Yes :)

Religions have 2 main aspects. 1 is scientific. It is seeking a set of morals by which a society can thrive and survive. Each set then competes with others to survive. The better sets cause/allow the creation of larger societies. Unfortunately, few use nature's laws which ultimately results in wars.

The second aspect is to use some supernatural reward/punishment to convince people of the need to follow the defined moral code. This is because the length of time needed to survive is measured in centuries.

Other than the length of time to test a moral model, the religions are engaged in a scientific practice.

Dear John Hodge

Religion is distinct from science, as its claims are not subject to empirical testing. Each of us bears the responsibility of independently scrutinizing religion. In my own investigation, I've endeavoured to demonstrate that religion lacks a fundamental connection to truth and morality. You can access my research on this topic on ResearchGate if you have the time and interest.

Furthermore, I extend an invitation to you to review the presentation linked to this query. It offers a broad perspective on the interaction between science, religion, and philosophy.

Ziaedin Shafiei You wrote in your presentation "God is not Religion". Before speaking of beliefs, Religions, and Gods as well as their inter-relationships, let's start by introducing the "Idea of GOD" embodied in "GOD's Attributes": OMNIPotence, OMNIScience, OMNIPresence. Whether we are Believers, Non-Believers, Monotheists, Pluritheists, or Atheists, All we have the same "Idea of GOD" with which we associate the "Same Divine Attributes".

Ziaedin Shafiei

Perhaps you missed my first point. Religion in their pursuit of morality is an uses the scientific method (hypothesize, test, redo, etc.). Where the test period is several centuries.

The more successful religions have moralities which cause/allow long survival time. Indeed, the ancients view this quest as ``war of the Gods'' as was.

The other part of the Gods and reward/punishment are not tested. I think it hubris that humans can know anything about a God with whatever power he/she/it must be imbued. But a religion must have something to force compliance on a daily basis.

see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329209019_Survival_is_the_only_moral_goal_of_life?_sg%5B1%5D=

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=694

Growth challenge of the United States

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329504002_Growth_challenge_of_the_United_States

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1093

Sclar theory of everything model for steering humanity's growth.

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1310

Dear all

Andrew Wutke pointed out the importance of modelling in science and engineering. I repeat my response here as it is an important point.

"I completely understand your point about the importance of modelling in engineering. However, we know that even the smallest mistake can have significant repercussions in terms of time, money, and reputation. The Mars Climate Orbiter mission serves as a poignant example of the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, emphasizing the importance of precision in modelling and engineering.

Thought experiment or pure thinking, on the other hand, is nothing but philosophy. Einstein notably re-elevated this tool within the realm of science, particularly in his work on relativity.

The difference thus lies in the approach to testing and validation. While engineering and traditional scientific methodology demand rigorous testing, fact-checking, and the performance evaluation of models, new experiment-free science often lacks these critical processes. This is well known in the so-called Equivalence Principle. To refute the valid criticism of this principle, Einstein imprudently advised testing it in a wafer thick laboratory. Unfortunately, this is taught in top universities with pride. It's this distinction that raises concerns and prompts the need for robust discussion."

Dear Jamel Chahed

I don't claim to have any knowledge about God. What I was attempting to argue in the presentation was the scientific validation of an intelligent universe.

I used the term "God" in an attempt to make the presentation less confusing. Perhaps, in the future, we may be able to uncover more about this concept. However, it's important to remind ourselves that, thus far, religion and metaphysics have not been instrumental in this pursuit.

Some believe that religion introduces a unique entity. However, is God still residing in the Garden of Eden? Is He three in one? Is He sitting on a throne surrounded by angels, sending prophets, and punishing us through His deputies in this world and in the afterlife, particularly in Hellfire? Does He prescribe concepts like slavery, genocide, amputation and stoning?

Whether we are Believers, Non-Believers, Monotheists, Pluritheists, or Atheists, All we have the same "Idea of GOD" to which we associate the same "Attributes of God": OMNIPotence, OMNIScience, OMNIPresence. Could there be any objection to this assertion?

Dear Jamel Chahed

My only objection is that your assertion seems rooted in religion. If I am mistaken, please explain how you have come to know that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Where does this knowledge originate? Additionally, what I presented in "God: A Valid Scientific Argument" is not related to these claims. As I have emphasized, there are numerous misunderstandings that need to be addressed before we delve into these issues.

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei Thank you for your reply. You wrote: "My only objection is that your assertion seems rooted in religion" I don't think so. For instance, to be an Atheist is to reject the belief that any Deities exist. So here we are outside the religious context. Still, however, Atheists, to reject the Deities' existence, can not elude the "Idea of GOD" to which are associated "Absolute Attributes" those of Deities: OMNIPotence, OMNIScience, OMNIPresence. The same applies to Theists, who believe that at least one Deity exists. Could there be any objection to this assertion?

"Pascal's Wager purports to give a good reason to believe in God. The basic idea of the Wager, put simply, is that if God exists, then the utility of belief is infinite; while if God does not exist, the loss for both the believer and the unbeliever is but finite. Since the expected utility of belief is greater than nonbelief, one has a good reason to try to bring about theistic belief. The notion of an infinite utility plays a prominent role in the Wager; without that notion the Wager is clearly unsound. Not surprisingly, the notion of an infinite utility has also been the object of philosophical suspicion" From:

Jordan, J. (1994). The st. Petersburg paradox and Pascal's Wager. Philosophia, 23(1-4), 207-222.

Available on:

https://www.academia.edu/download/79799328/bf0237985620220128-10918-1nbon9x.pdf

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/18

On the St. Petersburg paradox. In line with the previous post: "One particularly interesting objection to the Wager's use of the notion of an infinite utility is built upon the St. Petersburg paradox. This paradox was formulated by Nicholas Bernoulli in correspondence with Pierre Montmort in the early 18th century; and was the occasion for the formulation of that famous doctrine of economics, the law of declining marginal value. 3 In broad terms the paradox holds that it is not true that as long as the expected utility of an act A is infinite, reason demands that one do A at any finite cost. From this it's concluded that the notion of an infinite expected utility (and by extension, the notion of an infinite utility) is problematic and best discarded. Given this conclusion, Pascal's famous Wager seems doomed to failure from the start." From:

Jordan, J. (1994). The st. Petersburg paradox and Pascal's Wager. Philosophia, 23(1-4), 207-222.

Available on:

https://www.academia.edu/download/79799328/bf0237985620220128-10918-1nbon9x.pdf

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes/8

Dear Jamel Chahed

May I inquire about the source from which you have obtained the attributes of God, such as omniscience and omnipresence?

Why would someone assume that the absence of humans on Mars implies the absence of a specific individual, such as Superman?

Dear Jamel Chahed

Pascal's Wager, as referenced, serves as an example of the integration of religious narratives into philosophy. In the presentation, I underscored this pivotal fact that throughout history, weak philosophy has often been receptive to profound religious influences.

To me, God (and the Holy Trinity of Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit) is a matter of faith, not a scientific theory.

And I believe in God. Absolutely.

I did look at the PowerPoint. God is absolute truth.

Dear Mary C R Wilson

Thank you for dedicating your life to caring for others.

My goal in this discussion is to illustrate that we all attempt to make sense of our lives but often end up adhering to the religion of our family or resorting to 'gods-of-the-gaps.' This tendency applies to scientists and philosophers as well, who are actively engaged in creating new gods to replace old ones while believing they are the sole sources of truth.

I genuinely hoped to see my critiques of Hume, Darwin, and Einstein analysed by RG members. Detailed works on these issues are referenced on the last page, but they can be quite extensive, which is why I prepared the presentation to initiate this discussion.

Why not?

God exists and thus is a scientific question in a limited form.

Basically God isn't limited to science alone, the signs of God are universally spread.

By Arhum Tajammal 💖

Is God (intelligent universe) a valid scientific theory? An essential question at the interface of scientific knowledge, by definition universal, and personal beliefs and convictions of whatever nature, religious, mystical, ideological, or even politico-economic. For this purpose, one has nothing to add to what Dyson Freeman wrote on the topic: "Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance, they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions" Freeman Dyson (March 15, 2000). Progress In Religion (Speech). Templeton Prize Reading

Dear Jamel Chahed

Quoting famous individuals can be beneficial, but it may not be wise to rely solely on the wisdom of people and societies from the past to guide our lives.

Religion does not offer a window to a broader reality[1]; its followers often remain within the bounds of their own faith. For example, religions typically do not recognize other religions as valid, as doing so might lead their followers to convert to those beliefs, or at least reduce inter-religious conflicts.

[1]

Preprint Religion-The Triumph of Deceit

Ziaedin Shafiei wrote "..religions typically do not recognize other religions as valid.." This is right and perhaps the inner propriety of Personal Beliefs (religion, faith, personal convictions, or mystical thoughts). The latter comes under the principle of "Freedom of Conscience" (liberté de conscience): a strictly individual or community liberty consecrated moreover by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this respect, one can read in [1] "Keith Ward claims that the birthday of the secular state can be precisely dated to 1789 – not to the great French Revolution of that year, with its notoriously anti-clerical antecedents – but to the political arrangements set in place following the American Revolution". In 1789 the American Revolution introduced to the world in a formal way the idea of a secular state. The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America drafted two years later, laid down that there would be “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”[2].

[1] Madeley, J. Unequally Yoked: The Antinomies of Church–State Separation in Europe and the USA. Eur Polit Sci 8, 273–288 (2009).

[2] Ward, K.: Religion and Community, Oxford: Clarendon Press (2000).

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

Dear Jamel Chahed

We should acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint, and they should be allowed to hold their beliefs. However, it is important to engage in discussions on these issues.

In my understanding, religion does not have a basis in reality and has not demonstrated its connection to truth. I am open to discussing this further if you have a different perspective, although it's worth noting that this may not be the central focus of this forum.

Ziaedin Shafiei wrote " ... In my understanding, religion does not have a basis in reality and has not demonstrated its connection to truth..." This is what you believe. It comes under "Personal Beliefs" which comes under the "Freedom of Conscience" Principle. I would like to rewrite your statement as follows: "I believe that religion does not have a basis in reality and has not demonstrated its connection to truth...". Then as Follows: "According to My Personal Belief, religion does not have a basis in reality and has not demonstrated its connection to truth...". Now Replace Personal Belief by Religion. Religion is no more no less than that.

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

Dear Jamel Chahed

My understanding of religion is based on years of living it in the past and subsequent years of research. What's significant is that I have substantial reasons for rejecting religion. I welcome you to explore my personal experiences with religion and the results of my research as linked in the earlier comment.

I hope we can move beyond mere wordplay and focus on the facts. For instance, you may express that God is three in one and sent His son to die for us, granting us freedom to break His Law. In contrast, I might assert that God is Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu, and due to my societal status, I should avoid mingling with those of lower social classes, except when they provide their religious services such as defending me with their lives or assisting with tasks like cleaning. This is where the discussion becomes tangible.

Ziaedin Shafiei wrote "God is three in one and sent his son to die for us, granting us the freedom to break his law. On the other hand, I could affirm that God is Brahman, Shiva and Vishnu..." Each of them can affirm to the other that: Your God is not Mine. The God-less will say to each of them the same thing: Your God is not Mine. Okay, each of them will answer: And who is your God? God-less will respond: None. The Reply of each of them could be: Your Non-God is not Mine: I have one. God, it is neither more nor less than that.

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience

Dear Jamel Chahed

Thank you for highlighting how religious arguments often proceed: devoid of reason and logic when lacking power, and assertive and aggressive when in positions of authority.

I have endeavoured to make a case for an intelligent universe through reasoned discourse and encourage science to practice what it preaches. The existence of God is a scientific argument, grounded in causation and inductive reasoning, as previously emphasized by William Paley. However, Hume rejected both of these foundational tools on which science is built, and many of us have, knowingly or unknowingly, embraced his philosophy.

In the process, it's essential to differentiate between the argument for the existence of God, rooted in science, and countless religious beliefs that is not relevant to this argument. For more details, please refer to the presentation and its associated references.

Ziaedin Shafiei With all due respect I don't understand what you mean by "Thank you for highlighting how religious arguments often proceed: devoid of reason and logic when lacking power, and assertive and aggressive when in positions of authority'. I don't see any relationship between what I wrote as comments to your interpellations and what you are writing. Could you please show me, sentence by sentence, how what you wrote applies to what I wrote within my posts? Otherwise, perhaps it would be better if we stick to that.

Dear Jamel Chahed

• Please review what you've written. Can you identify any logical elements in the argument involving three people? If you believe your statement conveys a different meaning than what I understood, I apologize.
• It's also essential that we stay focused on the discussion within this forum, without veering off into unrelated matters. I'm uncertain about the potential outcomes you intend to achieve through this discussion.

Ziaedin Shafiei thank you for your kind words. Let's stick to that.

On the Occult. Newton understood that he didn't understand everything and he designated by "occult" what he was not able to explain to himself. Criticizing his rival's model and showing its incompatibility with observations (elliptical motion of the planets inexplicable by vortices, etc.), Newton was nevertheless forced to recognize that he only saw the choice between a mechanistic explanation and an explanation " occult”. Neither of them really suited him, he still remained undecided.

ILLUSTRATION OF THE UNIVERSE ACCORDING TO DESCARTES. EACH “LARGE MASSIVE BODY” (PLANET OR STAR) IS SURROUNDED BY A WHIRLPOOL OF “ETHEREAL FLUID” RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTRACTION EXERCISED BY THE DOMINANT STAR ON SMALL OBJECTS. IN THE SAME WAY, THE SWIRLING MOVEMENT IS SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN THE REPULSION BETWEEN THE MASSIVE STARS, WHICH THEREFORE REMAIN AT A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER.

Source

https://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/dossiers/physique-relativite-restreinte-naissance-espace-temps-509/page/4/

See also

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience/21

Dear all

This discussion is not centred around religion; instead, it aims to request that science demonstrate its value when it is most crucial. In the presentation, I have presented two challenges to science.

• Why science has remained silent, allowing philosophers like Hume not only to reject its foundational principles, such as causation and inductive reasoning but also to introduce chance and error as essential processes for design.
• Why science permitted Einstein to reintroduce old-style philosophy (experiment-free science) under new terminology, such as thought experiments and thought instruments.

I kindly request RG members to concentrate on this critical point. I am genuinely interested in knowing whether my points hold validity.

Dear Jamel Chahed

I re-read your comments, and I believe there might have been a misunderstanding in our discussion. My intention was not to suggest that your comments lacked logic. Instead, I was referring to the discussion between the three individuals you described, which appeared to be based on assertion rather than reasoning or logic, as I also attempted to convey. I apologize if my comments unintentionally caused offense.

Ziaedin Shafiei wrote "This discussion is not centered around religion". Despite Ziaedin Shafiei's explanations, I remain doubtful. I'm having trouble understanding how one can approach a question like "Is God...?" without centering the discussion on religion. This is a personal opinion!

Dear Jamel Chahed

Any issue can be examined from various angles. Take milk, for example, which possesses a range of physical, chemical, ..., culinary, and nutritional properties. When discussing its nutritional properties, it doesn't diminish the importance of its physical and chemical attributes, but the conversation is cantered on a specific characteristic.

In the context of this discussion, as the title suggests, the aim is to emphasize the role of science in the matter of God, which I believe has been overlooked or dismissed by certain scientists.

I contend that, in some way, scientists have lent support to anti-scientific arguments. Is this assertion accurate? Your comments are welcome.

Ziaedin Shafiei wrote, "Take milk, for example, which possesses a range of physical, chemical, ..., culinary, and nutritional properties. When discussing its nutritional properties, it doesn't diminish the importance of its physical and chemical attributes, but the conversation is centered on a specific characteristic". Sorry, but we cannot discuss the milk's nutritional properties without speaking of its "physical, chemical, ..., culinary" characteristics as these are determinantal factors of the milk's nutritional properties. Still, once again, this is a personal opinion!

Dear Jamel Chahed

You are correct; we shouldn't disregard other facets of this topic. For instance, my presentation begins with the statement, 'God and religion are two distinct matters.' I've also briefly outlined my views on religion and its connection to philosophy on the first and second pages. If you are interested in my stance on religion, you can find it in the second sentence, which reads, 'All religions are not reflective of objective truth[1].'

However, the primary focus of this discussion is meant to be on the position of science concerning the issue of God. If you believe that religion should also be part of the conversation, please feel free to introduce it. Others may want to delve into additional aspects such as philosophy, mysticism, and more.

Let's concentrate on the core subject as our discussion hasn't yet provided much clarity, as we've touched on many things without addressing the central issue. I haven't seen you comment on the roles of Hume, Darwin, and Einstein in relation to science and the matter of God, as outlined in the presentation. I haven't seen you delve into the idea that scientists have also introduced their own 'gods-of-the-gaps.'

If you still believe other aspects should be included, please proceed, but let's initiate a discussion on the topic in any way you prefer.

[1] Preprint Religion-The Triumph of Deceit

Ziaedin Shafiei wrote, "I haven't seen you comment on the roles of Hume, Darwin, and Einstein in relation to science and the matter of God, as outlined in the presentation. I haven't seen you delve into the idea that scientists have also introduced their own 'gods-of-the-gaps.'" I should admit my total ignorance about these aspects of the topic.