|
|
|
|
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:24:06 PM | Faith is belief without evidence. Science is the process of making sure the only things you say have evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.
Scientists once said that, given current information, the Earth is only millions of years old. They were wrong. They then got more information, like telescopes and the understanding of quantum physics which allowed them to understand red-shift and the necessary times that distant objects would have needed to be where they are.
Then scientists said "given our updated info, the universe is 15 billion years old." They were still wrong. The thing is they never said they have proof. They never said they were indisputably right. They kept saying "as far as we know" X. As soon as one says one knows something that one can't prove, one ceases to be a scientist. Science is the proclamation of what one really knows. If one doesn't know, but has a reasonable hypothesis, and declares this reasonable hypothesis as such, one is a scientist. When scientists can't prove that humans evolved but say that all indicators point to that hypothesis, that is science.
Science can't be wrong, by definition. Science can't involve faith. Involving faith is removing one's argument from science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:31:01 PM | I disagree dear vichy. Faith is belief with evidence presented yet unseen; it requires trust. Science is a practice that's restricted to the material realm; it too requires trust in theoretical or actual application. This is why I do not believe that there is a conflict between religion and science; until religion notices that science is causing harm. Then, the Houston of Science and Religion gots a problem.
Religion and Science have no inherent conflict--only those engaging in strictly literal interpretations of scripture, the newer breed of believers who apply Sola Scriptura, struggle most with science. Not all religious with strongly developed/evolved theology do that. Faith can be a great inspiration for any school, even science. After all, Einstein had faith, and apparently he mixed science and faith too, quite well it seems.
“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
Albert Einstein
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 7:21:59 PM |
Faith is belief with evidence presented yet unseen
Evidence presented yet unseen is not evidence, n'est-ce pas, you gorgeous debater?
Evidence presented yet unseen could promulgate belief in the FSM, no? Nobody has seen the FSM but there exists quite a bit of faith for it.
"Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing." - Bobby Henderson, http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
The OP's question is whether faith ever exists as a recognizable source of knowledge. Without faith there is no FSM. Without faith there is no spiritual guide of the universe. Without faith one can not dispute science, n'est-ce pas?
Believe in gods or spirits all you want. Science is incapable of promulgating untruths. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 7:37:14 PM |
Faith is belief with evidence presented yet unseen
Uh...no. That's not evidence then. That's no different than saying you have a million dollars because somebody told you so. You might want to actually check your bank account before making any major purchases. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 7:44:05 PM | Don't give up. I have actually seen people come to the side of empirical evidence. It is hard to invest one's emotions in science, but the payoff is great. Consider aremeself: it's only a matter of time. Aremeself is too capable of thought to lose this idea.
Keep posting.
Edit: It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.
Public Enemy | |
|
| |
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 12:41:36 AM | hi... there it is again, an unbeliever telling a believer about what is in the bible... if you study the bible you will be shown that the USA is mentioned and identified with that prophesy.....
creationists do not have any problems with science.. the problem occurs when man made theories are used to undermind Gods Wisdom ... creationists get a very clear picture that God is The Father of everything, after that the sky is the limit when figuring out/measuring how... when science separates God from His Rightful Place as Creator we can know without doubt that this science is false.... some people want to believe that man is greater than God, others know without any speck of doubt that this idea cast a high angel out of heaven.... if you are not seeking Gods Wisdom on every matter in life then you are happy believing lies, that is your choice.... blessings | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:10:06 AM |
hi... there it is again, an unbeliever telling a believer about what is in the bible... if you study the bible you will be shown that the USA is mentioned and identified with that prophesy.....
Show me the passage and tell me why it couldn't refer to any other country at any point in time ?
creationists do not have any problems with science..
Then why are they so determined to ignore the factual , testable , verifiable evidence for evolution ?
the problem occurs when man made theories are used to undermind Gods Wisdom ...
Well gee...whose fault is that ? Scientists don't give a rat's ass about creationism. They try to ignore it as best they can actually but creationists are the ones who insist on pushing their nonsense down other peoples' throats. Scientists aren't challenging creationism...creationists insist on challenging science. Who knows...maybe some day they'll actually learn how science works and use it to prove their case instead of trying to disprove somebody else's. So far they've lost every round but meh...that's creationists for you : keep fighting without thinking about why.
creationists get a very clear picture that God is The Father of everything, after that the sky is the limit when figuring out/measuring how... when science separates God from His Rightful Place as Creator we can know without doubt that this science is false.... some people want to believe that man is greater than God, others know without any speck of doubt that this idea cast a high angel out of heaven.... if you are not seeking Gods Wisdom on every matter in life then you are happy believing lies, that is your choice.... blessings
So what's your evidence ? Do you have any reason for believing what you do ? Do you even know why you believe in the things you do ?
You can't see your god , touch your god , hear your god , smell your god ...nothing. The only thing you'll say is that you can magically "feel" your god. How would you know the difference between 'that' feeling and the feeling you might get from some narcotic ? You don't...because you can't confirm that your 'feeling' of god actually comes from your god. Somebody told you it was "god" you felt and you bought their lies hook-line-and-sinker. If they'd told you it was the spirit of Mickey Mouse you'd have probably believed that too I'm guessing. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:11:15 AM |
Would LPR5 work?
Possibly.
But, no. It would have to be something like a direct-tv dish growing out of the back of a tree sloth. Something more akin to a miracle, than a natural process. Something not at all like science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:37:29 AM | Science is as much faith based as religion, arguing that your religion is better in some way than the other person's religion serves only one perpose...to embarrass yourself...that goes for everyone 
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:43:41 AM | You are just arguing apples and pears. We are talking about the whole of science...see post 90.
for those that chose not to read it
Science prefers to explain it as ‘the big bang’ and everything that came from it, which seems to be the most popular opinion.
However, what cause this event? We have no evidence of a mechanism, so what was it? What did it?
Sciences likes the explanation of the multiverse, which says that another universe caused the existence of this one, that doesn’t so much explain our existence as dodge the whole issue. Again there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and their physical laws.
For example, a ‘God’s-eye’ view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of laws (bylaws). In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for us. We have selected it by our very existence.
So our universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the bylaws of our universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.
You maybe familiar with the expression…if God created the universe, who created God…conversely...If a universe created this universe, what created the multiverse…
We can all agree however, that something ‘outside’ our universe ‘did it’.
So what do we really understand by faith — namely, a belief in the existence of something outside this universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws. Our universes physical laws should have an explanation from within this universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of this physical existence.
Therefore, until science can come up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
What you're arguing over is How you chose to use that faith
I, like you, do not chose faith to be cured of cancer, what we do do is use faith that the chemical reactions that will cure the cancer were created in a way (when the universe began) that we can only have faith in. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:58:04 AM | science involves reason
Again what is the reason for this universes existence, what reason was there for the big bang, what caused it to happen and for all the scientific laws we have in the universe...Faith.
It's like when you look in the mirror...everyone else will see it but you will never get it. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:04:36 AM | | This is part of the problem with the argument. Science and non-science belief systems are ill defined. When one person is talking about the scientific method, someone else is talking about historical scientific events and theories. When people talk about non-science belief systems in general, someone comes back with an argument target at evangelical creationism. The field of play has no lines, no goals, and no set boundaries. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:15:50 AM |
i have to go call Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, to tell them they can retire early.
I think you will find Stephen Hawking already comes to that conclusion. Like we have already proved you are so entrenched in your 'opinion' that you fail to see reason. I bet you any money you like you cannot explain the big bang within the confines of the universe...you will have to resort to having faith on something else. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:25:10 AM | Again like the mirror
sorry to break this into two posts...i was laughing hard and had to go get some fresh air.
Just wanted to clarity some things. Theoretical physics, and the modern big bang model do NOT use faith. It would be a shame not to make this clear. Thousands of physicists are using mathematics, physics, and astronomy (valid hard sciences) to further investigate these issues. Currently measurable aspects of the universe (such as background radiation, star composition, and universal temperature) have been repeatedly shown mathematically to agree to within one part in 100,000 with the mathematics predicted by the big bang model. This is not faith. It is the polar opposite. If it was faith, we wouldn't need all the brilliant scientists we have attempting to get closer and closer to the truth, using these hard sciences. To think otherwise is an insult to the physics community at large.
All very nice...Science does a very good job of 'explaining' the big bang...NOT what I am talking about. Why are the physical laws the way they are?...why is the speed of light constant at x m/s what was the mechanism that made it so, why is gravity 9.8 m/s/s on earth, what made it that way. All well and good proving the big bang happened, that's not even in dispute, we're not even talking about that, again you are missing everything, what was the mechanism that caused it, and all the laws that resulted.
By the way...Here's a quote from Stephen Hawking...
Stephen Hawkins has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Stephen Hawkins concludes: "The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:30:57 AM | The "Big Bang" is an explanation based on evidence. As a theory, it does not go so far as to explain how or why it occured - only that it DID, and that led to the formation of all that we can observe. The Big Bang does not involve faith. Causes for the Big Bang are subjects of additional hypotheses. The non-science ones are "Goddidit". The scientific ones use mathematical and physical models. There are additional hypotheses which are arguably scientific, but problematic in that they lack means of confirmation. Definitions, yes. Means of action, yes. Means of confirming, not so far. Deities lack all three.
Ascribing "faith" to big bang theory necessitates including aspects which are not actually part of the theory, while at the same time ignoring that the theory is purely fact-based.
"The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
Post hoc fallacy and argumentum ad numerum. Hawking's supernatural beliefs are irrelevant, and he's apparently as capable of fallacious arguments as anyone else. Either that, or he's attempting to appease those who feel threatened by science. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:36:07 AM | The "Big Bang" is an explanation based on evidence.
NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS
The Big Bang does not involve faith.
CORRECT
Causes for the Big Bang are subjects of additional hypotheses. The non-science ones are "Goddidit". The scientific ones use mathematical and physical models.
This is what I am talking about...these mathematical models require laws which are outside our universe. The evidence for which do not exist in this universe. By that definition they require faith. Stephen Hawking can see this."It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." It cannot be defined or explained by science alone
Ascribing "faith" to big bang theory necessitates including aspects which are not actually part of the theory, while at the same time ignoring that the theory is purely fact-based.
FALLEN BACK INTO WHAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:01:07 AM | Some times I really do feel I am talking to the oddest man in America.
You look to shallow into the statement, you see a word and you're off on a total tangent. I am referring to gravity per say, why at the begining...the big bang, wasn't it 21.4 m/s/s for earth, I would guess on another multiverse the gravitational constant of that universe would mean that a body mass of the size of the Earth would be and could be...well anything. Why is it 9.8m/s/s in this universe for Earth, what was the mechanism that made the universal gravtational constant in this universe and make gravity on Earth 9.8m/s/s. Like wise in another multiverse the speed of light may be different. What was the mechanism that made it the speed it is in this universe.
So anything that we havent yet worked out is faith to you??? So, the reason the earth kept a predictable orbit around the sun was faith.....until it was discovered?? The reason that humans develope a fever was "god's doing" until we discovered bacteria??
Again shows your ignorance of the issues, we and what has been repeatedly stated is that evidence leads to a theory. The Earth revolves around the sun, evidence, the apple fell on the head, evidence...theory gravity. Why do we have gravity in this universe, and why is it the constant that it is. What is the EVIDENCE you present to explain this. What CAUSED the big bang what is the evidence,(not interested in the big bang, all the evidence suports an actual big bang) not talking about 'haven't worked out' but what is the evidence for the mechanism that caused it so you can even come up with a theory. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:08:08 AM | FALLEN BACK INTO WHAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
No, I get what you are talking about.
It cannot be defined or explained by science alone
If it cannot, then it does not. That does not open the floor to *insert any nonsense here*. Science seeks consistent empirical explanations and does not resort to simply filling in the blanks in lieu of an answer. Individuals can do that, but science does not. The fallacy here is, in part, the false dilemma - just because science lacks an explanation, does not render any arbitrary explanation adequate, valid, or correct. As a scientist, my choice is to accept that there is no adequate explanation, not to grasp at straws.
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
In addition to my previous comments, I would suggest that this might simply be an observation by Hawking of how people commonly react. It does not necessarily indicate his own belief, nor does it ascribe any value to the belief, positive or negative. To reiterate the previous though, it's unimportant. Grasping at straws is fallacy and faith, not science, no matter who states it.
You look to shallow into the statement, you see a word and you're off on a total tangent
Agreed. Take a breath; read through, get the basics, not the examples. Isdime, you're too quick to bite. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:13:14 AM | The fallacy here is, in part, the false dilemma - just because science lacks an explanation, does not render any arbitrary explanation adequate, valid, or correct. As a scientist, my choice is to accept that there is no adequate explanation, not to grasp at straws.
This is exactly the crux of the issue, not only does science not have an adequate explanation, it has no evidence, therefore cannot come up with a theory, if it cannot come up with a theory it must, by definition, rely on faith. We cannot adequately explain it, we have no evidence for it, but here it is...that is faith.
lol, the context of your posts do enough to discredit you as a valid debator. You don't need to make statements like this to further embarrass yourself
You made a similar comment on the mirror thread, there's about 3 people waiting for you to reply to them for the utter nonsense you were spouting on there.
Agreed. Take a breath; read through, get the basics, not the examples. Isdime, you're too quick to bite.
Thank you frogo, I just want to dig down deeper into this and fully understand the real issues, not fall for silly arguments about testing gravity by jumping off a cliff. I want to know why we have gravity in the universe, what caused it to ba a factor in this universe. I would guess that in another universe the gravitational constant would be zero, in which case all the exotic particles would be floating aimlessly and life as we know it may never exist. But as I keep reitterating, what is the mechanism. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:56:05 AM | the  and and childish repeating of rhetoric are making you look like what you claim others look like ...
maybe the inflation has brought us all into thinking is it really a penny and not a dime.
science would rather you didn't claim to defend it | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 4:12:02 AM | as do i. And we may find it in science....we never will in faith. Thats my point.
We probably will find it in science, however science relies on evidence FIRST. A belief in something with an absence of evidence is faith.
You know faith doesn't always mean a faith in God or as Hawkings cleverly puts it 'a God' because a God to me is not the same as the God you see or the God anyone else sees. I don't believe in worshiping any extra dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'.
Science today is the modern day Catholic church, it tells you that gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s/s but don't ask why or how gravity came about. You'll be burnt at the forum stake if you do.
Sorry...you can return to arguing wether evolution is right or not now. Thanks for listening. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:51:38 AM |
it tells you that gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s/s but don't ask why or how gravity came about.
That's odd... I thought that the why and how gravity came about were being aggressively studied - the particle accelerators at CERN (particularly the LHC) were built to help determine the hows and whys that make matter behave the way it does.
(Although... I'm starting to suspect that, even if someone were to come along and say "Gravity behaves the way it does because of Factor X" the devout will respond with "But you don't know why Factor X is the way it is, right? AHA! GOD!")
I don't believe in worshiping any extra dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'.
But if you believe that God made the universe, then it would *have* to be an extra-dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'... right? | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
