[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 6 KB, 536x370, 1279750956121.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1945671 No.1945671 [Reply] [Original]

Dear /sci/,
Please explain to me why the basic mechanical structures of religion can't be associated with scientific fact. Imagine for a moment that religion uses language mechanics as mathematical terms. So when a verse from the bible describes a naturally occurring instance with words or symbols, science describes the same occurrence with a mathematical statement. Both use symbols unrelated in format but hopefully they can be compared contextually.

I have no (good) examples and hope with your knowledge you can either elaborate or debunk my assumptions.

(shit) Example:
Pic related... Stairway to heaven. (durr)

>> No.1945689
File: 7 KB, 294x204, z13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1945689

what is this i don't even.

>mechanical structres of religion.
what is this?

erm, it cant be associated with scienific fact because scientific fact is based on evidence, religion is based purely on faith, with no evidence.

>> No.1945688

bump

>> No.1945696

>>1945671
so basically what you want is for people who haven't read the bible to find passages in the bible that sound like they might relate to some form of math formula, and the point of this would be what? to act like religion came up with these ideas first?

leave.

>> No.1945701

>>1945689
>implying someone who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the universe would have any reason to leave evidence of it

>> No.1945705

>>1945689
I'll take a shot at this. Try and imagine that Adam and Eve were sperm cells and the fruit was the ova. Whatever occurs in the story afterward should be related to conception. If not, no harm no foul, but if so the story must continue to elaborate on conception and move into birth etc.

>> No.1945723

>>1945696
Not exactly. The language structure would have to match the mathematical structure. Two descriptions of the same thing.

I don't want to fuck with science, just want you to understand one another. To bridge the gap would allow communication and advancement between the two, and would prove to be highly revealing imo.

>> No.1945730

Religion deals almost exclusively in societal governance, not science, and thus has no mathematical language analog.

The cosmogenies offered by religion are imaginary and false, and while mathematics can describe the imaginary, they lose utility when describing the false.

religion is crap, we don't quantify crap.

>> No.1945766

>>1945723
the only required advancement is removing idiots like you who think everyone should get along.

>> No.1945771

>>1945730
I'm not here to argue on the side of religion or science. In order for science to prevail it must disprove religion. It would be much more beneficial to both sides if common ground were found in the form of truth. Religion studies the truth just as science does. When the truth is known both sides will become clear. Why are we not using both sides to their full potential?

>> No.1945789
File: 12 KB, 312x316, z17.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1945789

>>1945771
>In order for science to prevail it must disprove religion.
no, scientific advancement happens regardless of religion...albeit impeded by it at various places along the way, but tsill we have advanced. slowly. science doesnt need to, nor can it, disprove religion. in fact that doesnt even mean anything, you might be able to disprove 1 particular bad idea...but not all of religion.
>Religion studies the truth just as science does.
no, science actually works towards truth, religion sticks with the same lies it fabricated millenia ago.

>> No.1945793

Here's a side for you...

Religion postulates an incorporeal being that senses, manipulates, communicates, and has cognition.

Biology demonstrates that sensing, manipulation, communication and cognition are traits ONLY found in physical organisms responding to physical environments. Thus the basis of religion (spiritual consciousness) is demonstrated to be false, unneccessary and impossible.

As impossible things are by definition disproved, and religions rest on impossible things, religion is free to consider itself disproved at any time.

>> No.1945794
File: 41 KB, 799x626, sciencevsfaith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1945794

>> No.1945801
File: 327 KB, 800x618, creationism1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1945801

>> No.1945802

>>1945793
Oh you.
>implying that "nothing" can be examined scientifically

Tell what there was before the Big Bang.

>> No.1945810

>>1945802
Do you feel the need to project something onto nothing? Seems like an unwillingness to accept the idea of void...

>> No.1945817

Sacred text don't address the same subjects as scientific texts. Sacred texts address spiritual reality. Scientific texts address physical reality. People who confuse this are retarded.

>> No.1945820

lol, how on earth could you write religion in mathematical terms?
Religion requires faith. Almost nothing in science and math requires faith, we build off of what we know..

If you really think that science and religion are at all similar that I feel sorry for you.. because scientists don't just get ideas and they tell people and suddenly it's a law. You might think that if you are scientifically uneducated and you get all of your "science" from the media (which is sadly like 80% of the population).
But if you really know how science worked you would realize that science and religion go about things two completely different ways

religion is for impatient people who want to skip to the end of a good book and read how the story ends. Except that you write the final page yourself.

Science is like reading through the entire thing from the beginning. That is why science can't explain all the things religion claims to.
But just because religion has AN answer, does not by any means imply that it is the right one... and in fact, if you consider that they took a huge shortcut to the end, the odds are that they are wrong.

>> No.1945829

>>1945810
>>1945810
Have you performed an experiment on void? Does the evidence support the idea?

>> No.1945853

>>1945829
Oh, you are pathetically stupid. No one says there was absolutely nothing before the big bang. We just don't know. You're just projecting your imaginary friend on to there. I could say there was a transcendent unicorn before the big bang. I have just as much reason to believe that as I do your imaginary friend.

>> No.1945856

>>1945820
>>1945817
You are confused. Science and religion describe the same thing. Truth is self evident and does not require either science or religion but seeing as neither of you want to budge I suggest you bridge the gap. If you claim religion is fiction then tell me how to bridge the gap between reality and fantasy. If one is night and the other day, show me the sunrise and sunset.

>> No.1945858

>>1945829
You seem to have problems with the English language as well.

Let me know when you figure out exactly why your thought and statement both fail.

>> No.1945875

>>1945853
You are just as stupid as I. You assume I have a side in this argument. I only want you to consider all possibilities before we reach a stalemate in human understanding.

>> No.1945902

>>1945858
That was a smart ass comment I used in reference to a picture previously posted.

>> No.1946185

>>1945793
>shallow and flawed example
>if anything the transition of incorporeal beings to the indulgences of material expression is exactly what the story of Adam and Eve symbolizes

Sage because there's no point in arguing with the ignorant where they overwhelmingly outnumber you as it will only strengthen their blind defiance more. For now the purpose of their existence is to wallow in their skepticism until they are crushed under the foot of truth.