Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

a reply to: SuperFrog

No, it called the God particle because it's everywhere, but unprovable. Google is your friend, not mine.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: SuperFrog

No, it called the God particle because it's everywhere, but unprovable. Google is your friend, not mine.

Are you really that delusional??

Here is interview with man WHO NAMED IT?!

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke!

Again, you can believe all you want, this is simple fact and also proof why belief has nothing to do with science...


a reply to: NavyDoc
I believe education has stronger connection to change in numbers, and it was represented by Dr. Tyson in his speech. Higher education means lower number of belief in personal God.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Are you really that delusional??

Yes, and again, no source needed, just my opinion my friend.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I'm not religious at all, but I think if people find a way to have spiritual (or even religious) beliefs and still trust science, religion and science CAN be compatible. But in most people's minds, they are not.

For example, some religious people don't take the bible literally. They don't believe that everything was created in 7 days, or that Eve was literally made from Adam's rib. They are metaphors. In that case, I think religion and science can be compatible. I don't think we can group all religious people any more than we can group all atheists. There are so many different religions and religious theories and interpretations, that saying they're all incompatible with science is just a generalization.

I would agree that taking the bible literally is a pretty big stumbling block to science and they may be incompatible.

originally posted by: swanne
If a higher intelligence than human does exists, then we have probably no way to comprehend most of it.

This is true. But many religions and their followers claim to know exactly what it is, how it thinks and what it wants.

But it is just as irrational to ignore the possibility of its existence too; for if it does exist, then there are strong chances that its existence influences our very experiences, just like the existence of general relativity influences the sparrow's experience.

I don't know of many who ignore the possibility of a god's existence. Most atheists are actually agnostic atheists, not believing in a god, but not knowing if their belief is correct. I would venture to say all atheists are agnostic to a degree, because, when it comes right down to it, neither atheists nor religious people KNOW their beliefs are correct.

And if a god does exist, I don't think you can safely say that the chances are strong that it influences our experiences. If we can't comprehend it, how do we know what the chances of ANYTHING about it are? In my mind, a "god" wouldn't necessarily follow the laws of man. We don't know the chances of anything.

This is a good read:

www.templetonpress.org...

With a fine message.

Although how you view Buddhism determines how relevant it is to this discussion I suppose.

a reply to: SuperFrog

In layman's terms, the Higgs is referred to as the "God Particle" because the field it produces gives atoms their mass. Were it not for the Higgs, the world we know would be completely different — there would be no chemistry, no architecture, no us. It would be a massless mess of aimless particles running around at light speed.

NPR LINK UPDATE: an explanation

Six others helped discover that particle, he said. Yet the Higgs is "the only major particle that the discoverer, or the theorist, named after himself," he said.

If there's a misnomer, it's Higgs.

Your article

originally posted by: Klassified


Granted. But it has been the polar opposite for centuries, BFFT. Is it really any surprise to see the tables turned on those who have historically, been the aggressors?

Because that is what humans do. We like to be mean to other people and justify it with phrases like, "So they'll learn", "Turnabout is fair play", and "Make it even". While we possess logic, we are very poor at effectively utilizing it. For a good example of bad logic run amok, recall the US policy of "Manifest Destiny".

The only surprise is that practitioners of science would take advantage of a turning of the tables. Its one thing to have a study, its another thing entirely to belittle the beliefs of others.

Don't get me wrong....i could go on and on about the complaints i have for religion in general, and Christianity in particular. If i am being completely honest, i am wholly underwhelmed by the views of both extremes.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: SuperFrog

No, it called the God particle because it's everywhere, but unprovable. Google is your friend, not mine.

Are you really that delusional??

Here is interview with man WHO NAMED IT?!

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke!

Again, you can believe all you want, this is simple fact and also proof why belief has nothing to do with science...


a reply to: NavyDoc
I believe education has stronger connection to change in numbers, and it was represented by Dr. Tyson in his speech. Higher education means lower number of belief in personal God.

Easy there, Super. I don't think it's delusional or anti-science to believe there's a creator or higher intelligence than humans. It borders delusional when it becomes what BH said above me...

...many religions and their followers claim to know exactly what it is, how it thinks and what it wants.

This is when religion and science start butting heads.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: SuperFrog

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Seems like none of them had trouble considering the possibility that there exists a greater intelligence than human beings.

If everybody else on their times was demonizing (and persecuting in most cases) anyone who dared to think there is no God.
They would be crazy to not go with the flow, if they wanted to public their work.

As for Einstein, he was more of a pantheist, than a believer in talking snakes, floods etc.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: SuperFrog

In layman's terms, the Higgs is referred to as the "God Particle" because the field it produces gives atoms their mass. Were it not for the Higgs, the world we know would be completely different — there would be no chemistry, no architecture, no us. It would be a massless mess of aimless particles running around at light speed.

NPR LINK UPDATE: an explanation

Six others helped discover that particle, he said. Yet the Higgs is "the only major particle that the discoverer, or the theorist, named after himself," he said.

If there's a misnomer, it's Higgs.

Your article

And what this has to do with his earlier claim that soon we will have a proof for God by use of Hadron Collider?


Did you know what happened to plan to build our bigger hadron collider?? (based on premise of God's particle )

The Crisis of Big Science

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
People love to be on teams, to practice the comfort of groupthink, and to have an enemy to rally against.

Agreed 100%. It's nauseating.

Meanwhile, science has become something that is used like a club by atheists to beat the religious up with, choosing to make fun of them and belittle their beliefs.

That's just stating one "side" of the issue. Religious people and atheists battle and belittle each other with equal might and use whatever tools at their disposal to discount the other "side's" beliefs. At this time, religions have the backing of the government in many states, and therefore have the edge, IMO, but atheists won't give up and may be losing the battle, but winning the war.

While I am an atheist, I support religious freedom and the right to BELIEVE whatever one wants to believe. I don't support forcing or fighting others who believe differently.

Both the religious and atheists attack. Both engage in groupthink to a certain extent, IMO.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Here is where science crosses into belief all too often: stating there is no God

On the one hand, the best that can truthfully be said is "We have found no evidence of God". That is truth. That said....I don't even think there can be a reasonable consensus on exactly what God is. Over here you have the Abrahamic folks who number pretty heavily. Over there you have the pantheistic Hindus and Buddhists, who number even more. Then there is the rest of us with various personal understandings. I would hazard a guess that it is still truthful to say that there has been no evidence found of any of those "Gods".

But a simple element of logic is overlooked: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or, in other words: you cannot prove a negative. A basic, fundamental rule of logic.

So to state, "There is no God" is to violate this fundamental rule of logic. If it isn't logic leading the thought, then it must be belief.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: SuperFrog

No, it called the God particle because it's everywhere, but unprovable. Google is your friend, not mine.

Are you really that delusional??

Here is interview with man WHO NAMED IT?!

The Man Who Coined 'The God Particle' Explains: It Was A Joke!

Again, you can believe all you want, this is simple fact and also proof why belief has nothing to do with science...


a reply to: NavyDoc
I believe education has stronger connection to change in numbers, and it was represented by Dr. Tyson in his speech. Higher education means lower number of belief in personal God.

The trouble is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Perfect. As much as some atheists say definitively, "There is no god!", it's the same as the religious saying definitively that there IS a god. We simply don't know. Not one of us.

There may be a god. There may also be a spaghetti monster. I think the chances of either existing are about the same. There is no evidence of either, but as you said...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog

Here is where science crosses into belief all too often: stating there is no God

And where did I claim there is no God??

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SuperFrog
So to state, "There is no God" is to violate this fundamental rule of logic. If it isn't logic leading the thought, then it must be belief.

Again, where did I say that??

I fully agree there is no evidence for god existence or non existence, that is something I said on this forum many times, even here you trying to apply something I never claimed.

That is actually main difference between science and religion, where I would adjust my view if there is evidence for God and I would say - I was wrong. Ask religious nuts will they adjust their view with absence of evidence in God's existence and even presume they might be wrong?!

God - as testified, is invisible. Is an infinite power. Also, God is a class without classification. Alone and singular is HIS class - without second - and without compare.


“There is but one only, (a) living, and true God (b) who is infinite in being and perfection,(c) a most pure spirit,(d) invisible,(e) without body, parts,(f) or passions,(g) immutable,(h) immense,(i) eternal,(k) incomprehensible,(l) almighty,(m) most wise,(n) most holy,(o) most free,(p) most absolute,(q) working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will...”

(a) Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6.
(b) I Thess. 1:9; Jer. 10:10.
(c) Job 11:7, 8, 9; Job 26:14.
(d) John 4:24.
(e) I Tim. 1:17.
(f) Deut. 4:15, 16; John 4:24, with Luke 24:39.
(g) Acts 14:11, 15.
(h) James 1:17; Mal. 3:6.
(i) I Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24.
(k) Ps. 90:2; I Tim. 1:17.
(l) Ps. 145:3.
(m) Gen. 17:1; Rev. 4:8.
(n) Rom. 16:27.
(o) Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8.
(p) Ps. 115:3.
(q) Exod. 3:14."

(Westminster Confession)

Have fun finding this class scientifically... I think it will take myriad lifetimes - and even then you will fall short.

However... I do not believe that religion explains things scientifically - you seem angry that anyone should hold a belief outside of your own.. please note, that everyone is entitled to their belief - you and I both.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I respect yours and everybody else opinion, but when speaking of things we don't know, we should explain that this is our POV. for example

''I think it's called the God particle because it's everywhere, but unprovable''. or
''I believe it is called the God particle because it's everywhere, but unprovable.''

otherwise is like stating your opinion as a fact, making others to believe it is a fact.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I cannot ever adjust my view - when I died for a short time, I was in the presence of God. I cannot adjust that, I cannot disbelieve in that. I felt the power of God.

ETA:

Nor can I prove it, as it is experiential in nature. Nor do I need to.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Unless your name is "Science", I don't believe I have put any words in your mouth.

But science makes no room for anything that there is no evidence for. Not to say that any other commonly held beliefs are/are not correct, but Atlantis is another good example, as is preAdamic civlization theories. If you would love a good tour of how "lack of evidence" becomes "impossible to be true", visit the Ancient Egypt threads.