most of this, but I'd like to point out that "theory" doesn't mean what you clearly think it does. "Theory" means that we know it happens, but we haven't lab-tested it yet. That's the reason why we have the 'theory' of plate tectonics: we know plate tectonics happens, but we're probably never going to be able to lab-test the Earth's crust. Same deal with the 'theory' of evolution. We know that it happens, we've observed it happening, we just haven't done it in a lab.

Context matters; Geology does not equal Theoretical Physics nor does Biology. The objectivity of "theory" differs in each scientific field because each field has disparate quantifications and methodology for its subject material.

No.

I am saying Theoretical Physics has been playing fast and loose with low standards. It does not possess the same affirmative strength as Evolution and Plate Tectonics and has a significant amount of valid critique against it your other examples are innocent of.

You are factually incorrect. Quantum physics is literally the best supported theory in all of science.

Nope. "Good" and "evil" are labels attached to one's behaviour compared to society. There's no ethics if there's no interaction between people.
Also, there's no thing as "true nature" in a species whose behaviour is largely the product of teaching and training.

That's a remarkably stupid statement. Under your definition, black chattel slavery was good 200 years ago...

No, "good" and "evil" are just meaningless descriptors. They're functionally equivalent to "thing I like" and "thing I don't like".

Lies. Lies. Lies.

Your proof is lies or assumptions. Your fundamental assertations needed to accept any of your arguments can be thrown out for what they are: utter fucking bullshit, and your refusal to address that changes jack shit.

Okay. Here's the thing: EVERYTHING WE KNOW IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION!!! Literally all of our knowledge is sourced from the assumption that our five senses at least reflect reality, even if they're not perfect instruments. You are assuming that your eyes are dependable when you're reading this.

No, it isn't. There is precisely one thing that I know that is not dependent on assumptions, and it directly contradicts your argument, as I've said repeatedly.

Besides which, I'm not assuming that those things are true: I merely realise that taking them as a working hypothesis has results that I consider to be positive.

So when an assumption is sufficiently obvious, it is the duty of reasonable people to assume it.

That only works if everybody agrees with you. As that is transparently not the case, your assumption is clearly not sufficiently obvious.

Attempting to muddy the water when you've been called out on bullshit is typical, but still despicable.

No. That everything has a cause is so damn self-evident

Self-evident, and false, as has been repeatedly explained to you, and as you yourself have directly claimed.

that anyone who doubts it stands with about the same merit as saying "Since I can't prove that my eyes and ears have not been deceiving me for my entire life, what if we are actually insect-beings on a planet whose sun orbits around it, and gravity is actually a myth?" Name one thing you know which is not based in assumption. I dare you.

I exist. Indeed, this is not dependent on anything other than my existence, hence I am non-contingent, so by your silly definition, I'm a god.

Yes. Sure.

But your assumption is neither reasonable nor obvious. Not at all. The assumption that our senses reflect reality is needed because without it, we have no basis to do anything. Your assumption of God is unneeded, bullshit, and certainly isn't obvious.

Have you ever heard of anything which does not require a cause?

Yes.

I will refer you to the cardboard box analogy.



Why is it such a fucking impossibility for the universe to be uncaused? Why? What does that change? What does that break?

Why can't the universe, which we don't know the full properties of, be different to everything within it just like a cardboard box is different to the waterproof material within it?

Because the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang proves the necessity of a cause.

Whoever said that the big bang was a beginning? And, again, having a beginning is not the same as having a cause.

To perhaps make the cardboard box analogy more clear: it is true, and easy to prove from most reasonable sets of axioms, that for all integers x, x + 1 = 1 + x. However, this does not hold for x = ω (for our purposes, the set of all integers). Indeed, ω + 1 > ω (as it is the successor of ω), but 1 + ω = ω.

If there was matter and energy before the universe, then the universe existed. And it wasn't before the universe.

There wasn't matter and energy, there was something fundamentally different. And by the way, saying "before" is somewhat inaccurate, since time was created with the universe. In the beginning, there was God. Plain and simple. And His will caused all other things.

Apart from the errors that I've already pointed out, I just note that you say, in successive sentences, that time is an internal function of the universe, and that your god existed before the universe. What, exactly, do you mean by the word "before"?

Now before you call me out for superstition, do you have a more feasible explanation for the source of things than God? 'Cuz, "Something came from nothing!!!" is downright dumb.

"Something came from nothing" is a thing that we've literally observed happening regularly, so it's not dumb at all. Other options: (1) the universe is eternal, and the big bang was merely one phase in its ife during which it happened to be very hot and dense, (2) there have been infinitely many universes, of which ours is merely the most recent, (3) an infinite chain of contingent realities, each contingent on the one before.

You cannot make claims on anything acting outside our observable universe specifically because we cannot observe it. You cannot say what caused the big bang because we have no means of observing it, any attempt on your part to say anything other than ‘I dunno’ is superstition at best or outright lies at worst. You can spout unfounded conjecture all you like, but that is all it shall remain.

This is a very minor point, but we can say meaningful things abot some things that are (just) outside our observable universe, at least in principle: things are leaving the observable universe all the time, due to inflation, so we could, in principle, say meaningful things about them based on our observations from when they were inside the observable universe.

Creating matter and energy is what's meant by ex nihilo creation. So if that's impossible, like you say, then your God is impossible.

All I was saying is that we've never seen matter and energy created. So your insistence that the rules for creating matter and energy are exactly the same as the rules for moving it around is, well, stupid.

Minor pedantry time: we have seen matter created (out of other forms of energy). We've even done it intentionally.

There's one thing you're missing about the nature of a non-contingent reality. There can be nothing outside of an infinite being. Otherwise, that being would not be infinite, as it does not contain it.

What utter bollocks. The integers are infinite, but famously do not contain 0.5. Indeed, for any infinite thing X, and any finite thing Y contained in X, there is an infinite thing which does not contain Y (it's X\Y).

No, "ex nihilo" means "out of nothing". Not, "out of a lack of energy and matter." There's a huge difference between nothing and God.

Etymology is not a good way to determine the contemporary meaning of words.

1. Non-contingency requires infinity, because something's limits are entirely dependent on the nature of its cause. If something causes itself, however, there are no limits to it, because there is no limiting factor within the causation, besides self-imposed limits.

Every part of this is utter bollocks.

2. No, because there can be no "before a non-contingent being", for the reasons I have explained above. If there is no "before something," nothing can occupy or exist in that nonexistent "before".

This is equally bollocks: as mentioned, I'm non-contingent, but it very much seems like the 19th century happened, despite being before me.

If you make something up, it will end up like anything else which one "makes up": fiction.

Which is, incidentally, exactly what you've done. We're just honest about it.

I recall at one point it said that pi was 3.

I guess decimals are too difficult.

Specifically, that pi was at most 3.

This sounds like part of the argument that our circumstances were perfectly arranged to produce us.

I would place an alternative argument: We were just fucking lucky. In an infinitely sized universe, there was bound to be some place where all the pertinent dice would come up boxcars.

Or, alternatively, that exactly the opposite is true: we're pretty well suited to the environment in which we developed.

The whole "the universe is made for us" argument kinda falls apart when you point out that the overwhelming majority of it would be very quickly fatal to us.

The Protestant Reformation was one of the most expressive and explosive outbursts of scientific thought and advancement.

It was roughly contemporaneous with it, sure. That does not mean that it was the same thing.

Sometimes, it's worth noting that hundreds of years ago, many individuals who made groundbreaking scientific discoveries were often clergy and whatnot in a variety of religions (IE Roman Catholicism, Islam, etc).

Not really, but it is worth noting, when people point out such irrelevant statistics, that said people were basically the only ones with the free time to sit and think about shit, and the ability to experiment without worrying about starving to death if it went wrong.

An increasingly vanishingly small percentage of religious believers believe in creationism (interestingly, a small percentage of atheists -- however -- do believe in Creationism). I'll quote an earlier post for ease (this research is from Pew):

Since when is 1/5 "vanishingly small"?

[VoVoDoCo]

It is an honor to be in your quote spam sir.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It's mental gymnastics to combine them, at best. Religion has been discredited by science time and time again.

Then again, none of the most mainstream religions are any more consistent within themselves. So I guess it's no coincidence religion disproportionately attracts those prone to mental gymnastics.

[Satuga]

-snip-

Dude for the love of god shrink this down some!

[Anteja (Ancient)]

Yes, Religion and Science are compatible. I find it intriguing that people refuse to believe in God, but they'll believe a Magic speck expanded or exploded into a void of nothingness, which, doesn't exist