Religious or spiritual belief and science

[Traianvs]

Belief in God is like a belief in empiricism, it is a fundamental axiom and not something that can be proved or disproved.

JM

In line with that reasoning, we might as well stop any debate about the issue. I mean, the discussion basically ends there. You're taking the easy way out.

[Jon Miller]

In line with that reasoning, we might as well stop any debate about the issue. I mean, the discussion basically ends there. You're taking the easy way out.

How is that taking the easy way out? It is the only reasonable thing to consider.

Someone can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

Just because you want to be unreasonable doesn't mean I want to be unreasonable. Why should I be stupid just to give you make you feel like the more reasonable person as an atheist.

JM

[Traianvs]

okay then, heh

[Elok]

we might as well stop any debate about the issue

Oh, if only...

[KrazyHorse]

Dark energy and dark matter have not been proven mathematically, all that has been proven is that physical observations of the universe and theories prior to the invention of dark matter and dark energy are incompatible, so extra mathematical terms have been placed into the equations to 'make it work'

No.

There is no proof that adding these extra terms is the correct scientific way of resolving these equations, or that these extra terms describe dark matter and dark energy. They are solely a mathematically construct to try and make the equations work.

No.

The existence of dark energy and dark matter falls into the realm of belief more reasonably than into the realms of theory.

Most certainly no.

I am using this example to demonstrate that some science is as much about belief as it is about theory, at some time in the future, observations may confirm these beliefs as reasonable proven theories.

You actually appear to be using this example to demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge of modern cosmology.

In fact I am confident that there are forces and matter that exist, probably in additional dimensions that science has not yet observed, and when found will explain the universe and its origins much better than current ideas.

Wow. So now the guy who lumps dark matter in with dark energy as a "mathematical term" which is thrown into "the equations" to make them "work" has sufficient information and expertise to judge the likelihood of existence of XD, new forces etc.

What a ****ing joke.

[KrazyHorse]

Belief in God is like a belief in empiricism, it is a fundamental axiom and not something that can be proved or disproved.

JM

This is true, depending on what God you believe in. There are a large number of people who believe in empiricism implicitly, given their everyday actions (in fact, I submit that only people who we would agree are insane do not use at least a modicum of empiricism when choosing their actions). A large number of them also believe in a God who makes a mockery of empiricism. I do not respect these people. Especially those who do not understand the disconnect between the two.

[Jon Miller]

Logical consistency is the only worthwhile judge of such axioms.

I think that a fair number of people have beliefs that disagree with empiricism, at least at times, some Post Modernists for example.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

And yet they continue to put food in their mouths when hungry.

[trev]

Dark matter has been invented to explain apparent gravitational fields within galaxies and between galaxies and galaxy clusters. As it has not been observed yet, there is still debate about whether it is MACHO or WIMP or something else. Certainly not observed or proven, so it is simply a mathematical construct to try and explain gravitation within and between galaxies. So 'no' is not a suitable response to my statement.
Dark energy likewise has been invented as a mathematical construct to try and explain an apparent increase in the expansion rate of the universe. There is no coherent theory on what it might be. So again a simple 'no' is a very inadequate response.
And considering the lack of observational proof of these entities,it would be reasonable to suggest that belief is a reasonable word to describe these ideas.

[a.kitman]

How is that taking the easy way out? It is the only reasonable thing to consider.

Because its just a logical tity twister, you cant defend christianty or the bible whit it.

Why should I be stupid just to give you make you feel like the more reasonable person as an atheist.

Its not about that at all, for me atleast. It doesnt matter to me if someone belive in god, as long as they dont use it as a reason to justify wacko laws.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyway, I had been thinking about that discussion again this evening and now I'm curious as to how other religious or spiritual Apolytoners on here have reconciled their belief with science and with the continual suffering of humans at hands of nature and each other.

Well for starters, the scientific understanding is that you don't have this 'god' called 'nature' who punishes people. Bad things happen, there's not much you can do about them, but hope that you are out of the way when they come.

My belief on this has changed over time. Before I became a Christian I believed there was a God, but that the universe was a perfect timepiece. He created it all, wound it up and let it go. Nature, and nature's laws were the way in which God was able to keep the universe running without having to wind it up again.

Now, my beliefs have changed somewhat. I believe that God created everything, but I also believe in substance dualism. The theories, and the Laws of nature apply to the material world, which we can test empirically and obtain true, and reliable information about this aspect of the world. However, I believe there is a realm of spirit which cannot be understood through empirical means, but is just as much real as the material world.

I believe that God can, and does intervene in both the spiritual and material worlds, but that his purposes for doing so and his reasoning is not to be questioned. God is God. If he chooses to act that is to be celebrated, but if he chooses not to, we must remind ourselves simply that it is God's decision, and it does not mean that he fails to love us just because our prayers are not answered right away, or even when bad things happen. It could be that he simply has another plan altogether, that we haven't even considered.

It's like in Chess. We may believe that the move is irrational, foolish, and downright bad, but by the end of the game, we learn something new about Chess that we didn't know beforehand, when the move proves to be advantageous. We cannot see all ends, nor even the connections between all things in this present day.

As for scripture, I believe in 7 'creation days', which are both Eons, and days, for what meaning is the rate of change of time, to God, who is himself before time? To God, an eon is a day as he is not limited by our perceptions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Che was perplexed with my belief in God without believing that He was the creator of the universe and of life. I believe in God but I am not a creationist; instead, I completely accept scientific explanations of origin, such as with astrophysics and evolution for examples.

If God was not the creator of the universe, did he exist before Creation?

[fed1943]

I think post 86 from BK went right to the point.
"My" God is "his" former God. The Creator, the Absolute, so not a person.
I do not believe in the "Divine Person"; I think a person is a relative entity and
God the Absolute, cannot be the same.
The All Might did not stop the sun (not the earth, so it's written) to help Jews to win a battle or put oil under some Muslins' feet, so that they became rich.
And He doesn't share Infallibility with the Pope or the Dalai Lama or with any Guru.
The Creator also created the time, so He is not a creature of the time. For Him, a second,a day, an eon...cannot interface with Him, He is Absolute, Eternal.
Nevertheless, I believe the Bible (and some other Books) to be sacred; written by men, but under inspiration. Sacred texts, not historical ones. Its great truth is symbolical.
It looks all the Universe, its past,present and future, belong to "the 7th day
of creation". Or does someone think God got tired and needed to rest?
Best regards,

[Ben Kenobi]

My" God is "his" former God.

Uh, no. We both have the same God. We just disagree on who is his Vicar. He's either you or this fellow named Papa Ratzi. No offense, but I think Papa Ratzi's got the better resume.

[Zoid]

Dark matter has been invented to explain apparent gravitational fields within galaxies and between galaxies and galaxy clusters. As it has not been observed yet, there is still debate about whether it is MACHO or WIMP or something else. Certainly not observed or proven, so it is simply a mathematical construct to try and explain gravitation within and between galaxies. So 'no' is not a suitable response to my statement.
Dark energy likewise has been invented as a mathematical construct to try and explain an apparent increase in the expansion rate of the universe. There is no coherent theory on what it might be. So again a simple 'no' is a very inadequate response.
And considering the lack of observational proof of these entities,it would be reasonable to suggest that belief is a reasonable word to describe these ideas.

FFS