Sad but true. Anyone catch GWB getting interviewed by Bob Costas during the Olympics? Gotta love the 'man of faith' and leader of our country trying to push organized religion on China. :roll:
Sad but true. Anyone catch GWB getting interviewed by Bob Costas during the Olympics? Gotta love the 'man of faith' and leader of our country trying to push organized religion on China. :roll:
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Please explain where I have ever even so much as implied that Science should even consider invoking the "god" explanation in lieu of a naturalistic explanation. Good luck. You'll need it.
You fail to grasp the subtleties between seeking naturalistic explanations and a true "ruling out" of a higher power. As has been pointed out, science discards the theory of a higher power from its analyses because such an hypothesis cannot ever be proven empirically. Because of this, it is patently absurd for an empirical system to posit a higher power as a cause. A god is not testable by the scientific method and is therefore left out. This is not in any way a denial of the existence of a god, but rather nothing more or less than a necessary admission of the limits of the scientific method.
You are playing semantic games with the definition of "why". It's my own fault for assuming that I did not need to nail my terms down more definitely, but it is still disingenuous on your part. By "why" questions I naturally meant metaphysical questions. Questions like "Why are we here?", "What is our purpose?", "Why are some things 'good' and other things 'bad'?", or even, simply, "Why do I like the color red better than I like the color blue?". These are, obviously, quite different from a question like "Why did the chocolate bar in my pocket melt when I walked past the microwave communications dish?". The former questions do not admit mechanistic answers, while the latter does.
Science is concerned with discovering the underlying mechanisms that govern the physical world. That is all. The scientific method does not admit any means of conclusively denying the existence of god(s) and any true scientist will admit this (along with pointing out, quite correctly, that this inability cannot be considered as proof of the existence of god(s) either).
As far as being stuck in the middle, better for me to be here, than to be falling over the edge.
ZV
m1ldslide1
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Re-posted and bolded again out of necessity. This should be stickied at the top of P&N and ATOT - "Definition of Common Terms - Please Read Before Posting"
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I think what bothers me most about this thread is that people continue to cling to a notion that there must be a 'before' before time began. If people would just stop and think about that for a moment, they'd realize how silly that is.
I think this misconception stems from the fact that our brains (and therefore, our consciousnesses) are dependent upon the passage of time in order to function. Each of our thoughts depends upon an electro-chemical reaction between neurons, and therefore the passage of time in order to occur and exist. It seems this gives people the misconception that time is something that exists on its own, independent of space. The reality is entirely different. Time and space are manifestations of the same thing, spacetime. In fact, I would argue that time IS a space, an inherent property of the universe's expansion of space. Or how else could the universe expand through space if it were not expanding through time as well?
And when you think about it, it is obvious. Everything exists in a here-and-now. Or a where and when. A time and place. I will meet you at 2pm. Where? I will meet you at my office. When? And so forth.
Now, this does not mean that nothing existed 'before' the Big Bang, but it does mean that this 'before' was not in our known spacetime (of 3+1). This is why I like to use the "What's north of the North Pole?" analogy. The mass of the earth curves spacetime so that there is no north of the north pole, i.e. a straight line through the north pole curves back to the south. But does this mean that there is nothing above/outside the North Pole? Obviously, no, because we know that there is, but in another spatial dimension at a right angle.
Likewise with the Big Bang, spacetime goes directly back to that single point when-where it occurred. Any possible direction 'before' that single point must have been in a different dimension which is as yet unobservable to us.
I think this misconception stems from the fact that our brains (and therefore, our consciousnesses) are dependent upon the passage of time in order to function. Each of our thoughts depends upon an electro-chemical reaction between neurons, and therefore the passage of time in order to occur and exist. It seems this gives people the misconception that time is something that exists on its own, independent of space. The reality is entirely different. Time and space are manifestations of the same thing, spacetime. In fact, I would argue that time IS a space, an inherent property of the universe's expansion of space. Or how else could the universe expand through space if it were not expanding through time as well?
And when you think about it, it is obvious. Everything exists in a here-and-now. Or a where and when. A time and place. I will meet you at 2pm. Where? I will meet you at my office. When? And so forth.
Now, this does not mean that nothing existed 'before' the Big Bang, but it does mean that this 'before' was not in our known spacetime (of 3+1). This is why I like to use the "What's north of the North Pole?" analogy. The mass of the earth curves spacetime so that there is no north of the north pole, i.e. a straight line through the north pole curves back to the south. But does this mean that there is nothing above/outside the North Pole? Obviously, no, because we know that there is, but in another spatial dimension at a right angle.
Likewise with the Big Bang, spacetime goes directly back to that single point when-where it occurred. Any possible direction 'before' that single point must have been in a different dimension which is as yet unobservable to us.
I have to say I agree with the majority of users here... but it's unfortunate that so many people have to be so disrespectful with replies like DealMonkey calling them ignorant religious fucks... iono rather than ridiculing people it'd be great if we could get to a common middle ground -- tell them your faith is cool, that's your choice... but explain to them their understanding of logic and science is fundamentally wrong.
It doesn't matter what you believe... but if your beliefs are being challenged you'll either embrace the challenge or get defensive, personally I get defensive and I'm sure many lurking fundies here probably feel the same (I used to be a fundy myself).
So my message to all the lurking fundies is that beneath all the trolls in this thread, the guys with legitimate replies including Brainonska511's post (the fundamental misunderstanding guy), well, have legit replies and I challenge you to give us some serious consideration. For instance it'd be completely unfair for me to try to challenge your pastor's theological beliefs without my first having a sound theological base similarly the least you can do as fundies is have a correct understanding of the theories you're rejecting.
It doesn't matter what you believe... but if your beliefs are being challenged you'll either embrace the challenge or get defensive, personally I get defensive and I'm sure many lurking fundies here probably feel the same (I used to be a fundy myself).
So my message to all the lurking fundies is that beneath all the trolls in this thread, the guys with legitimate replies including Brainonska511's post (the fundamental misunderstanding guy), well, have legit replies and I challenge you to give us some serious consideration. For instance it'd be completely unfair for me to try to challenge your pastor's theological beliefs without my first having a sound theological base similarly the least you can do as fundies is have a correct understanding of the theories you're rejecting.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
No luck is needed. Please explain where I accused you of implying such a thing. I didn't.
Science does not posit the effects of flying purple elephants either since there is no evidence for such beings to exist. However, I think we can pretty safely say that the completely lack of empirical evidence for flying purple elephants pretty much rules them out.
As far as proving the existence of a higher being empirically, of course it could be proven. If a god pulls the strings of this universe those strings would leave a detectable mark. As deeply as god is allegedly involved directly in the affiars of humans, those detectable marks should be copious and easily found. That's not to mention that a god could simply make itself known to everyone and all beyond any shadow of a doubt.
:sigh:
It's not semantics. The question "Why?" is the basic origin of both religion and science. It's merely that each attributes the reason for that "why" to a different cause.
Besides that, what you coin as metaphysical questions I call philosophical. Not to mention that they are assumptive. "Why are we here? What is our purpose?" They beg the question that we must have some purpose, therefore we must discover what that purpose is.
I didn't ever claim that science conclusively denies the existence of god. What I said is that science implicitly rules out gods. IF a god does exist then ultimately science is meaningless. The metaphysical and science cannot exist side-by-side and intertwined. There is either one or the other because each is incompatible with the other. One is based on complete randomness and non-deterministic behavior. The other is based on fate and determinism.
I'm aware that people want to believe in science while clinging onto their faith at the same time. However, logic tells us that only one is correct.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
No, it doesn't "ALWAYS" apply. I've gotta run or I would explain it further; if you just google, you might find more info if you include "Planck's constant" in the search.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 29,097
- 14,462
- 136
Okay. I see what you mean - in the classical sense it holds, but in special relativity and quantum mechanics, things get funky. But so do most other classically held theories, which is why you have that Lorentz factor in special relativity, etc....
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
I would suggest a source more reputable than Kent Hovind. Batboy in the Weekly World News would be a better bet.
Mr. Hovind is just a little bit more than slightly insane.
And in trouble for tax evasion.
Plus, why do you think he "wins" his debates? Set ups, maybe? Extensive screening of his opponents? He's got an image to uphold, and apparently he's not too keen on morals.
Logic shorts out some mental circuits in fundamentalists' brains.
ERR 403....God did it.
GPS satellites need to account for the effects of relativity, in order to keep their clocks synchronized. More validation of the theory, and a practical application.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
If you have studied it, don't you know that current theories of the universe can correctly model the event up to something like 10^-20 sec after the big bang?
So our models match from current time going back billions of years, and they only break down in the immediate 10^-20 sec after the big bang. (Not sure of the exact number, the current "unmodeled" time gap keeps getting smaller as research goes on). So our current model can match 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time since the big bang. I would say that's pretty accurate.
edit: 10 pages of this already? WTF?
As much of disappointment as fusetalk is, it does have a couple of user configurable options. This is only the second page for me.
Consider it well-deserved payback for Duwelon's incessant "godless liberals tearing America down piece by piece..." blathering. Plus, there's a degree of truth to my comments. Anyone who advocates teaching religion in public school science class rather than science, is 99% likely to be an ignorant fuck. If the shoe fits .... as they say.
There is no common ground about polluting science with religion. It will never be allowed. It wouldn't be called science. I don't think anyone here has suggested what can and cannot be discussed in churches - but we could...
Or a brilliant fuck or a religious fuck. If one is trying to control a person, the younger, the better.
Amen to that! :thumbsup:
It already has been allowed by the morons who insist on polluting science education with their ooga booga religious mystery oil, and they do, in fact, call it "creation science." :thumbsdown:
The fact that their dogma has nothing to do with science, the scientific method or reality has nothing to do with what they choose to call it. :roll:
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,957
- 2,109
- 126
So you want a bunch of people on an internet forum to spoon feed you years and years of extremely difficult and sometimes counter-intuitive subject matter so that you can attempt to poke a hole in something which you couldn't possibly understand so that you can have a few fleeting moments of self-satisfaction that you're somehow more aware or on a higher level than the rest of us?
I admire the idea, but I think you're viewing the religion vs science discussions a little too optimistically. This isn't religious people and science folks getting together and trying to understand the big picture, it's basically religious people starting the physics building at the local university on fire because they don't like explanations of anything that don't involve God. And if people react with some animosity to that, it's because there is a long, proud tradition of religious folks literally doing that...not to mention torturing scientists into recanting their beliefs, and basically doing everything in their power to make sure religion is the only game in town when it comes to understanding the universe.
Religion has done more than any force on Earth to hold back the intellectual development of the human species. And while I respect and appreciate the role it is coming to play in modern society, I would hope you can understand that us science types are more than a little touchy when someone tries to bring the Bible into the science classroom. We spent thousands of years trying to get BEYOND that kind of nonsense, and we're nice enough not to try to bring science into the church. If anybody needs to be more respectful or search for common ground, it's the religious community. Scientists in Kansas aren't trying to force sermons on evolution into Sunday mass, and Galileo never tortured a priest into saying that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of all of us trying to get along, but I'm not OK with this new-agey idea that we're all right and we're all wrong. There are many things to admire about the religious community, the way it has dealt and is dealing with science is NOT one of them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter