Jump to content


The Universe

And Other Stuff

  • Please log in to reply
1092 replies to this topic

Kenshin2kx #61 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 21:01

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postsmith_wessoned, on Aug 02 2015 - 22:58, said:

 

The problem with science is, that today, it's used as the new religion, just like religion used to rule people's mind back in the day. That new gospel that explains everything in the universe. Why is science the new gospel? Because it has improved our lives and has been proven to work, so people automatically think that scientists know everything. And the so called people with scientific knowledge, who arent really scientists but just people who have memorized stuff written by other people, like people you find here and other forums, claim that they know more than people who do not use science to explain certain events and facts.

 

K:  The basis for Scientific Methodology is just that a model on how to problem solve in the face of observable and measurable phenomena.   I would agree that for the most part, Science has significantly benefited us ... without argument, its misuse or misapplication has caused problems, but if it did, it was in the same vein as the dangers that are posed by a gun or fire.  IMO, if Science is used as it is intended, it can be greatly beneficial to mankind.  Yes, I am fairly sure, that there are those who only memorize and spout what has been established by others ... but to be fair, can this not be said for any other institution, such as Religion?  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Religion IS manifestly "...  just people who have memorized stuff written by other people ..."  That is, unless, you consider the earliest manuscripts to be divinely crafted (and not written by human hands)?  Now, unlike Religion, Science, by way of its established Scientific Method (SM)  ... asks questions, in the hopes of finding answers.  If people become lazy to the point of taking everything at face value ... thats not the fault of Science - that problem rests with our human failings. 

 

For example, in an argument between theistic creationists and scientists, both parties barely have an idea of how the universe came to be and what is the purpose behind the universal existence, including humanity.

 

K:  Let me correct you on your description ... most if not all Religions KNOW what happened before, during and after creation ... Science, never made such a claim, so yes Scientists have theories and ideas on what happened, but no true Scientist will avow to every detail, or even the basis for the latest "best guess" on this event.  Now, scientists will staunchly support those theories that have a strongly supported history of evidence and corroboration ... and often this is taken as "common place" fact.  The truth is though, this is a casual affectation, a working convenience if you will for the majority of humanity who are not in the business of finding out the workings of our universe.  

 

To reiterate, those who rely on Religion "know" ... those who adhere to the basis of Science do not, as such, try to find out.

 

Both parties rely on stuff written by supposedly prominent people, God, Jesus, Steven Hawkings, Neil DeGrasse etc... when in fact, one theory is based on old traditions and superstitions, and the  other theory is just that a theory, based on discoveries of modern science, which has a flaw because it excludes supernatural, meanwhile universe is full of supernatural and paradoxes, which can not be explain by laws of physics and random events.

 

K:  Correction, most if not all religious texts were (at the very least) divinely inspired, or in some cases, claimed to be the direct message from a divine being, often transcribed by a human.  The thing to remember here is that this divine "message" is purported to be THE truth, with little or no intended diviation ... i.e. the "word of god".   On the other hand, Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson  etal.  form their conclusions within the framework of SM ... or rather they support conclusions that best fit available evidence in support of working theoretical models.  Are these 'models' perfect, no.  Are they meant to be the totality of truth ... no.  What they are meant to be is, the best "educated guess" on the how and why of some phenomena at a particular point in time.

 

You are ignorant if you believe science as we know it is here to stay. Throughout history, search for truth has led us to new methods and they never stuck in their original form. Modern science with classical physics, will soon become a relic of the past when new methods of observation and calculation become available, and im not talking about the flawed Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics.

 

Science is good to calculate already known things, but it shouldn't shove its nose in things that it's unable to calculate. And people like Neil DeGrasse, need to get off that high horse which he and rest of sheep had put him on.

 

If any so called scientists want to talk to me about evolution and creation, i will destroy almost any of your arguments.

 

K:  Let me see if I understand you ... you seek to destroy the arguments supported by the Scientific Community and prove the truth of your religious views?

 

Yes, Science is good at manipulating the mechanics of well understood physics and phenomena, and by design, SM adds to this established base ... as to its propensity to "shove its nose into things its is unable to calculate"  That is its basic charter, to explore the unknown, to make it KNOWN if possible.   As for "sheep" ... tell me, what is more "sheeplike" ... to reply with, "... because IT IS SO, no argument", OR  ... "based on the latest findings, the present working theory is this ..."  While it is true, that both camps of adherents will likely resort to the convenience of an assumption IRL ... at the very least, those who base their perceptions on SM will have recourse to examine and expand upon the conclusions, in light of new information.   

 

The basis for Science is found in the basic human trait of curiosity ... SM is a means to satisfy this curiosity.  If there is ever a time that humans lose their inate curiosity in the world around them, and thus discard the intent and method for Science, then IMO, we have already "died" as a viable species and will deserve being cast aside by another species that inherits the fire to think and problem solve. 

 


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Aug 03 2015 - 21:30.


Kenshin2kx #62 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 21:20

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 03 2015 - 05:47, said:

Heck, in any debate here, I have to take it on faith my sources are right, because I am not an expert.

 

K:  That is true, as with most of us here (raises hand) ... we often will rely on 'experts' ... The question then becomes, will you put your "faith" in writings associated to a "God", or a Man made process or method to seek knowledge?  It all boils down to this question IMO.

 


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Aug 03 2015 - 21:24.


Nukelavee45 #63 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 21:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View PostKenshin2kx, on Aug 03 2015 - 21:20, said:

 

 

Actually, faith isn't something I do much, acceptance might be more accurate.  But - it really depends on the context of any given discussion.  For me, I find there are things that no scientific explanation exists for.  For many of those things, I realize "science hasn't explained them, yet" is valid.  I wonder how many things are unexplained, or "unsolvable" simply due to the limits of human paradigms of thought.

 

It's not that I believe in the Divine, it's that I think there's a point where a species with advanced enough science and ambition would be damned near Divine from our viewpoint.



MrDoomed #64 Posted Aug 03 2015 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 19184 battles
  • 2,723
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 03 2015 - 21:56, said:

 

Actually, faith isn't something I do much, acceptance might be more accurate.  But - it really depends on the context of any given discussion.  For me, I find there are things that no scientific explanation exists for.  For many of those things, I realize "science hasn't explained them, yet" is valid.  I wonder how many things are unexplained, or "unsolvable" simply due to the limits of human paradigms of thought.

 

It's not that I believe in the Divine, it's that I think there's a point where a species with advanced enough science and ambition would be damned near Divine from our viewpoint.

I have to be careful how i say this or mw will report me so ill try. Its ok to have faith and believe in science at the same time and if you have faith and a brain you can completely see how faith and science work hand and hand and explain each other. The problem is the extremest on both sides do not have a open mind and only see things in absulutes. 

 

If you TRULEY have an open mind the world and universe can amaze you beyond belief.  Dont report me mw !



Kenshin2kx #65 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 00:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostMrDoomed, on Aug 03 2015 - 12:45, said:

I have to be careful how i say this or mw will report me so ill try. Its ok to have faith and believe in science at the same time and if you have faith and a brain you can completely see how faith and science work hand and hand and explain each other. The problem is the extremest on both sides do not have a open mind and only see things in absulutes.

 

If you TRULEY have an open mind the world and universe can amaze you beyond belief.  Dont report me mw !

 

... perfectly reasonable.

 

Yet, IMHO, you don't give Mike enough credit in regards to the basic tenets supporting Science and its method.  In and of itself, Science does not rule out God(s)... it merely starts off with the simple question:  What makes you think that there was divine intervention?  What proof do you have that we all can ponder upon?

 

IIRC to date, there has been no accrual of significant data/proof to establish the existence of or the non-existence of a god or gods.   Now if there are such dieties, and they want to remain anonymous ... that is a possibility.  I can think of 2 reasons for this ... 1.  The establishment of "Faith" as a form of acceptence, of that which is greater than mankind.  2. A test.  It is said that we "are made in God's image" which includes our superior cognitive capacity to think and wonder.  This being the case, do we as humans think for ourselves?  ... or do we simply accept?   The reason being, until we truly earn the knowledge we seek for ourselves, we are not ready for it ... and thus the place holder of "Faith" to point the way ... until we do achieve such understanding, in which case we as a species can meet the 'Gods's of old as equals, much like adults that have mutual respect, as opposed to the former Parent/Child context.

 

Likewise, I can also envision an equally valid possibility that there are no gods in the traditional sense ... that Religion is a contrived invention used to gain supporters.  A institution that is similar to a secular government, but based upon unimpeachable principles, and with unprovable consequences.  Unprovable by design under the guise of the requirement of "Faith" as a mandatory requirement for affiliation or membership.  The perfect Con or Scam that plays on emotions in order to obscure the lack of substance.

 

In all honesty, while I think the first option would be great if true, I tend to lean to the second possibility ... I've seen too much injustice and chaos to chock it all up to the "mysterious ways of a loving God".

 

:coin:


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Aug 04 2015 - 02:04.


brawler1967 #66 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 01:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9915 battles
  • 1,897
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View PostMrDoomed, on Aug 03 2015 - 23:45, said:

I have to be careful how i say this or mw will report me so ill try. Its ok to have faith and believe in science at the same time and if you have faith and a brain you can completely see how faith and science work hand and hand and explain each other. The problem is the extremest on both sides do not have a open mind and only see things in absulutes.

 

If you TRULEY have an open mind the world and universe can amaze you beyond belief.  Dont report me mw !

 

Of course you can have faith and believe in science. Who ever said you can have one and not the other? Most enlightened intelligent church pastors believe in this as well.

Edited by brawler1967, Aug 04 2015 - 01:10.


Klaatu_Nicto #67 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 03:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,660
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Chasing Pluto

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/chasing-pluto.html



Nukelavee45 #68 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 17:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

MrDoomed - My lack of faith is less a choice, more a personality flaw.

Kenshin - The "third" option is that god(s) exist, but their nature is utterly not what religions tell us.  Which explains the lack of concern about tragedies and suffering - Human ego demands a sense of importance, so, we accept indoctrination into a belief system that both gives us a sense of mattering in a vaster sense than our little lives, and allows others to directly indulge their need to matter more, by being in control.

 

I actually find the idea of a cold uncaring divinity more acceptable than a heavenly father.  As far as Jesus goes, even without miracles and being part of God, his message still has great value.  Ever wonder if Jesus knew it was all a scam, like Martin Luther, and simply wanted to force the powers that be to be more ethical?



MrDoomed #69 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 18:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 19184 battles
  • 2,723
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 04 2015 - 17:38, said:

MrDoomed - My lack of faith is less a choice, more a personality flaw.

Kenshin - The "third" option is that god(s) exist, but their nature is utterly not what religions tell us.  Which explains the lack of concern about tragedies and suffering - Human ego demands a sense of importance, so, we accept indoctrination into a belief system that both gives us a sense of mattering in a vaster sense than our little lives, and allows others to directly indulge their need to matter more, by being in control.

 

I actually find the idea of a cold uncaring divinity more acceptable than a heavenly father.  As far as Jesus goes, even without miracles and being part of God, his message still has great value.  Ever wonder if Jesus knew it was all a scam, like Martin Luther, and simply wanted to force the powers that be to be more ethical?

If i wouldnt get reported you and i could have a good conversation.  I agree with you quite a bit but from a different pov. As it is ill just say i agree with someof what you say and feel the same way only ive come up with my own reasoning for things.



mattwong #70 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 19:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View Postbrawler1967, on Aug 03 2015 - 19:07, said:

Of course you can have faith and believe in science. Who ever said you can have one and not the other? Most enlightened intelligent church pastors believe in this as well.

 

But you cannot have faith and accept that the scientific method is actually a valid way to know what's real.  The scientific method, when applied to the question of gods, would treat them just like any other theory, and demand a number of criteria, ALL of which religious beliefs invariably fail to meet.



Kenshin2kx #71 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 19:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 04 2015 - 06:38, said:

MrDoomed - My lack of faith is less a choice, more a personality flaw.

Kenshin - The "third" option is that god(s) exist, but their nature is utterly not what religions tell us.  Which explains the lack of concern about tragedies and suffering - Human ego demands a sense of importance, so, we accept indoctrination into a belief system that both gives us a sense of mattering in a vaster sense than our little lives, and allows others to directly indulge their need to matter more, by being in control.

 

K:  Good point, ego presupposes an important connection to this highly advanced "architect" ... for all we know, we are an accident or byproduct of some larger design this, or these beings may not even know or care of our creation, let alone scrutinize and guide us as we minimally regard the microscopic on a daily basis ... it stands to reason that if humans can be oblivious and or not care at the creation of something as significant as a baby ...

 

I actually find the idea of a cold uncaring divinity more acceptable than a heavenly father.  As far as Jesus goes, even without miracles and being part of God, his message still has great value.  Ever wonder if Jesus knew it was all a scam, like Martin Luther, and simply wanted to force the powers that be to be more ethical?

 

K:  Hmmmm ... it seems that by implication, the documented Jesus did indeed know, or was aware of where mortal failings could (and did) lead to ... and I do admit, the thought of Jesus as a highly astute (but not necessary) divine individual, using the mechanism of religion to counteract its baser self ... does resonate in a logical fashion.

 



mattwong #72 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 19:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View Postsmith_wessoned, on Aug 03 2015 - 03:58, said:

The problem with science is, that today, it's used as the new religion, just like religion used to rule people's mind back in the day. That new gospel that explains everything in the universe. Why is science the new gospel? Because it has improved our lives and has been proven to work, so people automatically think that scientists know everything.

 

That is only how it's treated by people who do not understand it.  This is no different from saying that a smartphone is magic.  Sure, it's treated as magic by people who don't understand it, but that doesn't mean it's actually magic, and there are people out there who do understand how they work.

 

View Postsmith_wessoned, on Aug 03 2015 - 03:58, said:

Science is good to calculate already known things, but it shouldn't shove its nose in things that it's unable to calculate. And people like Neil DeGrasse, need to get off that high horse which he and rest of sheep had put him on.

 

Precisely how do you know these "things it's unable to calculate" exist at all?

 

View Postsmith_wessoned, on Aug 03 2015 - 03:58, said:

If any so called scientists want to talk to me about evolution and creation, i will destroy almost any of your arguments.

 

In other words, you're a creationist.  Wow, what a shock that a creationist would say negative things about science.

Every creationist argument was debunked more than a hundred years ago.  All creationist arguments take the form of either claiming evolution predicts something it does not actually predict, or acting as if evolution is wrong unless someone can educate you about how it works while you're fighting against him the whole time, which is a totally absurd way to challenge a theory.  So many creationist arguments start with "if evolution is real, explain to me ..."



Kenshin2kx #73 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 20:10

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postmattwong, on Aug 04 2015 - 08:42, said:

 

But you cannot have faith and accept that the scientific method is actually a valid way to know what's real.  The scientific method, when applied to the question of gods, would treat them just like any other theory, and demand a number of criteria, ALL of which religious beliefs invariably fail to meet.

 

This.  ... by its very design, SM has been regimented and controlled in terms of requirement, in order to maximize the elimation of emotional or personal bias in the collection, and analysis of data in regards to some unexplained phenomena or occurance.   SM MUST always ask the whys and hows to fulfill the mandatory information context that can be then further applied to the process of data assimilation into the established database of "reliable" information.

 

IMHO, Religion's equivalent to this process of "Why" is simply "Faith".

 

 

Faith as paraphrased from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

 

             a:  belief and trust in and loyalty to God, a belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
 
             b:  firm belief in something for which there is no proof - complete trust
 
       Something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :  a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
 
             — on faith
                  Without question <took everything he said on faith>
 
Now, if I understand the requirement, faith, requires unquestioning belief ... without doubt.  This being he case, this should preclude the search for and or the "proving" of the belief in question, yes?
 
One could say that if manifest doubt exists (internal or externalized in the form of a desire to prove their belief) ... this act or state of mind thereby nullifies true religious affiliation.  Simply put, without true Faith, there is no religion. 
 
This is then distilled down even further ... a person either truly believes, or they do not ... and those who find that they do not, have to find their own path in terms of world view.
 
So whats the upshot of this TLDR entry ...
 
To smith_wessoned's challenge ...  "If any so called scientists want to talk to me about evolution and creation, i will destroy almost any of your arguments."
 
Ask yourself first, if your intent is to prove, then ask yourself the most important question ... Do YOU truly have faith?

 

 


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Aug 04 2015 - 20:30.


Kenshin2kx #74 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 20:27

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postbrawler1967, on Aug 03 2015 - 14:07, said:

 

Of course you can have faith and believe in science. Who ever said you can have one and not the other? Most enlightened intelligent church pastors believe in this as well.

 

Can one truly profess a true faith in one's God and Religion AND believe in Science as well?  After all, is not the most basic context (in regards to this connection) ... Is there evidence of the divine?   Does this not abrogate Faith?  Simply put, can you say both that God exists and simultaneously ask does this being exist ... furthermore, where is the proof?



brawler1967 #75 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 22:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9915 battles
  • 1,897
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View PostKenshin2kx, on Aug 04 2015 - 20:27, said:

 

Can one truly profess a true faith in one's God and Religion AND believe in Science as well?  After all, is not the most basic context (in regards to this connection) ... Is there evidence of the divine?   Does this not abrogate Faith?  Simply put, can you say both that God exists and simultaneously ask does this being exist ... furthermore, where is the proof?

 

Dude, yes you can have both. That would be incredibly ignorant if you didn't. The intelligent among us know the Earth is not just a few thousand years old.

brawler1967 #76 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 22:41

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9915 battles
  • 1,897
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View Postmattwong, on Aug 04 2015 - 19:42, said:

 

But you cannot have faith and accept that the scientific method is actually a valid way to know what's real.  The scientific method, when applied to the question of gods, would treat them just like any other theory, and demand a number of criteria, ALL of which religious beliefs invariably fail to meet.

 

Matt I will not start a another conversation with you. And then get banned.

Nukelavee45 #77 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 22:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 17689 battles
  • 2,545
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

You can have belief in God, and accept SM - there is no inherent reason those two concepts must conflict.  At this point, we can't prove or disprove the "reality is a sim" concept, either.

 

It's like considering higher dimensions  -  how do you prove, physically, they exist, from here?  But, if you accept they are possible, why not something in that dimension that could be a god, to us?

 

Remember, when rebutting, I don't believe, I'm just open to the concept.



Klaatu_Nicto #78 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 23:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 44025 battles
  • 9,660
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 04 2015 - 13:50, said:

You can have belief in God, and accept SM - there is no inherent reason those two concepts must conflict.  At this point, we can't prove or disprove the "reality is a sim" concept, either.

 

It's like considering higher dimensions  -  how do you prove, physically, they exist, from here?  But, if you accept they are possible, why not something in that dimension that could be a god, to us?

 

Remember, when rebutting, I don't believe, I'm just open to the concept.

 

I read an article a few days questioning if reality is a sim.

 

http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html

 

Earlier this year I joined a simulated world but have not spent much time there.

 

http://secondlife.com/


Edited by Krentel, Aug 04 2015 - 23:07.


Kenshin2kx #79 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 23:35

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postbrawler1967, on Aug 04 2015 - 11:40, said:

 

Dude, yes you can have both. That would be incredibly ignorant if you didn't. The intelligent among us know the Earth is not just a few thousand years old.

 

The point you bring up pertains to details ascribed to Christian Dogma?  I am no expert, but I do seem to recall ... Genesis as the souce of the age of the Earth?  Something like 5 - 6 thousand years?

 

Granted, if you disregard or 'liberalize' biblical text in terms of the details ... it seems reasonable to still believe in a god or gods, and maintain the trappings of Science.  Consider though, ultimately Science has (and will continue to) ask questions that directly relate to the existence of god in relation to the phenomena being examined.  So, say for example you follow the reasoning that the earth is aproximately 4.5 billion years (scientific view) ... as opposed to aproximately 5,000 years according to the bible.   Do you then disregard the Bible for each of these discrepancies?  Did humans get the word of god wrong? 

 

So lets now say, you disregard these ascribed words of god (after all humans are fallible, maybe the writers got it wrong?)... and focus on God.  Do you also disregard the concept of 'Faith' as well?  IF IMHO, you don't ascribe to faith being an integral component or synonym of belief ... then I follow your reasoning ... otherwise, to me it looks like you promote the notion of a simultaneous Yes AND No.  Remember, Science will ALWAYS ask questions ... True Faith mandates belief with no questioning.

 


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Aug 04 2015 - 23:48.


Kenshin2kx #80 Posted Aug 04 2015 - 23:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostNukelavee45, on Aug 04 2015 - 11:50, said:

You can have belief in God, and accept SM - there is no inherent reason those two concepts must conflict.  At this point, we can't prove or disprove the "reality is a sim" concept, either.

 

It's like considering higher dimensions  -  how do you prove, physically, they exist, from here?  But, if you accept they are possible, why not something in that dimension that could be a god, to us?

 

Remember, when rebutting, I don't believe, I'm just open to the concept.

Can you really?  ... as you put it ... "belief in God", lets distill this down to "Belief" and replace SM with "Proof" ... can you really have both belief and proof simultaneously about the same thing?  So lets say you believe in god, AND YET the SM model requires you to examine the context, data and ultimately proof that such a diety exists in the first place?  Logically, you either believe or require proof ... and if you do have proof, you no longer can just believe because you now KNOW. Yes?  Now say that you desire proof, but don't have it, does this not mean that you are not firm in your belief ... that you don't have the fundemental faith required to NOT want or need proof?







Also tagged with And Other Stuff

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users