The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
And yes, that is the one big proof for religion - we're here. Roll on the day when we find provable evidence for life, either past or present, elsewhere in the galaxy or the universe. How is religion going to explain that God secretly made other races... That said, the nature of our existence being "incredible"... that's somewhat debatable. There are theories that making basic life is actually quite straightforward.
yes, but, step back and look at the bigger picture,,,, no way back, much further,,, still further ,,, the fact that the universe is created in such a way as to make life statisticaly probable in any one galaxy is something as fantastic as life itself.
Ok, i can only give my thoughts on what i believe and don't belive.
I don't believe there is a god or several gods.. depending on your choice of religion.
Although people do believe in god, (of their choice)
there is more of a pull towards science for me, but saying that....
something is at work, but i still don't believe its god, i think more nature (mother nature which ever you think)
We are here, how did we get here, some say god made us... some say we evolved, there is more evidence that we evolved.
But how did the first bacteria/virus/amoeba (or how ever we formed to get to human stage)
get to be here for us to get where we are now......
that interests me.
Religion / Science, neither accepts the other, the other is always wrong..
The shroud.. shows and image...File:Shroud positive negative compare.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is it Jesus, do we want to believe it's Jesus or is it just marks on the shroud and our minds can point out an image like one of those 3d pictures, stare hard enough and you will believe you can see what your told is there, nice goatee if it's true. (the negative image which we are usually shown)
I will admit i can see a face, but then again all my life i have been told that this is an image of Christ.
I was never christened, never wanted to become C of E or Catholic ..i am an atheist..
But also to add to the argument, some religious bodies are also scientists, so another twist, that they are entwined.
And then the over zealous who see an image of christ in a crisp, piece of bread.......
But how did the first bacteria/virus/amoeba (or how ever we formed to get to human stage)
get to be here for us to get where we are now......
that interests me.
Have a look at Abiogenesis, the study of how life can arise from non-life. Still quite a murky area though, I think.
Just another reason why I hate religion and really poisonously.
Actually if all Abrahamic religions did follow their holy books they should have same kind of laws.
With each scientific discovery the need for god retreats. Example.
Druidic lore worshipped the sun and moon as gods, so did prehistoric south americans, epgytians believed in many gods for almost every aspect of their lives. All very fine and on the surface, perfectly logical reason in the absence of research, you could argue.
However, once philosophers and genuinely enquiring minds began to look at things in a methodical way on how they work the "goddidit" reason was no longer needed. Copernicus found that the earth was not indeed at the centre of the solar system. likewise the planets revolved around the sun and bot the earth, so god was no longer needed.
simple things such as the weather, we know its because of the sun, moon and atmosphere and planet all interacting together to create weather systems, the need for a god(s) inspired storm no longer exists.
So we get to a situation today where anything that is unexplainable is given the god treatment. It's called the god of the gaps. For every fossil found an anti-evolutionist, lets call them a creationist or an intelligent design proponent, asks "where is the transition" fossil that proves evolution? what they dont get that every fossil IS a transition, that you do not, cannot and never will get a "crocoduck". Evolution doesnt work that way.
I think science is incompatible with religion because science they are fundamentally different things. one is based on evidence the other is based on faith, and faith requires no evidence of explanation.
No explanation for me leads to ignorance and stagnation.
your idea of what "need" there is for god is way off. for most people its nothing to do with making up for gaps in science.
science and religion arnt incompatible, it is clear however that some 'people' are incompatible with religion - especially some scientists.
most of science doesn't even interfere with religion at all. evolution disagrees with religious texts, and the same for the age of the earth. but ofc god put those fossils there, and made the earth to appear older lol. as for string theory well,,, i don't think this really detracts from religion either as it seems too far removed from reflecting the actual real world, although it may give largely correct answers mathematically.
I'm afraid your idea that the word "theory" has one and only one meaning is also far off.
like many other words that have slightly different meanings or emphasis in different contexts.
Sorry meow but I think that the two are incompatible, because the point is, religion claims to have the irrefutable truth, where in actual fact it does not. Most of science does interfere with religion becuase it makes the case for a deity less and less likely to such an extent that the probability of a god is infitesimal (sp).
Evolution disagrees with religious texts, well, thats basically one of the main tennets of religion, that god created the universe earth and everything in it, that's a fairly huge claim by religion, and has been shown to be not true, that is a big incompatibility. Ideas of god putting fossils in for a laugh again a notion put up by religionists on how they would like the evidence to fit the model rather than the other way round.
It is simply not the case that a deity placed fossils on the planet for us to play with. thats another incompatibility.
String theory, is a mathematical theory trying to explain the evidence we see in the universe, you do know that it has been around since the 1970's has gone out of favour and come back in? The point of science is that it examines the evidence and creates a model to fit the evidence, if it proved wrong then there either isnt enough evidence or the model is wrong and the theory gets thrown out, simplez.
How can you say it doesnt reflect the real world while at the same time be mathematically correct? string theory still doesnt have all the answers which is why its being modified to fit the evidence that is known.
Unfortunately the god of the gaps is very much alive with anyone who is religious because they do not understand that science can own up to saying "we just don't know yet, but are trying" Science is not satisfied with one answer, it has to always strive for more information, and continually prove or disprove its theories.
My idea of the word theory is accurate, as a trained geologist i understand the word very well, unfortunately it has been hijacked, Example: religion like to say "evolution...It's just a theory..." yes thats exactly what it is, because until we have every scrap of knowledge that is possible to have it always will be, and that is the same for almost every single scientific discovery out there.
Theory does not mean idea, it means a model that has been devised based on the best available evidence. For 150 years since the theory of evoolution was first put to paper there has been nothing that comes close to disproving it, therefore the theory of evolution stands true.
Science is rational and critical thinking. Religion is not, that is why they are incompatible.
Show me evidence for a deity
yes, but, step back and look at the bigger picture,,,, no way back, much further,,, still further ,,, the fact that the universe is created in such a way as to make life statisticaly probable in any one galaxy is something as fantastic as life itself.
Evidence from personal incredulity is not evidence.
This is exactly like saying, "i dont know how this flower got into my garden, therefore god did it".
Sorry meow but I think that the two are incompatible, because the point is, religion claims to have the irrefutable truth, where in actual fact it does not. Most of science does interfere with religion because it makes the case for a deity less and less likely to such an extent that the probability of a god is infinitesimal (Sp).
well there are different religions, not all of them make those claims. I'm not an expert but I think only Christianity specifies it that much, and AFAIK Buddhism doesn't specify it. I'm not sure of the other main religions.
the point isn't that religion claims to have the irrefutable truth. I'm not sure what the point is exactly, but my point is that its pointless to try and use science to knock religion, or to claim they cant coexist.
most of science does not interfere with religion, - explain how ohms law interferes with religion ? or Boyle's law etc, and countless others except for the ones we've already discussed ofc, maybe as a geologist your world of science is closer to the issue which probably gives you this impression more than me as a mad evil genius cat scientist type.
similarly does science do away for the need for love ? heck no. many people claim religion is more about feeling loved than anything - science isn't compatible with religion, its only the individual that is. many scientists seem to dispute religion, yet there are many 100% religious types that are very clever with science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Evolution disagrees with religious texts, well, thats basically one of the main tennets of religion, that god created the universe earth and everything in it, that's a fairly huge claim by religion, and has been shown to be not true, that is a big incompatibility. Ideas of god putting fossils in for a laugh again a notion put up by religionists on how they would like the evidence to fit the model rather than the other way round.
oh come on i think its quite funny the idea of god doing that, thats why I lolled.
not all religions claim to know exactly how man was created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
It is simply not the case that a deity placed fossils on the planet for us to play with. thats another incompatibility.
well thats just an assertion just because it doesn't fit your view - its not scientific to claim you just know.
its similar to the points your refuting about religion which you say have just been stated.
if your going to try and claim science does away with the need for religion you make yourself open to be laughed at if you resort to the sort of explanations you are criticising religion for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
String theory, is a mathematical theory trying to explain the evidence we see in the universe, you do know that it has been around since the 1970's has gone out of favour and come back in? The point of science is that it examines the evidence and creates a model to fit the evidence, if it proved wrong then there either isn't enough evidence or the model is wrong and the theory gets thrown out, simplez.
yes I remember trying to get my head round it not long after it first came out, I was thankful it was thrown out.
part of my point is that if this theory truly is or was part of science then science is not what it claims,
the fact that this sort of thing is called science is my biggest grievance -
it makes science looks stupid and makes it unable to claim it with any authority that it can refute religious claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
How can you say it doesn't reflect the real world while at the same time be mathematically correct? string theory still doesn't have all the answers which is why its being modified to fit the evidence that is known.
science 101. :- look up exponential series, by Fourier, Taylor etc, Taylor Series -- from Wolfram MathWorld
(the maths symbols wont paste into here). any mathematical formula that is too complex to represent simply can be represented by a set of exponential factors.
quite clearly these exponential parts don't exist anywhere in nature. but they are used very widely in electronics, especially in the frequency domain, and especially in working out the harmonics for FM radio transmission.
similarly electronics makes very wide the use of the square root of -1 which doesn't not exist.
not only in nature but neither can it exist in maths except as the number you would get if it were possible to do such a thing.
surprisingly such a thing is remarkably useful and we would not have modern radios without it.
if you also study quantum theory you quickly learn that in order to make progress you have to disregard the need for it to make sense of the underlying nature of the universe. some scientists find this point all far to easy. many people cant do quantum theory because they cant get past this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Unfortunately the god of the gaps is very much alive with anyone who is religious because they do not understand that science can own up to saying "we just don't know yet, but are trying" Science is not satisfied with one answer, it has to always strive for more information, and continually prove or disprove its theories.
not I'm my experience, people who Ive met that are religious usually listen to my scientific explanations of things with just as much interest as they have for religion if not more so, although i don't bother to explain anything that hasn't been properly tested in a laboratory or equivalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
My idea of the word theory is accurate, as a trained geologist i understand the word very well, unfortunately it has been hijacked, Example: religion like to say "evolution...It's just a theory..." yes thats exactly what it is, because until we have every scrap of knowledge that is possible to have it always will be, and that is the same for almost every single scientific discovery out there.
Theory does not mean idea, it means a model that has been devised based on the best available evidence. For 150 years since the theory of evolution was first put to paper there has been nothing that comes close to disproving it, therefore the theory of evolution stands true.
oh come on man ! look things up before you argue to such an extent, or you make yourself look so ridiculous !
how can you make that claim ?
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \'the-?-re, 'thir-e\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theoria, from theorein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Science is rational and critical thinking. Religion is not, that is why they are incompatible.
Show me evidence for a deity
show me a scientific laboratory test that can create a full sized universe to prove big bangg theory, and not one of these namby pamby microscopic ones claimed to be created in an accelerator lol!
there is no evidence for a deity, it is not required, thats the whole point of the difference in science and religion - religion is a belief - although thats arguably the wrong word, but i think you should get my point.
you couldn't handle the truth it if god came down and showed you he was god (nor could I).
I agree 100% that Science is supposed to be rational and critical thinking. I just wish the scientists remembered that. I don't see much of it displayed here.
however at the time, religion was also believed to be rational and critical thinking, it could not of caught on otherwise. so thats only a very small part of it.
Science was formed because at the time the way of doing was thinking about stuff and making sometimes quite big assumptions and not really doing any tests.
When science was first set out it was to refute these claims by doing carefully controlled experimentation.
Science is not supposed to make assumptions and hypotheses and put them forward as fact until someone can prove them wrong, -
thats what science was set out to avoid !
theories about the creation of the universe which cant be part of a carefully controlled test shouldn't be claimed as being part of science.
nor should claims about there is no god.
Evidence from personal incredulity is not evidence.
This is exactly like saying, "i don't know how this flower got into my garden, therefore god did it".
It was not put forward as evidence of god !
It was put forward as something incredible, as in the sense of amazing rather than the literal meaning of the word, a lot of religion has to do with seeing the world for how wonderful it is, if you throw out god, do you also have to throw out the fact that the flower appearing in my garden is wonderful ? of course not !
It saddens me that it seems like this is what is happening to the scientists here.
Could anyone who believe in a deity or deities tell me how do that god differrentiate from an imaginary being living inside one's head and who is offering comforting when in need, talking to you, giving you guidance and rules?
well there are different religions, not all of them make those claims. I'm not an expert but I think only Christianity specifies it that much, and AFAIK Buddhism doesn't specify it. I'm not sure of the other main religions.
the point isn't that religion claims to have the irrefutable truth. I'm not sure what the point is exactly, but my point is that its pointless to try and use science to knock religion, or to claim they cant coexist.
Actually i think you will find that religion in all its forms does claim to have the irrefutable truth about everything. See islam, chrisitinaity in all its denominations, see also judaism, sikhism. Each of those religions claim that they have the word of god, and since it is god that word is the truth. Speak to any religious leader and they wioll tell you that theres is the word of god.
Quote:
most of science does not interfere with religion, - explain how ohms law interferes with religion ? or Boyle's law etc, and countless others except for the ones we've already discussed ofc, maybe as a geologist your world of science is closer to the issue which probably gives you this impression more than me as a mad evil genius cat scientist type.
similarly does science do away for the need for love ? heck no. many people claim religion is more about feeling loved than anything - science isn't compatible with religion, its only the individual that is. many scientists seem to dispute religion, yet there are many 100% religious types that are very clever with science.
boyles laws, ohms law, newtons laws all affect the need for a god because they explain what once was unexplainable. If you look at religious history you will also see how the explanation for anything that wasnt explained; see weather patterns, vulcanism, earthquakes, floods, stars, lightning, people dying from various unknown diseases etc ad nauseum, used god as the excuse and explanation, in so far that it was gods will.
Of course science does not do away with love, its a ridiculous strawman you put up there, there is as much wonder of the universe and everything in it for a scientist as there is for a person who thinks god created it all. Science is unemotional, and it is amoral, it doesnt do love or hate. The case for a deity through emotion is not a case for deity.
Quote:
oh come on i think its quite funny the idea of god doing that, thats why I lolled.
not all religions claim to know exactly how man was created.
I think you will find that all religions do claim to know how man was created, and the answers is usually "god did it"
Quote:
well thats just an assertion just because it doesn't fit your view - its not scientific to claim you just know.
its similar to the points your refuting about religion which you say have just been stated.
if your going to try and claim science does away with the need for religion you make yourself open to be laughed at if you resort to the sort of explanations you are criticising religion for.
I know because of the evidence supporting evolution, not only of life on earth but of the planet itself. There is simply no evidence of a god anywhere and there never has been.
Quote:
yes I remember trying to get my head round it not long after it first came out, I was thankful it was thrown out.
part of my point is that if this theory truly is or was part of science then science is not what it claims,
the fact that this sort of thing is called science is my biggest grievance -
it makes science looks stupid and makes it unable to claim it with any authority that it can refute religious claims.
Clearly then you do not entirely understand the scientific method. Again another strawman argument. Remember science is about enquiry, if the evidence does not fit the model then the model must be changed. A model will always change depending on the evidence presented, this is why science is progressive, and you didnt see the wright brothers invent the Airbus A380 straight away.
It is also why you dont see laser guided missiles during the stone age, as new discoveries are made and knowledge increases you advance (for better or worse).
Quote:
science 101. :- look up exponential series, by Fourier, Taylor etc, Taylor Series -- from Wolfram MathWorld
(the maths symbols wont paste into here). any mathematical formula that is too complex to represent simply can be represented by a set of exponential factors.
quite clearly these exponential parts don't exist anywhere in nature. but they are used very widely in electronics, especially in the frequency domain, and especially in working out the harmonics for FM radio transmission.
similarly electronics makes very wide the use of the square root of -1 which doesn't not exist.
not only in nature but neither can it exist in maths except as the number you would get if it were possible to do such a thing.
surprisingly such a thing is remarkably useful and we would not have modern radios without it.
if you also study quantum theory you quickly learn that in order to make progress you have to disregard the need for it to make sense of the underlying nature of the universe. some scientists find this point all far to easy. many people cant do quantum theory because they cant get past this point.
yet these things are in real life are they not? Since by that rationale they cannot exists because they are just abstract numbers how are radios accounted for? I really cant comment on exponential series as im not a mathemetician.
Ahh quantum theory, another strawman of the creationist. Yes general relativity breaks down at the quantum level, however scientists are working on a theory to explain that. Yes they don't know yet, but are trying to find out. Funny that, religions do not delve deeper than god did it
Quote:
oh come on man ! look things up before you argue to such an extent, or you make yourself look so ridiculous !
how can you make that claim ?
Clearly i think you missed the whole point of what i said there.
Do you know what theory means when a scientists says theory? As a synonym hypothesis is ok but it still is nowhere near a theory. Do you understand what the word theory means?
show me a scientific laboratory test that can create a full sized universe to prove big bangg theory, and not one of these namby pamby microscopic ones claimed to be created in an accelerator lol!
Quote:
there is no evidence for a deity, it is not required, thats the whole point of the difference in science and religion - religion is a belief - although thats arguably the wrong word, but i think you should get my point.
you couldn't handle the truth it if god came down and showed you he was god (nor could I).
What kind of argument is that? there is no evidence for a deity because it is not required?
Is this the one same deity that all religions claims operates within you and loves you individually as well as being not of the universe? This is a shambolic poor way to compartmentalise oneself of evidence against and the need for a deity.
Quote:
I agree 100% that Science is supposed to be rational and critical thinking. I just wish the scientists remembered that. I don't see much of it displayed here.
however at the time, religion was also believed to be rational and critical thinking, it could not of caught on otherwise. so thats only a very small part of it.
Firstly the scientific method must per-force use rational and critical thinking, that is not required of religion, indeed quite the opposite in fact.
Quote:
Science was formed because at the time the way of doing was thinking about stuff and making sometimes quite big assumptions and not really doing any tests.
When science was first set out it was to refute these claims by doing carefully controlled experimentation.
Science is not supposed to make assumptions and hypotheses and put them forward as fact until someone can prove them wrong, -
thats what science was set out to avoid !
theories about the creation of the universe which cant be part of a carefully controlled test shouldn't be claimed as being part of science.
nor should claims about there is no god.
Science was started because the greek philosphers started to ask about the world around them. Did you know that the theory of the atom was made about 2000yrs ago? It could never be proved until you could "see" an atom. Luckily the electron cloud of an atom has been seen by "microscope" the atom theory still holds up until this day. The atom cloud is more evidence that in fact atoms do exist.
Unfortunately many people of religion always stop and look at the gaps. Whether you are religious or not doesnt really interest me however your arguments do. Most of your points are indeed going on about gaps. while science does not have all the answers it continues to look for them through hypothesis, thoery modelling and testing, and continues to go through the loop.
those gaps get smaller and the need for a deity to explain phenomena gets smaller. If you want a proper scientific definition of a god then, in my opinion this is good enough for me.
The probability of a god existing according to the evidence is so infitesinally small that he probably doesn't exist.
I go one step more and say he doesnt. If he came down and proved himself then from the evidence i would change my mind, believe me.
Actually i think you will find that religion in all its forms does claim to have the irrefutable truth about everything. See Islam, Christianity in all its denominations, see also Judaism, Sikhism. Each of those religions claim that they have the word of god, and since it is god that word is the truth. Speak to any religious leader and they Will tell you that theres is the word of god.
my personal favourite :-
"The Religion of Buddha: The religion of Buddha began in 563 B.C. If you believe in Buddha, you are called a Buddhist. Buddhists believe in karma and rebirth. Karma determines in which form a person is reborn and rebirth is a second birth. Also, Buddhists believe in the Three Universal Truths.
First, everything in life is constantly changing and impermanent. Second, everything is unsatisfactory in life because everything is impermanent. Finally, there is the Third Universal Truth which means that there is no eternal soul. What is called the "self "is just a bunch of changing characteristics.
Buddha was a real person who taught this religion. He lived to the age of 80. Buddha was a prince, better known as Sidhatta Gotama. The young prince taught many things. One of which are The Four Noble Truths. The Four Noble Truths are along the same lines as the Three Universal Truths. Buddha's life ended in about 483 B.C., though Buddhism is still continued today."
there are other examples, and don't try and say this isn't a religion because it doesn't have a god or some other thing which you cant argue with, lol. if you want to argue science v Deity then that doesn't really fit this thread. it does have karma and rebirth, you can argue that if you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Boyle's laws, ohms law, newtons laws all affect the need for a god because they explain what once was unexplainable. If you look at religious history you will also see how the explanation for anything that wasn't explained; see weather patterns, volcanism, earthquakes, floods, stars, lightning, people dying from various unknown diseases etc ad nauseum, used god as the excuse and explanation, in so far that it was gods will.
there were other explanations in the past too such as the elemental components earth wind and fire, which were not religious AFAIK. just because there is an underlying mechanism for things happening doesn't mean that there isn't still a further mechanism beneath that - indeed there is much effort spent looking for such IE universal field theory - nor does it rule out god is the underlying factor. after all did we not just search for the God particle ? (jokingly)
i doubt that many people will consider god is to blame for earthquakes, thats more like the devils work lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Of course science does not do away with love, its a ridiculous strawman you put up there, there is as much wonder of the universe and everything in it for a scientist as there is for a person who thinks god created it all. Science is unemotional, and it is amoral, it doesn't do love or hate. The case for a deity through emotion is not a case for deity.
you miss the point, that is the need for god is not purely down to whether it explains something that can not be explained by science or not. the example I gave was not a strawman lol or an argument for a deity, as it was trying to point out that religion is more than is covered by science. science cant cover such things as religion does, it cant cover human emotions. psychiatry may attempt to but it does a poor job indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
I think you will find that all religions do claim to know how man was created, and the answers is usually "god did it"
see above example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
I know because of the evidence supporting evolution, not only of life on earth but of the planet itself. There is simply no evidence of a god anywhere and there never has been.
a huge but common scientific blunder - lack of evidence is not proof of non existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Clearly then you do not entirely understand the scientific method. Again another strawman argument. Remember science is about enquiry, if the evidence does not fit the model then the model must be changed. A model will always change depending on the evidence presented, this is why science is progressive, and you didn't see the wright brothers invent the Airbus A380 straight away.
I understand the scientific method well, and tell me where string theory has undergone such, let alone carefully controlled scientific experiments ?
wtf has the airbus a380 got to do with this ?
honestly if your going to accuse me of strawmen please dont come out with things like this it makes my sides hurt too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
It is also why you don't see laser guided missiles during the stone age, as new discoveries are made and knowledge increases you advance (for better or worse).
lol wtf has stone age laser guided missiles got to do with science v religion ?
omg my sides hurt more.
Zeus has lightning - much better !
Did you know that lightning caused a helicopter crash, and the air crash investigation team worked out the current required to cause the very evident heat damage. that current turned out to be 10 times higher than they currently designed aircraft to tolerate. it was thought scientifically impossible, as it was set at a level that was higher than science thought was possible for lightning. they had a lot of difficulty trying to re create the same conditions. or convince anyone it was true. it was on the discovery channell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
yet these things are in real life are they not? Since by that rationale they cannot exists because they are just abstract numbers how are radios accounted for? I really cant comment on exponential series as I'm not a mathematician.
well thats the point I'm trying to make, mathematical models don't always reflect the real world - they contain elements which don't exist in real world, like the square root of minus 1 etc, yet they produce results which are accurate. I don't see your confusion ? - they are just tools.
just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so.
I could explain how Taylor series, Fourier, and sq-root(-1) are used in working out performance of modern digital communications if you like but i think you'd rather go fossil hunting, i know i would.
but heres a starter, Frequency domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but what you really need to know to do good radio design is "complex frequency domain" but that didn't show up quickly. but you would im sure have done complex numbers.
complex frequency domain simply has two parts to it a real part and an imaginary part, the imaginary part is phase shifted by 90 degrees. if you only use the simple frequency domain you lose 50% of the information and its quite usless for 50% of the problems but still usefull for things like audio frequency spectrum display you get on graphic equalisers and such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Ahh quantum theory, another strawman of the creationist. Yes general relativity breaks down at the quantum level, however scientists are working on a theory to explain that. Yes they don't know yet, but are trying to find out. Funny that, religions do not delve deeper than god did it
Clearly i think you missed the whole point of what i said there.
no i didn't miss the point, rather i think you did, it wasn't anything to do with religion v science it was an example of how mathematical models don't necessarily represent the real world. such models can be misinterpreted by the layman - or even the most prominent scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Do you know what theory means when a scientists says theory? As a synonym hypothesis is ok but it still is nowhere near a theory. Do you understand what the word theory means?
yes i know what a theory means , but the point is that you clearly don't. unless you claim to be a superior authority on the English language than the biggest online dictionary ?
I think what you are getting confused with is the term "Scientific Theory" which indeed has the meaning you describe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
What kind of argument is that? there is no evidence for a deity because it is not required?
Is this the one same deity that all religions claims operates within you and loves you individually as well as being not of the universe? This is a shambolic poor way to compartmentalise oneself of evidence against and the need for a deity.
its nothing of the sort, religion isn't all about how things work, theres a lot more to it than that, this is just the one point scientists pick on.
again your making the huge blunder of lack of evidence being confused with proof of non existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Firstly the scientific method must per-force use rational and critical thinking, that is not required of religion, indeed quite the opposite in fact.
Science was started because the Greek philosophers started to ask about the world around them.
my history of science is vague as i did it so long ago, so i looked it up, it seems Sir Francis Bacon is given the most credit for the formation of modern science.
but my recollections of science being to break the restrictions of pure intellectual reasoning are correct. thats why i claim most of the things used to debunk religion don't fit science because they fall into the category of intellectual reasoning as they are not able to be tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Did you know that the theory of the atom was made about 2000yrs ago? It could never be proved until you could "see" an atom. Luckily the electron cloud of an atom has been seen by "microscope" the atom theory still holds up until this day. The atom cloud is more evidence that in fact atoms do exist.
the Greek word atom existed 2000 years ago but it had nothing in common with todays model of the atom other than it was very small !
scanning tunnelling microscopes (STM) are fascinating devices and they don't see anything per say, they can give a 3 dimensional view of a surface down to the subatomic level but they are showing the tunnelling current rather than anything visual. by mapping a contour of heights of same current this gives rise to a 3D image which is fascinating. but all it is doing is showing a 3D field density distribution. the solid surface which these images appear to represent is in fact the point at which the tunnelling function is some set value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
Unfortunately many people of religion always stop and look at the gaps. Whether you are religious or not doesn't really interest me however your arguments do. Most of your points are indeed going on about gaps. while science does not have all the answers it continues to look for them through hypothesis, theory modelling and testing, and continues to go through the loop.
those gaps get smaller and the need for a deity to explain phenomena gets smaller. If you want a proper scientific definition of a god then, in my opinion this is good enough for me.
my religious views are as a scientist who was brought up religious then rebelled against it, especially with regard to all the atrocities committed in connection with religion, probably like you are now, but then developed an open mind, and learned more about different aspects of religion primarily out of interest in human spirituality which has always fascinated me.
my fascination with the gaps in science are purely down to my fascination in science. no connection with religion at all.
I object to people asserting religion is this or that but I also consider scientists who try to claim science replaces or does away with religion to be even worse !
not only as a point of view but also i consider it a disgrace to science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
The probability of a god existing according to the evidence is so infinitesimally small that he probably doesn't exist.
well that argument is subject to all the criticisms you have of religion, eg winning the lottery is infinitesimally small yet people win it every week or so, the chance of life evolving is also infinitesimally small, yet it happened, because there was so much time.
the point is :- it is a common blunder of scientists to misuse statistics. the worst of these blunders is to apply a probability to a single event. this is how quantum theory has been so ridiculed by the likes of Schroedinger's cat !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tagred
I go one step more and say he doesn't. If he came down and proved himself then from the evidence i would change my mind, believe me.
I think most people would poop their pants. out of curiosity what sort of evidence would you require ? more than is available for the big bang/string theory ? maybe some T-Rex fossil bone moulds ?
Last edited by meow; 17-09-2009 at 15:42..
Reason: cat ate one of the quote delimiters
the chance of life evolving is also infinitesimally small, yet it happened, because there was so much time.
Chance of life coming into existence and evolving > 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
out of curiosity what sort of evidence would you require ?
Requirement for evidence of existence of deity:
Real miracle, like making a full living man out of dirt just by the power of word in a controlled environment, speaking from a burning bush in a controlled environment, create a tree that grows edible fruits that make you know _everything_ when you eat them.
Chance of life coming into existence and evolving > 1.
thats utterly meaningless without some accompanying data like chance of life per planet per year or something. the minimum chance of life evolving for all the countless planets over the lifetime of the universe is >=1. which is what I assume you refer to, but unless we find alien life you cant just assume its >1. thats the sort of typical assumption thats just wrong. also thats actually a mindbogglingly small probability per planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LippoW
Requirement for evidence of existence of deity:
Real miracle, like making a full living man out of dirt just by the power of word in a controlled environment, speaking from a burning bush in a controlled environment, create a tree that grows edible fruits that make you know _everything_ when you eat them.
lol. actually i know several magicians who can make things appear out of nothing that would probably fool you.
its actually quite funny to think if a god did show up of you actually being still sufficiently in possession of your wits and asking a god to sit in a small lab while you do tests on him and his creations lol
you take big bang theory and try and make a universe out of nothing and see how far you get.
I really don't see how you can possibly expect to win the argument that science can prove god doesn't exist. by its very nature the question itself makes it inapplicable to science.
thats utterly meaningless without some accompanying data like chance of life per planet per year or something. the minimum chance of life evolving for all the countless planets over the lifetime of the universe is >=1. which is what I assume you refer to, but unless we find alien life you cant just assume its >1. thats the sort of typical assumption thats just wrong. also thats actually a mindbogglingly small probability per planet.
Possibility of something that has happened is bigger than 1. And as far as I know you're living there and typing me replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
lol. actually i know several magicians who can make things appear out of nothing that would probably fool you.
I doubt that, controlled environment remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
its actually quite funny to think if a god did show up of you actually being still sufficiently in possession of your wits and asking a god to sit in a small lab while you do tests on him and his creations lol
Well, if he wouldn't then why call him a god? And I would not be doing tests, just controlling the environment to prevent trickery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
you take big bang theory and try and make a universe out of nothing and see how far you get.
The big bang theory doesn't say that universe came out of nothing, quite the contrary. Everything was in one dense spot that expanded so matter/energy is eternal, universe on the other hand isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meow
I really don't see how you can possibly expect to win the argument that science can prove god doesn't exist. by its very nature the question itself makes it inapplicable to science.
Burden of the proof lies on the one that claims positive. If you claim god or any deity exists it's your job to prove it, until that happens the negative remains true.
Occam's razor you see, it's much simpler the universe to begin and exist with only natural phenomena than that it was created and controlled by some supernatural being.
Bringing it back i feel that they are incompatible because they both try to explain the same things but in different ways. One uses evidence the other just uses mythology and hacked up stories from pre-history.
Perhaps Meow you are confusing religion with sprituality which are different things. But even then its because you have developed your own morals and your life experiences that makes you the person you are. Religion doesnt make you a good person, you do that on your own.
Anywho, as a trained geologist and one who has been exposed to religion a fair bit i can quite happily say that those who believe in the supernatural explanations for everything are for all intents and purposes ignorant (in the true sense of the word), and deluded, theres too much contradiction. It is a shame that religion is forcing itself into our education and government, we should have been done with it by now.
People can believe what they like, unfortunately we have evolved in such a way as to deny clear evidence in favour of silly alternatives; see faith healing, homeopathy. I prefer evidence, an arbitrary completely evidence free worldview does nothing for us or our knowledge.
As for viewing the atom. Please see New Scientist which has a feature on the first real life view of an electron cloud, as in physically viewed, which also happens to help prove atomic theory.
Lastly look up science history, you will find that the idea of the atom first began circa 2000+yrs ago. I think Democritus had something to do with it, i cant really remember.
The big bang theory doesn't say that universe came out of nothing, quite the contrary. Everything was in one dense spot that expanded so matter/energy is eternal, universe on the other hand isn't.
well good point, but is it provable or testable ? either way the proof available is about as much as is available for god ie not much if any.
I haven't studied what might be an official version of it in detail, but it seems that if it was infinitesimally small and expanding rapidly then you should be able to follow that back even further in time and it would be nothing, they don't go further than something like about a nano second after the beginning is it ?
however you think of it its kind of absurd to try and conceptualise the beginning of the universe, one can only guess and perhaps play around with numbers, but this doesn't really fit with the level of proof you require from god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LippoW
Burden of the proof lies on the one that claims positive. If you claim god or any deity exists it's your job to prove it, until that happens the negative remains true.
Occam's razor you see, it's much simpler the universe to begin and exist with only natural phenomena than that it was created and controlled by some supernatural being.
lol double wrong. the proof lies with you to prove god doesn't exist as thats the claim you made in this thread - and the universe isn't simple enough to understand. no one understands it nor can claim to know for sure how it was created.
like Ive said before lack of evidence isn't proof of non existence.
Occam's razor is the typical absurdity which so many scientists get wrong in this debate, I'm surprised at you tbh. Occam's razor states the proof which doesn't require god is to be preferred. how can that be used to prove god doesn't exist ? that is a self supporting argument. (ie one that isn't supported by anything.)
If you put this forward as a valid scientific argument then I'm afraid you allow religion to exist because your basically saying - "some man said so therefore its true" therefore you allow religion to be accepted as its much the same thing.
I hope you see the point I'm trying to make if I put it this way :- that by challenging god's existence you are putting yourself in the position of proving he doesn't exist. which is impossible.
Linear Mode
