Science, soul and free will

[AnnaG]

You were doing pretty well until this, and all that followed, Anna. Theology is the 'science of God' and therefor has no limits. It investigates all of creation, in relation to God. And science can't explain the most essential questions of our existence, our origins, our purpose, our destiny. It can't explain the origin of the natural laws that it is dedicated to illuminating and utilizing.

Sorry, but science is extremely close to explaining the origin of life on this planet.

Meteor impacts may have sparked life on Earth - environment - 08 December 2008 - New Scientist

Were Meteorites the Origin of Life on Earth?: Scientific American

SPACE.com -- The Leonid Meteor Shower: Sowing the Seeds of Life?

As far as our purpose goes, it needn't be some complicated and profound secret. We may be here simply to live our lives.

Theology and mythology are completely different, really opposite, disciplines. Mythology is an anthropological 'social science' that attempts to explain supernatural beliefs in terms of material necessities of a society. Theology will have none of that, it's starting point is that there is a God, and the fundamental purpose of human existence is to understand and serve Him.

The Power of Myth: Lessons from Joseph Campbell

And real religion, that defined by theology, never attempts to make itself congruous to what science has uncovered. That would be ass-backwards, but it does accept science as an aspect of the ongoing divine revelation to mankind, but subordinates that to the moral laws that God, which are determined from other sources than science.

:roll: Balogna. According to Creationists, life began some 5 or 6000 years ago. Science has shown that various branches of humans alone have been around for 20,000 years. Other forms of life were trucking around millions of years ago.

lol What is "real" religion?

 

[AnnaG]

Otherwise it is simply an unknown for which there is no data as of yet. The unknown is NOT meaningless as far as science is concerned,

I did not say that the concept of God is unknown, Anna, I said it is meaningless, there is a big difference.

I know what you said. "Concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned. " You are wrong. Science simply says that there is no evidence, so it is an unknown. That does NOT mean it is meaningless. Psychologists, sociologists, antrhropologists, etc. all study the concept of gods and how these concepts relate to us. You cannot speak for science but you sure as heck presume you can.

There are many things in science that are unknown. To give a very simple example, the integral of the function √sinx is unknown; we cannot calculate it as an analytical function. However, we can define it; we can find its approximate numerical value. But we cannot find the analytical function.

That is unknown. But concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned. It is too amorphous, too cloudy to be of any scientific merit. Nobody can devise any experiments which will prove or disprove the existence of God. So the concept of God is meaningless, it is not unknown.

otherwise there would be no sciences investigating the philosophies of religions and there effects.

There are no sciences investigating philosophies of religions, they are not hard sciences like Physics or Chemistry. There are subjects, disciplines which investigate the philosophies of religion, but by no stretch of imagination can they be called sciences in the sense that Physics, Chemistry and Biology are sciences.

roflmao You really are a giggle and a half sometimes.

 

[coldstream]

Sorry, but science is extremely close to explaining the origin of life on this planet.

Meteor impacts may have sparked life on Earth - environment - 08 December 2008 - New Scientist

Were Meteorites the Origin of Life on Earth?: Scientific American

SPACE.com -- The Leonid Meteor Shower: Sowing the Seeds of Life?

As far as our purpose goes, it needn't be some complicated and profound secret. We may be here simply to live our lives.



The Power of Myth: Lessons from Joseph Campbell

:roll: Balogna. According to Creationists, life began some 5 or 6000 years ago. Science has shown that various branches of humans alone have been around for 20,000 years. Other forms of life were trucking around millions of years ago.

lol What is "real" religion?

The word origin means just that. Your examples all have antecedents, where did that meteor come from.

As for purpose, given the brief flicker of a human life, a speck in the vast river of time.. does 'just' living a short, often difficult life, without any sense of destiny, satisfy you as a 'purpose'.

And who said I was a Creationist. Catholics have always taken the Genesis Creation story as allegorical, not literal.

 

[AnnaG]

The word origin means just that. Your examples all have antecedents, where did that meteor come from.

lmao My guess would be space.

As for purpose given, the brief flicker of a human life, a speck in the vast river of time.. does 'just' living a brief, often difficult life satisfy you as a 'purpose'.

Yup. That thought allows me to quit worrying about all kinds of " what ifs" like gods, heavens, afterlives, previous lives, etc. so I enjoy what I have right now.

And who said I was a Creationist. Catholics have always taken the Genesis Creation story as allegorical, not literal.

aaahh So Catholicism is the only religion on Earth. I see.
roflmao

 

[AnnaG]

Where meteors really come from:

Module 5: Comets, Meteors and Asteroids
NASA - Asteroid
Evidence of Ancient Martian Life in Meteorite ALH84001?

 

[Cliffy]

aaahh So Catholicism is the only religion on Earth. I see.
roflmao

No just about the biggest, richest and most corrupt on the planet. Two thousand years of selling BS has been very lucrative. Most people seem to have an insatiable appetite for that crap. I mean, let's face it, if you wanted to get rich quick, what better scam than to start your own religion, that is if you could live with yourself.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

" You are wrong. Science simply says that there is no evidence, so it is an unknown. That does NOT mean it is meaningless.

Science does not say that, Anna. Not only there is no evidence, but there is no hypothesis. Nobody has really solidified, quantified the concept of God, reduced it to a scientifically testable hypothesis.

In the absence of a hypothesis, it is impossible to obtain evidence, we cannot think of any experiment that will prove (or disprove) the existence of God.

That is not unknown, that is meaningless. In science, if we don’t know what causes a certain phenomena (e.g., crop circles), that is unknown. But concepts such as God, Astrology, Palmistry, Tarot cards, Séance etc., are meaningless, are nonsense as far as science is concerned, they are not ‘unknown’.

There is a big difference between 'unknown' and 'nonsense'.

 

[s_lone]

To me, science is all about observation. The first thing I ever observed was the fact that I had a free will. How do I attempt to falsify this measurement? Well, I attempt to not make a choice. I just failed again--choice made.

Science: free will confirmed.

Of course this makes sense in the ''good old common sense'' kind of way. And I affirm loud and clear that I consider myself free. But as far as I understand science, it is simply not what can give me this conviction. Ultimately, it is intuition that makes me embrace free will.

Ironocially, I somehow feel I have no choice but to consider myself free because the opposite would just seem too absurd.

If that makes any sense at all, I guess we are all determined to free...

 

[s_lone]

To OP:

What does your own mind say. Can you not trust it? If not, you will have to base your belief on outside sources like all the posters here. Free will depends on free thought.

My mind tells me I'm free. And I agree that free will depends on free thought.

But surely, ''free will is real because my mind tells me so'' isn't a proper scientific argument.

I absolutely believe in free will. My point is that science is at a loss to explain it or support it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No just about the biggest, richest and most corrupt on the planet. Two thousand years of selling BS has been very lucrative. Most people seem to have an insatiable appetite for that crap. I mean, let's face it, if you wanted to get rich quick, what better scam than to start your own religion, that is if you could live with yourself.

Cliffy, that is always the problem when power is concentrated in a central authority. Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism etc. have an advantage in this respect, there is no central authority. Individual temples, mosques, pagodas etc. are self sufficient, self governing.

That does not stop them from being corrupt of course, but at least the power is not concentrated in one person, like the Pope.

 

[Niflmir]

Science does not say that, Anna. Not only there is no evidence, but there is no hypothesis. Nobody has really solidified, quantified the concept of God, reduced it to a scientifically testable hypothesis.

In my opinion, plenty of people have posited testable hypotheses about god.

Take for interest Christianity. It says in various places in the bible, out of Jesus's mouth no less, "Ask, and you shall receive," unequivocably. I have asked. And not received. Test failed.

 

[s_lone]

In my opinion, plenty of people have posited testable hypotheses about god.

Take for interest Christianity. It says in various places in the bible, out of Jesus's mouth no less, "Ask, and you shall receive," unequivocably. I have asked. And not received. Test failed.

What did you ask for? X-ray vision?

 

[Niflmir]

What did you ask for? X-ray vision?

No, something more typical, like having my aunt live.

 

[s_lone]

No, something more typical, like having my aunt live.

Well... I guess a Christian would respond that your aunt IS living...

but of course, I get your point...

 

[Niflmir]

Well... I guess a Christian would respond that your aunt IS living...

but of course, I get your point...

I think they would argue that she is existing... but yes, not all Christians think the bible should be taken literally. And the whole "Ask and ye shall receive," business should convince one. Sigh, if only.

 

[darkbeaver]

It sounds vaguely like the teachings of John Hagee, a notorious American evangelist, who has based his ministry on 'exposing' the Pope as the AntiChrist, the Church as the ''Wh-ore of Babylon'. But, Cliffy, he's certifiable, he's out of his gourd. St. Paul has no link to Buddhism. And the finances of the Vatican are completely dependent on the donations of the faithful, largely through 'Peter's Pence' an annual appeal to cover the costs of the Holy See.

Gee, i don't think you got one thing right in that, Cliffy. You'll have to try harder next time. :smile:

The Universal Church has extensive real estate and banking interests as well as investments in addition to the billions it lifts from the poor and the lame. In short it is the ultimate snake oil dispensery. St Saul does have deep permanent links to the Talmudic schools which are ultimately responsible for the formation and staffing of the Roman Catholic Corporation. Cathars were and remain the only true christian denomination all else is ad hoc rubbish for the control and bilking of sheep.

 

[darkbeaver]

[QUOTE="AnnaG, post: 1130658, member: 41030"]Sorry, but science is extremely close to explaining the origin of life on this planet.

Commercial science will always be extremely close to explaining the origins of terrestrial life similarly they will always be extremely close to the cure for cancer and extremely close to free energy. Don't expect to hear the truth about the origins of life on this planet, it just wouldn't do to have such disturbing truths interfering with the ruling paradigm, would it? There are some very interesting artifacts out there though.

 

[coldstream]

The Universal Church has extensive real estate and banking interests as well as investments in addition to the billions it lifts from the poor and the lame. In short it is the ultimate snake oil dispensery. St Saul does have deep permanent links to the Talmudic schools which are ultimately responsible for the formation and staffing of the Roman Catholic Corporation. Cathars were and remain the only true christian denomination all else is ad hoc rubbish for the control and bilking of sheep.

Almost all of that real estate is in the formed of parishes, or owned the diocese for schools, colleges or administrative purposes, or in the case of working farms, supports the order or abbey which is its titular owner. Almost none of the land its commercially utilized.

The Church's banking interests are limited to the Vatican Bank, which is a repository and dispensing institution for operational funds of the Holy See. Although it might be considered Vatican City's Central Bank, it does not issue currency. It does issue coinage, in Euro denominations, in strictly limited quantities and under treaty with the EU, and largely for collectors or as souvenirs. It is not legal tender.

The Cathars were Dualists, and diametrically opposed to all aspects of Catholic doctrine. They construed the material world, in fact all matter, as evil. They were involved in heretical, gnostic rituals, but it was almost completely suppressed by the early Middle Ages. It has reappeared in cults since then, but never in significant numbers or duration. I'm not sure where you got that, but it is decidedly Un-Christian, denying Christ as the Incarnate Son of God.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In my opinion, plenty of people have posited testable hypotheses about god.

Take for interest Christianity. It says in various places in the bible, out of Jesus's mouth no less, "Ask, and you shall receive," unequivocably. I have asked. And not received. Test failed.

I asked Jesus for a million dollars. He consulted Vishnu and told me, “Maybe in the next life, if you are good in this one.”

I don’t think it is worth it.

 

[AnnaG]

" You are wrong. Science simply says that there is no evidence, so it is an unknown. That does NOT mean it is meaningless.

Science does not say that, Anna. Not only there is no evidence, but there is no hypothesis. Nobody has really solidified, quantified the concept of God, reduced it to a scientifically testable hypothesis.

In the absence of a hypothesis, it is impossible to obtain evidence, we cannot think of any experiment that will prove (or disprove) the existence of God.

That is not unknown, that is meaningless. In science, if we don’t know what causes a certain phenomena (e.g., crop circles), that is unknown. But concepts such as God, Astrology, Palmistry, Tarot cards, Séance etc., are meaningless, are nonsense as far as science is concerned, they are not ‘unknown’.

There is a big difference between 'unknown' and 'nonsense'.

lmao You aren't unknown but you are definitely full of nonsense. Science simply does not postulate an opinion like "meaningless" if it doesn't have any data. Don't be an idiot.