[Changleen]

Have any of you guys seen 'What we still don't know'?

Recommended watching (from the Beeb again) - especially for DT.

Edit: Sorry, it was Channel 4, not the Beeb.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/index.html

 

[Damn True]

The theory of the big bang is just that. A theory, not even true science, isn;t it more along the lines of philosophy than science?
If that's the case cannot there be more than one philosophy?
Why do you seem to not think that both god and science can exist? Science has never tried to disprove god.

You haven't been reading what I'm saying. I think they both exist. Two things can be equally true. A and B can both exist.

I think science will someday figure out all the wonderful and amazing things god created.

 

[Damn True]

That's been done. You need to read a bit more.

People are really smart sometimes....but not as smart as we'd like to believe.

Science has explained how they work. Not how they came to exist.

Nor can science in all of its wisdom re-create any of it.

If all this stuff came from one big old wad of matter, why can't science duplicate any of it?

 

[Silver]

Have any of you guys seen 'What we still don't know'?

Recommended watching (from the Beeb again) - especially for DT.

Edit: Sorry, it was Channel 4, not the Beeb.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/index.html

Torrent link?

 

[Changleen]

Torrent link?

Mweh, Sorry. Not off hand since Suprnova got taken down.

 

[Silver]

People are really smart sometimes....but not as smart as we'd like to believe.

Science has explained how they work. Not how they came to exist.

Nor can science in all of its wisdom re-create any of it.

If all this stuff came from one big old wad of matter, why can't science duplicate any of it?

Time being the obvious answer.

Is a designer impossible? Hell no.

Do we have evidence of a designer? Nope...

 

[JMAC]

The thing is, the way I see things right now. I'm only 17 but the fact that I and we can't our heads around the big bang, and/or how something can be created from nothing, this just shows to me that there has to be something greater out there. There has to be some greater purpose to life and something that is higher and is more than live itself. I don;t think or believe there is a "god" yet I do like to think there is some greater force out there. If that made no sense wt so ever just forget about it.

 

[ohio]

Both sides of this argument are missing a key point. Science is not (well, doesn't claim to be, though some people use it as) a belief system.

It is a tool.

It is not intended to compete with religion, and when it is exclusive with certain religious beliefs that is by coincidence.

Science doesn't require faith because it doesn't claim to be a "truth" or a "fact." Science is used to predict phenomenon. One of the things that gets SOME religious folk riled is that science is constantly changing and evolving, or to their view "disproving" itself. But their is nothing to prove... these events merely allow scientists to refine their tool to better predict phenomenon. Arguing otherwise is like saying that the a power drill disproves the "truth" of a hand drill, because we invented a better tool for our purposes.

Unless your religion is used to accurately PREDICT phenomenon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and again they are different categories. There is no "one is better than the other," any more than a hammer is better than a novel. The first leverages human ability, the second expands human thought.

 

[JMAC]

Both sides of this argument are missing a key point. Science is not (well, doesn't claim to be, though some people use it as) a belief system.

It is a tool.

It is not intended to compete with religion, and when it is exclusive with certain religious beliefs that is by coincidence.

Science doesn't require faith because it doesn't claim to be a "truth" or a "fact." Science is used to predict phenomenon. One of the things that gets SOME religious folk riled is that science is constantly changing and evolving, or to their view "disproving" itself. But their is nothing to prove... these events merely allow scientists to refine their tool to better predict phenomenon. Arguing otherwise is like saying that the a power drill disproves the "truth" of a hand drill, because we invented a better tool for our purposes.

Unless your religion is used to accurately PREDICT phenomenon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and again they are different categories. There is no "one is better than the other," any more than a hammer is better than a novel. The first leverages human ability, the second expands human thought.

Good words. I agree.

 

[Damn True]

Both sides of this argument are missing a key point. Science is not (well, doesn't claim to be, though some people use it as) a belief system.

It is a tool.

It is not intended to compete with religion, and when it is exclusive with certain religious beliefs that is by coincidence.

Science doesn't require faith because it doesn't claim to be a "truth" or a "fact." Science is used to predict phenomenon. One of the things that gets SOME religious folk riled is that science is constantly changing and evolving, or to their view "disproving" itself. But their is nothing to prove... these events merely allow scientists to refine their tool to better predict phenomenon. Arguing otherwise is like saying that the a power drill disproves the "truth" of a hand drill, because we invented a better tool for our purposes.

Unless your religion is used to accurately PREDICT phenomenon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and again they are different categories. There is no "one is better than the other," any more than a hammer is better than a novel. The first leverages human ability, the second expands human thought.

Well said.

 

[Changleen]

Both sides of this argument are missing a key point. Science is not (well, doesn't claim to be, though some people use it as) a belief system.

It is a tool.

It is not intended to compete with religion, and when it is exclusive with certain religious beliefs that is by coincidence.

Science doesn't require faith because it doesn't claim to be a "truth" or a "fact." Science is used to predict phenomenon. One of the things that gets SOME religious folk riled is that science is constantly changing and evolving, or to their view "disproving" itself. But their is nothing to prove... these events merely allow scientists to refine their tool to better predict phenomenon. Arguing otherwise is like saying that the a power drill disproves the "truth" of a hand drill, because we invented a better tool for our purposes.

Unless your religion is used to accurately PREDICT phenomenon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and again they are different categories. There is no "one is better than the other," any more than a hammer is better than a novel. The first leverages human ability, the second expands human thought.

Christianinty predicts the second coming of the messiah, appopoclallallacalyspe(sic? ) the fatima prophecies predict some stuff, and there are various religious pronouncements which have been made throughout the age. None of them have come true.

 

[Silver]

It is not intended to compete with religion, and when it is exclusive with certain religious beliefs that is by coincidence.

That only works as long as religions don't make scientific claims. Once they do that, the validity of science goes right out the window.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Well said.

a rabbi once told me, religion was about "why" and science about "how"..

it its religion that jumps out of its medium when it crosses the line, and tries to explains the "how" of stuff... and then has the nerve to claim a supremacy of its own "hows"

science never will tell you "why" are you on earth, and never will try... but it is religion that tries to force its "how" of literal judeo-christian creationism into mainstream "hows"... and that is fckd up!!!

 

[Damn True]

Christianinty predicts the second coming of the messiah, appopoclallallacalyspe(sic? ) the fatima prophecies predict some stuff, and there are various religious pronouncements which have been made throughout the age. None of them have come true.

Hundreds of prophecies from the old testament have come true.

 

[Changleen]

Hundreds of prophecies from the old testament have come true.

And Lo, Tuesday shall follow Monday...

Seriously, go on then...

 

[Changleen]

Both sides of this argument are missing a key point. Science is not (well, doesn't claim to be, though some people use it as) a belief system.

It is a tool.

It is not intended to compete with religion, and when it is exclusive with certain religious beliefs that is by coincidence.

Science doesn't require faith because it doesn't claim to be a "truth" or a "fact." Science is used to predict phenomenon. One of the things that gets SOME religious folk riled is that science is constantly changing and evolving, or to their view "disproving" itself. But their is nothing to prove... these events merely allow scientists to refine their tool to better predict phenomenon. Arguing otherwise is like saying that the a power drill disproves the "truth" of a hand drill, because we invented a better tool for our purposes.

Unless your religion is used to accurately PREDICT phenomenon, you're comparing apples to oranges, and again they are different categories. There is no "one is better than the other," any more than a hammer is better than a novel. The first leverages human ability, the second expands human thought.

Christianinty predicts the second coming of the messiah, appopoclallallacalyspe(sic? ) the fatima prophecies predict some stuff, and there are various religious pronouncements which have been made throughout the age. None of them have come true.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Hundreds of prophecies from the old testament have come true.

that doesnt mean anything
"causality-probability".

 

[Changleen]

Why does my post show up twice?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Why does my post show up twice?

because you are "special"

(you just opened yourself way too much....)

 

[ohio]

Christianinty predicts the second coming of the messiah, appopoclallallacalyspe(sic? ) the fatima prophecies predict some stuff, and there are various religious pronouncements which have been made throughout the age. None of them have come true.

Apocalyptic legends excluded, it is a very very small minority that claim their religion will predict phenomenon on this planet or in "this" life.

I exclude apocalyptic legends, because statistically they are true. It is a near certainty that at some point human existence on Earth will come to an end, most likely through a catastrophic event. Science agrees on that point, but neither side can yet put a date to it.

 

[ohio]

Hundreds of prophecies from the old testament have come true.

Sorry DT, but this is only going to serve to invalidate the legitimacy of religion, despite my efforts in that long post to validate it.

If you predict an occurence that is fairly likely to occur, and you don't specify a time, and it happens to occur over a 4000 year period, you have proved nothing. If you make several hundred of these types of predictions, and a few hundred of them come true over a 4000 year period, you've actually just proved your own INABILITY to predict phenomenon, because the results match probabalistic likelihood very closely.

A scientific theory is accepted if it is able to predict a very (VERY) unlikely event, and even then it is not accepted as fact. It's still called a theory.

Science and religion are very different things. Please do not confuse them. They serve seperate purposes, and when you try to make one serve the function of the other, it simply doesn't work. I feel the same about folks that claim science as a philosophy (which is not to say that morality and ethics are not a factor in science) as I do about those that try to claim their religion is science.

 

[Silver]

Science and religion are very different things. Please do not confuse them. They serve seperate purposes, and when you try to make one serve the function of the other, it simply doesn't work. I feel the same about folks that claim science as a philosophy (which is not to say that morality and ethics are not a factor in science) as I do about those that try to claim their religion is science.

Keep going on that, if you would...

 

[Changleen]

because you are "special"

(you just opened yourself way too much....)

My Mummy says I'm special.

 

[fluff]

Have any of you guys seen 'What we still don't know'?

Recommended watching (from the Beeb again) - especially for DT.

Edit: Sorry, it was Channel 4, not the Beeb.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/index.html

This quote comes from the section 'Are We Real'. Having explored the fact that the probability of the universe supporting life is miniscule (and implies some form of intelligent design (a god by any other name)), a multiverse is postulated - giving infinite options and reducing the probability to a near certainty. This logic is followed through onto the question of intelligence and development to a matrix-like 'if there were (and the multiverse theory supports this) super-intelligent beings why could they not tinker with the laws of nature and create/simulate us and our universe?'

So...
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if they are so very intelligent, these intelligences are bound to have asked themselves what the outcome would be if they could tinker with the laws of nature. They might have done some equations on paper first, but if their intelligence goes way beyond our own, they are also likely to have computers that go way beyond our own too – computers that could be used to discover the underlying law that allowed the laws of nature to be so precisely set as to create an exquisitely crafted home for life.

To test whether their discoveries are correct and their fine tuning is fine enough, they could use their super-computers to simulate a universe as complex as our own. Then they really have created The Matrix. And we really could be the inhabitants of a computer simulation. What this means is that we are just an elaborate experiment. We are not real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[MMike]

You've just blown my mind, man......

This quote comes from the section 'Are We Real'. Having explored the fact that the probability of the universe supporting life is miniscule (and implies some form of intelligent design (a god by any other name)), a multiverse is postulated - giving infinite options and reducing the probability to a near certainty. This logic is followed through onto the question of intelligence and development to a matrix-like 'if there were (and the multiverse theory supports this) super-intelligent beings why could they not tinker with the laws of nature and create/simulate us and our universe?'

So...
Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if they are so very intelligent, these intelligences are bound to have asked themselves what the outcome would be if they could tinker with the laws of nature. They might have done some equations on paper first, but if their intelligence goes way beyond our own, they are also likely to have computers that go way beyond our own too – computers that could be used to discover the underlying law that allowed the laws of nature to be so precisely set as to create an exquisitely crafted home for life.

To test whether their discoveries are correct and their fine tuning is fine enough, they could use their super-computers to simulate a universe as complex as our own. Then they really have created The Matrix. And we really could be the inhabitants of a computer simulation. What this means is that we are just an elaborate experiment. We are not real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[ohio]

Keep going on that, if you would...

I assume you're referring to this, "I feel the same about folks that claim science as a philosophy"

To expand, I feel science can and should be used to quantify moral and ethical decisions, but I feel strongly that the pursuit of scientific advancement is not inherently moral or ethical. When I see the argument that scientific advancement is worth investing (time, money, effort... any kind of sacrifice is an "investment") in, I see someone misunderstanding the purpose of science. The ends (or impact) of that advancement may be worth investing in, and science and math can help us predict quantify those results or ends, but the science itself should not be the goal.

That being said, I see the converse of that mistake often come from the religious side (or subset that sees science wrongly as their nemesis), when they fail to use the tools at their disposal to help them quantify or predict the impact of actions/sacrifices/investments made on religious grounds.

 

[Silver]

To expand, I feel science can and should be used to quantify moral and ethical decisions, but I feel strongly that the pursuit of scientific advancement is not inherently moral or ethical.

Thanks. That's the answer to the question I sorta kinda had bubbling around in my head.