The difference between science and religion

Religion is base entirely on assumptions, science quotes theory when it cant prove something, now religious people tell me what other basis other than assumptions makes you believe in supernatural mumbo jumbo?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Experience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Experience? with more mumbo jumbo?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dug-T,

You are obvioulsy being disingenuous in your attempt to "discuss" the question.
Why would you think that anyone who believes would want to have a meaningful, honest conversation about this and honestly share their opinions with you?
What was the point of starting this thread?
Seems to be simple bashing to me.
You quite obviously have forgone conclusions regarding the subject and have closed your mind to any differing points of view.

 

One raven how can i have a conversation with a one word answer? i was merely trying to understand the depths off his experience.

 

I'm not close minded in the slightest, for instance if God was a study of science they would have little choice but to suggest its theory, makes perfect sense to me, yet religious people base god and all the rest that goes with it as hard facts.... quite baffling.

 

That sentence is ignorant to the point of being incoherent.

 

I see maybe you fail to understand plain English?

 

Religion is the science of the "inner"; and science is just men´s attempt to understand the world of the "outer", now they are stuck with atoms...

Your external world is an interpretation that comes from your mind entirely, your feelings, your responses, all comes from the "inner"; so religion treats that aspect, the science of closing your eyes to the outer illusion in order to understand whats really going on inside. In other words: religion is the science of the inner truth...

The moment religions starts getting all moral and imposive of beliefs, it just stops being religion and starts being worldly politics.

 

Science is a very peculiar kind of faith, which assumes that faith itself can be self-correcting.

People doing science can be dogmatic, but they must remember that science is a continuously self-testing and self-correcting faith. The faith comes in the idea that it is a way in which we can generate increasing understanding of the world around us

 

Well, for the better part of a century scientists have been realizing that the physical world is too complex and finely tuned to have come into being by accident.

They realize something as basic to life as the cell never could have evolved because it is a collection of complex machines made of molecules. And those molecule machines never would have evolved because their parts by themselves serve no survival purpose since evolution ONLY develops features that serve a survival purpose.

Taken together, since the cell serves no survival purpose, and evolution ONLY develops features which serve a survival purpose, those cells had to come into being just as they are.

And that would only happen if they were designed by an intelligence far beyond ours. Yes, I guess it does mean science leads us to the conclusion that a Creator/God is real.

 

Then your "guess" is just that.
And wrong.

Poppycock.
Which scientists?

 

Dug-T

so does science

To separate valid perceptions from invalid ones, scientists first must assume that the world can be known through the senses. They must also assume that the world is objectively real.

In case you haven’t noticed, these assumptions do not get along well with one other.....

aside from "mumbo jumbo" (which some scientists also exhibit a talent for) what is the differences between "theory" and "assumption"?

 

Oli

lol - or so you guess it to be ....

all those scientists who have been unable to produce experiments in which anything is produced by accident it seems .....

(how one would "perform" an experiment to show how something results from "accident" is certainly a strange concept)

 

Incorrect:
ggazoo's statement was that:

Which it doesn't for most of us, which of us (even theists) claim SCIENCE supports god?

Yeah?
Penicillin came from an accident, for one.
But maybe you're talking about the origin of life?
How long have we been looking?
How long should we be expected to look?
It took thousands of years to get to the stage of working out what electricity is....

 

Oli;

Dr. Francis Collins and Micheal Behe, for starters.

Jan.

 

Weren't they shown to be incorrect on irreducible complexity?
Two out of ... how many?
ggazoo's statement implies that it's a widespread thing, rather than isolated cases.

 

To begin with a scripture:

Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the assured expection the evident demonstration of realities, though not yet beheld.

Religion is a tool...like politics and science. Tools are used to accomplish an objective and are yielded according to the temperment of the user. Religion is a product of man. Being the creator or religion man has used God as a destructive Item, a blunt object. Religion steeped in lies and assumptions has not semblence to the Bible and the spirit of God and the one whom he sent forth. For there is reason and direction behind all God does and purposes.

As a result belief in God maybe at first intagible but through knowledge as one the apostle says at John 6, 66-69...

Lord who shall we go away to...You have sayings of everlasting life... We've believed and have come to know that you are the chosen one of God.

Believing comes first but there must be progress. The bible exhorts us to "take in knowledge" and "to keep holding the pattern of healthfull" information that the bible bears witness to. We should take in this knowledge test it and compare it as the scriptures depict and meditate on it.

 

Oli

to quote Jan Arden


Dr. Francis Collins and Micheal Behe, for starters.

to which you responded

Weren't they shown to be incorrect on irreducible complexity?
Two out of ... how many?
ggazoo's statement implies that it's a widespread thing, rather than isolated cases.

to which I can respond, thus they rework their scientific perspective, much like any other scientist

Alexander Flemming is an accident?

no I am talking about anything phenomenal

 

Still doesn't address the comment:

Two have been named, and shown to be in error.

Fleming's DISCOVERY was an accident - mouldy bread or something, IIRC.

Every thing's phenomenal until it becomes common place...