Religion does not explain the origin of the universe.

Not in any way that can be proven or disproven, that is. That's why we don't teach religion in science classes.

Except Christians tend to take the Bible literally and anyone who doesn't is anti-god, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-X. I live in the Bible Belt and if I can get a job were my schedule isn't dependant on attendance for a certain church or some stupid book, I'd admit myself into a psych ward. I'd be delutional to think that I found a real employer.

...just the fundamentalists. Most Christians are barely so, like most people of most other religions. Really, it's the move towards fundamentalism, in all religions, that makes religious people suck. Fundamentalists appeal to the simple-minded, stupid, lazy and insane in a way that tolerant, open-minded versions of religions can't.

No religion for the next 20 years. Just a break from all those believings in everything.

Back on earth please!!!! Is it so bad an idea ?

My version is distinctly different.

:)

At least not in a way that can be proven or disproven.

...as more is learned about our universe, where religion claims to already have the answers. One is a process, the other a dictate.

to consider alternative theories.

Reality is non-local. This has been proven.

And yet Fundie Science continues to insist that Matter is the root of the Universe.

As I said, science is a process, a knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through an empirical methodology known as scientific method. As our perceptions of the universe are limited, which science recognizes, it doesn't make dictates about the state of the universe, only observations. Religion does the opposite, dictating the state of the universe despite what one might observe.

Try again.

the unproven assumption that Matter is all there is and that it gives rise to Consciousness.

You need to get rid of your prejudices and try taking a more objective view... which is ideally what Scientists do.

Science has theorized that the universe is composed of both matter and energy, so babble on, prophet of insanity. If you repeat yourself enough, someone might think it's true.

It's matter AND energy..... But in any case, science doesn't assume that that's all there is, it just deals with what it can measure, and so far, there is nothing that can be measured outside of matter and energy. If you can tell us how to measure the designer and implementor, tell us how.

Where did you read or learn this?

.

You say science, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. And what's with all the non-local reality stuff? Can you explain why that's in any way relevant?

I'm glad I'm not the only one...

The entire basis of science is that its theories must be backed up by evidence. Science is constantly looking for new evidence, it will revise its theories if new evidence calls for it and it does so constantly.
That's why scienctific theories actually work when put to practice, such as Newtonian physics when building bridges etc, and Quantum Electro Dynamics when making electronics, etc, etc.

is non-sense

and everything that can be experienced from earth by the human senses. Anything that was unknown at the time is not included in the "Biblical" account. One thing that science does not do is set up logical fallacies that cannot be solved by the information given. For instance In the beginning was God and God created the Heavens and the Earth (paraphrase). Now, is god within the Universe in which He created Heaven and Earth? If so, the Universe preceded him - or, at least, co-existed. If God was not part of the Universe in which He performed His creation, then there is a Super-Universe that contains both God and the Universe in which He performed His creation. In either case, the "origin of existence" is not addressed. Neither is it in science, but then science doesn't claim to have all of the answers - and that is the big difference between mythology and science - IMO.

:-)

Indeed the science ideas - string theory, M theory, multiple universe bumping and wormholes - are best read as religion! IMHO!

:)

despite what you may imagine. Whereas organized religion does.

That seems to be quite enough to command loyalty and respect, and so far nobody is around to contradict their claims.

That's why it's inseparable from so many forms of government. That's also why most of it is so corrupt.

You decompose.

THAT is what happens after you die.

:-)

die.

You just ruined 10 years of devotional studies in the Lego Bible :cry:

But, I ran out of those red pieces with 3 pegs on the top.

I tried using a 4, but it was too long. A 2 was too short. And I even tried a 2 and a 1 together, but it just didn't look the same.

Religions do, in fact, explain the origin of the universe. They provide an explanation of who created it, and how. (This includes most all religions).

What they do NOT do is prove that explanation empirically.

I think the whole problem with this thorny issue is that it pits apples against oranges.

Religion does not disprove evoltion, nor does evolution disprove religion.
In fact, evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of the universe. If you want a more analogous comparsion, it would be big bang and creation, not evolution and creation.

However, I was reframing another poster's poorly-worded argument.

You are also correct about the problem with the comparison in the first place.

Creation myths explain how/why the world is experienced and organized as it is.

No creation myth really explains the existence of physical matter in a rigorous way. All concern themselves with the organization to the psychologically meaningful significant factors and elements and experiences of the people whose myth it is.

"Because God made it so" can cover everything. It covers everything so thoroughly that it's pretty much an affirmation of God's power and not much else. It's the same thing with the "intelligent design" people: how come five fingers? Cause God wanted it that way. Who the fuck designed my aching lower back? God did, his purpose is mysterious.

That's why I agree with the previous poster. Religion can explain everything. It simply isn't an explanation useful for any purpose except a religious one.

"Because God made it so" is a thought-stopper, it's not an explanation. It's an indirect abuse of supposed authority (God's) to stifle questionings.

Sure, the Believers accept it as a reply. It's still not an explanation. Believers are therefore people who don't actually seek or need/demand explanations. Doesn't that make the idea of "religious explanation" an oxymoron?

After all, stimlating "questionings" isn't the point of an explanation.

You are confusing an "explanation" with "proof". Or an "explanation" with "truth". You can debate the quality of empirical evidence and the truth. But an explanation is an explanation, and the religious have got one. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand their satisfaction.

state of existance.

It has no empirical proof that Consciousness arises as some sort of epiphenomenon of matter.

And yet Science Fundies rabidly insist it does.

Let me help you out.

em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

Remember, reading is fundamental!

wrapped up in your own philosophical box you can't grasp simple truths.

Science INSISTS that the Material Realm is the a priori state and that is, in fact, all there is. Consiousness is a mere secretion of the brain and an end product to diversification of Matter.

There is no empirical data to support this while there is now empirical data to suggest otherwise.

Reality has been proven to be nonlocal.

Science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method," or empirical data. Your theory that consciousness "a mere secretion of the brain and an end product to diversification of Matter" is interesting, but has little to do with your crazed attempt to contradict my assertions, which I still hold as true.

empirical evidence.

Can't you grasp what I've written?

It's not complicated.

Edit: this is so boring... you aren't even reading what I'm writing your just blowing hot air.

What you are saying is insane. I hear every word, and I understand them. You just aren't talking about anything pertaining to anything I've said or any part of the topic I originally addressed.

Also, the proper spelling would be "you're," as you mean the contraction of "you" and "are" rather than the possesive.

I'm not particularly proud, just right.

Science doesn't pretend to explain existance. It has theories, which basically means it has ideas that explain observable phenomenon.

I don't know how you people think science works, but it's not like scientists get into a little room and say, "So.... how are we going to explain the origins of the universe?" That's not how it happens. They start by observing phenomenon. Why are we getting red-shift from these stars? Theories are put forth and the most respectable and empirical of them become more prominent than the ones that are less so.

The Big Bang? Yeah, they didn't draw straws to figure out which origin of the universe theory the scientific community would accept. The best theory we have at the moment is the most prominent, and until science comes up with something better, which it will, the big bang is the best explanation of the origins of the universe that science has

Evolution? I don't know how many times I have to go over this. After evolution was proved it's opponents came up with a completely new litmus test. Now we have to prove macro-evolution, whatever that is. The creationists keep drawing new lines in the sand and the only way this argument is ever going to stop is if an ape gives birth to a human being on live television. The theory of evolution is the best explanation that we have of an observable phenomenon. You know species and genus? Yeah, human beings made them up. They're a convenient way to group similiar life-forms together. When you're talking about evolution and in specific this macro-evolution the creationists made up you need to realize that species is pretty meaningless test of evolution. It could take millions of years before we see a new species derived from a current one. It's all about the genes people! Infact, any change in a life-forms genetic code that is beneficial would be evidence of evolution.

This idea of there being two different types of evolution is ridiculous. What percentage of genetic change would constitute macro-evolution? What percentage is micro-evolution? Does this really hinge on a life-form giving birth to something that humans would classify as a seperate species? So we wait millions of years, and by the time it happened we may have forgotten the original life-form its decended from. But we don't need to do that, because it's the FREAKING GENES.

You want to know what my only problem is with the scientific community? It gives people too much credit. It tries to approach society as a whole with ideas and is rejected because no one truly understands the process that these ideas come from. The religious authorities and pseudo-scientists have succeeded, by whatever satanic contract, in destroying the credibility of science as a whole.

It's all just theories,
They all have different opinions.

Well I'll take this to my grave:

Your dogma has no place next to science.
Your religion has no place in my school.
Your pseudo-science has no basis in my reality.
To compare 2000 year old religious convictions with a method of observation that has been improving the human condition for hundreds of years does everyone alive an injustice, and satiates the egos of those who are holding humanity behind.

We may not be right, but you can get there a hell of alot faster by moving forward than standing still with your ears covered and eyes closed.

the Big Bang theory. The universe, space, time, and matter, were created at time 0. You cannot ask what happened before time 0, that's an ill-posed question. And so, in essence, we are teaching that everything came to be by itself. Thats about as scientific as saying that everything came to be at the command of God.

The math only goes back as far as a fraction of a second after creation, but that isn't really the point.

Like I said earlier in this thread, the difference is that science offers a process for determining things about our universe, such as evolution and the creation of the universe. Religion merely dictates what we should believe. Thus, though religious people keep trying to equate the two, science and religion are completely different animals, and should be taught separately.

is that mathematics cannot describe the universe as the descriptors of the very early universe approach infinity (the curvature of time-space approaches infinity as you go back in time)

Just as you cannot multiply or divide by zero, you cannot do math with infinity.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't say "nothing happened before t = 0" - it simply states we can't describe it mathematically.

Big difference...

and ...it also doesn't imply that the universe came into being "by itself".

is that the math runs into problems as the curvature of space and time becomes infinite. It's a mathematical problem with equations of General Relativity (they are non-linear). It's a limitation of our understanding. It's an extrapolation of equations of gravity that work remarkably well in today's universe, where gravity is a weak force. Einstein himself did not think that his equations would work at such enormous material densities. So, we do not have the tools to ask what was at t<0. If anybody gives you an answer, it is a guess, a belief, an expression of scientific FAITH.

Modern science is full of faith. Not in a deity, but in some principles. When I said that the universe came into being by itself, what I meant was there is no source term in the equations that would answer the question "whence did it come from". All we can do is to use the laws of physics and predict what will happen, and, with faith involved, we can extrapolate into the past (but not beyond the t=0 point). If you believe that conservation laws (again, believe, FAITH enters here) apply to t<0, you might be tempted to say that matter/energy always existed. Hmmm, kind of like the deists who claim the same thing about God, based on their kind of FAITH.

The skill of valid inductive reasoning provides the ability to reason from specific facts to generalities. Science is a long string of fact supported by empirical evidence which can be used as the basis of these generalities.

What is basis of religious "fact"? Is it because God said so?
What possible evidence is there in the bible from which one can draw logical and valid inductive conclusions from?

Or, do you plan to hijack the efforts of science and convolute it to include a rational explanation for religions insecurities?

otherwise, nobody would buy it.

This screwy belief criteria constitutes "scientific church proof". Accepting by faith alone actually means, there is NO proof to support this idea. Furthermore, you must hold on to the wrong idea in spite of overwhelming proof to the contrary or you will burn in HELL.

Namely that introducing God satisfies the creation ex nilhio anamoly. In fact this solves nothing. It merely adds another layer to the problem. Now instead of trying to figure out where the universe came from we have to figure out where God came from.

The common practice is to claim that god always existed or is beyond space and time. But this is exactly the problem that was dropped on the universe as denial of its claims. You can't turn around and just claim that your explanation just happens to be excluded from the rules.

assumptions as to which way causality works.

Establishment Science claims that the Universe worked its way up from inorganic matter and somehow came up with Consciousness.

This is Materialism- it's the Philosophy at the heart of Establishment Science.

You are mistaken if you think there is no Philosophy involved in Science as it's taught and understood today.

Religion theorizes that the Universe worked its way down from Consciousness into inorganic matter and then upwards again.

Fundie Science is a one way street with Consciousness as some sort of epiphenomena of matter.

Science has empirical data from which it forms theories about causality. Religion dictates causality despite empirical data. Get it straight.

that Consciousness arises from Matter and yet it dictates that Consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter.

However, Science has recently proven that Reality is nonlocal... thereby moving much closer to the view that CONSIOUSNESS is the a priori state.

It's really that simple so why can't YOU get it straight.

Both have a Priori. Where does that leave us?

<<Religion theorizes that the Universe worked its way down from Consciousness into inorganic matter and then upwards again.>>

Using the bible, show me enough fact which is supported by empirical evidence which allows you to validly conclude that consciousness leads to the creation of matter.

It seems to me that religion put a man-God in the "heavens" several thousand years ago. But science actually put a man on the moon in 1969.

It seems to me that the reasoning of science has produced many tangible results.

What exactly are the "tangible" results of religion?

In fact, many physicists are running to idealisms of one kind or another because of Quantum Mechanics, and they are by no means outcasts or not taken seriously. See Julian Barbour, or Lee Smolin... on the other hand these people freely admit that the big problem with their theories is the lack of refutability. So unfortunately for the moment the debate between Materialism/Idealism (in whatever form the idealism comes) has to stay at the level of Philosophy... but that by no means makes it unworthy of discussion.

This kind of BS circular argument kept the religious
folks busy for almost 1000 years.

Looks like we're in for more of it.

too funny in a *Gorey* kind of way.

("A is for Alfie
who was felled by an
Axe".)

http://www.goreydetails.net/show.php?alpha=2119

and magical sky guys do the *POOF*ing.

thats shorthand for the rapture, I think.

It stands for
PEOPLE OTHER than OURSELVES are FUCKED.