MCFC BOB
Well-Known Member
Yeah, science is just more believable.
I don't want to go into a debate about it, that's just how I feel. ^^
I don't want to go into a debate about it, that's just how I feel. ^^
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
God
- Thread starter BlueMoonie
- Start date
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
BulgarianPride said:ElanJo said:Filling gaps of knowledge with anything the hell you want is not scientific.
And let's be clear for anyone reading this, hardly any atheist at all claims that the universe came from nothing.
No.
Anyway, Ally.P, were you born into your religion or were you convinced of it through some argument? (if the latter, what was this?)
-- Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:18 pm --
It most certainly is your position. Case in point:
--------------
Did "God" create the universe or is "God" the universe? It can't be both.
If i knew i would of told you a long time ago. Read that bolded thing again. I am telling you that my believe has a "breaking point". A faulty logic, i admit, but it still feels better to believe. I've spend endless nights thinking of a universe full nothing. Absolutely nothing, no light, no matter, no universe. Imagine that, absolutely nothing. This thought scares me, even more than my mortality.
You tell me then how was the universe formed? If you don't believe it was formed out of nothing, how was it formed? Big bang does not cut it. What was it before that?
If you're admiting that your belief is illogical then there's not much else to say. I'd be acting illogical in attempting to change your mind :)
I used to believe in a god (not a god from any religion). It wasn't out of fear tho. It was due to a simple question:
"Why is there reality?"
I used to try and picture "nothing" and, of course, you picture blackness. Outer space but with no stars or planets etc.
I stopped believing because it just doesn't follow.
I don't know how the universe came to be (or even if it did come to be). Not having an answer doesn't make illogical answers any less illogical tho.
Damocles said:Ally.P said:All this is quite confusing :-s I am afraid I can only write simply.
But in that God caused the Big Bang, yes, and the subsequent development of the universe, and consequently our earth, through evolution or whatever (though arent there some examples of things that scientists say dont follow the natural course of evolution?).
Scientifically speaking, that's fine. We have no knowledge of what created the Big Bang and if you choose to believe that God caused it then more power to you. It's absolutely no different from the atheistic answer that the Universe came from nothing. We don't know, it could be either of the above, or something completely different.
My point, is that Creationism that places God as the guy who created the Big Bang is absolutely fine simply because nobody can prove or disprove it either way.
However, stating that God literally created the Earth (and not just made the Big Bang, I mean actually made the Earth by hand) is where many religious folk fall down and abandon their logic.
Of course in the Bible this is represented as creation in seven days. This is obviously incorrect in the 'days' that we talk about. But the creation story, like all the first part of the bible say most of Genesis, is not true history.
'The creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is not about the creation of the world, but it is there to teach us about the spiritual regeneration of people.'
Sorry - I cant do more than that.
That's all fair enough. Do you also get frustrated with people who take the Bible as the literal word of God?
Hmmm frustrated..yeah a bit. Just dont understand how someone can take stories so literally. Its like Aesop's fables, Ii guess.
MCFC BOB
Well-Known Member
Preachers piss me off. ^^
What was before the big bang?
I don't think humans will ever truly find the answer - but I must say theories like multiverse and quantum physics looks quite promising.
In particular cyclical "collisions" between universes acting as a big bang (and big crunch) trigger sounds pretty amazing...
If you want to turn your brain into goo have a read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
I don't think humans will ever truly find the answer - but I must say theories like multiverse and quantum physics looks quite promising.
In particular cyclical "collisions" between universes acting as a big bang (and big crunch) trigger sounds pretty amazing...
If you want to turn your brain into goo have a read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
mammutly said:Damocles said:What exactly is the difference between claiming God did this, and a normal hypothesis? Theories are created because somebody came up with a hypothesis (usually that they believed to be true).
Your ideas about how theories are constructed are both extreme and naive.
That is of course just a theory on my part, but it is based on reliable, or at least observable, evidence.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to explain the whole of the scientific process in a single paragraph to refrain from this type of comment. Whatever happened to assumed knowledge?
Anybody who went to school can explain about the scientific process, most who went to University can explain the reality behind it.
Of course, I now want you to tell me my the idea that a hypothesis that somebody believes to be true eventually becomes a theory is "extreme and naive".
Damocles said:mammutly said:Your ideas about how theories are constructed are both extreme and naive.
That is of course just a theory on my part, but it is based on reliable, or at least observable, evidence.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to explain the whole of the scientific process in a single paragraph to refrain from this type of comment. Whatever happened to assumed knowledge?
Anybody who went to school can explain about the scientific process, most who went to University can explain the reality behind it.
Of course, I now want you to tell me my the idea that a hypothesis that somebody believes to be true eventually becomes a theory is "extreme and naive".
Damocles is right. A theory is merely a hypothesis that has been independently verified enough to be generally accepted as status quo.
Any good scientist will be quick to remind you that it only take a single reliable study to put a theory in doubt.
No scientist believe that string theory, the big bang, e=mc^2 or indeed even gravitational theory is absolute truth - they are merely the leading theories in their field at this moment in time. Could change tomorrow or a hundred years from now.
BulgarianPride
Well-Known Member
the--dud said:What was before the big bang?
I don't think humans will ever truly find the answer - but I must say theories like multiverse and quantum physics looks quite promising.
In particular cyclical "collisions" between universes acting as a big bang (and big crunch) trigger sounds pretty amazing...
If you want to turn your brain into goo have a read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
All those theories are great and all, but none of them attempt to answer what was it before. What formed the original universe?
-- Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:16 pm --
MCFC BOB said:Yeah, science is just more believable.
I don't want to go into a debate about it, that's just how I feel. ^^
Science is not a believe. Science tries to explain the world around us. For this we use maths.It is experimental and theoretical.
You can view/think of science as the attempt to understand how god created the universe.
-- Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:18 pm --
ElanJo said:BulgarianPride said:If i knew i would of told you a long time ago. Read that bolded thing again. I am telling you that my believe has a "breaking point". A faulty logic, i admit, but it still feels better to believe. I've spend endless nights thinking of a universe full nothing. Absolutely nothing, no light, no matter, no universe. Imagine that, absolutely nothing. This thought scares me, even more than my mortality.
You tell me then how was the universe formed? If you don't believe it was formed out of nothing, how was it formed? Big bang does not cut it. What was it before that?
If you're admiting that your belief is illogical then there's not much else to say. I'd be acting illogical in attempting to change your mind :)
I used to believe in a god (not a god from any religion). It wasn't out of fear tho. It was due to a simple question:
"Why is there reality?"
I used to try and picture "nothing" and, of course, you picture blackness. Outer space but with no stars or planets etc.
I stopped believing because it just doesn't follow.
I don't know how the universe came to be (or even if it did come to be). Not having an answer doesn't make illogical answers any less illogical tho.
Outer space is not nothing. You are imagining an empty Outer space, not nothing. In the absolutely nothing, space itself does not exist. No Space, not even time. Just absolutely nothing. Imagine that...
If it didn't come to be, how are we all in it?
mammutly
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:mammutly said:Your ideas about how theories are constructed are both extreme and naive.
That is of course just a theory on my part, but it is based on reliable, or at least observable, evidence.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to explain the whole of the scientific process in a single paragraph to refrain from this type of comment. Whatever happened to assumed knowledge?
Anybody who went to school can explain about the scientific process, most who went to University can explain the reality behind it.
Of course, I now want you to tell me my the idea that a hypothesis that somebody believes to be true eventually becomes a theory is "extreme and naive".
Yesterday Damocles, you defined theory thus:
A theory scientifically is something that has being tested, over and over, has masses of evidence behind it, has been peer reviewed by hundreds and thousands of scientists all over the world, all doing their own experiments in double blind conditions and replicating the same results.
Based on such criteria, most of medical science has no cedible theory to support it.
Wouldn't it be more realistic to define theory as an explanatory construct? The extreme justification of 'hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world etc.....' is a bit daft TBH.
mammutly said:Yesterday Damocles, you defined theory thus:
A theory scientifically is something that has being tested, over and over, has masses of evidence behind it, has been peer reviewed by hundreds and thousands of scientists all over the world, all doing their own experiments in double blind conditions and replicating the same results.
Based on such criteria, most of medical science has no cedible theory to support it.
Medical scienece isn't my forte, can you give me examples of this please?
Wouldn't it be more realistic to define theory as an explanatory construct? The extreme justification of 'hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world etc.....' is a bit daft TBH.
Please learn to read.
There are many theories off of the top of my head, that have being independently verified by thousands of scientists.