Will Science Ever Advance Enough to Disprove Religion?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: ketsuko

Doesn't Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have the same creation story? The same debunked creation story?

the core of the creation story is that God created everything. How and when was that debunked.? And by who?

Dude for thousands of years people
have tried to come up with proof of the after life. ANY proof. What do we hear about? Ledgends from a thousand plus years ago?

the afterlife has to do with human consciousness. You need to experience death for yourself to see whatever happens next. There is no questiom of coming back to tell people what happens to consciousness upon death. Theists propose it survives bodily death. Atheists claim it doesn't. We are all going to find out what the truth is.

Religion is as real as love.

And it will have as many different changing forms.

Impossible to prove or disprove.



Classic religious Christan text..... The only way people will doubt this story is if a giant chunk of our history / origin is discovered. That completely contradicts all the stories.

Eg.... aliens that have been here before come back.....with photos of Jesus... the kind of thing that should have been known to the people who wrote the bible.

Short of something that big. Nothing will change.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I don’t see the reason why it should even have to.

Honestly it seems more like one religion trying to de-validate another so as to win its own validity in the process.

Science has become another faith based belief system.

It’s a poor scientist or enthusiast who sees the purpose of science as being akin to disproving religion.

I thought it was aimed at better understanding the world and universe so as to gain greater mastery over it. Perhaps "Science" would like to hold its own version of a Vatican council so as to consolidate its BELIEFS and prove to God knows who that it is a superior system of faith and knowledge.

Religion meet science, science meet religion...you are now one and the same thing.

Yikes.

double post....

I will just say this then.

Allot of scientific BELIEFS are based on unproven theories and as such require faith that all the evidence collected thus far is enough to determine a probability.

Science is a new religion when it comes to theory it blindly accepts and adamantly defends just because its the BEST GUESS available.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: the owlbear

Absolutely.... But I have no idea how an anomaly in a pretty known field equates to the Christian creation story being possibly true. I include all the other major religions in that as well. Since I grew up in the south as a southern baptist, Christianity is the only religion I'm intimately familiar with.


Science and history are the reason I became an athiest. If you look into what we know about the history of mankind it only matches up with the religions if you squint real hard and swap some stuff around. The only actual evidence in a religious diety of any kind. Is the fact we seem to always have believed in one. Hell even the Neanderthals buried there dead with tools. Not something you do if there's no after life....and that's just entirely too thin for me.

So you simply want to argue your southern Baptist upbringing was wrong?
Okay.
Born Again Atheism is a religion as well if you preach it as such.
As I said before
We dont even know the question. It is arrogant to think that we have all of the answers. I am not preaching. I believe in the Universe. One thing that we all share. We breathe the same air here on earth...
I just refuse to discount any theory. There are no absolutes. Anything is possible in an infinite Universe due to your own belief in physics.
Cheers

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli


Do you mean your reference to dust? If so I did. Maybe the Koran got the we are all dust part right. But I bet they got everything else wrong. You can't find a curnal of truth in hundreds of pages of text and assume it's all true. Logic would dictate that if it's 10% right and 90% wrong then the 10% might just be a lucky guess. The bible got "let there be light" dead on. But the time frame is WAY off and the sequence is completely wrong. As is the assumption we were the last creatures created.

a reply to: thedeadtruth


I agree love and religion are basically the same.... A chemical reaction in our brains that makes people do some crazy things. However love didn't create the universe and love is not all you need to survive.

a reply to: the owlbear

Religions require faith. If Jesus shows up tomarrow on the White House lawn performing Miracles wnd walking on water. Me and every other atheist will convert. Instantly..... Christianity even allows for that. :p

Atheism is a lack if faith. It's the opposite.

I think most of y'all know it's a complete contradiction. We would just prefer to have it all even out in the end.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli


Do you mean your reference to dust? If so I did. Maybe the Koran got the we are all dust part right. But I bet they got everything else wrong. You can't find a curnal of truth in hundreds of pages of text and assume it's all true. Logic would dictate that if it's 10% right and 90% wrong then the 10% might just be a lucky guess. The bible got "let there be light" dead on. But the time frame is WAY off and the sequence is completely wrong. As is the assumption we were the last creatures created.

Actually no, not at all . . .

It was concerning the nation of Israel being sent to the corners (diaspora) and over a thousand years later becoming a nation again. The whole "I shall make Israel a cup of trembling, and the nations will be set against her but shall not prevail."

The comment involved judging the prophecies of the religions to test validity. I used one from a religion which you claim to be familiar with.

-FBB

Science needs to prove existence doesn't exist to prove religion is false. Good luck with that one.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Science and archeology have already disproven parts of religious beliefs. However, some religious beliefs are true and science isn't capable of seeing them ... yet. The two really go hand in hand .... but people don't realize it.

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

You got to be kidding...

This has been cleared long time ago, and there are letters that show that Einstein has not only never said given quote, but quite opposite, has made clear that for him all religion is 'childhood superstition'.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Einstein and this quote

The Guardian - Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Einstein was discussed by religious people using his name for their purpose during his life time, thus this is what he wrote (letter from clip with Dr. Tyson):

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Yes science can disprove religion, it's already done that; but that doesn't disprove god or gods. I don't think science could ever advance to the point to ever disprove god though. The idea of a being that can always exist outside of the known reality just can't be disproved since the goal posts can be moved back infinitely as we discover more of reality. But science may advance enough to prove god if he exists.

In direct answer to the thread title, without reading any of the thread (not even the OP)

It already has, you're just not looking at it the right way.

These questions can go away if science stops thinking of the world as just physical. The universe that is purely mental and mathematical has less issues explaining religious experience and scientific phenomena. If the universe is only mental/mathematical then the only way to fully understand it is in the intellect. This is not physical and can only be found by reasoning the fact that its not observable means mainstream science may reject this.

If there is a mental world of mathematical laws(physical reality) that information and experiences can be build from and feeds back to a mental world with no laws(a dreamworld) where any irrational thing can happen couldn't religion and science be reconciled? This would be hard to prove empirically and probably can only be found by rationalizing.

Some Religions and some science disciplines would both reject this I think. They both lose something religion would have to confront that there is no conscious god but a godlike mathematical process that can allow god to be created in the mind so god is not out there physically its within mentally. Science would lose the notion that the physical world is all there is and would have to admit the senses can not bring one to the truth. They would have to lose that everything is predictable and observable the world can be both rational and irrational. They would have to admit that math a completely mental thing was the truth all along and staring them right in the face.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli


Yea but who decided to recreate Israel? A group of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. I think it's far more likely it was a self full filling prophecy. If they had taken a dart board and randomly selected were they would relocate the Jews. Then it would be by chance.


When the people who decided where They would put the Jews are all people who want to see the biblical prophecy fulfilled. It's not nearly as random.


That would me predicting that family guy season 1 episode 2 will air on July 14 2035. Then I end up running a television station and decide to air that episode on that day. Is that a divine phrophecy then? Or was it a self fulfilling one?

And again.... That's ignoring all the things that science and history have proven to be false. Either the biblical texts are man made accounts that have been edited and miss remembered ( in which case all of it would be called into question) or it's divinely inspired and infallible ( not even on the table really).


If we agree it's been edited and something's are analogies. How could we know the concept of god isn't one of the analogies? How could we ever know what's just the " moral to the story" and what's truth.


On a consiracy site. I can't believe more people can't tell it's really just antiquities version of big brother.

Don't do what we tell you not too cause our guys always watching!

Proof? You don't need proof you need faith and anything that makes you question my story is evil and must be destroyed!

Anything that doesn't make sense is just him working in mysterious ways...

a reply to: EmptyStations

The reason people think science and religion meet in the middle. Is because we know science is real so for religion to be real too that would have to meet in the middle. That doesn't mean they do...

The only other options are that science is just the devil trying to confuse us.....which is insane....or that science is real and all the religious stuff is garbage.

Before science was proven religion taught that it was sent by the devil to confuse us. Now that science is proven they are trying to shoe horn there religious beliefs into science.

a reply to: ArtemisE

1. Actually . . . "Science" has become another RELIGION with all the main features of a religion--in spite of the acolytes, priests, high priests and bishops of Scientism pretending and insisting otherwise.

2. Therefore . . . you've cast one religion in the role of proving the other's false. That's a reasonable challenge . . . however, I doubt science will be up to the task in the short term. Nevertheless . . . within . . . oh, I'd guess at the outside 20-55 years, the issue will be settled by very overt, dramatic and obvious events. Probably within 5-12 years.

3. There aren't a lot of options.

A) Everything is a result of chance plus infinite time. That's UNSCIENTIFIC. There has NOT BEEN THAT MUCH TIME.

B) It's also irrational and unscientific to expect EXTREMELY COMPLEX SYSTEMS to arise out of chaos without an external designer.

C) Another major option is that Salvation is by works of individuals in their own strength. That's unscientific and irrational. God by definition must be loving. Otherwise, as Spock noted in the negative/positive multiverse episode, the whole negative would have collapsed in on itself eons ago. If God is loving, then giving Salvation only to those ABLE to EARN it would not be loving. So that option is not logical or scientific.

D) Salvation as a FREE GIFT OF a loving God TO THOSE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT and to choose Him and His ways as well as they can . . . is the most logical option and the one for which there is the most evidence, by far.

E) In short, "Science" will never disprove God nor the Bible's authenticity, veracity, practical applicability etc. . . . and certainly not in any comprehensive once and for all way on a level logical playing field.

F) What we have seen is a full court press by the press office of hell and the globalist oligarchy's media stooges in all institutions. However, those are about to adjust their major arguments and tunes as they shift to the fallen angel meme's in the run-up to the one world religion and government designed to force the worship of satan incarnate as the world leader and as God. Thankfully, their overt ruled era will be rather short lived.

a reply to: BO XIAN


Literally nothing you said there was true... Every single point that you made has been addressed and debunked in previous posts.


You do realize that the only three options are.

1: that there's a big conspiracy to hide the truth of Christianity. Which would mean every kid comming out of colledge is turning down heaven, money and fame. Just to keep up the lie of science.

2: every scientist on the planet has made a mistake and our microwaves really run on faith in god. Not electromagnetism.

3. Religion is just the attempts of Bronze Age goat herders to explain what they had no way of explaining.

a reply to: ArtemisE

It sounds like you are in a VERY DIFFERENT multiverse

and

that your convictions about "reality" are unalterable . . . regardless of the facts.

We'll see how that works out for you ultimately.