Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Steeve But both are flawed ways of thinking. Something is only wrong is proven wrong. Something is only right when proven right. Until then something is unknown and only more or less believed. But it is still just a belief when you get down to it. Even the best or most logical option doesnt make it the right option. Even science takes a leap of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Steeve But both are flawed ways of thinking. Something is only wrong is proven wrong. Something is only right when proven right. Until then something is unknown and only more or less believed. But it is still just a belief when you get down to it. Even the best or most logical option doesnt make it the right option. Even science takes a leap of faith. That whole comment is true, but science only takes a very small leap of faith. That if a ball falls down to the earth a billion times that it won't fall up the next time. Call me a believer. This of course is also the reason why science has trouble explaining situations in extreme conditions. The rules of the game change and it's very hard to test and recreate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I was really hoping to hear some David Bowie. Didn't read all the posts, but I did hear mention of a flat world. I have heard that was a false story. They usually say at least sailors would need to have known the world wasn't flat for navigational purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripGambler Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 No, of course it isn't. Sadly. Example of something that wasn't observable while it was happening, along with an explanation of why technology could never exist to observe it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwynd Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I was really hoping to hear some David Bowie. Didn't read all the posts, but I did hear mention of a flat world. I have heard that was a false story. They usually say at least sailors would need to have known the world wasn't flat for navigational purposes. Only the uneducated and simple people believed the world was flat. The ancient greeks knew that not only was the world round (ish) but they were able to pretty accurately determine the size of the earth using advanced mathematics. What threw them off was the fact that the Earth bulges slightly in the middle instead of being a perfect sphere and they did not account for that in there equations. Even so they were able to come to within a few hundered miles of an accurate measurement for the Earth. The difference between science and religion is whether it can be substantiated with evidence or not. I am not saying that God doesn't exist (whatever God you choose to believe in), but that no amount of ancient text books that have been edited, omitted, and mistranslated have been able to substantiate anything what-so-ever! Science has been able to prove a vast quantity of things. Enough to establish "Laws of Physics". They have also proven that some of those laws can be broken under the right circumstances, but those circumstances are extreme and highly unusual. Gravity for instance is still considered a "theory". Not because we cannot prove that it exists. Nor that it's behaviour can be duplicated, quantified or predicted. There is always a margin of error in a lot of things which Fundamentalists are always quick to jump on, but the problem here is that what typically causes errors or miscalculations is missing a variable. Either because something got introduced to the equation that we didn't know about or just plain random chance. Let's take gravity for instance. I can throw a ball straight up into the air and count seconds with a stopwatch that it takes to go up into the air and return to the ground. Using a mathematical formula I can then tell you how high up I threw that ball. This is something that can be proven by the use of a radar gun. The more precise of measurement tools that one uses will probably show me to be off by a smal degree. Why? Because the whole theory is wrong and science has failed? Or is it more likely to believe that I did not account for the fact that I might not have thrown the ball perfectly straight up in the air, or that a cross wind may have cause drift or lofted the ball a bit, Or even that when I started the stopwatch that I was measuring from my hand, and I didn't stop the time until the ball impacted with the ground? All of those facors and possilby more will throw my number off by small degrees. None of that disproves gravity "theory". It just proves that there were more variables in the equation that I need to account for. Depending on the level of accuacy required. Does it mater to you that I threw the ball approximately 60 ft. straight up, or exactly 58.23451 ft up at a 87.234 degree angle? If it matters then I will need to make use of more accurate measureing devices and not use only the most rudimetary ones. Science is like this. We can only get so accurate with our results because of our current understanding of the law in question or our understanding of all the possible variables. The difference is that science is able to say, "hey, we missed something" or "Cool, while we were testing this out we discovered something we missed", whereas Religion would say something stupid like, "The reason we were wrong is because it was God's Will" or "it is because it is". I believe in some sort of higher power. I do. But I think that He/She/It either just truely does not give a shit about us or that He/She/It is really irritated with us for twisting His/Her/It's word around for our own gains and isn't speaking with us. I would love for there to be some substantiating evidence for a higher power. Some divine being that has the ability to create matter and intervene in things and actually make life better for all. But the facts don't support that. The facts also disprove nearly everything in the Bible concerning creationism for example. The virgin birth can also easily be explained with modern science. It is even possible that Mary had an affair hence getting impregnated by another man and then made up some story about being gifted by the Lord with his divine seed to give birth to His mortal incarnation. However, I would like to believe that she was not a whore and that something else happened. Without more evidence it will be difficult, if not impossible to determine that. Point is that if you want to have your beliefs in religion, that's fine, but you simply cannot discount science because they change their story in the face of new (and often overwhelming) evidence to the contrary. Religion should be questioned, however, because of their inability to do the same. Their very inflexible nature is part of the problem. Manny mentioned the Appocrypha which I think speaks volumes as to the true nature of the organized religions. The Catholic Church removed 12(?) books from the Bible, including the Gospel of Judas, because they decided that it was not what they wanted to be taught. They then declared that anyone who continued to read or teach the Apocrypha were enemies of the church and killed any who defied that order. Obviously they were not able to purge all of them (thenakfully) and those books survive to this day. In them are some interesting things, I have been told, about the Christian faith that I would like to read more about. All in all none of this stuff has fuck all to do with the original post. The original post merely states that there is a possibility that life once existed on Mars. That is facinating news. I read that article and it states that the scientists are being tight lipped about exactly what they have discovered so far, but that the speculation is that they may have found organic compounds on Mars. This proves nothing about the existance of life on Mars except that it makes it possible that it once existed. As the article stated, life cannot exist without organic compounds, but it went on to say that organic compounds can exist without life. The presence of methane would be interesting. Not because methane is needed for life, but because methane is a hydrocarbon chain. In other words an organic compound. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I would love for there to be some substantiating evidence for a higher power. That will never happen wether religion is right or wrong. One thing that my religion and im sure pretty much all the others say is the most important thing to god is you having faith. That is something that can not happen is god is "proven". Instead there is just enough out there for those who have faith to believe and those who0 choose not to to cling to their decision. There is enough on both sides for anyone to go in either direction. The direction comes down to who has faith and who doesnt. So if you are waiting for proof it will never happen. Its like those people who keep predicting the end of the world. Some are even christians. Waiting for proof or predicting the end of the world shows a lack of knowledge of the bible and christianity because the bible says you have to have faith and it also says that no man shall know when the end of days will come. One of the differences in religion and science is religion doesnt pretend to know all the answers. We dont know why some things are the way they are. We are given a very limited amount of information. So when we cant exaplain or deal with something that is beyond out grasp we do what the bible says. That is put it in gods hands. So we say its gods will and we move on. Science also do4esnt have all the information but they keep throwing out answers regardless wether right or wrong. We will never know why there is so much bad stuff in the world today. There is no reason we need the evil we see. There is no good evolutionary reason we have it. Well there is plenty of BS as always but no good answer. But we all know God or no God it is there for a reason. But we dont even know the purpose of man to have a clue why there is the messed up stuff. But we all have different ways to deal with it and different ways to understand it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Not being able to prove something as wrong is not the same as proving it right. That is what "scrutiny" you talk about does 99% of the time. So basically you believe in everything that man with his limited information cant prove wrong. Which leave you open to believing almost anything. Blind faith. Sigh.... Im citing this as a possible explanation to how the universe began, simply saying that for us to say that something isnt testable or provable is wrong, because as science evolves so does our understanding of everything around us and what wasn't possible in 2003 when the article Steeve posted, can be possible in 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 No, proving is only in mathematics and I never said such a thing, which again proves (oops) how badly you are in comprehensive reading. Oh hi dar, it's your friend steeve from 2 pages ago, wanna hear what he has to say? You can't ever explain the cause of the big bang. You can't do it now. You can't do it ever. Both time and space came into existence after the Big Bang, so whatever "caused" the big bang did not adhere to our natural laws. You can't test the conditions before the Big Bang or use information after it to make predictions about it. There was no space, no time and you can't assume of universality of the laws of physics. And no, this is not something that I came up with myself. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all By a person more intelligent than you and I. First of all that article is nine years old, not that it matters, but it can hardly be conclusive proof of why testing or explaining it would be impossible. Secondly, his opinions, just like Michio Kaku's opinions do not prove anything, they are ideas worthy of exploring. But claiming something to be true (Big bang cannot be explained) is a pitfall. I'm not saying the multiverse theory is true or false, but it is a possible explanation and as long as there are possibilities, ruling them out is simply stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 That will never happen wether religion is right or wrong. One thing that my religion and im sure pretty much all the others say is the most important thing to god is you having faith. That is something that can not happen is god is "proven". According to the bible the ancients had tons of evidence. Annihilation of cities, virgin births, ressurections and feeding thousands of people with only a bowl of fish and bread. Why does god care so little for our souls that he does not grant us the same evidence that he granted those of israel at the time? One of the differences in religion and science is religion doesnt pretend to know all the answers. We dont know why some things are the way they are http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMATycoon Posted November 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 One of the differences in religion and science is religion doesnt pretend to know all the answers. Dude this sentence is crackers. Science doesn't even remotely pretent to have all the answers - it does the exact opposite but just TRIES to figure things out. That for me is our greatest strength as a species and for one, it's why we're talking to eachother on this box of sparkly lights. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwynd Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Science doesn't pretend or make any claim of know "all the answers". What science does do is search for all the answers. Not just take it on blind faith that "it's God's will". That is a bullshit answer. So much stuff from the bible is already proven to be false bullshit that you cannot even pretend to use that as a reliable source. Wikipedia if many times more reliable as a source than the bible is. Also using the Bible as proof af anything is like me making up some completely ridiculous story and then using that same story to prove the validity of the story I just made up. In order to prove said story or even to lend any sort of credence to it I need to substantiate it with evidence from other sources. The bible has some pretty fucked up stuff in there that even the most devout christian today would balk at validating. King David, for instance...? Remember this dickhead? He is considered a great hero in judeo-christian mythology and he was a raging douchebag. The list goes on for entire chapters of the bible for this guy, but amoung his crimes are murder of Bathseba's husband so that he could lie with her. Oh sure you might argue that he didn't directly kill the guy, but he made damn sure that he would die. Isn't coveting thy neighbor's wife one of the ten big no no's in the Bible? I thought so.... so is Murder now that I think about it. The Bible says so is not a good argument for anything. It's actually pretty ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 To be fair the entire point of the Bathseba story is David's fall from grace and repentance. With that said, I find it priceless that murder is possibly the biggest no-no in judeo-christian mythology, and yet God borders on genocide several times himself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacky67 Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Gravity for instance is still considered a "theory". NO. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Speaking of fucked up things in the Bible, I always found Genesis 19:30-38 really revolting. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19&version=KJ21 WHY THE HELL DIDN'T GOD REACT TO LOT'S DAUGHTERS BASICALLY DATE RAPING HIM AND SPEWING OUT THEIR ABOMINATIONS ARGH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacky67 Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg +1 for the pic didn't read what u said tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) One of the differences in religion and science is religion doesnt pretend to know all the answers. Science doesn't make up creative children stories to explain things they don't know or understand. Religion does exactly that. Adam & Eve for example. To be fair the entire point of the Bathseba story is David's fall from grace and repentance. With that said, I find it priceless that murder is possibly the biggest no-no in judeo-christian mythology, and yet God borders on genocide several times himself. Ironic aint it? Edited November 29, 2012 by CKeppelrun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 But claiming something to be true (Big bang cannot be explained) is a pitfall. I'm not saying the multiverse theory is true or false, but it is a possible explanation and as long as there are possibilities, ruling them out is simply stupid. The same as God is a possible explanation. And you're right, don't rule it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 The same as God is a possible explanation. And you're right, don't rule it out. As you said you cannot prove god. At least not until he pokes his head down from between the skies Making it a completely silly explanation. But that being said, I dont completely rule out a god, I just find the man made ones to be completely ludicrous. As I said, ruling out the possibility of an explanation shows a completely unscientific mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 As you said you cannot prove god. At least not until he pokes his head down from between the skies Making it a completely silly explanation. Yet somehow that doesn't apply to your multiverse. Example of something that wasn't observable while it was happening, along with an explanation of why technology could never exist to observe it? I just gave an example, although you framed the question in a way that wasn't totally on point. Another example is the trajectory of an atom. It changes position with the speed of light and for whatever reason quantum laws decide that it's also impossible to predict the position of an electron. The best you can do is to determine where it's most likely to occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 But that being said, I dont completely rule out a god, I just find the man made ones to be completely ludicrous. I 100% agree with that. People feel like there needs to be a reason behind everything. They feel like they need to have a purpose. The reality is that we're insignificant to the universe, and we could easily exist by mistake. For all we know some 4th or 5th dimensional being could of ejaculated on to a big dark matter of nothing we know as space, and it evolved into life as we know it after X amount of (trillions, zillions, or even more) years. Something sparked the beginning of existence. That's what I'd aknowledge as "God" and I doubt we have any way of communicating with it. Even if the big bang theory was true, something caused it. I can come up with a thousand theories, but none of them would be correct. For now it's impossible to find the solution to our existence. It wouldn't surprise me if we were some life form from another galaxy's sea monkey's put here as an experiment. I don't believe we're the most intelligent life form in the universe, not by a long shot. I think we're prolly borderline retarded compared to a lot of intelligent life out there, but at the same time I can't prove any of it, and I don't think any other human on this planet can at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwynd Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 This made me laugh. I think I can make a better case for us being retarded than the most intelligent life forms in the universe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripGambler Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I just gave an example, although you framed the question in a way that wasn't totally on point. Another example is the trajectory of an atom. It changes position with the speed of light and for whatever reason quantum laws decide that it's also impossible to predict the position of an electron. The best you can do is to determine where it's most likely to occur. All of these statements are based on current human knowledge and technology limits. You know for a fact that those examples are impossibilities given all possible technology, even those undeveloped or unthought of yet by humans? The question was directly to the point. The point being that science is only limited by the technology and knowledge of its users. Science as a field can explain everything that exists or occurs, past, present, and future. Even a god if one were to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 According to the bible the ancients had tons of evidence. Annihilation of cities, virgin births, ressurections and feeding thousands of people with only a bowl of fish and bread. Why does god care so little for our souls that he does not grant us the same evidence that he granted those of israel at the time? All of those things were proof to the ancients. BUt you skeptics would never believe them if they happen now. So dont act like you would accept it as proof now. Hell there is people trying to claim logic explainations to many stories in the bible like Saddom and Gamorah (sp). You guys always look for the answer you want rather than any real truth. Explaining how the internal combustion engine propels a car doesnt mean man didnt create the car. Creating a explanation how god did something doesnt mean god didnt do it. So it always took faith because some people dont want to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Dude this sentence is crackers. Science doesn't even remotely pretent to have all the answers - it does the exact opposite but just TRIES to figure things out. That for me is our greatest strength as a species and for one, it's why we're talking to eachother on this box of sparkly lights. That might be what science is intended for but human nature assures thats not how it is used. All scientists have their flaws and bias. Kind of like the US government. We have a pretty good system on paper. But as long as the people who are involved in it are flawed them the system can not work like it is meant to. Maybe over many many years and many wrong turns the truth might be discovered on some thing. BUt there is something we might never know and a wrong turn could lead us the wrong direction for thousands of years or maybe for ever. For all we know all the known Universe could be a snow globe on gods desk. If it is we will never know and we would just accept the most logical answer to us. But how meaningful is the most logic with little information? Once we know more what is logical changes. When i was in school it was a joke to mention time travel. It was unlogical. Not scientists say it is possible and take it more serious. Whqat i mean is time doesnt exist so if there is any important information that man will never know(doesnt matter if we know it now or not) if that is the case then the entire science concept is flawed. It is based on eventually findign the answers when it is wrong. As you say this is how it is a good system. Everything is linked to another. Spo if there is anything we dont know it will throw off what we know about everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 This made me laugh. I think I can make a better case for us being retarded than the most intelligent life forms in the universe... At least we're intelligent enough to know that we're retarded. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.