I propose a challenge for anyone interested. Try to show me an instance where one of my religious beliefs is contradicted by science.
Lack of evidence isn't sufficient, as most of what we know today could have been 'proven' false with the lack-of-evidence argument at some point in history.
My beliefs most closely fit in with Mormonism.
#1) You can't disprove fairytales.
#2) You can't prove fairytales.
#3) You can't use fairytales to disprove reality.
#4) You can't use science to defend fairytales.
#5) Religious beliefs are the bastard
children of primitive philosophy.
I could go on about it forever. The truth is, all things we think we know are conjecture and concept. I could go on forever about why neither side can win, but I'd always be brought back to square one. There are simply to many variables and we only have our brains as guides.
Some have claimed they can, the challenge is for them.
For instance, if my religion taught the earth was flat, science could disprove that.
Haven't you heard? Science only supports Islam.
Do you believe that Jesus died on the Cross? He got resurrected from the dead? He ascended to heavens after the event of crucifixion?
Do you believe that:
1. Jesus died on the Cross?
2. He got resurrected from the dead?
3. He ascended to heavens after the event of crucifixion?
This is wrong; reason reject it.
The one who Truly understands does not need a challenge because he already possses the understanding that negate any and all challenges..
The one who understand falsely... partly understands thus his needs challenges in order reasses and ressure himself in his false belief...
Thus chanllenges serve to cement this false belief rather than change it...
Science is also religion.
In fact, science fostered ALL theos -theory, theology, theism.
Grandpa-science tempered is redundancy with myth and lore, to excite the people.
New-science is doing the same. It's called techno-logical advancement. Using the precise hackneyed concepts/applications -but with more robust, pixellated and eye catching functions for the people to eat like there was no tomorrow.
Science created the gods and used its technology, of the day, to enslave the people. Fire, potions, forging metals/alchemy, make weapons, brick & more -even manipulating the natural environment -rerouting rivers, building dams, burning field and forest to make way for cities of stone --and later steel and molten sand.
So, no matter how one tries to compare or distance itself from science, they cannot, so long as any ritual belief system exists in them.
A true argument would be, show the contrasts between the ritual beliefs of sensationalism and the ritual beliefs of science.
Only one real distinction exists between them: emote.
I will argue this: you won't find many, if any.
both are chock full of fantasy, lies, destruction and treachery.
both are completely cross with the true human purpose.
both are products of humanism -failed and defunct.
both will end at some point.
The so-called astronomy surrounding Kolob is based on heliocentrism., the highest and slowest moving objects centered around the Earth.
Heliocentrism places the sun at the center of the universe.
Geocentrism places the earth at the center of the universe.
Either way, nothing in my beliefs states that the sun or the earth are the center of the universe. Your assertion is not only unfounded, but it is fundamentally flawed in your own definition.
Yes, thank you for that, I should have said the Sun, not the Earth.
Then, obviously there is no point to this thread if you simply deny everything.
Waste of time.
What, you should be able to come in and say 'You believe the sun is the center of the universe'?
I asked for scientific contradictions, not unfounded claims about what I believe. If you had come up with a scripture that said 'The sun is the center of the universe', then obviously there would be a problem with my beliefs.
scripture is mere hearsay, or as more accurately stated by thomas paine: "hearsay upon hearsay". hearsay is generally inadmissible in state and federal court because it is notoriously unreliable. if hearsay isn't reliable enough for use to adjudicate simple disputes, it certainly isn't reliable enough to prove stories about a god upon which you think i should base my life. What motivates you to be a good person?
My beliefs aren't based solely on scriptures, they are based on personal experiences. I don't expect anybody to live their life a certain way because of that, I respect others' beliefs.
I try to be a good person for many reasons, one of which is because good people have made my life better, and I want to do the same for others.
Well, let's just do the resurrection. It violates a number of physical, chemical and biological laws to say that a dead body can come back to life. There has never been a documented, peer-reviewed example of a dead body coming back to life. This phenomenon violates science as well as common sense.
Now, I am sure you will respond with something about "starting assumptions" and "world views," and naturalism and supernaturalism and "it's all subjective" and whatnot. For one thing, if it is all subjective, then this undermines your own beliefs because it means your beliefs are no more coherent or dependable than anyone else's, including a lunatic.
Secondly, more importantly, you specifically asked for an example where one of your "religious beliefs is contradicted by science." Science has a specific definition, and operates according to specific naturalistic principles. So either you accept the naturalism of science by asking this question, or you don't, in which case "science" is being redefined.
But wait, I'm getting ahead of myself.
Firstly, clinically dead people have been brought back to life, even to the extent of 'lazarus' cases. This person came back to life 10 minutes after resuscitation attempts were stopped.
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/con … 3/690.full
Secondly, there are no laws that prevent resurrection. Just because we don't have a case of reanimation of dead tissue(maybe we do, but I'm not going to go searching) doesn't mean it's impossible. Trying to say that science refutes things that it can't accomplish is ignorant of what science is. By that same standard, flight violated the laws of physics before the Wright brothers took off. By that same standard, it was impossible to look at someone's bone structure without cutting them open before x-rays were discovered. Lack of evidence isn't evidence.
Personal experiences aren't moot when it comes to discovering truth. For example, let's conduct a thought-experiment I've used elsewhere.
John lives in a desert, thousands of miles from any mountains. He has lived there his whole life, and he has never seen snow. There are no books, internet, or cameras. John is old and sickly, and cannot travel. Jane lives in the mountains, and has been around snow her entire life. She decides to travel, and eventually meets John. She tells him about snow, but he doesn't believe her. Does that mean snow doesn't exist?
Science is the study of nature... I have no problem with that. Science is about the pursuit of truth, by observing nature doing its thing.
There is a difference between "clinical death" or "legal death" and actual death. Medical and legal professionals obviously need black and white standards to make their decisions. But actual life and death is obviously something else.
The story of Jesus says he was actually dead. And then he came back to life. Not a few minutes later after the "appearance" of being dead, but long after. That violates science.
"Just because we don't have a case of reanimation of dead tissue... doesn't mean it's impossible."
Well, technically, we can imagine that anything is "possible." Just because a giant elephant has never suddenly appeared out of thin air over the city of Paris does not mean it's impossible. But if that is your standard, as I already said in my previous comment, then anything goes and there is no up or down or rhyme or reason to anything. So your beliefs are no more reasonable than anyone else's. Anything goes.
This is not about what scientists can "accomplish." This is about what science actually theoretically allows. The reason the Wright brothers pursued their goal is because they knew that science did in fact permit heavier-than-air flying machines. Even if specific people had never accomplished it before.
There are certain laws and patterns in nature. That does not mean we understand everything. There is still much to discover. But until chemistry, biology and other fields come to the conclusion that full death can be reversed, any resurrection claim is fantasy, not science.
No, we can't explain how it could happen(aside from it being a freak Lazarus condition), but that doesn't mean it violates science. There is a huge difference, which is why I put in the OP that lack of evidence isn't proof.
My example was simple, because I thought you would understand the principle. There was a time where it was thought impossible for heavy chunks of metal to fly. I used the Wright brothers as a simplified example, so you are just picking at details. The point is, everything is unproven until proven.
I didn't say that my beliefs are science. I asked for someone to show where my beliefs are contradicted by science. It's clear that you didn't understand my opening post.
It violates science until science discovers new principles of biology, chemistry, etc that make true resurrection rational.
I understand everything you are saying. That does not mean I have to agree.
"The point is, everything is unproven until proven."
Correct. And resurrection has never been proven scientifically, therefore it is not a scientific idea.
"I asked for someone to show where my beliefs are contradicted by science."
And I have given you one. As I originally said, either you are talking about actual science and scientific principles, which has a certain definition, or you are redefining "science" to mean something else. I have a feeling you are doing the latter.
You are free to believe whatever you want. I can believe that 1+1=3. That does not make it factually correct.
Just because something hasn't been discovered doesn't mean science contradicts it. There is a huge difference between science saying 'No', and 'I don't know'.
Everything that has been discovered wasn't known by science at some point. Does that meant that science contradicted those ideas? Of course not.
No, you are redefining science. I asked for a contradiction, where science says either 'Yes, you can do this' or 'No, you can't do this' contrary to a belief. Science hasn't disproven reanimation.
Listen, I understand your problem. You think that anything that hasn't been discovered is contrary to science... that's your right to believe that, but its wrong
Before properties of lift were discovered, lift still existed. Before xrays were discovered, they still existed. Science doesn't define what is and isn't, and science doesn't prove the story of the resurrection as impossible.
Tell you what. Give me one example of something that science categorically disproves or contradicts.
Is it possible that there are things outside of awareness? Of course. It's not just possible, it's almost certain. But there is no reason to believe those things. So until they are proven or verified in some way, we say "they don't exist," or "that is impossible." It is a very reasonable position. Because the alternative is to say "everything exists" or "everything is possible" which is obviously nonsense.
Anything is strictly "possible" depending on how broadly we define that word.
But please, give me one example of something that you believe science categorically disproves or contradicts.
Science has proven the flat-earth theory false.
Why come into this thread if you agree that science doesn't disagree with religion? I'm inviting those who think they can show a scientific contradiction with my beliefs.
I was thinking more of something predictive, on par with a resurrection. The point is it will always technically be possible, even if so unlikely as to be considered impossible by reasonable people, for a dead corpse to come back to life, because we cannot predict the future. But that's not science, that's just contrarian problematizing. By the same logic, truly nothing we know, not even the shape of the earth, is absolutely certain.
"Science" does not disagree with "religion" in general terms. Scientific findings do very much disagree with various specific religious beliefs, such as the resurrection. You did not respond to my points about epistemology.
Read my opening post. I specifically pointed out that lack of evidence isn't evidence. I'm not talking about things science doesn't know, I'm talking about claims that science contradicts religion.
Since you can't come up with any, you move on to the unlikelihood of things we haven't proven.
We do know the shape of the earth, if you deny that you are only doing so philosophically, but that's not what I was asking for.
This is not about what science doesn't know. This is about what science does know. That's what you keep missing. Science has total knowledge of everything relevant on this (the body, decomposition, etc), including a universe of case studies of human and nonhuman deaths. This body of knowledge creates no space for resurrection .
Therefore resurrection is possible only philosophically, in the sense of our lack of knowledge on what the future might hold.
You said this earlier:
"Just because something hasn't been discovered doesn't mean science contradicts it."
This is philosophy, my friend.
The sky was never a firmament, the stars aren't angels and Israel was never the entirety of the world.
by Thom Carnes 2 weeks ago
I was talking to a couple of nice friendly neighborhood Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday (there's a Kingdom Hall just around the corner from where I live so I tend to get them quite frequently) and we eventually got on to the subject of the existence of Jesus Christ.They seemed somewhat taken aback...
by thirdmillenium 3 years ago
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do not understand is the way they put down the believers as though they were some...
by amer786 5 years ago
What criteria can be used to establish evidence for the thesis of an All-Powerful God that supposedly created the universe, determined its physical laws, originated and sustains mechanism for living organisms, created what are known as spiritual attributes, and dispenses wisdom and guidance for us...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 16 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by earnestshub 8 years ago
We have a new Australian hubber named "Antecessor" I challenge all religious believers to read her hubs, where she provides a very strong case against your beliefs.Any one gutsy enough to read her hubs with an open mind? Jeremi perhaps, or one of the other believers with enough intestinal...
by Silver Fish 6 years ago
Does the fear of hell influence your religious beliefs?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|