When science does not work

[Rufus21]

I follow science where one should follow science and I follow religion/revelation where science does not work.

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

I've heard people say that science cannot handle situations outside the natural world, but there is no indication that religion can either. In fact, neither can offer any evidence that a supernatural realm exists in the first place. So what are some situations where science does not work but religion does?

[phlegmnoire]

[Replying to post 24 by Rufus21]

So to keep this thread on track, does anyone have any examples of situations where science doesn't work? Examples of religion finding answers where science isn't applicable?

Religions offer answers all the time and different religions offer conflicting answers. However, what is the method, if not the scientific method, for ascertaining the validity of the answers?

[phlegmnoire]

[Replying to post 30 by Rufus21]

So far the only response has been the meaning of life, which many people have different opinions on and several people don't believe it even exists.

Are there any better examples, or is the original quote not accurate?

"Meaning" is a judgement about importance, value, quality, or purpose. A judgement requires a judge. Humans (and possibly other animals) are judges. Life has meaning to humans (and possibly other animals).

We could postulate other judges, even supernatural ones, but unless we have reason to believe that other judges exist, then we have no reason to believe that there is any other meaning beyond that held by the judges we know of.

We can reasonably expect that other intelligent life has evolved elsewhere in the universe since the mechanism that caused life to appear and evolve on earth exists throughout the known universe. We can further expect that some of those would have developed the ability to judge and to ascribe meaning to things.

We have no reason to expect that supernatural judges exist. Since religions deal with supernatural agents, they don't offer any additional meaning beyond the humans (the natural judges) that developed the religions.

[phlegmnoire]

[Replying to post 37 by Rufus21]

That's an interesting example. Since reality is a concept and not an actual "thing"

Reality might be a process: the interaction between the objective and the subjective.

[Rufus21]

Has science taken up the following issues formally?:

~ a man is throwing lightning bolts from the top of Mt. Olympus
~Science can also disprove that nearly all life forms (including humans) were killed in a global flood

Science has allowed people to travel to the top of Mt. Olympus. You can go there yourself if you want. What better proof than to see it with your own eyes?

Some of the branches that can disprove the flood myth are Biology, Archaology, Anthropology, Zoology, Paleontology, Dendrochronology, Geology and Meteorology (I left that one last ).

The Truthful Religion does not hold the followings concepts:

~the first two life forms were fully formed, humans
~that all life came into existence at the same time in the same place
~that a supernatural force suddenly scattered humanity across the globe and caused them to speak different languages.

Kindly look into the above, please.

Regards

The Muslims that I heard from all believe in the Garden of Even, Adam and Eve, and the Tower of Babel (although they did not call it Babel).

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 24 by Rufus21]

So to keep this thread on track, does anyone have any examples of situations where science doesn't work? Examples of religion finding answers where science isn't applicable?

Religions offer answers all the time and different religions offer conflicting answers. However, what is the method, if not the scientific method, for ascertaining the validity of the answers?

what is the method

Science refuses to take such questions to investigate that are beyond the limits of science, however people may wish that it takes them.
Religion takes them and Word of Revelation is the source.Right, please?
Regards

[Rufus21]

Religion takes them and Word of Revelation is the source.Right, please?
Regards

And how do you determine which person's revelation is correct when they contradict each other? What method do you use to verify one religion over all the others?

[paarsurrey1]

Religion takes them and Word of Revelation is the source.Right, please?
Regards

And how do you determine which person's revelation is correct when they contradict each other? What method do you use to verify one religion over all the others?

There are many signs to recognize, them:

~They are righteous people and before their being appointed to the office of a prophet or messenger they are known to be a righteous, peaceful and truthful persons, like Muhammad was known to be ameen, siddeeq and a truthful/sincere person:

[10:16] And when Our clear Signs are recited unto them, those who look not for the meeting with Us say, ‘Bring a Qur’an other than this or change it.’ Say, ‘It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed, I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the punishment of an awful day.’
[10:17] Say, ‘If Allah had so willed, I should not have recited it to you nor would He have made it known to you. I have indeed lived among you a whole lifetime before this. Will you not then understand?’
[10:18] Who is then more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah or he who treats His Signs as lies? Surely, the guilty shall never prosper.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 0&verse=16

Their earlier life testifies to it, please.
Regards

[Rufus21]

~They are righteous people and before their being appointed to the office of a prophet or messenger they are known to be a righteous, peaceful and truthful persons...

Those attributes are opinions, not facts. Someone can be righteous in one person's eyes and not in another's. That is not a reliable standard.

There are people who live righteous lives but then become deceitful later. Those people would be wrongly trusted.

There are people who are deceitful but become righteous later. Those people would be wrongly ignored.

There are people who are very prosperous because they are deceitful. They would wrongly be trusted.

There are people who are not prosperous because they are honest. Those people would be wrongly ignored.

[paarsurrey1]

~They are righteous people and before their being appointed to the office of a prophet or messenger they are known to be a righteous, peaceful and truthful persons...

Those attributes are opinions, not facts. Someone can be righteous in one person's eyes and not in another's. That is not a reliable standard.

There are people who live righteous lives but then become deceitful later. Those people would be wrongly trusted.

There are people who are deceitful but become righteous later. Those people would be wrongly ignored.

There are people who are very prosperous because they are deceitful. They would wrongly be trusted.

There are people who are not prosperous because they are honest. Those people would be wrongly ignored.

Does one mean from "There are people", some people or a little people, please?
Regards

[Rufus21]

There are people who live righteous lives but then become deceitful later. Those people would be wrongly trusted.

Does one mean from "There are people", some people or a little people, please?
Regards

I don't understand your question. I meant to say that some righteous people do not fit your description and some deceitful people do. It is not a reliable way to verify a religion.