SCIENCE.
What is the beginning or source of science? I am asking this because there are alot of things that came from nowhere.
Edit : second question: Why do you split god from science?
I can easily rewrite Burbinators statement with science and we see that there isn’t a big difference between them.
Well, it shows how organic science is, and how it is constantly redefined and changed by humans, which very much indicates that it has no divine source.
Well yeah it doesn’t have a divine source. But unlike religion, the point of science is TO be refined and perfected, the way religion works it is supposed to be absolute, which shouldn’t/can’t be refined. Science is making a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is wrong, or could be modified to be more accurate, then it can be changed.
Religion doesn’t have to be absolute. It can be refined and also has been refined a lot while staying outside contradictions. (There are lot negative examples for that, I know) Science can only prove “static” things that never change and probably never will change if we have not get them wrong. That’s why you can say if a hypothesis is wrong or not. But there are things that aren’t static like the human mind. Somehow it manages to change so it doesn’t stay inside predictable bounds. Science can only see the material side of it (hormones, brain activity, etc.) but it cannot describe it really.
My question: Don’t you think that there is something that has no material? Somehow you have to because there are rules that doesn’t appear in any material form. They just exist.
What do you mean by “something that has no material”? Like what for example?
Also, do you believe that, if we can’t currently understand it, that we’ll never be able to?
Nature. What is the origin of the nature of the universe? Or existence itself? No one knows. No one. Science is looking into it. What a great mystery though, no?
Religion doesn’t have to exist at all. Also, you don’t understand science.
Not understanding anything about the unobservable now, doesn’t mean that it won’t be observable eventually. You give no definitive reason why the scientific method is flawed. Your statement simply implies our understanding and ability to perceive is limited to what it is currently limited to.
The difference is that religion is considered absolute (which it clearly is not) and is changed with human goals and needs in mind, while science is simply the best that we can make of what we know, is anything from absolute, and that it is changed according to observation.
I lol’d
Christianity has been refined purely to keep from being exposed as fraudulent and immoral, otherwise, there hasn’t exactly been a new text added to the bible in a while… Unless you count mormanism
Most religions except for really really contemporary ones haven’t been actually added to in a while. The point of most religions is that they were ALWAYS right, and will continue to be right, so how can one “refine” something unless it is already flawed?
Science theories can be flawed but that’s the exact reason why they’re so flexible, so we can always refine theories and make them more exact, to the point that they are as exact as they can possibly be.
Which is entirely untrue of religion. Religion starts with a concept and finds ways in which reality backs up that concept. Science starts with reality and finds a concept that coincides with reality.
Why does there need to be an “alternative to god”?
If you don’t believe in god, then you must replace it with something else. Just like smoking and chewing gum, religion is an addiction lol
If interested in in religious study I could point you to some youtube channels that provide valuable information. As a former and informed multi religion individual I research many sources of religious information.
The difference between religion and science?
Science - We don’t know everything, but we are working on it. If you do not believe the conclusions reached by us feel free to prove us wrong.
Religion - We have a divine channel to the creator of everything, we are the end all be all of knowledge. Believe it or GTFO.
The belief in god does not have to be replaced by anything. The concept of a god is unfalsifiable and has no evidence to back it up and is therefor not worth considering. Just as I do not have to replace the belief in leprechauns with anything I do not have to replace god just because I do not believe in it.
Science evolved. It turns out that the more you try something over again under the same conditions, the more you observe the result is the same.
Humans recognized this trait of reality and eventually found that they could do that with things which normally wouldn’t occur in front of their eyes, and watch what happens.
Eventually even that got passed up, by someone realizing differences in experimental outcomes had some relationship with the parameters. They could begin to hypothesize what would happen by doing something slightly different than they’d tried before.
Each of these elements proved appealing to the curious members of society who must have figured out a way to reliably feed themselves. As such, the belief of Science spread like wildfire, as not only could everybody observe and listen to the results of experiments done by others, but they could also set up new little experiments in order to really communicate with what they believe in.
Observation.
Religion, unlike science, is supposed to be the absolute truth, and it always has. Why is the absolute truth changing? Science changes all the time because it corrects itself all the time. It isn’t an absolute truth. And you’re right, science has no divine source, is that supposed to render it invalid?
Why can’t god be the origin?
What is the evidence that God is the origin?
Also, you didn’t answer my previous question:
Why does there need to be an “alternative to god”?
If you don’t believe in god and only believe in that what is 100% provable then there are things that you didn’t found out yet and things that you may never find out.
The easiest example to describe it is with the help of numbers. You know that they exist and know how they work. But you can’t really understand the endlessness of the numbers.
That is as an example of something that we can never find out. If something infinite and not understandable exists then there have to be something. That something is the alternative to god. If you simply ignore it you have a hole in science and that is what I wanted to say all the time. Religion and Science has always been split. But in my opinion both are fully required and both complement each other.
Your first question was a rhetorical one I think.
There is an ‘alternative’:
I don’t currently know.
Also, numbers are, by definition, infinite because any number you have, you can add one to it, and then you can add one to that, and so on. As well as subtracting one if you don’t mind going infinitely negative…or infinitely small (What’s half of 1? What’s half of that? What’s half of that? And so on.). That’s not hard to understand and we don’t have to “ignore” the infiniteness of numbers. Numbers are used to describe amounts of things. “Two” means that there are two of something (take that something and put another of that something)…two apples, two megabytes, two Half-Life mods, two presidents of the United States, two ice cubes… If there are only two of that item, then “two” is a sufficient number to use.
There are a finite number of “things” in the universe so we don’t need to “plus one” them. Fifty trillion? Sounds good. Why do you need to care about “fifty trillion one”? You know that number exists but that wouldn’t describe the amount of somethings you have. It’s not “ignoring” it at all. It’s acknowledging its irrelevance.
Also, I reject your notion that religion and science have always been split. Science could simply be how a specific deity “does stuff”.
My question is, why does there HAVE to be a deity at all, and why does it have to be YOUR deity? It’s not rhetorical at all.
Science doesn’t account for hypothetical concepts like an infinite amount of numbers. Science accounts for what is measurable and observable.
That’s what I have in mind and I totally agree with that. I think you got me wrong. I was trying to say that religion is being seen as the counter part to science and that religion only is bunch of fantasy crap of humans. That’s what most atheist think,or not?
My deity?
Without a deity, we have no origin, no reason, no motivation and the most important, no other plausible explanation for life and all its perfection.
I think that perfection cannot be achieved through coincidence.
Also another question: Do atheists think that god isn’t “the real thing” and that there must be something else more unimaginable?