Religion and Science

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Consider the math that went into the placement of the Pyramids in relation to the Sun and the fact they are religious symbols as well as tombs that have lasted for thousands of years. To me this is a huge signal that in BC Egypt science/maths and religion were working fairly close.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I just want to recap this thread a bit first because there has been some pretty interesting news in the science world.  First, there is a correlation between the story of Genesis and evolution, the whole created from dust thing.  

Second, the pyramids are examples of advanced mathematics and physics so it stands to reason that they understood superconductors better than we did.  These superconductors could have been used to build the superconductor pyramids, Sphinx, and the arc of the covenant.  

Third, the new evidence, which is that Hopes fade of Higgs particle opening door to new realms soon.  We are looking at the map of the Universe and it's staring us right in the face.  One particle that carries energy throughout the universe is inside of everything and was instrumental in the growth and development of the universe as we know it.

 We try to act like we are in control of everything, we try to make plans. The fact is however, that everyday things happen that are out of our control and "someone" or "something" is in control of that; science says that would also be part of the "God" particle. 

[Reckless Roselia]

We are created from dust ... stardust to be precise. 

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Exactly Rose, Dust from the heavens!   

Also interesting, we have been given the ability to watch the miracle of planet creation right before our eyes thanks to science(knowledge).  If that doesn't demonstrate the amazing power there is in the energy that controls our everyday lives hey?  

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

More movement to the theoretical God, which will result in the historical Jesus.  Good Sabbath all!! 

Point / Counterpoint – The motion: science will one day render philosphy obsolete.............

Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife 

Perhaps the most famous corroborated case, cited by Beauregard, is that of a migrant worker named Maria, whose story was documented by her critical care social worker, Kimberly Clark. The day after she had been resuscitated after cardiac arrest, Maria told Clark how she had been able to look down from the ceiling and left the OR. She found herself outside the hospital and spotted a tennis shoe on the ledge of the north side of the building’s third floor. She described it in detail. Maria, not surprisingly, wanted to know whether she had “really” seen the shoe, and asked Clark to go look.

Quite skeptical, Clark went where Maria sent her, and found the tennis shoe, just as she’d described it. “The only way she could have had such a perspective,” said Clark, “was if she had been floating right outside and at very close range to the tennis shoe.” It shouldn’t have been possible, as both Beauregard and Parnia point out. “The question becomes,” Parnia says, “how can people have conscious awareness when they’ve gone beyond the threshold of death?”

The answer to that question is not necessarily Christian, or even metaphysical at all, not for Parnia, who describes himself as “not a religious person” and not for many of his fellow NDE researchers. In a similar vein, many traditional Christians are more than a little wary of the reported experiences of the heaven travellers. For them the idea—so intolerable to materialist skeptics—that consciousness, or the soul, can and does exist outside the body is an article of faith. But some of the new afterlife, however seemingly Christian in outline, is often troubling, especially in its utter lack of judgment. All are welcome, all are heaven-bound in those accounts: there is no sign of God’s wrath for sinners. The division over the possibility of continuing human consciousness is not entirely between the religious and the secular. And the extraordinary popularity of heaven tourism—books have continued to pour down the publishing pike this year, including I Believe in Heaven by Cecil Murphy, one of the pioneers in the genre—is not entirely driven by evangelical enthusiasm.

New "Connected Universe" Theory Offers Alternative Explanation Of Gravity And Mass, Revealing Potential New Source Of Energy 

Nassim Haramein, Director of Research at the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics (HIUP), has authored a paper titled "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass," which has been validated and published in the peer review journal, Physical Review and Research International. This paper discusses Haramein's "Connected Universe" theory, which offers a new and alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations.

Haramein's work indicates everything in the universe is connected, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity. He demonstrates that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space.

[egginbonce]

Mar 10, 2013 23:20:22 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Exactly Rose, Dust from the heavens!   

Also interesting, we have been given the ability to watch the miracle of planet creation right before our eyes thanks to science(knowledge).  If that doesn't demonstrate the amazing power there is in the energy that controls our everyday lives hey?  

I dont know that we need technology to appreciate 'the miracle of creation'..............nor do we need (what we call) science, to have knowledge,tho science and technology are part of our lives,they arent the most important part..............
 Energy in our everyday lives??.................thats the electron transport chain youre talking about no doubt?
 Time of JCs birth?.......................only his mum knows that....................tho it probably wasnt important to her,especially at the time!
                 TTFN......................

[egginbonce]

the only people who think that (what we call) science ,can tell us everything, are non-scientists,I often think..........................its a sort of religion to them,but only due to their ignorance of the limitations of it,or even the basic premise of it.......................tis merely a 'work in progress', with no conclusions  gained which stand forvery long without being the basis for another question....................

[mmhmm]

G'day, Sir Eggin.  Hope all's well in your world. 

[Angel!]

Jun 25, 2013 12:08:56 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

the only people who think that (what we call) science ,can tell us everything, are non-scientists,I often think..........................its a sort of religion to them,but only due to their ignorance of the limitations of it,or even the basic premise of it.......................tis merely a 'work in progress', with no conclusions  gained which stand forvery long without being the basis for another question....................

I believe science can tell us everything, someday.  I don't know anyone naive enough to believe that we have all the answers currently.  I like the Michael Shermer approach - there is no such thing as supernatural, just stuff we can't yet explain & therefore seems supernatural.

[egginbonce]

I think you need to define your terms. loopyloo...................I mean science.there are many 'sciences'................and religion.............isnt your days doings,your religion, even if youre an'atheist'...............and whats an atheist,BTW?.seemsa shame to limit yourself by saying that your are 'this' or 'that', or whatever..............you are you, and you can pick and mix all you like- no harm in beinfg inconsistent- its one of the great luxuries, so poush the boat out- be an atheist todfay, a believer tomorrow, and a ham sandwich the day after- you'll find that nothing changes over the 3 days...............................

[egginbonce]

Sept 9, 2012 19:04:43 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

I think Science and Religion cannot coexist IF a religion teaches that their guiding books are completely literal. If, however, teaches that those books are guides, then there is no reason that they cannot just coexist, but enrich one another.

But I'm an Atheist, so feel free to ignore me

shame to limit yourself so................have a ball- be an atheist today, a Christian tomorrow, a buddhist the day after and a cheese sandwich the day after that- youll find not much changes that matters over those 4 days..............................

[Tennesseer]

Jun 29, 2013 9:39:57 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Sept 9, 2012 19:04:43 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

I think Science and Religion cannot coexist IF a religion teaches that their guiding books are completely literal. If, however, teaches that those books are guides, then there is no reason that they cannot just coexist, but enrich one another.

But I'm an Atheist, so feel free to ignore me

shame to limit yourself so................have a ball- be an atheist today, a Christian tomorrow, a buddhist the day after and a cheese sandwich the day after that- youll find not much changes that matters over those 4 days..............................

Rather judgmental of you, yes?

[egginbonce]

Jun 29, 2013 12:36:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jun 29, 2013 9:39:57 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

shame to limit yourself so................have a ball- be an atheist today, a Christian tomorrow, a buddhist the day after and a cheese sandwich the day after that- youll find not much changes that matters over those 4 days..............................

Rather judgmental of you, yes?

Maybe labelling oneself as this, that, or the other is judgemental of oneself.......?
 A person is (does it need saying?), more than being a vegetarian or a socialist or a christian or a lesbian - they are who they are with whatever and all that that entails.......we like to sum ourselves up in short phrases, and words like the above short list,all of which bear the unspoken suffix  'and thats that',which serves to advertise their inability to 'go with the flow',and thus be a bit in tune with their situation (which is the same as everyones situation)

[egginbonce]

Jun 25, 2013 15:20:54 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

G'day, Sir Eggin.  Hope all's well in your world. 

G';day mmhhmm....................its a work in progress,which as yet, I have come to no real conclusion about, but as the story goes,the person falling past the 32nd floor of a tall building was heard to say, as he passed an open window...............'so far, so good'..........  
  At the risk of sounding presumptious, I'd suggest that the same applies to all of us, which, I guess, translates as 'all being well!'

[Angel!]

Jul 3, 2013 1:59:36 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Jun 29, 2013 12:36:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Rather judgmental of you, yes?

Maybe labelling oneself as this, that, or the other is judgemental of oneself.......?
 A person is (does it need saying?), more than being a vegetarian or a socialist or a christian or a lesbian - they are who they are with whatever and all that that entails.......we like to sum ourselves up in short phrases, and words like the above short list,all of which bear the unspoken suffix  'and thats that',which serves to advertise their inability to 'go with the flow',and thus be a bit in tune with their situation (which is the same as everyones situation)

I don't see calling oneself an atheist as judgmental. I see it as self aware. I know what I believe & I don't believe in god. I could call myself a Christian tomorrow, but that would be disingenuous because I won't believe in god anymore tomorrow than I do today.

I don't believe atheist is a full description of who I am as a person, but when it comes to religious beliefs atheist pretty much sums it up.

[egginbonce]

So, Angel.......what exactly IS this 'God' that you dont believe in? Can you describe him(her,or it) to me?

I ask this as you cant disbelieve something that you cant define,as far as I know................ 

[Deleted]

Ignorance is bliss... 

[egginbonce]

seems to be, beerwench!

[Angel!]

Jul 3, 2013 7:58:02 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

So, Angel.......what exactly IS this 'God' that you dont believe in? Can you describe him(her,or it) to me?

I ask this as you cant disbelieve something that you cant define,as far as I know................ 

Any sort of higher power.  Anyone behind the scenes creating life, working the switches, guiding us, or just watching us. Anyone that can have any sort of outside supernatural influence on my life in any way.

I also don't believe in angels, demons, ghosts, reincarnation, a soul, heaven, hell, karma in the supernatural sense, miracles, ESP, or really anything supernatural.  I believe for the most part what you see is what you get.  Obviously there is a lot going on at the quantum level that we can't see & is frankly fascinating & for the most part way above my understanding.  But, I don't believe any of it is supernatural & eventually all will be explained (and probably controlled )  by science. 

I could be wrong, sure.  I could change my belief at some point also, who knows what the future holds.  But for now I don't see any point of praying to, worshipping, or even believing any sort of omnipotent beings exist.  So I consider myself an atheist.  For years I considered myself agnostic because while I didn't believe in the traditional Christian religion that I was raised in, I didn't know if there existed some higher power.  I think I wanted to there to be something more.  It is nice to believe there is something or someone out there who watches & cares & that death doesn't literally mean the end.  I was desperate to hold onto the idea that there is more than this world.  Probably around 5 years I let go of that personal fantasy & began to call myself & consider myself a full-out atheist.

[egginbonce]

  I dont suppose it will matter if youre wrong,or if youre right, as whatever is the 'truth of the matter', will be just that,regardless of what you believe or dont believe; you could, if you broadened your terms, call that truth God, except that the religious freaks like to anthropomorphise god,and wouldnt agree with the above............its all a matter of what you call a thing,perhaps?
  BTW, this bizzo of 'no doubt science(what IS science,BTW?)will explain it all in the fullness of time,might be a bit naive,and is usually the song sung by non-scientists;scientists know better-every answer begets another 1000 questions, so the net result is to exponentially have ones nose rubbed in ones rapidly increasing ignorance................

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jun 25, 2013 12:04:19 GMT -5 egginbonce said:

Mar 10, 2013 23:20:22 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Exactly Rose, Dust from the heavens!   

Also interesting, we have been given the ability to watch the miracle of planet creation right before our eyes thanks to science(knowledge).  If that doesn't demonstrate the amazing power there is in the energy that controls our everyday lives hey?  

I dont know that we need technology to appreciate 'the miracle of creation'..............nor do we need (what we call) science, to have knowledge,tho science and technology are part of our lives,they arent the most important part..............
 Energy in our everyday lives??.................thats the electron transport chain youre talking about no doubt?
 Time of JCs birth?.......................only his mum knows that....................tho it probably wasnt important to her,especially at the time!
                 TTFN......................

  You might not need to see something greater than yourself create the very thing that we all live on, right in front of your eyes, but some do Mr Eggy.     No science, no way to understand all this stuff that affects everyday of our lives.  Energy is everywhere, for instance a young lady just invented a flash light that is powered by the human body.  People can be zealous all they want Religion is a man made form of control.   Faith is understanding that the truth shall set us free!! 

Archeologists(a type of scientists) dig up King David's palace(link)






Good Sabbath.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I came across this article a while back, finally have the time to post it.

God, Big Bang and a fine-tuned universe

Dawkins argues that the question of God’s existence should be treated and tested as a scientific hypothesis. Do you agree?

If a scientific hypothesis is to be well justified, it has to have observable consequences – either before the formulation of the hypothesis or after it. I think there are some very obvious observable consequences of the hypothesis that God exists.

First, this is an extraordinarily orderly universe. The world is a law-governed world. Every particle of matter behaves in the same way as every other particle. Every atom, every bit out of which the atoms are made, attracts every other atom in the universe with – as Isaac Newton said – a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart.

The same applies to the other three forces – electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force – that they govern every particle in the universe. Every single object behaves in exactly the same way.

Secondly, the regularities of nature were exactly the right kind to lead to the evolution of human beings, who are a particularly good kind of thing. We need a regular universe because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to make any difference to anything. It is because the universe is regular that there are possibilities of benefiting or harming people, because I know what I have to do in order to make a difference. If the world wasn’t regular, I couldn’t make any difference to anything. Therefore my free will, if I still had it, would be of no use. In some of the great detective stories, we know all the evidence at the start but what establishes the theory is that somebody suddenly thinks of a reason why all these things should be so. It is like that with theism.

Dawkins concludes that the probability of the existence of God is very low. Why do you think he is wrong?

The probability of a hypothesis depends on how well it satisfies certain criteria. The first criterion for any big scientific hypothesis is that it must lead us to expect observable conclusions with significant probability. And secondly, the hypothesis itself must be simple.

For example, let’s take a detective story. Some money has been stolen and John’s fingerprints are on the shop’s safe. At the time the crime was committed, John was observed near the scene. Police have found cash equal to the stolen amount in John’s bedroom. The police put forward an hypothesis that explains these data – John did the crime. But when the case gets to court, John’s barrister puts forward another hypothesis. John simply had a sudden urge to walk past the shop. Some of John’s enemies planted his fingerprints on the safe. It is pure coincidence that John had exactly the same amount of money in his bedroom.

In both cases, if the hypothesis is true, we would expect the data to be as observed. But we rule out the second hypothesis because it is complicated. It postulates a number of different people acting in different, uncoordinated ways, which coincidentally produce this result.

The first hypothesis, however, postulates only one person. This is how it is with the God hypothesis. God is postulated as a single entity with three properties of infinite degree. He is omnipotent – he can do everything. He is omniscient – he knows everything. He is perfectly free from exterior, causal influences – nothing makes God do anything other than God himself.

By contrast, the person who says there is no God has to say that it is the laws of nature that are ultimate. But what does it mean to say, for example, that the law of gravity is ultimate?

Given that laws are not independent from the things they govern, in the case of gravity it means that every particle in the universe behaves in exactly the same way – attracting every other particle in accordance with the formula that Newton produced.

Now, an atheist has to explain this in terms of an enormous coincidence in the behaviour of objects – and that is a very complicated hypothesis. Unless there is an explanation, it would be very strange for there to be such a coincidence. It is no good saying, as some atheists do, that science will get an explanation one day – maybe in the form of the theory of everything – because a scientific explanation consists in having a scientific law, and that will simply postulate that a lot of things behave in exactly the same way. It is the theist who has the explanation – there is a God who explains the most obvious of data, the world is governed by simple regularities and they are such as to lead to the evolution of human beings.

Given that he is omniscient, God knows what is good and what is bad. Given that he is perfectly free, he is not subject to irrational influences. If you recognise that something is good and if you are not subject to a desire to do anything else, you will naturally pursue the good.

God always pursues the good. So, inevitably, God is perfectly good. God produces good things. Humankind is a good thing. Uniquely in the universe, we have a choice between good and evil. Not only is it a free choice but it is also a responsible choice. By our actions, we can make a difference to ourselves and to other people. This is a great blessing for us, and God our creator wants to share, to a limited extent, that blessing with us.

Because God always pursues the good, and it is a good thing for us to have a limited choice between good and evil, it is expected that God will bring about the existence of beings who have that sort of choice. If there is a God, then the existence of an ordered world and a regularity sufficient to produce humankind – those observed phenomena – are to be expected. If there is no God, they are not to be expected. Contrary to what Dawkins concludes, this makes it very probable that the hypothesis of God is true.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Sept 8, 2012 1:26:57 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

As we all know science and religion don’t always work well together, some would say never.

However, one thing we know about our sciences is that we are always finding out more about what we thought we knew. Maybe the same is true about the relationship between science and religion. Maybe there was a time when it didn’t clash? Perhaps there were some aspects of physics and engineering that our ancestors were more advanced in than we are today?

Before you dismiss this, consider the pyramids all over the world, the fact that the ancient Greeks had knowledge of advanced sciences, many of our ancestors understood astrology, and some of the greatest philosophers in history lived thousands of years ago.

There is a chance that earlier in our history religion and science were more balanced than today. When you put this concept it into context with what we know about evolution, it actually goes a long way to explaining a quote like this in the bible:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7

Here is a 42 min history channel special about how the more we learn about science the more we learn about religion. It’s an amazing special with actual scientific experiments that prove things like the floating Ark of the Covenant wasn't an impossibility. The fact is it might just be that our superconductivity technology hasn’t caught up to what we had a few thousand years ago.

That's right floating Magnets...

Superconductivity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

Sound waves can be used to levitate and move objects, study says

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

How about that....

Sept 8, 2012 23:26:45 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

....looks like the building blocks came in on an asteroid, so the whole theory will most likely change again in the next bit as well.

Organic molecules detected by Philae