Science and Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Popcorn_Sutton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think about miracles? I have seen many fake people pretend on television to be healers but then I have seen people live the unthinkable. Besides the fakes, do you think miracles or the power of a force or just being lucky? What is your scientific view?
 
Many worlds theory can be seen as a plausible explanation for miracles. It means that both the best, the worst, and every outcome in between actually happens, but that you’re most likely to experience the things that don’t result in death from your own perspective. You could’ve died plenty of times by now, but you’re only able to experience life. These worlds are said to exist approximately 10^20^118 light years away from each other.
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
Hello everyone,

I am a self proclaimed scientist. I have no religious views, but please do not shun me for that reason. I’m here to be a diplomat between science and religion because I do feel that they have a lot in common. I am educated. I’m not necessarily a believer in evolution (although I do find the argument very persuasive). I do not submit to “intelligent design” or “creationism” either, although I can find truth in my own speculations of the two. I saw an episode of “Through the Wormhole” a while ago where a priest openly voiced his opinion on some of my own work. I have the utmost respect for him. He did not deny religion, and gracefully tip toed across the tight-rope of scientific inquiry. I just want to make sure that you guys understand and accept that I am not here to bash your religion, and likewise, I am not here to proliferate scientific wisdom. I do believe that the two can benefit from each other and I hope to unify the two respectfully. I’m not doing this for political reasons or to demonstrate a difference between knowledge and belief. I’m doing this out of the goodness of my heart and my love for “trolling” the internet.

Hi then! Glad to be a part of this community 🙂
Click to expand...
The big difference is Christ surpasses science, science cannot surpass Christ.

Science would not be if not for Christ, but Christ could be without science. Christ does not need science, but science needs him. For all thing are possible by God.

Many things can be done by Christ that science fails to explain. God is simply I AM!

Christ gives you the mind of study and understand how he does some things. Some he does not. Simply because he chooses it that way.

How can science explain the love of a Mother and Father the Second a baby comes out of a womb the overflowing love in ones heart in one second flat??

Science can’t! God can its called Love. It is a emotion that is not produced by science, its produced by God. It cannot always been seen, but always exists.

Science tries to deny God but science cannot do so. God does not have to deny science because he invented it.

Science can work with God and is supossed to do so. God gave us our minds to use.

Its not when science and God work together when things go wrong. Its when science tries to BE God when it all goes wrong.

Like with these test tube babies. What is going to happen in 20-30 years from now, when brothers and sisters all have babies together?? Its just another mess God will have to clean up because science tries to play God and fails as usual.
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
The experiment to demonstrate was really a thought experiment because of this-

Time is a collection of organized discreet linear bounded units. This means that crime, weather, and even intuition is predictable by previous events. This much is called “pattern detection”.

The thing is that one particle can exist in multiple locations simultaneously. This much seems counter intuitive.

So, to top it all all off, Einstein says that “nothing can travel faster than the speed of light”. The scientific community repeats this premise often. The irony of the argument is that I proved, in theory, that nothing really does travel faster than the speed of light.

So, in other words, “nothing” travels faster than the speed of light…

They say that “I’m not even wrong” on this one. This leads me to believe that it needs further explanation.

The law is-
Nothing travels faster than t while t = 0(o)

This goes to say that nothing travels faster than time (t) while time (t) is equal to 0 (zero) occurrences (o).

Basically, if nothing happens between you and your destination, then you’re traveling faster than light.
Click to expand...
This is usually the kind of response people give when they try to deny truth. Like how you say nothing travels faster then the speed of light, then you say NOTHING travels faster.

Usually leads to foolish talking.

Usually does end up in anger for some reason.

Usually ends up like this.

Well I BELIEVE in God!!

Well I DON"T!

God does not want that. If you want truth and the teaching’s of God this is a real good site for you to learn of his love of Truth and Goodness.

If you want to explain science or how it works you probally want a science site.

If you want to know if God and science can and do work together. Look around! Its pretty elementary my dear!!😃
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
I’ve come to learn that I’m really not a physicist. When I read papers on unitary mathematics, I don’t even know how to search the characters they use, I don’t think I’ll ever learn what they are talking about because of it. I do know the theory’s though, and I find evidence to support them in my own research.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall ever making the point that you cannot understand written or spoken language. Rather I argued that the meaning is abstracted from the semantics by the thinker, rendering formal thinking a product of immaterial causes that cannot be reduced to pure physical states for reasons I indicated on this and other threads. I don’t see how your comment invalidates any of what I have written.
 
I didn’t say you did, I’m just mentioning that whenever I try to talk about Physics, if I don’t have any model to back up what I say, then people find it better that I say nothing. I don’t disagree with them either.

I’ve studied semantics and I can’t say that I understand it fully because I do not know, or necessarily agree with the methods being used. I find it all to be replicated by pattern recognition. I just wrote a book but I’m not going to showcase it here, if you guys are interesting in reading it please pm me.
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
I didn’t say you did, I’m just mentioning that whenever I try to talk about Physics, if I don’t have any model to back up what I say, then people find it better that I say nothing. I don’t disagree with them either.

I’ve studied semantics and I can’t say that I understand it fully because I do not know, or necessarily agree with the methods being used. I find it all to be replicated by pattern recognition. I just wrote a book but I’m not going to showcase it here, if you guys are interesting in reading it please pm me.
Click to expand...
Okay, fair enough. I misinterpreted what you were trying to say and for that I apologize 😊. I did find your comments about the quantum mechanics of how the brain works to be very interesting and thought provoking. I kind of wish I had a better understanding of physics, especially at the quantum level, but, being a computational biochemistry student, it doesn’t come up too often so my understanding of it isn’t very deep.
 
Wow that sounds like a very interesting field. Did you learn pattern recognition or machine learning for that? What does the computer investigate and how do you translate the data?

I have a computational theory of the mind that makes use of the basic elements (I call them occurrences) and then it builds up off of those elements to make a unit (so it’s a sequence of occurrences). Then whenever a unit is recognize, it prompts all equal units in order to find the most probable context, and the strongest ones get vocalized with respect to their location in time. It’s a quantum mechanical event (if this can even be said to apply). There’s something called prompting that makes these units recognizable so we can unify our experience.
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
Wow that sounds like a very interesting field. Did you learn pattern recognition or machine learning for that? What does the computer investigate and how do you translate the data?
Click to expand...
Well my thesis project most fundamentally involves computational protein design which is basically a process that designs biological proteins to have novel or improved functions over the natural structures. I guess you could say that pattern recognition is somewhat involved in it. The computer is basically trying all sorts of new configurations to minimize a biophysical energy function given user-defined constraints on what positions in the protein can mutate. Machine learning is something I’d like to be able to do for some of my proposals (specifically optimizing the parameters of the design heuristic), but given machine constraints and time limits its not feasible unfortunately. I’m really a computational biologist (mostly a computer scientist) at heart, even though my degree will be in biochemistry, go figure 🤷.
 
Time is honestly a very complex object; it needs to be ordered accurately, and if you don’t order it accurately, you’re still going to get output, so it’s actually going to take some time before someone concludes what is the right order. I’ve been suggesting that it’s a tuple with a dictionary and a list for every variable, but honestly I can’t even tell you if I’m anywhere near correct, it’s such a fringe science that it’s not easy to talk about.
 
I’m sorry if that last post was completely irrelevant to your previous post by the way.
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
I’m sorry if that last post was completely irrelevant to your previous post by the way.
Click to expand...
It’s okay, no worries. I would agree that time is a complex object, especially when you start throwing relativity into the mix. A lot of the research in this area is interesting to me, but the only problem is that there’s only so much I understand before I start getting lost :p.
 
Popcorn_Sutton said:
Hello everyone,

I am a self proclaimed scientist. I have no religious views, but please do not shun me for that reason. I’m here to be a diplomat between science and religion because I do feel that they have a lot in common. I am educated. I’m not necessarily a believer in evolution (although I do find the argument very persuasive). I do not submit to “intelligent design” or “creationism” either, although I can find truth in my own speculations of the two. I saw an episode of “Through the Wormhole” a while ago where a priest openly voiced his opinion on some of my own work. I have the utmost respect for him. He did not deny religion, and gracefully tip toed across the tight-rope of scientific inquiry. I just want to make sure that you guys understand and accept that I am not here to bash your religion, and likewise, I am not here to proliferate scientific wisdom. I do believe that the two can benefit from each other and I hope to unify the two respectfully. I’m not doing this for political reasons or to demonstrate a difference between knowledge and belief. I’m doing this out of the goodness of my heart and my love for “trolling” the internet.

Hi then! Glad to be a part of this community 🙂
Click to expand...
Just to ask, you know about the Father of the big bang theory right ?

Cheers!
 
Welcome-I am sure your (name removed by moderator)ut will be enjoyable and insightful-

you will find that there are many differences among Christians which members of this forum
will regularly point out-

Science can be viewed as an enemy by those who take scripture in a literal sense-what is written is fact - according to them-for the rest of us Science is an avenue into the mysteries of life and creation-

I would advise you to get a thick skin and not to take personally any attacks on your positions

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top