Quote:
"On topic:
The similarity between (some parts of) religions and (some parts of) science could perhaps be that they try to explain the same things. Like origin.”

You have touch on my own thoughts here, Caelia.
Only I find the (totality) of all, religion-verses- science, argument are over the original religious versions-verses later scientific-versions of the “origins” of the universe.
All the arguments usually boil down to this one issue. ... that is when math decided to reduce the beginning of the universe’s existence down to a single point, and then begin from there using math as a tool to create a scientific universal beginning from that single “point” (the big-bang) and then erasing the single point, by substituting math, as their gospel. Math is in direct conflict, with the religious concepts of a deity. Scientific equations became the guiding light for scientific approval of notions, that developed theories that are proven mathematically only using peer approval!

Quote:
“The fact that they have different explanations for the same thing causes some people to be upset, and some other people to accept both answers for what they are - different.”
It is my own disbelief in either religious/scientific answers that cause me grievance when I post my views (anywhere) which are very similar to Eienstein’s view he expressed with

Quote:
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”

Quote:
“Science isn't trying to explain *why* we are here as much as *how* we came here”.
Yes! Science’s purely mental number system has proved useful for many purposes. It has provided explanation’s (so far) for numerical quantities. It has made possible communication through radio, television, and many other technological achievements such as the computer --- Math has provided man with a journey from the earth to the moon and back. Mathematics cannot be dismissed anymore. Also, the "Age of Enlightenment" may have reached its greatest heights in the early 20th century, when Hilbert tried to put all of mathematics on a firm and formal foundation

Quote:
“Religion isn't (or usually isn't) trying to explain origin in a way that would be helpful to an archeologist.”
The age of enlightenment may have ended in the 1930's, when Gödel showed the firm foundation was also, flawed. Gödel showed that mathematics has certain limitations. Gödel proved that some things cannot be proved.
Even a mathematician must accept some things on faith or learn to live with uncertainty.
Quote:
“I think both groups try to fill two differently shaped holes with one block and finding that it doesn't quite fit in both.”

I think that where math indicates that a point vanishes when it loses it’s dimensions is only possible in the imaginations of mathematicians, and Religions dogma of insisting on the pre existence of God in some non-existing spiritual form is equally flawed in the real world.

I question why does science take existence down to zero, and replace the idea of God with a golf ball sized beginning, and religion’s imaginative God of all knowledge before the beginning of all universal knowledge existed?

Quote:
“People who think of science as their religion is only slightly less scary than people who think of religion as science.”
The Druid does not accept either version, and maintains that the universe has always existed, and change is the only motivation for it's existence.

But thats just me!

Mac.... Are you calling me a liar? I admitted I made a mistake...A mistake is not the same thing, as a lie. Is it?
I also made retribution for my error.
I can do nothing else than I have done for the non-acceptable attitude that Caelia's stands firm. I cannot seem to penatrate, with my words!
I can only try to make amends. I force nothing!
(edited by the druid)

Druid :::ever curious:::