God is real. Because an ancient Mesopotamian scribe wrote on a clay tablet that there was a big flood destorying the world, and only one man and a few others in a boat were surviving(Noah). And ancient Mesopotamians weren't even Christians...so there you go. Also, there are footprints left in the Garden of Eden...enough evidence!!!
And if God is not real, then where do we go when we die? Do we just disapear and not be able to think or breathe or have any senses? PUH-LEEZ!!!
And where did the Earth come from? And if you say other stars, where did those other stars come from? And if you say a nebula, where di dthe nebula come from? And if you say the nursery of stars, where did THAT come from?!!HMM?!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[quote]God is real. Because an ancient Mesopotamian scribe wrote on a clay tablet that there was a big flood destorying the world, and only one man and a few others in a boat were surviving(Noah). And ancient Mesopotamians weren't even Christians...so there you go. Also, there are footprints left in the Garden of Eden...enough evidence!!!
And if God is not real, then where do we go when we die? Do we just disapear and not be able to think or breathe or have any senses? PUH-LEEZ!!!
And where did the Earth come from? And if you say other stars, where did those other stars come from? And if you say a nebula, where di dthe nebula come from? And if you say the nursery of stars, where did THAT come from?!!HMM?![/quote]
Foremost, I do not believe God is real, but I am not going to say 100% that he does not exist. I choose not to believe based on a logical principle of parsimony and empirical evidence. Since I cannot prove he does or does not, I won't say that. However, tHere is no empircal or logical evidence for his existence, but logically, just because someone cannot be shown not to exist, does not automatically verify that it doesn't. However, according to Occam's Razor, God is an unnecessary entity, since His addition would merely complicate a theory beyond what is necessary. Since we know the natural world exists, and we do not know the God exists, to say "goddidit" is irresponsible and not a good Theory of anything. God is, essentially, X--the unknown variable. You should never multiply entities unnecessarily; thus, in most equations, God, ghosts, goblins etc are shaved away as frivolous. There is nothing that we cannot appeal to the natural universe to explain. We don't need God.
As for when we die, nothing happens. YOu become one with the Earth, but in a a completely unconscious format. When you die, you can be cremated or buried. Over time, our bodies under a decomposition process that is, ironically, a form of reincarnation, since your body becomes part of the new soil, which gives nutrition to new organisms (both plant an animal (indirectly). You simply become one with a gaint chain of life. You are not wasted. YOu go to use.
However, when you die, there is no soul. The soul, or the "consciousness" is merely a function of the brain and electrical impulses. You, your personality, and your "soul" is nothing more than your material body/brain. Without your brain, you have no sapience. Without your brain, you have no "consciousness." Essentially, you are your Brain. It's your CPU. There is no evidence of a Heaven or a Hell, so there's no reason logically to believe in it. It's a needless entity you are adding to the equation.
2. As for the Noah thing,t here are myriad cultures around the world that have similar stories---stories about a great flood. IT's a common literary theme. If you look in mythology, you will also find a great many common thematic elements. It's not even a coincidence. Most societies that are hydraulic cultures (they live around great givers or water bodies) have flood stories. The Mesopotamians were literlally the people who lived between the rivers of teh Tigris and the Euphrates. THey came up with teh Epic of Giglamesh because (no suprise)they lived in a very volitile region...a region plagued by many dangerous, yet fertile floods. In fact, the early Mesopotamians--the Sumerians, believed in very fierce, mean Gods who caused the floods when the Sumerians disobyed them.
The Christians and also the Jews simply copied these archetypical stories. They are popular and symbolic. They are in no way evidence that real God's exist. IF that were true, then all teh SUmerican God's must also exist, as well as the Persian Gods, the Assyrian Gods, and the Chaldeans and the Greeks, and the Romans etc.
3. The Earth? Where did it come from? The earth is a celestial body. IT originated from natural processes in space. You see, bilions of years ago, the earth formed, after what is thought to have been the great nebular formation. The Earth, as well as other planetary bodies came about after a nebula (our pre-solar system) coalesced into a flat disk-shaped entity that spun around. Eventually, the gravitational forces in teh centre of that "disc" caused a sun. The gravity and the friction of particles caused the sun and the gasses in it to swirl and ignite, causing our Sun. The Sun is a massive body, and according to Newtonian Physics, it gives off huge gravitational forces which captured many smaller bodies floating in former nebula. The earth started off as a proto planet along side several others--essentially, a volcanic, molten mass kept in orbit due to inertia and gravity. Eventually,t he surface cooled, and after billions of years, it is the Earth we know today. We are very lucky indeed that we have conditions that are good enough for us to live in. However, it's foolish to think that the Earth was made specifically for us. In the words of Chaos Theorist (played by Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic park), Life Finds A Way. There could always be life somewhere else. Life meets the challenge; the environment doesn't meet life.
Now, if you want ot know from where all the other stuff came--stars, nebulas etc. The matter was always there. According to the Laws of physics, matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It will always be there in some form, in some way. The Universe, in some form, always existed. There certainly can be an infinite regress of causes, because events have causes, but things don't necessary have to have causes. Think of the Univere as an infite loop or perhaps as a permanent entity.
You coudl say that God is a permanent entity, but again, that's adding another unnecessary entity to the equation. We know the universe exists, whilst we do not know if God exists. Lets say the Universe always existed instead of God, who then created the Universe. It's more logical.
To think that something must always have a cause, and that cause cannot be infinite is basically ignoring causality, which assumes that events have causes, but not things. As well, to say that everything in the universe has a cause (that we can see), thus the universe itself must have a cause as well, is called a Fallacy of Composition. You are arguing that parts of the whole's characteristics make up the entire whole's characteristic. That's not valid.
There is no reasont hat the Universe and it's "stuff" didn't always exist or couldn't exist in a loop. Inifite loops are not unheard of in reality. As well, you have the whole idea that time does not necessarily flow forward. We just perceive it that way.
If you want to say where everything came from ad infinitum, why do you stop at God? WHere did God come from? If you say he always existed, that's not fair, nor is it academically just. You are picking and choosing then. If God can exist (yet we don't know that he does, since there's no proof), there's no reason at all to assume that the Universe cannot always have existed or is infinite in loop. At least we KNOW the Universe and reality exists.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Being one who feels it's better left to freedom of choice wether one wishes to believe or not,it is suggested by the science of statistics that the odds of a planet being so perfectly situated in a position with a star so perfectly distanced from it to create the perfect environment for life to exist and develop as it has on ours,is cause to believe there may have been a slight nudge to causation.By what or who,that's anybodies choice.I won't force you to believe,like the current political trend in the USA wishes to do.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The genius of the universe proves God's existance. Or Gods (plural). To say things arrived in such a state without the guidance of intelligence is laughable.
-"God is an unnecessary entity, since His addition would merely complicate a theory beyond what is -necessary"
I disagree, it simplifies things a heck of alot.
-"As for when we die, nothing happens."
How do you know, have you experienced death? Don't make absolute judgements about life and death, they are almost always wrong. If particles increasingly more microscopic particles are discovered it may well prove the existance of other space-times and perhaps even a soul.
The rest of your post is all just scientific theory. It explains about as much as what Sarah asked, because that's all it is, theory. A scientist, like yourself, might like to think you can prove all this stuff. I think your reasoning and manner are off from the start. Scientists use inaccurate methoding which they consider correct. In the terms of the universe, the human race is still in the dark ages. Groping around inside the dark, grasping an elephant's trunk and thinking it's the whole elephant. Humans can't get arrogant and consider what they have learnt to be the be-all and end-all. Progress in the right manner and all of your theories will change very quickly.
-"If you want to say where everything came from ad infinitum, why do you stop at God? WHere did God -come from? If you say he always existed, that's not fair, nor is it academically just. You are -picking and choosing then."
I agree with this statement. But I would have to say that I doubt the human mind is capable of understanding that far into the infinitum of the cosmos. The human mind is much too puny within this sort of scope.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The genius of the universe proves God's existance. Or Gods (plural). To say things arrived in such a state without the guidance of intelligence is laughable.
[B] Tell me why the "genius of the Universe proves God's existence. There's no reason why it does. To say it does is litterally "argument from design and beauty," which isn't a valid logical argument. It's really putting the cart before the horse to say the universe is made for humans. The Humans evolved only because conditions were available.
What proof logically or empirical evidence do you have to make the assertion that God must have been the guidence? There's nothing we cannot appeal to the natural world for. There's no reason to bring in the "supernatural."
By it's very nature, the Supernatural is a metaphyiscal concept that has zero chance of ever being proven. It's beyond the physical. There can be no evidence for something Meta-Physical.[/B]
-"God is an unnecessary entity, since His addition would merely complicate a theory beyond what is -necessary"
I disagree, it simplifies things a heck of alot.
[B]
Yes. God does make the answer simple, but God does not fufill the principle of Parsinomy. It means you shouldn't multiply entities--UNNECESSARILY. God is , as I explained, a metaphysical unknown. He is X. You cannot say:
The Universe= A
God = X, whereas X= the cause and guidence
A cannot equal unknown X. You cannot solve an equation by stating "Unknown."
If you look at the following equations, you will notice that the former is simpler (necessarily and due to evidence) than the latter. We know the univers exists and that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. We don't know God exists, cause he's a metaphysical unknown. To say that GOd created/started the universe is to add a being as an extra entity when you can simply appeal to the universe/nature itself.
A = The Universe
B = Always existed in some form
A= The Universe
X= God always existed
X.1 = God created the Universe
A= X+X.1 or
A=X
Which one is simpler? Now, the Universe could have been an infinite loop, it could always have existed in some form. Events have causes, not things. It was a very supercondensed mass. The Big Bang spread it out. Big Bang could have very well been caused by some law or some natural property of existence or something.
The Universe always existed in some form.
The Universe was created by God, which always existed.[/B]
-"As for when we die, nothing happens."
How do you know, have you experienced death? Don't make absolute judgements about life and death, they are almost always wrong. If particles increasingly more microscopic particles are discovered it may well prove the existance of other space-times and perhaps even a soul.
The rest of your post is all just scientific theory. It explains about as much as what Sarah asked, because that's all it is, theory. A scientist, like yourself, might like to think you can prove all this stuff. I think your reasoning and manner are off from the start. Scientists use inaccurate methoding which they consider correct. In the terms of the universe, the human race is still in the dark ages. Groping around inside the dark, grasping an elephant's trunk and thinking it's the whole elephant. Humans can't get arrogant and consider what they have learnt to be the be-all and end-all. Progress in the right manner and all of your theories will change very quickly.
[B]
How do you know God must have been the guiding force behind the creation and diretion of the Universe? Don't make absolute judgements about the universe, they are almost always wrong.
I don't have to die to have reasonable certainty that nothing happens. THere's no logical proof nor is there empirical evidence for anything beyond, so it's illogical to assume there is something. For example, would you believe me if I said there was an ice cream shoppe operating on Charon? It's invisible and totally undetectable, yet I know it's there. I am special. Only I can detect it.
Theories do not mean something is wrong. A fact and a Theory can be one and the same. A theory is an explanation of given phenomena. It can be wrong, or it can be right. Gravity and electricity were theories; we know they aren't imaginary. We know they are real. Just because it's a theory does nto mean it's false, a figment of our imagination, or a guess. Theories in various educational disciplines are different from those found in Science. For example, Sociological theories are not hard science, so they are not on the level of Science Theories (bio, physics, chemistry etc)
A Theory is quite different from a Hypothesis in science. A theory can be both explanation AND fact, whereas a Hypothesis is merely a guess (could be correct). The NEbular Disc thing I explained is a hypothesis, not a theory. Evolution, Big Bang--these are theories. They are also facts. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt they both occured and are occuring.
But...I am not a scientist, so my explanation is not 100% accurate as a Scientist would put it. I don't claim to be an authority. I'm a History Major.[/B]
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes, you are a scientist, you have faith in science and your thinking is completely facilitated by science. And that’s science in its present state. Listen to you; warbling on about logic and reason, you belong in an episode of Star Trek. And that's not a compliment. What about benevolence, goodwill, honesty? Or are these outdated and irrelevant qualities?
"By it's very nature, the Supernatural is a metaphysical concept that has zero chance of ever being proven. It's beyond the physical. There can be no evidence for something Meta-Physical."
See what I mean? Your thinking is completely confined to a box which considers a hill to be a whole planet. Zero chance of ever being proven? Yeah, with people thinking this way I say that's definitely accurate! Your statements are so absolute like they are dogma, and then you go onto say "don't make absolute judgements about the universe." Mr. Scientist alright!
"A cannot equal unknown X. You cannot solve an equation by stating 'Unknown.'"
What makes you arrogant enough to assume the human mind is capable enough to actually solve all 'equations?' We may be the dominant life on earth, but if parallel space times are discovered one day we may find ourselves at the bottom of the food chain. Who are you to say what's out there? We don't even understand our own body and mind, our own planet, our own temperament.
"If you look at the following equations, you will notice that the former is simpler"
Ooooh, I see, let's all believe the easier to explain theory, regardless of whether or not it's actually true. Good enough, eh? And if we are wrong, progress from the wrong starting point, mix up right and wrong, do wrong thinking it's right, become wrong in the head and arrive at the wrong conclusion then we can always go back thousands of years and start again and learn from the colossal balls-up we just made. I understand.
"It can be wrong, or it can be right." (regarding theories)
Yes! Then don't limit your thinking to completely believing today's understandings as right. It's Ok to take them for the time being, but you cannot regard them as the complete and unchangeable truth. Doing so slows progress to snail's pace, and turns science into religion.
"Gravity and electricity were theories; we know they aren't imaginary. We know they are real."
What I'm getting at is the way we understand these things. Gravity as a theory? It's always been there, but 10,000 years away it may be understood completely differently. They'll laugh at your theories of today. Perhaps the Splurssans of A-67 in Andromeda already do. We can't count something out just because it can't be seen, measured, or quantified. We just haven't found the means how to.
"Evolution, Big Bang--these are theories. They are also facts. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt they both occured and are occuring."
There is also evidence that tears these theories apart! To believe in them 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' is unscientific. But modern western science will not accept change if it does not suit them. These methods and reasoning are limited to begin with.
Ok, I saved this for last because with your reasoning it is outside your understanding. For much of the universe's knowledge, and many of the cosmos' secrets, cannot be discovered by external seeking or examining 'logical' and 'empirical' evidence. You must look 'inside' to find it. I'm not sure you'd even understand that. Simply put, if you search inside the other 90% of your brain many answers lie there, and through there. Modern science cannot possibly tell you how to do this. And this is what you call 'metaphysical' so you cannot possibly truly and whole heartedly understand concepts such as faith, compassion, forbearance, the heart, the soul. It's a different method outside your explanation which scientists love to hogwash by trying to explain it. "We don't understand it, so we'll attack it, and then all will believe in us."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes, you are a scientist, you have faith in science and your thinking is completely facilitated by science. And that’s science in its present state. Listen to you; warbling on about logic and reason, you belong in an episode of Star Trek. And that's not a compliment. What about benevolence, goodwill, honesty? Or are these outdated and irrelevant qualities?
*********************************************************************8****
You have a very Odd definitino of a scientist. A scientist is as follows:
A.
1. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.
2. A person trained in the Sciences.
Now. Since I am not a professional, nor have I been expertly trained in the sciences (in fact, I am an arts major) I therefore cannot be a Scientist. Someone who believes in scicne (cause it's good)does not a Scientist make. For example, let's look at the logic of your comment. Just if I knew a lot about Art History does not indicate I am an Art History PRofessor. Just becaues I know about wine does not mean I am an expert scholar on it. You cannot be a scientist without years of proper training, college.
B. What does benevolence, goodwill, and honesty have to do with anything I said? That's a total Red Herring. You can be moral and not believe in God. There are various ethical systems put in place based on Humanism and Man's power of Reason. We can come up with myriad principles for a flourishing, happy society from that Reason. I am an "ethical" person without God. I generally am a Utilitarian in my Ethics.
C. There's nothing wrong with Reason and logic. THey are Man's greatest tools. Reason and logic take the empirical evidence we see all around us and oranize it into something that makes sense. Logic is the science of sound reasoning. I find it appaling that you decry science and logic for what they are: the most profound ways of aquiring knowledge. If some argument is logically invalid and based on false empirical premises, then it's, for all intents and purpouses, worthless.
"By it's very nature, the Supernatural is a metaphysical concept that has zero chance of ever being proven. It's beyond the physical. There can be no evidence for something Meta-Physical."
See what I mean? Your thinking is completely confined to a box which considers a hill to be a whole planet. Zero chance of ever being proven? Yeah, with people thinking this way I say that's definitely accurate! Your statements are so absolute like they are dogma, and then you go onto say "don't make absolute judgements about the universe." Mr. Scientist alright!
A. 1. No, I don't see what you mean. When people usually say "you're not thinking out of the box, they are really saying "I know I have no proof for my claim, but I want you to believe in anyway.'" I have seen it countless times. It's the time-old way of beating around the bush. Thinking out of the box can be ok, but it still must be logical and have some form of empirical evidence to back it up.
What is this theory that said a hill is a planet? Haven't heard of it.
B. Yes, zero chance. Do you understand what metaphysical means? Let us consult the dictionary.
1.#
1. Immaterial; incorporeal. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Supernatural.
Now let us look at Supernatural, cause I know you know what incorporeal means.
Supernatural:
2. 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Let us logically examine the above. If Metaphysical means incorporeal, or immaterial, then it it not material. THe Supernatural is something that is metaphysical, and metaphysical is that which is not based on the "natural" or physical world/universe. Essentially, you have an entire wishy-washy field that is based in neither physical/empirical study nor that which is in the natural world. Now, there is no evidence of anything beyond the natural world. IT defies Occam's Razor, since all evidence points to there only be a Natural One. Now, something that's beyond physical/nature and is immaterial/incorporeal can never be proven, tested, or analysed for truth-value. It's subjective.
This does not equal knowledge. SO yes, I stand by my statement thatmost Metaphysical statements (if they are really metaphysical) can never be proven. THey cannot be tested by any natural/physical means. You might be able to falsify them by exclusion or showing they are patently false (but then people cna say: it's beyond our reality or understanding, thus weasle-wording out of the problem). The only thing you MIGHT be able to use, is a logical argument, but there are none for God. It's irrational to try to form a logical arguing proving the existence of that which is undetectable. It's literlaly believing in that which doesn't exist.
****************************************************************************
"A cannot equal unknown X. You cannot solve an equation by stating 'Unknown.'"
What makes you arrogant enough to assume the human mind is capable enough to actually solve all 'equations?' We may be the dominant life on earth, but if parallel space times are discovered one day we may find ourselves at the bottom of the food chain. Who are you to say what's out there? We don't even understand our own body and mind, our own planet, our own temperament.
1. This is a nice attempt to weasle out of the above, but it doesn't really jive. Why? It's an argument from Ignorance. You are stating that because we might not know everything, we cannot possibly be so arrogant as to think we know X Y or Z. We must be wrong, and God must exist because we don't absolutly know for certain.
2. The fact that I might be arrogant is irrelevant to the point above. This is known as probably ad hominem or appeal. The fact remains that you cannot solve an equation with an unknown variable and say "Tada! Problem solved." God is still an unknown variable no matter what type of person you think I am. My nature will not change the truth. WHen God is discovered (but he cannot be, since he's metaphysical agent (invisible, undetectable, untestable outside of the bible), he will cease to be unknown. There's no more evidence for God than there is for my new invisible friend named Murray--an invisible space turtle who holds up the earth's atmosphere.
3. Man is the greatest species in the history of the known universe. There could be others out there. So what? Untill we meet them there's no reason to consider them. Human kind is evolution's prime product, albeit natural and unintentional. We are, in many ways, gods. We create life, we destroy it. We harness and use energy, we exploit it. We cannot do everything, but neither can the Biblical God. God's need not be capable of anything. You needn't look any further than your own backyards. People invent things to try to rationalize what they don't understand. God's (myths), are cultural tools that changed/evolved over hundredes of years to serve purpouses. Science and REason have solved those purpouses, if only people will listen to reality.
4. There is much we understand about the planet, our bodies. We don't need to know 100% of everything to have knowledge, you know. To ask for such knowledge is unreasonable sophistry.
Again, You cannot say 1+1 = unknown, and expect that to suffice.
****************************************************************************
"If you look at the following equations, you will notice that the former is simpler"
Ooooh, I see, let's all believe the easier to explain theory, regardless of whether or not it's actually true. Good enough, eh? And if we are wrong, progress from the wrong starting point, mix up right and wrong, do wrong thinking it's right, become wrong in the head and arrive at the wrong conclusion then we can always go back thousands of years and start again and learn from the colossal balls-up we just made. I understand.
No. You are completely misunderstanding the Principle of Occam's Razor (logical parsimony). God is a very simple---simple minded---that is, explanation for exixstence and the universe, just as "aliens abucted my cattle" is an easy explanation for disappearing cows on some western farms.
When I say simpler, I am referring to parsimony. It means the superior (better) theory, out of competeing theories, is that which multiplies the fewest entities or adds complications which aren't needed in light of the facts. Naturalism is compatible with what is observed and tested in the physical universe (there's no evidence of anything else, and there never could be, because it would be metaphysical). God, on the other hand, is something that one can never test, never falsify, and never observe. He's metaphysical/immaterial/incorporeal/invisible and undetectable.
Now, of the theories which match the empirical/logical evidence, the best one is the simplest when placed in mathematical form. HEre. I will give you more examples: HEre is a website, but I will post some equations and better explanations below anyway. Please try to understand them and think "out of the box."
Courtesy of Wong---Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle which is also part of the scientific method. The original principle comes from a theologian named William of Ockham, who lived nearly a thousand years ago and devised it as a proof that the existence of God is not logical. The principle he used was the concept of logical parsimony, which says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily.
Let's say four different people propose four different equations to model this curve:
[Eq 1]
Y = -3X²
[Eq 2]
Y = 1 + X - 3X²
[Eq 3]
Y = G
There G is unknown
[Eq 4]
Y = 4X² + 20
So which one's the best? Well, this is a hard question to answer without some numbers on that curve plot, but we can narrow it down a little bit. Let's continue:
Some people express Occam's Razor as "the simplest theory wins". If we accept that, then Equation #3 is clearly the winner. One small problem: equation #3 is impossible to evaluate! How do you calculate "Y = G" when you don't know what G is? How do you even know if there is a formula for G at all, or whether there is any such thing as G? I think we can agree that equation #3 is out. An equation which gives no results is useless. You see, "the simplest theory wins" is (ironically enough) an oversimplification of the principle of parsimony, so if we were to rephrase the aforementioned version properly, we would say that "the simplest workable, accurate theory wins" (a couple of extra words can make a big difference).
Therefore, Occam's Razor slices equation #3 away. It's simple, but it can't be evaluated so it's not workable. Now we're down to equations #1, #2, and #4. But if we look at the shape of the graph, we can see that equation #4 is obviously no good even without bothering to check numbers, because you can simply look at the shape of the curve and see that it can't possibly be a positive parabola.
Therefore, Occam's Razor slices equation #4 away. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the curve, so it's not accurate. So that leaves Equation #1 and #2. Both of them could potentially produce that curve, but without hard numbers, we can't be sure. Obviously, if the numbers for the plot match one equation or the other, then it wins. But what if we test the curve in many places, and we find that it's closer to equation #1 about half the time, and closer to equation #2 about half the time? Well, that's where the number of terms becomes important. Since equation #2 adds an extra term which does not really seem to improve the situation, it's basically useless, so we should go with equation #1.
*****as you can see, the above equation that's unworkable isn't even a valid theory or explanation, thus it cannot be utilized. It has no explanatory power. THe others are needlessly complicated and match some of teh facts, but add their own elements beyond that, thus being shaved away.********
It can be wrong, or it can be right." (regarding theories)
Yes! Then don't limit your thinking to completely believing today's understandings as right. It's Ok to take them for the time being, but you cannot regard them as the complete and unchangeable truth. Doing so slows progress to snail's pace, and turns science into religion.
I didn't say everything is 100% right, however, most of today's theories are excelllent in their evidence and logic, therefore it's rational to hold faith they are true. THere is no complete 100% truth. It's impossible to known. However, there is very good certainity levels that the above theories are right, whilst the God one's are not. As I said, but you ignored. Theories can be both FACT and EXPLANATION. Theory does not = wild guess. To become a theory (also laws) ideas go through intense study, scrutiny, and observation/ridicule/testing.
"Gravity and electricity were theories; we know they aren't imaginary. We know they are real."
What I'm getting at is the way we understand these things. Gravity as a theory? It's always been there, but 10,000 years away it may be understood completely differently. They'll laugh at your theories of today. Perhaps the Splurssans of A-67 in Andromeda already do. We can't count something out just because it can't be seen, measured, or quantified. We just haven't found the means how to.
THere's no reason to assume that. Most of the gravitational ideas are Laws, which means they are 100% indisputable, at least in Newtonian Physics. Yes, we can count something as irrelevant because it cannot be measure, quantified, or observed/tested. It means it has no explanatory power, no solving power. It means nothing; it's worthless. IT could exist, but as I said before, Murray the undetectable space turtle also might exist, as well as Poseidon, Mercury, Mars, Venus, and Pluto. However, it's silly to entertain such thoughts when there is clearly no evidence.
It's irrational to believe in that for which there is no evidence. That's the antithetical definition of rationality. Rational means "with logic and evidence." If you have neither, you are being irrational.
"Evolution, Big Bang--these are theories. They are also facts. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt they both occured and are occuring."
There is also evidence that tears these theories apart! To believe in them 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' is unscientific. But modern western science will not accept change if it does not suit them. These methods and reasoning are limited to begin with.
1. No, there really isn't evidence that tears Evolution apart. There is a lot of uneducated pseudoscience running around that sounds good, but a vast majority of the crap has been dubunked buy logicians, scholars, and scientists. You have people like Kent Hovind, who got their degrees from Diploma Mills, but have absolutly no clue what they are talking about.
THere is no evidence that either are wrong. The evidence brought against them is genuine, A-1 BS, full of Strawman fallacies. If you look at the information, you will see that they're misusing scientific terminology, the scientific method, and scientific principles, utilizing improper statistical methods etc. It's a lot of uneducated people running around making "noobie" errors, thinking they fell into something profound, whenin reality, they just don't know what they're doing. This goes for their argumetns regarding Thermodynamics, Cells, molectules, abiogenesis, reproduction etc, as well as carbon and radiometric dating.
It's also a myth that we don't use most of our brain. We use a great deal of it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
About 12 years ago there was an article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN about colliding galaxies. It had pictures and computer simulations of galaxies colliding and interpenetrating creating interesting swirls of stars because of the rotation and the interacting gravitational fields.
This brings up a peculiar question which the article did not address. If all of the matter was in one location and exploded outward how can galaxies collide at steep angles? There should be no colliding galaxies.
Did God blow up the universe improperly?
Dal Timgar
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This is hilarious. We have a chap here who gets out a dictionary and looks up the word 'scientist' when he's called a 'scientist' in order to prove he's not! Hahahahaaa! Hey Pinko the Clown, I wasn't referring to the dictionary definition of a scientist! I can't believe you took it literally. You are science minded and your vessel is full of it. You love to seem to take things completely at face value. That is what I mean by your thinking is confined to a box! Your thinking is confined to what you can read in books. Your knowledge is based on what you can see or measure rather than experience. There is a vast amount of evidence in frontiers you can't explore with your reasoning. 'Empirical evidence,' as you call it, is confined to researching one frontier of space time - and only a small portion of it - because you don't know how to peer into another space time. You don't know how to peer into another space time because you refuse to accept them. You refuse to accept them because there is no 'empirical evidence' of them since empirical evidence is currently confined to a small portion of the plane of molecules, our own space time. The human mind is an extraordinarily complex machine. What secrets lie in the unexplored recesses of our minds? How much of your brain do you actually utilize? It is not a myth; it can be measured with your empirical evidence. Or do you choose to accept the empirical evidence that suits you?
Your interpretation of what is metaphysical is your current understanding based on what has been so far discovered and accepted about the universe. Further discoveries as time goes on may provide humans with ways of perceiving, let's say, a plane of atoms. A plane of atoms rather than a singularity. If atoms are so much more minutely microscopic than molecules, can you say with certainty that material objects composed of atoms, or undiscovered particles increasingly more minute than atoms, quarks, neutrinos, could not move about undetected by the plane of molecular substance? "Metaphysical" is just the current understanding. In the future these things may well be able to be explained as part of the physical world.
You then go on to say we don't need to know 100% about everything. That's right, because for humans it's impossible. But to stubbornly and rigidly claim that 'this is the truth' while you actually don't know 100% about everything is almost comical. Let's say that ants refuse to accept, in their infinite wisdom, that humans don't exist. Can the ants prove the existence of humans? Does that mean humans aren't there? Ockham's Razor is not a practical way to discover the truths of the universe! What it says is "we won't acknowledge what we don't understand. What we don't understand we won't believe or even consider." If you aren't interested in discovering these truths, what’s the point? We may as well have been happy thinking the world was flat. Again - it is fine to accept these theories for the time being, but to cling to them as dogmatic and refuse to accept the unexplored makes progress sluggish. That equates to religious faith - in fact, today's science is religion.
By the way, your equations tell me this - you love to over complicate things in an effort to sound intelligent. That is unnecessary, to put things simply and rationally in a globally understandable way is far more intelligent.
Then, you go on to say there is no 100% truth. You pretty much tear down every other argument you made right here. You are stating things absolutely and claiming these theories are fact 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.' Your empirical evidence hardly proves much more than pointing you down a certain road. That is the best evidence to disprove Darwin. There is no absolute evidence at all. As for the Big Bang theory, can you explain Mr. dal_timgar's post with your empirical evidence?
As for these character's running around misusing science to come up with other theories, even though this may be true, why will a real scientist not at least explore, or attempt to develop science in order to explore, these fields?
Empirical evidence is hardly evidence in and of itself.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You must not get out much. A History Major is not a Science, therefore it's labled an Arts class. Did you never wonder why History Majors' degrees are called BA's MA's AA's? Associates, Masters of the Arts? They are a Liberal Art, unlike a Science.
History is an Arts subject
I am a history major
therefore I am an Arts major.
If I were a scince Major, my degree would be Master of science, bacc of science, or associate of science.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
****
I find nothing hilarious about your lack of understanding. It's not funny at all.
*****
We have a chap here who gets out a dictionary and looks up the word 'scientist' when he's called a 'scientist' in order to prove he's not! Hahahahaaa!
********
Please. You didn't even know that an Art's major is the same thing as a History major, so you came up with some lame False Dichotomy fallacy to say I was wrong. Your credibility isn't too good when it comes to "definitinos." As well, the dictionary is a source for Definitions, therefore it is used. If you have a problem with the dictionary, I suggest you e-mail Merriam Webster.
********
Hey Pinko the Clown, I wasn't referring to the dictionary definition of a scientist! I can't believe you took it literally.
******
Good to know that you simply made your crap up. If you want to use a definition properly, then you ought to use the dictionary definition, unless you have your own secret language. As well, this is A fallacy called: Equivocation. You are using a word that has two different meanings but keeping it vague enough so yo ucan switch between the two as your argument gets shot down by me. You said "You're a scientist." NOt "Youa re what I think a Scientist is." Therefore, the only logical definition of scientist is what I posted. Now you said you don't mean that. That's equivocation or at least a version of amphiboly. Regardless, it's a Fallacy of Reasoning.
******
You are science minded and your vessel is full of it. You love to seem to take things completely at face value.
*****
Now you say science minded, not Scientist. Stop changing definitions to suit your backpeddling.
*****
That is what I mean by your thinking is confined to a box! Your thinking is confined to what you can read in books. Your knowledge is based on what you can see or measure rather than experience.
*****
Actually no, a major part of science is sensory experience. It's called Empiricism. It's one of the founding philosophies behind the Scientific Method. The information in books comes from testing/observation and data collection. It's silly to think that what you can see or measure is not what you can experience. THey are related. You can't measure something without experiencing the data from the measuring.
******
There is a vast amount of evidence in frontiers you can't explore with your reasoning. 'Empirical evidence,' as you call it, is confined to researching one frontier of space time - and only a small portion of it - because you don't know how to peer into another space time.
*****
The Scientific Method does not only use EMpirical evidence, it also uses logical reasoning, which is a child borne partly of the old Philosophy called Rationalism. Science is an amalgamation of various epistemological methods, not just the above two. And there's a considerable quanitity of "stuff" you can discover using the above method. It is the best method devised. There's no reason to think there are "other universes" or "other worlds." In fact, the multiple-world theory of quantom mechanims has been discredited. Let us deal with the one universe we have, can test, and can see, untill there is magic evidence of another. It's a needless hypothesis otherwise.
ALl this talk about more space times is babbletalk.
You refuse to accept them because there is no 'empirical evidence' of them since empirical evidence is currently confined to a small portion of the plane of molecules, our own space time.
******
If you cannot test it, observe it, or find logical/empirical evidence for it or against it, and if you cannot falsify it, it's worthless. PEriod. In any rational, logical sense, it's worthless. Only Irrational people disagree.
******
The human mind is an extraordinarily complex machine. What secrets lie in the unexplored recesses of our minds? How much of your brain do you actually utilize? It is not a myth; it can be measured with your empirical evidence.
******
You actually use quite a bit of your brain. It's a myth you don't. Yes, the brain is very complex. What secretes lie there is irrelevant to this discussion on God, however. It's another realy big Red Herring.
******
Or do you choose to accept the empirical evidence that suits you?
*******
No. I support scientific conclusions. The abvove is directly contrary to the Scientific Method. It's, however, quite in line with Religion and Creationism.
*******
Your interpretation of what is metaphysical is your current understanding based on what has been so far discovered and accepted about the universe.
*****
Do you know understand what beyond phyiscal or beyond nature means? If it's beyond that, you cannot know that. You cannot test something that cannot be tested. You cannot test something that doesn't exist in "the universe." That's so basic of reasoning that it's tautological.
Further discoveries as time goes on may provide humans with ways of perceiving, let's say, a plane of atoms. A plane of atoms rather than a singularity. If atoms are so much more minutely microscopic than molecules, can you say with certainty that material objects composed of atoms, or undiscovered particles increasingly more minute than atoms, quarks, neutrinos, could not move about undetected by the plane of molecular substance?
******
Again, the above about atoms, which we know exist already and have dealt with, has nothing to do with God or Metaphysics, since Atoms belong to the physical universe, albeit subatomic. Metaphysical, however, is beyond anything physical. It's imaginary.
******
"Metaphysical" is just the current understanding. In the future these things may well be able to be explained as part of the physical world.
******
Doubtfull. Notwithstanding, it doesn't matter untill they do. Untill they do, the current accurate theory stands.
******
You then go on to say we don't need to know 100% about everything. That's right, because for humans it's impossible.
*****
100% truth is unnecessary and it's impossible. FOr any being. You cannot know 100% of anything for 1000% certainity. THere's always SOME doubt, no matter how ridiculous or ludicriously illogical. It's called methodological skepticism and was developed by Rene Descartes.
But to stubbornly and rigidly claim that 'this is the truth' while you actually don't know 100% about everything is almost comical.
*****
Not really. I never said it was 100% truth. I said it's with great certainty. Truth does not have to be 100%. Don't put words in my mouth and strawman my position to make it seem something it's not. My statement of "truth" hasn't changed. I gave an adequate definition. We don't have 100% truth, but we can tell what's patently false or illogical.
******
Let's say that ants refuse to accept, in their infinite wisdom, that humans don't exist. Can the ants prove the existence of humans? Does that mean humans aren't there?
******
This is irrelevant, since
A. Ants are not rational creatures
B. They have no logical faculties. THey are insects that run off of pure machine-like instincts. They aren't sapient creatures
C. Just because you deny it, doesn't mean it's not there. I didn't say that, and neither do scientists. You don't understand; If there's no evidence, there is no reason to believe---not if there's no evidence, it doesn't exist. THere's a difference, but you seem not to understand the two.
*******
Ockham's Razor is not a practical way to discover the truths of the universe! What it says is "we won't acknowledge what we don't understand. What we don't understand we won't believe or even consider."
****
No, that's not what it says. BUt that's a clever Strawman of Occam's Razor. Try understanding what it really means, then we can have this conversation when you grow up. Care to try again? OCcam's Razor is very practical. It's one of the most effective logical tools used to determine superior ideas/theories.
It simply says, if y ou have competeing ideas/theories that have the same available data and serve to explain the same phenomena, you always choose that which fits the data, but does so with the fewest entities/assumptions/add-ons necessary to do so. Never do the same with more, when you can do the same with less. THat's what William of Occam Said---a Theologian, who actually PROVED God belief was irrational and illogical. After William of Occam, religions were to have "truth" based on "faith."
That's all it says, but you keep mischaracterizing it so it's easier to attack.
If you aren't interested in discovering these truths, what’s the point? We may as well have been happy thinking the world was flat. Again - it is fine to accept these theories for the time being, but to cling to them as dogmatic and refuse to accept the unexplored makes progress sluggish.
********
NO one clings to anything dogmatically other than religious folk. I am supported tried, tested, and peer reviewd theories. Many are facts outright. A theory, however, is a good explanation. If there is a better one, it will be replaced. There is, however, no evidence of a better one. You don't understand what you are talking about, nor what I am talking about.
You still have RELIGIOUS folk, who believe the earth is flat and that it was created in 7 days. They are called Youth earth creationists and flat earthers
*******
That equates to religious faith - in fact, today's science is religion.
********
False, Science is not religion. Look up the dictionary, but then again, you aren't familiar with the meaning of words in the English Language. Religion has various definitions, and I know by using the term "science is religion," you are setting up another Equivocation fallacy, so I will nip that in the bud.
Religions can be:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
The first 3 are the standard definitions of Religion, but the 4th pertains to ANY belief, not just spiritual ones. THe 4th, however, does not mean REligion in teh Sense you are trying to use it, so it's a false definition. You are using the improper definition to rhetorically smear science in an endeavour to make it seem equal to Spiritual Religions.
Science is not the same as "religion" because it is based on reason, logic, and evididence, while your religion is based on "faith." which is the opposite of logical reasoning. It's irrational, whereas science is a rational system of thought.
********
By the way, your equations tell me this - you love to over complicate things in an effort to sound intelligent. That is unnecessary, to put things simply and rationally in a globally understandable way is far more intelligent.
******
I'm sorry. I will try to dumb myself down for you in the future. HOwever, the equation isn't mine. It's developed by scientists and logicians. The Equation is a representation of Occam's Razor. I cannot dumb it down for some people to understand, simply because they want simpler language. I think the equations are simple to understand
Then, you go on to say there is no 100% truth. You pretty much tear down every other argument you made right here.
*******
NO. I really don't. I never said 100% truth was available; I said you can have very good certainity, and high levels of certainty are called facts. Facts don't need to be 100% absolute. If that were true, then there wouldn't be any facts.
********
You are stating things absolutely and claiming these theories are fact 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.'
******
It's called hyperbole. Beyond a shadow of a doubt means, they are very certain, beyond reasonable, logical doubts. That in no way contradicts anything I said. Simple-minded folk might think that
*******
Your empirical evidence hardly proves much more than pointing you down a certain road. That is the best evidence to disprove Darwin. There is no absolute evidence at all.
******
BS on bread. THere's plenty logical, as well as empirical evidence for evolution. ANd please, stop using Darwin. Darwin's original theory was torn apart by Scienstists. MOdern Evolution isn't Darwinism. SOMe of Darwin's principles survived scrutiny and now serve as the Basis beyond biological evolution, however, his book, ORigin of Species, is not our bible, it's not 100% fact. He was WRONG on many principles and details. One of his greatest contrabutions, however, was Natural Selection.
Darwin's theory later synthesized with MEndelian genetic, which fixed many problems in Darwin's theory. Today, however, much of the mistakes have been fixed. THe Theory is both fact and theory. There is no "credible evidence" againce evolution. It's a pipedream to think so.
As for the Big Bang theory, can you explain Mr. dal_timgar's post with your empirical evidence?
*****
What post was that? About colliding galaxies? Ask a scientist. I am not a Science Major, like I said. I am an arts major who's interested in science and TRIES to learn about it. I don't know every subject on the face of the planet. If you want ot know more about the Big Bang, i suggest you read some books on it.
******
As for these character's running around misusing science to come up with other theories, even though this may be true, why will a real scientist not at least explore, or attempt to develop science in order to explore, these fields?
Empirical evidence is hardly evidence in and of itself.
*******
Scientists do and have explored these fields.
*******
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Do you have a life? Over extended posts suggest otherwise!
Still going on about dictionary definitions?! Since when did the world become a place where we all use dictionary definitions in every part of our everyday speech? Get a life, nerd! As I already explained, Pinko the Nerd, calling you a scientist was not to say you are a professor of science by dictionary definition! You are far from it. You're STILL thinking about language and words at face value. So far I haven't changed any definitions because you're simply arguing a pointless point.
Regarding experience, you can experience phenomena without being able to measure them. You can see things without being able to quantify them. Of course your evidence is a type of experience. But there are experiences which cannot be explained or measured. And of course, if someone like you can't logically explain something then you dismiss it. Say it can't exist if it's unexplainable. That's the point! There's no need to spend hours writing a rebuttal that basically says 'you know nothing' when you miss the point completely.
You're still stating absolutely when you say that other space times is 'babbletalk.' Are you 100% sure? No, you're not, you say so yourself! Can you accept that science still has a lot to learn? Will they someday discover particles more and more microcosmic than quarks? What you're saying is 'even though I'm not 100% sure you must believe me anyway.' What I'm saying is 'I'm not 100% sure either so let's keep an open mind and not dismiss anything so readily.'
Moving on to metaphysical, you completely misunderstood the point! Everything has to be spelt out to you, doesn't it? That's whats hilarious about 'scientists' like you. Even regarding insinuations and innuendos you still need concrete evidence of what one is referring to. This is what I mean - that what you cannot see IS part of our universe. It is still composed of particles, and just because they cannot yet be detected does not mean they are not part of the universe. I'm getting tired of going over this. If something proves to work perfectly without being completely understandable and explicable, would you accept it? That's the problem with 'scientists' like you.
And sure the hidden regions of your mind are relevant to this conversation. Why wouldn't they be? Who knows what knowledge we could uncover if we unlocked ourselves and functioned on all cylinders.
The 'ant' anecdote is a metaphor. You're perfectly right, ants aren't rational. And compared to higher beings, perhaps we aren't rational. To them, we are ants. We lack reason to begin with.
Look at the science of today. You would love to believe in science in the idealistic or 'dictionary definition' of the word. Science today is not only religion, its politics. Why haven't the text books changed dramatically in the last 20 - 30 years? Today’s knowledge exceeds what is in your books. Great changes could occur in society, but modern science is happy the way things are. They are the religion of the modern world; they run they show, everyone believes in science. It's penetrated the minds of society from all levels regardless of whether they believe in God or not. Thinking today is based in science.
Talking of your equations, that is what I was talking about - YOUR equations, not equations in general. Your equations back there were totally pointless. They didn't mean squat. You're STILL looking at words at face value!
Evolution can't be proven. There's no real concrete evidence despite what you might think. We may as well have devolved from higher lives forms for all you know, which would make it much harder to find evidence for or against.
So far all you've told us is that 'we aren't 100% sure but you must believe what can be taken at face value because anything else is not logical.' Logic is like a club you're swinging. Logic can't solve everything. Theories can't prove anything. And neither can any of your evidence, because there isn't any. Just innuendos and insinuations from which scientists like you can make educated guesses from. You are aware that there are arguments that could be put forth, but as there is no way to calculate them from your perspective it would be a waste of time. I'm stuck trying to communicate with you in your own limited language. Take that as you wish, for face value if you like!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
There is no reason to debate further. You continually use massive quantities of fallacies in your arguments which you don't address. You repeat the same bull****, and you obviously have a very limited grasp of the English language.. YOu make up your own words in debate and garnish them with anecdotes and bull**** as if it matters.
You also lie outright (especially about science religion/no text book changes.) Of course, you will never change.
You exibit a wall of ignorance of reality and science, therefore you are a waste of my free time.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Your last post says the same thing as the post before: "You know nothing." Except in plain english and sounding a little pissed off.
I haven't lied or made anything up. And modern textbooks have changed very, very little as of the last several decades. Darwin is still taught as fact.
"There is nothing that we cannot appeal to the natural universe to explain."
There's plenty of unexplicable phenomenon which stumps science. Science must be challenged if it is to 'evolve.'
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Perhaps you should consider changing your major. If not, you will have quite a difficult time "rationally" accepting our "unprovable history".
It might also help to consider the distinct possibility that other forms of intelligent life exist. Nonetheless, I'm sure you've found a much better use for cows.
Your friend in simplicity,
Liberty4All
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"There's plenty of unexplicable phenomenon which stumps science. Science must be challenged if it is to 'evolve.'"
Science is an abstraction. Science cannot be stumped. Science doesn't care about challenges. Science is not capable of giving a sh!t.
You are ANTHROPOMORPHIZING science.
Human beings can be stumped and they may think of themselves as being challenged. Of course someone with the necessary brains may simply be curious and not think of it as a challenge. It might just be fun.
Dal Timgar
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
