Einstein did not give up his idea that God created the universe. He simply separated why questions from how questions and considered the latter to be appropriate for scientific investigations. Result–the general theory of relativity.
You didn’t disprove anything because it has already happened… Lol that’s the reason history is great.
This is not a hypothesis to disprove, this has already happened, the OP questions ‘Why’. My authority over language is fine, you’re adding things into the definition of religion which do not show being there. Definitions are definitions for a reason, to be abided by.
I know the definitions of both religion and spirituality due to the fact that I have studied what separates the two.
You had half or maybe even more than half of what you said right, but the definition of religion, no.
This is not just about Newton, the main part of this post has not been added yet, which is about Al Ghazali and the downfall of the middle east due to religion. That is a huge part and proof of what I am saying.
He may not have been able to solve it, but he could have continued his work without putting the label of “god” onto something he did not understand. What is even funnier is the 100-200 year delay it took to solve that question, which Laplace DID. So it proves it is not “god” but very human and provable.
We need to figure out ways to continue without time delays, or at the very least minimalizing them. We don’t need claims like “god is the answer” when dealing with something unknown. We should make it more clear, not confusing.
Well technically he found his book on mathematics at a fair. At that time he was in college to be a lawer. Not until he theorized on his own things did he obtain his masters.
Newton must be just about the worst example that could be used in this thread. He had strong religious beliefs and enormous scientific accomplishments.
It’s pretty obvious now that you have a gripe with Christianity, not “Religion”, since you don’t even know what religion is.
To claim that “religion” is horrible for humanity doesn’t even say or presume anything. Religion of what? Religion of whom? It’s pretty obvious that gravity, relativity, the belief that earth revolves around the sun, are all religious beliefs. The big bang is a pseudonym for creationism, another religious belief. Protestants like the OP try to be clever and proclaim “but I believe in science and facts!!!” But, do you, Artimas? No, you don’t.
You believe in “the big bang” without realizing that, that too, is a religious belief. Science and religion is not as separate as you desired it to be.
I’ll clarify and simplify my point and position so everybody can understand this.
All beliefs require energy, an upkeep, at least Memorization. Some beliefs are easier to maintain than others. A belief that is repeated, constantly, every year, every week, everyday, every second, is by definition a “religious” belief, religious meaning regular, habitual, and traditional. Some religious beliefs even go beyond a lifetime, and are passed between parent and child, or from one generation of a society to another.
Heliocentrism is perhaps the widest, most common, and easily understood notion of a religious belief “the earth revolves around the sun” passed from generation to generation to generation.
Therefore, you will understand and accept my meaning now, that a “religious belief” does not require a Deity, nor an “organized religion”. Religious beliefs don’t have to be popular, true, or even acceptable. In fact many people have very perverse and socially unacceptable “religious beliefs”.
LOL gravity is not religious. The planets rotations are definitely not religious either, go get a telescope. The reason it isn’t is due to the fact that it is OBSERVABLE and EVIDENT. Religious fairy tales are not.
Who said I believed 100% in the big bang? It also isn’t exactly creationism, the only reason it is believed to be possible is due to the fact that everything is moving in the same direction. But I guess you wouldn’t know anything about that since you’re science illiterate and obviously do not partake in astronomy.
You know exactly which religion I am talking about, it isn’t anyone elses fault that you twisted definitions of what it is. I provided the definition in which I am using.
I am responsible for what I say, type, or attempt at showing. I however am not responsible for your comprehension or lack of.
It wasn’t christianity that brought the down fall for mathematics in the middle east.
The difficulty with this account of events is that it ignores the fact that scientists were aware of the problem and they criticized Newton for invoking God as the solution. Leibniz did it when Newton was still alive and Leibniz had a very strong belief in God. So it’s doubtful that Newton’s attitude prevented people from trying to find a solution. It shows that the problem was difficult.
That is interesting, but there does have to be a way to shorten time delays, what other aspects have a role in these delays? The time delay between Newtons time and Laplace is quite a while… And even longer for the middle east, they still have not recovered from their collapse of education/math.
If this can somehow be solved or a method of shortening the delays or perhaps even avoided altogether I will be fine with religion, except the masses lack of knowing or thinking.
It can’t actually be that we have only a handful of elite scientists per century or however long apart.