Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[JP Cusick]

Again, you do not understand relativity. There is no slow motion on the moon (apart from the effects of lower gravity). If I were to move to a moon colony, I would expect to find myself living and experiencing about the same amount of years as I would here on Earth.

You are misapplying what I said as you have it mixed up, because you are not following the famous principle =

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

There is nothing wrong with the Moon and the Moon itself is not going in slow motion, as the Bible declares that the humans are moving at an accelerated speed which makes the Moon appear to be in slow motion which is relative to the humans moving at a higher rate of speed - higher acceleration.


-----------------------------------

The appearance of "slow motion" on the moon is an artifact of the lower gravity, not some relativistic quirk of time.

Albert Einstein said that gravity was just acceleration, as both are the same, LINK.

See the 10th paragraph = "It is almost as though gravity is pulling on time itself, slowing its progress."

Slower time means slower motion.

It is as simple as this saying:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

This is what gave Einstein his big advantage - as it was not him having a better brain or being a genius - but that he used religion (the Bible) along with science.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 21 by JP Cusick]

See the 10th paragraph = "It is almost as though gravity is pulling on time itself, slowing its progress."

Slower time means slower motion.

Yes...higher gravity results in slower time. If I fly a rocket ship close to a black hole (surely you've heard of them), I experience a subjective passage of time slower when compared to that of Earth. Eventually, if I get close enough, my subjective passage of time gets so slow that it essentially freezes (to an outsider's perspective), like hitting pause on a DVD player.

However, here's a fun fact about the moon...it's gravity is about ONE SIXTH that of Earth's!. The reason you see slow motion on the moon, which I can only imagine is when you watch astronauts walking around, is because as humans born and raised on Earth, they are used to a pull from gravity SIX TIMES stronger than what the moon is pulling on them right then and there. It'd be sort of like having weights strapped to your legs from the moment of your birth, and then taking them off. Suddenly, you're moving much faster than you're used to.

This is what gave Einstein his big advantage - as it was not him having a better brain or being a genius - but that he used religion (the Bible) along with science.

Where in Einstein's work, his calculations, does he plug in the Bible? And why would he use the Bible instead of the Torah? Remember...he was Jewish.

Slower time means slower motion.

No. If I'm near a black hole, from my point of view, I'm still moving at the same speed. It's only slower motion, when compared to an outsider's perspective. This was what Einstein showed us when he found out that there is no absolute frame of reference.

[JP Cusick]

Yes...higher gravity results in slower time. If I fly a rocket ship close to a black hole (surely you've heard of them), I experience a subjective passage of time slower when compared to that of Earth. Eventually, if I get close enough, my subjective passage of time gets so slow that it essentially freezes (to an outsider's perspective), like hitting pause on a DVD player.

However, here's a fun fact about the moon...it's gravity is about ONE SIXTH that of Earth's!. The reason you see slow motion on the moon, which I can only imagine is when you watch astronauts walking around, is because as humans born and raised on Earth, they are used to a pull from gravity SIX TIMES stronger than what the moon is pulling on them right then and there. It'd be sort of like having weights strapped to your legs from the moment of your birth, and then taking them off. Suddenly, you're moving much faster than you're used to.

Einstein did not say any of this about the Moon, so we do not want to get it mixed up, and I am only giving another example based on the Einstein principle.

You might never see it if you refuse to follow the principle: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

That is why your view of science is lame.

And everything you say in the quote above is accurate but you keep applying it wrong, as it does not apply to the Moon but to the Astronauts on the Moon who are not aligned relatively with the different gravity.

The Astronauts on the Moon are outside of their earth gravity which is accelerated and thereby the astronauts being on the Moon appears to be in slow motion because it is slow motion with less gravity.

Einstein knew this because he used both the Bible to comprehend science, and used science to comprehend the Bible.

This is what gave Einstein his big advantage - as it was not him having a better brain or being a genius - but that he used religion (the Bible) along with science.

Where in Einstein's work, his calculations, does he plug in the Bible? And why would he use the Bible instead of the Torah? Remember...he was Jewish.

It does appear that Einstein only used the Old (elder) Testament, or otherwise called the Hebrew scriptures.

The Torah means the first 5 books of the Bible, and just the one (1) book of Genesis is quite enough to see that God changed time (accelerated time) and therefore that time is relative.

Slower time means slower motion.

No. If I'm near a black hole, from my point of view, I'm still moving at the same speed. It's only slower motion, when compared to an outsider's perspective. This was what Einstein showed us when he found out that there is no absolute frame of reference.

That is my point too, that the Astronauts on the Moon appear to be moving in slow motion because on earth time is moving faster.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 23 by JP Cusick]

Einstein did not say any of this about the Moon, so we do not want to get it mixed up, and I am only giving another example based on the Einstein principle.

Doesn't matter. What you said about time with respect to the moon, and trying to tie it in to what you think Einstein discovered, is bogus (as in false, incorrect).

You might never see it if you refuse to follow the principle: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

That is why your view of science is lame.

Doesn't matter what my 'view' is, what matters is which of us is being accurate, which of us has the correct information, and that good sir, is not you.

And everything you say in the quote above is accurate but you keep applying it wrong, as it does not apply to the Moon but to the Astronauts on the Moon who are not aligned relatively with the different gravity.

Which previously you did not talk about. You talked about slower time on the moon, and said it had something to do with gravity, yet you were completely incorrect there. We get slower rates of time passage (as compared to our own, remember we need a reference point, as there is no absolute frame of reference) when we're dealing with high gravity, but as I said, the moon's gravitational pull is one sixth that of Earth's. Not six times higher, but six times weaker.

The Astronauts on the Moon are outside of their earth gravity which is accelerated

To the best of my knowledge, gravity does not accelerate. It is a force, which itself accelerates objects.

and thereby the astronauts being on the Moon appears to be in slow motion because it is slow motion with less gravity.

Not "appears". IS Slow motion. The astronauts are intentionally moving slower than what they're used to on Earth. If they moved at the same speed as what they're used, all sorts of problems would arise.

Einstein knew this because he used both the Bible to comprehend science,

Again, you're going to have to show this to be true. I have asked you before, why do you insist Einstein, a Jew, would have read the Christian Bible?

It does appear that Einstein only used the Old (elder) Testament, or otherwise called the Hebrew scriptures.

So it would not be the Bible. Jews don't call their holy scriptures the Bible. Christians do. So why did you use that term?

The Torah means the first 5 books of the Bible, and just the one (1) book of Genesis is quite enough to see that God changed time (accelerated time) and therefore that time is relative.

No it doesn't. At no point in Genesis does it say anything about accelerated time. This is an inference you make based on scientific knowledge we have NOW that quite frankly ignores what's in the Bible.
Remember, as I keep saying, Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which you insist he got from the Bible somehow) has no absolute frame of reference.
This means No God.

Time is relative when we're talking about the different velocities of different objects and different points of view. If I'm standing still, and watching a plane go by overhead, it's moving pretty darn fast to my eyes. If I'm on that plane, it looks like I'm barely moving at all (especially when we're above the clouds).
Where in the story of Genesis do we get talk about time, and velocities, and relativism?
Nowhere, that's where.

That is my point too, that the Astronauts on the Moon appear to be moving in slow motion because on earth time is moving faster.

Nope.
1) The astronauts ARE moving slower, deliberately, as I said before. I explained earlier, so I will not repeat myself.
2) Time on Earth is moving faster, you have that right, but the difference in the passage of time between the Earth and the moon is so slight as to be meaningless. If I take two clocks, sync them as best as I can, then put one on the moon and leave the other here on Earth, the difference between them is about one quarter of a millisecond per one hundred hours.

TL;DR - You're getting almost everything wrong here.

[JP Cusick]

TL;DR - You're getting almost everything wrong here.

You might never see it if you keep refusing to follow the principle:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

My own view is neither lame nor blind because I follow both sides of that principle.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 23 by JP Cusick]


"Einstein knew this because he used both the Bible to comprehend science, and used science to comprehend the Bible. "

I don't think Einstein studied OT but knew the basics - God created heaven and earth.

(The following quotes are taken from The Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press unless otherwise noted. They all reinforce Walter Isaacson who wrote on page 385 in his landmark book on Einstein, Einstein: His Life and Universe, that Einstein “held a deistic concept of God.�)

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by JP Cusick]

You might never see it if you keep refusing to follow the principle:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

My own view is neither lame nor blind because I follow both sides of that principle.

This quote you keep throwing out has NOTHING to do with how you got practically all details about gravity, time, relativity and the moon wrong in your earlier comments.

[Justin108]

TL;DR - You're getting almost everything wrong here.

You might never see it if you keep refusing to follow the principle:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

My own view is neither lame nor blind because I follow both sides of that principle.

principle
ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l/
noun

a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

Other than your own personal opinion, what makes you think this quote is a fundamental truth? Einstein said something and you agree with it and now you treat it like an absolute, indisputable truth?

[JP Cusick]

principle
ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l/
noun

a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

It does seem that something very important gets lost when people get hung up on the dictionary.

Since I used the word then surely one might expect that I know what the word meant.

Other than your own personal opinion, what makes you think this quote is a fundamental truth?

I can not fathom any logic in discounting your own opinion, because my own opinion has substance and merit and I value mine very highly.

Plus in this case my opinion aligns with Albert Einstein so these 2 opinions could be viewed as better than one.

The real existence of God is both a fundamental truth and an absolute truth and so including that-of-God (religion) into any topic or subject is always the right thing to do.

Einstein said something and you agree with it and now you treat it like an absolute, indisputable truth?

Because the words can be put to the test and it comes out right.

We can see it anywhere, but even here in this one thread we can see that people who include science with religion have a big advantage, because we can see what others can not see based on that principle.

Thereby it is empirical evidence.

[Justin108]

principle
ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l/
noun

a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

It does seem that something very important gets lost when people get hung up on the dictionary.

Since I used the word then surely one might expect that I know what the word meant.

Actually I would expect the dictionary to know what the word meant. Or are you of the opinion that you are more informed about definitions than the dictionary?

Other than your own personal opinion, what makes you think this quote is a fundamental truth?

I can not fathom any logic in discounting your own opinion, because my own opinion has substance and merit and I value mine very highly.

I'm not asking you to discount your opinion, I'm asking you to support it. All you have thus far is "Einstein said this and I agree and therefore it's true". Do you have any other support for this "principle" other than "I like it so it must be true"?

Plus in this case my opinion aligns with Albert Einstein so these 2 opinions could be viewed as better than one.

Ok let's do a body count. On this topic alone, we have
- Myself
- McCulloch
- rikuoamero
- Divine Insight
- H.sapiens
- DrNoGods
- Tired of the Nonsense

...all agreeing that your position is nonsense
(ps. if any of the above named individuals believe I am in error, please let me know and I will omit your name from the list)

Seven heads are better than two. So by your logic, since we all agree that you're spouting nonsense, you must therefore be wrong.

However, I do not believe in appeals to popularity nor do I believe in appeals to authority, so the fact that both you and Einstein agree on this is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people agree with something. If you cannot demonstrate why it is true in and of itself without appealing to authority or popularity then you have no argument.

So other than "because I like it" and "because Einstein said so", can you give us any reason to believe this "principle" to be true?

The real existence of God is both a fundamental truth and an absolute truth and so including that-of-God (religion) into any topic or subject is always the right thing to do.

Bold claim. Can you prove it?

Einstein said something and you agree with it and now you treat it like an absolute, indisputable truth?

Because the words can be put to the test and it comes out right.

Ok what unbiased and controlled experiment can we use to test your hypothesis? What steps would I need to take to test your hypothesis?

We can see it anywhere, but even here in this one thread we can see that people who include science with religion have a big advantage

Give me an example and then explain how the inclusion of religion ended up being advantageous

because we can see what others can not see based on that principle.

What can you see that others cannot see? And how do you know that what you see is factual rather than religious delusion?

Thereby it is empirical evidence.

Evidence of what? Your claim was never just that "religion is an advantage in science", your claim was that "science without religion is lame". But the fact that there are so many successful atheist scientists out there basically disproves your "principle" outright. Their science is utterly devoid of any religion and their scientific findings are anything but "lame". So as far as "empirical evidence" goes, you're on the losing side here. There is absolutely no evidence that science needs religion.